Disclaimer: I'm not here to shit on any religion; mainstream reddit does it well and often enough without me having to help them. But, I do believe that it's best not to muddle up religion with other disciplines that require hard facts, like history and science, for example. And while I do know that religious writings can provide a valuable glimpse into the history of a particular time period, believing that religious mythology actually happened is a perilously flawed assumption.

You might expect more from Y. Sudershan Rao, as he's the chairperson of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a former professor of History at Kakatiya University in Telengana. But, it turns out that he's not above indulging in badhistory, as revealed by this interview.

Let's get straight to the shitty history, shall we?

So does India, according to you, need a history or a past?
History writing in India is just about 300 years old and is not exactly reflective of our past.

Are you f*cking kidding me? Are you willing to shit upon the works of people like Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak(1551 – 12 August 1602) and `Abd al-Qadir Bada'uni?(c. 1540 - 1615)

The first generation of history writers in India was European, the second generation was nationalist and the third generation in the post-Independence era was dominated by Marxists, who use European tools of analysis.

So yeah, he hasn't even considered Mughal and various other Muslim historians in India. And remember, he was a history professor, ffs.

If Rama's story is not true then how has he survived in the collective memory for so long?

1. The Ramayana has a lot of variations. It's not even consistent enough to be regarded as true.
2. You expect me to believe that stories full of mythical flying vehicles, demonic beings of monstrous size, demi-gods with the form of vultures and other mythical creations is true? Wut?

People do not care whether Ram is historical or not.

Then precisely why are you ranting about how "true" he is?

He is truth for them.

Do you even know what the word "historical" means?

India's need is a special study of its past and the truth of its past cannot be denied.

Didn't you just say that people don't care if a mythological figure is historical or not?

We need to Indianise our history writing.

I really don't know what he's talking about here.

You say Ramayana and Mahabharata are "truths", but we have many versions of both in our country. So what is the real truth?
[...]The content of one Ramayana may be different from the other but the existence of Ram, Sita and Ravan is consistent. That's the truth.

How is the existence of Ram, Sita and Ravan is consistent when the mythological variations about it are inconsistent? Hold on, I'll just examine the various different versions of the Ramayana and see how they differ in their treatment of Ram, Sita and Ravan.

Mappillapattu—a genre of song popular among the Muslims belonging to Kerala and Lakshadweep—has incorporated some episodes from the Ramayana into its songs. These songs, known as mappila ramayana, have been handed down from one generation to the next orally. In mappila ramayana, the story of the Ramayana has been changed into that of a sultan, and there are no major changes in the names of characters except for that of Rama which is `laman' in many places. The language and the imagery projected in the mappilapattu are in accordance with the social fabric of the earlier muslim community.

In Guru Granth Sahib, there is description of two types of Ramayana. One is spiritual Ramayana which is actual subject of Guru Granth Sahib, in which Ravan is ego, Seeta is budhi (intellect), Rama is inner soul and Laxman is mann (attention, mind).

According to Jain cosmology,every half time cycle has nine set's of Balarama, Vasudeva and prativasudeva. Rama, Lakshmana and Ravana are the eighth baladeva, vasudeva, and prativasudeva respectively.

Phra Lak Phra Lam is a Lao language version, whose title comes from Lakshmana and Rama. The story of Lakshmana and Rama is told as the previous life of the Buddha. In Hikayat Seri Rama of Malaysia, Dasharatha is the great-grandson of the Prophet Adam. Ravana receives boons from Allah instead of Brahma. In many Malay language versions, Lakshmana is given greater importance than Rama, whose character is considered somewhat weak.

So yeah, the existence of the aforementioned figures isn't consistent either.

I might not know anything about my great great grandfather but I can't deny his existence for lack of evidence or how else would I be here? Similarly Rama's existence need not be proved by historical procedure. What benefit are you (historians) going to get if you deny the existence of Rama? Why do you want to try to prove he is not there?

Ohh crap...he's making zero sense now.

History writing in India has always been a Left Vs Right debate. Will you try to change it?
ICHR is willing to debate all issues but historians participating should have a scientific temper.

How the f*ck is casting aside historicity indicative of a scientific temper? Ugh.

Perhaps we didn't have any religion before Buddhism.

Nope. Don't even think of making that hypothesis.

What about suggestions that modern medical science was there in ancient India. For instance, Lord Ganesha and plastic surgery?
I don't think so. I think scientific concepts could have been there in ancient times but not actual examples of, say, plastic surgery.

Oh really?

Reconstructive surgery techniques were being carried out in India by 800 BC. Sushruta was a physician that made important contributions to the field of plastic and cataract surgery in 6th century BC.[...]British physicians traveled to India to see rhinoplasties being performed by native methods. Reports on Indian rhinoplasty performed by a Kumhar vaidya were published in the Gentleman's Magazine by 1794.

And so, I'm done. Thanks to /u/shannondoah for pointing out this badhistory on the IRC.

EDIT: Woohoo, it turns out that Rao is a fraud, more or less. (Thanks to /u/TortugaNeve2 for the link).

EDIT 2: Changed a few words.