Not that our Marxist historians ever changed their attitude to falsify history. So much so that even after the disintegration of the Soviet Union they remained as devoted to communism that they could not write anything other than praise for the ‘achievements’ of Soviet socialism.
And so, if these historians can falsify the history of the most famous period of the contemporary era, will they have any hesitation in distorting centuries-old history? If a Marxist historian could conceal in 1951 the well-known record of Soviet horrors, if in 1971 they could entirely cover up the devastating politics of the Communist Party of India and the Muslim League during 1940-47 leading to the partition of India, if they could make Mahatma Gandhi insignificant in 1973 while writing the history for the Time-Capsule, what could prevent them from presenting Vishnugupta Chanakya, Muhammad Ghori, Alauddin Khalji, Babar or Aurangzeb in any light they liked or in removing significant details of the life of those days or inventing falsehood?
For instance, in Bipan Chandra, Amalesh Tripathy, and Barun De's book, Freedom Struggle, there is not even a passing reference to major events like the two-nation theory of the Muslim League, its resolution demanding a partition of India, the support given to it by the CPI and the unprecedented violence by the Muslim League against Hindus. The Partition of India has been referred to in this book in a roundabout manner blaming it on some ‘communal forces’. In fact, it cleverly conveys a hint that the Hindus played the major and fundamental role in creating communal forces, without giving any proof. The message of the entire book: To hell with imperialism, Long Live socialism, Hindu consciousness is nothing but communalism, Hindu nationalists albeit unwittingly were responsible for communalism, and Marxists have been the most positive leaders of the country.