Question: I have been looking for a book about Indian history. Recently I came across [this answer](https://history.stackexchange.com/a/1334/3866), which suggested reading [India: A History by John Keay](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0802145582). I wanted to know whether it is historical and accurate. Or is there any thesis put forth and all Indian history is viewed from that angle?

Answer: 
I decided to read the book anyway, after waiting for someone to answer the question. I understand this is not a place to review books, but here are my two cents.

The narrative is, in my opinion, as unbiased as it can get. While talking about unclear parts of Indian history like Aryan invasion / migration / indigenous Aryans, he explains pros and cons of each theory before explaining the generally accepted theory. Also, the narration of post-independence politics (intra-national or international) politics seems objective. As I hoped it to be, it doesn't discredit India from its achievements, nor does it over-glorify them. A must-read for anyone who is interested in Indian history.
This is a partial answer relating to the book's unbiased status.

No. The book is not unbiased. The book's biases may be historiographically justifiable, but, necessarily, the book is not unbiased. Bias is as unremovable from texts as it is from woven fabric: the fabric of texts produces a bias.

Sources: historiographical theory of bias in texts, and the nature of texts as bias.