'As previously explained, these photos that were discovered are black and white and found in a simple album in India. Except for old age and some water damage on some of them (creating white spots in areas), most are still in relatively good condition. They all have the stamp on the back which states, "Archaeology Survey of India," verifying their authenticity. Each photograph was accompanied by a typed caption taped in the album near the photo, explaining the subject of the photo and what it means. The captions accompany the photos on the following pages just as they were written in the album, so the style of English and the explanations are kept the same. They are obviously written from an Indian perspective, but provide most interesting insights into what is shown. Whatever I may say about the photos are displayed in brackets [ ]. Otherwise, I let the photos and the captions speak for themselves, as they were found.'-Mr.Stephen Knapp.Source:www.stephen-knapp.com
The Photographs of the Red Fort and other Buildings around Delhi :
Red Fort Photo # 1
This tablet raised inside Delhi's Red Fort by modern archaeologists proclaims that Shahjahan (who ruled from 1628 to 1658 A.D.) built this fort from 1639 to 1648 A.D. As against this see the [next] photo of the painting of Shahjahan's time preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. It depicts Shajahan receiving the Persian ambassador inside the fort in 1628, the very year of Shahjahan's accession. Obviously the fort existed much before Shahjahan.
Red Fort Photo # 2
The 5th generation Mogul emperor Shahjahan is credited with having built the Red Fort in Delhi. Shahjahan ascended the throne in 1628 A.D. This contemporary painting shows him receiving the Persian ambassador in 1628 itself, in the Diwan-i-Aam (Common Room) of the Red Fort itself. This painting preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, was reproduced in the Illustrated Weekly of India (page 32) of March 14, 1971. Since Shahjahan was in the fort in the year of his accession, this documentary evidence disproves the notion that he built the fort. Compare with this the photo of the tablet in English raised inside the fort by the Govt. of India's archaeology department asserting that Shahjahan built the fort during 1639-48. This is emphatic proof of Indian history having been thoroughly falsified during Muslim rule in India.
Red Fort Photo # 3
This royal Hindu insignia of the Hindu king who built Delhi's Red Fort, is still there in the Khas Mahal pavilion. But even this visual symbol has been blatantly misinterpreted. The two swords laid hilt to hilt, curving upward are being inadvertently styled by ignorant guides, archaeologists and historians as an Islamic crescent. The sacred Hindu Kalash (water pot) on the hilts is never noticed. The lotus bud on the kalash represents royal wealth. The pair of scales is symbolic of impartial justice.
Red Fort Photo # 4
This perforated marble screen inside the Khas Mahal (i.e. the King's own chamber) in Delhi's Red Fort, is a Hindu specialty. Such jalees are mentioned even in Ramayanic descriptions of palaces. Therefore some buildings claimed to be mosques in Ahmedabad which boast of such exquisite jalees (lattices) are Hindu edifices. The Hindu royal emblem mounted on the upper part of the jalee, disproves that the Mogul Shahjahan built the fort.
Red Fort Photos # 5 and 6
The resplendent Hindu midday sun (from whom Hindu rulers claim descent) in the arch above flanked by the sacred Hindu letter OM. Below it is the royal Hindu insignia. This proves the hollowness of the claim that Shahjahan commissioned the Red Fort.
Red Fort Photo # 7
These life size elephants flanking the Delhi Gate of Delhi's Red Fort are an unmistakable sign of the fort's Hindu origin. This is one of the proofs that the Red Fort was commissioned by Raja Anangoal (1060 A.D.) and not the Mogul emperor Shahjahan (1639-48) as is erroneously believed. [The fort predates Shahjahan by 600 years, similar to the Taj Mahal.]
Red Fort Photo # 8
It is entirely false that the Red Fort of Delhi was built by Shahjahan in 1639-48 A.D. Muslims were the destroyers of statues. Then why should they have constructed statues? But there are statues of Hindu Mahavants riding the elephants of the doors of each interior room of "Khas Mahal" in the Red Fort. On the main gate of the Fort named "Delhi Darwaja," there are huge statues of elephants. The curtain of building statues of elephants on forts and palace gates can be well judged by examining the palaces at Gwalior, Udaipur and Kota. Decorating homes, forts, palaces and temples with elephants is a hoary Hindu tradition. To the Hindu an elephant symbolizes might, power, glory and wealth. The Red Fort in Delhi has life-size elephants at its gate and elephants with riders atop its door knobs in the Khas Mahal pavilion. Had Shahjahan built the fort, such Hindu motifs should not have been there.
Red Fort Photo # 9
A close up of the elephant and rider door knob in the Khas Mahal of the Red Fort in Delhi. This is a typically Hindu motif. Other big life-size stone elephants decorating the Naqqar Khana (Music House) gate were slaughtered by Islamic invaders. The chopped up pieces may still be seen stored in the Khas Mahal basements. The public must insist on these being joined and displayed.
Red Fort Photo # 10
Inner view of the entrance to the so-called Moti Masjid inside Delhi's Red Fort. The archaeological tablet outside claims that the mosque was built by Aurangzeb, son and successor of Shahjahan. That claim is baseless because (1) The entrance is of a temple design. (2) The arch between the domes is made of banana bunches used in Hindu worship. (3) On either side above the arch are fruit trays. (4) Naming buildings after gems (Moti means pearl) is a Hindu custom. (5) If Shahjahan built the fort why didn't he provide it with a mosque? (6) The truncated Hindu perambulatory passage may still be seen to exist on the building's left flank. (7) The back of the wall shows signs of tampering.
Red Fort Photo # 11
A close-up of the interior top of the entrance arch of the so-called Moti Masjid (which was Hindu Moti Mandir) inside Delhi's Red Fort. The arch at the bottom may be seen to be made of banana bunches. On either side above the arch are trays holding five fruits each as holy Hindu offering. Fruit is taboo inside Muslim mosques.
Red Fort Photo # 12
This temple-front design of ribbed gourd-like domes on either side with a pinnacle surmounted by a canopy in the centre, embossed on the riverside wall of the Rang Mahal apartment inside Delhi's Red fort is emphatic proof that the fort is a pre-Shahjahan Hindu fort. Even the name Rang Mahal is Hindu. In this same pavilion is carved on the floor an exquisite lotus in full bloom as a fountain trough. Muslim walls and floors are plain. The canopy in the photo may be seen at several Hindu altars. The kalash (pot) under it represents divinity in Hindu tradition.
Humayun's Tomb Photo # 13
'Vishnu's footprint' in the so-called Humayun Tomb, New Delhi. This photo is reproduced from page 78 of "The World of Ancient India," translated into English (from G. Le Bon's original French book published in the 19th century) by David Macrae, Tudor Publishing co., New York, 1974.
This photo proves that the so-called Humayun mausoleum is an ancient Hindu temple palace. Inquiries with archaeologists in Delhi drew a blank They have never seen these footprints, which indicates that they are heir to a lot of non-information and mis-information. Humayun is not at all buried in Delhi. According to Farishta's chronicle (English translation by John Briggs, Vol. II, page 174) Humayun is buried in Agra, while according to Abul Fazal (Elliot & Dowson, Vol. VI, page 22) Humayun lies buried in Sirhind.
Kutab Minar Photos # 14 and 15
[Top photo with the caption underneath, which reads as follows:] A panel of the so-called Kutab tower in Delhi. The exquisite serpentine Hindu pattern in the upper part is the wreath called 'Makar Torana' because it emanates from the mouth of a crocodile. This is a very common sacred Hindu motif in historic buildings. The Islamic tampering and forgery in stone may be seen in the lower portion. An attempt has been made to plant Koranic lettering. Such forgery in stone fooled even historians who thereby inadvertently ascribed those buildings to Muslim authorship.
[Bottom photo] This remnant of a temple around the so-called Kutab Minar in Delhi has been named 'Kuwat-ul-Islam' mosque by the conqueror Kutubuddin in the closing years of the 12th century A.D. The term signifies "The Strength of Islam" in capturing and battering a Hindu temple and blatantly using it as a mosque. Ignorant historians who could not explain away the Hindu workmanship foolishly concluded that the Muslims demolished some other temple and carried the Hindu pillars hither to raise this 'mosque (?).' This is an absurdity from every point of view. Muslims only seized Hindu temples and pressed them into service as mosques.
Kutab Minar Photo # 16
Muslim captors dismantled surface stones of the so-called Kutab tower in Delhi, reversed them and inscribed Koran on the exterior. This Muslim forgery in stone came to light as those stones started falling off the tower. Two such pieces are seen here with Hindu images carved on one side and subsequent Islamic lettering on the other.
Sultan Ghari Photo # 17
Four miles from the so-called Kutab Minar in Delhi is an ancient Hindu temple palace currently known as Sultan Ghari. An uncrowned son of sultan Iltmash (around 1230 A.D. ) is believed buried in it. That is a myth because there is no grave there. A Sanskrit inscription was also found in its ceiling. The beams of the octagonal crypt bore figures of Kamadhenu (celestial cow) and Varaha ([Lord Vishnu's incarnation as a] wild boar). A Muslim tomb would never sport two highly detested animals. These two animals were a royal Hindu insignia.
Even today five such pig-faced drain pipes may be seen projecting out of the walls of the royal pavilions inside Delhi's Red Fort. Had Shahjahan built the fort, as is currently believed, he wouldn't have had pigs peering from over his royal Islamic head since pigs are deeply detested by Islam. Contrarily, the wild boar is an Hindu incarnation and sacred royal Hindu emblem. This is one of the visual proofs of the Hindu origin of Delhi's Red Fort. So careless has been the study of Indian history that such graphic proofs have remained unnoticed. For similar more evidence read Mr. P. N. Oak's research book titled "Delhi's Red Fort is Hindu Lalkot."
[This photo was repeated elsewhere in the album, under which was a caption that was completely different. You may want to read it as well, which follows:]
This ancient Hindu royal emblem of a wild boar (left) and the cow was found engraved on a lintel of what has been euphemistically called Sultan Ghari four miles from the Kutab Minar in Delhi. This proves that the so-called tomb was originally a Hindu palace. Like thousands of other buildings throughout India that palace too was pressed into Muslim use. Sultan Altmash's son is believed to be buried there. Yet the tomb is not known after him but merely as the "Sultan's Cavern." Scholars have been wrong in believing that the building was built after the prince's death. All such mediaeval tombs and mosques are erstwhile Hindu palaces and temples. That is why their decor is entirely Hindu. Historians and archaeologists, hard put to explain away Hindu decor of what they believed to be Muslim buildings, improvised the absurd justification that the building must have been fashioned out of the debris of some Hindu buildings, or that the workmen, being Hindu, built in the Hindu style. Both these arguments are wrong. No building worth its name can be built out of debris. Similarly no workman ever dare or would ever care to fashion a building for which he is hired according to his own taste opposed to that of the owner's. In this case, the lintel was plastered over when the building was used as a Muslim tomb because the Islamic conscience cannot tolerate idolatrous images. Such tactics were used by Muslim invaders in all lands they overran, when making use of captured buildings. A Sanskrit inscription was also found in the roof of the building. The building is octagonal in shape which is also a Hindu specialty. This royal Hindu emblem and another found in the Red Fort in Delhi stress the need for historians to look for and collect all such ancient Hindu royal emblems. This is a very enchanting and engrossing task that faces all those who are interested in rewriting Indian history after a millennium of Islam distortion and destruction.
Arabian Currency Note Photo # 18
The conical arch seen in Indian forts, palaces and temples though of native Hindu origin has been mistaken and misrepresented by erring Western scholars as Saracenic i.e. Muslim. This photo of a Saudi Arabian currency note shows the typical Muslim arch which is quite different from the conical Hindu arch. Had historic buildings in India been of Islamic origin they should have had such arches. In the top right corner is a palm tree and crossed, face-down swords. Even this typically Islamic motif exists nowhere on historic buildings in India.
Arabian Currency Photo # 19
A magnified view of the top right corner design on a Saudi Arabian currency note. Had historic buildings in India been of Islamic origin they should have had this motif among other carvings.
1 Comment:
THAT IS REALLY GR8. KEEP EDUCATING AS MANY AS YOU CAN.
Post a Comment