Bloomsbury; 576 pages; $35 and £30.of his new book William Dalrymple notes that it is “always a mistake to read history backwards”, and to assume that what happened was inevitable. Readers are unlikely to make that mistake with his subject—the dramatic rise of the East India Company —a tale so improbable as almost to defy belief.A private company granted a monopoly on trade with Asia, thelaunched its first expedition in 1601.
Like other modern historians, Mr Dalrymple repudiates romanticised conceptions of colonialism. But in this case, he is not breaking new ground: accounts of the’s murderous blend of commerce and government are nothing new. Adam Smith called it a “strange absurdity”. Edmund Burke accused it of “cruelties unheard of”. The first page of John Keay’s history, published in 1991, describes its venal reputation.
What stands out is rather his sympathetic portrayal of India’s embattled Mughal rulers. He renders a poignant depiction of Shah Alam, an emperor in name but for much of his life a puppet of the, who expressed himself through beautiful poetry. The book’s major omission is a full analysis of the Asian trading system centred around Bengal—the role of commercial agents who acted autonomously from the company; the position of Calcutta as an entrepot; and the strong links between the.
alllibertynews The EIC was owned by the Rothschilds, who also happen to own The Economist. Are they trying to tell us something?
helluva history
Astonishing? Why’s it astonishing?
Please do elaborate Opiums War so the Western public may begin to comprehend the importance of territory integrity to Chinese people.
Thanks to Charles 2
Corporate Greed is killing us.
I saw Taboo, great show
He called them a 'strange absurdity' because the entire region of India has a 'strange absurdity', but the government is so overbuyed by it that they send a lot of people to the west and make them feel like they are 'completely imposing'.