Agreed, but I assume you intend the “and” I have capitalized seriously. i.e. I am not so convinced of the utility of primary sources divorced from the secondary analysis — in fact the problem with much right-wing historiography in India IMO is the uncritical presentation of primary sources as if these often-complicated, always long-past texts, were self-explanatory. In fact contextualization — i.e. the decision whether or not to even deploy contextualization (even apart from the basic issue of which source is selected) — itself becomes a useful political tool: thus on medieval temple destruction the court history of this or that Tughluq is deemed self-explanatory, as ending any further discussion; whereas if the text is the Manusmriti then suddenly the right doesn’t feel anything intelligent can be said about it absent immersion in the relevant contexts…