1250 The Guardian Amit Chaudhuri resorts to the methodical element of analyzing Indian history in reviewing Ramahandra Guha’s account of India. It is essential to highlight that, in this context. Chaudhuri is pinpointing his own count of how Indian history ought to have occurred. He notes that it is primordial for a country to obsess with the evolution of her history. In this perspective, Chaudhuri notes that Guha’s efforts are a normal feat in any other country. This perception overrides Guha’s efforts at revisiting India’s history and providing an analysis that should fit in any other objective lens. It emerges that Guha was attempting to demystify the ghost of Mahatma Gandhi that has clouded a rational account of Indian history. In addition, the reviewer reacts to the perceived narrow lenses upon which he thinks Guha revisited India’s development. He points to the fact that India’s development preceded the Europeans’ arrival. In this sense, the Europeans were subtly rewriting the India’s history in their own sense. In Chaudhuri’s lenses, Guha is evaluating India’s history from a European viewpoint. The European viewpoint, however, is a traditional. This viewpoint falls in the Eurocentric wagon that has waged an unnecessary war against the European culture. In the end, the reviewer distracts the audience from objectively analyzing their development. It is crucial for the reviewing article to recognize that the audience has a fundamental lens upon which they interpret their history. This further entrenches the hegemony that occurs in the country in terms of politics of entertainment.