As a note, if you are going to go all post-modern, you should go all the way. Inconsistency is bad. "History is interpretation. It isn't fact. It isn't science

As a note, if you are going to go all post-modern, you should go all the way. Inconsistency is bad. "History is interpretation. It isn't fact. It isn't science." Science is interpretation. Scientists are concerned about maintaining their dominant narrative. "Facts" are very scarce on the ground. (I'm willing to act as if Mumbai exists, but I have no personal experience of it and therefore no positive reason to believe it does.) In more serious terms, a good academic historian will point to evidence as a way to explain why they want you to believe some statement, and---because they recognize the perils of what they're doing---many of them will complain about potentially misleading modifications to that evidence.