settled agrarian order and its capitalist logic, and offer historiographic evidence that colonial law was neither totalizing nor pluralist. Finally, Bhattacharya explores the colonial bogey of land ‘fragmentation’, a purported defect in holding structures said to hamper agrarian improvement, but which in fact appealed to affective and practical logics beyond the official mind of agrarian colonialism. In a final section, Bhattacharya chronicles the rise of agrarian modernity in Punjab. He located this upon the bārs of Punjab: scrublands and grasslands which remained beyond the boundaries of the agrarian order (and, subsequently, beyond historians moving too quickly between field and forest). Bhattacharya shows how the tribal and nomadic pastoralists grazing these lands were incorporated unevenly into the settled order through practices of mapping and taxation, and efforts to eliminate burning and swidden agriculture. He shows how a more ambitious project of agrarian conquest came in the form of Punjab’s canal colonies: massive development projects, undertaken on the former bār tracts, representing agrarian conquest ‘from above’, fundamentally displacing earlier rural life-worlds. The Great Agrarian Conquest represents a massive intervention into the contemporary historiography of South Asia, elaborating upon some conventional wisdom but upending a great deal more of it. Readers might well place this book in conversation with works like Ranajit Guha’s A Rule of Property for Bengal (1963) and Bernard Cohn’s Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge (1997), to which The Great Agrarian Conquest owes some preliminary inspiration. Yet what Bhattacharya offers is a wholly original account of the transformation to agrarian colonialism. The book’s long gestation also has also allowed Bhattacharya to situate his expansive intervention within four tumultuous decades of South Asian historiography: a concise account of agrarian history’s predominance and splintering since the 1970s (5–7) presages a book-long engagement with some of the field’s most important debates and turns. This is a complicated volume that asks a great deal of its reader, but what it offers is immense: a full and magisterial account of the colonial transformation from the rural to the agrarian, and in it, a radical rethinking of the history of colonial rule itself.

中文翻译：

---

作为 20 世纪欧洲现代性的农业主义：农民的黄金时代

确定的土地秩序及其资本主义逻辑，并提供历史证据证明殖民法律既不是总体的也不是多元的。最后，巴塔查里亚探讨了土地“碎片化”的殖民忌讳，这是一种据称阻碍土地改良的控股结构缺陷，但实际上它诉诸于超出土地殖民主义官方思维的情感和实践逻辑。在最后一部分，巴塔查里亚记录了旁遮普邦农业现代性的兴起。他在旁遮普邦的巴尔斯上找到了这一点：灌木丛和草原仍然超出了农业秩序的边界（随后，历史学家在田野和森林之间移动得太快）。Bhattacharya 展示了在这些土地上放牧的部落和游牧牧民如何通过地图绘制和税收实践以及努力消除燃烧和荒凉的农业而被不均衡地纳入定居秩序。他展示了一个更雄心勃勃的农业征服项目是如何以旁遮普的运河殖民地的形式出现的：在前巴尔地区进行的大规模开发项目，代表了“自上而下”的农业征服，从根本上取代了早期的农村生活世界。大农业征服代表了对南亚当代史学的大规模干预，阐述了一些传统智慧，但更多地颠覆了它。读者很可能会将本书与 Ranajit Guha 的《孟加拉财产规则》（1963 年）和伯纳德·科恩的《殖民主义及其知识形式》（1997 年）等作品进行对话，《大农业征服》从中得到了一些初步启发。然而，巴塔查里亚提供的是对向土地殖民主义转变的完全原创的描述。这本书的长期酝酿也使巴塔查里亚能够将他的广泛干预置于南亚史学动荡的四个十年中：对自 1970 年代以来农业史的主导地位和分裂的简明描述 (5-7) 预示着与一些领域最重要的辩论和转折。这是一本复杂的书，需要大量读者，但它提供的是巨大的：