India comprises thousands of castes, religious and ethnic groups and if a historian has to be on tenterhooks all the time as to what impact his writing would have on a particular set of people, no meaningful history writing is possible. If one were to follow the perverse logic of ill-informed BJP ideologies, the age-old victims of the Brahminical order cannot question it because this might injure the pride of the upper castes. The move of the BJP rulers to distort the process of history writing must be opposed by all right thinking people in the country.

D. R. CHAUDHRY, Rohtak

Objectivity: Mr Hari Jaisingh's strong call for objectivity is commendable given that most of the opinion makers are crying only that nothing should be done to what has been written and accepted for decades.

Mr Jaisingh accepts that the Indian history has been written by Marxist historians, who "enjoy high academic credentials and command respect at the world level". And "so long as they maintain their overall objectivity, there should be no hassle". Have they maintained it? Or is it that since they enjoy high credentials, they must be true. This is in conflict with the author's call for objectivity.

Why does the author not want to judge what they have written on the basis of objectivity? All Punjabis know the history of martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur. The very foundation of Sikhism was to counter the Muslim forced conversions and oppression. Compare this with what the textbooks try to portray. What is the meaning of objectivity? Surely not selectiveness.

This is the fundamental question in this debate: what is the truth? Is something infallible because it is written by eminent historians or has the sanction of the media or of a political party? The truth can stand for itself, that is, if only we don't use politics and the power of media to suppress it.

That opinion makers in this country have a strong tendency to follow a certain line of thought. If they are really objective about what they write, these problems will disappear.

AMIT GUPTA, Panchkula

Definitions: The article goes a long way in giving impressive definitions of history but as far as the current controversy regarding the prevalence of biased contents and distorted facts in history textbooks and their rectification or deletion is concerned, the author seems to side with the anti-correction lobby as he disparages the Director, NCERT, and Dr Murli Manohar Joshi.

No doubt international repute of Ms Romila Thapar, Dr Satish Chandra, Prof R.S. Sharma and Mr & Mrs Arjun Dev on account of their scholarship and depth of the subject enables us to feel proud of them. But there is no denying the fact that these renowned historians have a conspicuous leaning towards a particular ideology which has percolated to the contents of their textual material at places hurting the objectivity of the subject the very essence of the sum total of the events of the past.

MADAN LAL SHARMA, Kurukshetra

Best teacher: History is the best teacher not only for the present but also for the future. Wrong or distorted history is not only disastrous but catastrophic.

The Taliban from madrassas learnt that their forefathers had conquered almost the whole of world from Spain in Europe to Indonesia in the far East with the grace of Allah, rather than due to superior weapons and professional armies. The result: their citadel fell like a house of cards in Afghanistan.

PRAN SALHOTRA, Gurdaspur

Distortions: It is not the job of the Director, NCERT, to worship the distortion and his spread by the motivated propagandists loyal to Marxism, Macaulay and Madrassas as gospel truth. He is duty bound to delete canards from the textbooks.

Surely "history is not for politicians to dabble in" as has been the case with the works of the pamphleteers picked up by Nurul Hasan.

Could all the 'secularist' historians put together be any patch on the titan, R.C. Mazumdar?

Imperialists may consider Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra, RS Sharma and co as "genuine historians" but people caring for truth consider them as creators of pot-boilers for whom allegiance to foreign money bags is the primary source of history.

CHAMAN LAL KORPAL, Amritsar

Bias: I do not agree with the author's view that the job of preparing history books for children should be assigned to independent historians. In the modern times, everybody who is somebody is politically biased. There is always a chance for doubt. History that deviates from reality is of no use to posterity.

IQBAL SINGH, Bijhari (Hamirpur)

Hindutava: History protects secularism through books. That is why the situation makes it imperative for public opinion in this country to assert itself and force the government to stem the flow of the "Hindutva" ideology and reverse it.