I’m not sure what to think. The legal history itself is surprisingly interesting. Using law and imperial jurisprudence in British India as a case study to show the inherent tensions and contradictions of secularism (private/public distinctions, reframing of religious law and practice, etc.) is a cool approach. I learned a lot about British India, Muslim legal practice, and the unintended effects of imperial politics and law on colonies.
But, ultimately the underlying narrative of the evil (or stupid) British people, the lack of complexity in understanding Christian mission and political theology, and the implicit (and at the end, explicit) activistic thrust are somewhat frustrating. I don’t understand this pretense of “I’m just doing history” if there clearly is an agenda?