This was the periodization brought from the West
their modern period was related to the growth of sci ,
liberty ,reason, democracy and equality but
in India under British rule (modern period )
their was no right of liberty , equality and freedom also their was no economic growth and development
so many historian Hayley's to

Problem with James Mill's Periodisation of Indian History

Introduction
James Mill, a British historian and philosopher, proposed a periodisation of Indian history that has been widely criticized for its Eurocentric bias and oversimplification. His work, "The History of British India," published in 1817, aimed to justify British colonial rule in India. However, it lacked a comprehensive understanding of India's cultural, social, and political complexities.

Lacks Nuance and Cultural Understanding
Mill's periodisation fails to acknowledge the rich and diverse cultural heritage of India. It reduces Indian history to a linear progression of conquests and invasions, neglecting the contributions of indigenous civilizations and cultural developments.

Focus on Foreign Invasions
Mill's periodisation heavily emphasizes the impact of foreign invasions, portraying India as a passive recipient of outside forces. This perspective undermines the agency and resilience of Indian communities, overlooking their ability to shape and influence their own history.

Ignoring Indus Valley Civilization
One of the major drawbacks of Mill's periodisation is the absence of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). The IVC, one of the world's oldest urban civilizations, predates the arrival of the Aryans. Ignoring this significant period of Indian history undermines the understanding of India's indigenous roots.

Exclusion of Regional Histories
Mill's periodisation tends to homogenize Indian history, disregarding the diverse regional histories and kingdoms that existed prior to British colonial rule. It fails to recognize the distinctive political, economic, and cultural developments in different parts of India.

Colonial Bias
Mill's periodisation is heavily influenced by his colonial perspective, which seeks to legitimize British rule in India. It portrays British colonialism as a progressive force that brought order and development to a chaotic and backward nation. This biased interpretation overlooks the exploitative nature of colonial rule and the resistance movements it triggered.

Lack of Indian Perspectives
Mill's periodisation largely relies on British accounts and sources, neglecting indigenous perspectives and narratives. By disregarding Indian voices and sources, it perpetuates a one-sided understanding of Indian history, further marginalizing the experiences and contributions of Indian communities.

Conclusion
James Mill's periodisation of Indian history is problematic due to its Eurocentric bias, oversimplification, and lack of cultural understanding. It fails to acknowledge the rich diversity and complexity of Indian civilization, and its colonial perspective undermines the agency and contributions of Indian communities. To gain a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of Indian history, it is important to consider a broader range of sources and perspectives that reflect the diverse experiences and narratives of the Indian people.