Original title: Dangers of non-objective constructions and interpretations of history: Important assertions and takeaways from an Indian context
Sujay Rao Mandavilli · September 2026
Writing history with heavy bias harms society. The authors examined how non-objective history is built across the political spectrum, both on the left and the right. When people write history based on ideology rather than facts, they commit serious errors by leaving out key truths or adding falsehoods. This paper argues that these biased narratives cause real damage, especially in India. First, ideological history ruins public trust in scholars, stopping ordinary people from learning scientific thinking. Second, scientific history is necessary to keep religion in its place. Biased writing also causes rival ideological groups to retaliate with their own biased versions. Furthermore, it damages interdisciplinary research and stops scholars from linking different time periods and regions. Because partisan battles are ongoing, the authors argue for an outside-in approach: scholars must educate the general public first about these biased dangers to restore objectivity.
Imagine you are trying to learn about a city from two tour guides who disagree on everything. One says the city was built by heroes, the other says by villains. You cannot trust either because they are pushing their own stories. In this paper, the authors argue that history is often written like those tour guides, with hidden biases, and they want to teach people how to spot that bias before learning any history.
When history is written with ideological bias, the public cannot trust scholarship. This prevents a scientific mindset and fuels conflicts between groups. In India, it undermines education and interdisciplinary research, making objectivity essential.
The abstract does not provide concrete examples or data to support its claims. It is a call to action rather than a detailed analysis. The paper does not specify how to implement the proposed 'outside in' approach or measure its effectiveness. It also does not address potential counterarguments or the feasibility of achieving objectivity in historical writing.
Ask anything about this paper. Answers come from its abstract, and say so when the abstract doesn't cover your question.
Dangers of non-objective constructions and interpretations of history: Important assertions and takeaways from an Indian context — Sujay Rao Mandavilli — SocArXiv — doi:10.31235/osf.io/zpsar_v1
Abstract licence: CC BY
Explanation generated by Synthesis from the abstract — it is not the original paper. This is a preprint, so it hasn't necessarily been peer reviewed.