Why's Dubious History Taught?

The Syrian Christian Association (SCA), based in South, and Biblical Research Institute, Padua, Rome have almost unanimously concluded that one of the twelve apostles of Jesus, Thomas, never came to India. He's believed to have come to India in 52 AD to spread the Gospel. His putative visit to India was long disputed. One more historical myth has been laid to rest. Modern findings have detonated so many legends and myths. Shahjahan never got the hands of the artisans of Taj choped off. This is apocryphal.

Alexander the great was so ill when he invaded India in 327 BCE, that the famous battle between Alexander and Porus never took place and this was corroborated by legendary Indian, British and Greek historians like Sacchidanand Sinha, Dr Muhammad Habib, Muhammad Mujeeb, R C Majumdar, Collingwood and Greek historian and ambassador to India Vasillus Vitsoxis, Dharmanand Kosambi, the greatest scholar of Pali and Rahul Sankrityayan categorically proved that Buddha wasn't born into a royal family, contrary to the general perceptions. His father Shuddhodan was a chieftain, a kind of zamindar (a wealthy landlord) and that he never saw four disturbing spectacles of death and sufferings to relinquish home and hearth.This is all symbolical. 

There're so many such myths which have become acceptable truths with the passage of time. Here's a very relevant question: When a very big chunk of history's facts agreed upon what's the use of studying it which takes one back and clutters the mind with facts that have very shaky foundations? When modern findings question Akbar's secular credentials and put him ahead of Aurangzeb in fanaticism with written proofs and documents to buttress the point, shouldn't history be rewritten? Why should one read and eulogise Akbar's perceived 'qualities' when historical circumstances of that time suggest that his 'policy of appeasement of Hindus' was politically motivated?

When Gandy, Subimal Dasgupta and world's leading researchers, archaeologists and anthropologists clinchingly proved in 1980 that except for Muhammad, no Ram, Krishna, Moses or even Jesus ever existed, why were their findings never made available to public? They further said that though Muhammad did exist but one must look at his life stripping him of any ' insane divinity.' ' He was  just a competent tribal leader, whose greatest contribution was to integrate embattled tribes into a cohesive unit. That verses from heaven descended upon an unlettered man like him is the biggest joke of human civilization' (Gandy and Dasgupta, 1982). Why don't verses descend upon anyone in this scientific and rational age? Who was there to vindicate and verify the veracity of Muhammad and his cohorts' fabrications? 
History makes us aware of our heritage and 'rich' past but at the same time it also creates a false aura that blinds us to facts and realities. It also deifies and demonises many individuals. The legendary Somnath temple was plundered by Mahmoud Ghaznavi, who came from Ghazni in Afghanistan. This's a fact. That he invaded Somnath 17 times is not a fact. He just came came twice and the Hindu priests plundered and profaned Somnath more than any Muslim invader ever did. History's always a veiled subject to be studied by scholars. I've never understood, why history, the dubious history at that, is taught at schools and colleges to students who've not yet learnt to question. Why do we pollute impressionable minds with 'facts' that are so ramshackle and wilt under scrutiny?     

                                                    -----Sumit Paul