Some Blunders of Indian Historical Research – PN Oak

Continuous alien rule in India for over a millennium has resulted in implanting in Indian histories numerous blundering nations as sacrosanct concepts. Those myths nurtured under government recognition and patronage for many centuries have now acquired a stamp of authority through sheer passage of time.

If by history we mean a factually and chronologically accurate account of a country’s past current Indian histories deserve to be classed with Arabian Nights. Such history must be repudiated and rewritten. In this book I have indicated a few blunders of Indian historical research. The blunders listed herein are by no means the only ones. They are just a sampling of the vast scope for research that awaits scholars who are prepared to take a second look at Indian and world history and do some fresh thinking uninhibited by previous tutoring.

My earlier research publication titled TAJ MAHAL WAS A RAJPUT PALACE has already exposed a glaring and far- reaching misconception of Indian history.

Like a virus infection the blunders of Indian historical research have affected other spheres too. For instance students of architecture and civil engineering are taught to believe that mediaeval monuments in India and West Asia are products of Saracenic architecture while in fact it has been shown in the following pages that the Indo-Saracenic architecture theory is a myth. All mediaeval monuments are pre-Muslim Rajput monuments falsely credited to alien Muslim rulers. Likewise it was Indian architects and craftsmen who designed and built West Asian monuments since they were driven across Indian borders at sword-point to build such monuments in the native lands of the invaders.

Among the many weak links in the so-called Indo-Saracenic theory of architecture is the existence of Hindu patterns to the last detail in all mediaeval monuments. This is tried to be explained away as the result of the preference of the Hindu artists employed. There are many flaws in this arguments. Firstly chauvinistic Muslim accounts have never credited Hindu artists with designing their monuments. For instance in the case of the Taj Mahal they ascribe its design to some mysterious Essa Effendi.

Even if they credit any design to a Hindu, in those days of mediaeval cruelty and fanaticism they would never have tolerated any Hindu artist weaving ‘infidel’ designs into the pattern, of a Muslim mosque or tomb. So even this argument falls to the ground.

The other facetious assertion is that the master architect used to lay down the broad outline of the design, leaving it to- the individual workmen to fill in the details according to their individual whims and fancies. The hollowness of this argument becomes apparent on a little reflection.

Unless the entire contemplated design has been laid down at the very start it would be impossible to order the required’ material of the kind and in the quantity desired.

If individual workmen were left to work out their own fancied designs they would all work to cross purposes and no longer remain amenable to the control of their supervisers since they would keep dodging and delaying, shirking and thwarting the project on the plea of lack of time or inspiration in fulfilling their part of the task. The argument that Hindu patterns adorn ‘Muslim’ monuments because Hindu workmen were allowed a free hand is thus palpably absurd examined from any angle.

Blundering assertions about the founding of Old Delhi is a typical instance of the absurdities that have formed part of current, distorted Indian history.

We are told that Old Delhi was founded by Mogul Emperor Shahjahan in the 17th Century. If that were true how is the epithet OLD justified? In that case it becomes the newest Delhi ever founded prior to British rule in India. As such it should rank with London and New York in age.

Taimurlang who raided Delhi in the Christmas of 1398 A.D. clearly mentions that he perpetrated his massacres in Old Delhi. He also adds that the Kafirs i.e. the ‘infidel’ Hindus collected in the Jama Masjid to counter-attack his troops. This proves that Old Delhi is in fact the oldest part of the sprawling ancient metropolis of Delhi.

Taimurlang’s testimony also proves that Old Delhi’s main temple was in Taimurlang’s attack converted into a mosque. Had that not been so Hindus would never have rallied in that building. The fact that they gathered there as a matter of right proves that the building called Jama Masjid, erringly credited to Shahjahan, was a Hindu Temple when Taimurlang’s troops stormed into Delhi.

There is yet another pointer to Old Delhi’s antiquity.

In Delhi there is a monument called Purana Qila i.e. Old Fort. This is believed to date from pre-Muslim times and even from the Mahabharata era. If, therefore, Old Fort signifies the ancient-most fort how come that Old Delhi signifies a near- modern township! Such are the illogicalities which bedevil and vitiate current historical texts and underline the need for some re-thinking.

Besides being afflicted with distortions and anomalies Indian history has been badly maimed. Many of its important chapters are completely missing. Like the British empire within our own memory, in the remote past the Indian empire extended to such distant parts of the world as Japan in the East, Bali in the South, at least Arabia in the West and the Baltic in the north. Traces of this vast sway are delineated in some of the last chapters of this volume.

It is hoped that the present publication would prove helpful in highlighting a few major errors in Indian historical thinking and indicating the direction of research.

This book has been long out of print. This is its third edition. Hence it is being updated and some additions have been made here and there.

Readers have expressed great admiration over the contents of this book.

Professional historians have however maintained a stunned and studied silence because of the appalling thought that all they have studied and professed so far in history is basically wrong and must be unreservedly jettisoned. So they tend neither to admit their error nor correct it. Instead they pretend not to have heard of these discoveries or they try to pooh them.