{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03454231433506045, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02158894645941278, 'mean_word_length': 5.548022598870056, '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}}
Two Warwickshire women of character: Margaret Sheldon (c 1510–1590) and Margaret Knollys (c 1549–1606)

Records, Sir George W. Forrest, whom Bhattacharya highlights. Recently, archival historians have explored the history of the London-based India Office records. To his credit, Bhattacharya incorporates the India Office records into his narrative, aswell as the archival history of the ‘Indian states,’ and mention of the Peshwa Daftar, or Pune archives (124, 172–177). One wonders, however, whether the central dynamic of archival policy in India, as Bhattacharya states it, is between archive-based historical research and writing on the one hand, and a historiography constructed without recourse to or despite the existence of public archives, on the other. Or, whether a more forthright account of the forces of colonialism would better explain the closed nature and under-utilized character of India’s imperial archives prior to political independence. Regardless, Sabyasachi Bhattacharya’s legacy includes a set of strong arguments to encourage further debate about the sociological formation of national archives in the era of European colonialism.