The Anarchy

The Anarchy Plot Summary

Introduction

In the twilight of the 16th century, as Queen Elizabeth I's England sought to challenge Spanish and Portuguese dominance of global trade, a group of London merchants gathered to petition for a royal charter. Their seemingly modest commercial venture would evolve into history's most audacious corporate experiment: a trading company that conquered an empire. The transformation of the East India Company from a spice-trading venture into the ruler of the Indian subcontinent represents one of history's most remarkable institutional metamorphoses, blurring the boundaries between commerce and conquest, profit and power. This extraordinary tale illuminates timeless questions about the relationship between economic and political power. How did a joint-stock company come to control territories containing a fifth of humanity? What happens when profit-seeking corporations exercise sovereign powers? And what lessons does this corporate imperialism offer for our own age of powerful multinational entities? Through vivid portraits of ambitious traders, puppet rulers, and resistance leaders, we witness how commercial ambition gradually subjugated one of the world's richest civilizations. For anyone interested in the origins of global capitalism, the nature of corporate power, or the foundations of modern India, this story provides essential insights into how our world was shaped by the pursuit of commerce backed by conquest.

Chapter 1: Trading Ambitions: The Birth of a Merchant Empire (1600-1756)

On December 31, 1600, Queen Elizabeth I granted a royal charter to "The Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies," bestowing upon them exclusive rights to England's trade with the East. This modest beginning—218 subscribers raising approximately £72,000—gave no hint that the East India Company would eventually rule territories larger than Britain itself. The Company pioneered the joint-stock model, allowing investors to purchase shares rather than fund individual voyages, creating a revolutionary form of business organization that could accumulate capital and outlive its founders. When the Company established its first trading post at Surat in 1613, India was dominated by the powerful Mughal Empire under Emperor Jahangir. Far from being a primitive land awaiting European enlightenment, Mughal India produced approximately 25% of global GDP and boasted sophisticated manufacturing, particularly in textiles. The Company's early representatives, like Sir Thomas Roe who visited Jahangir's court in 1615, were mere supplicants before Indian power, seeking trading privileges through diplomacy rather than force. The Company gradually established additional trading posts at Madras (1639), Bombay (1668), and Calcutta (1690), but these remained commercial enclaves with minimal territorial ambitions. The Company's early operations in India were characterized by adaptation rather than domination. Its servants learned local languages, adopted Indian customs, and often took Indian wives or mistresses. The Company operated within existing political and commercial structures, paying duties to local rulers and competing with Indian merchants on relatively equal terms. As one Company official observed, "We are a nation of interlopers in the East," acknowledging their dependent position within Asian trading networks. This period saw the development of the distinctive hybrid culture of Anglo-Indian life, with Company servants adopting Indian dress, food, and social practices. The political landscape began to shift dramatically in the early 18th century with the decline of the Mughal Empire. Emperor Aurangzeb's death in 1707 triggered succession crises and provincial rebellions that fragmented imperial authority. Into this power vacuum stepped various contenders: regional governors declaring independence, the Maratha Confederacy expanding from western India, and European trading companies increasingly willing to intervene in local politics. The French East India Company under Joseph François Dupleix pioneered the use of European-trained Indian troops (sepoys) and direct involvement in succession disputes, demonstrating how commercial companies could leverage military advantage for political gain. By the 1740s, the stage was set for a fundamental transformation of the Company's role in India. The Anglo-French rivalry during the War of Austrian Succession (1740-48) spilled over into India, with both companies supporting rival claimants to Indian thrones. Robert Clive, originally a Company clerk, emerged as a military leader during these conflicts, foreshadowing the Company's shift from commerce to conquest. As the Mughal Empire continued to fragment, the Company's servants increasingly saw opportunities not just for trade but for territorial control, setting the stage for the dramatic events that would follow at Plassey in 1757. The Company's evolution during this period reflected broader changes in European imperialism. What began as commercial outposts gradually developed military capabilities and political ambitions. Yet this transformation was not the result of a grand imperial design but rather of opportunistic responses to local conditions and competition. The Company's servants, seeking profits and personal advancement, laid the foundations for an empire almost accidentally, creating precedents and institutions that would eventually reshape the subcontinent.

Chapter 2: Plassey's Watershed: From Commerce to Conquest (1757-1765)

The pivotal moment in the East India Company's transformation came on June 23, 1757, on the mango groves of Plassey in Bengal. There, Robert Clive led approximately 3,000 Company troops against the 50,000-strong army of Siraj ud-Daula, the young Nawab of Bengal. The battle itself was brief and almost anticlimactic—most of the Nawab's forces, commanded by the treacherous general Mir Jafar, stood idle due to a secret pact with Clive. By day's end, Siraj had fled (later to be captured and executed), and the Company had effectively gained control of Bengal, India's richest province with an annual revenue exceeding that of the British Crown. The road to Plassey began a year earlier when Siraj, suspicious of growing British power, attacked and captured the Company's settlement at Calcutta. The infamous "Black Hole" incident, where European prisoners allegedly died in cramped confinement (though modern historians question the traditional account's scale), provided a pretext for Clive's expedition from Madras. Rather than simply restoring the status quo, Clive and his superiors saw an opportunity for a more fundamental power shift. They conspired with disaffected elements in Siraj's court, particularly the powerful banker Jagat Seth and the military commander Mir Jafar, promising to install the latter as Nawab in exchange for enormous concessions. The financial rewards of Plassey were staggering. Mir Jafar paid approximately £2.5 million (equivalent to hundreds of millions today) to the Company and its officials from the Bengal treasury. Clive personally received £234,000, making him one of the wealthiest men in Europe. This massive transfer of wealth represented what contemporaries called "the shaking of the pagoda tree"—a period of unbridled looting that transformed the Company's servants from modest clerks into "nabobs" (a corruption of "nawab") returning to Britain with enormous fortunes. As Ghulam Hussain Khan, a contemporary Indian historian, observed: "The English swept Bengal with the broom of plunder." The Company consolidated its position through the Battle of Buxar in 1764, where Major Hector Munro defeated the combined forces of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, the Nawab of Awadh, and Mir Qasim (who had replaced Mir Jafar). This victory led to the Treaty of Allahabad in 1765, where Shah Alam granted the Company the diwani (revenue collection rights) for Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. This arrangement created a "dual system" where the Company controlled finances while maintaining the fiction of Mughal sovereignty—what historian Robert Travers called "an empire of fiction." The Company now had both the legal right and the military power to extract wealth from territories containing 20 million people. The consequences of this transition from trade to rule were profound. The Company, designed to maximize profits for shareholders, now governed millions of subjects. Its servants, trained as merchants rather than administrators, struggled to manage complex revenue systems. The fundamental contradiction between commercial interests and governmental responsibilities would plague the Company throughout its rule. As Edmund Burke later observed in his prosecution of Warren Hastings: "The East India Company did not seem to be merely a company formed for the extension of British commerce, but in reality a delegation of the whole power and sovereignty of this kingdom sent into the East." Plassey and its aftermath established a template for Company expansion that would be repeated across India: identify local divisions, form alliances with disaffected elements, overthrow existing rulers, and install compliant replacements while extracting massive financial concessions. What began at Plassey would culminate a century later with Company control over most of the subcontinent—the foundation of the British Raj. The transformation from commerce to conquest was complete, creating a new form of imperialism—rule by corporation—that would influence colonial projects around the world.

Chapter 3: The Bengal Catastrophe: Famine, Exploitation and Resistance (1765-1780)

The Company's acquisition of the diwani rights in 1765 gave it control over Bengal's vast revenues but little understanding of how to govern effectively. This administrative inexperience, combined with unchecked greed, led to one of history's most devastating man-made disasters: the Bengal Famine of 1770. When drought struck in 1769, traditional safeguards that might have mitigated its effects had been dismantled by Company policies. As food shortages spread, Company officials continued to enforce revenue collection at pre-famine levels, even increasing demands in some areas. They also allowed private traders—often Company servants themselves—to hoard grain for profit. The result was catastrophic: approximately one-third of Bengal's population—perhaps 10 million people—perished from starvation and disease. The Company's response to this humanitarian disaster revealed the fundamental contradiction of corporate rule. While millions died, tax collection continued unabated. As one official coldly reported to London: "Notwithstanding the great severity of the late famine and the great reduction of people thereby, some increase has been made in the settlements." In London, Company shareholders, relieved to see revenue maintained, voted themselves an increased dividend of 12.5 percent. This callous prioritization of profit over human life epitomized what Edmund Burke would later call "geographical morality"—the suspension of ethical standards when operating far from home. The economic exploitation of Bengal took multiple forms beyond tax collection. The Company established monopolies over key commodities like salt, betel nut, and tobacco, forcing producers to sell at artificially low prices while consumers paid inflated rates. Company servants engaged in private trade, using their official positions to secure unfair advantages over local merchants. The textile industry, once Bengal's pride, was particularly hard hit as weavers were forced to work exclusively for the Company at below-market rates. Many artisans cut off their thumbs rather than submit to these conditions. As Warren Hastings observed: "The manufactures find no encouragement... and the manufacturer, when he has been paid the price of his labor, still finds a demand upon him for rent, duties, and impositions." This period saw the first significant resistance to Company rule. Mir Qasim, who replaced Mir Jafar as Nawab in 1760, attempted to assert independence by abolishing internal trade duties for all merchants, challenging the Company's unfair advantages. When the Company responded by deposing him, Mir Qasim allied with the Mughal Emperor and the Nawab of Awadh, leading to the Battle of Buxar. Though defeated militarily, this alliance represented the first coordinated attempt to check Company power. Meanwhile, religious leaders like Majnu Shah led peasant uprisings against oppressive taxation, while zamindars (landholders) organized armed resistance to new revenue demands. These diverse forms of resistance, though ultimately unsuccessful, demonstrated that Company rule was never uncontested. The Bengal catastrophe eventually provoked reform efforts both in India and Britain. Warren Hastings, appointed as the first Governor-General in 1773, attempted to rationalize administration by establishing revenue courts, codifying legal procedures, and regulating private trade. In London, reports of corruption and mismanagement led to parliamentary inquiries and the Regulating Act of 1773, which established a Supreme Court in Calcutta and required the Company to submit political correspondence to the government. These reforms, however, addressed symptoms rather than the fundamental problem: a trading company was structurally unsuited to governing millions of people. By 1780, the Company had established the basic patterns of colonial exploitation that would characterize British rule in India for nearly two centuries. The "drain of wealth" from India to Britain, first identified by Indian economic thinkers like Dadabhai Naoroji, had begun in earnest. The Company had pioneered a system where political power served commercial interests, where territorial expansion funded shareholder dividends, and where millions of subjects were reduced to sources of revenue rather than citizens with rights. This period laid bare the inherent contradictions of corporate imperialism that would eventually lead to the Company's downfall.

Chapter 4: Military Dominance: Defeating Indian Powers (1780-1799)

By 1780, the East India Company faced its most serious challenge since acquiring Bengal. A coalition of Indian powers—the Marathas, Mysore, and the Nizam of Hyderabad—formed what became known as the "Triple Alliance," aimed at expelling the foreign intruders. The military genius behind Mysore, Haidar Ali, invaded the Carnatic (the Company territory around Madras) with 100,000 men, including cavalry, rocket artillery, and infantry trained on European lines. On September 10, 1780, at Pollilur, Haidar and his son Tipu Sultan inflicted one of the worst defeats in British military history, destroying a Company force under Colonel William Baillie. Of 86 British officers, 36 were killed and 34 captured. This catastrophe shook British confidence to its core, demonstrating that Indian powers could master and even improve upon European military techniques. The Company's response to this crisis revealed both its resilience and its ruthlessness. Warren Hastings, finally free from the obstructionism of his Council after wounding his chief opponent Philip Francis in a duel, mobilized resources from Bengal to support Madras. He dispatched veteran commander Sir Eyre Coote, who managed to check Haidar's advance at Porto Novo in 1781. Simultaneously, Hastings broke the Triple Alliance through diplomacy, signing a separate peace with the Marathas at Salbai in 1782. After Haidar's death in December 1782, his son Tipu Sultan continued resistance, eventually forcing the Company to sign the Treaty of Mangalore in 1784—the only equal treaty the Company ever signed with an Indian power. This period demonstrated that despite its growing strength, the Company could still be forced to negotiate rather than dictate terms. The 1780s and early 1790s saw the Company consolidate its administration under the leadership of Lord Cornwallis, appointed Governor-General in 1786. A professional soldier and aristocrat, Cornwallis implemented significant reforms, including the Permanent Settlement of 1793, which fixed land revenue rates in Bengal and created a new class of zamindars (landowners) loyal to British interests. He established a professional civil service, excluding Indians from senior positions, and separated commercial and administrative functions. These reforms laid the foundation for a more systematic imperial administration, though one increasingly characterized by racial exclusion. As Cornwallis himself stated: "Every native of India, I verily believe, is corrupt." The final elimination of Mysore as an independent power came under Richard Wellesley, who arrived as Governor-General in 1798 with imperial ambitions. Portraying Tipu Sultan as a dangerous ally of revolutionary France, Wellesley orchestrated the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War in 1799. The Company's forces, including troops commanded by Wellesley's younger brother Arthur (later the Duke of Wellington), besieged Tipu's capital at Seringapatam. The city fell on May 4, 1799, and Tipu died fighting at the breach. The Company annexed half of Mysore's territory and installed a compliant child ruler in the remainder. This victory removed the most formidable obstacle to Company expansion in southern India and yielded enormous plunder, including Tipu's famous mechanical tiger, which was shipped to London as a symbol of British triumph. The defeat of Tipu Sultan represented more than just a military victory; it marked the elimination of the most significant modernizing ruler in late 18th-century India. Unlike many Indian princes who failed to adapt to changing military technology, Tipu had developed advanced rocket artillery, established new industries, attempted to build a modern navy, and sought international alliances. His defeat demonstrated that even the most sophisticated resistance to Company power could be overcome through superior resources and diplomatic isolation. The Company's victory at Seringapatam cleared the path for further expansion and established a pattern of eliminating independent centers of power that might serve as alternatives to British rule.

Chapter 5: Imperial Consolidation: Delhi's Fall and Mughal Subjugation (1799-1805)

Following the defeat of Tipu Sultan, Governor-General Richard Wellesley turned his attention to the Marathas, the last major Indian power capable of challenging British dominance. The Maratha Confederacy, a loose alliance of powerful chiefs including Scindia, Holkar, the Gaekwad, and the Bhonsle, controlled much of central and western India. Their forces, often trained by European officers, represented the most formidable military challenge to Company expansion. Wellesley's strategy for dealing with the Marathas exemplified his broader approach to establishing British paramountcy: the "subsidiary alliance" system. Under this arrangement, Indian rulers were forced to accept and pay for Company troops stationed in their territories, surrender their foreign policy to Company control, and accept a British Resident at their courts. As Wellesley himself described it, this system created "a complete reform in the military establishments of our allies, without any hazard to our own power." The opportunity to implement this strategy with the Marathas came in 1802 when the Peshwa (the nominal head of the Maratha Confederacy) Baji Rao II was defeated by rival Maratha chiefs and fled to British protection. In December 1802, he signed the Treaty of Bassein, accepting a subsidiary alliance in exchange for being restored to his capital at Pune. This treaty, which effectively subordinated the Peshwa to Company authority, was seen by other Maratha leaders as a surrender of independence and led to the Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803-1805). The conflict featured some of the hardest fighting the Company had faced, particularly at the Battle of Assaye on September 23, 1803, where Arthur Wellesley's outnumbered forces narrowly prevailed against Maratha artillery in what he later described as his toughest battle, more challenging than Waterloo. The most symbolically significant moment of this period came on September 14, 1803, when General Gerard Lake's forces captured Delhi, the historic capital of the Mughal Empire. There they "liberated" the blind Emperor Shah Alam II, who had been living under Maratha control since 1788. The Emperor, now in his seventies and having endured decades of humiliation, gratefully placed himself under Company protection. This moment represented a profound shift in the symbolic order of Indian politics. The Company now possessed the person of the Emperor, the nominal sovereign of all India. Though Shah Alam retained his title and received a generous pension, real power had passed to the Company. As Wellesley wrote triumphantly to London: "The King of Delhi is now under our protection; his Majesty has seated himself in the arms of the Company." The conquest of Delhi transformed the Company's status in Indian eyes. Previously seen as merely one among several powers competing for influence, it now occupied the imperial center. Possession of the Emperor gave the Company a veneer of legitimacy that no other European power in India had achieved. Company coins were struck in the Emperor's name, and its officials received Mughal titles, creating the fiction that they ruled as delegates of the Mughal throne rather than as foreign conquerors. This arrangement allowed the Company to present itself as the protector of traditional authority while systematically undermining it—what historian Bernard Cohn called "colonialism through the command of ceremony." By 1805, the Company controlled directly or indirectly most of the subcontinent south of the Punjab. This expansion alarmed the directors in London, who feared the costs and risks of such extensive conquests. Wellesley was eventually recalled for exceeding his authority, but his aggressive policies had established the Company as the paramount power in India. The remaining independent states, like the Sikh kingdom of Ranjit Singh in the Punjab, now had to formulate their policies with reference to overwhelming British power. The Company had completed its transformation from a trading enterprise to the dominant territorial power in South Asia, controlling an empire far larger than Britain itself.

Chapter 6: Corporate Governance: The Paradox of Private Imperialism (1805-1857)

The half-century between Richard Wellesley's recall in 1805 and the Great Uprising of 1857 represented the mature phase of Company rule in India. This period was characterized by a fundamental paradox: a commercial corporation exercising sovereign powers over millions of subjects. The Company had evolved into what historian Philip Stern calls a "company-state"—a hybrid entity that combined elements of both a business enterprise and a government. This institutional anomaly created persistent tensions between commercial interests and imperial responsibilities, between shareholders' demands for dividends and subjects' needs for governance. The Company's governance system developed through pragmatic adaptation rather than coherent design. After the acquisition of the diwani in 1765, the Company initially maintained a "dual system" where it collected revenue but left administration to native officials. This arrangement proved disastrous during the Bengal Famine of 1770-71, leading to more direct administration. Under Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis, the Company created a civil service, established courts, codified laws, and attempted to regulate trade abuses. The Permanent Settlement of 1793 transformed land revenue collection in Bengal by creating a class of zamindars (landlords) with hereditary rights to collect taxes from peasants. This system, intended to create a landed aristocracy loyal to British interests while ensuring stable revenue, fundamentally altered rural social structures. The Company's rule was increasingly characterized by racial exclusion and cultural distance. If early Company servants had often adopted Indian customs and formed relationships with Indian women, by the early 19th century, a rigid separation had developed. Lord Cornwallis had explicitly barred Indians from senior positions, establishing a pattern of discrimination that would persist throughout British rule. The arrival of increasing numbers of British women created segregated social spaces and discouraged intermarriage. Evangelical Christianity gained influence, leading to missionary activity and moral crusades against practices like sati (widow immolation). These cultural interventions generated resentment among Indians who saw them as attacks on traditional customs and religious practices. Economic exploitation remained central to Company operations. India was increasingly integrated into global markets on unfavorable terms, exporting raw materials like cotton, jute, and indigo while importing British manufactured goods, particularly textiles. This reversal of traditional trade patterns—India had previously exported finished textiles—devastated local industries. The Company maintained monopolies on key commodities and used its political power to shape economic policies in British interests. As one Company official observed, "The primary object of Great Britain, let it be acknowledged, was rather to benefit herself than India." The Company's territorial expansion continued through a combination of direct annexation and the "subsidiary alliance" system. Under Lord Dalhousie (Governor-General 1848-1856), the "doctrine of lapse" was aggressively applied, allowing the Company to annex states where rulers died without natural heirs. This policy led to the annexation of Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur, and ultimately Awadh (Oudh) in 1856. These acquisitions, particularly Awadh with its ancient aristocracy and cultural significance, generated deep resentment. The Company's territorial ambitions also extended beyond India's borders, leading to disastrous interventions in Afghanistan and expansionist wars in Burma and Punjab. The growing contradiction between the Company's commercial origins and its imperial role eventually became untenable. Parliament gradually increased its oversight through a series of Charter Acts (1813, 1833, 1853), each reducing the Company's commercial privileges while maintaining its administrative functions. The 1833 Act ended the Company's commercial activities entirely, transforming it into a purely administrative body governing on behalf of the Crown. This curious arrangement—a trading company that no longer traded—reflected the British government's reluctance to assume direct responsibility for India while still controlling its policies. The fiction of Company rule allowed Britain to maintain an empire at arm's length, benefiting from its resources while minimizing accountability.

Chapter 7: Legacy of Anarchy: Lessons from History's Most Powerful Corporation

The East India Company's remarkable transformation from trading venture to imperial ruler offers profound lessons about the relationship between commerce and power, about the nature of imperialism, and about the dangers of unregulated corporate authority. At its height, this private enterprise controlled territory containing 20% of the world's population, maintained an army twice the size of Britain's, and generated revenues exceeding those of many European states. Its rise and fall represents one of history's most extraordinary institutional experiments—rule by corporation—with consequences that continue to shape our world. The Company's legacy in South Asia was profound and contradictory. It unified the subcontinent administratively to an unprecedented degree, creating centralized institutions of governance that would form the skeleton of the modern Indian state. Its introduction of Western education, legal concepts, and administrative procedures created hybrid systems that combined European and Indian elements. The railways, telegraphs, and postal services it established connected the subcontinent physically and communicatively. Yet these developments served imperial rather than indigenous interests. The Company systematically extracted wealth from India, reversed centuries of favorable trade balances, and subordinated local economic development to metropolitan needs. It exacerbated religious and caste divisions through policies of categorization and differential treatment. Most fundamentally, it replaced indigenous forms of governance with alien institutions designed primarily to facilitate resource extraction rather than public welfare. For the modern world, the East India Company offers a cautionary tale about the dangers of corporate power operating without adequate oversight. The Company pioneered techniques that resonate with contemporary corporate behavior: it captured regulatory institutions, externalized costs while privatizing profits, used asymmetric information to manipulate markets, and employed lobbying and bribery to influence policy. Its history reveals how commercial entities can evolve into political actors when profit-seeking aligns with territorial control. As corporations today grow increasingly powerful relative to nation-states, the Company's example highlights the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between commercial and governmental functions. Its eventual nationalization after the 1857 Uprising demonstrated that even the most powerful corporation could be tamed when its actions became too egregious to ignore—a lesson that remains relevant in our age of global corporate influence.

Summary

The East India Company's transformation from a modest trading venture to the ruler of the Indian subcontinent represents one of history's most remarkable institutional metamorphoses. This extraordinary journey illuminates the complex relationship between commerce and conquest, revealing how a profit-seeking corporation gradually acquired the trappings of sovereignty. Beginning with trading posts established by royal charter, the Company exploited the fragmentation of Mughal authority to gain territorial footholds, most decisively at Plassey in 1757. Its rule combined commercial exploitation with administrative innovation, creating systems of governance that served shareholder interests while reshaping Indian society. Despite facing significant resistance from powers like Mysore and the Marathas, the Company's superior resources and divide-and-rule strategies ultimately prevailed, culminating in the symbolic capture of Delhi and the Mughal Emperor in 1803. The Company's legacy offers crucial lessons for our contemporary world of powerful multinational corporations and weakening state regulation. It demonstrates how commercial entities can evolve into political actors when profit motives align with territorial control, how corporate power can capture regulatory institutions, and how economic exploitation can be disguised as progress and development. The eventual nationalization of the Company after the 1857 Uprising shows that even the most powerful corporations can be brought under democratic control when their abuses become too flagrant to ignore. As we navigate the challenges of global capitalism and corporate influence in the 21st century, the East India Company's history reminds us that the boundaries between public and private power must be vigilantly maintained, that commercial interests must be balanced with human welfare, and that imperial projects, however they are disguised, ultimately generate resistance that transforms or destroys them.

About Author

Loading...

William Dalrymple

William Dalrymple was born in Scotland and brought up on the shores of the Firth of Forth. He wrote the highly acclaimed bestseller In Xanadu when he was twenty-two. The book won the 1990 Yorkshire Post Best First Work Award and a Scottish Arts Council Spring Book Award; it was also shortlisted for the John Llewellyn Rhys Memorial Prize.In 1989 Dalrymple moved to Delhi where he lived for six years researching his second book, City of Djinns, which won the 1994 Thomas Cook Travel Book Award and the Sunday Times Young British Writer of the Year Award. From the Holy Mountain, his acclaimed study of the demise of Christianity in its Middle Eastern homeland, was awarded the Scottish Arts Council Autumn Book Award for 1997; it was also shortlisted for the 1998 Thomas Cook Award, the John Llewellyn Rhys Prize and the Duff Cooper Prize. A collection of his writings about India, The Age of Kali, won the French Prix D’Astrolabe in 2005.White Mughals was published in 2003, the book won the Wolfson Prize for History 2003, the Scottish Book of the Year Prize, and was shortlisted for the PEN History Award, the Kiryama Prize and the James Tait Black Memorial Prize.William Dalrymple is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and of the Royal Asiatic Society, and is the founder and co-director of the Jaipur Literature Festival. In 2002 he was awarded the Mungo Park Medal by the Royal Scottish Geographical Society for his ‘outstanding contribution to travel literature’. He wrote and presented the television series Stones of the Raj and Indian Journeys, which won the Grierson Award for Best Documentary Series at BAFTA in 2002. His Radio 4 series on the history of British spirituality and mysticism, The Long Search, won the 2002 Sandford St Martin Prize for Religious Broadcasting and was described by the judges as ‘thrilling in its brilliance... near perfect radio’. In December 2005 his article on the madrasas of Pakistan was awarded the prize for Best Print Article of the Year at the 2005 FPA Media Awards. In June 2006 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Letters honoris causa by the University of St Andrews “for his services to literature and international relations, to broadcasting and understanding”. In 2007, The Last Moghal won the prestigous Duff Cooper Prize for History and Biography. In November 2007, William received an Honourary Doctorate of Letters, honoris causa, from the University of Lucknow University “for his outstanding contribution in literature and history”, and in March 2008 won the James Todd Memorial Prize from the Maharana of Udaipur.William is married to the artist Olivia Fraser, and they have three children. They now live on a farm outside Delhi.

Read more