Frequent question: Why the British historians periodization of Indian history is not correct one?

What is the problem with the periodization of Indian history?

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.

What was the periodisation of Indian history by British historians?

In the middle of the nineteenth century British historians divided the history of India into three periods: “Hindu”, “Muslim” and “British”.

What is the problem with periodization?

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.

THIS IS FUN:  How much does it cost to rent in India?

Why periodisation of history was not accepted by all the historians?

It was not accepted by Indian historians because it did not provide a complete view on everyone. James Mill divided Indian history into three parts: Hindu, Muslim and British. This periodisation does not help use understand the lives of other minority.

What is the problem with the periodisation of Indian history that James Mill offers short answer Class 8?

The problem with the periodisation of Indian History that James Mill offers is the superiority of British shown over Hindu and Muslim. James Mill has put Indian History into three periods – Hindu, Muslim and British, claiming that it was necessary to introduce European manners, arts, institutions and laws in India.

Why do you feel periodisation does not apply to India?

However, the periodisation of Indian history based only on religion is problematic for several reasons. A variety of faiths, apart from Hinduism and Islam, existed in the periods categorised as Hindu and Muslim by Mill. Also, it is not right to classify an age according to the religion of the rulers of that time.

Why do Indian historians not want to call the British rule in India a modern period?

However, the nationalist school of Indian historiography claims that under British rule, Indians did not have equality, freedom or liberty. Nor was the British period one of economic growth and progress. Therefore, Indian historians do not want to call British rule in India a modern period.

How did British historian Periodise Indian history enumerate the reasons behind such periodisation?

Answer: James mill divided Indian history into Hinduism and Muslim and British periods. This periodisation is based on the religious line that there was a face for which the Hindu were the rulers and other work ruled. … So , this is not a proper periodisation of Indian history.

THIS IS FUN:  How can I reduce capital gains tax on sale of property in India?

Why do we try to divide history into different periods?

Why do we try and divide history into different periods? We do so in an attempt to capture the characteristics of a time, its central features as they appear to us. So the terms through which we periodise – that is, demarcate the difference between periods – become important. They reflect our ideas about the past.

Why is periodization useful in history?

The periodization of world history, as imperfect and biased as it is, serves as a way to organize and systematize knowledge. Without it, history would be nothing more than scattered events without a framework designed to help us understand the past.

Why is the periodisation of history necessary?

》Periodization in History. Because we study history in chronological order, we can identify certain historical periods or eras. A period of history is a specific time frame containing common characteristics. … It would be impossible for us to name every single period in world history in one lesson.

Why periodization of history is important?

It is nevertheless necessary to divide up history in order to make sense of the past and to articulate changes over time. … Periodizing labels are being challenged and redefined all the time. Thus, an historian may claim that there was no such thing as the Renaissance, while others will defend the concept.