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. It has been argued by many historians that it is not correct to periodise Indian history on the basis of religion of the rulers. For example, when the Hindu kings ruled in ancient India, many religions existed peacefully. The same is also true for mediaeval India. It was not correct to periodise mediaeval India as Muslim History because people belonging to different faiths existed during this time. Such periodisation which was based on the religion of the rulers suggests that the lives, practices and culture of the other people do not matter. it is not right to classify an age according to the religion of the rulers of the time. To do so would suggest that the lives and the practises of the others do not really matter. Another point to keep in mind is that all rulers in ancient India did not share the same faith.

Problem with James Mill's Periodisation of Indian History

1. Eurocentric Perspective:
James Mill's periodisation of Indian history is heavily influenced by a Eurocentric perspective, viewing Indian history through the lens of British colonialism. This results in a distorted and biased interpretation of Indian history.

2. Divisive Periodisation:
Mill's periodisation divides Indian history into three broad periods: Hindu, Muslim, and British. This oversimplification ignores the rich cultural, social, and political diversity that existed in India during these periods.

3. Ignoring Pre-colonial History:
Mill's periodisation largely ignores the pre-colonial history of India, focusing primarily on the impact of British rule. This neglects the significant contributions and achievements of ancient Indian civilizations such as the Indus Valley Civilization and the Mauryan Empire.

4. Marginalization of Indigenous Perspectives:
Mill's periodisation marginalizes indigenous perspectives and voices, prioritizing British colonial narratives. This undermines the agency and autonomy of Indian communities in shaping their own history.

5. Lack of Nuance:
Mill's periodisation fails to capture the complex interactions, exchanges, and conflicts that characterized Indian history. It reduces historical developments to simplistic categories, overlooking the nuances of social, economic, and political dynamics in India.
In conclusion, James Mill's periodisation of Indian history is problematic due to its Eurocentric bias, divisive framework, neglect of pre-colonial history, marginalization of indigenous perspectives, and lack of nuance. It is essential to critically examine and challenge such historical narratives to present a more inclusive and accurate understanding of Indian history.