The book, like any other mainstream history book on India, talks about Indian history from the vantage point of the ruling class/castes. It is deeply ahistorical in many respects and offers a birdseye view of Indian history as painted by the Brahminical class through the ages. I am saying this primarily because of the fallaciousness of the author's treatment of India as one single political entity throughout the ages. India, as we know it, was created by the British and solidified by the Congress according to the pleasant reveries of their leaders like Nehru. It is purely a modern construct that was chiselled by modern political forces. Historically, Indian has never been one nation and it can still only be considered to be a nation of nations. Therefore, presupposing the existence of India, while overlooking the fact that such an India never existed, can only amount to intellectual deceitfulness. Such posturing would help to maintain the present idea of India as conceived by the ruling classes. The pitfalls of this view are manifold; it, inter alia, results in the creation of a strong Centre, thereby costing states their regional autonomy. It also facilitates the undue glorification of India's past, which results in the spread of the rabid, hatemongering right-wing ideologies. The author also seems to be in line with such thought when he repeatedly talks about the greatness of India's economy before the colonial era. Which India is he talking about? Is he talking about the Mughals, the Naickers, the Peshawar, the Kashmiris, the Travancore kingdom, or the tribes of the North East? These kingdoms had nothing in common except for the caste system and similar societal hierarchies and similar economies.
Secondly, on page number 47, in the chapter titled 'The Indian States and society in the 18th century, he sings paeans about the exalted position of women and quotes an Englishman. Nothing could be further from the truth than this. Women, belonging to any religion, were treated inferiorly throughout history. He also sings praises to the virtues and moralities of the general public. I do not understand what sort of morals he managed to find in societies that were fissured by caste and religion.
Thirdly, while writing about the pre-independence struggles of various kingdoms, leaders and regiments against the British, he talks about their lack of patriotism or about their patriotic vigour. How can patriotism for India exist when India itself has not been established? Duh... When you are fighting for the Nizam of Hyderabad or for the King of Travancore, would you be fighting for India? Why do these historians overlook these basic logical fallacies in their writings?
Fourthly, while referring to the Indian elite, the author consistently uses two phrases - 'the educated class' and the 'moneylenders'. He also refers to the landlords/zamindars. He wilfully hides the castes which constituted these classes and how these classes owed their positions in society solely because of their castes. The Brahmins, in large measure, formed the educated class, thanks to their proximity to the ruling class throughout the centuries and to the religious/cultural hegemony that they have built. The money-lenders were/are Baniyas who were the worst parasites that sucked the living blood of the toiling Indian masses. To understand Indian history, it is important to know the caste locations of the ruling classes and how each of them worked together in tandem to exploit the Bahujan masses.
Fifthly, while writing about social reform and renaissance, he only talks at length about the Brahmin-UC-Ashraf reformers. Dr Ambedkar, Mahatma Phule, Periyar, Sree Narayana Guru, Ayyankali, Shahu Maharaj are either mentioned for the sake of mentioning or never mentioned at all. These tall leaders who fought for dignity and self-respect find no place in this textbook. While talking about caste, he refers to it in the past while throwing in a few concluding remarks about its sad prevalence. Also, while talking about the communal problem, he seeks to throw the weight of historical blame on the Muslims, while seeming to exonerate the rabid founders of Hindutva.
To conclude, the book whitewashes the historical contribution of the various Bahujan anticaste movements while extolling those who were simply propped up by the ruling elite. The author's convenient portrayal of Indian history by hiding all the sheer ugliness that it holds can be evidenced by his refusal to talk about the 40,000 civilians who were killed during Patel's conquest of Hyderabad. This reading of Indian history can only lead to the perpetuation of the status-quo. If you are concerned about change and justice, read Ambedkar and Periyar.