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. For example, when the Hindu kings ruled in ancient India, many religions existed peacefully. Similarly, it was not correct to periodise medieval India as Muslim History since people belonging to different faiths coexisted during this time. Such periodisation which was based on the religion of the rulers suggests that the lives, practices and the culture of the other people do not matter. Mill also sought to show that before the advent of the British, all the Asiatic societies were at lower level of civilisation.

James Mill's Periodisation of Indian History
James Mill, a British historian, divided Indian history into three periods: Hindu period, Muslim period, and British period. However, this periodisation has been widely criticized for several reasons.

Lack of Nuance
- Mill's periodisation oversimplifies the complex history of India by categorizing it into broad religious periods, ignoring the diverse cultures, languages, and traditions that existed simultaneously.
- It fails to account for the interactions, exchanges, and synthesis of ideas that occurred between different communities during these periods.

Eurocentric Bias
- Mill's periodisation reflects a Eurocentric perspective that positions British colonial rule as the culmination of Indian history, disregarding the rich heritage and achievements of Indian civilizations prior to British colonization.
- It perpetuates the colonial narrative that portrays Indian history as a series of conquests and invasions, diminishing the agency and contributions of Indian societies.

Political Agenda
- Mill's periodisation serves a political agenda by justifying British colonialism as a civilizing mission that brought progress and development to a supposedly backward and stagnant Indian society.
- It overlooks the exploitation, oppression, and cultural erasure inflicted upon the Indian population by the British colonial administration.

Conclusion
In conclusion, James Mill's periodisation of Indian history is unacceptable due to its oversimplification, Eurocentric bias, and political agenda. It is essential to approach Indian history with a more nuanced and inclusive perspective that acknowledges the complexity and diversity of Indian civilizations throughout the ages.