There are quite a few problems encountered in the use of “literary sources” for writing Ancient Indian History. The first and foremost one is the wrong selection of the “research venue” that leads the research work in a wrong direction.

Take the case of “academy” in the form of a research venue. Only a small fraction of academy happens to serve as the venue of research, when the rest of it has come to wear a surreptitious anti-research design. The effect of the latter outweighs that of the former. So, the net result is “anti-research”. You have to take note of it and save your research spirit from this ultimate peril. Let me explain.

When we are talking about “historical research”, you would tend to look forward to academy’s “history cell” for genuine ambience. You could be making a mistake then. Because, this cell could already have been an “anti-research anti-history trap” under existing conditions. How?

A “civilized nation” would certainly have been aware of the fact that “history” and “historical information in the form of original historical texts” is a “civil property”. It also would have been aware of the fact that the “doctrine of civil epistemic sovereignty over historical information and historical research” is never to be surpassed by “salaried history-cell professionals” who would have been appointed for collection and transmission of historical information.

Naturally, this invaluable and indispensable civil property would have to be governed by nation’s highest civil body (“national body”) which would be wielding the “epistemic authority” for collection and preservation of historical information, for historical research and for appointment of salaried professionals. The latter would work as servants of the history cell and would have to be supervised continually, lest they should commit the anti-national blunder of trying to usurp civil epistemic sovereignty and of trying to give their professional work an aura of originality.