I was going through an article by R C Majumdar with title 'Study of Indian History' published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, 1956-57. He published that article when there was a great push to reconstruct the Indian history as we had recently got the independence. Few things I like, so thought to share with you.
'...another factor of considerable importance is the tacit assumption, made by every educated Indian, that the interpretation of Indian history is his birth right. He may have as little knowledge or training in history as, say, in economics and physics, but while he would not venture to express any opinion on the problem of foreign exchange or the construction of an electric plant, he would glibly talk of the characteristic phases of indian culture, the main currents of Indian history, influence of caste upon Indian politics and economy, racial communal relations in the past, etc. etc....'
'..it is generally believed that the Vedic culture owes its distinctive characteristics to the physical features of the region where Aryans settled first in India. The wide rivers and vast plains are supposed to be responsible for the contemplative turn of mind which is reflected in their literature. But there were other people who settled in these lands before the Aryans, and there are equally big rivers elsewhere in the world such as the Rhine, and the Amazon, where no such culture flourished....'
The main idea is to study the facts without any bias towards religion or country. This is what makes history a proper science.