Question

What was the problem with the indian history according to James Mill?

Answer 1

Absolutely there is no problem, except that James Mill followed the easiest path to describe the Indian history. Social history, often called the new social history, is a field of history that looks at the lived experience of the past. In its "golden age" it was a major growth field in the 1960s and 1970s among scholars, and still is well represented in history departments in Britain, Canada, France, Germany, and the United States. This is a new trend in writing history. During James Mill’s life time this was uncommon.

James Mill divided Indian history into three parts: Hindu, Muslim and British. In 1818, he brought out “The History of British India.” Mill preferred to take a more theoretical approach to social subjects than the empirical one which was uncommon at the time. Historians use methods like collecting evidence on required topic, going through manuscripts, original documents, visual pictures, monuments, coinage, buildings of importance, paintings etc,. In this way Mill adopted an easier method of dating. With 600 odd kingdoms spread over this large country over such a long period might have created in his history writings, so he chose the easiest demarcation. The Indian History have clear demarcations of its Hindu influence; and the conquers, the Moguls and the British interaction in the Subcontinent. In view of it, we can conveniently accept his demarcation of Indian history to a large extent.

Answer 2

In 1817, James Mill, 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.