Social Sciences, asked by harshrajharshraj412, 6 months ago

(a) James Mill divided Indian history into three
periods - Hindu, Muslim, Christian
(b) Official documents help us understand whe
the people of the country think.
(c) The British thought surveys were important
for effective administration,
Let's discuss
2. What is the problem with the periodisation of India
history that James Mill offers?

Answers

Answered by Anonymous
0

Answer:

Chapter 1 - How, When and Where

Let’s recall

1. State whether true or false:

(a) James Mill divided Indian history into three periods – Hindu, Muslim, Christian.

(b) Official documents help us understand what the people of the country think.

(c) The British thought surveys were important for effective administration.

Answer:

(a) False

(b) False

(c) True

Let’s discuss

What is the problem with the periodisation of Indian history that James Mill offers?

Answer:

The problem with the periodisation of Indian History that James Mill offers is that he divided the Indian history into three periods – Hindu, Muslim and British. However, the periodisation of Indian History on the basis of religion is not feasible for many reasons. For example, many different religions coexisted peacefully when the country was ruled by Hindu kings.

Mill thought that all Asian societies were at a lower level of civilisation than Europe. According to him, before the British came to India, religious intolerance, caste taboos and superstitious practices dominated social life under the rule of Hindu and Muslim despots. Mill felt that only British rule could civilise India and to do this it was necessary to introduce European manners, arts, institutions and laws in India.

3. Why did the British preserve official documents?

Answer:

British preserved official documents, because they thought that by keeping all the records in written it would be easier for them or any other persons to know about the decisions taken in the past. they clearly noted down all the policies, instructions, plans, agreement and important things related to the administration of the country,  so that in the future, those records can serve as proofs of all the decisions that they had taken. One can study the notes and reports that were prepared in the past.

4. How will the information historians get from old newspapers be different from that found in police reports?

Answer:

To write about a period in history, historians need to gather data and information from various sources, both official and unofficial, to bring about a clearer and wider picture of the life of the people in that period. The information that the historians get from old newspapers and police reports can be entirely different. The archived official documents provide the picture from the point of view of the people in power. A police report is one such official document. The police report comes from an administrative viewpoint and the types of details that we can obtain from them are often restricted. However, this is also a disadvantage as the police records restrict the amount or the kind of information one can possibly get from them. A police report is strictly confined to the procedures and is concerned with record-keeping, rather than building a narrative.

So to get a wider view of a period in history, historians go through the unofficial records relating to that period, like old newspapers, diaries of people, accounts of pilgrims, autobiographies of important personalities, booklets, etc. Unlike the restricted nature of official sources like police records, unofficial records like old newspapers provide varied information to the historians that might bring out the finer details about an event or a happening. On the other hand, police reports often neglect the information that does not directly serve the function of law enforcement. However, it would not be right to say that such information represents the complete truth. Even a newspaper report may be influenced by the reporter's personal thoughts and interests.

Answered by Anonymous
2

State whether true or false:

a) James Mill divided Indian History into three periods- Hindu, Muslim, and Christian

Ans. False

Explanation: James Mill divided the Indian history into three periods-Hindu,Muslim and British.

b) Official documents help us to understand what the people of the country think.

Ans. False

Explanation: Official records tell us what the officials thought,what they were interested in and what they wished to preserve for prosperity.

c) The British thought surveys were important for effective administration.

Ans. True

Explanation: The British believed that a country had to be properly known before it could be effectively administered.

2. What is the problem with the periodisation of Indian History that James Mill offers?

Ans. James Mill divided his book into three period, namely: Hindu Muslims and British. According to his prejudiced version of Indian history, the British rule represents all the forces of progress and civilisation, while the period before British rule represents darkness, ignorance, despotism, religious intolerance, caste taboos, superstitious practices, etc.

The view of Mill has several problems which is not acceptable due to reasons:

A variety of faiths existed simultaneously in these periods.

All rulers in ancient India did not share the same faith.So naturally there wouldn't be religious tolerance.This will be a hindrance to the progress, enlightenment and happiness of the nation. 

So we cannot characterise an age only through the religion of the rulers of the time.

Thus the problem with the periodisation of Indian history that James Mill offers is that the subjective account of a historian distorts the facts. 

Similar questions