Fateh Pur Sikri : Distortion of Indian History for Vote Bank Politics : Radhey Shyam Brahmchari

DISTORTION OF INDIAN HISTORY FOR MUSLIM APPEASEMENT, Part 5D

By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
pl visit

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/07/07/distortion-of-indian-history-for-muslim-appeasement-part-5d/

The Distorted History of Fatehpur Sikri:

It has been said earlier how the authorship of the massive falsely attributed to Akbar. In a similar manner, Akbar is being projected as the author of another fort-palace complex, a excellent example of Hindu architecture, at Fatehpur Sikri, nearly 37 Km away from the city of Agra .

The so called pseudo secular and the Marxist historians are propagating the idea that the place was originally called Sikri and it was a small village surrounded by deep forest infested with wild animals. In that village, a Sufi saint called Shaikh Salim Chisti began to live in a small hut in 1537. At that time, Akbar was mentally upset as he did not have a male child.

To narrate the situation, Nizam-ud-din Ahmad in his Tabakat-i-Akbari, writes, “The Emperor had several sons born to him, but none of them had lived. Shaikh Salim Chisti, who resided at the town of Sikri , twelve kos from Agra , had gladdened him with the promise of a son. The Emperor went to visit the Shaikh several times, and remained there ten or twenty days on each occasion. … When one of the Emperor’s wives became pregnant, he conveyed her to the dwelling of the Shaikh, and left her there. Sometimes he stayed there himself, sometimes at Agra . He gave the name of Fathpur to Sikri, and built a bazaar and baths there.” [1] “Salim, the old saint, had settled among the rocks and wild beasts as a hermit in A D 1537-8 (A H 944), and in the year following had constructed a monastery and school-house.” [2]

In this regard, historian V A Smith, in his Akbar The Great Mogul, also writes, “Akbar resolved at this time to press his scheme for converting the obscure village of Sikri into a great city. His reasons, or some of them, for doing so may be stated in the words of Abu-l Fazl: – Inasmuch as his exalted sons [Salim and Murad] had taken their birth in Sikri and the God-knowing spirit of Shaikh Salim had taken possession thereof, his holy heart desired to give outward splendour to this spot which possessed spiritual grandeur. Now that his standards had arrived at this place, his former design was passed forward, and an order was issued that the superintendents of affairs should erect lofty buildings for the use of the Shahinshah.” [3]

He further continues, “A wall of masonry was built round the town, but never completed, and dwellings of all classes were constructed, as well as schools, baths, and other public institutions, the indispensable gardens not being neglected. The Emperor, after the conquest of Gujarat , gave it the name of Fathabad (town of victory), which was soon exchanged in both popular and official use for the synonymous Fathpur..” [2] V A Smith continues, “The language of Abu-l Fazl in the above passage quoted might be understood to mean that Akbar did not begin his extensive programme of building at Fathpur-Sikri until 1571, but that is not the fact. The design had been formed in his mind and his had actually been begun in 1569.” [2]

But most of the historians believe that Akbar began the so called construction of Fatehpur Sikri in 1571, and hence the historian R C Majumdar writes, “From there (Punjab) he returned to Ajmer (corrupt of Sanskrit Ajeya Meru) by way of Hissar and on 9th August, 1571, arrived at Sikri which he now decided to make his capital as the auspicious place where his two sons Salim and Murad had been born. The resources of his expanding empire and the artistic genius of India and Persia were employed to convert the petty, quiet hamlet into a crowded proud metropolis which even in its lost glory was regarded by Fitch in 1585 as much greater than Elizabethan London.” [4] From the above statement it implies that Akbar began the so called construction of Fatehpur Sikri in 1571 and it is not clear, from the above statements, when the job was completed. Smith also says that, Akbar built the Buland Darwaza to commemorate his conquest of Gujarat in 1575-76. [5]

But many hold the view that Akbar finished the construction in 1585. So, a general notification, in this regard, reads, “Fatehpur Sikri was built during 1571 and 1585. … This town was built by the Mughal Emperor, Akbar. He had planned this city as his capital but shortage of water compelled him to abandon the city.. … Fatehpur Sikri is one of the finest examples of Mughal architectural splendour at its height.” [6] The Wikipedia Encyclopedia, in this context, says, “Fatehpur Sikri is a city and a municipal board in Agra district in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. The historical city was constructed by Mughal emperor Akbar beginning in 1570 and served as the empire’s capital from 1571 until 1585, when it was abandoned for reasons that remain unclear.” [7]

One should notice that the statements quoted above are terribly inconsistent. According to Smith, Akbar began the construction of the city in 1571 (or 1569) and before that the place was a small village. According to R C Majumdar, in 1571, Akbar decided to use the auspicious place as the capital of his empire. But according to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, “Akbar started to use the place as the capital of his empire from 1571 and continued to use the place as the capital up to 1585.” The question naturally arises – How many years Akbar took to convert the small village Sikri into a city? Was it possible for Akbar to shift his capital to Sikri before the completion of the said construction? The most ridiculous part of the episode is that, according to Wikipedia Encyclopedia, Akbar started to use Sikri as his capital in the same year the construction of the city had begun. So, it implies that, Akbar, in 1571, had shifted his capital from the city of Agra to a desolate village called Sikri, surrounded by jungles.

The reader might have noticed another anomaly in the above narrations. According to some authors, the construction of the city was completed in 1585, and in the same year it was abandoned due to scarcity of water. As if the so called scarcity of water fell, all on a sudden, from the sky without giving any prior hint and no body could foresee that. Most importantly, these contradictory statements lead one to conclude that Akbar the fool spoiled so much money for setting up the new city in vain.

There are other anomalies as well. It has been mentioned above that, according to V A Smith, Akbar built the Buland Darwaza as a commemoration of his conquest of Gujarat in 1575-76. While an epigraph inscribed on the Buland Darwaza says that it was built in 1601, when Akbar returned from Daccan. But it has been said above that the city of Fatehpur Sikri was abandoned in 1585. So, it becomes unacceptable because in that case it should be concluded that Akbar built the Buland Darwaza in the abandoned city of Fatehpur Sikri .. So, according to another version, it is said that, Fatehpur Sikri was finally abandoned in 1604 and the Buland Darwaza was erected in 1601. [8]

However, to sum up the above narrations, Akbar began the construction of the city of Fatehpur Sikri in 1571 and the construction was completed in 1785. Or, Akbar took 14 years to complete the job.. But whosoever has visited the site would refuse to believe that such a massive construction, containing the invincible fort and innumerable palaces therein with fine stone carvings, could be constructed within 14 or 15 years. To make this unbelievable story believable, the so called pseudo secular and Marxist historians of India resort to treachery and lie, and say, “The work was pushed on with such phenomenal speed that, as if by magic palaces, public buildings, mosques and tombs, gardens and baths, pavilions and water courses were called into being beneath the barren sandstone ridge of Sikri.” [8]

In this context, it should be mentioned what absurd Jahangir, son of Akbar, has written in his autobiography, regarding the construction of Fatehpur Sikri. He writes, “In course of fourteen to fifteen years, that hill full of wild beasts became a city containing all kinds of gardens and buildings, lofty edifices and pleasant places attractive to the heart.” [8]

It has been pointed out above that historians believe that Akbar built the Buland Darwaza (the Great Portal) in 1601 as a monument after the conquest of Gujarat . In this regard, our historians write, “The southern entrance to the Jam-i-Masjid at Fatehpur Sikri was considered to be suitable position, and the original entrance was replaced by the construction of a massive portal. This was known as the Buland Darwaja.” [9] It is important to note here that originally there was a gate where the Buland Darwaza stands today. Common sense tells us that the said gate was very old and hence Akbar found it suitable to demolish that worn out gate and make a new one. Had this older gate been built by Akbar, hardly 15 years ago, he would have certainly not shown any interest to demolish the same to be replaced by the new gate called Buland Darwaza.

The True History of Fatehpur Sikri:

We now may pay heed to what another group of historians, known as nationalist historians, have to say in this regard. These historians are convinced that the authorship of the fort-palace complex at Fatehpur Sikri is being falsely attributed to Akbar. According to them the city, now known as Fatehpur Sikri, was a thriving and prosperous city from very older times. Once upon a time, during the times of Babar, Akbar’s grand father, the fort-palace complex at Fatehpur, was under the occupation of Rana Sangram Singh of Mewar. In 1527, a battle was fought between Babar and Maharana Sangram Singh, known as the Battle of Khanua, in a field close to the fort of Fatehpur. In that battle Babar defeated Rana Sangram Singh and thus the occupation of the fort went to the Mughals.

There are many references to show that fort at Fatehpur (or Fathpur) was there even centuries before the times of Akbar. The Muslim chronicler Yahya bin Ahmad, in his Tarikh-i-Mubarakshahi, writes, “On the 19th Jumada-l awwal, 808 H ( 12th November, 1405 AD), a battle was fought between them (Khizr Khan and Ikbal Khan). At the first charge, Ikbal wasa defeated and fled. …(Later on) He was killed and his head was cut off and sent to Fathpur.” [10] The statement is sufficient to prove that, at least 150 years before the times of Akbar, Fatehpur Sikri was a place of political importance, not an isolated village surrounded by jungle.

Yahya bin Ahmad also writes, “Sikri, which is now known as Fathpur, was entrusted to Malik Khairu-d din Tuhfa. His Majesty (Mubarak Shah) then proceeded towards Gwalior .” [11]This statement conclusively proves that the city which is now known as Fatehpur was originally known as Sikri. It has been said earlier that the Battle of Khanua was fought between Babar and Rana Sangram Singh in a field close to Fatehpur Sikri. Babar, in his autobiography Tuzak-i-Babri, has given the description of the battle. The Tuzak-i-Babri says that Babar left Agra on 11th February, 1527 AD and advanced towards Fatehpur to meet Rana Sangram Singh. Babar writes, “After marching a kos, we found that the enemy had retreated. There being a large tank on our left, I encamped there, to have the benefit of water.” [12]

At that hour, Babar sent an advanced team of 1000 men, under the care of Abdul Aziz and Mollah Apak, to assess the situation and collect prior intelligence. To describe the situation, Babar writes, “… without taking any precautions, he (Abdul Aziz) advanced as far as Kanwahah, which is five kos from Sikri.” [13] But a troop of 4000 or 5000 Rajputs routed them and compelled them to return to their base.

It is to be noted here that, Rana Sangram Singh was the most famous Hindu warrior at that time and he carried 82 scars on his body. So, naturally, Babar’s army was visibly nervous. Just on the day, previous to the battle, Babar held meeting with his nervous generals. To comment on the result of the discussions, Babar writes, “At this time, as I have already observed, in consequence of the preceding events, a general consternation and alarm prevailed among great and small. There was not a single person who uttered a manly word, nor an individual who delivered a manly opinion.” [14]

As mentioned above, Babar camped outside the wall of Sikri, near a big tank and the Rajput camp was inside the wall. The chief Rajput generals were Rawal Udai Singh, Medini Ray, Bhamal, Varmadev and Siladitya, the caretaker of the Raisin Fort. Beside that, there were a few Afghan generals in the Rajput army and the most prominent among them were Hasan Khan and Sikandar Lodi. After being thrashed at Kanwahah, the Mughal army became extremely frightened and advised Babar to retreat.

So, from the above facts, it becomes evident that, if the Rajputs continued their attack from the incident of Kanwahah, the Mughal army would have defeated and dispersed. But Sangram Singh took time and gave the Mughal army an opportunity to re-assemble. In this context, we should note another development. Babar had initiated a dialogue with Sangram Singh through Siladitya, but later on he succeeded to bribe Siladitya to bring him to his side. This enabled Babar to gather some vital military secrets of the Rajput army.

However, on 17th (or 16th) March, 1527 AD, the battle took place at the field of Khanua, close to Sikri and 37 Km from Agra . As soon as the battle began, Siladitya changed side with his men and in addition to that, the Afghan generals Hasan Khan and Sikandar Lodi and their army preferred not to fight against the Mussalmans of Babar’s army and remained, more or less, silent spectators. The actual strength of the Rajput army was not properly recorded, but according to Col Tod, there were 80,000 horses and 500 elephants in the Rajput army. [15]

The fierce battle began in the morning and continued for ten hours. When the victory was under the control of the Rajputs, Sangram Singh suffered a severe wound and had to leave the battle field. The incident made the Rajput army disappointed and they began to disperse, and thus victory went to the hands of the Mughals. To describe the incident, Babar writes, “Having defeated the enemy, we pursued them with great slaughter. Their camp might be two kos distant from ours. On reaching it, I sent on Muhammadi and some other officers, with the order to follow them in close pursuit, slaying and cutting them off, so that they should not have the time to re-assemble.” [16]

Babar continues, “The battle was fought within the view of a small hill, near our camp. On this hillock I directed a tower of the skulls of the infidels to be constructed. … Immense numbers of the dead bodies of the pagans and apostates had fallen in their flight, all the way to Bayana, and even as far as Alwar and Mewat.” [16] After entering the fort, Babar ordered general massacre and Muhammadi and other Mughal generals cut down the civilians of the city of Sikri en masse. There are no proper records of how many Hindus were slaughtered on that day. The so called secular and Marxist historians always try to keep the figure low. It has been mentioned that there were 80,000 strong cavalry and 500 elephants in the Rajput army. Hence, many believe that, including the foot-soldiers, the Rajput army was 200,000 strong, and nearly 100,000 of them were taken prisoners and slaughtered on that day. In addition to that, about another 100,000 civilians were massacred in the city.

It has been mentioned earlier that after the mass-massacre of the Hindus in the Chittor Fort by Akbar, Rajput Kings abandoned the fort and thereafter, they used the fort at Udaipur as their residence and the seat of the government. In a similar manner, the Rajput kings had abandoned the Fort of Sikri after the mass-massacre by Babar, as mentioned above. And, as a result, the city of Fatehpur Sikri gradually turned into a desolate jungle. Later on, Akbar perhaps took an initiative to revive the city by clearing the jungle and our dishonest historians are portraying that as Akbar’s creation of the new city of Fatehpur Sikri. A study of the history of Fatehpur Sikri, it appears that, Akbar might have built a minutely small part, the Buland Darwaza, of the entire edifice and nothing else. And later on, he might have built the tomb of Shaikh Salim Chisti.

Another point of vital importance should be highlighted in this context. Anyone, whosoever has visited the Fort-Palace complex at Fatehpur Sikri, it must not have escaped his notice that all the palaces and buildings reveal overwhelmingly Hindu style of architecture and stone carving. According to experts, they are either of Rajasthani or Gujarati style. This is due to the simple reason that the Rajput Hindu kings were the real authors of those buildings and palaces. But to hide the true history, the despicable creatures, callef secular and Marxist historians, say that, Akbar engaged both Hindu and Muslim artists of Persia for building the palaces and stone carving. They also say that, Akbar was so generous that he had no hesitation to accept Hindu style of architecture. But all these lies are going to be exposed very soon as the real history of Fatehpur Sikri has started to reveal due to fresh archaeological discoveries. We expect to deal that aspect in the next installment.

(To be continued)

References:

[1] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India -As Told by Its Own Historians (in 8 volumes), Low Price Publication, Delhi (1996) V, 332-333.

[2] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 105.

[3] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 104-105.

[4] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) ,VII ,125.

[5] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, ibid, 107.

[6] (www.taj-mahal-india-travel.com/monuments-places-to-visit/fatehpur-sikri.html)

[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatehpur_Sikri)

[8] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 760.

[9] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 763.

[10] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 40.

[11] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 62.

[12] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 268.

[13] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 267.

[14] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 269.

[15] R. C, Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 36.

[16] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, ibid, IV, 272.

*****************

Share with others to save the Humanity:

Distortion of Indian History for Muslim Appeasement, Part 6A

Posted by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari on 7/23/09 • Categorized as Op-Ed

See DISTORTION OF INDIAN HISTORY FOR MUSLIM APPEASEMENT, Part 5C

By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

The Distorted History of Taj Mahal:

There is no doubt that Taj Mahal in Agra is the most beautiful architectural marvel in the entire world and hence it is called one of the great wonders of the world. But who is the author of this excellent exhibit of architecture? Opinions in this regard are highly contentious. The general notion is that, it is the creation of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan. In previous articles, we have seen how the authorship of excellent pieces of architecture in Delhi, Agra and Fatehpur Sikri are being falsely attributed to the foreign Muslim invaders, who occupied and ruled India for nearly eight centuries. So, the question naturally arises – Is the claim of Shah Jahan’s authorship of Taj Mahal true? Or the said view is merely a part of the process of distortion of Indian history, to appease the Muslims? In this article, we shall try to find a plausible reply to these questions.

In this regard, the Encyclopedia Britannica states, “Taj Mahal is a mausoleum complex in Agra, in western Uttar Pradesh state, in northern India, on the southern bank of the Yamuna (Jumna) River. …the Taj Mahal is distinguished as the finest example of Mughal architecture, a blend of Indian, Persian, and Islamic styles. One of the most beautiful structural compositions in the world, the Taj Mahal was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1983. It was built by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahān (reigned 1628-58) to immortalize his wife Mumtāz Mahal(“Chosen One of the Palace”). The name Taj Mahal is a derivation of her name. She died in childbirth in 1631, after having been the emperor’s inseparable companion since their marriage in 1612. The plans for the complex have been attributed to various architects of the period, though the chief architect was probably Ustad Ahmad Lahawrī, an Indian of Persian descent.” [1]

The Wikipedia Encyclopedia maintains a similar view and says, “The Taj Mahal (pronounced /tɑdʒ məˈhɑl) is a mausoleum located in Agra, India, built by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal. The Taj Mahal (also “the Taj”) is considered the finest example of Mughal architecture, a style that combines elements from Persian, Indian, and Islamic architectural styles. In 1983, the Taj Mahal became a UNESCO World Heritage Site and was cited as “the jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world’s heritage.” [2]

In this context, we should mention what the India ‘s historians have to say in this matter. Historian R C Majumdar, in this regard, writes, “The Taj Mahal, a splendid mausoleum built by Shah Jahan, at a cost of fifty lacs of rupees, over the grave of his beloved wife, Mumtaz Mahal, is rightly regarded as one of the wonders of the world for its beauty and magnificence.” [3] Another historian S K Saraswati writes, “But all the above architectural creations of Shah Jahan are thrown into shade by that superb conception of the mausoleum that the emperor raised up at Agra to enshrine the mortal remains of his beloved consort, Arjumand Banu Begam, better known as Mumtaz Mahal. The Taj Mahal, as it is called after the title of the empress, stands on an elevated ground on a bend of the river Jamuna so that it has a fine view from whatever angle it is seen.” [4]

As a result of this worldwide propaganda, Shahjahan’s authorship of Taj Mahal, mixed with story of romantic love between Shah Jahan and his wife, has become so pervasive that it has become a universal symbol of love between a husband and his wife. Even a common man, at first instance, refuses to admit any other version, even if it is more convincing and rational. Even the Nobel Laureate Poet Rabindranath Tagore, being swayed by the above story, described the Taj Mahal, in one of his poems, as a drop of tears of the grief-stricken Emperor Shahjahan.

The True History of Taj Mahal:

But according to Stephen Knapp, a well known researcher on Taj Mahal, it was not built by Shah Jahan and he writes, “There is ample evidence that the Taj Mahal was never built by Shah Jahan. Some say the Taj Mahal pre-dates Shah Jahan by several centuries and was originally built as a Hindu or Vedic temple/palace complex and Shah Jahan merely acquired it (by brute force) from its previous owner, the Hindu King Jai Singh.” [5] Not only Stephen Knapp but many other researchers like Yogesh Saxena, V S Godbole and Prushottam Nagesh Oak (or P N Oak) hold a similar view and P N Oak is the most prominent and pioneer among scholars who worked to discover the real author of Taj Mahal.

It is well known that Emperor Akbar got Akbarnama, a history of his reign, written by his court-chronicler Abul Fazl and in a similar manner, Shahjahan had the history of his reign titled Badshahnama written by his court-chronicler Abdul Hamid Lahori. The original Badshahnama was written in Persian using Arabic alphabets and in 1963, P N Oak made a startling discovery the the pages 402 and 403 of the edition of Badshahnama, published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal (see the fascimile of the page 402 and 403 of the edition in Figure-1), contain the true history of the building now known as Taj Mahal. An English translation of the contents from line 21 of page 402 to line 41 on page 403 of Badshahnama is given below.

Meanwhile, we should notice another important point. It is well known that the two British historians, H M Elliot and J Dowson, have done the great job of writing history of India, under Muslim rule, starting from the attack on Sindh by @@*%*$%! bin Kasim in the 8th century to the fall of Marathas in the 19th century, a period, covering nearly 1200 years. It has been written, based on chronicles of the court chroniclers of the Muslim rulers only. The work of Elliot and Dowson’s was published in 8 volumes during 1867 to 1877 and the Volume 7 of their work deals with the reigns of Shahjahan and Aurangzeb. But it is really astonishing that there is not even a mentioning of Taj Mahal in the said work.

Many Muslim chroniclers have described the times of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb, e.g.

(1) Badshahnama by Abdul Hamid Lahori,

(2) Wakiyat Jahangiri by emperor Jahangir,

(3) Shahjahan-nama by Enayet Khan,

(4) Tarikh-i- Mufajjali by Mufajjal Khan,

(5) Mirat-i-Alam by Bakhtyar Khan,

(6) Alamgirnama by Muhammad Qazim and

(7) Mustakhab-ul-Lubab by Kafi Khan.

But in none of above works, there is even mentioning of Taj Mahal, except Badshahnama by Lahori and that too as a palace of Jai Singh

While commenting on this point, Dr Yogesh Saxena, writes, “The authors should have said, “Though we have presented history of Shahjahan based on his official chronicle Badshahnama, we did not find any reference to Taj Mahal in it.” They did no such thing. And Historians have kept even this information from us for the last 130 years.” [6] It was Professor P N Oak, who, for the first time, made the startling discovery that there is mentioning of the building now called Taj Mahal, but as a palace of the Hindu king Jai Singh, in Badshahnama.

There is another important point to note. There is a well established rumour that Shah Jahan engaged 20,000 labours who toiled for 20 (or 22) years to complete the construction of Taj Mahal, originates by the French traveler Jean Baptiste Tavernier. It is really unthinkable that, Shah Jahan completed such a gigantic job, spending so much money, employing so many people throughout so many years, but it escaped the attention of his sycophant chroniclers, and they did not even say a single word about the said job in their works. So, the logical conclusion is that, the said gigantic construction never took place during the reign of Shah Jahan and Badshahnama confirms this fact.

The original Badshahnama was written in Persian using Arabic alphabets and the pages 402 and 403 of the edition published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal (see the fascimile of the page 402 and 403 of Vol-I of the edition given above) contain the true history of the building now known as Taj Mahal. Professor Oak got the two pages translated into English by a scholar of Persian language and said trnslation of the contents from line 21 of page 402 to line 41 on page 403 of Vol-I of Badshahnama is given below.

“Friday, 15th Jamadiulawal, the sacred dead body of the traveller to the kingdom of holiness Hazrat Mumtazul Zamani, who was temporarily buried, was brought, accompanied by Prince !%$!$$%@ Shah, Suja bahadur, Wazir Khan and Satiunnesa Khanam, who knew the pemperament of the deceased intimately and was well versed in view of that Queen of the Queens used to hold, was brought to the capital Akbarabad (Agra) and an order was issued that very day coins be distributed among the beggers and fakirs. The site covered with a majestic garden, to the south of the great city (of Agra) and amidst which the building known as the palace of Raja Man Singh, at present owned by Raja Jai asingh, grandson of Man Singh, was selected for the burial of the Queen, whose abode is in heaven. Although Raja Jai Singh valued it greatly as his ancestral heritage and property, yet he agreed to part with it gratis for Emperor Shahjahan, still out of sheer scrupulousness and religious sanctity, he (Jai Singh) was granted Sharifabad in exchange of that grand palace (Ali Manzil). After the arrival of the deadbody in that great city (of Agra), next year that illustrious body of the Queen was laid to rest and the officials of the capital, according to royal order, hid the body of that pious lady from the eyes of the world and the palace so majestic (imarat-e-alishan) and capped with a dome (wa gumbaje) was turned into a sky-high lofty mausoleum”. [7]

Many historians try to convince that Shah Jahan purchased a piece of land from Raja Jai Singh and erected Taj Mahal on that land. But the lines 29 and 30 of page 403 of Vol-I of Badshahnama reads, “Pesh az ein Manzil-e-Rajah Mansingh bud wadari waqt ba Rajah Jaisingh (29) Nabirae taalluq dasht barae madfan e an bahisht muwattan bar guzeedand .. (30).” According to experts, the correct translation of the phrase “Manzil-e-Rajah Mansingh bud wadari waqt ba Rajah Jaisingh”is “.. the building known as the palace of Raja Man Singh, at present owned by Raja Jai asingh”. So, it is evident that it cannot be a transaction of land but of a magnificent palace. In line 37, further clarification has been made and said that it was a transaction of an imarat-e-alishan (i.e. a gigantic building) and not of land

In 1964, when Prof P N Oak started to disclose his doubts about Shah Jahan’s authorship of Taj Mahal and presented the document in Badshahnama as the proof, many of his opponents said that his translation of Badshahnama was not correct. One of his bitter critiques was a Kashmiri Pandit. He was also a scholar of Persian language. To narrate the incident Dr Yogesh Saxena writes, “One of his opponents was a Kashmiri Pandit. Eventually they went to Government of India Archives. At the suggestion of the Librarian there the Pandit started to read Badshahnama, soon he came to Volume I, page 403. One line read – va pesh azin manzil-e-Raja Mansingh bood, vadari vakt ba Raja Jaisingh. He confessed that Shah Jahan took over Raja Mansingh’s palace for burial of Mumtaz. We owe so much to this honest opponent of Mr Oak. He gave word by word translation of pages 402 and 403 to Mr Oak who promptly published it in his book Taj Mahal is a Hindu Palace (1968). However, Mr Oak never stated that the translation was his. It was done for him by a Persian expert.” [6]

The name of the Queen, in whose memory the Taj Mahal is being said to have been erected, was Arjumand Banu. She was married to Shahjahan in 1612 A.D. and within 18 years of her married life she gave birth to 14 children and in fact she died in 1630 (or in 1631) while she was delivering her 14th child. According to Badshahnama she was buried temporarily at Burhanpur and in the same year her body was brought from Burhanpur to Agra and the next year her body was permanently buried at the majestic palace of Raja Man Singh.. From the Badshahnama it becomes evident the edifice, now known as Taj Mahal, was not authored by Emperor Shahjahan.

Who was The Author of Building called Taj Mahal:

So, according to the narrations of Badshanama and from other evidence, it becomes clear that the edifice, now known as Taj Mahal, was not authored by emperor Shah Jahan. The question, therefore, naturally arises – Who built that magnificent building?

A locality, nearly 4 km away from Taj Mahal, is called Bateswar and in 1900 A.D., General Alexander Cuningham, the then Director of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), conducted an excavation at Bateswar and discovered an edict, now known as the Munj Bateswar Edict and kept at the Lucknow Museum. The epigraph contains 34 verses written in Sanskrit, out of which 25th, 26th and 34th verses are important in the present context. The original Sankrit text and English translation of the above verses are given below –

Prasādo vaiṣṇavastena nirnimitotavahan hari /

Murdhn āspriśati yo nityaṃ padamasaiva madhyamam // (25)

“He built a marble temple which is the abode of Lord Vishnu and the King bows down to touch His feet” (25).

Akāryacca sphatikāvadātamasāvidam mandiramindumauleḥ /

Na jātuyasminnibsnsadevah kailāsvasayacakara cetaḥ // (26)

“The King has built another marble temple which has been dedicated to the Lord Who has the moon as His ornament on His forehead and Who, getting such a beautiful abode, has forgotten to return to Kailash ” (26).

Pakṣa tryakṣamukhāditya saṃkhye vikramavatsare /

Aśvina śukla pañcmyāṃ bāsare vāsave śitu // (34)

“Today, the 5th day of the bright half in the month of Ashwin, the Sunday, in the year 1212 of the Vikram Samvat, the edict is being laid” (34).

Mr. D. J. Kale, a well known archaeologist, has mentioned the said Munj Bateswar Edict in his celebrated work Epigraphica India. On page 124 of the said work, Mr. Kale writes, “The sais Munj Bateswar Edict was laid by King Paramardidev of the Chandratreya dynasty on Sukla Panchami in the month of Ashwin, in the year 1212 Vikram Samvat (or A.D. 1156). … King Paramardidev built two magnificent temples with white marble , one for Lords Vishnu and the other for Lord Shiva and they were desecrated later on by the Muslim invaders. Perhaps a farsighted man took the edict to a safer place at Bateswar and buries it beneath the ground”.[8] Perhaps, after the said desecration, the temples were no longer used as religious places and due to this reason Abdul Hamid Lahori mentioned them as palaces, not as temples. According to the renowned historian Mr. R. C. Majumdar, the other name of the Chandratreya or Chandel King Paramardidev was Paramal and their kingdom was known as Bundelkhand, a.k.a.Jejakabhukti [9]

Today, there are two marble palaces in Agra, one is the Mausoleum of Idmat-ud-Daula, the father of Noorjahan and the other is Taj Mahal, and it is evident from the Munj Bateswar edict that, once upon a time, one of them was the temple of Lord Vishnu and the other was a temple of Lord Shiva. Experts believe that it is the temple of Lord Vishnu that has been made the mausoleum of Idmat-ud-Daula, and the temple of Lord Shiva has been converted into the mausoleum of the queen Arjumand Banu. There are so many evidence that support of this conclusion and we shall try to discuss them in future installments of this article.

(To be continued)

References:

[1] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/581007/Taj-Mahal

[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal)

[3] R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, An Advanced History of India, MacMillan & Co (1980),586..

[4] R. C. Majumdar (Gen Ed), History & Culture of the Indian People (in 12 Volumes), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai (1996), VII, 793.

[5] Stephen Knapp,Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple ? The Photographic Evidence ( http://www.stephen-knapp….mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm )

[6] Yogesh Saxena Taj Mahal – It is time to tell the truth, (http://agrasen.blogspot.com/2009/04/hidden- facts-in-indian-history.html )

[7] P N Oak, Tajmahal – The True Story, Published by A Ghosh, p 9-12.

[8] D J Kale, Epigraphica India , published by S D Kale & M D Kale, I, 270-274.

[9] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Vol-5, p-122

******************.

(To be continued)

References:

[1] Dr V S Godbole, Taj Mahal – It is time to tell the truth, (http://agrasen.blogspot.com/2009/04/hidden- facts-in-indian-history.html )

[2] Aseemaa, June 2009, p-42

[3] Stephen Knapp,Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple ? The Photographic Evidence ( http://www.stephen-knapp….mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm )

[4] %%!$+* Abdul Hamid Lahori, Badshahnama, Asiatic Soc. Bengal, I, 403.

[5] R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, An Advanced History of India, MacMillan & Co (1980),586.

[6] A C Roy, Bharater Itihas (in Bengali), I, 186.

[7] Muhammad Din, Illustrated Weekly, Dec 30, 1951.

[8] A Guide to Taj at Agra , Victoria Press, 14.

[9] Kanwar Lal, The Taj, R K Publishing House, Delhi , 10.

[10] Keene ‘s Handbook for Visitors to Agra & its Neighbourhood, E A Duncan (Editor), 154

[11] A C Roy, ibid, I, 107.

[12] Encyclopaedia Britannica (1964), XXI, 758.

[13] R C Arora, The City of Taj , Hibernian Press, Calcutta .

[14] Jean Baptiste Tavernier, Travels in India , (Tr. V Ball), (1889) MacMillan & Co, London .

[15] Columbia Lippincot Gazetteer, II, 19.

[16] Encyclopaedia Britannica (1964), XXI, 759.

Distortion of Indian History for Muslim Appeasement, Part

http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/08/18/distortion-of-indian-history-for-muslim-appeasement-part-6d/

By Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

In the previous article, a few evidence were presented that support the claim that the building, now known as Taj Mahal, was originally a Hindu temple. We should now proceed to establish that it was temple of Lord Shiva . [1]

A few evidence that Taj Mahal was a Temple of Lord Shiva :

The metallic pinnacle on the top of the central dome of the Taj Mahal is a trident or a three-pronged spear, which is the weapon as well as the emblem of Lord Shiva. This is a unique feature for every Shiva temple, big or small, in India . A close up of the dome, with the trident pinnacle, is shown in the figure-1. One should also notice that the upper part of the dome, on which the pinnacle rests, is an inverted lotus and furthermore the design of the dome resembles a peepul leaf. These two aspects undoubtedly show that the building, now called Taj Mahal, was designed by the Hindus.

A closer view of the pinnacle, as shown below, reveals that the trident is a specially designed and ornamental one, incorporating some other Hindu symbols. According to experts, the lower portion of the trident has been made like a crescent, which is the ornament of Lord Shiva. A group of historians try to convince that the presence of the crescent establishes the Muslim authorship of the Taj Mahal. But the other name of Lord Shiva is Chandramaulishwar or the deity who uses the crescent as an ornament attached to his clotted hair. This crescent provides the two side prongs of the trident.

It is most important to study and analyze the middle prong of the trident. Its main body resembles a water pot (kalash) with mango leaves (amra pallav) which Hindus use during worshipping a deity and a cocoanut on the top of the pot. It is undoubtedly a part of Hindu ritual and whenever Hindus worship a deity, they place a decorated water pot on the top of which place mango leaves and a cocoanut, as shown in the pinnacle. It is important to notice that the word Allah is inscribed in Arabic alphabet on the water pot. Perhaps, Shah Jahan wanted to remove the pinnacle as it contains Hindu symbols. But it was found that the pinnacle could not be replaced without causing damage to the dome. So he had to abandon his plan to replace the pinnacle and remain satisfied by inscribing the word Allah on it.

Figure 3 shows the full scale replica of the pinnacle inlaid on the red stone courtyard of Taj Mahal. Most astonishingly, if any one makes a Google (Image) search for the “pinnacle of Shiva temple”, he will find this inlaid figure of the pinnacle in Taj Mahal. This is very significant and it shows that the Google operators are convinced that Taj Mahal was really a temple of Lord Shiva . This figure shows three more water pots (kalash) below the crescent.

The flower called datura-stramonium in English is known as dhotra or dhutra in India . This flower is a must for worshiping Lord Shiva and the figure-4 shows a full grown Dhotra plant bearing dhotra flowers, in the marble work of the Taj Mahal. In the previous article, we have seen how the dhotra leaves were carved out of marble in the design of OM. One finds dhutra flowers in marble carving in several places of the Taj Mahal. This special attention to dhutra leaves and dhutra flowers in marble carving provides strong evidence in favour of the claim that the building called Taj Mahal today, was originally a temple of Lord Shiva .

The Munj Bateswar Edict tells us that the temple of Shiva was extremely beautiful; it was so beautiful that Lord Shiva had forgotten to return to His original abode Kailash after obtaining the temple as

Figure 4. The full scale figure of the pinnacle on the dome has been inlaid on the red stone courtyard

Figure 4. Dhotra flowers in the marble work of the Taj Mahal

His dwelling place. There is no doubt that the beauty of Taj Mahal is the only match for the beauty described in the Munj Bateswar Edict.

Taj Mahal is a two-storey mausoleum – fake cenotaph on the marble plinth (or the upper floor) of Taj, while real burial and cenotaph on the lower floor beneath the marble plinth. There is no other Muslim mausoleum like this in India . But there two-storey Shiva temple, with one emblem of Shiva (Shiva Linga) on the upper floor and another Shiva emblem on the lower floor such as in Ujjain and elsewhere. This is another evidence that today’s Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple, turned into a mausoleum by Shah Jahan.

In a Muslim mausoleum, no body circumambulates the cenotaph but there is such a provision in Taj Mahal. But it is the Hindu practice to circumambulate their deity in a temple. So, it is very likely that the devotees of Lord Shiva used to circumambulate the Shiva emblem (or Shiva Linga) in the Taj Mahal, when it was a Shiva temple and the provision for circumambulation in Taj Mahal is an evidence in this regard.

Any visitor, after entering the Taj Mahal, observes that there is long chain hanging from the ceiling of the main dome. The staff of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has attached an electric lamp with the chain. The existence of this chain is quite unfit for a mausoleum and it is impossible to explain it considering Taj Mahal as burial. But it very simple to explain it if one accepts that the Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple. It is a Hindu ritual to hang a water-pot (kalash), with a minute hole, over emblem of Shiva so that drops of water can trickle down on the emblem. So, it is very likely that when the Taj Mahal was a Shiva temple, a water pot was attached to the chain and drops water used to fall on the emblem of Lord Shiva.

The acoustic design of Taj is such that if any one makes a sound inside it, the sound reverberates for a long time. The visitors make various kinds of sound to feel that reverberation. But if one shouts “Hara Hara Bom Bom”, the reverberation becomes most magnificent and persists for several seconds. This proves that the original acoustic design was particularly made for the said slogan “Hara Hara Bom Bom”, a war cry in the name of Lord Shiva. Scholars believe that English “Hurray” is a corrupt of “Hara Hara”.

It is a Hindu practice to call the Shiva emblems of different temples by different names. For example, the Shiva emblem of the temple of Somnath is called the Yotirlinga. Professor P N Oak was convinced that the Shiva emblem of the Taj Mahal was called Tejolinga, and hence the shrine was called Tejo Mahalaya. And the present name Taj Mahal is simply a corrupt of Tejo Mahalya. And the name of the queen Arjumand Banu was changed to Mamataj Mahal, only to establish a parity between the name of the queen and the name of the building. The fact is ridiculous in the sense that, if a building is erected to commemorate a person, the name of the monument follows the name of the monument. But in the case of Taj Mahal, the name of the person has been altered to fit the name of the monument.

Many may argue that the other name of queen Arjumand Banu was Mamataz-ul-Jamani and that was the reason for naming her mausoleum Taj Mahal. It is nice, but in that case the name of her mausoleum should have been Mamataz Mahal. So, question naturally arises – Why ‘Mama’ of ‘Mamataz’ had been deleted? And why it is not Taz Mahal but Taj Mahal? There is only one reply to these question – The word Taj Mahal had been coined from Tejo Mahalaya, not from Mamataz-ul-Jamani. Professor Oak also believed that, another name of the Shiva emblem of Taj Mahal was Agreswar Mahadev, or the Lord of the city of Agra .

There are so many other buildings in the Taj Complex which is quite unlikely for a mausoleum. On the contrary, it can be compared with large temple complexes like those in Puri, Madurai , Tirupati and so on. In fact, when Taj was a temple of Lord Shiva , the other buildings were used for several other purposes. Some buildings as rest house for the pilgrims, some as servant quarters, and some as guest houses, some as stables and cow-sheds, some as office of the administrative officers and so on. Apart from all these buildings, there are many other underground rooms. There are 22 underground rooms on the rear side of the Taj Mahal, facing the River Jamuna. Even a preliminary investigation leads one to discover another storey below the lower storey, where lie the actual burials of Shah Jahan and his queen Arjumand Banu and their real cenotaphs. This storey contains so many other rooms and a long corridor links the 22 rooms facing the River Jamuna. Many of these rooms and apartments are now sealed by raising brick walls. Many believe that other vital evidence are hidden in these sealed apartments.

From 1959 to 1962, the renowned archaeologist Dr S R Rao was the Superintendent of the Agra Division of the Archaeological Survey of India and during his tenure, a crack was detected in the wall of an underground apartment. While inspecting the crack, the ASI staff discovered many Hindu symbols and Hindu idols dumped inside the room. The matter was readily hushed up and, by the instigation of the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, the room was sealed by raising brick wall (Figure 6).

Some of the rooms were sealed by Shah Jahan himself to conceal the Hindu history of Taj Mahal Many believe that in these sealed rooms many valuable evidence such as Sanskrit inscriptions, Hindu idols, the desecrated Shiva Linga, Hindu scriptures and temple equipments are concealed. Beside these rooms sealed by Shah Jahan, there are many such rooms sealed by the Government of India just to keep the Hindu identity of Taj Mahal secret, according to its pokicy of Muslim appeasement.

Before the advent of the Muslim invaders, when today’s Taj Mahal was a Shiva temple, there was an extremely valuable railing made of gold decorated with costly gems and jewels, surrounding the emblem of Lord Shiva. Later on, Shah Jahan misappropriated it and replaced the same with a marble railing, which one observes today. Historian R C Majumdar, regarding this older and valuable railing, says, “The marble railing around the cenotaphs is said to be a later replacement, the original having been one gold set with jewels.” [2] rcm bvb vii 795]

According to R C Majumdar, the designer of the garden inside the Taj Complex was a Hindu and his name was Ranmal [3]. [rcm bvb vii 797] The question naturally arises – While the entire Taj Complex is said to have been designed by Ustad Isa, or Abdul Karim, why a Hindu Ranmal was entrusted to design the garden? This is also an outcome of wild conjecture, and that too for want of authentic records. In this context, it should be mentioned that in the said garden there are some plants, like Dutra Stramonium, Harshringar and Marmelos fruit (figures 9, 10 and 11), which are very dear to Lord Shiva. It is another evidence to prove that the building, now known as Taj Mahal, was originally a Shiva temple.

In 1973, Mr Marvin Mills, a Professor in the Department of Archaeology at the Pratt School in New York , USA , took a sample of wood from an worn out door of one of the 22 rooms shown in Figure 5. He then handed over the sample to Dr Ivans Williams, the director of Radio Carbon Laboratory of the Brooklyn College , to conduct a Carbon-14 test for determining the antiquity of the sample. The result of the test showed that the said piece of wood was of from 1320 to 1398 AD. Or in other words, that sample of wood was older by nearly 300 years than the times of Shah Jahan. This provides a scientific evidence that Taj Mahal was not authored by Shah Jahan.

(To be continued)

References:

[1] Most of the information of this article have been collected from TAJ MAHAL: The True Story

by Prof P N Oak, Published by A Ghosh,

[2] R.C. Majumdar (General Editor), The History and Culture of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya

Bhavan (in 12 volumes), Mumbai (1996) VII, 795. .

[3] R.C. Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (1996), VII, 797.