This book was published by the Princeton University Press, but just from the quality of the work it becomes obvious very quickly that Stoneman is a British classicist. If I'd known I wouldn't have bothered; when traditional Classical Studies began to be outpaced so dramatically by archaeology and linguistics in the 19th century, most continental universities responded by just making them all share office space and letting their sense of shame pull them up to standard, but the British famously never developed one of those, so they just dug in their heels and started sucking tremendously—and they still do to this day.
Still, our main source of information of the Greek view of anything—certainly by the Hellenistic period—is their copious literary output, so you might expect that a book like this would be sufficiently up a philologist's street that even an Englishman could pull it off. As it turns out: not so. Though Stoneman provides enough keywords for an interested reader to know where to begin their own research (mainly the names of Ctesias and Megasthenes), he only ever engages with any texts themselves in the most roundabout way, citing other people's opinions with wild disregard for the credibility of those opinions and creating a chronological and thematic muddle that takes up a lot of paper but contains stunningly little substance. When he does try to provide historical context for those Greek authors, it's immediately apparent he's fundamentally incapable of interpreting the work of actual historians and archaeologists, being unable even to begin to distinguish mainstream or plausible claims from outright fringe or at least very speculative ones (possibly the low point of this is when he casually claims Berossus wrote about Noah, which was a fashionable confusion in the 1600s), and though it would be going too far to accuse Stoneman of nostalgia for the British Empire, it's certainly true that being steeped in that environment for so long leads him to project an anachronistic racism onto both the Greeks and the Indians.
Most impressive to me, though, is the etymological trivia he peppers throughout the book, possibly in an attempt to demonstrate that philologists don't have to play second fiddle to linguists: as far as I can tell, every single etymology given is wrong in some meaningful way. If I hadn't already interacted with people like Stoneman before, I'd think the entire thing an elaborate prank.
I don't think British people should be allowed to write about India and I don't think British classicists should be allowed to write about Greece. Burn the whole thing down and start over.
(Two stars instead of one because Stoneman can't help being born in England and I don't think he was trying to make this book as impenetrable as possible to discourage readers and consequently criticism, which is at least something.)