Colonization through Municipalization: The Politics of Sanitation and Municipal Governance in the ‘Mofussils’ of Colonial Bengal, c. 1870–1940s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the state govern a territory which has rapidly grown to become one of the most densely populated regions of the province? How does the state account for the governance of a place which has only recently transitioned from a rural or a semi-rural tract to a town? Most importantly, how does the state govern a region where the main source of power resides with the proprietors of private enterprises? These were some of the questions the colonial state had to deal with when it was faced with the prospect of administering some of the most rapidly ‘urbanizing’ or expanding regions of Bengal. This included the industrial belt—the riparian municipalities of the districts of 24 Parganas and Hooghly—and the mining and railway junctions of Ranigunj and Asansol, which developed from the last quarter of the nineteenth century. How did their administration differ, if at all, from other mofussil municipalities which also had a semi-rural character? This article will examine these questions and try to understand how, through the process of municipalization, the colonial state was trying to control newer territories. It shall also analyse how local communities reacted to these attempts. This paper will argue that any attempt at improvement in these mofussil municipalities was hindered by a lack of understanding, on the part of the provincial government, of the local socio-economic conditions and the ineffectiveness of the local self-government in these towns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".