Introduction
The statement that "the history written by the governor general of India will be different from that of the Indian historians" holds true due to various reasons.

Different Perspectives
- The governor general of India, being a representative of the British colonial power, would have a biased perspective towards portraying the British rule in a positive light and highlighting their achievements.
- On the other hand, Indian historians would provide a more balanced view of history, incorporating the perspectives of the Indian people and their experiences under colonial rule.

Political Agenda
- The governor general of India would have a political agenda to justify and glorify British colonialism in India, while Indian historians would aim to present a more accurate and comprehensive account of historical events.
- The governor general's history would likely downplay the negative impacts of colonialism on India, such as economic exploitation, cultural suppression, and social upheaval, whereas Indian historians would highlight these aspects.

Sources of Information
- The governor general of India would rely on official records and documents that may be biased towards the British perspective, while Indian historians would use a variety of sources, including oral histories, archaeological evidence, and local records, to provide a more holistic view of history.
- Indian historians would also incorporate marginalized voices and perspectives that may have been ignored or suppressed in the official records used by the governor general.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the history written by the governor general of India would indeed differ significantly from that of Indian historians due to their different perspectives, political agendas, and sources of information. It is essential to consider multiple viewpoints and sources when studying history to gain a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the past.