Colonial historiography in India refers to the body of historical writings produced during British rule, mainly by British administrators, missionaries, Orientalists, and later by scholars influenced by colonial ideology. It developed from the late eighteenth century and continued through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Its central purpose was not merely academic inquiry; it was closely connected with the needs of imperial governance, cultural domination, and the justification of British rule. Through selective interpretation of India’s past, colonial historians constructed an image of Indian society that supported colonial interests. The early phase of colonial historiography was represented by Orientalist scholars such as Sir William Jones, Charles Wilkins, H. T. Colebrooke, and James Prinsep. These scholars showed admiration for ancient Indian civilization, especially Sanskrit literature, law, grammar, and philosophy. William Jones founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784, which became an important centre for the study of Indian texts and antiquities. Orientalists translated works like Manusmriti, Shakuntala, and the Bhagavad Gita. They argued that India possessed a rich and sophisticated ancient heritage. However, their interest was often textual and elite-centered, focusing mainly on Brahmanical sources and neglecting popular traditions, regional cultures, and lower social groups. A second and more influential phase was shaped by Utilitarian and Evangelical thinkers who viewed Indian society as backward and stagnant. James Mill’s History of British India, published in 1817, became the most famous example. Mill never visited India, yet he divided Indian history into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods. This tripartite division deeply influenced later historical writing and school textbooks. He described Hindu civilization as superstitious and despotic, Muslim rule as tyrannical, and British rule as progressive and civilizing. This framework reduced complex historical processes into religious categories and encouraged communal interpretations of the past. Thomas Babington Macaulay and other Anglicists further strengthened colonial historiography by asserting the superiority of Western knowledge and institutions. Macaulay’s Minute on Education (1835) argued for English education to create a class of Indians loyal to British values. Historical writing under this influence portrayed Europe as modern, rational, and dynamic, while India was presented as irrational, traditional, and incapable of self-government. Thus, colonial historiography became linked with the “civilizing mission” of empire. Administrative historians such as Mountstuart Elphinstone, Vincent Smith, Henry Elliot, and John Dowson also contributed significantly. Their works relied heavily on official records, chronicles, and political events. They emphasized dynasties, wars, kings, and administrative systems. Vincent Smith’s