CBSE Class 8 History Our Pasts – III: Chapter 1 How, When and Where NCERT Solutions

1. False. James Mill, a Scottish economist and historian, divided Indian history into three periods based on the religion of the rulers of the time: Hindu, Muslim, and British. He did not include Christian as a period for Indian history in his division.
2. False. Official documents are created by administrators and government officials. While they provide valuable information about the decisions and perspectives of the ruling power, they do not necessarily reflect the thoughts, feelings, or opinions of the general population of the country.
3. True. The British believed that to administer a territory effectively, they first needed to understand it thoroughly. Surveys, including those of land, resources, and local customs, were crucial tools for gathering this necessary information for governance and control.

James Mill's periodization of Indian history into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods presents several significant problems:

1. Oversimplification of Religious Diversity: Mill's division implies that a single religion dominated each period. However, in reality, a variety of faiths and beliefs coexisted within India throughout history, and rulers often tolerated or patronized different religions.
2. Neglect of Social and Economic Factors: This periodization focuses narrowly on the religion of the rulers and ignores crucial social, economic, political, and cultural changes that occurred between different eras. History is more than just the succession of rulers' religious affiliations.
3. Eurocentric Bias: Mill's perspective was heavily influenced by European ideas and prejudices. He viewed British rule as a means to civilize India, suggesting that India was incapable of progress without external help. This reflects a colonial mindset rather than an objective historical analysis.
4. Focus on Rulers, Not the Ruled: The periodization primarily considers the rulers and their religious identity, neglecting the experiences, lives, and contributions of the vast majority of the Indian people.

In essence, Mill's framework is considered inadequate and biased because it fails to capture the complexity and diversity of Indian history and imposes an external, prejudiced view onto it.

The British preserved official documents for several key reasons related to their administration and colonial rule in India:

1. Administrative Continuity and Reference: Official documents served as records of past decisions, policies, and administrative procedures. This allowed future officials to refer to them, ensuring continuity and consistency in governance.
2. Evidence and Justification: Documents provided evidence for the actions taken by the British administration. They were used to justify policies, decisions, and actions to authorities back in Britain and to maintain a record of their governance.
3. Understanding and Planning: Detailed records, including surveys, reports, and correspondence, helped the British understand the territories they governed. This knowledge was crucial for planning future policies, resource management, and maintaining control.
4. Historical Record for the Empire: The British intended to create a comprehensive historical record of their rule in India. Preserving documents was a way to document their achievements, administrative efforts, and the 'civilizing mission' they believed they were undertaking.
5. Legal and Bureaucratic Purposes: Documents were essential for legal proceedings, land records, tax collection, and the general functioning of the bureaucratic machinery they established.

Therefore, preserving these documents was a systematic effort to support their administrative, legal, and imperial objectives.