to occupy their land and displace them from mining rich regions. During colonial time, as Verghese mentions, it experienced two tribal revolts in 1876 and 1910 prompted by the British forest policy designed to raise revenue (p. 156). After independence, the new government opted not to reverse many relics of the previous British administration, including this forest policy (p. 161). Due to the failure to reform, there were two notable postcolonial conflicts in Bastar in the decades after independence with the raja and adivasis on the one side and the new Indian state on the other (p. 162). The first incident occurred in 1961 and second one in 1966. March 25 is still venerated as balidan diwas or ‘Day of Martyrdom’ in the region. Gradually, the left wing extremists gained prominence in the region due to exploitation and backwardness. In the fifth chapter, Verghese studied the prevailing patterns of ethnic violence which is mainly based on data prepared by Ashutosh Varshney and Steve Wilkinson. Using the data, he found out that the districts which were under the princely states still experiencing more communal riots when compared with those under the British rule. His appropriation may be correct to a certain extent because with the rise of right wing Hindu groups and their widespread presence it is difficult to make any such concrete assessment. The last chapter focuses specifically on the Indian model of colonialism where the British ruled with cooperation from the princely states and mediators, instead establishing direct control over the country. The hypothesis of Verghese is fresh and very important to study the ethnic conflicts in India. It would have been more interesting if Verghese would have taken one princely state ruled by a Muslim king. This would have helped to understand how they used to handle their Hindu populace, the lower castes and tribal population. Nevertheless, this book will certainly help the scholars who seek to understand India and its ethnic problems.

中文翻译：

---

书评：安德烈亚斯·里克。2015. 巴基斯坦的什叶派：一个自信而陷入困境的少数民族AndreasRieck。2015. 巴基斯坦的什叶派：一个自信而陷入困境的少数民族。美国纽约：牛津大学出版社。540 页 ISBN：978-1-84904-355-7

占领他们的土地并将他们从矿产丰富的地区转移。在殖民时期，正如 Verghese 所提到的，它在 1876 年和 1910 年经历了两次部落起义，这是由旨在增加收入的英国森林政策引发的（第 156 页）。独立后，新政府选择不撤销前任英国政府的许多遗产，包括这项森林政策（第 161 页）。由于改革失败，巴斯塔尔在独立后的几十年里发生了两次显着的后殖民冲突，一方面是拉贾和阿迪瓦西，另一方面是新的印度国家（第 162 页）。第一次发生在 1961 年，第二次发生在 1966 年。3 月 25 日在该地区仍被视为 balidan diwas 或“殉难日”。渐渐地，由于剥削和落后，左翼极端分子在该地区变得突出。在第五章中，Verghese 主要基于 Ashutosh Varshney 和 Steve Wilkinson 准备的数据研究了种族暴力的普遍模式。他利用这些数据发现，与英国统治下的地区相比，诸侯国下的地区仍然发生了更多的社区骚乱。他的挪用在一定程度上可能是正确的，因为随着右翼印度教团体的兴起及其广泛存在，很难做出任何这样的具体评估。最后一章特别关注印度的殖民主义模式，在这种模式下，英国在诸侯国和调解人的合作下进行统治，而不是建立对国家的直接控制。Verghese 的假设是新鲜的，对研究印度的民族冲突非常重要。如果 Verghese 拥有一个由穆斯林国王统治的王侯国，那就更有趣了。这将有助于了解他们过去如何处理他们的印度教民众、低种姓和部落人口。尽管如此，这本书肯定会对寻求了解印度及其民族问题的学者有所帮助。