Occasionally, very rarely, in fact, one reads a book so powerful that it is impossible to review, at least until the dust that has caused its scattered disturbance begins to settle. It can happen when something causes anger, disgust, astonishing admiration, or pure emotion. And it’s not often that such a book is in the nonfiction section, even rarer that it can be pulled off the shelves labeled Economic History.
But The Anarchy by William Dalrymple is such a book. Anarchy should be more literally titled The Company, since it presents the story of a single business entity, expressed in the form of a biography of a being that had a life of its own. The title conveys the author’s final judgment on this entity, but, given the detail of its history, it is probably an understatement, even generous in its acknowledgment.
The book tells the story of the East India Company, the British one, not the Dutch one, not the French one. Surely there are similar corporate biographies elsewhere. They may even exist, but we can be sure that the impact, while possibly qualitatively similar, would be quantitatively less significant. The bare and unvarnished facts of this company’s history begin with its founding in the City of London in the late 16th century as a joint stock company by a group of investors. It grew through its involvement in the spice trade and slavery in the 17th century, before achieving near-imperial status in the 18th century, when it effectively ruled India. It continued to expand in the 19th century until its mid-century implosion, when its sheer size brought it down, after it failed to cope with the consequences of the Indian Mutiny, which its own practices and policies arguably had caused. The book’s title, Anarchy, clearly indicates the author’s position that this group was morally and economically a different kind of entity than a business, but the work is far from controversial. The term ‘company’ suggests at least some level of organization, cooperation or community. But, as Adam Smith pointed out in The Wealth of Nations, the defining characteristics of this enterprise were personal gain, corruption, war, violence, and political intrigue, always aimed at furthering its own already monopolistic position. . I underestimate
In fact, William Dalrymple makes little use of Smith’s judgment of the company’s activity, even though it fits perfectly with the characterization he offers. It is nothing less than a strength of his analysis that secondary sources of criticism, such as Smith’s, are largely ignored. Throughout, William Dalrymple relies on primary sources that relate directly to the company’s dealings in British politics, Indian politics, and international trade. Listing such areas of activity might suggest that an air of legitimacy surrounds this corporate presence, but rest assured this company was involved in mass murder, assassination, exploitation, speculation, deception, and the list could become a gallery of transgression. of rogues . People who doubt this analysis may recall Smith’s published opinion in 1770 that this, the only multinational corporation in existence at the time, represented the anathema of free trade, competition, or economic health, and the epitome of corruption, deception and bribery. and this from the person who extolled the concept of free trade.
Two particular points lodge in the memory after reading this book. The first is a single number, a medium. There was a time, in the early 19th century, when half of Britain’s wealth (there were no GDP figures then, of course) was derived from the activity of this company. They were selling drugs in China at the time and it was lucrative, even though they had to fight wars against the Chinese state to keep the right to do so. The second is the role the company played in the creation, because that may be the only word, of the Bengal famine, which was the largest recorded famine in Indian history. Let’s ignore the firing of people with cannons, double dealing and cheating, along with the expected naked exploitation and personal speculation, all of which also had their impact on UK politics and economics.
Anyone who thinks this might be a dry, overly detailed, dry analysis of history should ignore their fears and be enlightened by this book. Anarchy is a full disclosure of colonial history, the origins of wealth in our colonial societies, and the consequences for the colonies. It should be read by all, especially those who can admit even a residual pride in Britain’s imperial past.
