Question

in what way was the British historians different from the earlier historians in India​

Answer 1

Answer:

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 "British". On the other hand, the modern past is followed by the medieval past.

Answer 2

Explanation:

Many historians, Indian and British, have tended to look at South Asian history from the

point of view of the north, and defined the medieval period mainly in terms of the Muslim

conquests and Islamic institutions. These did not play a major role, however, until the l3th

century. Until the last 25 years, those that bothered to talk about the previous seven hundred

years between the fall of the Gupta Emperors and l200 A.D. saw these centuries as a sort of

preparation for the Islamic governments which followed. So these years of the early

medieval period have been characterized as witnessing the degradation of the culture of the

classical Gupta period and its political order. This northern-centered view dismisses the parts

of the subcontinent in the south where Islamic states never established stable governments.

But this view was oriented in the end more toward justifying or condemning British Rule

than it was in exploring the actual historical experience of South Asia between 500 A.D. and

1200 A.D.

The focus here is on two major characteristics of the early medieval period, the structure

and scale of the political forms which evolved and the gradual development of regional

cultures and economies.

Some authors divide the subcontinent up into four major regions, or megaregions: south,

east, central and north India. Medievalist Burton Stein has pointed to the existence of six

major regions, the south, the west (containing Maharashtra and Gujarat), the east, the north,

the central and the northwest (containing Punjab, Sind, and Baluchistan). These divisions are

relevant toStein’s discussion of the kinds of states which appeared between 500 AD and

1700. He figured that about 20 kingdoms succeeded in extending their sovereignty beyond a

single megaregion, if we count the megaregions as six in number. Two thirds of these were

ruled by Hindu dynasties, but the most durable of these imperial states was the Muslim Mughal empire, from about the middle of Akbar's reign, around l580, to the reign of

Muhammad Shah in 1730. Dominance in more than one region by almost all of these states

was usually the accomplishment of a single ruler, a great conquering warrior like Pulakesin II

of the seventh century Chalukyan kingdom or the mid-tenth century Krisna II of the

Rashtrakutas, both of the Deccan.

Besides these20 kingdoms which for a time at least spanned two or more large regions,

there were numerous others the scale of whose authority was far more limited, but whose

duration could nevertheless be considerable. From inscriptions and literary sources we get

information on over 40 royal dynasties who endured for a period in the megaregions. The

chronicles of temples, royal genealogical texts, and oral traditions tell of both wealthy kings

and local chiefs who attempted to achieve royal status.

The existence of so many rulers tells us that the early medieval period witnessed the

emergence of new state forms, compared to the late Vedic and classical periods. There is,

however, little agreement among historians about the character of these states and their form.

However, the kingdom of Harsha is often taken as the typical state when scholars talk of

Indian feudalism.

please like this answer and mark as brainiest

please please......

thanks..

❤❤❤❤