This ambitious, hefty history of India under British rule is meant to appeal to general readers while maintaining academic standards of scholarship. It largely succeeds on both counts. The Chaos of Empire is engagingly written, its strong narrative thread interspersed with vivid character sketches and sustained by a forceful central argument—that British rule was chaotic and harmful to the interests of Indians. In making his case, Jon Wilson draws on a rich array of archival and other primary sources as well as the immense secondary literature on the subject, including quite recent publications. The result is an informed and compelling introduction to the history of British India.

The book begins with the arrival of the first British merchants in Mughal-ruled India and ends with the collapse of the Raj and its repercussions. Wilson touches on all the standard topics, from Plassey through the 1857 Rebellion to Partition, but he invariably brings fresh perspectives and insights to these otherwise familiar subjects. He also devotes attention to a host of lesser-known events and individuals, such as the Marathas’ naval war against the British; the public works projects carried out by the evangelical irrigation engineer Arthur Cotton; and the tragic career of Sayyid Mahmood, one of the first Indian high court judges. Almost every page offers an unexpected or illuminating detail. In his account of the Delhi Durbar of 1903, for example, Wilson notes that the notoriously fastidious Lord Curzon not only made sure the spectacle was filmed, but also told the film crews where to position their cameras. It is the sort of detail that speaks volumes about Curzon as stage manager of a ceremonial Raj.

The main theme threading through this rich historical narrative is the insistence that the grandiose imperial posturing by figures like Curzon was empty of genuine achievements. From the start, the British exhibited “the small-minded psychology of the embattled bully,” their rule marked by “fits of rage and fear” (pp. 75–76, 100). Even with “the emergence of a new kind of British power in India” after 1857, “based not on violence against people but the capacity to shape the physical environment,” Wilson insists that the roads and railways, bridges and canals, and other infrastructural improvements had less to do with economic aims than the “British attempt to shore up their shaky grip on power” (p. 268). He concludes the book with the declaration that “British power was exercised sporadically. It was driven by a succession of short-term visceral passions…. It created chaos” (p. 481). Whatever one thinks of this argument, it begs the question of whether this sense of insecurity and proclivity for violence was an innate feature of the British personality, a product of the particular challenges the British faced in India, or a characteristic of imperialism writ large.

Wilson's decidedly post-imperial interpretation is conjoined to a methodology that resembles, oddly enough, the very approach employed by those whose pro-imperial sympathies he rejects. His history is limited almost exclusively to men, and these men are almost exclusively members of the British and Indian elites who jockeyed for power. While Wilson may have felt that this “great man” approach was more likely to appeal to general readers, it comes at a cost: peasants, women, Dalits, and other large and largely powerless groups whose roles and experiences have been brought to the fore in recent years by social and cultural historians remain marginal to Wilson's account. Even well-known female activists like Pandita Ramabai and Sarojini Naidu garner no notice.

Nor does Wilson devote much attention to British India in the wider world. He does not mention its crucial role in the British economic penetration of China. He has little to say about the large numbers of Indian merchants, indentured laborers, and other economic migrants who established their presence across the empire. His startling statement that “before 1914, India played little significant role in Britain's projection of power overseas” (p. 390) ignores the repeated use of Indian forces in military campaigns from China to West Africa. And he gives his readers no hint of the fact that British India became a sub-imperial power in its own right, its influence extending from Southeast Asia through the Persian Gulf to East Africa. Wilson focuses with single-minded intensity on the subcontinent itself.

Any historian who tells a story as complex and contested as Britain's three-and-a-half-century-long imperial engagement with India and Indians must necessarily be selective about the themes and topics he or she addresses. While it is possible to question some of the choices Wilson has made, it is important to acknowledge and appreciate what he has accomplished. This informative and insightful narrative can be read with profit and pleasure by specialists and generalists alike, ensuring it a prominent place on the shelves devoted to the history of British India.