STUDYING RURAL INEQUALITY 83 option, to work as a wage labourer." Most farmers in most areas do not often have that option. Thus,, they must try to cover their expenses by growing more than they can eat, if humanly possible. There are serious criticisms of chapter seven,some of which relate to the data itsclf.others to the im plications of this material for the analysis of Indian rural structures. It is possible that in Thaiyur panchayat the rice farmers are not investing their capital in the land, but that is not the pattern for the district as a whole. Not only does my own data indicate a high level of investment in land, but district wise materials from the District Agricultural Department support the same conclusion. A second important point is that big landowners were there before the introduction of capitalist relations in agriculture. However, their ways of functioning and their involvement in agriculture have changed drastically over the past 200-odd years. In any case, there are many dangers in characterizing the basic structure of productive relations on the basis of one village. There is no reason to believe that the importance of capitalist production relations has decreased since the nineteenth century. In fact, from my experience in the area, I would say that it has increased significantly in importance since independence, and especially in the 1960s and 70s. Today, sharecropping plays a smaller and smaller role in rice production. On the other hand, what the middle and larger farmers plant, how they plant it, and so on, is very much determined by market relations. Where the land owners grow less, it is because of decisions bv larger farmers that they can make more money by growing lower-yeilding varieties of paddy, or cash crops, or by creating shortages. At the present time these farmers are arguing for price supports, threatening that they will not grow more if they do not get them. If this is not capitalism, what is it? Development Programmes and Caste Emancipation Chapter etght is well-written and well-presented. The material from the Harijans about caste prejudice certainly does ring true. It is clear that there has been change in intercaste relations. But one doubts if caste endogamy is as firmly accepted by Harijans as they would have us believe. In several of the villages we found cases of affairs going on between caste Hindu (Naicker-Gounder) females and Harijan males as well as the opposite. Of those belonging to the same social class (that is among the poor), many a flirtation occurred between boys and girls of Harijan and Naicker groups. But marriage is arranged by the elders, and thus intergroup marriage is viewed as impossible. The material on development programmes is extremely interesting. While their contention that most Harijans believe that "development" brings emancipation for their caste can be seriously questioned, there is no doubt that the general effect of all development on the popular mind is to create an attitude of dependence on extension.