The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company

by William Dalrymple

The story of how the East India Company took over large swaths of Asia, and the devastating results of the corporation running a country.

In August 1765, the East India Company defeated the young Mughal emperor and set up, in his place, a government run by English traders who collected taxes through means of a private army.

The creation of this new government marked the moment that the East India Company ceased to be a conventional company and became something much more unusual: an international corporation transformed into an aggressive colonial power. Over the course of the next 47 years, the company's reach grew until almost all of India south of Delhi was effectively ruled from a boardroom in the city of London.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, India, Politics, Asia, Audiobook, Economics

576 pages, Paperback

First published September 10, 2019

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

William Dalrymple was born in Scotland and brought up on the shores of the Firth of Forth. He wrote the highly acclaimed bestseller In Xanadu when he was twenty-two. The book won the 1990 Yorkshire Post Best First Work Award and a Scottish Arts Council Spring Book Award; it was also shortlisted for the John Llewellyn Rhys Memorial Prize.

In 1989 Dalrymple moved to Delhi where he lived for six years researching his second book, City of Djinns, which won the 1994 Thomas Cook Travel Book Award and the Sunday Times Young British Writer of the Year Award. From the Holy Mountain, his acclaimed study of the demise of Christianity in its Middle Eastern homeland, was awarded the Scottish Arts Council Autumn Book Award for 1997; it was also shortlisted for the 1998 Thomas Cook Award, the John Llewellyn Rhys Prize and the Duff Cooper Prize. A collection of his writings about India, The Age of Kali, won the French Prix D’Astrolabe in 2005.

White Mughals was published in 2003, the book won the Wolfson Prize for History 2003, the Scottish Book of the Year Prize, and was shortlisted for the PEN History Award, the Kiryama Prize and the James Tait Black Memorial Prize.

William Dalrymple is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and of the Royal Asiatic Society, and is the founder and co-director of the Jaipur Literature Festival.

In 2002 he was awarded the Mungo Park Medal by the Royal Scottish Geographical Society for his ‘outstanding contribution to travel literature’. He wrote and presented the television series Stones of the Raj and Indian Journeys, which won the Grierson Award for Best Documentary Series at BAFTA in 2002. His Radio 4 series on the history of British spirituality and mysticism, The Long Search, won the 2002 Sandford St Martin Prize for Religious Broadcasting and was described by the judges as ‘thrilling in its brilliance... near perfect radio’. In December 2005 his article on the madrasas of Pakistan was awarded the prize for Best Print Article of the Year at the 2005 FPA Media Awards. In June 2006 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Letters honoris causa by the University of St Andrews “for his services to literature and international relations, to broadcasting and understanding”. In 2007, The Last Moghal won the prestigous Duff Cooper Prize for History and Biography. In November 2007, William received an Honourary Doctorate of Letters, honoris causa, from the University of Lucknow University “for his outstanding contribution in literature and history”, and in March 2008 won the James Todd Memorial Prize from the Maharana of Udaipur.

William is married to the artist Olivia Fraser, and they have three children. They now live on a farm outside Delhi.

Reviews

[Petra X · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like." - British Lord Chancellor, Edward, First Baron Thurlow (1731-1806) You can't fine them either. Any financial penalty will just mean less taxes that they have to pay, and less bonuses to the shareholders. The CEO and executives will just happily carry on and award themselves even bigger salaries as and when they please.

How the British added India to their Empire started with the world's first corporation, the East India Company, based in London but operating in India. It grew so big and set itself up in opposition to the Indian government as a land owner and tax collector with a huge army. When circumstances, a famine that meant despite draconian measures to try and collect taxes from the starving people, who mostly died, meant the company could not meet its financial responsibilities it needed massive loans and banks all over Europe failed. Eventually the British Government 'nationalised' the company and this was called 'conquering India'.

This was the first company in the world that needed a government to bail it out. And became the very model for our modern multinationals who try and dominate governments in the countries they operate in and should they falter, expect our governments to bail them out, even to the extent of military action. That is the only difference with the East India Company - it maintained a huge and very vicious army, these days we, through our taxes maintain the armies that defend, at times, the interests of these multinational companies when they fall foul of the governments they have failed to manipulate.

Nothing can make them pay their fair share of taxes, treat their world-wide employees with respect and decent pay, nothing can stop their unbridled drive for profits, for money for themselves and their partners-in-crime, the shareholders. You know all the names ... Google, Exxon, Facebook, Shell, Ford, Walmart and others bigger, smaller and ... dare I say it, perhaps I'd better not actually name names, but a company much closer to our home.

[Murtaza · Rating 4 out of 5]

The question of how a relatively small group of Englishmen was able to subjugate the entire sprawling nation of India is a source of lasting disquiet. Like all of William Dalrymple's books, this history of the East India Company inspires both awe and melancholy. The EIC arrived in India at a moment in which the power of the Mughal Empire had already been shattered. Aurangzeb had mismanaged his realms, and Maratha and Afghan forces were rising on its peripheries. The death blow to Mughal power however had been dealt by the Safavid Persian invader Nader Shah, who had sacked the great city of Delhi and carried its riches back to Iran. "The Anarchy" of the title refers to the state of India at the time of the EIC's arrival and thereafter: one in which a mighty empire had fragmented into countless warring polities. A small group of energetic, ambitious and well-funded outsiders can wreak havoc in such a situation. And wreak havoc they did.

The EIC started off by asking for commercial rights. They soon graduated to hiring increasingly powerful mercenary armies and using them to impose their will on local Indian rulers amid The Anarchy. They played off rivals against one another and did not hesitate to pick and choose their preferred candidates and engineer their rise. The EIC followed Tacitus' dictum of picking the native rulers who would be most useful for enslaving the population rather than ruling directly. They won control of taxation rights and used them to press for the most devastatingly extractive terms possible, with no interest in long-term sustainability or the wellbeing of the land and people. Rival merchants were bullied and, if necessary, beaten into doing business on the EIC's gallingly unfair terms. They created a mechanism for the ruthless, methodical plunder of India, engineering a massive extraction of wealth such as the world has seldom seen. It was corporate brigandage of a type that still looks disturbingly familiar today, even without the mercenary armies.

It was interesting to note that the Indians actually figured out the British game quite quickly. Local rulers like the Maratha statesman Nana Phadnavis and Tipu Sultan of Mysore grasped that the British had designs to conquer and effectively enslave all of India by playing local rivals off against each other. Religious boundaries were more fluid than today and Hindu and Muslim rulers frequently allied with one another and kept diverse courts. With the help of the French, they also developed modern military commands that were able to match the British in time. There were several military campaigns that nearly succeeded in ejecting the EIC from the country. Agonizingly small turns of fate prevented them from reaching success, thus was India doomed to two centuries more of grinding immiseration.

An important lesson of the book is that sectarianism was less of a force in India's history than portrayed today. It was the Hindu Marathas who reinstalled the Mughal Shah Alam in Delhi (even though in the end his dynasty wound up a mere puppet of the British until the 1857 War of Independence). Tipu Sultan, though proudly Muslim, also seemed to have been deeply influenced by many Hindu beliefs and practices. This is totally normal given that Islam was practiced in a Hindu environment for over a millennia in India. Tipu patronized Brahmin institutions and worked actively to win the sympathy of his Hindu subjects. The undercurrent of the book is a rebuttal to the sectarian historiography of Hindu nationalists currently in vogue in India, as well as Islamists who idealize a supposedly purified subcontinental vision of religion.

The history of India as a whole is a heartbreaking one. Even granting that, the rule of the EIC is a particularly grim episode. The British conquered India, but, unlike the Persians, Turks and Arabs, they refused to dissolve themselves in the great ocean of Indian civilization. They just extracted and extracted. The EIC operated with the singleminded, sociopathic purpose that only an inhuman social technology like the corporation could muster. Dalrymple describes in great detail how the Bengal was totally despoiled and tell into famine not long after the British took power. I would have appreciated more analysis of the long-term financial cost of this enterprise to India, but quite a vivid picture is still painted here from contemporary reports of the period. The entire country of India was gradually stripped of its wealth, which was shipped back to a distant European island. Even coins themselves quickly became hard to find in India. Any ruler of nobility found themselves quickly at the risk of violence. A new class of financiers allied to the British began to rise during the EIC's rule, replacing the famous Jagat Seth bankers. This new class would end up appreciating the colonial period. Many new local rulers were simply criminals: predators and opportunists unleashed by the collapse of order.

British liberal opinion was quite harsh on the EIC's excesses and its rapacity was known as far away as America. Edmund Burke gave a famous speech denouncing the company and American revolutionaries used it as a bogeyman to goad their countrymen into revolt. The EIC hardly bothered to hide who they were. At one point the famous British General Arthur Wellesley literally held a toast to "the corpse of India", after which one of the chapters of this book is titled. Although a few EIC officials wound up being lovers of India, many of the rank-and-file were brutal and incurious men who felt nothing about humiliating, bludgeoning and robbing Indians of every class. Sadly the British yoke was not thrown off India sooner. We are still living with the painful results of their extractive and divisive rule.

[Ashish Iyer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Okay guys here is my longest review. To be honest I am not a fan of long reviews. Even if I come across any long reviews of my friends, I mostly ignore or just read 2 paragraphs. (I have huge respect for friends; it’s just me who is lazy enough to not read those long reviews). I am writing this review to justify why I am giving 2 stars to this book considering it has got 4.23/5 stars (199 ratings).

I had always been curious how the British had conquered India, with so few troops. The East India Company was the first major multi-national company. It came to exist in 1600 with the help of Sir Walter Raleigh and Francis Drake and included veteran Caribbean, pirates and thieves. They set up the company to buy spices directly from the producers (East Indies) and avoid middle man(Arabs) to pay any further commission. After several more bruising encounters with Dutch, the EIC directors decided they had little option but to leave the lucrative Spice Islands (Indonesia) and their aromatic spice trade to the Dutch and focus instead on less competitive but potentially more promising sectors of the trade of Asia: fine cotton textiles, indigo and chintzes. The source of all three of these luxuries was India. India then had a population of 150 million – about a fifth of the world’s total – and was producing about a quarter of global manufacturing ; indeed, in many ways it was the world’s industrial power house and the world’s leader in manufactured textiles. Not for nothing are so many English words connected with weaving – chintz, calico, shawl, pyjamas, khaki, dungarees, cummerbund, taffetas – of Indian origin.

Before reaching India, England was very poor country compares to their rivals Portugal and Spain. Massive imports of New World gold had turned Spain into the richest country in Europe, and given Portugal control of the seas and spices of the East, so bringing it in a close second place. After reaching India they became richest and most powerful country. This tells us that India was indeed golden bird. By eighteenth-century standards, it was an economic giant, the most advanced capitalist organization in the world. East India Company became most powerful in England after the monarch.

Roe wrote a wonderful love letter to Elizabeth, Lady Huntingdon, from ‘Indya’ on 30 October 1616. I would like to thank Charlotte Merton for sending me this reference. So this tells us that India was known during those times. This gives answer to those who keep on pushing the narrative that India became a country or known after independence. Or some even gives credit to Britishers for making India as one.

One thing i have seen common in every Muslim kings, they always loot everything, take women from other religion, ask men to convert who are not Muslim and change name of every city like Siraj Ud-Daula renamed Calcutta to Alianagar after Imam Ali. Siraj-ud-Daulah was a pervert who often picked Hindu girls. Even Jagat-Seth’s daughter was his prey. And he enjoyed atrocities against Hindus. Mir Jafar stood by the people of Bengal though with other intentions.
Book also mentioned Shah Alam emperor of Delhi had intimate relationship with his adopted son Ghulam Qadir. I have always come across this kind homosexual relation in them. Later book also mentioned that Ghulam Qadir was castrated because he was getting too much attention from females of the royal harem. And later this Ghulam Qadir took a revenge on Shah Alam by plucking his eyes and putting needles on Shah Alam’s princes and ask them to dance in front of all. Then later he ordered to beat wives of Shah Alam senseless and throw them back into prison.

I will talk about Tipu Sultan in details later. Lets get back to Britishers now.

The British felt nothing for the country, not even for their closest allies and servants. This was why those Indians who initially welcomed the British quickly changed their minds because ‘these new rulers pay no regard to the concerns of Hindustanis, and suffered them to be mercilessly plundered, fleeced, oppressed and tormented by those officers of their appointing’.

The Bengal famine was so immense that EIC had outdone the Spaniards in Peru! They were at least butchers on a religious principle, however diabolical their zeal. We have murdered, deposed, plundered, usurped – say what think you of the famine in Bengal, in which three millions perished, being caused by a monopoly of the provisions by the servants of the East India Company? All this is come out, is coming out – unless the gold that inspired these horrors can quash them. The revenue of Eic was so low in Bengal that one bank declared bankruptcy. At the same time it was widely recognized that it was Indian wealth that was now helping propel Britain’s economy and that ‘the first and most immediate consequence’ of the failure of the EIC would be ‘national bankruptcy’.
I was expecting writer will also mentioned about Madras famine after all it was E.I.C. ‘s first Indian colonized city. 20 Oct 1877 there was drawing published in London depicting starving people awaiting famine relief in Bangalore, India. Famine began in 1876, and while around 5.5m Indians starved to death 100,000s of tonnes of food was exported to England with almost no relief. (Even there is a painting in google, I think you can find it).


At times I felt this book has heavily used sources and references from Ghulam Hussain Khan and London museum. It was irritating for a while.

Author was keep on pushing the narrative that Jagat Seths financed East India Company but what author is not telling is you that Jagat Seths also financed Marathas and Sadhus At one point, they were desperately trying to finance anyone who could get rid of their Nawab, the Jihadi rapist Siraj-ud-daulah. (Note: Even Bhama Shah was a Jain who gave all his wealth to Maharana Pratap so that Mewar could fight against Akbar which eventually allowed him to restore his army and much of his territory.)

I hated the way writer keep on saying Maratha as a war lords. No they weren't. It is important to note that Marathas were in Punjab, Delhi, Malwa, Gujarat, the doab, Karnataka all parts of Maharashtra, Nizam's territory, Rajputana, Thanjavur. They had that big empire. Every time one talks of Marathas in Bengal, one must also mention that it was another Maratha army under the Peshwa that chased away Raghuji Bhonsle from Bengal. The repetitive refrain of Maratha raids in Bengal as the single most barbaric invasions are a skewed by the British initially. I guess it made perfect sense for them to portray themselves as a better alternative. Maratha rulers gave due importance to provincial administration(Gwalior, Dhar, Indore, Baroda, Nagpur, Thanjavur). It was similar to that of feudalism in Europe and even Vijaynagara empire had same system. The Maratha rulers efficiently managed their army and taxation in their capital city of Pune/Satara and other provinces through this system. I find no mentioned of this too.

The fact that many Indian institutions were destroyed by the British and how they introduced their education system is well presented. The case of the famines that the British caused by diverting grain from India is well written. Industrial Revolution was built on Indian money, while destroying India's economy is again well explained. The Hindu-Muslim divide was created by the British.
I recently read somewhere that Britain ruled India for about 200 years, a period that was marred with extreme poverty and famine. India's wealth depleted in these two centuries. The scars of colonization remain despite Britain leaving India over 70 years ago. Between 1765 and 1938, the drain amounted to 9.2 trillion pounds($45 trillion).

I thought author will talk about Atrocity literature written by Britishers against India and Hindus. British Evangelicals and missionaries anxious to Anglicize and Christianize India by using an extinct practice of Sati. They did their best to portray Hinduism in the worst possible way and on other side they open up the country to religious conversion. The fabrication of evidence, the wanton exaggeration of data, the shameless duplicity of foreign players, rabid evangelical motivations and cold blooded manipulations of public policy. Why doesn’t writer talk about missionaries, how they wanted to convert India.

And how can we forget about ‘Criminal Tribes Act 1857’ brought by British to banned certain tribes. It was a law to control thuggee tribes. If you are born from that tribe, you will have to face consequences. Such are atrocities literature or law written by these Britishers. Now thug became a curse word in English dictionary.

The most saddening and horrifying part is how writer is glorifying Tipu Sultan. Tipu Sultan was the massive destroyer of Temples in south started his career from Shringa pattanam. The walls of the Jama Masjid built by Tipu sultan in Srirangapatam tell a different story. You can see base of temples. I so wish I could upload photos here to show it here as a proof. Tipu Sultan was a freedom fighter because he fought the British (Though he sought to establish an Islamic Caliphate, invited the Afghan king to invade India and collaborated with the French, and was defeated by a combined force of the British, Marathas and the Nizam). He imported French officers to train his troops and French engineers to rebuild the defenses of the island fortress of Srirangapatnam.

Author only mentioned this “Of the 7,000 prisoners Tipu captured in the course of the next few months of warfare against the Company, around 300 were forcibly circumcised, forcibly converted to Islam and given Muslim names and clothes. By the end of the year, one in five of all the British soldiers in India were held prisoner by Tipu in his sophisticated fortress of Seringapatam. Even more humiliatingly, several British regimental drummer boys were made to wear dresses – ghagra cholis – and entertain the court in the manner of nautch (dancing) girls”.

Look how insidiously an idea is buttressed with careful deletion of facts. As an example of British hardheartedness, our eminences harped on the British taking Tipu’s two sons as hostages. However they concealed the fact that taking war hostages was originally accepted practice among Muslim kings. Mir jumla, a general under Aurangzeb, defeated and looted the entire treasury of the king of Assam. And he didn’t stop there. He demanded King’s sons and a daughter as ransom till the King brought the remaining amount. Mir Jumla also took son of Gonia Phukan, Borgohain, Gad Gonia. When Khurram‘s(Shah Jahan) rebellion against his own father failed, Jahangir took his son’s sons – his own grandsons, Dara and Aurangzeb – as captives. Even Rajputs king had to station atleast one son in the badshah’s court as a sign of respect. Only Maharana Pratap refused to send his son. It is also a fact that every such prisoner was compulsorily converted. But Cornvolis who took Tipu’s sons didn’t convert them to Christianity. Even author didnt mentioned the fact Tipu’s father Hyder Ali who backstabbed his King Wodeyar changed the administrative language from Kannada to Farsi. You can still see this even today. And how can we forget Tipu the mass murderer changed the name of entire cities and town : Brahmapuri to Syltanpet, Kallikote to Farookabad, Chitradurga to Farook yab Hissar, Coorg to Zafarabad, Devanahalli to Yusufabad, Dinigul to Khaleelabad, Mysore to Nazarabad. There are many such names. How can we forget Tipu’s atrocities on Malabar areas. To this day Mandyam Iyengars of Karnataka dont celebrate Diwali. The so called "Tiger of Mysore" massacred close to 800 Mandyam Iyengar men, women and children in cold blood in the town of Melkote. This incident is not mentioned in this book. The writer gleefully praising him. To this day Mandyam Iyengars don't celebrate Diwali.

If i can tell you huge biased in Tipu Sultan narrative in this book because i have read some books on him. God knows how much biased writer much be on Bengal, Delhi and Maratha. There are so many things to point out but i don't have that much time to mentioned all that here. These kind of books set bad precedent. Even you can see this book have high ratings.

This book goes in details of EIC's violence on India and of the loot of India. I felt that book will also talk about first war of Independence. It’s the British who called the 1857 uprising as sepoy mutiny to downplay the inhuman excessees that violate human rights. I am honestly a bit disappointed from this book. I was expecting lot of things from this because this was a great topic. Even book didn't talk about Sikh empire. I would have appreciated if author had mentioned more about EIC rather than internal empires politics and wars, it would have been better. Even I thought author will write an account of the atrocities committed by British rule on Indian economy, politics and culture. Somehow I felt author cherry picked his sources and references to push his narrative. If this is the way he writes all his books then I am not going to read any other books of his. This books is my first and probably the last book of William Dalrymble.

Just as medieval mosques were built from the rubble of India's great temples, all the glitter of the modern west is the dust of the India's past.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was another of my 2019 Christmas presents. Although I’ve read a fair bit on the history of Europe, and to a certain extent the Americas, I’ve previously read very little of the history of Asia.

Although the book covers the early history of the EIC, it really concentrates on India from about the 1740s to 1803, when the Company took control of Delhi and of the Mughal Emperor, although by this time the Emperor was already a puppet of the Marathas. The author says that Indian sources describe this period as “The Anarchy”, when the Mughal Empire fell apart under the pressure of attacks by Persians, Afghans, the Maratha, and most of all the EIC (though none of these attacks were coordinated and none of the participants were co-belligerents).

There can be few more extraordinary stories in history than that of the East India Company. As the author says in his Introduction; “We still talk about the British conquering India, but that phrase disguises a more sinister reality. It was not the British government that began seizing great chunks of India in the mid-eighteenth century, but a dangerously unregulated private company headquartered in one small office, five windows wide, in London…” Like all corporations, the EIC existed solely to make money for its shareholders, but in Asia it maintained its own army and navy, made war, concluded peace treaties, and generally pursued a foreign policy independent to that of the British Government. By 1800 its army was twice the size of the British Army. Dalrymple points out that, for all the power wielded by the largest of the world’s corporations today, “they are tame beasts compared with the ravaging territorial appetites of the militarised East India Company”.

I found the book a fascinating read, although at times I progressed slowly because I kept breaking off to read the footnotes and check up on some of the source documents mentioned. Dalrymple supplies us with a particularly vivid portrait of Robert Clive, a figure who reminded me in some respects of Hernàn Cortès. His favourite source for his book is a contemporary work in Persian, available in English since the 1790s as “Review of Modern Times”. The author, Ghulam Hussain Khan, was a cousin of Aliverdi Khan, a Nawab of Bengal in the 1740s, and he provides the perspective of a Mughal aristocrat.

The author describes the Company’s military campaigns in detail and sets out his explanations for its success. It’s been said that three things are necessary for war, money, money, and more money, and one of the aspects that Dalrymple highlights is that the company was able to raise greater sums of money through credit than could the Indian powers. Indian banking houses saw the Company as their natural ally.

In the end the British Government first tamed and eventually nationalised the EIC. After 1859 it was the British state that ruled India. Dalrymple feels however, that the story of the EIC has many parallels today, in terms of how national governments struggle to control multinational corporations. He also comments that when people talk of the British legacy in India, they often speak of India’s Parliamentary democracy, the railways, cricket, etc, but few people mention that the multinational corporation was a European innovation that, for better or worse, has become an influential part of India today. Indeed, it is arguably a concept more at home in modern day India than it is in modern day Europe.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think it is important to be clear what this account is not. It is not a history or India, nor is it a history of the Raj. It is not a complete history of the East India Company. It pretty much ends in about 1803, there is nothing on the first war of independence in 1857. What this actually does is chart the growth of the East India Company from its founding to the point where it gained ascendancy in the subcontinent.
This is a very different telling of that tale than the one in British history books in the last century, as Dalrymple says:
“The Company’s conquest of India almost certainly remains the supreme act of corporate violence in world history.”
The usual imperial heroes (Clive, Hastings, the Wellesley brothers etc) are shown for what they really are. Clive certainly was a thug and a bully and it still remains a scandal that all of his plunder and loot from India remain at Powis Castle: even though it is now in the ownership of the National Trust.
Of course the EIC was one of a number of competing companies from Europe. There were similar companies from France, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Sweden and so on. After its inception it was by no means the strongest and the French and Portuguese companies were more entrenched in India. Of course there were also other “foreign powers” in India over the course of this account. For example the Afghans and Nadir Shah of Persia.
The complex politics of India itself is addressed and, of course there are ongoing debates here about the various roles of the Mughals and Marathas. Dalrymple provides a character driven account, but doesn’t always enter the ongoing historical debates like the interpretation of what happened after the death of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb; was there decline and chaos or rather a delineation into tiers of powers. Dalrymple draws together many complex strands in this history and he manages to explode many of the myths about the rise of the Company. By the late eighteenth century:
“One in three British men in India were co-habiting with Indian women and there were believed to be more than 11 000 Anglo-Indians in the three Presidency towns. Now Cornwallis brought in a whole raft of unembarrassedly racist legislation aimed at excluding the children of British men who had Indian wives … from employment by the company.”
Students of American history will remember Cornwallis, and yes he turns up in India as well!
This is a well written account, but I think there are gaps and some lack of contextualisation. It should though perform the function of exploding some of the lingering Imperialist myths in Britain about the Empire and India. This is more British history and Dalrymple does provide a good amount of economic facts to show how India was plundered. I would have liked more analysis of the impact on the British economy and the Industrial Revolution.
As to the effect on India: as Mughal historian Fakir Khair ud-Din Illahabadi put it, “the once peaceful realm of India became the abode of Anarchy”.

[Amit Mishra · Rating 1 out of 5]

Though you can not hide the truth, you can certainly give it your best try and this is what this author posing as a historian has done. He has whitewashed the crimes, atrocities, 'Anarchy' done by the Muslim rulers and the British businessmen. The rest that you read is the attempt that I referred to in my first line.

[Nidhi P · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title is an act of deception. You should not be bemused to read this book as a book of history. The author has no cultural sense of Indian history and he has just rambled his way through dates, years and centuries with his 'facts' rather than the 'history' he should have cared about.

[Karen· · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding.

William Dalrymple has the most felicitous ability to turn extensive research into a riveting narrative. And unlike a historian such as, say, James Mill, who wrote his History of British India (1818) - a standard work for generations of British students - without ever once setting foot in India, Dalrymple is scrupulous in using a variety of sources, not just the Company's own archives in the National Archive of India, but also contemporary Mughal historians such as Ghulam Hussain Khan, or Fakir Khair ud-Din. He is, too, scrupulous in his portrayal of the innate and rather ludicrous sense of superiority entertained by envoys to the fabulously wealthy and cultivated Mughal court, a sense that led them to believe the Emperor must surely be desperate to do trade with a foggy nation so far away. Having already failed to impress Jahangir a couple of times, in 1615 the East India Company persuaded King James to send a royal envoy.
The man chosen was a courtier, MP, diplomat, Amazon explorer, Ambassador to the Sublime Porte and self-described 'man of quality', Sir Thomas Roe.
Roe was suitably dazzled by the unimaginable splendour and sumptuous riches of the Mughal court, describing it at length in his diaries. He struggled to interest the Emperor in trade, but managed, after three years at court to obtain permission to build a trading station in Surat. Dalrymple gives us this telling insight:
For all the reams written by Roe on Jahangir, the latter did not bother to mention Roe once in his voluminous diaries.

But for all the supple and engaging style, the tale Dalrymple presents is a shocking one of barbarity, extortion and pillage. It cannot be an accident that the word 'loot' is of Hindi origin. And sometimes I could have wished for a less scrupulous portrayal of the stomach-churning violence inflicted, say, by the Rohilla Ghulam Qadir in revenge for his capture after the siege of Pathargarh.

(From the introduction)

As with all such corporations, then as now, the EIC was answerable only to its shareholders. With no stake in the just governance of the region, or its long-term well-being, the Company's rule quickly turned into the straightforward pillage of Bengal, and the rapid transfer westwards of its wealth.
Before long the province, already devastated by war, was struck down by the famine of 1769, then further ruined by high taxation. Company tax collectors were guilty of what was then described as the 'shaking of the pagoda tree' - what today would be described as major human rights violations committed in the process of gathering taxes. Bengal's wealth rapidly drained into Britain, while its prosperous weavers and artisans were coerced 'like so many slaves' by their new masters.

Fat cats lining their own pockets while the company they work for almost runs aground, Government bail-outs because the corporation is 'too big to fail', there are obvious analogies to be drawn here. But thankfully, at least nowadays huge multinational conglomerates do not run armies double the size of contemporary nations' military capability.

[David Wineberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

The story of the East India Company, nominally of London, is a huge, sprawling, fascinating and gripping collection of great stories. The stories are of wars, battles, heroes, cowards, lovers, fools, incompetents, rape, plunder, torture and death. Lots of death. William Dalrymple has linked the stories into the history of the Company, that unregulated, arrogant and racist firm that took over the Indian subcontinent, piece by piece from the early 1700s, and held it and milked it until 1859 (when the British government took over the milking and abuse itself).

The Anarchy of the title refers to what Indians call the Great Anarchy, a period as the British showed up when constant wars and invasions redistributed (concentrated) the wealth continuously, and when no one was ever quite sure whose empire they were living in from one year to the next. The various Emperors, nabobs, nawabs, viziers and shahs were constantly making alliances, ignoring them, going to war, combining, separating, and killing. Always killing. Piles of bodies and rivers of blood. And betraying. Almost as much betraying as killing it often seems. It makes for a riveting read, which becomes more amazing the farther you get into it. Dalrymple keeps up the pace and entrances with remarkable stories.

India was a dependable engine of wealth. From its fabrics to its jewels, its gold to its spices, it was forever creating wealth. Every so often, an intruder would swoop in from the next province or from Afghanistan, clean out the treasury and take every last thing of value from everyone. Plus future reparations. And yet, a few years later, there was prosperity once again. There was always wealth for bribes, and everyone was on the take, from Company employees up to royalty. And the figures were huge. Prosperity and chaos in one huge package. This was the cycle the Company stumbled into.

It began as a combination of small firms of English traders and pirates to better exploit Indian trade. It had a public share basis, and soon nearly half the members of parliament and the House of Lords were shareholders, and therefore compromised in their dealings with it. The dividends were gigantic, as a ship bringing Indian goods home would regularly net four times their cost. The ship would then return to India, loaded with gold and silver for the next shipment.

This was not good enough.

The Company wormed its way into Indian politics, allying with one potentate or another as needed to maintain its presence and expand it. It would pay taxes or not as it positioned itself more and more firmly as a power on its own. Its employees were on the take, doing side deals and making fortunes for themselves, which they shipped back to England on Company boats, draining more wealth from India.

The tipping point seems to have come in 1761, Dalrymple says. The Company now had as many as 500 factories running throughout eastern India (Bengal, Orissa and Bihar). It had actually founded Calcutta for a factory and it attracted traders and workers, becoming a major city and port, as well as the Company’s head office in India. Even then, Indians recognized it as the threat it could clearly become.

After endless complaints about the arrogance and extortion by the Company Men (as they entered a village all the shops would close and pedestrians fled), the Nawab Mir Qasim in whose territory the Company was located got creative. He decided not to fight. The Company not only trained local sepoys in English style warfare, but hired mercenaries and press-ganged French soldiers into serving. So rather than fight, Qasim decided to end all duties, leveling the playing field. Until this point, the Company simply refused to pay, giving it an unfair advantage over Indian traders, who had to. The Nawab calculated that increasing business for native traders would compensate for the loss of duties. This cost his treasury, and infuriated the Company. Qasim had to go.

By 1763 the Company had transformed into an “autonomous imperial power” Dalrymple says, with its own army, navy, and designs on the whole subcontinent. As it took on Qasim’s territory, it taxed like any other potentate – hugely and harshly, so that ships from home didn’t have to bring gold any longer. The company became self-financing. This didn’t stop greedy and incompetent mangers from nearly bankrupting it several times. Between the shareholders in power and being too big to fail, bailout loans always appeared when needed.

By the 1770s, even Parliament had to take notice. In 1774, the first parliamentary oversight committee landed in Calcutta and was immediately offended that they only received a 17 gun salute instead of 21, thus establishing their priorities. They were further horrified that the governor general received them for luncheon in informal attire – not even a ruffled shirt. Real governance issues and political priorities could clearly wait.

By far the most revolting section concerns Ghulam Qadir’s sacking of Delhi. The personal horrors he inflicted are as brutal as anything ever printed, and indeed, British readers were originally denied the sight by censors. He blinded people with hot needles, gouged out their eyes, took everything they had including their clothes, and those he didn’t kill he threw in prison without food or water. As he left with everything his army could carry, he blew up what remained. When he was finally caught, he was treated the same way. He was chained up and paraded in a cage for three days. Day one his eyes were scooped out, day two his ears cut off and hung around his neck, followed cutting off his hands, feet and genitals. When he was eventually killed, his headless body was hung in public and a dog licked up the blood until a few days later, when both disappeared.

This gory horror was followed by an absurd and fraudulent show trial back in London, the social hit of the season, in which the Company’s head man in India faced impeachment. Ironically, of course, Governor General Warren Hastings had been the most effective, efficient and compassionate of the Company’s leaders, tasked with cleaning up the mess of his predecessors. Edmund Burke, the prosecutor, took four days just to make his opening remarks, all but entirely false accusations. It was a litany of lies perpetrated by one man on that original parliamentary committee visit, Philip Francis. Francis simply hated Hastings and would stoop to absolutely anything to undermine him, right up to phony impeachment charges. In this story, Francis, with no knowledge of weapons whatsoever, challenged Hastings to a duel. Hastings let him shoot first, then shot him. Sadly, Francis survived, now even more determined than ever to take Hastings down. He returned to London and worked Parliament to denounce him.

The man they should have prosecuted, Robert Clive, was instead a national hero and one of the richest men in Europe as a result of his machinations in India. Clive was uncontrollably violent (which is why he was sent away to India), ruthless, corrupt and smarmy, and that’s why the Company had him back for three tours of duty. Despite his fortune(s), Clive ended up committing suicide.

A highly intelligent and hardworking lifelong Company man, Hastings had to stand by and witness it all, noting down everything along the way. Back in England, after seven years of idiotic hearings, Hastings was finally cleared. Completely. But rather than learn from this, the men the Company sent as a series of his successors, each proved far worse than anything Hastings was ever charged with.

His immediate successor, Lord Cornwallis, had recently managed to lose the 13 colonies that became the USA. He set out to avenge himself. He went to war of course, greatly expanding the Company’s territory, implemented racist laws such as keeping the children of mixed marriages out of the Company, and as Dalrymple explains it, prevented a middle class that could rise up against him as in the USA. His approach to India was ancient Roman: 1) divide and conquer, lying to allies keep them out of battles as needed, and then attack them when convenient, and 2) Buy the local potentates, give them salaries, and let the citizenry think they still had independence and integrity – personal, political and territorial. Much like the USA replacing foreign governments as needed to keep its trade unhindered, so the Company used everyone to expand on the ground.

Cornwallis was followed by the arrogant Lord Wellesley, and his younger brother Arthur, who later became the Duke of Wellington. When the last Indian leader’s troops were defeated, its people raped, tortured and killed, its wealth pillaged and plundered, Governor General Lord Wellesley proposed a toast “to the corpse of India.” Wellesley went his own way, communicating little with head office, eventually bagging almost all of India before he was recalled.

By the early 1800s the Company’s private army stood at 195,000, twice the size of the British army. Its spending in Britain alone amounted to a quarter as much as government expenditure. The entire London headquarters staff of the Company numbered all of 35, in a building “just five windows wide.” And this was the largest company in the world. From there, they directed the conquest and acquisition of the entire Indian subcontinent and hundreds of millions of people. It was not just too big to fail, it was an actual threat. As Jeff Mulgan said elsewhere: “It used to be that the banks feared the sovereign. Now the sovereign fears the banks.” So with the East India Company, the poster child for rampant unregulated corporate greed.

By 1859, after just 150 years, even the government had had enough and took control of India itself, merging the Company’s army into the British army and disbanding its navy. Things did not get better.

Dalrymple ends by showing how gigantic multinationals have mutated into not needing expensive armies and navies to effect their conquests. They use big data, surveillance, lobbying and influence instead. He says the history of the East India Company has never been more relevant than it is today. So it’s not just great storytelling, it’s a look in the mirror.

David Wineberg

[Dmitri · Rating 5 out of 5]

“And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?”
-William Blake, 1808

************

William Dalrymple tells how a single business operation replaced the Mughal empire to rule the Indian subcontinent. The East India Company was a first major multi-national corporation, and an early example of a joint stock enterprise. Most events occur between 1756-1803, around the time of the American and French revolutions. The story begins in 1599 with the charter of the Company, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and the lifetime of Shakespeare.

The Company was preceded by Walter Raleigh and Francis Drake and included veteran Caribbean privateers, state sponsored pirates who attacked the Spanish armada for gold and silver. The Company‘s first voyage brought back spice from Indonesia by robbing a Portuguese ship. Outdone by the Dutch in the spice trade, the Company began trade in India with the benefits of a British monopoly, license to raise an army and seize territory, all endorsed by the Crown.

At the time of the Company's expansion of power the Mughal Empire had been weakened by a series of invasions and internal conflicts. Increasing intolerance had pushed Maratha rebels under Shivaji to strike north from the Deccan plateau in the late 17th century. Sikhs struck south from the Punjab. Prince fought against prince. In 1739 the Persian warlord Nader Shah sacked Delhi, and made off with the spoils of an empire. The period is known as the Anarchy.

Construction of fortifications at a British port in Bengal provoked the local Nawab and Mughal army to destroy the trading post in 1756. Captured British were thrown into the so-called 'Black Hole of Calcutta' where significant numbers died from trampling and suffocation. Robert Clive, a violent and ruthless soldier of fortune hired by the Company, would defeat and plunder the Mughals and oust the French from Bengal, returning home the richest man in Europe.

In 1764 the Company put down a Mughal rebellion, and replaced the empire as tax collectors of the wealthiest lands on the subcontinent. The Company amassed a private army twice the size of Britain's. Draught, famine and Company hoarding caused a massive bailout in 1773 by the Crown. Tea shipped west triggered the American revolution, and opium shipped east resulted in war with China. At it's height the Company accounted for half of the world's trade.

Much is covered during forty years. Warren Hastings, Clive’s successor as governor of Bengal, attempted to reform the worst excesses of Company rule, and was put on trial by his rival countrymen. His successor would be Cornwallis, the general who had surrendered the American colonies to Washington. Tipu Sultan, ‘Tiger of Mysore’, was sought as an ally by Napoleon, until foiled by Nelson at the Nile. Tipu was defeated by Wellington of future Waterloo fame.

Dalrymple doesn’t mince words about events that occured, nor do eyewitnesses of the period. On British incursions before the battle of Plassey: ‘What honor is left us when we take orders from a handful of traders?’. On the handover of the Mughal empire after the battle of Buxar: ‘The entire transaction took less time than the sale of a jackass’. All was realized under withering fire of artillery, executed by Indians armed and trained by the Company.

Dalrymple's unifying narrative source is the Mughal court historian Ghulam Hussain Khan's epic 'Review of Modern Times'. He also scoured the India Office collection in London and National Archives in Delhi. As noted in the introduction 'English and Mughal records of the period are extensive'. Primarily a military account, his contribution is gathering and presenting it all in an entertaining and edifying manner. His talent for storytelling is clearly shown.

For a look at what international capitalism can be, this is a fascinating case. The Company thrived more than 200 years ago. Some things have changed, others have not. Territorial takeover is frowned upon but economic conquest is far from over. Corporations, lobbyists and politicians can effectively do the same work. The will to profit, avoid regulation and taxes is intrinsic. Dalrymple does not state this explicitly in the text, but the parallels are evident.

[TXGAL1 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dalrymple gives the reader the perfect synopsis of his book with his title ..."Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire".

The East India Company was a British corporate entity formed by its founders, directors, and shareholders to establish merchant supremacy within the Indian empire, at all costs, using all manner of intrigue via false treaties, private army military might, political maneuvering and violent and vile actions towards the Indian people. Innumerable skirmishes, battles, and wars--all of this done in order to STRIP the empire of its wealth while making anyone NOT AN INDIAN rich beyond measure. From the 17th through the 18th centuries, The Company was master of its Indian domain.

There is much to learn by reading this book. Dalrymple spent years researching and writing about this subject. It includes many notes, a map to simplify understanding, and "Plates" at the end of the ebook highlighting works of art depicting persons or moments from the time displayed.

I now have a better understanding the bitter resentment/hatred those affected by The Company and the British Empire created with its policies. There is a LOT of history to learn and digest. Unfortunately, I could not score my rating above 3 stars as I did not like the way the information was presented. Also, I found the writing to be a bit choppy.

[Radhika Sharma · Rating 1 out of 5]

Once you read the book, and if you are too naive, you will have a perception:

The British robbed India which was lovingly ruled by the caring Muslims who did not rape Hindus, loot Hindus and their temples, destroyed the wonderful culture and Sanatan Dharma and islamise an entire section of Hindus into Muslims of the day.

The author also suggests that Hindus helped (B)East India Company. The author subtly hints that Britishers were not involved in committing any atrocities or cultural damage towards Hindus.

#uck this author! A Hinduphobic @sshole in white skin!

[W · Rating 3 out of 5]

The foundations of the British Raj in the subcontinent were not laid by the British government,but by a trading corporation which essentially wanted to enrich its investors.

In less than fifty years,the East India Company had snatched control of nearly the whole of Mughal India.The company had recruited a private army of its own and with superior weapons and tactics,had defeated all its opponents in India.In the process,it had also thwarted the ambitions of the French to rule India.

A key player in the story was Lord Clive,who started off as an accountant in the company and despite having no military training,emerged as its military leader.

Ruthless and unscrupluous,he twice made great fortunes in India by plundering and dictacting terms to his Indian opponents.The company was not particularly concerned about what its policies did to the locals.

During the Great Bengal Famine,it was still pressing the locals to pay taxes and these were people who had nothing to eat ! But even during this period,some employees of the company made great fortunes.

It was also a time of great upheavel in India.Peace had become elusive and a series of battles was being fought by the rulers of various kingdoms against each other and against the East India Company.

The Mughal Emperor,Shah Alam was also fighting to restore Mughal rule while Afghan warlords were also invading India.

It is a story of shifting alliances,betrayals,double crosses and extreme cruelty being inflicted on the vanquished.

Shah Alam ended up being blinded,and the man who blinded him,in turn,had most parts of his body cut off one after the other.Women were raped,civilians were murdered and entire cities pillaged.Both the company and its opponents were guilty of such atrocities.

Eventually,the East India Company would vanquish all its opponents.Its methods were questionable and its success unprecedented.It ran up massive debts and had to be bailed out by the British government.

Later,the British government drastically curtailed the company's powers in India.Eventually,its role ended altogether.

Dalrymple has done his research,though the writing style occasinally becomes dry and pedantic.

By and large,however,it is a fairly interesting book with lots of battles,intrigue and familiar names including Tipu Sultan and Mir Jafar,among others.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I seem to be in the minority for not loving this book.

It’s not that it wasn’t brilliantly written, or that the subject isn’t worthy of discussion. It just wasn’t the book I thought it would be.

This paragraph, from the Epilogue, describes the book I *wanted* to read:

This book attempted to study the relationship between commercial and imperial power. It has looked at how corporations can impact on politics, and vice versa. It has examined how power and money can corrupt, and the way commerce and colonization have so often walked in lock step. For Western imperialism and corporate capitalism were born at the same time, and both were to some extent the dragons’ teeth that spawned the modern world.

But I didn’t really get this from the book. There was too much focus on details of military battles, and too little focus on the themes above, for my taste. And since I’m not particularly interested in military history, much of the book was a chore for me to read.

One other issue that made the book challenging for me was that the author did not lay out any background on the various Indian factions or the broader historical background of India before the Europeans arrive. I felt like I was starting a book in the middle. If you already have some knowledge here, that may be a feature instead of a bug for you.

So overall I didn’t particularly enjoy this book. If you are more interested in military history, or if you come into this book with some knowledge of Indian history, you’ll probably like the book a lot more than I did.

[boxer_dogs_dance · Rating 4 out of 5]

History of the British East India company is surprisingly military

Dalyrimple's well written history is full of descriptions of imperial splendor, gold and jewelry of Mughal rulers. But the majority of the book is a description of the various political and military campaigns with which the British East India Company gradually conquered India. The crown only took over very late in the process.

General Cornwallis, who fought Washington's army in the US revolutionary war, played a significant role. So did the general who would later defeat Napoleon.

This history is well written and not widely known, at least in the US.

[Paul Ark · Rating 2 out of 5]

Less a history of the East India Company, and more a history of India military history during the time of EIC’s presence in India. Overwrought with pointless detail and irrelevant quotes & passages from historical letters and text, this book is a dry narrative of the history of various warlords in India during the 18th century, with the rise and fall of the EIC as context. Very short on analysis, and the implications of corporate imperialism. Great premise, but poor result and wasted potential.

[Rupesh Kashyap · Rating 1 out of 5]

A waste of time and mughal-all-good book!

[Avdhesh Anand · Rating 1 out of 5]

Waste of time as the book does not present anything in details about the so-titled East India Company but rather goes on glorifying the barber Mughals.

[Amitava Das · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is another scholarly work of India’s colonial history , written with as much panache , passion and verve as I have come to expect from the finest living historian of colonial India , focusing on the anarchic period in Hindusthan triggering after the death of the last Mughal super power Aurangzeb in 1707 (an emperor who collected ten times more revenue than his contemporary King of France Louis XIV and contributed to a quarter of global GDP during his reign ) continuing till 1804 when the East India Company - a mere merchant company of joint stock holders , established themselves , through every trick in the book of politics , as the unchallenged sovereign master over a vast Indian subcontinent - the jewel in the British crown as it eventually came to be known , an event that really has no parallel in all of history. In this context , The Anarchy is the prequel for Dalrymple’s earlier masterpiece - The Last Mughal - which chronicles the life of Bahadur Shah Zafar and Delhi caught up in the great revolt of 1857.

This brilliant work , Dalrymple’s latest , details not only these tricks, intrigues , subterfuge , chicanery and devious diplomatic policies unleashed to loot rape and plunder one of the world’s wealthiest nations , but also the supreme political cunning , agility and foresight by which EIC - the world’s first corporate superpower- became de facto ruler and overlords of all the various factional powers which included the last independent Nawab of Bengal- Siraj, the dethroned Mughal prince and eventual puppet king Shah Alam, the valiant Nawab of Avadh Shuja ud Daulah, the rebel Mir Qashim, the immensely influential banking clan of Jagat Seths ( even wealthier than their European counterpart the Rothschilds) , the vast and powerful Maratha Confederacy , the destructive Rohillas, the glorious Mysore Sultanate of Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan , the Nizams of Hyderabad and of course the French - their bitter transcontinental rivals - in the mere period of fifty years.

This is a book steeped in authentic history (footnotes and bibliography at the end alone cover 100 pages ) , based on Persian ,Urdu and Arabic texts of contemporaneous period and not, as is the usual case of revisionist works of history , on ideologically biased post-colonial texts that often skews and subverts narratives in the service of the former.

Dalrymple’s gaze is neutral , wise , penetrating ,digging into the heart of every conflict and political manoeuvre with the skill and magic of an epic novelist , while maintaining historical integrity so much so that neither the colonials nor the colonised emerges either in simple black and white. It’s the immensely complex greys (of characters , situations and circumstances ) that comes alive , in all their multiplicity of shades in Dalrymple’s vivid prose.

More than anything - it shows in unerring detail the machinations of commerce and the role of ruthless financial dealings and subterfuge undertaken by EIC in conjunction with the displaced Nawabs and the banking clans which ultimately sealed the fate of this country for the next 150 years till its independence, something that many other scholarly works on colonial history have failed to adequately portray.

A stunning achievement.

[Ravi Upadhyay · Rating 1 out of 5]

This author is out of his mind when he writes Indian history from an outsider's point of view. Just like an outsider cannot comment with authority about the country of author's origin, I am truly amazed to know how can Dalrymple assert his views, without any authentic proofs, with so confident sham!

[Harsh Tiwari · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author seems to have no clue of Indian history. The book falls flat on that ground and it cannot justify the title as well. It's never about the atrocities of the East India Company; it's about how the author thinks things unfolded rather than how they actually happened.

[historynerd · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bad history writing couched in superfluous embellishments.

Note: This is a critique on the historical accuracy and efficacy of a work that has been categorized as 'Non-Fiction'. I will not be critiquing the literary aspects here. There are some early spoilers in this review, but as it is Non-Fiction and history, that is to be expected.


I'm very disappointed in this book. I had been expecting a lot since this is a very thoroughly studied period yet finds hardly any detailed mention in the mainstream, often brushed aside as a time of chaos and anarchy (as is the book's title). The book is promoted as an approachable journal to track the events and personalities that shaped the 18th century of the Indian subcontinent.

However, the sheer disregard for facts and details that are on display in almost every chapter is frustrating for even an amateur historian like me. I'm not into tedious and excruciating details, yet when the very narrative is being changed with fiction, one has to stop. Every chapter has sweeping statements and massive generalizations that fall off after just a preliminary research. The book makes generalizations to basically summarize: Mughal = Incompetent, British = Bad and Greedy, Marathas = Brutal Warlords, Nawabs = Decadent Sops.

That is it, despite all of this being far from the truth. Characters like Warren Hastings, Shah Alam, Mirza Najaf Khan, Mahadji Scindia, Naijb ud Daula, Nana Fadnavis etc all have been short changed. Characters like the Sayyid brothers, Safdur Jung, Nizam ul Mulk I, Imad ul Mulk, Sawai Jai Singh, Bajirao, Balaji Nana Saheb, Madhav Rao, Muhammad Beg Khan etc have not even had 2-3 lines dedicated to them. These men who ruled vast areas and were the most powerful rulers of their day find barely any or no mention.

Some early mistakes that abound in this book

1. Wrong Historical dates: A recurring problem in the book, the author struggles to write accurate dates and give a coherent chronology of events. For example, The date for battle of Buxar is wrong. Imagine the battle that led to the infamous Treaty of Allahabad between Shah Alam and he East India Company being wrongly dated in a Non-Fiction work set in India. Even other obvious dates are wrong such as the author stating that Shivaji and his Marathas began a war with the Mughals in 1680's, the truth is that he died in 1680. Mughals and Maratha had been warring since late 1650's.
These of course are smaller details that don't take away much, but simple due diligence should have been done for such simple errors.

2. Comical Military Descriptions: One of the biggest problem with the author is his over the top and downright inaccurate portrayal of the 17th and 18th century military issues. To start with Mr. Dalrymple triumphantly states that the loss of Rajput Cavalry was a decisive factor for the Mughals in their defeat against the Marathas. Perhaps the author simply forgot Mughal Rajput Generals like Mirza Raje Jai Singh, Raja Jaswant Singh, Sawai Jai Singh etc. Despite rebellions, many Rajput houses actively fought for the Mughals until 1740's.

Next Mr. Dalrymple's hilarious description of Nader Shah's invasion of India. This is the most inaccurate account of the invasion and the subsequent battle you'll find anywhere that is published. Mr. Dalrymple states that Nader Shah crossed the Khyber and most of Punjab with no resistance and only at Karnal was he faced by the Mughal army. In describing the Mughal army Dalrymple transcends from history into fantasy, stating that some 100000 Persians faced a bloated Mughal army of a million with over 200000-300000 combatants! That's right! Mr Dalrymple states that a pre-modern regime mobilized at least 200000-300000 soldiers and near a million camp followers. This would not even fly in historical fiction or even fantasy like Game of Thrones, and here we have this for Non-Fiction!
Undeterred by any of these fabrications, Dalrymple gives a fictional account of the battle where 'the Persian light cavalry parted like curtains to reveal the Swivel guns' that annihilated the many miles long Mughal heavy cavalry charge. Then Mr Dalrymple states that some 50000-100000 Mughal troops died, and later the Mughal Emperor like an 'idiot' went over to Nader Shah and got captured. This is pure caricature-ish fabrication. He has reduced history to a series of silly tropes to satisfy his narrative of utter Mughal incompetence.
Now as per actual history Nader Shah invaded the Mughal empire through the Khyber, where he schemed a brilliant surprise attack against the Governor (Subedar) of Kabul. It is literally on wikepedia, even basic common sense and understanding of the Mughal empire's structure would make it obvious that the Mughals had provincial armies, and that these often acted as the wardens of the border marches of the empire. Next we come to the astronomical numbers given by Dalrymple, needless to say that they are absolutely false. The Mughal army had camp followers numbering around 300000, yet in all the fighting combatants did not exceed 75000. In fact in the actual battle only 30000 Mughals participated. The casualties were around 8000 Mughal dead and 5000 -7500 Persian dead. What gave Nader Shah the victory was that he was able to cut off the Mughal supplies, and due to the vast number of camp follower numbers, they began starving. The Mughal commanders Saadat Ali Khan Burhan ul Mulk and Samsamudaula Khan Dauran did mount 2 ill-coordinated attacks, neither of which were supported by the main Mughal army. These attacks were fended off by Nader Shah by luring them both separately with his light cavalry before ambushing the Mughals piecemeal with both his camel artillery and Jezayarchi musket infantry. There was no great Mughal charge, only these 2 isolated and uncoordinated attacks that were foiled, I have no idea where Mr. Dalrymple got his dramatic account of miles long line of charging Mughal heavy cavalry. The failure of these 2 attacks, and the lack of provisions crippled the Mughal army, on top of that the lighter Persian army not engaging in a pitched contest, staying entrenched beyond the Alimardan river, and sending their light cavalrymen to keep a blockade on the Mughal camp, doomed the campaign for the Mughals. As such the Mughal Emperor was now a caged animal. He could neither attack nor retreat. Thus, due to the famine and starvation in the camp, the Mughal Emperor had no choice but to offer terms to Nader Shah. Unlike how Dalrymple puts it, the Mughal Emperor was not an 'idiot' to go for a meeting with Nader Shah. Muhammad Shah Rangila made many errors in his reign, and was a bad an incompetent Emperor, but he was not a complete idiot as Mr. Dalrymple's parodied account of him shows. His army was in dire straits already. The Persians refused a proper set piece battle, and being more mobile they were able to cut off the Mughal supplies. Also the Mughals did have Zamburak cannons, camel mounted swivel guns. In fact the Zamburak had been a part of the Mughal artillery since the days of Shah Jahan in the mid 17th century. This idea that Nader Shah surprised the Mughals with Zamburak cannons is objectively nonsense. Nader Shah won due to his superior strategy, not his camel 'gizmos' as Dalrymple puts it. The Zamburak did contribute, but it was not an exotic novelty as portrayed by Mr Dalrymple.

Also Mr. Dalrymple does not mention that at the time of Nader Shah's invasion, the Mughal empire had lost the vast provinces of Malwa, Bundelkhand, Gujarat and a good chunk of Rajputana to the Marathas. In fact the Mughal Emperor's armies had been beaten at the Battles of Amjhera, Jaitpur, Mandsaur and then at Delhi in 1737, this was followed by the decisive blow at the Battle of Bhopal in late 1737. This rapid flurry of losses from 1729 to 1737 had broken the Mughal authority south of the Chambal river. Over all the combined forces that the Mughals could muster from all his remaining commanders and provinces could not have exceeded 80000. So Nader Shah actually outnumbered the Mughals in the actual battle.

3. Nonsense Economic Narrative: Mr. Dalrymple then goes on to say that after the Mughal decline, regional states that once paid taxes to the Mughals were free to spend on native art and culture, thus ushering a cultural renaissance. This may only have been true for some mountain chiefs of Himachal or Jammu, but for the vast majority it certainly was not true in the slightest. Mr. Dalrymple on one hand states that Maratha conquered former Mughal provinces and plundered them, and then on other he also states that these states had a cultural renaissance thanks to extra tax savings. In his Jaipur lecture, he specifically cites Rajasthan's rich cultural development of the 18th century owing much of it to the declining of Mughal power. Here's the reality, with Marathas now running the show, Rajputana entered a time of unprecedented economic turmoil. The Maratha generals regularly plundered the countryside, exacted heavy tribute and protection money from all states from Punjab to the Deccan. In fact one of the Jaipur Maharajas, Ishwari Singh, the ruler of the very city that Dalrymple was using as an example of his theory, had committed suicide because he could not pay his tribute and protection money to the Maratha warlords. Ishwari Singh had been installed by the Marathas, and his failure to pay their agreed tribute led to a Maratha army invading the State of Jaipur. The Marathas were playing kingmakers and extortionists on the Rajput States, who with their antiquated miltary methods could barely maintain their very existence, mostly by monetary rather than miltary means. The irony of Dalrymple sitting in Jaipur, and stating that Mughal's decline ushered in a great cultural renaissance due to 'tax saving' while in reality most of the Jaipur state was plundered and its chiefs forced to pay crippling tributes is nothing short of dark comedy.

4. Faulty Colonial History (edited note: This one is in context of his lecture, the book, atleast the digital copy on kindle, seems to give correct numbers, book readers may skip ahead):

Then Mr. Dalrymple saunters around the supremacy of the European infantry armies over the native cavalry armies. He gives the example of the Carnatic wars, where the French and British troops routinely routed Indian cavalry armies. But here's the caveat that the author once again missed. Neither the armies of the Nawab of the Carnatic nor of the Nizam of Hyderabad were 'cavalry armies'. In fact from 1720's onwards, they were made up of combined arms of musketeers, artillery and cavalry. When the French under De Bussy did face a mobile all cavalry army of the Marathas under Balaji Bajirao, he was forced to retreat back. Further Mr. Dalrymple cites a battle of the Adyar river in his speeches regularly where he claims that 30000-40000 Indian cavalry was routed by just a regiment or 2 of European trained infantry. The truth is that a simple wikepedia search will tell you that there were no 30000 horsemen, rather around 10000 Indian troops, with mostly infantry, hardly a 'cavalry army'. South India, with the exception of the Deccan region, is not good for horse breeding and is not a cavalry country. How on earth did Mr. Dalrymple find 30000-40000 all cavalry armies being raised and equipped by a single south Indian Nawab (not even a Governor). Dalrymple's numbers as usual are unfounded in any source, primary or secondary.

NOTE: It would seem that the book gives the accurate number now, though I'm unsure about the edition. If you check his lectures and promotional speeches however, he unstintingly inflates this number to 30000-40000 cavalry. As to why did he inflate those numbers in his lecture is unknown. If it is a marketing technique to exaggerate historical numbers and make a spectacle, then it is not a good one as it cheapens real history for caricatures and stereotypes.

There are many more such historical misrepresentations and misinterpretations. Too many really. The above mentioned are simply the early ones, later in the book entire wars and battles such as the battles of Plassey and Buxar, Anglo Maratha Wars, Angle Mysore Wars etc are given such a shoddy treatment that I can't even begin dissecting them.

The facts I've mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg. If you are interested in Mughal history, Colonial history, Maratha history or just India in the 18th century, I can recommend you far better books such as Later Mughals by William Irvine and the Fall of the Mughal Empire (4 volumes) by Jadunath Sarkar. Both are freely available online.

[Porter Broyles · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had not heard of this book until Former President Obama included it on his best books of 2019, but the subject of the East India Company was something that was of interest to me. These two factors made me want to read this.

The EIC was a major factor in how Great Britian spread its power and influence not only in India, but Japan, China, the Carribean, and even the American Colonies! When the Sons of Liberty dumped the tea into the Boston Harbor, they were protesting a tax, but the ships were part of the East India Company monopoly. The EIC was a global powerhouse.

While William Dalrymple alludes to these facts in his introduction, the book is really about Indian history with tidbits thrown in about the EIC.

The book is well written and Dalrymple is a skilled writer, but this book felt like a bait and switch. It perports to be about the EIC, but it's not.

I was overall very disappointed with this fact.

The book probably deserves more stars, but I am reluctant to do so.

[Kundan Sharma · Rating 1 out of 5]

Sheer waste of time reading this book... I could not find any meaningful thing as touted by my friends who love this historian or so called so...

[Dax · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful look at the birth of the East India Company and the accompanying decay and destruction of the Mogul Empire in India. Dalrymple successfully balances a huge cast of key players in this narrative, and I appreciated his focus on the politics and disputes that arose during the power struggle that was the 'Great Anarchy' of 18th and early 19th century India. Clive, Hastings, Cornwallis and Wellesley are all interesting studies, but I found the significant figures of the Moghuls and Marathas to be much more fascinating. Aliverdi Khan in particular.

This is a story of the birth of the age of the multi-national corporation, and Dalrymple covers it all in great detail, never afraid to show the ugliness that can result from unrestrained greed. The short epilogue was interesting as well, as Dalrymple briefly discusses the similarities of the EIC to the 'crony-capitalism' still prevalent today. Maybe a little bit of a reach, but interesting nonetheless.

Dalrymple is one of the best historians, and certainly the best historian with regards to British relations in Asia, working today. I also highly recommend his previous book "Return of a King". Great stuff. High four stars.

[Gudiya Rani · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was almost unreadable beyond the first few pages... the author lacks a complete sense of Indian history. It was like a French person spent whole life in France trying to attempt a book on history of Mithilanchal... absurd!

[Raghu Nathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

One question always surfaces whenever the subject of Britain’s conquest of India arises in an Indian social setting. How did the British, who came as ordinary traders, end up ruling the country for 150 years? Most Indians believe it is the persistent internecine conflicts between the kingdoms in India. It enabled foreign powers to intrude and establish themselves. Some believe that it is the scientific and technological knowledge of Europeans. It gave them the military advantage to conquer India. Yet others think that Indian kings would rather collaborate with foreigners and destroy a fellow-Indian potentate than join hands to throw out a foreigner. Many foreigners have ruled India over the past millennium. The Portuguese, the Dutch, the French, and the Mughals (a morphing of the word Mongol) have ruled parts of India. The Persians and the Afghans have intruded repeatedly and looted India at various times. This is used to argue that India is a weak nation. This book throws fresh light on the key elements which made it possible for the British to emerge as the rulers of India instead of remaining as traders. Author Dalrymple is well qualified to write on the EIC, having already penned other works on the subject.

The East India Company came into being in 1599 and set foot on Indian soil in 1608. India had twenty percent of the world’s population then, at 150 million people. India was an industrial powerhouse, producing a quarter of the world’s manufactured goods. It was the world leader in textiles. In comparison, England had a small population of 7 million and produced 3% of the world’s manufactured goods. The Mughal emperor, as a result, had an income of £100 million (£10 billion today). It made him the richest monarch in the world. India was a peaceful country in the early 17th century. Emperor Jehangir and later, Shahjahan passed the baton to Aurangzeb in 1658. Aurangzeb departed from the tolerant Mughal ethos and waged continuous wars to extend his empire to its largest ever. His acts of punitive taxes, pillage, and destruction alienated many regional chieftains. Because of this divisive atmosphere, towards the end of the 17th century, endless skirmishes, wars, and invasions plagued the Mughal empire and weakened its authority. Gradually India broke up into smaller kingdoms ruled by regional leaders. Aurangzeb died in 1707. Instability reigned in Delhi, despite being the most prosperous and magnificent city between Istanbul and Tokyo. By 1737, it was an overripe mango, huge and inviting. Nader Shah from Persia raided and looted Delhi and made away with £13 billion (in today’s money). He transferred 348 years of accumulated wealth from Delhi to Persia.

As the diminished Mughal emperors in Delhi became just figureheads, there arose three indigenous power centers in India, namely the Maratha confederate of the Peshwas in Western India piloted by the brilliant minister Nana Fadnavis, Tipu Sultan of Mysore and the Nizam of Hyderabad in the south. In 1728, Shah Alam ascended the Mughal throne as emperor. Dalrymple says that kindness, decency, integrity, and learning marked his life. He kept the Mughal flame alive through the worst of the Great Anarchy that was unfolding in India. The author describes in considerable detail the many battles which ensue between the EIC, the Marathas, and the kingdom of Mysore, aided by the French. The book draws a deep portrayal of the significant players who co-operated, fought, and killed between themselves in their desire for full control of Bengal and Delhi, the richest provinces in the world. Some of them are Robert Clive, Warren Hastings, Tipu Sultan, Mahadji Scindia, Shah Alam, and the Marwari bankers, the so-called Jagat Seth (s).

By the end of the 18th century, the East India Company sent Richard Wellesley as Governor-General to Calcutta. The French were also casting their eye on the ‘jewel of India’ at this time. Lord Wellesley was not an admirer of India like Warren Hastings, who preceded him as the first G-G of India. He believed that India was no longer a place to embrace and be transformed by. Instead, it was a place to conquer and transform. He embraced the European view at the end of the 18th century that the ‘undaunted spirit and irresistible ardor’ of the West will bring blessings to India. He believed that the effeminate rulers and luxurious tyrants of India sapped it of its strength. He accomplished full control over India by 1803 when the EIC emerged as the sole dominant ruler. Thus, a commercial multinational corporation ended up as a State in just fifty years.

The most interesting insight from the book for me is the light Dalrymple throws on how money played the biggest role in the EIC emerging as the winner in India. It was not EIC’s principal military strengths or the internecine conflicts between the Indian potentates which tilted the scales in their favor. The EIC succeeded in war because it provided a secure financial base for its powerful mercenary army. The Indian Marwari Seths and Shroffs, who were the pre-eminent bankers in India, found it more profitable to back the EIC as a financial investment. Hence, the EIC found it easier than its Indian rivals to persuade the Seths to realize the cash needed to pay the army’s salaries and feed its hungry troops. In contrast, the Marathas did not have any significant amount of cash to attract the men to fight on their behalf. The Seths felt that the Marathas, Nizams, and Mysore Sultans were a losing proposition to invest their vast wealth. India’s popular lore blames Mir Jafar as the ace betrayer of the country’s interests. Dalrymple says it was mainly the Jagat Seths who aided the rise of the EIC to power in India. This has modern-day parallels. Even in the US in 2009, we saw that the big tech companies would not agree to punitive action against China by the Obama administration. The reason was that China would retaliate against the tech companies, hurting their bottom line and the interests of their shareholders. As the Seths put the bottom line above the nation, the Silicon Valley companies did the same with shareholder interests above that of US interests.

Dalrymple gives high marks to Warren Hastings as an Indophile who had a deep respect for India’s culture and its people. He spoke fluent Bengali, Urdu, and Persian. He saw Indians as gentle, benevolent, more susceptible to gratitude for kindness shown them than prompt to vengeance for wrongs sustained. He disliked the way the EIC treated Indians. He felt that the European manners had a fierceness incompatible with the gentle temper of the Bengali. He sponsored the first translation of the Bhagavad Gita and said that he loved India more than his own country. But Dalrymple also says that in his later years before his impeachment in England, Hastings turned out to be no angel. The EIC under his rule was extractive as ever.

The book has graphic descriptions of the violence during the many wars in 18th century India. The brutality, pillage, rape, torture, etc made no distinction between the Marathas, Tipu Sultan, the EIC, the Mughals, the Persians or the Afghan Durranis. It is a sober reminder to all people that religious belief does not stop one from committing acts of extreme cruelty. The book shows that Indian kings joined hands to fight against the British, but sided with the British at other times to pull down a fellow-Indian king. It all depended on what suited their interests at a moment.

In today’s India, with the rise of Hindu nationalism to its ugly heights, India’s Muslim Mughal history is coming under assault. Emperor Aurangzeb has always been one of their “favorites” to denounce. Tipu Sultan of Mysore is another. Both of them were key players in 18th century India. According to Dalrymple, Aurangzeb was a complex figure. Early in his career, he protected Brahmins and patronized Hindu institutions. He consulted Hindu astrologers and physicians till the end. But he was unusually cold, ruthless, charmless, intolerant, and bigoted, besides being a talented general and a brilliant strategist. His rule became increasingly harsh as he made a clean break from the liberal policies of the earlier Mughal rulers. He let the Ulama impose the Sharia law, banned wine and hashish, destroyed a dozen temples, and reimposed the punitive jizya tax on non-Muslims. He also executed the ninth Sikh Guru, Teg Bahadur.

Dalrymple’s portrayal of Mysore’s Tipu Sultan shows him to be a complex mix of contradictions. Tipu was a connoisseur and intellectual, with a library of 2000 volumes in several languages. He fostered innovation in Mysore as a modernizing technocrat, imported French military and industrial technology superior to that of the EIC, and experimented with water power to drive his machinery. His kingdom was well cultivated, cities newly founded and commerce extended. Tipu wooed and protected the Hindus of his dominion. He sent elephants to the temples of Melkote and land grants to the temples and Brahmins on the banks of the Tungabhadra river. Every year he gave money, pensions, villages, and jewels to the temples in return for prayers and pujas for the success of his armies. He reserved his most generous patronage for the grand temple of Sringeri and Goddess Sarada. But his syncretism stopped at the borders of his kingdom.

Dalrymple says that Tipu had severe flaws. He was violent towards his adversaries and tortured them before hanging them. He circumcised the captured enemy combatants and internal rebels. If they were Hindus or Christians, he converted them to Islam. In his conquered lands, he destroyed temples and churches. In his campaigns in Malabar, Coorg, and Mangalore, he was cruel. He banished 60000 Christians in one year from the southern Carnatic to Mysore. He tied naked Christians and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants move around till they tore the bodies to pieces. Tipu suffered from megalomania and an utter lack of diplomatic skills. The British called him an intolerant bigot. But the famous Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple in Srirangapatna, his capital, sports even today all the valuable gifts from Tipu and the well-preserved beautiful images of the Vijayanagara-era. Not one of them has suffered the iconoclast’s chisel. A complex ruler indeed!

There is a lesson in this history for India’s Hindu nationalist rulers today. India was prosperous and inclusive until it was caught in the web of Aurangzeb’s bigotry and discrimination. It fractured the nation, destroyed its peace, and set up the conditions for its demise. Since independence in 1947, India has striven for building a secular, inclusive society. The modern-day Aurangzebs have taken over in the past six years. Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a history of the conquest of much of India by the British East India Company. It focuses on the period between the Battle of Plassey in 1757, which established control over Bengal, until the Battle of Delhi in 1803, which gave the company effective control of much of India directly and much more through alliances and protection agreements of the various remaining kingdoms and principalities. It was this period that laid the basis for the British Raj in India, which lasted until independence in 1947. The Raj was the centerpiece of the British Empire throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.

Along with its importance to the British Empire, the story told in this book is also of continuing importance for another reason. The conquest of India was undertaken and subsequently managed - for a time - by a private and very much for profit chartered corporation rather than by the British government. While the East India Company was not the first joint stock company, it is almost certainly the most famous (infamous?) one. It is not unreasonable to see how corporations were used as vehicles to share risk and delegate some of the tasks of colonial expansion to private entities. This was the case for the colonization of America. What is astonishing in the case of India is how the East India company was given governmental rights, raised its own formidable armies, and subjugated over a hundred million people all in the explicit pursuit of company profit. Dalrymple suggests at one point in his fine book that if someone had suggested in advance the role for the company that it eventually assumed in India, they would likely have been laughed at. Hire a multinational firm to conquer and administer your most important colony? What could happen? It gets one thinking - what would Google look like with its own tank battalions?

The history of this period has not gone unnoticed. There is an entire literature on the excesses of the Company and its leaders, especially Robert Clive. Dalrymple is effective at noting this. It was also clear that some in Britain and its government got very wealthy from the Company, despite its excesses. Crony capitalism has a long history. Few doubt that Clive and his associates were little more than pirates and gangsters who could have cared less about the people of Bengal. Famine in Bengal? What famine?

Dalrymple’s book argues that the British conquest of India took place within the context of a period of extended and bloody conflict among the remaining Mughal rulers (and their pretenders) and the Marathas, Afghans, and other contenders for power. Between the military expansion to dominance of the British and the near civil war conditions among Indian principalities, it is no wonder that this period was referred to as “The Anarchy”, giving Dalrymple his title.

The book is generally well written and documented, although there is a lot of activity going on in the narrative and readers may find themselves cross checking names and places just to keep track. The focus of the book is on people, small groups, units, and battles. More macroscopic perspectives are taken from time to time, but this is a book about people and events. The author has his own agendas, as do all authors, but he keeps them held back until the end of the book, when he draws conclusions and renders updates. It is difficult to consider the history of the Company in a totally balanced perspective, since it was a focus of public controversy almost from its inception.

The book does get one thinking about corporate excess, and what can be done about it. It will also help readers to pause a little before too easily granting anybody’s claims about how we need more corporate executives and financiers to run for office, and that society will benefit from their expertise. Dalrymple makes clear the continuing relevance of the East India Company for contemporary national and international politics. He is preaching to the choir with me, but his story about the Company is a good one that is effectively told, especially for a long book.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 5 out of 5]

William Dalrymple's The Anarchy is another of that author's excellent narratives of British India, focusing on the early years of the East India Company and its slow, destructive conquest of South Asia. Dalrymple treats the EIC as the "first modern mega-corporation," an entity which grew so powerful that it effectively became a sovereign state, complete with its own military and massive political influence in both Europe and Asia. Initially confined to small ports on the Indian coast, the Company's leader took advantage of political turmoil within the tottering Mughal Empire, where dynastic struggles weakened its hold on the Subcontinent, religious and sectarian divisions (a "divide and rule" policy that served the Raj well for centuries) and France's own attempts to establish spheres of influence. After the Seven Years' War the Company's influence, but they still faced decades of resistance from determined Indian rulers, recalcitrant states like Mysore and Sindh that resented foreign interference; the battles waged weren't minor colonial skirmishes but massive clashes, with thousands of participants armed with modern weapons. Despite such resistance, and backlash from liberal Britons at home, the Company's power, trade monopolies and exploitative practices grew, enabling it to gain a degree of independence and "hard power" that modern corporations can only dream about.

Dalrymple provides colorful sketches of Company conquerors like Robert Clive, whose victory at Plessey opened the door for conquest (but, as Dalrymple's make clear, did not effectively); he is depicted as an extravagant, racist egomaniac whose failings shielded by political benefactors at home. He also profiles Charles, Lord Cornwallis, sent to "clean up" a corrupt India after his failure to suppress the American colonies, and Richard Wellesley, the stern, arrogant Marquess of Welleseley whose campaigns in the early 1800s against Mysore and Maratha (alongside his brother Arthur, the later Duke of Wellington) finally clinched British rule over the subcontinent. In contrast Warren Hastings, the much-maligned Director of the Company (his impeachment in 1787 became an international cause celebre), actually receives sympathetic treatment as an earnest reformer with a sincere, if patronizing affection for his Indian subjects; his downfall is attributed to a political quarrel, culminating in a duel, which unfairly blamed him for the Company's long record of abuse and exploitation. Even an earnest imperialist is still an imperialist, however, and even in its early years Company rule resulted in massive deaths through famine (as many as 10 million died in Bengal in 1770), mistreatment and seemingly endless warfare.

Dalrymple also provides lively accounts of the Indian princes and political leaders caught in the turmoil. The dynastic squabbles of the Mughals receive due attention, with repeated sacks and massacres (including a particularly savage assault on Delhi by Afghans in the 1730s) demonstrating that Indians and other Asian peoples were more than capable of their own atrocities. He also tells of the hapless Shah Alam, who took and lost his imperial throne several times, once having his eyes cut out by a rival; his restoration to the throne as a blind man, under British protection, came to symbolize for many India's newly subordinate status. Dalrymple also examines regional rulers like the ferocious Tipu Sultan, the "Tiger of Mysore" who defied Company troops for decades, receives highly sympathetic treatment as a pluralistic ruler who did his best to maintain independence in the face of European pressure on his Kingdom.

Dalrymple's account thus avoids sentimentalizing either side, but it's not difficult to share his sympathies with India and its people. One can deplore the brutality of Shah Alam and his rival Ghulam Qadir, but they offered neither excuse nor reason for the East India Company's private empire-building. Profit became the driving force for imperialism, with ripple effects not only in Asia but Europe and the Americas (where the Company's tax policies helped trigger the War for Independence). By the time the Company disintegrated in the 1850s, much of its power had been claimed by the British government; but their legacy lived on in the next century of British rule over the Raj. Dalrymple's book shows imperialism at its ugliest, and how easily national interests are subordinated both to the profit motive and the ambitions of unscrupulous men.

[Rahul Sharma · Rating 1 out of 5]

A waste of my time... I did not the enjoy the book beyond its cover but I had to actually read it just to witness how bad it was!