{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025461254612546124, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008856088560885609, 'mean_word_length': 4.906318082788671, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Early Buddhist rock temples. By Vidya Dehejia. (Studies in Ancient Art and Archaeology.) pp. 240, 90 pl. London, Thames and Hudson, 1972. £5.50.

British Library, has preserved many valuable source materials for the early-20th-century history of India that might otherwise by now have been forgotten or lost. Barrier himself describes the collections as "a cultural heritage that should make possible a re-evaluation of many yet uncharted facets of nation building in modern South Asia". He identifies five factors which, from time to time and in varying degrees of intensity, interacted to shape British policy with regard to press censorship during this period: attitudes and policies emanating from the Government in London; events in the various provinces of British India, such as communal conflict in the Punjab or revolutionary activity in Bengal; the role of the judiciary, especially when it became increasingly Indianized, in the 1930's and 1940's; the activities of Indian politicians, of both the religious and the secular kinds; and finally the British bureaucracy itself, in India. There were, he argues, very few long-term consequences of censorship. Except, one might say, the long-term consequences of diminished communal and political strife in India during those years, consequences, that is, which might have been even more serious and more bloody than in fact they were, but for the damping down of passions which the banning of inflammatory material effected. The consequences of those years of communal conflict have been written large in the enmity of Pakistan and India for nearly 30 years now. One can perhaps derive some small comfort from the view that it could have been even worse. As for the legacy of press censorship in independent Pakistan and India, Barrier observes that Pakistan not only "kept most of the inherited regulations and added substantially" to them, but has also made use of them frequently; India has also kept press laws on the book, but has used them only infrequently, and generally has relaxed controls of this kind, moving "towards an open society in which expression of a variety of views is permissible and even encouraged". The difference between the policies of the two countries in this matter may perhaps be explainable in purely political terms: the accidents of history may have allowed India to relax controls just as they forced Pakistan to tighten them. But it would be a hard case to have to make out. It is curious, therefore, how exactly the difference which Barrier sees between them on this issue corresponds with the differences between a society that is conservatively religious and monopolistic, and one that is secular and pluralistic.