The Candid Eye

December 12, 2009

Negationism and the Muslim Conquests

From: Rewriting the Indian History

It is important to stop a moment and have a look at what the Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst, has called “negationism in India”. In his foreword to the book of the same title, Koenraad explains that negationism, which means in this context “the denial of historical crimes against humanity”, is not a new phenomenon. In modern history, the massacre by the Turks of 1,5 millions Armenians, or that of the 6 million Jews by the Nazis, the several millions of Russians by Stalin, or again the 1 million Tibetans by the Chinese communists, are historical facts which have all been denied by their perpetrators… But deny is not the exact word. They have been NEGATED in a thousand ways: gross, clever, outrageous, subtle, so that in the end, the minds of people are so confused and muddled, that nobody knows anymore where the truth is. Sometimes, it is the numbers that are negated or passed under silence: the Spanish conquest of South America has been one of the bloodiest and most ruthless episodes in history. Elst estimates that out of the population of native Continental South America of 1492, which stood at 90 million, only 32 million survived; terrible figures indeed but who talks about them today ? “But what of the conquest of India by Muslims”, asks Elst? In other parts of Asia and Europe, the conquered nations quickly opted for conversion to Islam rather than death. But in India, because of the staunch resistance of the 4000 year old Hindu faith, the Muslim conquests were for the Hindus a pure struggle between life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and their populations massacred. Each successive campaign brought hundreds of thousands of victims and similar numbers were deported as slaves. Every new invader made often literally his hill of Hindu skulls. Thus the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000, was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush, ‘Hindu slaughter’. The Bahmani sultans in central India, made it a rule to kill 100.000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100.000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions. Koenraad Elst quotes Professor K.S. Lal’s “Growth of Muslim population in India”, who writes that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 😯 MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525. INDEED PROBABLY THE BIGGEST HOLOCAUST IN THE WHOLE WORLD HISTORY. (Negat.34)
But the “pagans” were far too numerous to kill them all; and Hinduism too well entrenched in her people’s soul, never really gave up, but quietly retreated in the hearts of the pious and was preserved by the Brahmins’ amazing oral powers. Thus, realising that they would never be able to annihilate the entire Indian population and that they could not convert all the people, the Muslims rulers, particularly under the Hanifite law, allowed the pagans to become “zimmis” (protected ones) under 20 humiliating conditions, with the heavy “jizya”, the toleration tax, collected from them. “It is because of Hanifite law, writes Mr Elst, that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide of Hindus”. The last “jihad” against the Hindus was waged by the much glorified Tipu Sultan, at the end of the 18th century. Thereafter, particularly following the crushing of the 1857 rebellion by the British, Indian Muslims fell into a state of depression and increasing backwardness, due to their mollah’s refusal of British education (whereas the elite Hindus gradually went for it) and their nostalgia for the “glorious past”‘. It is only much later, when the British started drawing them into the political mainstream, so as to divide India, that they started regaining some predominance.
Negationism means that this whole aspect of Indian history has been totally erased, not only from history books, but also from the memory, from the consciousness of Indian people. Whereas the Jews have constantly tried, since the Nazi genocide, to keep alive the remembrance of their six million martyrs, the Indian leadership, political and intellectual, has made a wilful and conscious attempt to deny the genocide perpetrated by the Muslims. No one is crying for vengeance. Do the Jews of today want to retaliate upon contemporary Germany? NO. It is only a matter of making sure that history does not repeat its mistakes, as alas it is able to do today: witness the persecution of Hindus in Kashmir, whose 250.000 Pandits have fled their 5000 year old homeland; or the 50.000 Hindus chased from Afghanistan; or the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan. And most of all, to remember, is to BE ABLE TO LOOK AT TODAY WITH THE WISDOM OF YESTERDAY. No collective memory should be erased for appeasing a particular community.
Yet, what has happened in India, at the hand of Hindus themselves, is a constant denial and even a perversion of the genocide committed by Muslims in India. Hasn’t the “radical humanist” M.N. Roy, written “that Islam has fulfilled a historic mission of equality and abolition of discrimination in India, and that for this, Islam has been welcomed in India by the lower castes”. “If AT ALL any violence occurred, he goes on to say, it was a matter of justified class struggle by the progressive forces against the reactionary forces, meaning the feudal Hindu upper classes..” Want to listen to another such quote? This one deals with Mahmud Ghaznavi, the destroyer of thousands of Hindu temples, who according to his chronicler Utbi, sang the praise of the Mathura temple complex, sacred above all to all Hindus… and promptly proceeded to raze it to the ground: “Building interested Mahmud and he was much impressed by the city of Mathura, where there are today a thousand edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful. Mahmud was not a religious man. He was a Mahomedan, but that was just by the way. He was in the first place a soldier and a brilliant soldier”… Amazing eulogy indeed of the man who was proud of desecrating hundreds of temples and made it a duty to terrorise and humiliate pagans. And guess from whom is that quote? From Jawaharlal Nehru himself, the first Prime Minister of India and one of the architects of independence!
M.N. Roy, and Nehru in a lesser degree, represent the foremost current of negationism in India, which is Marxist inspired. For strangely, it was the Russian communists who decided to cultivate the Arabs after the First World War, in the hope that they constituted a fertile ground for future indoctrination. One should also never forget that Communism has affected whole generations of ardent youth, who saw in Marxism a new ideology in a world corrupted by capitalism and class exploitation. Nothing wrong in that; but as far as indoctrination goes, the youth of the West, particularly of the early sixties and seventies, were all groomed in sympathising with the good Arabs and the bad Jews. And similarly in India, two or three young generations since the early twenties, were tutored on negating Muslim genocide on the Hindus. In “Communalism and the writing of Indian history”, Romila Thapar, Harbans Mukhia and Bipan Chandra, professors at the JNU in New Delhi, the Mecca of secularism and negationism in India, denied the Muslim genocide by replacing it instead with a conflict of classes. The redoubtable Romila Thapar in her “Penguin History of India”, co-authored with Percival Spear, writes: “Aurangzeb’s supposed intolerance, is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares”. How can one be so dishonest, or so blind? But it shows how negationism is perpetuated in India.
What are the facts? Aurangzeb (1658-1707) did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered ALL temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism and had mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. A few examples: Krishna’s birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujurat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. (Neg 60). The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5 figures; according to his own official court chronicles: “Aurangzeb ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices”. The chronicle sums up the destructions like this: “Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed… His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed..Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground”.. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped-out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion and the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb’s forced conversions. As we can see Romila Thapar and Percival Spear’s statement of a benevolent Aurangzeb is a flagrant attempt at negationism. Even the respectable Encyclopedia Brittannica in its entry on India, does not mention in its chapter on the Sultanate period any persecutions of Hindus by Muslims, except “that Firuz Shah Tughlaq made largely unsuccessful attempts at converting his Hindu subjects and sometime persecuted them”. The British, for their own selfish purpose, were of course greatly responsible for whitewashing the Muslims, whom they needed to counterbalance the influence of the Hindus and the Congress. It is sad that Jawarlhal Nehru and the Congress perpetuated that brand of negationism. But that is another story.
The happiest in this matter must be the Muslims themselves. What fools these Hindus are, they must be telling themselves: We killed them by the millions, we wrested a whole nation out of them, we engineer riots against them, and they still defend us!… But don’t the Hindus know that many orthodox Indian Muslims still cling to the Deoband school, which says that India was once “Dar-ul-Islam”, the house of Islam, and should return to that status. Maulana Abul Kala Azad, several times Congress President, and Education Minister in free India, was a spokesman for this school. The Aligarh school on the contrary, led by Mohammed Iqbal, propounded the creation of Pakistan. What particularly interests us in the Aligarh school is the attempt by Muslim historians, such as Mohamed Habiib, to rewrite the Chapter of Muslim invasions in India. In 1920, Habib started writing his magnum opus, which he based on four theories: 1) that the records (written by the Muslims themselves) of slaughters of Hindus, the enslaving of their women and children and razing of temples were “mere exaggerations by court poets and zealous chroniclers to please their rulers”. 2) That they were indeed atrocities, but mainly committed by Turks, the savage riders from the Steppe. 3) That the destruction of the temples took place because Hindus stored their gold and jewels inside them and therefore Muslim armies plundered these. 4) That the conversion of millions of Hindus to Islam was not forced, “but what happened was there was a shift of opinion in the population, who on its own free will chose the Shariat against the Hindu law (smriti), as they were all oppressed by the bad Brahmins”…!!! (Negationism p.42)
Unfortunately for Habib and his school, the Muslims invaders did record with glee their genocide on Hindus, because they felt all along that they were doing their duty; that killing, plundering, enslaving and razing temples was the work of God, Mohammed. Indeed, whether it was Mahmud of Ghazni (997-1030), who was no barbarian, although a Turk, and patronised art and literature, would recite a verse of the Koran every night after having razed temples and killed his quota of unbelievers; or Firuz Shah Tughlak (1351-1388) who personally confirms that the destruction of Pagan temples was done out of piety and writes: “on the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders AND PRACTITIONERS of his abomination; I destroyed their idols temples and built mosques in their places”. Finally, as Elst points out, “Muslim fanatics were merely faithful executors of Quranic injunctions. It is not the Muslims who are guilty but Islam”. (Negationism in India, p. 44)
But ultimately, it is a miracle that Hinduism survived the onslaught of Muslim savagery; it shows how deep was her faith, how profound her karma, how deeply ingrained her soul in the hearts of her faithfuls. We do not want to point a finger at Muslim atrocities, yet they should not be denied and their mistakes should not be repeated today. But the real question is: Can Islam ever accept Hinduism? We shall turn towards the Sage, the yogi, who fought for India’s independence, accepting the Gita’s message of karma of violence when necessary, yet had a broad vision that softened his words: “You can live with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is “I will not tolerate you? How are you going to have unity with these people?…The Hindu is ready to tolerate; he is open to new ideas and his culture and has got a wonderful capacity for assimilation, but always provided India’s central truth is recognised.. (Sri Aurobindo India’s Rebirth 161,173) Or behold this, written on September 1909: “Every action for instance which may be objectionable to a number of Mahomedans, is now liable to be forbidden because it is likely to lead to a breach of peace. And one is dimly beginning to wonder whether worship in Hindu temples may be forbidden on that valid ground (India’s Rebirth p. 55). How prophetic! Sri Aurobindo could not have foreseen that so many Muslim countries would ban Rushdie’s book and that Hindu processions would often be forbidden in cities, for fear of offending the Muslims. Sri Aurobindo felt that sooner or later Hindus would have to assert again the greatness of Hinduism.
And here we must say a word about monotheism, for it is the key to the understanding of Islam. Christians and Muslims have always harped on the fact that their religions sprang-up as a reaction against the pagan polytheist creeds, which adored many Gods. ” There is only one real God they said (ours), all the rest are just worthless idols “. This ” monotheism versus polytheism business ” has fuelled since then the deep, fanatic, violent and murderous zeal of Islam against polytheist religions, particularly against Hinduism, which is the most comprehensive, most widely practiced of all them. It even cemented an alliance of sorts between the two great monotheist religions of the world, Christianity and Islam, witness the Britishers’ attitude in India, who favoured Indian Muslims and Sikhs against the Hindus; or the King of Morocco who, even though he is one of the most moderate Muslim leaders in the world, recently said in an interview: ” we have no fight with Christianity, our battle is against the Infidel who adores many gods “. But the truth is that Hinduism is without any doubt the most monotheist religion in the World, for it recognises divine unity in multiplicity. It does not say: ” there is only one God, which is Mohammed. If you do not believe in Him I will kill you “. It says instead: ” Yes Mohammed is a manifestation of God, but so is Christ, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius “. This philosophy, this way of seeing, which the Christians and Muslims call ” impious “, is actually the foundation for a true monotheist understanding of the world. It is because of this ” If you do not recognize Allah (or Christ), I will kill you “, that tens of millions of Hindus were slaughtered by Arabs and other millions of South Americans annihilated by the Christians. And ultimately the question is: Are the Muslims of today ready to accept Hinduism ? Unfortunately no. For Muslims all over the world, Hinduism is still the Infidel religion ” par excellence “. This what their religion tell them, at every moment, at every verse, at the beginning of each prayer : ” Only Allah is great “. And their mollahs still enjoin them to go on fight ” jihad ” to deliver the world of the infidels. And if the armies of Babar are not there any longer; and if it is not done any more to kill a 100.000 Hindus in a day, there is still the possibility of planting a few bombs in Bombay, of fuelling separatisms in the hated land and eventually to drop a nuclear device, which will settle the problem once and for all. As to the Indian Muslim, he might relate to his Hindu brother, for whatever he says, he remains an Indian, nay a Indu; but his religion will make sure that he does not forget that his duty is to hate the Infidel. This is the crux of the problem today and the riddle if Islam has to solved, if it wants to survive in the long run.
We will never be able to assess the immense physical harm done to India by the Muslim invasions. Even more difficult is to estimate the moral and the spiritual damage done to Hindu India. But once again, the question is not of vengeance, or of reawakening old ghosts, but of not repeating the same mistakes. Unfortunately, the harm done by the Muslims conquest is not over. The seeds planted by the Moghols, by Babar, Mahmud, or Aurangzeb, have matured: the 125 million Indian Muslims of today have forgotten that they were once peaceful, loving Hindus, forcibly converted to a religion they hated. And they sometimes take-up as theirs a cry of fanaticism which is totally alien to their culture. Indeed, as Sri Aurobindo once said: “More than 90% of the Indian Muslims are descendants of converted Hindus and belong as much to the Indian nation as the Hindu themselves”…(Rebirth of India, p.237) The embryo of secession planted by the Mahomedans, has also matured into a poisonous tree which has been called Pakistan and comes back to haunt India through three wars and the shadow of a nuclear conflict embracing South Asia. And in India, Kashmir and Ayodhya are reminders that the Moghol cry for the house of Islam in India is not yet over.
* For more details, read “Negationism in India, concealing the record of Islam”, by Koenraad Elst, Voice of India, New Delhi.

August 9, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 11

 Previous Related Article:-

Taj Mahal – A Hindu Temple??

Source of the following text:- Article 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 westernUttar 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 wifeMumtāz 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 amausoleum 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 PersianIndian, and Islamic architectural styles. In 1983, the Taj Mahal became aUNESCO 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 Mohammed 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 Mohammad 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 ofBadshahnama 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 childrenand 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)







[2] (

[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 ( )

[6] Yogesh Saxena Taj Mahal – It is time to tell the truth, ( 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


July 31, 2009

Distortions of Indian history – Part 7

Original source: Article by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari.

Akbar was a cruel killer:

There are umpteen incidents to show that, like all other Muslim rulers, Akbar was a merciless cruel killer. It has been mentioned earlier, how Akbar beheaded helpless Samrat Vikramaditya Hemraj to earn the title of Ghazi (the slayer of infidel). It has also been mentioned how the so called pseudo secular historians are trying to distort the history and conceal Akbar’s inhuman cruelty. It should be mentioned here the opinion of the renowned historian R C Majumdar in this context. He writes, In this helpless condition, Himu was put to death, according to some, by Bairam, on the refusal of Akbar to kill him with his own hands and, according to others, by Akbar himself at the instigation of his protector.” [1] But still there are some historians, though very rare, who does not hesitate to expose the truth.

Such a historian, Mr S Roy, writes, Akbar accordingly struck Himu with his sword and Bairam Khan followed him. The story of Akbar’s magnanimity and refusal to kill a fallen foe seems to be a later courtly invention. The humane and liberal emperor of Hindustan who preached ‘sulh-i-kull’ (universal toleration) was not born but made.” [2]

In this context, an incident may be described to expose Akbar’s mindless cruelty. The incident has been narrated by Asad Beg in his Wikaya. It reads, At that time the Emperor used to retire for a long interval, after evening prayers, during which time the servants and courtiers used to disperse, assembling again when they expected His Majesty to re-appear. That evening he (Akbar) happened to come out sooner than usual, to hear the news from the Dakhin, and at first found none of the servants in the palace. When he came near the throne and couch, he saw a luckless lamplighter, coiled up like a snake, in a careless death-like sleep, close to the royal couch. Enraged at the sight, he ordered him to be thrown from the tower, and he was dashed into a thousand pieces.” [3] One would be extremely frustrated if he tries to discover such an act of cruelty by a Hindu king, because Hindu kings were human beings.

Humayun, Akbar’s father, blinded his elder brother Kamran so that he could never pose a threat to the throne and Akbar assassinated Kamran’s son for the same reason. To describe this cruelty of Akbar, Vincent Smith  writes,  “Executing Kamran’s son [namely, Akbar’s own cousin] at Gwalior in 1565, Akbar set an evil example, initiated on a large scale by his descendents Shahjahan and Aurangzeb.” [4] ;

There is no doubt that Akbar inherited such inhuman and brute cruelty from his forefathers. As a matter of fact,

Akbar’s ancestors like Babar and Humayun were barbarous and vicious killers, and so were his descendants like Aurangzeb and others’ down the line.Akbar was born and brought up in a illiterate and foul atmosphere characterized by excessive drinking, womanizing and drug addiction.” [5] The so called secular historians of India are trying to project Akbar as the greatest of all Moghals, righteous in his deeds and noble in character. He is being portrayed as the only and truly secular Emperor of the times, very caring and protective of his subjects. And, above all, he is being projected as a divine incarnate. But Vincent Smith in his Akbar – The Great Mogul writes,Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timuroid royal family, as it was of many other muslim ruling houses. Babur (was) an elegant toper … Humayun made himself stupid with opium … Akbar permitted himself the practices of both vices .. Akbar’s two sons died in early manhood from chronic alcoholism, and their elder brother was saved from the same fate by a strong constitution, and not by virtue. [6] With such an atmosphere to nourish Akbar’s thoughts, it is rather usual for Akbar to become “devil incarnate“, rather than a divine incarnate.[5]

Babar, Akbar’s grandfather, was diabolic killer and a terrible iconoclast and Guru Nanak was an eye-witness to the treatments meted out to the people by Babar when he invaded India in 1521. Nanak was at Sayyidpur, now called Eminabad, 80 kilometres from Lahore, in the Gurjanwala district. Babur ordered a general massacre of the people and thousands of persons were taken as prisoners. The barbarous treatment of prisoners, in the camp, particularly pitilessly lashing of women and children, broke tender heart of Nanak. In his agony he even took God to task.” [7] Guru Nanak said, Thou, O Creator of all things, Takest to Thyself no blame: Thou hast sent Yama disguised as the great Moghal, Babar. Terrible was his slaughter, loud were the cries of the lamenters. Did not this awaken pity in Thee, O Lord? [8]

It has been said above that like all other diabolic and infernal Muslim rulers, Babar was also a terrible iconoclast. Babar’s barbarism desecrated and demolished thousands of Hindu temples and converted several thousands into mosques. “Babar converted famous Jain temple at Chanderi and the Lord Shiva temple at Sambhal into mosques. By the order of Babar, his general Mir Baqi  partially pulled down the Ram Janmabhumi Temple at Ayodhya and converted the same into a mosque.. Babar also demolished the famous Jain temple near Ubhar.” [9]

But our historians to narrate Babar, write, Babur was the best of the rulers of his times. He had eight great qualities, such as prudence and foresight, great personal ambition, skilled warrior, skilled and generous administrator, a man free from religious discrimination and the quality to gain the hearts of the army. Beside that, he was a great admirer of art, music and learning. He was also a poet and could write good poetry in Persian language” [10]

A few words should be said in this context about composing poetry by Babar. While at Ghazni, the lecherous and sodomite Babar became extremely addicted to young boy called Babri and it was the subject matter of Babar’s poetry, with which he enriched his autobiography. Gradually he became so enamored of Babri that he lost interest in his wife Ayesha. At that time I used to meet her at an interval of 10, 15 or 20 days. …Before this I never had conceived a passion for anyone, and indeed never been so circumstanced as either to hear or witness any words spoken, expressive of love or amorous passion. In this situation, I composed a few verses in person of which the following is a couplet –

Never was a lover so wretched, so enamored, so dishonoured as I,

And my fair never be found so pitiless, so disdainful as thou,” Writes Babar in his autobiography.[11]

In another similar verse, Babar wrote –

I am abashed whenever I see my love,

My companion looks at me while I look to the other way.

…     …    …    …    …    …    …    …    …    …     …

I had neither strength to go nor power to stay,

To such distraction you have reduced me

Oh, my (male) sweetheart.” [11]

It has been mentioned earlier that Muhammad Ghori, Qutb-ud-din Aibak and Altamash, all of them were sexual perverts and lascivious sodomites and Babar naturally followed that legacy..

After defeating Rana Sangram Singh at the Battle Khanua, Fatehpur Sikri, Babar massacred nearly 100,000 prisoners of war and another 100,000 civilians and raised two towers with the slain heads of the victims. Akbar seems to have preserved this great legacy of erecting minarets with slain heads of the Hindus in several occasions, as is obvious from the accounts of battles he fought, particularly at Chittore Fort.

Picture of Chattore Fort

Humayun, Akbar’s father, had a similar legacy of cruelty, slaughtering Hindus in thousands and taking Hindu women and children as captives. Many believe that he was even more degenerate and cruel than his father. After repeated battles, Humayum could ultimately capture his elder brother Kamran and subjected the latter to brutal torture. A detailed account is left by Humayun’s servant Jauhar and is quoted by Smith, which says, “He. (Humayun) had little concerns for his brother’s sufferings. One of the men was sitting on Kamran’s knees. He was pulled out of the tent and a lancet was thrust into his eyes. Some lemon juice and salt was put into his eyes.” [12]

One can imagine the cruelty and torture that Humayun was capable of inflicting on others when he subjected to his own brother to such atrocities. Humayun was also a slave to opium habit, engaged in excessive alcohol consumption and a lecherous degenarate when it came to women. He is also known to have married a 14 year old Hamida Begum by force. The cruelties perpetrated by of Akbar’s descendants (Jehangir, Shahjahan, Aurangzeb, etc..) are not entirely different from those of his ancestors. Having brought up in the company and under the guidance of a lineage of drug addicts, drunkards and sadists, it is rather anamalous that Akbar held such a gentle and noble character. Even assuming that he fancied nobility, it is amazing that Akbar let his comtemporaries and Generals, like Peer Mohammad, loot and rape the helpless citizenry that he was ruling! It would however be interesting to observe the incidents in Akbar’s reign and evaluate his character. [13]

After defeating Muzaffar Shah, the ruler of Ahmedabad, in November 1572, Akbar ordered his opponents to be trampled to death by elephants. Hamzaban, commander of Akbar’s forces laying siege to Surat in 1573 A.D. was barbarously punished by Akbar by excision of his tongue. Masud Hussain Mirza, a near relation of Akbar, who had risen in revolt, had his eyes sewn up after capture. … Some of them (300 supporters) were executed with various ingenious tortures. “It is disgusting to find a man like Akbar sanctioning such barbarism which he inherited from his Tartar ancestors”, says Smith.” [14] Such were the acts of Akbar’s barbaric cruelty.

Akbar’s Savagery and Barbarism at Chittor:

In 1567 AD, Akbar advanced with a large army against Rana Uday Singh, the son of Rana Sangram Singh, of Mewar and put the Chottore Fort under siege. But even after 4 months, no indication of surrender was visible from the other side. On the contrary, the Mughal army continued to suffer large scale casualties due to occasional Rajput attack under the leadership of brave Rajput generals Jaimal and Patta.

At last, Akbar ordered to dig two Sabats (a trench covered with leather is called a Sabat) from a far away  places to the wall of the fort. Then explosives in large quantities were dumped at the walls of the fort and a severe blasts collapsed the wall. Expecting imminent fall of the fort, nearly 300 Rajput women sacrificed their lives in Jauhar (self immolation in fire). When the Mughal army entered the fort, nearly 800 Rajput soldiers were alive and all of them were put to the sword.

Next morning, victorious Akbar entered the fort riding an elephant. The Emperor was not so pleased as he had to face a lot of hardship in occupying the fort. At that time there were nearly 40 thousand civilians in the fort and this civilian population had assisted the Rajput army to inflict damage to the Mughal army. And hence they became the target of Akbar’s wrath. To narrate the event, Vincent Smith writes, The eight thousand Rajput soldiers who formed the regular garrison having been jealously helped during the siege by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered a general massacre, which resulted in the death of 30,000.” [15] Col Tod, to describe the incident as, writes, The emperor’s proceedings were marked by the most illiterate atrocities.” [16]

But our secular historians are trying hard to hide Akbar’s cruelty and guilt. So, R C Majumdar, to describe the incident, writes, Akbar then gave order for mass execution of 30,000 non-combatants, for which all modern historians have condemned him.. According to Kaviraj Shyamadas, however, out of 40,000 peasants who were in the fort, 39,000 had died fighting and Akbar ordered the remaining 1000 to be executed.”[17] But historian A K Roy writes, Thirty thousand were slain; among them was gallant Patta, who fell after he had displayed prodigies of valour.” [18] While another historian writes, According to Abul Fazl, 30,000 persons were slain, but the figure seems to be highly exaggerated.” [19]

However, it was not possible to ascertain the exact figure of the victims who fell to Akbar’s sword, or rather, it was not manually possible to count the large number of the corpses. According to Abul Fazl, the figure was 30,000, but it is needless to say that he did not count the dead bodies but only made a rough estimate. The actual figure could be 50,000 or 80,000; or 100,000 or more than that. It is really astonishing that, most of our historians have reluctantly avoided the concluding part of the episode.

Akbar had a curiosity to know the actual number of Hindus slain. As it was impossible to manually count the heaps of dead bodies, Akbar ordered his men to collect the sacred threads from the corpses. The order was carried out the sacred threads collected were weighed. What was the result of weighing? Vincent Smith, in this regard, writes,The recorded amount 74½ mans of eight ounce each.” [20] Many believe that Smith was wrong to estimate the weight of a sacred thread and it should exceed 3 ounce each. Man or Maund is an old unit of weight, which is nearly equal to 37 Kg. So, by easy calculations, one can get an idea how many Hindus were slain on that day.

It is being said that, Aurangzeb, the grand grand son of Akbar, promulgated an order that, he should be presented 1¼ maunds of sacred threads daily, collected from slain Hindus. Simple calculations show that 24,000 sacred threads, 3 ounce each, make 1¼ maunds. So, it can be said that, nearly 24,000 Hindus were slain daily during the times of Aurangzab.[xx] (pn oak 576) These fanatic Muslim rulers used to maintain that, more the number of Hindus slain, better would be the place they occupy in jannat or Islamic Paradise.

However the Rajputs, to make the above incident immemorial, treat the number 74½ as cursed and an evil omen. Still today, if someone writes 74½ on the cover of a letter, none but the addressee opens that letter. They believe that if someone opens that letter, his life would also be cursed. .

It has been mentioned above that when Akbar occupied the Chittor Fort, more than 300 Rajput women jumped into fire (Jauhar) so that they may not be abducted to Delhi and dumped into the hell called Akbar’s harem to spend the rest of their lives as prostitutes and sex-slaves. Akbar, the devil incarnate, possessed a inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar’s motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to appropriate their women, daughters and sisters of the defeated Hindu kings. That was the reason, the Rajput women of Chittor prefered “Jauhar”( self immolation) than to be captured and disrespectfully treated as servants and prostitutes in Akbar’s harem. [5]

However, according to the Islamic faith, killing so many kafirs and drenching the Chittor Fort with kafirs’ blood, Akbar had undoubtedly done a great service to Allah and Islam and to seek blessings for this great service, Akbar went to Fatehpur Sikri, bare footed, to his religious guru Salim Chisti. It is needless to say that his guru was extremely delighted after hearing this good news from Akbar. It should be mentioned here that Salim Chisti was a Sufi darbesh and the incident was sufficient to expose the true colour  of the Sufi saints.

History of Jauhar and Sati:

This was not a new phenomenon and the ritual began in 711 AD, as soon as barbaric Muslim invaders set their foot on the Indian soil. In 711 AD, Muhammad bin Qasem invaded Sind,.by the sea through the city port of Karachi . At that time, it was called Devalay (or the abode of the God). There was big and tall temple at the sea shore which could be seen from a long distance. The Hindu King Dahir was the ruler of Sind .

King Dahir had 500 Muslim Arab soldiers in his army. In the mid-night, these Arab Muslims treacherously opened the gate of Dahir’s fort and the army of bin Qasem entered and occupied the fort by massacring the security guards of the fort. When the news of fall of the fort reached the women of the fort, including the women of the royal family, they decided to end their lives by consuming poison. At that moment a minister of Dahir’s court came running to them and said that the Muslims were so lecherous that they rape even the dead body of a kafir woman. So, the Hindu women of the fort immediately decided to destroy their bodies by jumping into fire.Then a great fire was made and all the women burnt themselves to escape humiliation and sexual assault of the lecherous Muslims. The practice was, later on, called Jauhar.

It is well known that, during the Muslim period of Indian history, thousands and thousands of Rajput women sacrificed their lives in Jauhar to save their honour and respect. There was another practice prevalent among the Muslim rulers. On the event of death of a Hindu fighter of their army in a battle, they used to bring the wife of the dead warrior into their harem. But the reluctant Hindu widows chose to burn themselves in the fire of their husbands’ pyre to avoid to be captured and live the rest of the life as sex slaves in the harems of the lecherous Muslim rulers. The practice was known as Sati (or Suttee). The term is derived from the original name of the goddess Sati, who self-immolated because she was unable to bear humiliation of her husband Shiva. The term sati also stands for a chaste woman. However, the Muslim rulers were against this practice as it meant snatching away the prey from the predator.

The so called secular historians of India , to glorify Akbar, say that Akbar was so great and generous that he wanted to ban the practice of Sati. But the incident they project as a proof of their claim, tells, a completely different story. Jaimull was a cousin of Bhagawandas (probably a minister of Akbar’s court) and his wife’s beauty attracted the attention of Akbar’s lust. One day Akbar sent Jaimull to a distant place on a false pretext and before he commenced his journey, Akbar’s men poisoned him. So Jaimaull died on his way. Jaimaull’s wife could apprehend Akbar’s trick and decided to burn herself on her husband’s pyre to avoid living as a prostitute in Akbar’s harem.. Akbar, on the other hand, lost no time to send his men to capture the widow and those who accompanied her. Thus Akbar succeeded to drag the unwilling widow of Jaimull into his harem. [21]

However, the practice of Sati, or voluntary co-cremation with the dead husband, continued even in the British period. Later on the custom got corrupted and in most cases, unwilling widows were burnt by the relatives of the deceased husband to grab his properties and riches. And thus, Sati, once a noble practice, became infamous.The first formal British ban on Sati was imposed in 1798, in the city of Calcutta only, by the effort of Raja Rammohan Roy and Lord William Bentinck, the then Governor General of the British East India Company.

However, after that tragic incident, the Chittorgarh Fort was abandoned for ever and none of the descendants Rana Uday Singh set his foot on the Chittor Fort. All the Kings of Mewar, including Rana Pratap Singh, used Udaypur as their capital the Udaypur Fort as the seat of the government. So, the Chittor Fort gradually turned into a desolate thicket.


[1] R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, An Advanced History of India, Macmillan & Co (1980), 439.

[2] R. C, Majumdar, The History and Cultures of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (in 12 Vols) , VII ,106.

[3] H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson, The History of India -As Told by Its Own Historians (in 8 volumes), Low Price Publication, Delhi (1996) VI, 164.

[4] V. A. Smith, Akbar the Great Mogul, Oxford Clarendon Press, 50.

[5] Akbar The Great A Tyrannical Monarch

[6] V. A. Smith, ibid, 294.

[7] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 308..

[8] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 306

[9] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 307.

[10] C Roy, Bharater Itihas (in Bengali), Maulik Library, Calcutta (1985), I, 16.

[11] Babur’s Memoirs, Tr by John Leyden and William Erskine, Revised by Sir Lucal King, p 125-126 (as quoted by P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 268).

[12] V.A. Smith, ibid, 20.

[13] Shelat J.M, Akbar, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay , 27.

[14] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 305.

[15] V.A. Smith, ibid, 90.

[16] P N Oak, Islamic Havoc in Indian History, ibid, 302

[17].R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 334.

[18] R C Majumdar, ibid, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, VII, 122.

[19] .R C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhury and K. Datta, ibid, (1980), 443.

[20] V.A. Smith, ibid, 91.

[21] V.A. Smith, ibid, 103.

Also read the Part 1 Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5 and Part 6 of this series. Next article is here:- Part 8.

July 7, 2009

Triple eclipse interests rationals

Sri D. K. Hari has published a fantastic book combining Astronomy, History and Geography, Archeology and a huge literature survey (with Lots of color pictures!!) :-

The Triple Eclipse of 2009


Here is a news summarizing view of Historian and Astrophysicist.

An article has appeared on rediff here.

The book is available in divine shops of Art of Living and major book stalls in the city. You are welcome to read the book and then participate in the comments on above rediff article.

June 27, 2009

About the state of matters in Pakistan

Here is an article by Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy  published in Frontline,March 14,2009.

Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy is Professor and Chairman of the Physics Department at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.

Related articles:-

Stop funding my failing state

Threat of re-partitioning of India?


Is Congress selling India to Pakistan?

June 18, 2009

History Retold

An article worth reading from the Frontline magazine.  The source is here.

May 27, 2009

An advice not taken

Babri Masjid Ram Mandir was a national issue of tension some years ago. His Holiness Sri Sri Ravishankar (henceforth Guruji in this article) had suggested some important feasible solutions. Having not taken into consideration, an opportunity for peace was lost.

It is sad that Prabhakar, leader of LTTE, is killed. Is this how we treat our political oppositions? Is there nothing like a peace treaty, an agreement of understanding?

In past there have been wars, for power, religion, territory, wealth – but they had a human corner. An opposition king was not brutally murdered (atleast in many cases). There would be a peace at the end of war.

What is the guarranty that another Prabhakar won’t be born?

Guruji had visited Srilanka 3 years ago. He talked with Prabhakar saying, “you think you are leading a freedom fight, but the world thinks you as a terrorist. All goals are not achieved by war, talk to government and come to a peaceful agreement.” And he told the government, “see, all wars are not won by power alone. There needs to be a dialog. You cannot make peace with a totally defeated enemy, you cannot make friends with them. So having shown the power, come to the talking terms.” Both did not listen. Prabhakar said, Guruji you don’t know politics, you do your teaching of meditation and all that. Government anyways wanted to wipe out LTTE totally.

By disagreeing to simple words of advice of the saint, the two parties have lost the chance, and lives of lakhs of people are devastated. Srilankan Government has lost all faith and concern of Tamils in India.

On the other hand, listening to Sri Sri, Gujjar agitation could be overcome, and peace was brokered between Raje and Gujjar.

There are numerous examples in the history, where prosperity has downed when the Kings ruled the country in consultation with the Guru s. Why so? Simply because one who is Ruler, looks for proper administration, and one who is reformer, looks for proper benefit for all. A Ruler without the guidance of reformers can become selfish, biased, corrupt. A Reformer without aid of Ruler finds it tough to bring a remarkable change in the Society.

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj had Swami Ramdas as his guiding mentor.

Chanakya was the guiding mentor of Chandragupta Mourya.

Buddha guided King Ashoka. And in much olden days, Krishna guided Pandavas and Vasishtha Rishi trained the King Rama.

Who are all the saints today in India and abroad? Its true that there have been a few frauds under the umbrella of sainthood, and it has been punished time and again. However, majority are good only. Why haven’t we heard of their works, their ideas for building a nation…

Rulers and Reformers in India need to join hands together.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at