Question

Hello jii✌
$\huge{\bold{\mathrm{\underline{\red{QueStiOn:-}}}}}$
♢Give any two resons to prove,why is it unfair to divide Indian History as 'Hindu','Muslim'&'British'.
♢State any three problems associated with periodisation of History.
Don't Spam⚠⚠⚠⚠⚠
⭐Give answers in 80 words
Great answer will be marked as brainlist♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

Answer 1

Answer:

$\huge\underline\mathfrak\pink{✨Answer✨}$

• 1) Historians divide the past into large segments—periods—that possess shared characteristics. In the middle of the nineteenth century British historians divided the history of India into three periods: "Hindu", "Muslim" and ...
• 2) The problem with the periodisation of Indian history by James Mill is that he divided the Indian history into Hindu, Muslim and the British period. It has been argued by many historians that it is not correct to periodise the Indian history on the basis of religion of the rulers.

Answer 2

The Partition of India of 1947 was the division of British India[b] into two independent dominion states, India and Pakistan.[3] The Dominion of India is today the Republic of India; the Dominion of Pakistan is today the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh. The partition involved the division of two provinces, Bengal and Punjab, based on district-wise non-Muslim or Muslim majorities. The partition also saw the division of the British Indian Army, the Royal Indian Navy, the Indian Civil Service, the railways, and the central treasury. The partition was outlined in the Indian Independence Act 1947 and resulted in the dissolution of the British Raj, or Crown rule in India. The two self-governing countries of India and Pakistan legally came into existence at midnight on 15 August 1947.

dii please inbox