There is no such thing as a neutral History book. Every author comes with her prejudices. It is one of the basic problems that historiography has to face. This is because past is a thing that exists in our mind. We can only get an idea of the past from the evidences that we have. Therefore it is essentially only a reconstruction of how things were. And the same evidence can in myriad ways lead to a plethora of reconstructions.
Consider for example, the Amaranayaka system of Vijayanagar Empire. We know from Fernao Nuniz and Dominigo Paes that the Nayakas were merely agents of the Raya (Raja). However, they mention that they used to make payments to the Rajas. This could mean that Nuniz and Paes misunderstood the role of the Nayakas. Were they mere agents? Or landlords? Or military chiefs ? Feudal Lords? A lot of interpretations are possible. And indeed a lot of interpretations are made. So I would first caution you in your search for neutral history.
However, the most reliable “neutral” versions of history are obtained from textbooks (in the Indian scenario). This is because at this level, ideology is maintained to a minimum. There are minor abberations in this case too. However, usually these get corrected through the pressure of public opinion.
State syllabus textbooks are usually biased towards their respective regional histories. Central Boards, at times, tow the party line of the government. Therefore, your best option is to resort to a mix of CBSE, ICSE and State syllabus text books.
Believe me, the biased versions are much more fun to read. This is because, unlike what most people think, history is not a mere portrayal of the past. It is a statement made by the historian about how things were. It is a realm where different ideas compete with each other for acceptance. Without all that debate, history becomes the drab, dull affair where dates and names rule the roost.