In The Anarchy William Dalrymple explores the activities of the English East India Company (EEIC) in the context of the colonization of India, paying special attention to military conquest. The narrative is character driven and the book is divided into nine chapters. The first chapter focuses on the establishment of the EEIC and its initial fortunes as well as exploring the political context in India and in the world. Chapters 2 and 3 concentrate on the political environment, personalities, and military developments that led to the military clash between the EEIC and the Mughals—a clash that finally resulted in Robert Clive's victory in the Battle of Plassey (1757), which marked the start of the company's conquest of India. Chapters 4 and 5 explore the challenges of keeping a puppet administration in Bengal and the chaos that resulted. Chapter 6 describes the famine of 1770 and the role the company played in its emergence. Chapter 7 explores the dynastic struggles and attempts to recapture political power and the Peacock Throne of the Mughals. Chapter 8 addresses the disenchantment felt by the British government and public with the EEIC's conduct in India, especially with respect to the 1770 famine as encapsulated in the process with Warren Hastings, former governor of the presidency of Fort William. Chapter 9 explores the unfolding of the Napoleonic Wars in India and the conquest of further Indian regions by the new governor-general, Richard Wellesley, and presents this as the final stage of the company's conquest of India.

The book pays attention predominantly to political and military history and to the role of famous personalities who were involved in the conquest of India on the EEIC's side as well as on the side of the Mughal Empire. The main contribution of The Anarchy is its holistic presentation of the military and political part the company played in the colonization of India. This is a portrayal that is accessible to wide readership, is an engaging read, and is filled with interesting historical facts and anecdotes. Dalrymple's very straightforward depiction of the atrocities, neglect, corruption, and hunger for power of the EEIC is a very valuable and timely reminder of the dark side of corporate histories. Yet, the power of the company is portrayed in an exaggerated manner in three respects: in respect to the power it possessed in India, in respect to its importance in the world economy, and finally, vis-à-vis the British state.

First, the company is portrayed as a very powerful ruler of India, having control over merchants, peasants, and artisans. This is an exaggerated view of the real level of control that it possessed and gives an inaccurate picture of the agency of Indians. Unquestionably the EEIC infringed on the autonomy of the Mughal rulers, to such an extent as to finally make them puppet rulers. It also committed atrocities, either through neglect—as in the case of famines, for example—or directly by encroaching upon the freedoms of the inhabitants. The book recounts stories of Indian artisans, showing them as being subjugated to work for the EEIC on the company's terms, that well illustrate the company officials’ infringement on their freedoms; however, such examples should not be taken as representative of the general level of subjection of artisans. Such a portrayal would demean the agency possessed by Indian artisans, which remained considerable even after the conquest. Scholarship has described the high levels of agency that Indian artisans possessed. Although the EEIC had a monopoly on trading between England and the East Indies, it never became a monopolist on the Indian market. Most artisans had the option to sell their goods either to the company or to the local merchants and they actively took advantage of this, often to detriment of the company, which was frequently unable to receive the quality or quantity of goods demanded. Second, the company's role in the world economy was less significant than Dalrymple alludes to in The Anarchy. With respect to trade volumes and values, trade with the Americas was several times larger than trade between Asia and Britain.

Finally, the problem with portraying the company as an omnipotent corporate body is that it distorts the perception of the importance of the British government and political economy. The corporate conquest did not happen in a vacuum of state power and ideology. A very strong relationship existed between the EEIC and the British state, and in the long run this relationship shaped the company's actions in India to a greater extent than the actions and motivations of individual personalities. That is not to say that critical junctures and celebrated/hated personalities such as Robert Clive made no impression on history. Ultimately, it was the perception of riches, trade advantages, revenues, and competition with other European nations that motivated the British government to extend military and naval assistance to the EEIC and allow the company to form its own army. The government also got its share of the loot, as the company was obliged to pay it £400,000 annually after receiving the Diwani—the right to tax Bengal, Bihar, and Orrisa. Although the EEIC was often not in the economic condition to make this payment annually, it is still a good representation of the links that existed between the two. Two additional facts show that the EEIC was not so powerful. The assumption that the acquisition of the Diwani revenues made it possible for the EEIC to stop importing bullion and instead use these revenues to buy goods in India is not accurate. Most of the Diwani was used for administration and military pursuits, and bullion continued to be necessary for funding export trade even in the eighteenth century. Furthermore, it would have been much more difficult for the company to achieve military successes if the Mughal Empire was less fragmented, if the Mughals had a more stable power base, and if they had a fiscal capacity that would give them more military power.

The Anarchy has undeniable qualities in presenting an engaging display of the opportunistic activities of the EEIC and its role in the colonization of India. The book draws on the fashionable approach of portraying corporations as almighty agents of political and economic power—yet without considering the political-economic context and the role the British government played in facilitating the expansion of the company's political, economic, and military powers. For economic and business historians this is a valuable reminder that corporations have their dark histories. This book is an essential read for anyone interested in the military and political trajectory of the EEIC's power in India. However, the reader will need to be aware of the context of the contemporary system of world economy and trade if he or she is to avoid forming an exaggerated perception of the power of the company.