The debates sparked by author William Dalrymple’s remarks — where he attributed the prevalence of a distorted and misrepresented history of India, disseminated through platforms like WhatsApp, to the inaccessibility of Indian academic historians — have initiated a crucial discourse on how historical knowledge is produced, taught, and consumed. Dalrymple’s sweeping judgment has been criticised on multiple fronts by historians.

Historian Samyak Ghosh, in his critique of Dalrymple’s statement, argues that academic historians have not failed to reach the "public" but are obstructed by structural and systemic factors. These factors, he contends, are manifestations of Foucauldian power dynamics. Early historical pedagogy and a neoliberal socio-cultural disdain for fields perceived as neither “necessary” nor “useful” exacerbate this issue. Moreover, Ghosh points out that authors of intellectually dishonest historical works are often elevated by popular platforms, reinforcing contentious, ideologically biased narratives.

Journalist........

© Free Press Journal