The history of India that is widespread and accepted by academia is a history decribed through Marxist lens. Marxian thought did bring a new perspective but the main folly in it that it does not consider the basic human psychology. As a result it bereft of the actual reason of a historical incident and never could touch the ethos of that historical era and in consequence of that they draw an erroneous picture of modern day India which is absolutely alien to common man. But the bigotry lies in here that those historians knew it well that they were not representing a wholesome clear picture but still they did that because they believe in a religion called Marxism. It is a shame for India that millions of student learned and still learning their cultural history in a twisted form.
There are several instances where they succeed in channeling their story as history of India. Such an instance is the idea of the synthetic culture. It was no doubt that in Medieval era and aftermath a composite culture was built but not in the way Marxist has described it. The idea of India in distorted form is this that the whole history of medieval era is an era of sultans and Mughals others don’t play any essential roles. But on ground and the based on the evidences available to us it is clear that those “others” played the most significant role in forming the synthetic culture. It is vehement protest of Rajputas that led to their acceptance in Mughal administration. There is no instance in the history of Islam where entire culture was not wiped out by Islamic invasion, on the contrary Hindus are the only cultural clan who survived the onslaught. Marxist historians shows it as the benevolence of Muslim ruler and gave arguments that if Kings were determined to proselytising then India would have been a Muslim state by now. Many such attempts had been taken to convert and two neighbouring states are prime example of that those who survived only because of fierce battle done by them and the mentality of not to surrender.
Invasions of Muslims in India described by Marxist intellectuals as “coming of Islams” and they described Aryan civilization based on a false Aryan INVASION Theory. But the sources tell the other story: the first holy war of Ghazwa in 644 A.D. is a result of declaration of “jihad” on Sindh by caliph. Surely it is not a “coming” but a religious onslaught. In perspective of Islam non-Muslim has no place, either they have to convert or perish and those who led to such incidents hailed as ghazi of Allah.The destruction caused by sultan Mahmud in Dwarka, Mathura and most infamously Somnath temple are prime example of that. Will Durant calls the Muslim conquest of India “probably the bloodiest story of history”. These are some examples from numerous happenings.Hindus continually fought against those atrocities under various regional leaders whether it was Raja Prataditya of Bengal or Lachit Borphukan of Ahom kingdom. The protest of Rajput, Vijaynagar kingdom and Sikhs and Shivaji forced Mughals to accept their credibility and these struggles are the main reason behind the creation of synthetic culture.
Apart from twisted information their another approach to tell history is through lies. When Hindus demanded the history of their temples which were destroyed by Muslim invaders instead of telling the truth these Marxist historians put up an argument that Buddhist temples were also destroyed by same way, which is nothing but a myth. In the course of history there are instances where Buddhist temples were attacked by Hindus but not like the destruction that Islam brought. But on the other side the whole Buddhist population of modern day Kashmir and Afghanistan was wiped out by Islamic invasion. The myth propounded by Marxist intellectuals were busted by Sitaram Goel when he sent a questionnaire to Romila Thapar which asked her to show historical documents like epigraphs, literary sources, name of the kings who destroyed the Buddhist temples, name of those Buddhist temples and places which are destroyed, name of those Hindu temples where she thinks a Buddhist temple was situated. Thapar didn’t answer any of those questions directly.
Another way to demean the history of India was by putting communal tag on other historians whose views are in contradiction to them. It is a tool used by most liberals to attack the Hindu psyche.
Marxist interpretation of history is a part of historical incidents not the whole picture. By interpreting history only on the basis of economic monopoly can not eradicate the wrongdoings which were done based on religion. A secular history is that which addresses the historical incidents as it was happened not by propounding lies and creating Nazi culture in academic circle and of course not by demeaning a culture in the name of establishing harmony.