Each of the author exhibits the high prejudiced approach towards the country but to elaborative affect of their previous knowledge about the subcontinent and over the course of time, when the number of visits increases this interference of their previous knowledge is reduced due to their own personal observations and this reaches a threshold after which the perspective of historian is developed. William Dalyrymple could develop a broader perspective and could see a lot which remains unrecognised by Naipaul and Theroux, owes a lot to his scholarly background of being a historian. One or two visits can never be sufficient for understanding the culture and tradition of any country. It requires an intensive acquaintance with the dynamics of myths and lores of the nation to witness and reproduce the society of one country. The present can never exist in isolation; it is always guided by the past, the belief, religions, lores and the tradition. To understand, the present one need to understand the past and the complete architectonics of the forming forces of the past, this does not only include the major personalities and societies but the small tribes and the people who otherwise seem to be unimportant. There exist a relation between visits and prejudices and this relation is inversely proportional. Therefore, scribbling on the paper whatever is seen can no way be authentic representation, as few months of stay in any country cannot be sufficient in reaching the threshold. This point towards the major fault of translations and that is, these translations are made after giving an ariel view to the people and their society. Representations, somehow needs much extensive and intensive digging of the past for making sense of present.