RED FORT- DISTORTED HISTORY- A

RAJPUTANA MAHAL ,NOT ANY MUSLIM

KING CONSTRUCTION.#decoding redfort
WRONG HISTORY OF INDIA IS BEING TOLD.

Just as TAJO MAHAL is told to be bult by MUSLIMS.Infact it was TAJO,MAHAL-LINK

The Royal Emblem of King Anangoal, the true builder of the Red Fort, just above the entrance
of the Khas Mahal in the Red Fort.
 The close up view of the rntrance to the Khas Mahal.
The figure 7 shows the grand entrance to the Khas Mahal, while the figure 7 shows an enlarged
view of the same gate, where one observes the resplendent Hindu midday sun (from whom
Hindu rulers claim their descent) in the arch above flanked by sacred OM. This proves the
hollowness of the claim of Shah Jahan’s authorship of the Red Fort. The figure 8 shows two life
size elephants flanking the Delhi Gate of the Red Fort. It should be mentioned here that it is a sin
for the Muslims to imitate Allah’s creation through painting, or by sculpture, or by any other
means. This implies that, had Shah Jahan been the builder of the Red Fort, he would have never
allowed to install the said life size elephants mentioned above. On the contrary, decorating
homes, forts, palaces and temples with elephants is a pure Hindu tradition. To the Hindus, an
elephant symbolizes might, power, glory and wealth. So, these life size elephants, flanking the
Delhi Gate of the Red Fort, are an unmistakable sign of the fort’s Hindu origin. There is no doubt
that, this is one of the conclusive proofs that the Red Fort was commissioned by Raja Anangoal
(1060 AD), and not by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan (1639-48), as is erroneously believed.
The fort therefore predates Shah Jahan by 600 years. Many believe that, there were two similar
big life-size stone elephants decorating the Naqqar Khana (Music House) gate and they were
destroyed by the Muslim invaders. The chopped up pieces may still be found stored in the Khas
Mahal basement.
 
Two life size elephants flanking the Delhi Gate of Delhi’s Red Fort.

  

CLOSE UP OF DOOR KNOB-BELOW-

PICTURE ABOVE- shows the entrance of the Moti Masjid inside the Red Fort. The
archaeological tablet, raised outside, claims that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb, son and
successor of Shah Jahan. But many believe that the claim is baseless due to the following
reasons. Firstly, the entrance is of a temple design. Secondly, the arch between the domes there
are stone carvings of banana bunches, which is used by the Hindus while worshipping their
deities. Thirdly, the naming buildings after gems (Moti means pearl) is purely a Hindu custom.
Fourthly, the truncated Hindu perambulatory passage may still be seen to exist on the building’s
left flank. All these evidence suggest that, originally it was a Hindu temple and, later on,
converted into a mosque by the Muslim invaders.
DISCRIPTION HERE-

Indian history has been distorted to keep so called psudocesular issues active, which is basically
let minority rule on majority and majority agree with that. What is the use of history that give a
false teaching.It has been pointed out earlier that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the prophet of
nonviolence, was the originator of the politics of Muslim appeasement in India. As we know, he
was the most trusted as well as the most loyal stooge of the British Empire, it was not possible
for him to demand India’s independence.

It should be noted that his concept of Hindu-Muslim amity was entirely biased and prejudiced.
Only Hindus were to make every sacrifice for the sake of the said Hindu-Muslim amity. To
achieve that Hindu-Muslim amity, Gandhi suggested alteration or distortion of Indian history,
partcularly the period of Muslim rule. and two major guidelines, he set for this purpose, were, (1)
Muslim rulers were not foreign invaders as they lived in India and died in India and (2) the
Muslim rule in India was not a colonial rule but a golden period of Indian history. And following
these guidelines, a group of dirty people called the secular historians, set to distort Indian history
in a big way.

 But what was the real nature of that Muslim colonial rule and what was the nature of
Dhimmitude the Hindus had suffered for centuries after centuries? It is best described through a
dialogue between Sultan Alauddin Khilji and a qazi called Mughisuddin. The incident has been
narrated by Alauddin’s court chronicler Ziauddin Barni in Tarikh-i-Firozshahi. Barni wrote,

 “One day Qazi Mughisuddin visited the court of Sultan Alauddin Khilji and the Sultan asked the
qazi, ‘How are Hindus designated in the (Islamic) law, as payers of tribute (Kharaj-gauzar) or
giver of tribute (Kharaj-dih)?’ The kazi replied, ‘They are called payers of tribute and when the
revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility
and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance
open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due
subordination of the Zimmi (tribute payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this
throwing of dirt in their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty. … Allah holds them in
contempt, for He says, ‘Keep them in subjection’. To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially
a religious duty because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet and because the
Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert
them to Islam or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property. No doctor but the
great doctor (Hanifa), to whose school we belong, has asserted to the imposition of the jizya (poll
tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘death or Islam’.” (H. M.
Elliot & J. Dowson, HISTORY OF INDIA: As Told by It’s Own Historians, III,184).

 In the First Part of the article, it has been narrated that, how the so called secular historians of
India are wrongly projecting the barbaric Muslim ruler Shahjahan as the author of the famous
Red Fort of Delhi, which was built by the Hindu Kings several centuries before the times of
Shahjahan. In this Second Part, we shall discuss how these secular historians are narrating
another cruel,barbaric and lecherous Muslim ruler Akbar as the author of the invincible fortress
of Agra.
The Fort at Agra:
Like the Red Fort in Delhi, the fortress at Agra also suffers similar misrepresentation. The
invincible fort at Agra, as we see it today, was not built by any foreign Muslim invader and its
authorship is falsely atributed to Akbar.. This marvellous exhibit of Hindu architecture, was also
built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the barbaric Muslim invaders in India. Like
the Red Fort in Delhi, the Muslim invaders forcefully occupied it and used it as their royal court
and residence. During the time of Mahabharata, Agra belonged to the kingdom of Mathura ruled
by the oppressive king Kansa, who used the prison at Agra to incarcerate his political rivals. In
this regard, the Muslim chronicler Abdulla in his Tarikh-i-Daudi writes, “He (Sultan Sikandar
Lodi) generally resided at Agra; it is said by some that Agra became a city in his time, before
which it had been a mere village , but one of the old standing. The Hindus, indeed, Assert that
Agra was a strong place in the days of Raja Kansa, ruled in Mathura, and who confined everyone
who displeased him, in the fort at that place, so that in course of time it had become the
established state prison”.

 But in the same work, chronicler Abdulla says that Muhammad of Ghazni captured Agra and
reduced it to a heap of ruins and writes, “In the year when the army of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni
invaded Hindustan, he so ruined Agra that it became one of the most insignificant villges of the
land and after that it improved from the times of Sultan Sikandar, and at length, in Akbar’s time,
became the seat of the government of Delhi, and one of the chief cities of Hindustan”.[1] It is
important to note here that the above description admits that before the invasion of Mahmud of
Ghazni, Agra was city and not a village.

 Another Muslim chronicler Nizmuddin Ahmed in his Tabaquat-i-Akbari writes, “In the year 972
H (1565 AD), the command was given by Akbar for building a new fort of hewn stone at Agra,
instead of the old citadel, which was of bricks and had become ruinous. The foundation was laid
and in four years the fortress was completed”.[2] A Muslim poet named Diwan-i-Salman, who
lived during the time of Muhammad Ghori, wrote some poems of historical value. In one of his
poems, he said that during the time of Muhammad Ghori, the fortress of Agra was under the
control of a Rajput king Jaipal. In the same poem he described the Agra fort and wrote, “The fort
of Agra is built amongst the sands like a hill, and its battlements are like hillocks. No calamity
had ever befallen its fortification, nor hd deceitful time dealt treacherously with it”.[3] So, the
question naturally arises- Which fort Diwan-i-Salman had seen? The fort he saw was definitely
made of stone, otherwise he would not have compared it with a hill. Above all, is it possible to
finish the construction of a massive fort made of stone, as we see it today, within a period of 4
years?

 It should also be mentioned here that the Muslim chroniclers, who claim Akbar’s authorship of
the fort at Agra, differ widely regarding the time taken by Akbar to complete the job. According
to Abul Fazl, one of the ministers at the Akbar’s court, Akbar took 8 years to build the fort.
While according to Jahngir, the son of Akbar, he took 15 years to complete the construction.[4]
It has been said earlier that according to Nizamuddin Ahmed, the job was done within a shortm
period of 4 years.[12] It is important to note here that there are other evidence that suggest that
the fort of Agra was there during the time of Babur. Babur set his foot at the fort of Agra for the
first time on May 4, 1526, and before that his son Humayun had taken control of the fort.
Thereafter, Babur left Agra on February 11, 1527, and proceeded to face Maharana Sangram
Singh in the battle of Khanua, leaving the fort in the care of his son Humayun.[5] So, the rational
conclusion is that, there was a massive fort, made of stone, at Agra under the control of a Rajput
King Jaipal and Muhammad Ghori occupied it by defeating Jaipal in the year 1192. Thereafter,
when the fort came under the control of the Mughals, Akbar might have undertaken some repair
and renovation work of the then existing fort.

 Above all, there is no dispute among our historians that, whether it is the Red Fort in Delhi or
the invincible fortress at Agra, Hindu style, particularly the Gujarati and Rajasthani style, is very
prominent in the construction of the interior palaces, courts, halls and so on. Especially, the
pillars and the gateways of these halls and courts bear pure Hindu style of stone carving. It seems
amusing when our historians, in their attempt to explain this overwhelming and pervasive Hindu
influence, say that the Muslim rulers who, according to their belief, were very sympathetic to the
Hindus, deliberately encouraged Hindu style in building their edifices to promote Hindu-Muslim
amity.

 So, a group of historins, having more rational views, believe that all the historical monuments of
Delhi and Agra, the authorship of which is at present being wrongly atributed to the Muslim
rulers, were, in fact, built by the Hindu kings well before the arrival of the foreign Muslim
invders. They also believe that in their endeavour to give these monuments an Islamic face, the
Muslim rulers, in the name of repair and renovation, removed almost all the Hindu symbols from
these monuments and buried them somewhere within the peripfery of those monuments. So a
thorough scientific and archaeological investigations is urgently called for revealing the truth and
settling all such contrary views.

Red Fort as mentioned in Prithviraj Raso

According to Oak, Prithviraj Raso, a contemporary chronicle tells us that Prithviraj Chauhan, the
king who ruled Ajmer and Delhi, lived in a palace on the bank of river Yamuna. Traditional
accounts also tell us that Prithviraj’s palace was known as Lal-Kot, that is, a red-walled structure.
The only building in Delhi which answers four-square to these specifications is what is today
known as the Red Fort. And yet the Mogul emperor Shahjahan is being wrongly given the credit
of having built the Red Fort in Delhi.
 

 
  
Old Delhi was not founded by Shahjahan
Taimurlang who invaded Delhi in 1398, that is nearly 250 years before Shahjahan, refers to Old
Delhi whose inhabitants he massacred. And yet Old Delhi is mentioned in our histories as a city
founded by Shahjahan. In fact Old Delhi is built around the axial road – The Chandni Chowk –
which joins the Red Fort with the building which is now known as the Fatehpuri Mosque but
which was the temple of the hereditary deity of Delhi’s Hindu rulers. So even 400 years before
Shahjahan, Old Delhi, Red Fort and Chandnin Chowk did exist.
 

 
 
Raj Ghat or Badshah Ghat
The Yamuna bank to the rear of the fort is known as Raj-ghat. That is a Sanskrit word. It could
not have stuck on unless several generations of Rajas had occupied the Red Fort prior to
Shahjahan and his predecessors. No Rajas ever ruled from the Red Fort after Shahjahan, the fifth
generation Mogul ruler. Had Shahjahan built the fort, the bank stretch of the Yamuna at the rear
would have been known as the Badshah Ghat and not Rajghat.
 

 
 
Architectural evidence
The Delhi gate of the fort has a pair of stone elephants outside it. Islam strictly forbids the raising
of any images while Rajput monarchs were known for their love of the elephant. On either side
of the fort, archways are embossed with stone-flower emblems which appear on all mediaeval
Hindu buildings. Running water channels, through which Yamuna water coursed its way
throughout the fort, again suggest Rajput construction because Muslims with a desert tradition
could never have thought of running-water channels.
 

 
 
Architectural evidence
The Sbravan and Bhado pavilions and the Kesar Kund in the Diwan-i-Khas are again all Hindu
terms. The Diwan-i-Khas and the Diwan-i-Aam do not have a single dome or minaret which the
Muslim architecture is believed to insist on. The marble balcony in which the ruler used to sit in
the Diwan-i-Aam has a temple type ceiling with stalactite style ends nicking out obliquely. The
Diwan i-Khas has a striking similarity with the royal apartment inside Ambar (old Jaipur) built
by the Rajputs in pre-Mogul times.
 

 
 
Architectural evidence
Every one of the Mogul rulers had a harem of 5,000 women as mentioned in memoirs and
chronicles. All of them, the ruler himself and his many children could by no stretch of
imagination be accommodated in the two-three rooms that comprise the Diwan-i Khas. The
Diwan-i_khas and the Diwan-i-Aam have a mandap style ornate Hindu workmanship. Besides,
the Diwan-i-Khas bears a close resemblance to the interior palace in Ambar (Old Jaipur) built
around 984 A.D.
 

 
 
Symbol of justice
A marble grill wall near the Diwan-i-Khas displays a balance motif symbolic of royal justice.
The Mogul rulers who regarded 99 per cent of their subjects as mere vermin could never think of
flaunting that symbol of justice in their palace. But the Rajput rulers advised by their Brahman
councillors did certainly have the dispensation of justice as one of their primary functions
constantly impressed on them through the scales motif.
 

 
 
Heaven on earth?
A Persian couplet inlaid on a wall of the Diwan-i-Khas proclaims the place as a veritable
“Heaven on Earth’. Such a boast can only emanate from a captor. Had Shahjahan been the
original builder of the fort he would never have described the building in such superlative terms.
The original builder is often very modest about his construction. Moreover a builder is more
conscious of the building’s defects to ever think of calling it a veritable “Heaven on Earth’.
 
  
 
A psychological principle
Another important psychological principle also applies in this case. A person calls his building a
shack or a cottage rather than a paradise. It is also worthwhile considering that no matter how
beautiful a wife a man may have he would never shout about her beauty from the road square or
housetops. Similarly a person who toils and spends money to build a building is not the one who
boasts about it. On the other hand neighbours or strangers, who have an evil eye on a building or
a woman, are the ones who praise the physical beauty of those attractions.
 

 
 
A psychological principle
We have on actual instance from mediaeval history. Padmini, the queen of Chitor fort is famed
for her physical allure. There could have been hundreds of women as beautiful as her in India’s
Kshatriya households. But histories have been silent regarding their physical beauty precisely
because such beauty was never bragged about at least in India in public. But Padmini’s physical
beauty came to be talked about only because Allauddin Khilji was so enamoured of her that he
moved heaven and hell to capture her.
 
  
 
The couplet was inlaid by the captors
This should convince visitors to the Red Fort, and historians that the bragging Persian couplet in
the Diwan-i Khas is yet another very strong proof that the couplet was inlaid by the captors of
the fort who, dazzled by the ornate beauty of the monument that came to them as war booty,
characterized it as a veritable paradise.
 

 
 
Non-Islamic shrines near Red Fort
Emerging from the Red Fort we see that the two nearest shrines, only a stone’s throw from the
fort, are both non-Moguls. One is the red Jain Temple and the other the Gauri Shankar Temple.
Had Shahjahan built the Red Fort he would never have allowed the two non-Islamic shrines to
remain there. These two temples are there because the fort was constructed by the Rajputs
several centuries before Shahjahan.
 
  
 
Chandni Chowk’s inhabitants
Chandni Chowk, the main thoroughfare stemming from the fort is almost exclusively inhabited
by Hindus. Had the Moguls built the fort we should have seen Turks, Afghans, Persians, Arabs
and Hindu converts settled in Cbandni Chowk. The whole of Old Delhi has a teeming and over-
whelming Hindu population. In its complicated, winding alleys all their homes too are built in
the traditional Hindu style. To maintain that a cruel despot like Shahjahan built houses for
Hindus and fortified the whole city with a massive wall is absurd. As Taimuriang’s
autobiography testifies Old Delhi existed centuries before Shahjahan.

Fateh Pur Sikri : Distortion of Indian History

for Vote Bank Politics : Radhey Shyam
Brahmchari
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.

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.