Read on Twitter
Lot of stuff out there about history, historians, their biases and politics. To have pure history, it is best to go to original sources. All books are secondary and they have 'skins'. Even selection of sources can be biased. For example, J Sarkar says Raghunath Yadav's 1/n
Bakhar of Panipat is not a valid source nor Nana Phadnis's autobiography. GS Sardesai thinks they are first rate sources on #Panipat1761. And these two were friends. So pick your author, some of who wear their ideological affiliations on their sleeve, 2/n
while others try to stick to interpreting history as it occurred at the time without bringing earlier or later times' baggage into the story. There are leftist & rightist leaning historians, academicians who are also tilted at times, and others who stay inert near the centre 3/n
Annotated is important, but sources can be picked and within them matter further selected. So the reader has to choose whether he wants a frank left/right, Indian/Western, annotated/just essays, a PhD or an amateur. Its difficult. But what is in the book is what matters finally.
