Mill categorized Indian history into the Hindu, Muslim and British periods on the basis of dominant political powers and their religious affiliations.

[1] Mill noted that he had never been to India and was unable to speak any Indian languages, though he claimed that this improved the work's moral objective.

In the work, Mill frequently denounced Hindu culture and traditions, and it has been seen by historians as an example of anti-Indian sentiments in Britain during the period.

It led, with the support of David Ricardo and Joseph Hume, to Mill's appointment in 1819 as assistant (later chief) examiner of correspondence at the British East India Company at an annual salary of £800.

[5]However, Mill goes on in this preface to say that his work is a "critical, or judging history", encompassing singularly harsh judgements of Hindu customs and denouncements of a "backward" culture notable for superstition, ignorance, and the mistreatment of women.

[2][7] His work was influential in the eventual banning by the British of the Hindu tradition of a widow being forced to immolate herself after her husband's death, known as Sati, in 1829.

He denounces their 'rude' and 'backward' culture for its ignorance, superstition, and mistreatment of women, and leaves no doubt that he favours a thoroughgoing reform of Indian institutions and practices.

[2]Max Müller argued against the opinion that Indians were an 'inferior race', not only because such a view was wrong but because it made an Englishman's life there a 'moral exile'.