Hindus are not in a position to produce any documentary evidence with regard to the Hindu origin of fort

[yogesh saxena]

There is thus a valid reason why Hindus are not in a position to
produce any documentary evidence with regard to the Hindu origin of
fort. Even then we maintain that if a systematic archaeological
excavation is undertaken inside the fort and if its dingy cellars and
basements are opened and scoured they may still reveal Sanskrit
inscriptions and idols smashed and buried by Muslim occupiers. In
fact whatever little and excavation has been made has resulted in the
recovery of horse and elepahnt statues. Yet taking things as they
stand any court of law will uphold the plea that Hindus have a valid
reason for not being able to produce any documentary proof.

The court will then ask the Anglo-Muslim school to produce its
documents. That school too has not got even a shred of a document to
prove that any one ot more Muslim rulers built or rebuilt the fort. A
hazy mention to that effect in a court flatterer’s chronicler is no
documentary proof. It is like you or we noting in our diaries that we
built the Houses of Parliament in London.


There is no valid reason why Anglo-Muslim school should not be able to
produce even a single document pertaining to the Muslim claims to the
fort. Had the claims been true such documents should have been
available in plenty because when the British deposed the Mogul emperor
they preserved and carefully classified all the documents they seized
form the mogul archives. Those records contain hardly anything but
letters.
When the Anglo-Muslim school is unable to produce even a single
document in support of its claim any law court would draw an a priori
adverse inference. Even then we claim no special advantage form this
fundamental weakness in the case of the respondent Anglo-Muslim
school. In ordinary life there are very many occasions when documents
are not available on either side and yet there is overwhelming
circumstantial evidence on the basis of which the court can come to a
clear judgement over the rival claims.
Its is such circumstantial evidence which we propose to lay before the
bar and bench of learned public opinion:
1. According to the British historian Keene, Agra fort has been in
existence from the pre-Christian era. Ancient Hindu kings like Ashok
(3rd Century B.C.) and Kanishka (1st Century B.C.) had lived in that
fort.
2. That same fort is again referred to by the Persian poet-historian
Salman,in the 11th century A.D.. Early in that century when the Hindu
king Jaipal ruled over Agra. The fort suffered its first Muslim raid
under the invader Mahmud of Ghazni.
3. Thereafter some chauvinistic Islamic accounts vaguely claim that
the Muslim sultan Sikandar Lodi demolished the Hindu fort. That claim
has been found to be baseless.
4. A few years later another vague claim is made by some other
mediaeval Muslim faltterers that sultan Salim Shah Sur either
destroyed the Hindu fort or Sikandar Lodi’s fort and built his own
fort at exactly the same place or some other place.Even the claim has
been found to be fraudulent because no trace is found of the fort that
Salim Shah Sur is said to have built. Muslim history is replete with
such fraudulent claims, according to the late British historian Sir
H.M.Elliot.
5. The claim that Akbar built the fort is also found to be baseless
because while he is said to have demolished the fort in 1565 A.D., a
murderer Adham Khan being thrown from the terrace of a palace-
apartment inside the fort in 1566 A.D. is emphatic proof that the
claim made on behalf of Akbar is as fraudulent as those made on behalf
of two other Muslim sultans earlier. In fact it is also pointed out
that not a single building of Akbar’s time exists in the fort.
6. Akbar’s son Jahangir is said to have perhaps built a palace inside
the fort here or there demolishing his own father’s palace but even
that conjecture is found to be based on mere fancy or on some idle
engravings.
7. Jahangir’s son Shahjahan is said to have demolished 500 buildings
inside the fort and erected 500 others. On the very face of it this
claim is absurd. No one will merely for fun of it destroy 500 palatial
mansions built by one’s father or grandfather. Such demolition itself
will occupy a lifetime. Moreover it must also be remembered that
Shahjahan is credited with building the fabulous Taj Mahal in Agra, a
whole new township of Delhi, also the Red fort in Delhi, The Jama
Masjid in Delhi and perhaps many other buildings. Not only are there
no court records of any building activity but even inscriptions do not
substantiate any building claim. We wish to alert visitors not to be
misled by the appearance of Arabic or Persian lettering on mediaeval
buildings. All such lettering is mostly of Koranic extracts or the
name of Allah. Those inscriptions are seldom temporal. In a few
instances where there are temporal inscriptions they usually bear the
name of the engraver or of the person buried and some irrelevant
matter. For instance nowhere on the Taj Mahal has it been mentioned
that the Taj Mahal was built by Shahjahan.We therefore wonder how the
whole world had been duped for 300 long years into believing that the
Taj Mahal was built by Shahjahan. Similar is the case with Red fort in
Agra. No where is it said that Akbar or his son Jahangir or the
latter’s son Shahjahan built anything there.
In this connection we also want to alert visitors to mediaeval
buildings and students and scholars of history not to believe in
translations of Arabic and Persian inscriptions presented readymade to
them through earlier books. We have found in very many instances that
they have been distorted in translation. For instance on the Taj Mahal
the inscriber has carved his name as Amanat Khan Shirazi (an
insignificant slave of the emperor Shahjahan). Anglo-Muslim accounts
have boosted this inscriber of letters as one of the great wonder
architects of the world. Similarly on Fatehpur Sikri where a building
is said to have been graced (by his presence) by Salim Chisti it is
merrily ascribed to him.
Article 25 of the constitution if India secures to every person,
subject of course to public order, health and morality and other
provisions of Part III, including Article 17 freedom to entertain and
exhibit outward acts as well as propagate and disseminate such
religious belief according to his judgement and conscience for
edification of others. The right of the State to impose such
restrictions as are desired or found necessary on grounds of public
order, health and morality is inbuilt in Arts. 25 and 26 itself.
Article 25(2)(b) ensures the right of the State to make a law
providing for social welfare and reforms besides throwing open of
Hindu religious institutions of a public character to classes and Ss.
of Hindus and any such rights of State or of the communities or
classes of the society were also considered to need due regulation in
the process of harmonizing the various rights. The vision of the
founding fathers of the Constitution to liberate the society from
blind and ritualistic adherence to mere traditional superstitious
beliefs sans reason or rational basis has found expression in the form
of Art. 17. The protection under Arts. 25 and 26 extends a guarantee
for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are
integral parts of religion but as to what really constitutes an
essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by
the courts with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or
practices regarded as parts of religion