Review by Choice Review
Wilson (King's College, Univ. of London) has written this history of the British in India for the wider public, siding with postcolonial historians (especially South Asians, whether in South Asia or in the West) seeking to debunk the whole idea of the imperial mission and British rule in India. He does so at length and offers colorful vignettes of people such as Robert Clive, Warren Hastings, and Thomas Macaulay. Wilson is right to debunk the claims of apologists of empire, but the best and most erudite historians of the British Empire, from John S. Galbraith and Jack Gallagher and now to Bernard Porter and Peter Marshall, as well as John Darwin in The Empire Project (CH, Apr'10, 47-4636) and Unfinished Empire (CH, Aug'13, 50-6957), have always pointed out how creating and running empire was an ad hoc affair done on the cheap with minimal input from Indigenes, even though they were relied upon heavily. When it was no longer profitable or useful, the whole edifice of empire was dismantled. As a result, Wilson's argument often smacks of attacks on a straw man. Apart from the typos, the volume is attractively produced with fine plates, and it is a brisk read. Summing Up: Highly recommended. Public libraries and general collections. --Roger D. Long, Eastern Michigan University
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
Wilson, senior lecturer in history at King's College London, ambitiously challenges the image of the British Raj as stable, unitary, and fully sovereign over the millions of Indians it claimed to govern. Tracing the history of British power in India from the founding of the East India Company and its claim to monopoly power over Asian trade to the cusp of Indian independence in 1947, Wilson paints a picture of an unruly, fragmented empire riven by violence and unrest. British officials shunned open engagement with Indian rulers, preferring to sequester themselves in Europeanized enclaves and churn out reams of paperwork that served to cover up the messy realities of British rule in India. Wilson's major intervention is to resist the temptation to take the Raj at face value. "In reality," he writes, "the British proclaimed their strength and purpose when their authority seemed the most fragile," rendering largely meaningless historians' preoccupation with analyzing the rhetoric of the civilizing mission and other justifications for empire. Puncturing myths about the Raj, Wilson may understate the material and epistemological transformations occasioned by imperial rule by limiting his definition of power to political power, but his bold claim is ably supported by deep research. (Nov.) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Library Journal Review
Most histories of the Raj emphasize either Britain's ruthlessness in ruling India or its economic exploitation of the subcontinent. According to Wilson (history, King's Coll. London), Britain didn't realize much economic benefit out of India, its oppressive policies born out of the fear that they would lose power. Britain didn't rule India because the colony made Britain wealthy or was important for the maintenance of British power elsewhere in the world. Rather Britain governed because a small number of British imperial bureaucrats and rulers wanted to maintain their privilege. Wilson asserts that Britain never really maintained sovereign authority over India and depended upon the country's structures and people to sustain what he calls an illusion of power. Militating against this thesis is the significant role that India played for Britain in World Wars I and II, which Wilson glosses over quickly. In fact, the book suffers from Wilson's decision not to examine the place of India in the larger British Empire, instead focusing exclusively on the nature of Britain's hold on the area. -VERDICT Wilson's prose is rather dry, and most readers will be better served by Barbara and Thomas Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India.-Michael Farrell, Reformed -Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL © Copyright 2016. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Kirkus Book Review
A British expert in South Asian politics tackles the history of Britains conquest of India.As Wilson (History/Kings Coll. London) shows, while India may have been subdued, it was never really conquered. A people who existed in an age of negotiation and open discussion would gladly have adapted to the East India Companys needs, as long as it suited them. India was a culture of diverse societies. The Mughals fostered harmony, not homogeneity, were careful not to impose the will of a centralized state, and felt that enemies could always become friends. The British were really policemen and railroad builders. Rather than intending to settle the subcontinent, they were there simply to make money. Though the East India Company was interested in trade only, not political power, they still ruled and did so without engaging citizens. They made paper a surrogate for authority, reducing lives to lines in an account. It was not until Queen Victoria was named Empress in 1876 that India was actually united with England. Wisely, Wilson focuses on the view from the Indian side rather than that of the Raj, and he carefully and thoroughly describes the people of India, their ties to Persia, and their social and political lives. The history before the English is intriguing, as towns and regions were separate but equal. Though enlightening and clearly written, the detail-dense narrative would be a great deal easier to follow with maps showing the political changes during the time period. Wilson deals forcefully with those who supposedly formed India, including Thomas Macaulay, who spent three years in India in the 1830s writing a code of penal law without ever engaging a local; Robert Clive, aka Clive of India, who served as commander in chief of British India; and Warren Hastings, the head of the Supreme Council of Bengal in the 1770s and 80s. A rich, somewhat overlong history that should prove fascinating for students of Indian history. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
