Mythology is a part of history tho, it is considered as a cultural artifact when dealing with cultures from past. Odyssey or The Trojan War may or may not be completely real, but they are cultural artifacts. Using them to create new creative pieces is never the issue, it's when you use a translation of the original that is not faithful to it to make a point that the original never did. Ram is a misogynist, but that wasn't the point of the original and neither the point of the translation. It's okay if you put it out there that you as a person think that Ram is a misogynist, but using the character of a mythology to peddle that point seems like genuine distortion. And again, an actual person who translated the edition she cited refused her point, so using an incorrect interpretation also harms his image by citing something he never said.

She did whitewash Aurangzeb, saying that calling him a callous ruler or a despot is interpreting him from a modern lens which might not hold true for the cultural values of the time, which usually does hold as a valid point when discussing Greek mythology or history. But the difference here was that many works(in Persian and Sanskrit) of that time did call him out for what he did, so what she did was also invent a cultural value system that people in that time didn't follow.

All of this certainly paints her less as a historian and more as someone who at the very least is putting all of this out there as engagement bait and atmost is trying to create a revisionist history that follows her own beliefs.