RED FORT WAS NOT BUILT BY SHAJAHAN BUT IT WAS BUILT BY HINDU EMPERORS
But we have seen earlier (in Part 1 of this series of articles) that the fortress called Red Ford (or Lal Qila) in Delhi was there several century before the times of Shah Jahan. In that article we have provided many evidence to disprove the claim of Shah Jahan’s authorship of the Red Fort. Figure 1, shows the photograph of the painting of Shah Jahan’s time preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. It depicts Shah Jahan receiving the Persian Ambassador inside the fort in 1628, the very year of his accession. It obviously implies that the fort, now called the Red Fort, existed long before Shah Jahan. This single documentary evidence is more than enough to disprove the claim of Shah Jahan’s authorship of the fort.
Figure 2 shows the Royal Emblem at the entrance of the Khas Mahal, alias the King’s own royal apartment in the Red Fort in Delhi. This was the Royal Emblem of its real builder King Anangoal. It consists of a pair of swords laid hilt to hilt curving upwards, the sacred Hindu pot (kalash) above the hilts, a lotus bud and a pair of scales of justice balanced over it. Dotted around are representations of the sun from whom Indian ruling dynasties descent. At the sword points are two small conches considered sacred in Hindu tradition. Bigger conches may be seen at the left and right corners at the base. 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,
Figure 2, The photograph of the painting of Shah Jahan’s depicts Shah Jahan receiving the Persian Ambassador inside the Red Fort in 1628, the very year of his accession.
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. The figure 5 shows the perforated marble screen inside the Khas Mahal (i.e. the King’s own chamber) in Delhi’s Red Fort, is a Hindu specialty. Such perforated screens, called ‘jalees’ are mentioned even in Ramayanic descriptions of palaces. Therefore some buildings claimed to be mosques in Ahmedabad, Fatehpur Sikri and elsewhere, which boast of such exquisite jalees (lattices) were Hindu edifices converted to mosques by the Muslim invaders. Most importantly, the Hindu royal emblem mounted on the upper part of the jalee, disproves the claim that Shah Jahan built the fort.
Figure 3, 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.
Figure 4, The perforated marble screen (or jalee) inside the Khas Mahal
Figure 5. The grand entrance to the Khas Mahal in the Red Fort.
Figure 6. 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.
Figure 7. Two life size elephants flanking the Delhi Gate of Delhi’s Red Fort.
Figure 8. The door knobs of the gate of the Khas Mahal.
Figure 9. A close up of the door knob.
The figure 10 shows the decorated door knob of the Khas Mahal gate and figure 10 shows the close up view of the same. It shows that an elephant holds the metal ring with its trunk and a mahut (rider) is sitting on the elephant. It has been mentioned earlier that, imitating Allah’s creation is a sin for the Muslims and hence it implies that the author of the Red Fort was not a Muslim. This provides another evidence for its Hindu origin. In fact, Muslims are the destroyers of statues not creators.
Figure 10, The inner view of the entrance to the so-called Moti Masjid inside Delhi’s Red Fort.
The figure 10 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.
But we have seen earlier (in Part 1 of this series of articles) that the fortress called Red Ford (or Lal Qila) in Delhi was there several century before the times of Shah Jahan. In that article we have provided many evidence to disprove the claim of Shah Jahan’s authorship of the Red Fort. Figure 1, shows the photograph of the painting of Shah Jahan’s time preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. It depicts Shah Jahan receiving the Persian Ambassador inside the fort in 1628, the very year of his accession. It obviously implies that the fort, now called the Red Fort, existed long before Shah Jahan. This single documentary evidence is more than enough to disprove the claim of Shah Jahan’s authorship of the fort.
Figure 2, The photograph of the painting of Shah Jahan’s depicts Shah Jahan receiving the Persian Ambassador inside the Red Fort in 1628, the very year of his accession.
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. The figure 5 shows the perforated marble screen inside the Khas Mahal (i.e. the King’s own chamber) in Delhi’s Red Fort, is a Hindu specialty. Such perforated screens, called ‘jalees’ are mentioned even in Ramayanic descriptions of palaces. Therefore some buildings claimed to be mosques in Ahmedabad, Fatehpur Sikri and elsewhere, which boast of such exquisite jalees (lattices) were Hindu edifices converted to mosques by the Muslim invaders. Most importantly, the Hindu royal emblem mounted on the upper part of the jalee, disproves the claim that Shah Jahan built the fort.
Figure 3, 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.
Figure 5. The grand entrance to the Khas Mahal in the Red Fort.
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.
Figure 9. A close up of the door knob.
The figure 10 shows the decorated door knob of the Khas Mahal gate and figure 10 shows the close up view of the same. It shows that an elephant holds the metal ring with its trunk and a mahut (rider) is sitting on the elephant. It has been mentioned earlier that, imitating Allah’s creation is a sin for the Muslims and hence it implies that the author of the Red Fort was not a Muslim. This provides another evidence for its Hindu origin. In fact, Muslims are the destroyers of statues not creators.
Figure 10, The inner view of the entrance to the so-called Moti Masjid inside Delhi’s Red Fort.
The figure 10 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.
