[...] France [...] too had invested heavily in the Congress establishment and in the skewed advice of its so-called India experts. - Swapan Dasgupta

Many of those who read history at Delhi in the mid-1970s and later, still bear the ugly scars inflicted by the thought police of sarkari Marxism. 'There are two interpretations of history', a leading representative of the Red Cretin Brigade used to inform his students casually, 'the bourgeois interpretation and the Marxist interpretation, and the Marxist interpretation is the correct one.' ...Whereas the British Marxists established their reputation by crafting their radical concerns their Indian counterparts took cheeky short cuts. it may also explain why substantive research on Indian history has increasingly become the prerogative of British, and a few American and Australian universities. The presiding deities of Indian historiography have meanwhile devoted themselves to writing politically correct text books that present history as chapters of received wisdom. They have also drafted resolutions for the Indian History Congress and written articles in the press on the Ayodhya issue.

The US hates having to admit it was ever wrong.

The media in Bengal today is not free media, even though there is no gun trained on the media there. These people do not hide the truth or news because of the fear of guns, but they hide it because of money. The government gives money to media houses, and according to the government, the news is reported. This practice has far-reaching consequences. Suppose a historian is collecting information about Bengal violence in the future, what will he find? When he looks at the current news and newspapers, he will think ‘nothing major happened, some minor incidents happened.’