INTRODUCTION: HOW, WHEN AND WHERE
Dates provide specificity, allowing us to track events chronologically. However, associating history solely with dates can be misleading. Some historical processes, like cultural shifts or economic changes, occur over extended periods and cannot be tied down to specific dates. But for certain events, like battles or coronations, dates offer precision.
British historians writing about India, for instance, emphasised the reigns of Governor-Generals and Viceroys, making those dates central to their narrative. Such histories presented a top-down approach, focusing primarily on the ruling elite. This approach risks overshadowing events and experiences of ordinary people, which are equally, if not more, vital for a holistic understanding of history.
This refers to dividing history into distinct phases or periods. James Mill’s division of Indian history into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods reflects a Eurocentric worldview and oversimplifies the complex fabric of Indian history. Classifying periods based on the religion of rulers can lead to reductionist narratives and misses the diverse religious, cultural, and social dynamics at play in any given period. Moreover, adopting terms like ancient,medieval, and modern from a Western context to the Indian scenario can be problematic because they carry specific connotations that might not align with the realities of Indian history.
Mill’s perspective on British rule being a force of progress and civilisation in India mirrors a colonial mindset. This view not only glorifies colonialism but also side-lines the adverse effects of British rule and the resilience and resistance of the colonised. It is essential to challenge and critique such interpretations, as they can perpetuate biases and misunderstandings.