Reading of History

I have a serious differences the way history is interpreted and written by people. As far as the writing about a historical figures goes there may be less of differences of opinion. But when writing about mood of general public goes it is often terribly wrong and writer more often imposes his own ideas farbricating them consistent with selected set of facts. It is more a case of bringing facts to your side rather than being on the side of facts.

For example, relationship between Muslims and Hindus thorough the ages is often empasized to be harmonical rather than being competitive and from multitude of differences they have had examles from architecture , art , music and Akbar are cited to show sense of unity. There are a few more examples that we will not discuss here.

History of religious acrimony and competition for supremacy between them is implied arising either from Britishers and ensuing partition and communal fanning of by BJP, RSS et al.
But even if there is strong racism and discrimination against Asian , it has not prevented them from practising Yoga or like curry. I have seen people vehemently anti-Muslim and still wearing proudly Sherwanis .
And I think learned and experts in general are more tolerant and eclectic, though there are example of insularity but incidence of such cases is fewer. So a musician even if he don't like Westerners would willingly adopt new instrument and tricks. Though to survive as nation it is good to emphasize harmonry and talk of shared culture and plurality, there should not be isolation and derision of historian who present a differing and may be more truer picture of India which highlight differences and strife between community. We must not confust the two issuse here , one is that of survivability and desirabilty of nation state India and another entirely different i.e writing of true history of India.