That is not necessarily true - if a Pakistani historian were to make claims you disagreed with, you would be sure to ask how he/she arrived at their conclusions. It would be completely appropriate to question their sources and evidence, so why shouldn't that yardstick be applied to other contentious issues?
I believe that Indian and some Bangladeshi historians have an agenda when they talk about, IMO, highly inflated casulaties resulting from events of 1971. Hence my insistence on the methodology and evidence used to arrive at their numbers. Other historians could have similar biases, agenda's, omissions etc.
Radha Kumud Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, 4th ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988 ), 31, 28–33.
This is a comprehensive work dealing with the life and times of India`s first historical emperor, and a picture of the civilization of India in the early period of the fourth century BC. The author had utilized much material found in Arthasastra. The work also embodies collation and comparison of evidence from different sources, classical works in Sanskrit, Buddhist and jaina texts and the inscriptions of Asoka. The book gives a detailed account of Chandragupta Maurya and the general view of his administration. It has covered almost all aspects of administration including the king, ministers and officers with rules of service and divisions of administrative departments; governance of land system and rural administration along with municipal administration, the source of law and dispensation of justice and the army and its management. Besides social and economic conditions of that times have been elaborately discussed. The detailed contents serves as an index of subjects, the other parts are--Index of technical terms, three appendics which enrich utility of the book and a plate of typical Mauryan Coins. DR. RADHA KUMUD MOOKERJI is Professor of History in the Bengal National College under the Principalship of the late Sri Aurobindo. Subsequently he joined the Mysore University where he was Professor of History from 1917 to 1921. Thereafter he became Professor and Head of the Department of History in Lucknow University and remained there for twenty-five years. He was a prolific author and had to his credit 15 books on different aspects of ancient India.
Here is the relevant part of the book on Google Books: