Write a precis of the passage given below in about one-third of its length. Please do not give any title to it.The precis should be written in your own language.

Everytime, things are not actually the same as they look like. Many a, times people change them in such a way that suits them in particular. The same argument can be raised while we study our great Indian history. Although we talk of Brahmin society's dominance in Indian history, in that context we forget to mention about their role that shaped our great nation. We think and read that the great Indian revolt for independence was just a sepoy mutiny. We think that Indian independence was just given to us because we were able to wear Khadi. Nobody in India can ignore the role of Mahatma Gandhi but the thing is if it was just he who played role in Indian independence.

In our great epic Mahabharata, the Prime Minister of Hastinapur was neither a Brahmin nor a Kshatriya. There are other examples of Karna who was the son of Kunti but unknown to others and everyone thought he was a shudra putra ( son of lower class parents). The emphasis and credit given to British colonial India for the transformation and development of Indian society and economic conditions by our historians looks like fallacy. They just wrote history from the point of view of the government and portrayed Indian martyrs as terrorists and ironically they took defence that the then government termed them terrorists. Yes, they were terrorists for them but for us? Were they not fighting for the great soul of Mother India ?

The country which propounded and carried the philosophy of VASUDHAIVA KUTUMBAKAM was shown as an intolerant nation. The role of ancient history ignored by them. In our history invaders are shown as great rulers and those who struggled for freedom of our nation, referred as they had their own interest. They talk about Gandhi but they do not talk more often about Gandhi's philosophy of Ramrajya. Why do they do so? If India was an intolerant nation then why did they not attack any other territory. Actually our history is basically and ironically written in such a way that could pleased authority. If it is not the case then why in medieval period we just read Mughal history instead we have great Rajput history also? Why do they ignore the real philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi? Why do they refer to The great war of Independence 1857, just as a sepoy mutiny instead of highlighting its role in the unification of revolution. We need to rethink our culture, heroes of the nation and goal of the nation. Otherwise we will not be able to fulfill the ideal which gave us shape and made India i.e. Bharat.