Category: Glories of India Page 1 of 7

HOW OLD IS OUR GLOBE? | HOW SCIENTISTS DETERMINE ITS AGE

A great controversy among scientists. Constant revision of their estimates

Safal Yogi

People generally think that scientists have an accurate and unassailable method of knowing the Age of the Earth. They say that the subject is final and indisputable or at least a fair estimate based on correct theorizations. However, the truth is that only those who have not read the history of science on the development of various dating methods can entertain such wrong beliefs. Those who have not studied the scientists’ practices for determining the Earth’s Age could remain under a false impression. Generally, people who have read-only brief college text-book accounts, or sketchy articles in various periodicals, can continue to be under the wrong impression that what scientists say about the Age of the Earth or different fossils is based on the fool-proof method.

The history of these methods’ development shows that these methods are ‘very crude and wrong assumptions. One would be justified even to say that it is wrong to call these methods ‘scientific. Various ‘scientific’ disciplines give very different Age to the Earth. Methods employed by each domain are based not on any proven and uniform laws but on extremely doubtful assumptions or sweeping generalizations applied to all Ages. That is one reason why scientists have frequently revised the estimates of the Earth’s Age over the last one hundred years or more. We will give facts supporting this severe charge against what are known as ‘methods of dating’ in this and the next chapter. It will deal with the historical aspect of developing some of these methods and throw light on the lacunae in the mėthods employed by geologists.

Tracing the history of the dating ideas, we will see how the ‘Uniformitarianism’ of Geology Darwin built his theory is wrong, so Darwin cannot have millions of years for species evolution. Therefore, his theory falls.

Early religious beliefs of the Judaic family of religions, etc.

It would be of interest to know that the Jews, in olden times, believed that the world is created only a few thousand years before Moses. According to the Jewish calendar, which is in use in Israel, 5,781years had passed from creation until now. Somewhat Christian scholars also decided about A.D. 450 that the world was near-about that much old. According to their calculations, the world is about 6,000 ancient2. The ancient Persians, however, thought that the world had existed for almost 1,000 years3. According to Plato and the early Greeks, the world was eternal, but the destruction of Atlantis had taken place some 9,000 years before Plato’s time4.

The Hindus initially believed that the world cycle has four Ages, namely the Golden Age, the Silver Age, the Copper Age, and the Iron Age, and these were 4000, 3000, 2000, and 1000 years, respectively. There were also periods of conjunction between every two Ages. Based on this computation, the world cycle was 12,000 years duration. Later, however, they thought that each day of these Ages was equal to 365 solar days.The ancient Hindus’ writings say that religion and virtue in the Copper Age, Silver Age, and Golden Age are twice, thrice, and four times, respectively, compared to what it is in the Iron Age. It seems that only later this ratio in moral values starts applied to the duration of the respective Ages, and each day of these was, without any genuine reason, considered equal to one year or 365 days. If that error had not crept in, one cycle’s total duration, comprising the four Ages and the conjunction period, would be around 5,000 years.

In the calculations of Bede, an English Churchman in the 8th century, the world is not older than 5,000 years.

Phillip Melanchthon, a contemporary of Martin Luther, the well-known Protestant reformer, even fixed the creation’s date at 3963 BC. After an in-depth study of the Bible. Martin Luther himself said, “We know on the authority of Moses, that no longer ago than 6,000 years, the world did not exist.7

But the most famous and oft-quoted estimate of the Age of the world is the one that was given by Archbishop Ussher of Ireland(1581 to 1656). It was based on the Biblical chronology in the 5th chapter of Genesis. In his book “Annals of the Ancient and the New Testament, He stated that God had created the heaven or paradise in 4004 B.C. Christians widely accepted their views. When the next edition of the King James Version of the Bible was published, the year 4004 B.C. was inserted in the margin of the page on which Noah’s flood and God’s covenant with Abraham 2349 B.C. and 1718 B.C., respectively. Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, highly applauded Ussher’s chronology and, on its basis, said that, according to this, the man was. created by the Trinity on Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. at nine o’clock in the morning.” 8

At that time, scientists also believed in this chronology. Perhaps. It is not known to many that Sir Isaac Newton, one of the world’s most outstanding scientists, agreed with Ussher and saw no contradiction based on astrónomy. 9

For many Christians, the chronology of the Old Testament was amazing and incredible. For example, the ages of Methuselah and his grandson Noah, as stated in the Bible, raised doubts in the minds of countless. According to the Old Testament, Methuselah lived for 969 years10 and his grandson, Noah, was 600 years old when God sent the waters of the Deluge to drown the wicked people of the earth11. And he lived another three hundred and fifty years after the flood12. Adam was 130 years when he gave birth to his third son, Seth13. However, many had begun to doubt these figures. No one dared in those days to oppose. To question these dates is considered pure heresy.

Moreover, though people did not believe these few individual dates, they thought that the world came into existence around 4000 B.C. As time passed, certain doubts grew and took firm roots in the minds of Christians. As people dug the Earth, from time to time, to build foundations for their homes, some bones of enormous size appeared below, sometimes, some bones of immense size and were of strange shape. These bones had no resemblance with human beings’ bones or with any other known or existing creation. However, orthodox Christians’ answer was: These are “models of God’s rejected works,” or these are ‘outlines of future creations.’

Some others said that these fossils had been placed in the Earth by the devil to tempt man to unworthy curiosity. They did not say that these were the fossils of some earlier or extinct species. On the other hand, some orthodox scholars said these were there because of nature imitating bones and shells’ shapes. Such-like answers by religious people, associating God’s name with these answers, gradually stoked the fire of resentment in the minds of rational people. In Bible, If the Age of Methuselah and others had not been so incredibly high, and religionists had not given an irrational explanation of bones found from under the Earth, most people would have, perhaps, continued to believe that the history of humankind is not older than about 5,000 years. But irrational and unbelievable explanations incurred the wrath or resentment of some people.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth century, scientists believed that these bones were of some creatures whose species seemed tó have become extinct. They began to ask why God allowed some of His animals to vanish? To this question, some Christians replied that these were the relics of the species that had failed to get aboard the Ark of Noah. But this too was no satisfactory answer, for the Bible says that God had asked Noah to bring aboard the Ark a pair of “every living thing of all flesh.” 15

Scientists began to speculate on the Age of the Earth.

.Old Christian belief now began to be earnestly doubted. French Naturalist George Louis Lecture, the Count of Buffon, was the first to express his contradiction. He published in 1749 his book, “Theory of the Earth.” In this book, he asserted: Ages ago, the Earth was a dislodged fragment of the sun, which gradually congealed in the chill of space. It was not until this fragment of the sun had cooled to a certain extent that life began upon it.” Buffon also remarked that the ‘six days,16 mentioned in the Old Testament connected with the work of creation of God’s world were six epochs 17 during which the Earth cooled and life on the continents emerged. To calculate how much time it was, Buffon heated two metal spheres and allowed them to cool. This way, he estimated that the Earth was.74,832 years old, and that it had cooled exactly enough 40,062 years ago to support life on it, and that, after 93,291 years after his time, the last of the remaining heat would ebb out, and the earthly life would perish.18

However, Buffon was severely criticized by theology professor at Sorbonne and was threatened that he would lose his post. Buffon yielded to the pressure of the Church and issued the following statement: “I declare that I had no intention to contradict the text of the scripture, that I believe most firmly all therein, related about the creation both as to the order of time and matter of fact. I abandon everything in my book, respecting the formation of the Earth, and generally all which may be contrary to the narrative of Moses.”19

But this kind of attitude of the Church was arbitrary and objectionable. Rationalists resented this sort of reaction of the Church very much. However, the Church alone was not to blame. Buffon’s theory was based on the improved assùmption that the Earth was initially a part of the sun. Even if it be considered a correct assumption, no one can say with even a bit of certainty what the atmospheric temperature then was and what other factors played in cooling. Buffon’s attempt to give the Earth’s exact Age was a mere guess without knowing these factors. It couldn’t be called ‘Science.’ However, Buffon was not the only scientist to believe that the Earth was initially a part of the sun. There have been many others; even today, many entertain this belief, though not based on proof. However, such guesses based on a little experimentation have been giving them the appearance of science. The credulous have accepted such statements over two centuries.

Hutton’s estimate of the Age of the earth-based on his theory of Uniformitarianism

Even though Buffon withdrew his opinion about the Earth’s Age, his book had set the trend against the Biblical views. .More and more people now began to find a rational explanation of the formation of rocks and other natural phenomena. They wanted to understand events based on some laws and principles. Among these was James Hutton, a Scottish geologist (1726-1797). He wrote his ideas in 1785. His book called the Theory of the Earth,20 or ‘An investigation of the Laws Observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land upon the Globe’ gave a strong blow to Archbishop Ussher’s views. Hutton was a naturalist. He had observed rivers carrying large quantities of silt to the ocean, mountain streams cutting deeper and deeper gorges through the rocks, and witnessed how rains and fire bring changes. Based on these observations, he speculated that water, fire, and air took millions of years to work shifts slowly on the Earth’s face. Hutton founded what is now called the ‘Law of Uniformitarianism,’ though. It is not an indispensable fact of nature, but it is only an assumption. This theory of Uniformitarianism states that the kinds of geological processes changing the Earth’s surface today are the same kinds of geological processes shaping it through all of the time. Hutton thought that by measuring the speed at which various factors bring about the changes, one arrives at some idea of the length of time over which the geological processes had operated to create the existing geological features. For example, one could measure the rate at which rivers o soil to the ocean and build up sediment layers. One could then examine the layers of rock and, by dividing its thickness by the annual deposit-rate of similar sediments, could say how much time it might have taken to form the coating. Since the rocks had distinct layers or strata, one upon the other, one could calculate how old a particular layer and a specific rock could be. 

Regarding the formation of the present Earth, Hutton believed that it was first formed at the bottom of the ocean and was later uplifted by extreme heat out of the oceans’ surface to develop into an inhabitable world. The process, he says, took indefinite time. Here we quote him :

Having ascertained a regular system, in which the present land of the globe is first formed at the bottom of the òcean, and then raised above the surface of the sea, a question naturally occurs concerning time; what had been the space of time necessary for accomplishing this great work?”

To form a judgment, our attention is directed to another progress in the globe’s system, namely, the destruction of the land which preceded. Now, for this purpose, we have the actual decay of the present ground.

Suppose we can measure the present land’s process, its dissolution by attrition, and submersion in the ocean. In that case, we might discover a former earth’s actual duration, a world that had supported all living creatures.

Hutton further says on this subject :

We shall be warranted in drawing the following conclusion: 1st, That it had rèquired an indefinite space of time to have produced the land which now appears; 2ndly, That an equal space, had been employed upon the construction .of the former land from where the materials of the present (world) came; lastly, that there is presently lying on the bottom of the ocean, the foundations of a future land which is to appear.”

Thus Hutton thought that this world was indefinitely old because natural processes took long periods to form it. In other words, he considered that one world was slowly eroded, and its ablutions went into the sea to build the future world, and thus it was an eternal process. Following are his own words: “But, as there is not, in human observation, proper means for measuring the waste of land upon the globe, it is hence inferred, that we cannot estimate the duration of what we see at present, nor calculate the period at which it had begun: so that, concerning human observation, this world has neither a beginning nor an end.” 21

From this, it is clear that Hutton’s views were different from Buffon. What Buffon şaid, based on physics, significantly differed from what Hutton said based on geology. Thus, there was all through history difference in various scientists’ views about the Earth’s Age.

Hutton’s principle of uniformity is not inviolable.

Though Hutton believed that our present Earth is formed from the materials gathered from the previous land’s erosion, the world is indefinitely old. His main principle is Uniformitarianism but had no objective proof. There is overwhelming ethnological, philological, archaeological, and geological evidence of a universal deluge. This means that the sedimentation rate has not been uniform due to downpour. Some rocks were uplifted from their place and rested upon other stones.

Flood legends are known to us from almost all ancient cultural groups. They are a convincing indication that the human race in all parts of the world remembered a time of tremendous flooding and destruction. According to Mahabharata and Satpath Brahmana, there was such a great deluge in the days of Manu or seven Rishis’ days. The Bible and the Torah also describe it. Sumerian Babylonian, Assyrian, and Greek traditions also say the Welsh legends, Lithuanian tradition, Irish tales, Chinese legends Inca tradition, Arctic Eskimo legends, the Mayan records, etc., all refer to the great worldwide flood.22

Geological evidence is against Uniformitarianism and in favor of catastrophism.

Moreover, there is geological evidence that leads to the conclusion that there have been catastrophes. Many examples are now known to geologists of strata occurring in the wrong order and perfect conformity. Over significant areas, ‘old’ fossils rest naturally upon rocks containing young’ fossils. Sometimes such inversions have been produced by normal faulting and folding, of which the stones give clear evidence. In this regard, there is the “theory of the horizontal thrust fault,” according to which great masses of rock were severed from their original formations and somehow lifted and placed atop adjacent areas. Such happenings must have naturally taken place by far greater intensity forces, different from the routine and usual process. This fact is most inconsistent with the theory of uniformity. Uniformitarianişm cannot explain why upside-down strata are found on every large mountain-range examined in the world. 

For example, Uniformitarianism cannot explain why a stratum of pre-Cambrian limestone rests naturally on a cretaceous bed in the highest region of North America. A great “fault” of hundreds of miles in Tennessee, Georgia, and consisting of Cambrian deposits resting on carboniferous exist. The great Overthrust of Utah, and the Heart Mountain Thrust Wyoming, and many others are illustrations of vast areas of rocks, thousands of feet thick that must have been lifted over the adjacent regions by very great catastrophic forces. Similarly, the Scottish Highlands, the mountains of India, and the displacements in northern China run over 500 miles. The theory of Uniformitarianism cannot explain a similar area of about 85,000 square miles in Scandinavia and the upside-down condition ofthẻ Alpine region but catastrophism.?23

Even in Hutton’s own time, De Luc published four letters in response to Hutton’s 1788 paper. In this paper, De Luc mentioned having a great catastrophe that had inundated a large part of the globe.24Also, William Thompson, better known as Lord Kelvin, did not agree with Hutton’s uniformitarianism.25

Surface features of the Earth, such as mountains, rivers, stratigraphic deposits, are unexplainable. It can not be believed that sedimentation, erosion, contraction, radioactivity, and other processes worked uniformly for thousands of years.

Even Hutton himself has, unwaveringly, perhaps, referred to too violent forces of nature working. For example, he has talked of subterraneous fire.

“It is not meant to allege that it is only upon the summit of a continent, volcanoes should appear. The subterraneous fire has sometimes made its appearance in bursting form from the bottom of the sea.26

Doesn’t this mean that this bursting form of fire appears only sometimes and not always and, therefore, there is no uniform occurrence.

Again, Hutton mentions this bursting power of fire. “But when fire bursts forth from the bottom of the sea, when the land is heaved up and down, to demolish cities in an instant and split rocks and solid mountains asunder, there is nobody but power, which may be sufficient to accomplish  every27 view of nature in erecting land. Again he says: “We are now to conclude that the land in which we dwell had been elevated from a lower situation by the same element which employed in consolidating the strata, in giving them stability, and preparing them for the living world. The agent is matter actuated by external heat and expanded with tremendous force.28

Lord Kelvin, the greatest physicist of his time and contemporary of Charles Darwin and T.H. Huxley, criticized the Uniformitarianism of Hutton, Lyell, and Playfair in these words :

Uniformitarianism in Geology proved invalid by Kelvin.

Many eminent British Geologists hold the “Doctrine of Uniformity” that the Earth’s surface and upper crust have been near as present in temperature and other physical qualities during millions of years. But the heat now conducted out of the Earth yearly is so great. If this action had been going on with uniformity for 20,000 million years, the amount of heat lost out of the world would have been about as much as would heat by 100 Cent., a quantity of ordinary surface rock of 100 times the Earth’s bulk. This would be more than enough to melt a mass of surface rock equal in dimension to the whole world. The hypothesis that chemical action, internal fluidity, effects of pressure at great depth, or possible character of the substances in the interior of the planet can not justify the supposition that the Earth’s upper crust has remained nearly the same even after the loss of the considerable quantity of heat.”29

Uniformitarianism is against the Second Law of Thermodynamics30

Kelvin also criticized Uniformitarianism, saying that it was against the  Second Law of Thermodynamics.30The effect of Kelvin’s criticism on T.H. Huxley, the most ardent supporter of Darwin, is known by the following words: “I do not suppose that at the present day any geologist would be found to maintain absolute Uniformitarianism, to deny that the rapidity of the rotation of the Earth may be diminishing, that the sun may be waxing dim, or that Earth itself may be cooling.31 So, even T.H. Huxley. The most ardent supporter of Darwin agreed that Uniformitarianism was wrong.

Conceding the possibility of limiting the Earth’s Age, Huxley was willing to abandon the ‘Indefinite time’ which Lyell had advocated in his writings. Huxley, therefore, said :

Biology takes her time from geology. The only reason we have for believing in the slow rate of change in living forms is the fact that they perish through a series of deposits, which, geology informs us, has taken a long while to make. If the geological clock is wrong, all the naturalists will have to do is to modify their notions of the rapidity of change accordingly.”32

Darwin must have felt abandoned to know such views of Huxley, his most ardent supporter. But, it is an irony of fate that Darwin himself did not revise his theorizations even. However, his knowledge of geology was not of a high order. John Phillips (1800-1874), the professor of Geology at Oxford at that time, evaluating Darwin’s geological speculations, said bluntly: “Darwin’s computations are something absurd.”33 

Whatever it was, even Huxley had admitted that physics does not allow hundreds of millions of years. And that this geological clock having gone wrong, biological ideas would have to be modified accordingly. So Darwin’s theory of natural evolution, which demands billions of years, falls to the ground.

From all this, it is clear that so far as the Age of the Earth is concerned, the theory of uniformity is erroneous for determining it. But almost all geologists, naturalists, etc., have been assuming Uniformitarianism as their mainstay for determining the Earth’s Age. From Charles Lyell to Libby, who is well-known for his carbon-14 dating method, all have taken Uniformitarianism for granted. Thus their plans also have become erroneous and vitiated. 

But Charles Darwin, among all the scientists, took undue advantage of it34. Darwin was influenced by Lyell35, who, in turn, was influenced by James Hutton, the father of Geology.

Since Hutton said that the processes of nature have been at work gradually and over millions, nay, the indefinite number of years, Darwin thought that over millions or billions of years, the evolution of species and life’s origin could be possible. Thus Hutton’s views set a chain or a trend that has done incalculable wrong in the field of science.36

Many geologists, however, continued with their belief in the principle of Uniformitarianism, founded by Hutton. They thought that if the formation of rocks through the deposition of sediments in the sea were reasonably constant throughout time. And if the rate at which these processes occur could be determined, theń a table could be prepared, showing which stratum belongs to which period.

Accordingly, in 1860, some geologists concluded, based on their belief in uniformity, that it took 450 years for enough lime and sand to accumulate to make 12 inches of sand-stone, and it took 2,250 years for enough lime and shells to pile up on the floor of the sea to make one-foot limestone. Several geologists said that it would take about 100 million years to form the existing sedimentary rocks.36

How old is the Earth?

However, many other geologists disagreed with this view. Even though they agreed with much of Hutton’s thought, they were unconvinced by Hutton’s principle of Uniformitarianism. They argued that the rate at which sand, mud, and lime are deposited varies from place to place and from epoch to epoch since a swift river cannot carry as much sediment as a sluggish river.

While it would be correct to say that there are specific laws of nature at work, even catastrophes of floods occur according to these laws. 

It would be entirely wrong to say that the rate of sedimentation of rocks, salination of oceans, and other physical and chemical phenomena have been the same throughout the ages.

1. Clocks for the Ages, Robert Silverberg, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New York,

1971, p.16.

2. Ibid p. 16.

3. Ibid p. 16.

4  See Dooms Day, 1999 A.D, by Charles Berlitz, Double Day & Co., Inc., Garden City,

New York, pp. 125, and 173-176.

(i) See also Homer’s Atlantis.

(li) Clocks for the Ages, p. 16.

5. Gita Rahasya by Lokmanya Tilak.

7. Clock for the Ages, p. 17.

8. Ibid, p. 18.

9. Evolution or Creation, Prof. H. Enoch, Jyoti Pocket Books, Bombay, p. 21-22.

10. Old Testament, Genesis, Ch. 5, verse 27.

11. Old Testament, Genesis, Ch. 7, v. 11.

12. Old Testamentearthesis, Ch. 9, v. 28.

13. Old Testament, Genesis, Ch. 5, v. 3.

14. Old Testament, Genesis, Ch. 1, v. 25.

15. Ibid, Genesis, Ch. 6. v. 19-20.

16. Old Testament, Genesis, Ch. 1, v. 31.

17. Some others also have said that the Hebrew word day may sometimes be used to

indicate a long, indefinite period, But the orthodox Christians say that the

world ‘day has have been used, in the Óld Testament, about 200 times, and it has nowhere

been used to mean anything other than the one used commonlý in the literal sense.

See “The Bible and Modern Science” by Henry M. Morris, Moody Press, Chicago,

pp. 29-30.

(u) See also Rocks, Relics & Biblical Reality’ by Clifford A. Wilson, Zondervan

Publishing House, Michigan. Various attempts to explain these ‘six days’ have

been made to; this.

18. Clocks for the Ages, p. 21.

19. Тbid, p. 21-22.

20. James Hutton’s System of the Earth, 1785; Theory of the Earth’, etc. edited by

George W. White, Hafner Press, New York, 1973.

21. James Hutton’s System of the Earth, 1785, Abstract of a dissertation, edited by

George W. White, Vol. 5, Hafner Press, New York, 1973, p. 25 to 28.

22. Dooms Day 1999 A.D., by Charles Berlitz, Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City, INew

York, 1981, pp. 147-176.

23. The Bible and Modern Science by Henry M. Morris, Moody Press, Chicago, pp. 62-

63.

24. Great Geological controversies by A. Hallam. Oxford University Press, 1983, p. 35.

(ii) See also de Luc, J.A., (1790-1), Monthly Rev. 2, 206; 582;

(iii) de Luc, JA. (1809), An elementary treatise in geology, Rivington, London.

(iv) A detailed account of the late eighteenth and nineteenth-century of

geological researches in Great Britain regarding the Deluge are also given in

Genesis and Geology’by Gillispie, C.C. (1951), Harvard University Press.

25. Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth, by Joe D. Burchfield. Science History

Publication, New York, 1975, p. 1.

26. James Hutton system of the Earth, etc., p. 275.

27. Гbid p. 271.

28. Ibid, 266.

29. Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth, p. 58.

30. Ibid, p. 31.

31. () Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth, P. 82.

(ii) Huxley T.H. (1869), p. 329.

32. Ibid, p. 331.

33. (1) Thompson, (1910), Kelviņ’1:539, Letter from Phillip to Kelvin, Jun. 12 1861.

(ü) Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth, p. 32.

34. Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth by Joe D. Burchfield, Science History

Publications p. 10.

35. Ibid.

36. Clocks for the Ages, p. 30.

HOW INDIAN MONUMENTS WERE ALLOTTED ISLAMIC LABELS

Muslim rulers did not build Tajmahal, Lal Qila, Kutub Minar, Agra Fort, Fatehpur Sikri, and hundreds of other historical sites. While serving in India as A.D.C. to the Governor-General (1836 to 1840) Lord Auckland, young lieutenant Alexander Cunningham conceived an ingenious scheme of misusing archaeological studies far long- term political ends.

Later in pursuit of that plot, Cunningham addressed a letter dated September 15, l942(When he was 28 years old) to Col. Sykes, a Director of the British East India Company in London.

In those days, the British were busy consolidating their newly won empire in India. Consequently, there was a keen, inborn, patriotic desire in the heart of every Britisher then serving in India to suggest to his Superior ways in which India could be kept under British rule to serve as a permanent milch cow.

Young Cunningham, an army engineer, had no training either in history or archaeology. Yet, he had a cunning, brainy idea of misusing archaeology to subserve British imperial interests. As an A.D.C., he was close to Britain’s top administrator in India, the Governor-General. Through the letter, Cunningham had an approach to the Director of the British East India Company. On  September 15, 1842, Cunningham unveiled a  diabolic plan,  that archaeological exploration in India “would be an undertaking of vast importance to the (British) Indian government politically and to the British public religiously (and that the) establishment of the Christian religion in India, must ultimately succeed.’ (Page  246, Vol. 7, Journal of the Royal Society, London, 1843)

So, the whole purpose of archaeological exploration in India was neither the study nor preservation of historical monuments. But to use archaeology as an imperial tool to create mutual dissensions and resentment between Buddhists, Jains, other Hindus, and Muslims by falsely crediting all Monuments as far as possible to align Muslim invaders and label a few as Buddhist or Jain but not Hindu.

Later, Percy Brown, James Fergusson, Sir Kenneth Clarke, Sir Bannister Fletcher, and Encyclopedia Britannica orchestrated Cunningham’s same cunning tune. This colossal archaeological fraud was blatantly followed in the world in history books and all the places.

Cunningham’s suggestion was highly appreciated. After returning from the army as a Major General, he appointed India’s first archaeological surveyor in 1861.  as Director from 1862 to 1865 and as Director-General from 1871 to 1885.

The A.S.I. was mysteriously closed for six years. During this time, Cunningham was cunningly hatching his archaeological chickens by nesting a false imaginative Muslim history of numerous Monuments and putting up contrived notices at historic sites.

Those archaeological notices composed by Cunningham’s scheming brain are notorious for their vagueness. Without quoting any historical authority, they blandly assert that a certain Fakir or Sultan probably built a particular township, building, tower, or fort, perhaps around such a period. The architectural style displays some Buddhist or Jain influence.

Usually, visitors to historic sites are in a hurry. They are generally content with having a visual impression of the place. And they also presume that notice put up by experts could not be wrong. But they are unaware that

the archaeological notes in India are blatant concoctions of an alien

imperialist, whose design used archaeology to perpetuate British rule in India and convert everybody in India to Christianity.

His superiors, therefore, promoted and encouraged Cunningham’s sinister plan in every way. Soon after he is appointed archaeological surveyor, Cunningham took two assistants J. D. Scalar and Carlisle. From 1861 to 1865, they made a list of important historical monuments throughout India.

After that, the Archaeological Survey of India was suddenly closed for five long years to enable Cunningham to prepare we fabricated archaeological files and put up corresponding false notices at historic sites.

Once Cunningham did all the manipulative work, the A.S.I. reopened with a flourish in 1870 ever since all those studying history or archaeology are quoting Cunningham’s vague descriptions about the origins.

Consequently, persons working worldwide as teachers, readers, professors, or experts in Muslim (Saracenic) architecture in museums, colleges, universities, or media are all victims of academic fraud. Students can apply a little common sense and realize that Mughals and Britishers invaded India to plunder or make tall monuments in India?

INDIA WAS THE EDUCATIONAL HUB OF THE WORLD

In the known history of 5000 years, India remained the wealthiest and most advanced nation for 4800 years, and the spine of this feat was the knowledge of the people. Ancient India had a systematic learning system. But unfortunately, with the destruction of universities by the invading Muslims and Huns, the eco-system was disrupted. Whatever was remaining was garbled and destroyed by Britishers in the nineteenth and twentieth century. The literacy rate of such an educated country at the time of India’s freedom from British rule came down to barely 12%

Knowledge sharing was not a business or a paid profession. There were gurukuls and Ashramas for every village. These centers of learning were situated outside the towns, and the teachers here were called Gurus. The commercialization of education and learning was not in practice. Every student used to pay a Guru-Dakshina as a token of gratitude. Students held Gurus in high esteem and were considered more sacred than parents also. There used to a sacred personal bond between Guru & Shishya.

Mahabharata gives examples of famous ashramas as centers of learning like Naimisha and Ashramas of Vyasa, Vashishtha, Viswamitra. Among Vyasa’s disciples were Sumantra, Vaisampayana, Jamini, Paila, and Suka. One hermitage near Kukshetra with two female Rishis also existed. Rishi Kanva presided numerous hermitages. There were specialists in every branch of knowledge, in each of four Vedas, in Yagya related literature, and art, Kalpa Sutra, In chhanda, shabda, and vyakarana nirukta. There were Logicians for law, specialists in physical sciences and arts who taught their skills. Mathematics, Geometry, Zoology was taught by experts.

Over time, the system of transmission of knowledge got institutionalized, and rulers established universities. The campus of temples served as schools. Takshila is the first brick and mortar University which existed about 2700 year ago. In that period, no human-made religion was born. Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam came into existence much later. More than 10,500 students studied at Takshshila University. Students from Babylonia, Greece, Arabia, Korea, Japan, Indonesia, China, and West Asia studied here. Subjects like Vedas, Sanskrit, Philosophy, Ayurveda, Surgery, Agriculture, Politics, Archery, Warfare, Astronomy, commerce, Futurology, Music, and Dance. Takshila made significant contributions to the civilizations in the world. Author of Artha Shastra, Acharya Chanakya, famous Ayurveda Shastri Charaka, Jivaka, another famous physician and surgeon, and Panini were alumni of his great University. Buddhist Jatakas, written around the 5th century AD, has described Takshila as a great learning center.

Nalanda University is the second most significant university that was much more prominent in size and better organized. Historical sources indicate that the University had a long and illustrious life that lasted almost continually for 800 years from the fifth to the twelfth century CE. It was an entirely residential university believed to have 2,000 teachers and 10,000 students. Through their architectural components, the Nalanda ruins revealed the holistic nature of knowledge sought and imparted at this University. It suggests a seamless co-existence between nature and man and between living and learning. It was established in about 400 BC by Kumar Gupt. The University was destroyed by Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turkish who was ruling India at that time.

There were numerous Universities situated in the entire length and breadth of the country. We are unable to trace all of them, some of which have been traced are Vallabhi in Gujrat, Vikramshila in Bihar, Pushpgiri, and Ratnagiri in Odisha, Jagaddala in Bangladesh, Odantpuri in Bihar, Sompura in Bangladesh. Varanasi, Sharda Peeth in Kashmir, Mithila in Bihar, Ujjaini in Madhya Pradesh, Kanjipuram in Tamilnadu, Thrissur, and extending up to Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka.

true history of india

भारत के इतिहास लेखकों ने किस प्रकार जनता को धोखा दिया है !

शिक्षा की अन्य किसी भी शाखा में देश की जनता को इतनी अधिक लम्बी अवधि तक लगातार ठगा नहीं गया है जितना भारतीय इतिहास की विद्या में ।

ऐतिहासिक स्थलों की यात्रा करने वाले विद्यार्थियों और पर्यटकों को ईन स्थानो के इतिहास के नाम पर मनगढ़न्त जानकारियां दी जा रही है।उदाहरण के लिए, दिल्ली में कुतुबमीनार के नाम से पुकारे जाने वाले २३८ फुट ऊँचे स्तम्भ का मामला लीजिए । इसके मुलोद्गम के बारे में सभी तथाकथित इतिहास-लेखक और सामान्य जनता समान रूप में अनिश्चित हैं, फिर भी जनता के सम्मुख जो इतिहास प्रस्तुत किए जाते हैं उनमें नितान्त झूठी बातों को सत्य-कथन के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया जाता है ।

कुछ लोगों का कहना है कि इसे कुतुबुद्दीन ऐबक ने बनवाया गया था, जो दिल्ली पर सन् १२०६ ई० से १२१० ई० तक राज्य करने वाला शासक था।  अन्य लोग कहते हैं कि इसे ऐबक के दामाद और उत्तराधिकारी अल्तमश ने बनवाया था। अन्य विचार यह है कि अलाउद्दीन खिलजी ने इसे अथवा कम-से-कम इसके कुछ भाग को तो अवश्य ही बनवाया था। चौथा मत यह है कि फ़िरोजशाह तुगलक ने इस स्तम्भ को अथवा इसके कुछ भाग को बनवाया होगा। पाँचवां मत यह भी है कि उपर्युक्त चार शासकों में से एक ने अथवा एक से अधिक शासकों ने अकेले अथवा संयुक्त रूप से इस स्तम्भ का निर्माण कराया होगा। सबसे आश्चर्यकारी तथ्य यह है कि कोई भी इतिहास-प्रन्थ निष्ठापूर्वक, सत्यता से समस्त मामला स्पष्ट नहीं करेगा और  साफ़-साफ़ शब्दों में यह नहीं कहेगा कि कुतुबमीनार को कुतुबुद्दीन अथवा इल्तमश अथवा अलाउद्दीन अथवा फ़िरोजशाह अथवा इनमें से दो अथवा अधिक ने बनवाया था क्योंकि ऊपर जिन चारों मुस्लिम बादशाहों के नाम इस मीनार के निर्माण-श्रेय दिया है, उनमें  से किसी ने भी लिखित दावा नहीं किया है।,

प्रत्येक इतिहास में सरलतापूर्वक यही कहा जाएगा कि कुतुबमीनारको कुतुबुद्दीन अथवा इल्तमश अथवा अलाउद्दीन या फ़िरोज़शाह अथवा इनमें से दो अथवा अधिक ने बनवाया था। तथाकथित सभी इतिहास-लेखक जानते हैं कि उन के कथन झूठे और निराधार हैं, क्योंकि उनमें से किसी भी बादशाह ने स्वयं यह दावा नहीं किया है कि उसने यह स्तम्भ बनवाया था।

इस प्रकार के मामले में सभी इतिहास-लेखक का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह जनता को सभी पाँचों विचार बता दे और साथ में यह भी कह दे कि इन विचारों के लिए कोई भी प्रमाण, उपलब्ध नहीं है। फिर भी, ऐसे तथाकथित इतिहास-लेखकों में से किसी एक ने भी ऐसा काम नहीं किया है। इतिहास-लेखकों को स्पष्टतः इस कुतुबमीनारी-कथा में विद्यमान विसंगतियों का ज्ञान है क्योंकि अखिल भारतीय इतिहास संगठन के वार्षिक समारोह  मे सब असंगतियो से सम्बन्धित शोध-पत्र पढ़ चुके हैं।

जब इतिहास-लेखकों को इस बात की जानकारी है कि कुतुबमीनार का मूलोद्गम विवाद का विषय है, और उपर्यक्त पाँच मतों में से एक के लिए भी कोई ठोस आधार विद्यमान नहीं है, तब क्या उनका कर्तव्य नहीं है कि वे किसी भी निर्णायक मत की घोषणा करने से संकोच करें ? क्या यह भी उनका कर्तव्य नहीं है कि वे सभी तथ्य जनता के समक्ष प्रस्तुत कर दें, और फिर वे यदि स्वयं भी इच्छुक हों, तो किसी भी विशेष मत के बारे में अपनी रुचि का उल्लेख भी कर दें। किन्तु वे जब इतने महत्वपूर्ण तथ्यों को जनता से छुपाते हैं, जब इतनी आवश्यक जानकारी को जनता के सम्मुख प्रकट नहीं होने देते, तब क्या अपने पावन कर्तव्यपालन की अवहेलना करने के लिए ऐसे तथाकथित इतिहास लेखकों को सार्वजनिक रूप में दोषी नहीं ठहराया जाना चाहिये ? जबकि जनता इतिहास-लेखकों को उनके भारी-भारी वेतन देती  है, उनकी पुस्तकों के मूल्य चुकाती है,, तब क्या जनता को यह आशा नहीं करनी चाहिये कि ऐसी महत्त्वपूर्ण जानकारी उनसे छुपाकर नहीं रखी जाएगी?

इस बात पर यह विचार किया जा सकता है कि सभी विकल्पों का उल्लेख करना असम्भाव्य होगा क्योंकि उससे प्रत्येक विषय बहुत लम्बा हो जाएगा। यह सत्यता नहीं है। मैं ऊपर प्रदर्शित कर चुका हूँ कि किस भी प्रकार उपर्युक्त सभी पाँचों मतों को दो या तीन छोटे वाक्यों में, सम्पूक्त रूप में प्रस्तुत किया जा सकता है ।

 जनता के सम्मुख सभी तथ्यों का रखा जाना अत्यधिक महत्त्व की बात है। कल्पना करें कि किसी व्यक्ति ने सातवीं कक्षा  तक पढ़ने के बाद शैक्षिक अध्ययन समाप्त कर दिया है। उसकी  पुस्तक में कुतुबमीनार पर एक पाठ भी था । यदि उस पाठ के लेखक ने व्याजोक्तिपूर्ण स्वर में कह दिया है कि यह स्तम्भ कुतुबुद्दीन द्वारा ही बनाया गया था, तो वह विद्यार्थी अपने मन में आजीवन यही छाप बनाए रहेगा कि कुतुबुद्दीन ही उस मीनार का निर्माता था। वह यह भी नहीं जानेगा कि उसके विचार के लिए कोई भी आधार नहीं था। बाद में, यदि मेरे जैसा कोई अन्वेषक उस विचार पर विवाद करे, तो वह व्यक्ति इसे अव्यवहार्य मान कर अवहेलना कर देगा और ऐसा करते हुए वह यह भी तकलीफ़ नहीं करेगा कि मैं अपने विचार के समर्थन में जो तर्क और साक्ष्य दे रहा हूँ, उन्हें तो कम-से-कम एक बार पढ़ लिया जाय । इस प्रकार के आधारहीन कथनों से दूसरा भयंकर खतरा यह है कि यह उन गुंजायशों को समाप्त कर देता है जो अन्वेषण के लिए मुक्त होनी चाहिये थी। इस प्रकार, उदाहरण के लिए, यदि सातवीं कक्षा से स्नातकोत्तर स्तर तक कुतुबमीनार के सम्बन्ध में पढ़ने वाले सभी विद्यार्थी बारम्बार उन पाँचों मतों को इस पद-टीप के साथ पढ़ते हैं कि वे पाँचों मत केवल अनुमान ही हैं, तो अनेक जिज्ञासु व्यक्ति कुतुबमीनार वास्तविक मूलोद्गम का पता लगाने के लिए तत्पर हो जाएँगे। अनेक लोग इसके इतिहास को संग्रह करने में अथवा अनेक महत्त्वपूर्ण तथ्यों को प्रकाश में लाने में सफल हो सकेंगे । किन्तु कुतुबमीनार के सम्बन्ध में सभी ऐतिहासिक पुस्तकों में आधारहीन कथन इतिहास के बारे मे अन्वेषण करने से प्रतिभावान अन्वेषकों को रोकते हैं । उन सब को यह समझा दिया जाता है कि कुतुबमीनार का मूल तो असंदिग्ध रूप में सिद्ध किया जा चुका है, और अब उसमें किसी भी प्रकार का शोधकार्य आवश्यक नहीं है। यह घोर शैक्षिक क्षति है जिसका उत्तर इतिहास-लेखकों से अवश्य ही लेना चाहिये।

किन्तु यही सब कुछ नहीं है ।  कुतुबमीनार के बारे में जो कहा गया है, वह तो एक उदाहरण मात्र है। यही बात उन सभी मध्यकालीन ऐतिहासिक नगरियों, मस्जिदों, मकबरों, किलों, अन्य आवसीय भवनों, पूलों, नहरों और तालाबों के बारे में भी लागू होती है जिनका निर्माण-श्रेय मूस्लिम शासकों को दिया जाता है।

ताजमहल का ही उदाहरण लें। इसके निर्माण की लागत ४० लाख से  करोड़ रुपये तक और इसकी निर्माणावधि १० वर्ष से २२ वर्ष के बीच आंकी जाती है। ईसा अफन्दी से अहमद महन्दीस, आस्टिन द-बरोरड्योक्स, जीरोनीमो वीरोनिओ अथवा बुरी तरह अश्रु बहाते हुए स्वयं शाहजहाँ में से कोई भी व्यक्ति इसका रूप रेखांकर हो सकता है। इस प्रकार की घोर अनिश्चितता ताजमहल के प्रत्येक विवरण की विशिष्टता है, जिसमें मुमताज़ की मृत्यु और उसको दफ़नाने की तारीखें भी सम्मिलित हैं ।

और फिर भी जैसा कुतुब मीनार के मामले में है, वैसा ही ताजमहल के बारे में भी इतिहास ने व्यावहारिक रूप से सभी तथ्य देते हुए यह एक पद-टीप जोड़ दिया है कि सभी समान रूप में निराधार और काल्पनिक हैं। भारत सरकार के पर्यटन और पुरातस्व विभागों के प्रकाशकों सहित सभी इतिहास-पुस्तकें एक ही विनम्र और निराधार मत प्रस्तुत करती हैं तथा यह घोषित करती हैं कि ताजमहल के सम्बन्ध में वही अन्तिम शब्द है । इसका दुष्परिणाम इतना भयावह है कि प्रत्येक व्यक्ति इसी धारणा को हृदर्यगम किये रहता है कि ताजमहल के बारे में कोई भी अनिश्चितता नहीं है।

यथार्थ रूप में तो यही बात भारत के प्रत्येक मध्यकालीन ऐतिहासिक मकबरे, मस्जिद, किले और नगरी के बारे में घटित हो रही है। उनके मूल के सम्बन्ध में अनाप-शनाप कहानियों कहकर जनता को बुद्धू बनाया जा रहा है । मज़ा यह है कि ये सभी कहानियाँ एक-दूसरे से पर्याप्त भिन्न हैं। यदि जनता इतनी सावधान मात्र हो कि प्रत्येक मध्यकालीन नगरी और भवन के बारे में सभी वर्णनों का संग्रह करे, तो उसे स्पष्ट ज्ञात हो जाएगा कि उसे किस प्रकार से बुद्धू बनाया गया है और धोखा दिया गया है।

 हम एक तीसरा उदाहरण भी लें । बह इस भवन के बारे में है जिसे इतिहास में अकबर का मकबरा कहकर शैखी बखारी जाती है। यह आगरा के उत्तर में लगभग छः मील की दूरी पर सिकन्दरा में बना हुआ है यह सात-आठ मंजिला हिन्दू राजभवन है, फिर भी इसे विनम्रतापूर्वक, निराचार ही घोषित किया जा रहा है कि इसका निर्माण अकबर के मकबरे के रूप में किया गया था। इतिहास-लेखकों ने जनता से यह तथ्य छुपाकर रखा है कि कहीं भी अकबर ने अथवा उसके किसी भी दरबारी इतिहास-लेखक ने यह दावा किया है कि अकबर ने अपने जीवन-काल में ही अपना मकबरा बनवा लिया था, फिर भी इतिहास-लेखकों का एक वर्ग है जो बिनम्रतापूर्व, निराधार और असंगत स्वर में इस भवन का निर्माण-श्रेय अकबर का देता के और कहता है कि अपनी भावी मृत्यु की सम्भावना-वश ही इसका निर्माण अकबर ने करा लिया था। इतिहासकारों का एक अन्य वर्ग है जो जहाँगीरनामा के धूर्त, अपूर्ण और अस्पष्ट कथनों में विश्वास करके यह मत प्रकट करता है कि इस भवन का निर्माण अकबर की मृत्यु के बाद जहाँगीर ने करवाया था । इतिहास-लेखकों का एक अन्य वर्ग भी है जो राजनीतिज्ञों की भाँति, समझौते की बात करता हुआ अपना मत प्रकट करता है कि इस भवन का कुछ भाग अकबर ने बनवाया था और शेष भाग जहाँगीर ने। इन तीनों मतों में प्रकट किए गये विचारों के लिए वास्तव में लेशमात्र भी आधार नहीं है। तथ्य तो यह है कि यदि गुढ़ार्थ समझा जाय तो इस बात का पर्याप्त प्रमाण उपलब्ध है कि (यदि अकबर सचमुच ही उस भवन में दफ़नाया पड़ा है तो) वह उस पूर्वकालिक हिन्दू राजभवन में गड़ा हुआ है जिसमें वह अपनी मृत्यु के समय निवास कर रहा था। भारतीय इतिहास में झूठ का जितना विशाल अम्बार ठुँस दिया गया है और भोले-भाले विद्यार्थियों को आज भी जिसे सत्-साहित्य कहकर  विश्व-भर में रटाया जाता है, उसे हटाने के लिए कठोर प्रथल्न करने होंगे। विश्व को इस प्रकार भयंकर रूप में धोखा देने के लिए जिम्मेदार कौन है? निश्चित रूप में इसके उत्तरदायी ये तथाकथित इतिहास-लेखक ही हैं जिनको सामान्य जनता अपनी आँखों पर बैठाती रही है और अपने प्रिय इतिहास-लेखकों’ के रूप में विश्वास उनमें प्रकट करती रही है। इनमें से कुछ तो जान-बूझकर, बहुत सारे अनजाने में और कुछ अन्य लोग मात्र कायरता-वश ही इन घोर असत्यों, विकराल झूठों को प्रसारित-प्रचारित करने में सहायक रहे हैं । अब समय आ गया है कि भारतीय जनता अपना भी मत प्रकट करे और इस चलते आ रहे धोखे को रोकने के लिए जोर से आवाज़ उठाए। अब उपयुक्त समय है कि वे इन तथाकथित इतिहास-लेखकों से जवाब माँगें कि उन्होंने ये भुल-चूक अथवा इतिहास में विकृतियाँ क्यों होने दी हैं, अथवा क्यों जान-बूझकर उनको बिगाड़ा है ? यदि हमारे इतिहास-लेखकों ने विनम्र और आधारहीन कथन प्रस्तुत न किए होते और प्रत्येक मामले में सावधानता पूर्वक, सभी तथ्यों को जनता के सम्मुख प्रस्तुत कर दिया होता, तो वे दुरभि-सन्धि अथवा उपेक्षा करने के आरोप से ही न बच गये होते, अपितु उन्होंने अप्रत्यक्ष रूप में इतिहास के उद्देश्य की सहायता भी कर दी होत। अतः, विश्व को यह ज्ञात हो जाना चाहिये कि सभी मध्यकालीन ऐतिहासिक भवनों और नगरियों के सम्बन्ध में दुनिया को भयंकर धोखा दिया जा रहा है, इसे पथभ्रष्ट किया गया है, और अब इस विश्व को माँग करनी चाहिये कि उन भवनों और नगरियों में से प्रत्येक के बारे में सभी तथ्य सामने लाये जाएँ और उनके मूलोद्गम और निर्माण के बारे में पूर जांच की जाये।   वे जो झूठ ही फैलाना चाहते हैं, वो भी अपने क्रम में उन्हीं रटी-रटायी झूठ को अन्य लोगों को भी पढ़ाते-सिखाते हैं । विश्व को इस प्रकार भयंकर रूप में धोखा देने के लिए जिम्मेदार कौन है? निश्चित रूप में इसके उत्तरदायी ये तथाकथित इतिहास-लेखक ही हैं जिनको सामान्य जनता अपनी आँखों पर बैठाती रही है और अपने प्रिय इतिहास-लेखकों’ के रूप में अमर्यादित, अंधाधुन्ध विश्वास उनमें प्रकट करती रही है। इनमें से कुछ तो जान-बूझकर, बहुत सारे अनजाने में और कुछ अन्य लोग मात्र कायरता-वश ही इन घोर असत्यों, विकराल झूठों को प्रसारित-प्रचारित करने में सहायक रहे हैं । अब समय आ गया है कि भार- तीय जनता अपना भी मत प्रकट करे और इस चलते आ रहे धोखे को रोकने के लिए जोर से आवाज़ करे । अब उपयुक्त समय है कि वे इन तथाकथित इतिहास-लेखकों से जवाब माँगें कि उन्होंने ये भुल-चूक अथवा इतिहास में विकृतियाँ क्यों होने दी हैं, अथवा क्यों जान-बूझकर उनको विगाड़ा है ?

यदि इतिहास-लेखकों ने विनम्र और आधारहीन कथन प्रस्तुत न किए होते और प्रत्येक मामले में सावधानतापूर्वक, सभी तथ्यों को जनता के सम्मुख प्रस्तुत कर दिया होता, तो वे दुरभि-सन्धि अथवा उपेक्षा करने के आरोप से ही न बच गये होते, अपितु उन्होंने अप्रत्यक्ष रूप में इतिहास के उद्देश्य की सहायता भी कर दी होती क्योंकि उससे पाठकों की अनेक पीढ़ियाँ गहनतर अन्वेषण-कार्य में प्रवृत्त हुई होतीं । अतः, विश्व को यह ज्ञात हो जाना चाहिये कि सभी मध्यकालीन ऐतिहासिक भवनों और नगरियों के सम्बन्ध में इसे भयंकर धोखा दिया जा रहा है, इसे पथभ्रष्ट किया गया है, और अब, इसीलिए, इस विश्व को माँग करनी चाहिये कि उन भवनों और नगरियों में से प्रत्येक के बारे में सभी तथ्य सामने लाये जाएँ और उनके मूलोद्गम और निर्माण के बारे में पूरी-एरी जांच की जाय ।

glories of india

पुरातत्त्वीय अभिलेख किस प्रकार बनावटी रूप में प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं।

ताजमहल को शाहजहाँ ने नहीं बनवाया था, फतहपुर सीकरी की स्थापना अकबर ने नहीं की थी, और  ना ही आगरे का लालकिला उसके बनवाया था। कुतुब मीनार कुतुबउद्दीन ने नहीं बनवाया था। इस प्रकार, लगभग प्रत्येक मध्यकालीन ऐतिहासिक भवन, पुल अथवा नहर का झूठा, असत्य निर्माण-श्रेय विदेशी मुस्लिमों को दे दिया गया है, यद्यपि तथ्य यह है कि इनमें से प्रत्येक वस्तु का निर्माण, शताब्दियों पूर्व ही भारत के हिन्दू शासकों द्वारा कर दिया गया था ।

इस प्रकार के असत्य, बनावटी प्रस्तुतीकरण का मूल कारण भारत की १२०० वर्षीय दीर्घकालीन दासता है जिसमें  विदेशी शासकों ने भारतीय पुरातत्व का सर्वनाश कर दिया है, और मनमाना खिलवाड़ किया है ।

It is a False History that Taj Mahal is built by Shah Jahan

भारत में ब्रिटिश शासन की स्थापना होने से पूर्व ‘पुरातत्व विभाग’ नामों निशान भी नहीं था। दीर्घकालीन विदेशी मुस्लिम शासन में हिन्दू-भवनों को बलात्-ग्रहण करने और उन्हीं को मस्जिदों व मकबरों के रूप में दुरुपयोग करने की एक लम्बी अकथनीय कहानी थी। इसलिए, भारत में जब ब्रिटिश सत्ता शासनारूढ़ हुई, तब सभी ऐतिहासिक भवन बहुत पहले ही मकवरों और मस्जिदों में परिवर्तित होकर मुस्लिमों के आधिपत्य और कब्ज़े में थे। जब ब्रिटिश लोगों ने भारत में सर्वप्रथम पुरातलल विभाग की स्थापना की, और सभी स्थानों पर विद्यमान  मुस्लिमों से परामर्श किया और उनकी बतायी हुई मनगढन असत्य बातों को अंकित कर लिया। ऐसी ही झूठी बाते भारत सरकार के सम्मानित पुरातत्व विभाग का मूल भाग बन चकी हैं।

Fatehpur Sikri is not established by Akbar

इन भवनों पर स्वामित्व अथवा कब्ज़ा किए हुए मृस्लिम लोग उन भवनों के मुस्लिम-पूर्व वास्तविक मूलोद्गम अथवा स्वामित्व पर सच्चा प्रकाश डालने में रुचि नहीं रखते थे क्योंकि उनको आशंका थी कि वदि उन्होंने किसी भी भवन के  हिन्दू-मूलोद्गम स्वीकार कर लिया या उसकी चर्चा कर ली, तो उनका उस भवन पर से अधिकार-स्वामित्व या कब्ज़ा छीन लिया जाएगा।

 किसी भवन के बारे में बार-बार यह कहने से, कि वह किसी का मकबरा अथवा मस्जिद है, स्वतः यह प्रपंच प्रचलित हो गया हो गया कि इस भवन का मूल-निर्माण ही उसी प्रयोजन से हुआ है। ब्रिटिश पुरातत्त्वीय विभाग के कर्मचारियों को अनुभव करना चाहिए था कि हिन्दुओं से छीन लेने के बाद उन भवनों को मकबरों और मस्जिदों के रूप में उपयोग में लाया गया था। उदाहरण के लिए, आज जिन भवनों को अकबर के. अथवा सफदरजंग के, अथवा हुमायू के मकबरे के रूप में देखता है, उनका भाव-द्योतन मात्र इतना ही हो सकता है कि (यदि सचमुच ही वहां कुछ है तो) वहाँ पर वे विशिष्ट व्यक्ति दफ़नाए गए है। किन्तु यह कल्पना करना कि वे राजभवनों के सदृश विशाल, भव्य भवन उनके दफनाने के स्थानों और स्मारकों के रूप में बनाए गये थे, घोर ऐैतिहासिक और पुरातस्वीय भूल है । वे भवन तो वहुत पहले से विद्यमान थे। विदेशी मुस्लिम विजित भवनों में निवास करते रहे और शायद वहीं दफ़ना दिये गये। उन विशाल, भव्य भवनों में इनका दफनाया जाना भी सन्दिग्ध ही है। यह भी हो सकता है कि उन भव्य भवनों के भीतर बनी हुई अधिकांश कब्रें झूठी और जाली हैं।

Qutab Minar has not been made by any Muslim Invader. It exits before Islam was born.

 ब्रिटिश सरकार ने जब भारत में पुरातत्त्व विभाग की स्थापना करनी शुरू कर दी, तब उन्होंने देखा कि ऐतिहासिक भवनों में से अधिकांश भवन मुस्लिम आधिपत्य और कब्जे में थे। अपने जाते हुए  साम्राज्य की विरही स्मृतियों को सँजोए हुए उन मुस्लिमों को इसी बात से पर्याप्त सन्तोष था कि कम-से-कम सभी भवनों को पूर्वकालिक मुस्लिम शासकों द्वारा बनाया हुआ ही घोषित कर दिया जाये। ब्रिटिस शाशन ने 1860 मे  Archaeological सर्वे आफ इंडिया की स्थापना की और उन्होने मुसलमानो के नाम कर दिये सारी इमारते।

 कुछ उदाहरण के लिए जानिए की अमरकोट किले के पास, सिन्ध प्रान्त में जिस स्थान पर पुरातत्त्वीय सूचना-पट यह बताते हुए लगा है कि यहाँ पर अकबर का जन्म हुआ था, वह स्थान सही नहीं है।

इसी प्रकार पंजाब में कलानौर नामक स्थान पर कुछ हिन्दू भवान हैं, जहां पर पुरातत्व विभाग की ओर से शिनाख्त के बाद यह सूचना-पट लगाया गया है कि यह वह स्थान है जहाँ पर १३वर्षीय किशोर अकुबर को बादशाह घोषित किया गया था। यही वह स्थान है जहा अकबर को उसके पिता बादशाह हुमायूँ की मृत्यु का समाचार उस समय सुनाया गया था जब १३वर्षीय अकबर वहाँ पड़ाव डाले पड़ा हुए था।

अकबर, जो उस समय बालक हैी था, उस स्थान पर किस प्रकार एक विशाल भवन निर्माण करा सकता था? उसका पितां भी बहाँ कोई भवन नहीं बनवा सकता था क्योंकि एक अन्य घमण्डी मुस्लिम सरदार द्वारा देश से बाहर खदेड़ दिये जाने के कारण, देश से बाहर १५ वर्ष तक रहने के बाद वह भारत में लौटा था । इसलिए यदि निर्दिस्त स्थान पर ही अकबर की ताजपोसी हुई थी, तो उसका अर्थ यह है कि वह उस समय एक पूर्वकालिक हिन्दू भवन में वह पड़ाव डाले हुए था जो पूरी तरह अथवा आंशिक रूप में बारम्बार होने वाले मुस्लिम आक्रमणों से नष्ट हो गया था।

इसी तरह मोहम्मद गवन एक घुमक्कड़ और खोजी व्यक्ति था जो बे-मतलब घूमता हुआ चौदहवीं शताब्दी में पश्चिमी एशिया के मृस्लिम देशों से भारत में आ पहुचा था । वह एक बहमनी सुलतान का वज़ीर हो गया किन्तु एक बहुत थोड़ी अनिश्चित अवधि मात्र के लिए ही। उमका पतन भी समान रूप में हड़बड़ी में हुआ । उसकी हत्या भी उसी सुलतान के आदेशानुसार की गयी जिसका मोहम्मद गवन वजीर था। सामान्यतः जो व्यक्ति शासक या सुलतान की नजरों से गिर जाता था, उसको नियमित रूप से दफ़नाया भी नहीं जाता था। ऐसे  व्यक्ति के शरीर के ट्कड़े-टुकड़े कर दिये जाते थे और बोटियों को चीलों और कृत्तों के खाने के लिए फैंक दिया जाता था। मोहम्मद गवन का अन्त इससे कुछ अच्छा नहीं हो सकता था। यह बात इस तथ्य से भी स्पष्ट थी कि सन् १६४५ ई० तक उसकी कब्र पहचानी नहीं जा सकी थी। फिर, अचानक कोई मूस्लिम उग्रवादी पुरातत्त्वीय कर्मचारी  बीदर गया और वहाँ सड़क के किनारे बनी हुई असंख्य, नगण्य, अनाम कब्रों में से एक को मोहम्मद गवन की कब्र घोषित कर आया। उस समय से ही सभी प्रकार के अन्वेषक जबर्दस्ती उस कब्र को मोहम्मद गवन की कब्र के रूप में उल्लेख करने लगे क्योंकि अब उसपर सरकारी छाप और मान्यता उपलब्ध हो गयी थी।

कुछ दसको पूर्व एक पूरातत्त्व कर्म चारी के मन में यह विचार आया कि अबुल फ़ज़ल की कब्र को खोजा जाय। अबुल फ़ज़ल तीसरी पीढ़ी के मुग़ल बादशाह अकबर का दरबारी और तथाकथित स्वघोषित तिथिवृत्त लेखक था। इतिहास में उल्लेख है कि सन् १६०२ ई० के अगस्त मास की १२तारीख को नरवर से १०-१२ मील की दूरी पर सराय बरार नामक एक स्थान के आस-पास अवूल फ़ज़ल को धात लगाकर मार डाला गया था उसके टुकड़े-टुकड़े कर दिये गये थे । इस प्रकार की निरर्थक, अनिश्चित और सुनी-सुनायी बातों से प्रारम्भ करते हुए बह कर्मचारी निर्दिष्ट स्थान पर जा पहुँचा। वहाँ उसने देखा कि एक बड़े क्षेत्र में बहुत सारी कब्रें इधर-उधर बिखरी पड़ी हैं। अफ़सरशाही के अनुसार धारणा बनाते हुए उसने लगभग बीसियों कब्रों में से कुछ कब्रों का एक समूह चुन लिया और यह विचार कर लिया कि उनमें से एक तो अबुल फ़ज़ल की कब्र होगी तथा शेष उसके उन परिचरों की होंगी जो उसके साथ ही उस घात में मारे गये होंगे। अगला प्रश्न यह था कि उन चार या पाँच कब्रों में से अबुल फ़ज़ल की कब्र को किस प्रकार पहचाना जाए । इन चार या पाँच कब्रों में से एक कब्र अन्य कब्रों से कुछ इंच अधिक लम्बी थी वही उसकी होगी। पुरातत्व कर्मचारी के लिए वह पर्याप्त और बहुत बड़ी बात थी । महान अकबर के सम्मानित दरबारी को दफ़नाने के पवित्र स्थान के रूप में इसे तुरन्त पहचान लिया गया था । पुरातत्त्वीय पंजिकाओं में भी इस तथ्य को इसी प्रकार अंकित कर दिया गया । इसके इर्द-गिर्द कमरा बनाने के लिए और कदाचित् एक स्थायी रूप में देखभाल करने वाले का वेतन भुगतान करने के लिए कुछ धन-राशि मंजूर कर दी गयी थी । उस समय से इतिहास और पुरातत्त्व के असावधान विद्यार्थी-गण विवश हो गये थे कि वे उस स्थान को अबुल फ़ज़ल की हत्या के रूप में स्थल को शैक्षिक मान्यता दें |।

जब अकबर ने स्वयं ही अबुल फ़ज़ल की कब्र की कोई परवाह नहीं की अथवा उसकी कब्र की पहचान में वह असमर्थ रहा, तो ४५० वर्षों के बाद, बिना किसी विशिष्ट आधारभूत सामग्री के नगण्य क्षेत्र में बिखरी पड़ी सैकड़ों कब्रों में से अबुल फ़ज़ल की कब्र को इस प्रकार पहचान सकने की कोई आशा कोई पुरातत्व-कर्म चारी कर सकता था ?

ये उदाहरण इस बात के लिए पर्याप्त होने चाहिए कि पुरातत्त्व और इतिहास के कर्मचारी और विद्यार्थी-गण ऐतिहासिक (मध्यकालीन) स्थलों के सम्बन्ध में पुरातत्त्वीय पहचान की ओर अधिक विशेष ध्यान न दें, उन पर अत्यधिक विश्वास न करें । विभिन्न अन्तः-प्रेरणाओं, मनोभावों के कारण झूठी-सच्ची बातें लिखी गयी हैं । सभी पुरातत्त्वीय अभिलेखों को, अत्यन्ता सावधानीपूर्वक संशोधित करने, पुनः देखुने-भालने और संकलिंत करने की आवश्यकता है।

Page 1 of 7

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén