Social Sciences, asked by samikhya191, 7 months ago

3
In 1857 James Min, a Scottish economist and a political philosopher, published A
History of British India" in three volumes He divided Indian history into three
periods-Hindu, Muslim and British
But why is this division not accepted by others?
L 1
a) Because the sequence is considered wrong. Muslims came first to conquer India.
b) Because Christianity as a faith also came to India, which is not considered and
mentioned
c) Because Britishers are not related to any religion therefore dividing based on
religion will be inaccurate
d) Because many religions existed at same time in different periods of History​

Answers

Answered by mohdmishal27
2

Answer:

hi

Explanation:

James Mill was born in 1773. He was a Scottish historian, economist, political theorist, and philosopher. His greatest literary work was the History of British India. He divided Indian history into three periods namely Hindu, Muslim and British. The following are the reasons for so doing:

1. According to Mill before the British came to India, Hindu and Muslim dictators ruled the country.

2. There were religious intolerance, caste discrimination and superstitious practices in Indian society.

3. Mill felt only the British could bring enlightenment and happiness to the Indians by refining them.

4. He felt that European culture, arts, and law were necessary to uplift the downtrodden Indians.

Answered by kalivyasapalepu99
2

James Mill (born James Milne,[1] 6 April 1773 – 23 June 1836[2]) was a Scottish historian, economist, political theorist, and philosopher. He is counted among the founders of the Ricardian school of economics.[3] He also wrote the monumental work The History of British India. He was the first writer to divide Indian history into three parts: Hindu, Muslim and British,[2] a classification which has proved surpassingly influential in the field of Indian historical studies, but which is seen in recent decades as being deeply problematic. Mill was the father of John Stuart Mill, a noted philosopher of liberalism and utilitarianism, and a colonial administrator at the East India Company.James Milne, later known as James Mill, was born in Northwater Bridge, in the parish of Logie Pert, Angus, Scotland, the son of James Milne, a shoemaker and small farmer. His mother, Isabel Fenton, of a family that had suffered from connection with the Stuart rising[which?], resolved that he should receive a first-rate education, and after the parish school they sent him on to the Montrose Academy, where he remained until the unusual age of seventeen and a half. He then entered the University of Edinburgh, where he distinguished himself as a Greek scholar.[2]

In October 1789, he was ordained as a minister of the Church of Scotland, but met with little further success. According to John Stuart Mill's Autobiography his father, though "educated in the creed of Scotch Presbyterianism, had by his own studies and reflections been early led to reject not only the belief in Revelation but the foundations of what is commonly called Natural Religion."[4] From 1790 to 1802, while supporting himself by various tutorships, he also pursued various historical and philosophical studies. With little prospect of a career in Scotland, in 1802 he went to London, in company with Sir John Stuart of Fettercairn, then member of parliament for Kincardineshire, and devoted himself to his literary work. From 1803 to 1806, he was editor of an ambitious periodical called the Literary Journal, which tried to give a summary view of all the leading departments of human knowledge. During this time he also edited the St James's Chronicle, published by the same proprietor. In 1804 he wrote a pamphlet on the corn trade arguing against a tariff (or 'bounty') on the export of grain. In 1805 he published a translation (with notes and quotations) of An Essay on the Spirit and Influence of the Reformation of Luther by Charles de Villers on the Reformation, and an attack on the alleged vices of the papal system. About the end of this year he began work on The History of British India, which was to occupy him for twelve years rather than the three or four that he had expected.[2]

Similar questions