| 
| Author: William Dalrymple
Publisher: Vintage
Category: Book
List Price: $16.95
Buy New: $10.00
You Save: $6.95 (41%)
New (35) Used (11) from $10.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  40 reviews
Sales Rank: 26617
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 592
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 8 x 5.2 x 1.3
ISBN: 1400078334
Dewey Decimal Number: 954.0317
EAN: 9781400078332
ASIN: 1400078334
Publication Date: March 11, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
 The 1857 Indian Mutiny brought to life April 4, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
Bahadur Shah II (a.k.a. Zafar) was the last of the Indian Mughal emperors and is not given much attention in history texts. The Last Mughal brings to life the richness and artistry along with political intrigue and daily court life during Zafar's rein. As author Dalrymple has used a variety of both British as well as Indian sources, his accounts provide a rich and detailed narrative of events and daily life in Delhi a century and half ago.
The theme around which Dalrymple weaves his narrative is a contemporary one: intolerance for the "other." As Christian evangelical activity increases in India, many of them believe that Britain has been given this empire to convert Hindus and Muslims to the "true faith." On the other side, religious attitudes are also hardening as the Muslims turn towards a more radical form of Islam. In May 1857, Indian sepoys (soldiers) serving in the British army mutinied (primarily out of fear that the British were out to corrupt Islam and Hinduism), and they coerce Zafar to be their leader. Zafar reluctantly agrees. After a bitter siege, the British capture Delhi. Civilians, guilty and innocent, friend and foe, are shot, stabbed and hung while homes are systematically looted. The weak (elderly, women and children) are driven out of the city to die of exposure, disease and starvation. Zafar is exiled to Burma where he dies and is buried in an unmarked grave (so his grave and remains can never be found).
However, in the mists of such horrifying atrocities, there are moments of humanity. Throughout the siege, Zafar refuses to alienate the Hindus by giving in to the demands of the extremist Muslims. He also refuses to take the life of the British who were given sanctuary at his court. Muslims gave shelter to British families as British Punjabi Muslim regiments fought against fellow Muslims in the line of duty.
The reader experiences all of this through Zafar and his court. While the events are historical, Dalrymple's writing style is fluid and easy to read - making this work read more like a novel than a history book.
Armchair Interview says: A fresh perspective on Zafar and the Indian Mutiny of 1857.
The Last Mughal (Hardcover) by William Dalrymple March 25, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
Excellent buy, again another great book by William Dalrymple. A must for people wanting to know about the subject, written beautifully by WD.
A timely history lesson. March 18, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
Just what you expect from an excellent history book: less opinion, more research and good writing. This book destroys (and I mean destroys) a lot of conjecture and partisan drivel that, at least in India, is being taught as history of our first war against the colonizers. "The Last Mughal" shows that for all its flaws - of which there were many - the revolt was born out of a genuine sense of revulsion and anger over British actions. It shows that what the British did to Delhi in the aftermath of the war was nothing short of genocide. And it shows that Zafar, as kind and gentle as he may have been, wasn't the hero our text books tell us he was. In fact, we (Indians) seem to have conveniently forgotten the ones we should truly remember.
In my opinion, this book will not only be a good read for all those who want to know more about this tumultuous period in Indian history but also for anyone who still, appallingly, believes that the British rule turned out "pretty good" for India. Above all, I consider this book a must-read for someone who lives in Delhi, used to live in Delhi or wants to live in Delhi. It's a timely reminder of the heights this great city scaled and where it can, still, reach.
 Well researched and artful, but somewhat biased February 10, 2008
7 out of 13 found this review helpful
In our day, "colonialism" has become more of a "rhetorical device than a precise scientific instrument," to quote Indian studies expert Robert Frykenberg. It denotes intrusion and exploitation by the "strong" against the "weak." In modern historiography, colonialism as a category has come to be "part of a technology for denigrating, shaming and shunning...a convenient device for assigning collective guilt." As such, "the term represents a point of view, a perspective, which many academics and thinkers...hold dear" (see Frykenberg's "Christians and Missionaries in India", p 6-10).
The historian who begins with this underlying, if unconscious, view of colonialism cannot help but be influenced in his research by that view. As such, he may well set aside (or fail to see) the nuances and complexities of his subject, and instead paint a one-sided picture. Such seems to be the case with William Dalrymple in his celebrated "The Last Mughal."
This was profoundly disappointing to me, as I am, with Dalrymple, a student of Indian history (particularly of Muslim history in S Asia), and a frequent visitor to N India, who has greatly enjoyed Dalrymple's other books ("City of Djinns", "Age of Kali").
Woven through his otherwise masterfully researched and artfully written account of the last days of the Mughal empire, is a fair bit of material that helps us to understand, not the period in question, but Dalrymple's personal views (influenced by the vision of "colonialism" delineated above). For example, those British colonialists who "went native" (Dalrymple highlights those who made themselves rulers of their own little fiefdoms) are good; those who maintained a more distant and aloof demeanor, bad. Foreign missionaries (for whom Dalrymple has a particular antipathy) who engaged in outreach and polemic among Hindus and Muslims are bad; Muslims who engaged in anti-Christian polemic are good. The refined, cultured society of the Mughal court is good; the imperialistic British, bad.
The common element here is that Dalrymple ignores striking complexities which are needed to provide balance to a contentious constelation of subjects. To see this more clearly, I'd like to take a closer look at 2 of the examples listed in the paragraph above.
First, Dalrymple seems unaware that the Mughal empire itself was a vast exercise in imperialistic "colonialism," that is, of the strong oppressing and exploiting the weak. The Mughal empire was in its origins no less "foreign" than was the British. To be sure, over time many Mughals adapted themselves to India, and some became effective rulers who did a measure of good for the country. But this should not allow other realties to escape our notice; for example, the way in which Hindus were often oppressed under Mughal rule, or the fact that the majority of India's population languished in abject poverty, while the Mughals went on enjoying the lavish lifestyle of the court.
The Mughals did indeed produce spectacular poetry, architecture, and culture during their tenure in India. But this was often done at the expense of the population of India and not for its benefit. (The Taj Mahal is a striking example: it is a work of great beauty, but it was built by enslaving and taxing the people of North India).
While fully acknowledging the evils perpetrated in India by the British (illustrated in the creulty with which the 1857 "Mutiny" was supressed), or the shocking ethno-centricity of many of the British in India (Dalrymple points out many examples), we can still point out that British rule of India was still demonstrated a considerable amount of tolerance, and produced significant benefit to the people of India. For all their pettiness, closed-mindedness, and exploitation of India, the British made a good-faith effort to rule the country well, providing roads, railroads, water and electric works, and countless schools (many of which are still in use). Dalrymple's demonizing of the British in India (with the exception of those rare "White Mughals"), coupled with his veneration of old Mughal government and culture simply does not stand the test of historical scrutiny. It is simply a reflection of Dalrymple's own preferences and biases.
Second, Dalrymple's evident distaste for Christian missions betrays a strikingly one-sided view. His account does nothing to mitigate the oft-repeated, yet intellectually untenable charge that Christianity in India is a foreign, colonial imposition wedded to imperial power and foisted upon native peoples. Colonial missionaries were indeed people of their times, and as such, there were certainly many unfortunate cases where a "colonial mindset" prevailed. Yet Robert Frykenberg, Stephen Neill, and a host of other scholars have shown that this was not the dominant trend. Missions, like all other historical movements, is a complex, richly textured reality, which defies simplistic analysis and generalization.
In his haste to paint missionaries in a certain light, Dalrymple uses a cut-and-paste method, quoting missionary correspondence out of context, all the while failing to perceive what they were really saying. Instead of reading the writings of Reginald Heber (one-time Anglican Bishop of Calcutta), for instance, as they are: the writings of a man very much of his time, a man convinced of the truthfulness of Christianity and yet deeply in love with India, he insists on reading them through a postmodern lens, as if Heber should have had the benefit of knowing and abiding by today's postmodern dogmas of multicultural political correctness.
Dalrymple's book, though the result of painstaking research, and though artfully written, is unfortunately sullied by Dalrymple's not-too-subtle biases. I still recommend this book, for the many original contributions it makes. Yet if you want a more balanced understanding of the period in question I would also recommend the books by John Richards, Andre Wink, or Peter Hardy. On Christianity in India, I would recommend Robert Frykenberg, Roger Hedlund, and Stephen Neill.
Dalrymple does it again January 23, 2008
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
If a little more arcane, but no less interesting, as a subject, than the last book I read from this author (Age of Kali), this is another one from him that will clip your sleeping hours by one or more, every evening, if that is your time of reading.
Dalrymple is the type of author who makes it hard to put their books down. Granted, you should have an interest in India, and its history, but plainly, one for novel-like characters may suffice. I find he has the knack to make obscure historical figures come to life, so that within the wider scheme, we get curious to see what will happen of them. A tremendous additon to reading about history.
He gets down to the nitty gritty of their lives, actions, reactions and whys, all this within a paragraph, that one would be forgiven for thinking we opened the pages of the last issue of "Vanity Fair", the last Mughal becoming the next moghul, maybe.....
All this makes for fascinating reading, and furiously informative on the place, its history, and the mix of its people.
Very simply D' s knowledge on the period he delves into is maddening (he can be concised and to the point, read his article in TIMES following B. Bhutto's assassination). Even imagining him spending hours over archives in libraries, traveling fro and there, one asks oneself time and time again: "how does he know so much" (Barely over 40 YO at that). Those who know that India is a complicated palimpsest to decipher without forgetting the continuum of a specific history shall appreciate.
Needless say, he joins all the dots, easily fills in the blanks to make his view, and sense of history, coherent. Unlike what was written by others, I do not think he imposes a POV, ethno-centrist or decentrist (both cases could be made, albeit not by me). he is just a damned good writer, and it is our joy that he is getting ever better at that. 6 stars!
|
|
|
