History should be fact. Why the debate?

Eminent historian Ramachandra Guha has written an angry article about recent appointments of Sudershan Rao as head of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), Gajendra Chauhan as head of Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) and Baldev Sharma as head of the National Book Trust. " To head bodies like the ICHR, ICSSR, FTII or NBT, one requires (a) to have the respect of one's professional peers; (b) to be a competent fair-minded administrator," he writes. Sudershan Rao has been a professor of history at Kakatiya University in Andhra for 40 years. That he is a member of the RSS, which is seen as a Hindu organisation, is irrelevant. Gajendra Chauhan is not a film star, having acted in B grade movies. So did Ronald Reagan, who was a very successful President of the US and is revered by the Republicans. Our previous Prime Minister has a DPhil in Economics from Oxford and is highly respected by his peers, but that did not stop him from making a dog's breakfast of the economy. The more basic question is," What are these institutes for?" There is no need for a government body to research into history or social science. This should be done in university departments, published in peer reviewed journals and debated at conferences. If these are ceremonial posts, to be given as rewards to party faithfuls, then why the objections? The FTII is a training institute with a distinguished faculty who will continue to teach but what is the objection to Chauhan being the head? Jose Mourinho never played in a first division team but he is one of the most successful managers in football today. We hope that Mr Guha's anger is not because he is an anti-Hindu Congress supporter. There are those who say that books on Indian history are full of mistakes. The south of the country has been neglected and the Aryan invasion never happened. Is it true that women were liberated in ancient India or is that a Hindu plot to subvert history? Churchill caused the deaths of 3 million in Bengal in 1943 by stealing our grains for British troops which makes him a mass murderer just like Hitler was but whereas the Germans have repented and paid for Hitler's crimes the British have not done anything. In fact, Churchill is celebrated in Britain. Does Mr Guha lecture about British crimes on his tours? As for changing history to suit political needs the Congress is a master at it. Mr Narasimha Rao, a much better economist than Mr Manmohan Singh, has been conveniently forgotten. As for Subhash Chandra Bose will we ever know how he was betrayed by Jawahar Lal Nehru? History has already happened so there should be no debate about it. Unless historians are prejudiced because of self interest.