Amish Tripathi, on how he discovered a forgotten hero, Suheldev

Amish Tripathi, the author, diplomat, who sold millions of books, has been a torchbearer of sort by writing mythological fiction and historical fiction inspired by stories of India. He has yet another bestseller on his hands, even as his 'Shiva Trilogy' followed by the Ramachandra series, continue to be hugely successful. He shares his views on various topics related to the history of India, and feels Indian historians have mostly written history in the perspective of our invaders. His latest book published by Westland Publishers 'Legend of Suheldev – The King Who Saved India' is inspired by the true story of a forgotten hero and an important war that has found no place in our history books, he says.

Excerpts from an interview:

History versus Mythology – This message comes more from the middle-eastern and western paradigm. There is a strange affliction they know the truth and there is only one truth. History is truth and mythology is not. Our ancestors believed that there is only one subject where truth is possible. That is Mathematics. In every other subject, there is no absolute truth possible. It is based on observer bias. In Britain Winston Churchill is a great hero. He defended the UK from Nazi Germany. But for Indians, Winston Churchill was a monster. Hitler was a horrible person, but he did not kill any Indian. Whereas, Churchill killed three million Indians in a man-made famine that he ordered! For us, he is a monster. Now, whose truth is right? Both truths are right, defined by your background. This is the case in all spheres. In Sanskrit, the term Itihaasa doesn't claim it is the only way it happened. This debate in the Indian context is useless.

The history that we studied: Very rarely the historians got it right. The problem is not with the facts. The problem is with the observer bias. Sanjeev Sanyal has said rightly that the history that is taught to us is the history of our invaders rather than our own. We study the foreigners who attacked us, not of our ancestors who defended us. Muhammad Ghori, Allauddin Khilji, Babar – they were not Indians. They were Turks from Central Asia. Our Indian movies have added to the confusion. I always joke about how Allauddin Khilji does not look like Ranveer Singh; to us, he would like Chinese. Akbar did not look like Prithviraj Kapoor or Hrithik Roshan. When we show a British colonial ruler, we show him clearly as a foreigner. Razia Sultana was nowhere like Hema Malini. They did not speak Urdu. They spoke Turkic or Persian. We must also question the obsession of established historians with Delhi. I am not reducing the importance of Delhi; it is an important city. But what about the rest of India. Our history textbooks do not mention much about Rajendra Chola, whose empire was bigger than that of Akbar. You won't assume that by the way history was taught to you. The Hoysalas, Rashtrakutas, the Salivahanas, Kakatiyas, the Kalingas of Odisha, Buddhist Palas of Bengal, Gurjar Pratiharas, Raja Bhoj of MP, the Sikhs, the Hindushahis of Afghanistan. Anyone who did not have a base in Delhi has been wiped out from our history books, except Mauryas and Guptas, who were too big to ignore. The Marathas are the fourth biggest empire in the subcontinent ever, but you won't know just like you won't know that Mauryas were the biggest empire ever in the subcontinent. I want to ask our Lutyen historians, Romila Thapar and DN Jha and the likes, why this obsession. It is not just about Hindus and Muslims. The Adil Shahs from Deccan; After Vijayanagara Empire, Bijapur was the biggest city in India, but the only mistake they made not to find a mention in history books is that they never conquered Delhi.

Discovery of Suheldev: Suheldev was from Shravasti, close to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. My father's family is from Varanasi and mother is from Gwalior. I have spent a large part of my life in Maharashtra, in Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and for a little time in West Bengal. Despite my roots, I have not heard of King Suheldev.

I heard of his story during a conference in Goa. My friends Abhiram Prakash, Professor at Delhi University and Sanjeev Sanyal, Principal Economic Advisor, Government of India, and a scholar; he has written books on history; they told me the story I was fascinated and inspired by the most consequential hero of India in the last 1000 years whom you have not heard of. And, at the same time, I was saddened for not having heard of him.

I decided I must bring the story out. A king, a Hindu, Shiv Bhakt from a subaltern caste unites Hindus from all castes, Indian Muslims and Indian Buddhists together forges an army and destroys the most fearsome foreign invaders that the world has ever seen.

Turkey was the military superpower from 11th to the 17th century and had the most fearsome invaders the world has ever seen. Ghaznavids were one of the Turkish tribes. King Suheldev defeated them so badly; he did not leave anyone alive - that no other Turkic invaders came back for another 160 years. Shouldn't we know such a man's story, of unity, pride, and resistance; but he has been airbrushed out of our history.

The battle of Bahraich is one of the consequential wars that we have not heard of - 1034 fought by Suheldev. I gathered a few snatches of information, built on some of the folk traditions I have heard, some texts written a few centuries ago, added a bit of my own imagination to bring out the message of Suheldev, and his core philosophies – we have to be united; we will fight with chivalry only if the enemy is chivalrous. Suheldev was ruthless with the Turks, who did not follow any rules. However, he ensured that in trying to be as ruthless as the enemy one is not transformed so much that he leaves his Dharma behind.