James Mill, a political philosopher and economist of Scottish origin, divided Indian history into three periods - Hindu, Muslim, and British - based on the religion of the rulers. This periodization has been criticized by many historians for the following reasons:

• Unfair classification: There were many other religions present in India at that time, and not all rulers of the time had the same faith. Therefore, this classification based on religion was completely wrong.

• Lack of coexistence: It is difficult to refer to any period of history as Hindu or Muslim because of the variety of faiths that existed simultaneously in these periods. It is also not justified to characterize an age through the religion of the rulers of the time. What it suggests is that the lives and practices of others dont really matter.

• Superiority of British: James Mill believed that India was in dire need of British rule, and only the British could make India a civilized country. He was of the view that the British should control all Indian territories by introducing laws and instituting European etiquette for progress and further civilization. Hence, he was in favor of British rule over India. This view of British superiority over Hindu and Muslim is evident in his periodization of Indian history.

In summary, the problem with the periodization of Indian history that James Mill offers is that it is based on the religion of the rulers, which is an unfair classification and does not reflect the coexistence of different religions in India. Furthermore, his view of British superiority over Hindu and Muslim is evident in his periodization of Indian history.