In Annexation and the Unhappy Valley, Matthew A. Cook examines the history and the expansion of British colonial power in South Asia during the 19^th century. Centred around the annexation of Sindh by Charles Napier in 1843, Cook addresses the complexities and lines of engagement between the colonizers and colonized in ways that thwart simple “conqueror/conquered” dichotomies (9). The work not only reveals how indigenous communities harnessed the economic and political opportunities provided by the East India Company for the sake of negotiating local power dynamics but also displays how inner conflicts and contingencies marked British rule. Cook corroborates his arguments with the help of the actors involved, whose voices come alive through an impressive display of correspondences and personal quotes.

The book opens by discussing the relationship between the Company and local Hindu merchants in the aftermath of Sindh’s annexation. Chapter 1 describes the inner-caste dynamics of the Lohanas, a Hindu community, which separated at the beginning of the 19^th century into two endogamous groups: the Amils and the Bhaibands. While the Amils were traditionally educated in Persian and worked closely with the Ameers—the Muslim rulers of Sindh—the Bhaibands studied Sindhi and mainly engaged in business. This relationship, in which the Amils traditionally occupied a more powerful position than the Bhaibands, was stirred up by the British annexation. Characteristic of the book as a whole, Cook breaks down the multifaceted dynamics following Sindh’s conquest with the help of a detailed and personal portrayal of one of its protagonists: Seth Naomul, a Sindhi Bhaiband who early on collaborated with the British. Naomul used the Company’s influence and support to elevate himself to the position of a de facto Amil. Fearing a failure to retain their authority, the Amils started a campaign to push back against this and similar threats. Naomul’s attempted grab for power, thus, triggered intra-Lohana conflicts and eventually helped the Amils solidify their dominance. Cook shows that the Bhaibands’ departure from Sindh following its annexation was not only triggered by economic reasons but that, in fact, inner-caste frictions and socio-cultural reasons also supported migration and the dynamics that mark the Sindhi merchant communities with novelty until today.

Similarly, Chapter 2 also connects Company policies with the personal stories of some of its main protagonists. Focusing on the controversy between Charles Napier and James Outram and their fallout regarding Sindh’s annexation, Cook reveals internal fissures within British concepts of government. While Outram stood for a politics that would unite the “sword and pen” (105), Napier and his annexation of Sindh represented military brute force. Cook argues that the two men’s debate reflects a general tension between the military and the civil establishments regarding the question of which form of government the British should adopt. He further maintains that this tension was a “synecdoche” (104) for a deeper fissure between liberal imperialism (represented by Outram and other civil servants) and paternal authoritarianism (exemplified by Napier’s annexation and his later actions as Governor of Sindh). The debate around how to lead Sindh shows that the colony was not only a significant part of the discourse on empire in South Asia but also profoundly linked to political debates back in Great Britain.

The annexation and the subsequent rule of Sindh also questioned the moral grounds of British colonial expansion and governance. Colonialism worked under the pretext of “improving” South Asia (134), an alleged humanist attitude modelled as coded law and frequently opposed to orientalist concept of “arbitrary rule” (135). Such “rational forms of violence” (166), of course, only concealed a myriad of forceful practices inflicted upon the colonialized in South Asia. In Chapter 3, Cook shows how the governing of Sindh was at odds with British self-images of benevolent rule. While forms of coded law “striated” (a concept Cook took from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s work) South Asia and gave the impression that the British were on a mission to civilize the Subcontinent, actions such as John Jacob’s handling of Sindh’s frontier (especially his starvation tactics against the Bugti tribe) and the Company’s plundering of Hyderabad, countered the appearance of British just governance and caused various internal debates. Cook tackles some of these debates in the next chapter.

Cook’s fourth chapter portrays the conflicted relationship between the East India Company and the Board of Control (representing the British Government). Revisiting the Napier-Outram controversy, Chapter 4 again vibrates with many lively private correspondences, which demonstrate how the Company successfully superseded the Board’s decision to fire James Outram. Governor-General Ellenborough intended to persuade the Government to dismiss Outram, due to his outspoken criticism of the annexation and his enmity with Charles Napier. Even though Ellenborough succeeded in convincing the President of the Board for India, John Cam Hobhouse, to advocate for Outram’s punishment, the majority of the Company’s Court of Directors was firmly on the side of James Outram. Their protest thwarted Hobhouse’s (and the Board’s) attempt to remove Outram from office and demonstrated the Company’s power over the crown. While the dispute ended with a minor reprimand of Outram, Charles Napier resigned from his post as the Governor of Sindh in 1847.

Today, only a few scholars can match Cook’s depth of knowledge when it comes to this, often overlooked, research field and his monograph is a crucial step for us to understand Sindh’s past and present. Notwithstanding somewhat technical parts, the author’s effort to link the plane of colonial decision making in the 19^th century with the particular circumstances of the individual actors involved renders the book an intriguing read. In the Appendix, Cook speaks about this methodological decision when he emphasizes the importance of the “situatedness” of his historical sources. His historical-anthropological methodology (visible in the book’s title) not only allows deep insights into the protagonists’ complex life-worlds but also yields a capturing read.