"This book, since it presents a new account of Indian history, inevitably involves a critique of Western history. However, some Western scholars, recognizing the intrinsic weakness of that history, tend to respond to any critique of Western history not by examining the evidence (which would expose it) but by launching personal attacks on the critic with labels—in this case, the label "Hindu nationalist" seems to commonly arise to the tongues of shallow scholars. Now I completely fail to see why the only choice one has is between different kinds of hate politics— why the rejection of Western racist history necessarily implies the acceptance of some other kind of hate politics. ... It is easy to find many people who oppose one kind of hate politics while being "soft" on another set: however, as stated above, I fail to see why one's choice should be restricted to different brands of hate politics. I am not in any such camp, my stated system of ethics does not admit hate politics of any kind, and I oppose all attempts to mix religion with politics... Suppose “Hindu nationalists” were to seize power, strangle dissent by passing laws to kill dissenters, in painful ways, and then continuously expand their power through multiple genocide for the next 1700 years. What sort of history would emerge? We do not need to imagine very hard, for we have a concrete model before us, in the sort of Western history that has been written since Eusebius! Because of the long history of brutal suppression of dissent in the West, various fantasies, contrary to the barest common sense, have been allowed to pile up, and these continue today to masquerade as the scholarly truth."