We don't really do book requests here. While a book from the Hindu perspective on the subject would be worth reading, there is no such thing as an unbiased book. If you write an unbiased history book, you simply don't know enough to be biased.

Skimming through the citations in the Wikipedia article, there are certainly some books by authors with Indian-seeming names.

There are no books that are unbiased. Every source has bias.

@NeMo sorry can we reopen the question perhaps and I think then word unbiased was incorrect.

@NeMo - We've tried lots of tricks to allow for list questions, but "list of good books on ..." is sadly just fundamentally a poor fit for our format. Not only is there no possible objectively right answer, but answers would be inherently ephemeral, as new books come out and perhaps some older ones become disfavored. Its a damn shame, because everyone here is likely here because they love a good History book.

I did try to address it by creating a chat room that reference requests could get moved to, but it got deleted, I'm not sure why. We could think about resurrecting that

@NeMo that's sad.

@NeMo I will, but I am interested in a comforting and unbiased history place in general does this stack exchange have an official server as well?

"Unbiased" but "I prefer Hindu authors". Ok.

@Borealis there were Hindu authors who criticized both sides.

@Haridasa Entirely irrelevant. If you actually wanted an unbiased source, the source's religion wouldn't be a factor in their selection.

@Borealis fine fine the term unbiased is incorrect. But, I wanted an overview which includes atrocities on both sides.

@Haridasa Which doesn't require a Hindu author. Your own biases are also coming through quite clearly; you'll trust a Hindu author to write about Hindu atrocities with the same vigour as British ones, but won't trust non-Hindu authors to do the same in the reverse direction.

@borealis We achieve balance by reading a wide range of sources. If I were trying to learn about Chile vs Bolivia I would want to see both Chilean and Bolivian sources - for all you know he may have already read British books on the subject and want to broaden his understanding by reading hindu ones as well. Also he's a new user who's question got closed, so stop kicking him when he's down.

@NeMo If you want sources with a particular perspective, say that. In your Chile-Bolivia example, clearly if I'm looking for a Chilean source, I'm doing so because I want to see the Chilean perspective, not because I want an "unbiased" source. I would then ask for that. This has nothing to do with being a new user; it's not being disingenuous about what I want. Also, "new user"? He's been a user for about as long as me and has 5 questions, 2 of which were closed.

@NeMo thank you

@Borealis yes I joined earlier, but if you look at my string of questions I haven’t been very active here.

@Borealis I wanted a Hindu author from the 1900s, because many Britishers used the Indian mutiny as justification for a harsher British rule. Number two, there are authors who attempt to in good faith portray both sides, but Hindu authors are likely to have sources from both sides as they live in the area where it happened while British writers would usually only get oversea sources from soldiers which could be bias.

Also I just personally prefer Hindu authors on Indian history now that’s a bias, because that’s what I am a Hindu American with Indian descent

@Haridasa You just stated some baseless and unfounded preconceptions you have about the integrity of non-Hindu authors; there are highly acclaimed (e.g. for their impartiality) treatments of this subject matter from non-Hindu authors. Your third comment is the only relevant one: you want Hindu authors because you're a Hindu and so expect their version of the events to better coincide with your worldview. That's fine; everyone is entitled to read what they wish. Just don't pretend otherwise.