Question

why james mill and indian historians have different views on the division of history

Answer 1

James Mill and Indian historians have different views on the division of history. The periodisation of Indian history offered by James mill was not at all accepted

Explanation:

• James Mill, Scottish political scientist and economist, wrote A biography of British India in three volumes in 1817. The Hindu , Muslim and British periods separated the history of the Indians into two periods. Some scholars argued that it was not necessary to periodicate Indian history according to the religion of the kings.
• Many faiths, for example, were happy as Hindu kings of ancient India flourished. In mediaeval India too the same existed. The claim that there had been people of various religions over the time and that mediaeval India was occasionally a Muslim background was not accurate. The journalisation of the religion of the rulers indicates that the lives, traditions and culture of others are not significant
• Indian scholars have generally separated ancient, contemporary and mediaeval Indian history. It is a West-born philosophy in which the current world is related to all democratic forces – science, liberalism, reason, freedom and justice.
• A environment in which industrial society has no these features was used to describe mediaeval. But this journalisation was also controversial. This new characterisation is impossible to embrace, because citizens under British rule had little equity, independence and freedom. It was also not the time for fast growth and growth. This time is also considered "colonial" by many scholars.

To know more

Complete the following chart. James Mill 'The History of British India ...

https://brainly.in/question/4329336