Category Archives: English

The Swastik Symbol : Shri Virjanand Devkarni (translate by :Vinita Arya)

The Svastik Symbol:The The Most Ancient Depiction of AUM – Acharya VirjanandDevkarni (including PDF of his groundbreaking Hindi book – Svastik Chinn (AUM KaPracheentamRoop)


In the dharmic tradition of India (or Aryavart to give its ancient name), the marking of the Svastik symbol has been going on since very ancient times.The symbol has been found mainly and repeatedly on India’s ancient coins, seals, utensils and homes.At India’s most ancient, historical sites – MohenjoDaro, Harappa and Lothal, seals bearing the anticlockwise left handed facingsymbol  swastik

have been found at excavations. Evidence in the form of pictures of these ancient seals can be seen at the end of this article.

In addition to this, the Svastika symbol can be found formed on ancient Indian stamped (punch marked) coins, cast metal copper seals, seals of Ayodhya, Arjunayangan, Eran, Kaad, Yaudheya, Kuninda, Kaushambi, Takshashila, Mathura, Ujjaini, Ahichhatra, Agroha, ancient statues, cooking vessels, rubies, prayer ritual vessels (such as the yajnakund – a vessel for the performance of yajna a purificatory fire ceremony), spoons, ornaments and weapons. The Svastika symbol can be found in abundance on ancient historical artefacts belonging to the Maurya and Shunga Dynasty. On a Buddhist statue obtained from Japan the Svastika symbol can be seen drawn on its chest. Even today in the life of ordinary Indian people one can see that the symbol’s use is widespread. Every day one can see the symbol on houses, temples, cars etc. and on other types of vehicles. Even Hitler had made this symbol his own.

The Svastika symbol has also been found in its many forms outside India on ancient remains in countries such as China, Japan, Korea, Tibet, Babylonia, Austria, Chaldea, Persia, Phoenicia, Armenia, Laconia, Greece, Egypt, Cyprus, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, America, Brazil, Mexico, Africa, Venezuela, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Russia, Switzerland, France, Peru, Columbia etc.

A question worth pondering over now is; what is the real nature of the Svastika symbol which has been found in such great numbers over such extensive areas of land?

After much confusion, discussion, debate and deep research, I have arrived at this conclusion that the Svastika symbol is an amalgamation of two “AUM” signs written in an artistic style in the ancient known script of Brahmi.

The greatest distinguishing feature of the Svastika symbol is that if looked at from any of the four sides it always reads ‘AUM’.

In ancient India there were sixty four writing systems of which the Brahmi script was one of them.  The way in which “AUM” was written in this script was as follows –

1= AUM2= M  ( • ) signifies the “anusvar” or the accompanying nasal sound or letter M.

After adding both together its form is like this: 3.

AUMhere is formed by the joining of 1=AU and 2= M or the (• )anusvar.

If this AUM sign is also written twice in an artistic manner then its form becomes as shown below-


The AUM form in Figure 1 can be seen on Arjunayangan and Ujjaini seals (see the AUM (Svastik) form on page 20 of the pdf Hindi book). The AUM (Svastika) form in Figure 2 and the clockwise right handed form like this 5  are seen nowadays throughout India.

Due to ignorance of the script, writers have changed it during the interval of thousands of years from the left handed to the right handed form. Of the Svastika symbols drawn by artists today only fifteen percent of the symbols are left handed which is interesting as only a few right- handed examples of Svastika have ever been found.

As the writing of the ordinary script changed, other prevailing customary writing styles also changed. However among ordinary people the deeply ingrained AUM (Svastik) word remained unchanged. For thousands of years it has existed in its ancient form having been given a spiritual wrapping. Nevertheless as seen below, from the fifth to fourteenth centuries the symbolused to depict AUM changed and the examples given below are very different from the ॐ symbol which is currently used –


This symbol ॐrepresenting AUM is its changed form.Some ignorant people call it the “pauranik AUM” and regard ‘ओ३म्’ as the AUM belonging to the Arya Samaj. The only difference however is in the scripts. Ordinary people continue to this day to write the ॐ symbol which is about a thousand years old.  There are nevertheless those who depict the symbol ॐ by writing ‘ओ३म् in the modern day prevailing script, like these examples of AUM being written in different modern-day scripts–


In this way the difference between ॐ and ओम् is only that of scripts used over a passage of time and not one rooted in sectarian differences.  The left handed AUM 9symbol was changed to the right handed AUM symbol 10  due to ignorance and in some places its anusvar has been removed.  Similarly today the symbols ऊँ and the inverted11are written on both sides of some cars, houses, doors. This dual method of writing seems to have been adopted when writing AUM in its Svastika form.


Some people are under the misconception that the Svastika symbol should only be drawn in its right handed form like this:  13  because it is a spiritual symbol and being so it should only face the right. The main argument is that if it were left-handed it would be inauspicious. In the spirit of good will it is humbly asserted to the proponents of such an argument, that this supposed difference between the left and right is pure fantasy and it bears no connection with any auspicious and inauspicious form. The left handed form is adopted also in the Arya writing style. While starting to write the symbol from the right occurs in the Kharosthi, Arabic/Urdu, Farsi, Sindhi etc. scripts which are derived from the scripts of non-Arya, Ashura countries.

The prevalence of the Svastika symbol was such that the rulers Sher Shah Suri, Islam Shah Suri. Ibrahim Shah Suri and even a Mughal ruler marked their coins with this symbol. It can also be found on the seals of the Maharaja of Jodhpur Jasvant Singh’s contemporary, the ruler of Pali, Hemraj.

On numerous ancient Indian inscriptions, copper plates and manuscripts, the line ‘AUM svasti” is written. Moreover the traditional blessings that are given at the end of the yajnas which are part of Indian rituals are “AUM svasti, AUM svasti, AUM svasti”. In such places the AUM form is regarded as being one that lends auspiciousness and it is supposed to bring good fortune. The meaning of AUM and Swasti have become so intertwined that it has become difficult to identify the difference between the first and second. For this reason in religious rituals the meaning of ‘AUM svasti’ is on the one hand ‘in the remembrance of AUM, Paramatma (Supreme Spirit), the bestower of good fortune’ and on the other hand it is ’may AUM, Paramatma look to our welfare’.

Maharishi Yaskacharya writes in the ‘Nirukta’ that:

Svasti – ityavinashinam


Nirukta 3.20

This sukta from Nirukta means that Svasti is the name of the indestructible. There are three indestructible things in this universe – matter, the soul and God (prakriti, jeev and Ishvar). Matter cannot by itself be for the welfare of the soul because, matter is inert. The soul is not the embodiment of well-being as it can only wish for its own well-being.  What cannot be attained from within can be taken from others.  For this reason Isvar, God, the embodiment of well-being, who acts for our welfare and so delivers all remaining justice, is the only accomplished one,  after whom ‘svasti’ and its representation ‘AUM’ can be named.  This explains why the ancient Aryans at the beginning of each auspicious deed remembered God in their oral and written depiction of the ‘svasti’ form. AUM Svasti in its written form has gradually over time become just a religious symbol, and its written script-related form has become largely forgotten.  God acts for our well-being, he makes us happy, keeps us healthy and in order to explain these kinds of sentiments, the word AUM was changed into the Svastika symbol. So in fact it is a symbol depicting God. In India today, five forms of the Svastika symbol are prevalent. For instance –


Indian civilisation until 5,000 years ago was spread throughout the whole world. It is for this reason that among many relics discovered the Svastika symbol has also been found in many different places and in many places it has also been seen that the symbol is still in everyday customary use. The Svastika symbol and its different forms as seen throughout the world are as follows –


In Figures 10 to 13 this type of circle ० represents the anusvar of AUM, in other words (•) represents the ‘m’ sound.

The greatest distinguishing feature of the Svastika symbol is that whichever of the four sides you look at it from it still reads ‘AUM’ in the Brahmi script. In this way this beautiful unparalleled symbol really succeeds in expressing God’s omnipresence.

In Ahichatra (modern day Bareilly), the capital of ruler Maharaja Drupad’s and Guru Dronacharya’s kingdom of Panchal, a pendant from a necklace has been found.  In the middle of the pendant there is a circle like this and in the middle of that circle formed in the Brahmi script is  = the ‘AU’ sound. Around it there is a circle formed out of  = ‘m’ symbols. This is another clear example of AUM in the form of a Svastika. This type of AUM has also been written like this –


1                              2                              3


Nowadays AUM can be written in Devanagari and Roman letters like this –

ओम् = OM


The above brief description establishes to a higher degree that the Svastika AUM symbol was spread throughout the world over an extensive area and  even today it is still being used everywhere in India. However those that draw and use this symbol today are altogether unaware of the secret that this symbol was once the ancient form of AUM.

In order to establish the antiquity of the Svastika symbol, photographs of seals obtained from excavations from ancient historical sites in India have been given from which the reader will see and understand its various forms very easily (for more details and for the photographs mentioned in this article please see the pdf book SvastikChinn  -AUM KaPracheentamRoopby Acharya VirjanandDaivkarnibelow).

Author’s Biography

Shri VirjanandDevkarni was born at home to his mother ShrimatiSariyandevi and father Shri DevkaranYadav on 2 December 1945 in the village of Bhagadyana in the Mahendragadh district of Harayana. Having completed the eighth standard at Yadavendra High School, Mahendragadh, he entered GurukulJhajjar in 1951 and was awarded subsequently the titles of Siddhantvachaspati, Vyakaranacharya, Darshanacharya and Itihasacharya.

He has through GurukulJhajjar’s Haryana Literature Institute (HarayanaSahityaSansthan) edited books on subjects such as the Ved, Darshan and Upanishad. Under the close guidance of Swami OmanandSaraswati he has collected artefacts belonging to ancient India for GurukulJhajjar’sHarayana State Archaeological Museum and has provided praiseworthy assistance in publicising them. In the current Arya “world” there is no-one who can match his expert status in deciphering and analysing scripts such as Brahmi, Kharosthi and Yavnani.  The Government of India’s Department of Archaeology invites him to decode what is written on coins and seals that have been found during its archaeological excavations. Some of his important works are –

  1. Maharishi DayanandaurUnkaSiddhant (Maharishi Dayanand and his Principles)
  2. PrachinBharatiyaItihaskeSrota (The Source of Ancient Indian History)
  3. QutbMinarEkRahasyaudghatan (An Uncovering of the Secret of QutabMinar)
  4. MahabharatYuddh, Mahatma Buddh, Shankaracharya, Sikanderaur Harsh adikeKalkram Par VisheshRachnaye (Special works on eras such as the Mahabharat War, Mahatma Buddha, Shankaracharya, Alexander and Harsh)
  5. SvastikChinn – AUM KaPracheentamRoop(The Swastik Symbol: The most Ancient depiction of AUM)
  6. Agaroha’skiMrinmurtiyan (Agaroha’s Clay Sculptures)
  7. PrachinTamrpatraevamShilaLekh (Ancient Copper Plates and Stone Inscriptions)
  8. Bharat kePrachinMudrank (India’s Ancient Mint (Part 1))

He is the founder of the Ancient Indian History Research Council based at GurukulGautamnagar, Delhi. He has through the Council edited and published the following books –

  1. Prachin Bharat me YaudheyGanrajya (The Yaudheya Republic in Ancient India)
  2. Panchal RajyakaItihas (The History of the Panchal Kingdom)
  3. Maharishi DayanandkeDharmopdesh (The Teachings of Maharishi Dayanand)
  4. AadimSatyarth Prakash Aur Arya SamajkeSiddhant (The First Satyarth Prakash and the Principles of the Arya Samaj)
  5. Vedaaur Arya Samaj (Ved and the Arya Samaj)
  6. AumkarNirney (The Aumkar Judgment)

He has with the help of Paropkarini Sabha Ajmer compared Maharishi Dayanand’s famous book Satyarth Prakash with the original manuscript of this book and got the most correct version published. Swami Omanand gave him his full support when he got the Satyarth Prakash inscribed on copper plates. This copper plate version of the Satyarth Prakash is now in the Gurukul Jhajjar Museum. He has contributed through GurukulGautamnagar to the excavation of copper plates concerning the Yajurved, Samved, Ashtadhyayi, Linganushasan and Phitsutra.   

The translator of Shri VirjanandDevkarni’s work “The Swastik Symbol: The most Ancient depiction of AUM” is Vinita Arya, a Freelance English Translator and Teacher committed to the Vedas and bringing its message to everyone through translating key Vaidik works into English.


PADMAVATI The Flame of Valour :Vinita arya

The Flame of Valour “Padmavati” – Vinita Arya – Part 1


The country’s modern uneducated historians are creating a new folk tale regarding Queen Padmavati. Blinded by money and fame these “experts” are bent on selling the honour of their ancestors.

Today the young people who should be coming forward to defend the honour of these brave men and women, have instead sacrificed their characters on the altar of materialism.

So called patriotism today has become infested by casteism and selfishness.

A poet has quite rightly said “it is but a stone, the heart which has no love for its country, which is not full of emotions flowing with feeling”.

Sanjay LeelaBhansali, the director of the soon to- be released film “Queen Padmavati” has dared to twist Queen Padmavati’s history and show such distortions in his film.

The patriots who should be opposing this however, have instead just called this matter a caste issue and are sitting quietly. The reason for their silence must be their ignorance of the real life story of Queen Padmavati.

The historians of today just rely on Mohammed Jayasi’s “Padmavat” and unfortunately ever since the making of Bhansali’s romance and action film their ill deserved reputation has only increased due to the film being riddled with references from this inaccurate book.  Many articles on Queen Padmavati exist on social media, but the sad fact is that there is an alarming lack of research seen in such articles.

In these two articles I have made an effort to reproduce and use some parts of the research work undertaken on this subject by writers such as GaurishankarHeerachandOjha and DamodarlallGarg, whose works are evidence based. Queen Padmavati was not only a valorous fiery woman in her time, but she is very much a burning symbol of bravery even today.


The lands of Rajasthan are not made up of sand, but it is the never ending birthplace of brave men and women of iron-wills.


History is witness to one of the most nationally and internationally famous among these valiant souls – Queen Padmavati or Padmini. In other words Queen Padmavati is a synonym for Chittorgarh Fort which is well known for its association with this brave queen. Both Queen Padmavati and Chittorgarh Fort have played a huge part in defending the nation and protecting the honour of women.

Influenced by this a bard once quite rightly said

“Garh to Bas Chittorgarh, baki Sab Garhiya” (Chittorgarh is theFort and all the rest (forts) are just fortresses. Padmavati is the Queen and all the rest are …”).

It is said by writers and historians about Queen Padmavati or Padmini that she was such a beauty that anyone on seeing her would be captivated by her. As for her bravery and intellect very few have lauded these aspects of her character.

The Mughals who were always tormented by Indian bravery, interfered with history by adding their biased insertions to show Mughal valour instead.

This conspiracy to distort history continued two hundred and fifty years after Queen Padmavati’s “jauhar”, self-immolation at Chittorgarh, when in 1540, Malik Mohammed Jayasi’s “Padmavat” was written.

Before his work, it is said that a wandering bard called Vain composed a piece on the Queen, however this was never published. Since Jayasi’s composition no serious research has been done on the life of Queen Padmavati and Jayasi’s work has been followed blindly ever since. In order to destroy the historical authenticity of Queen Padmavati’s story, her husband Ratan Singh is described as being from Sri Lanka, and furthermore he is portrayed as a sensual character.

Unintelligent people have increased the period that he was active in this story from one year to twelve years during which he is described as wandering around as sadhu.

He is described as going to Sri Lanka and as having married Queen Padmavati there. Other writers have just followed this line without questioning its truthfulness and in doing so have also supported other myths from Jayasi’s work namely that; Ratan Singh fulfilled the condition of showing his Queen to the attacker AlauddinKhilji, Padmavati was more of a beauty than a fierce warrior and that she placated a royal servant called RaghavChetan with a gift.

In reality the evidence of accounts of Queen Padmavati’s bravery and that of the traditions of her royal household tell a very different story. In reality, one can only imagine the robustness of Queen Padmavati’s bravery. In the articles that follow, the true history of Queen Padmavati will be told and the distortions of so called historians and writers on this subject will be exposed.


 The Flame of Valour“ Padmavati” – Vinita Arya – Part 2


Malik Mohammed Jayasi wrote a poem called “Padmavat” about King Ratan Singh and Queen Padmavati and today it is that poem which is at the centre of controversy and much opposition.

Due to there being very few instances of their lives being documented in history, Jayasi’s “Padmavat” has been accepted by many as a serious historical book.

His tale in fact bears greater resemblance to the highly imaginative and fictional romances we see today than any genuine historical work.

Evidence of the indifferent attitude of Indian historical researchers to this subject is found in the way that they have so easily accepted “Padmavat” as being an authoritative and authentic depiction of the bravery of the Rajputs.

This is despite the fact that this work was written by a poet of the Mughal court who lived two hundred and fifty years after the “jauhar” or the self-immolation of Queen Padmavati. The reason why it is so disheartening to see ‘Padmavat” regarded as authentic today and to see a film actually based on this work is because this poem has completely destroyed the honour the dignity, the pride and the traditions of the Rajputs.

Jayasi has written quite a lot in the “Padmavat” but in brief the story can be summarised as follows.

The daughter of King Gandharvasen of the kingdom of Singhal was called Padmini. This princess loved to keep birds.

Among her birds was a parrot called Heeramun, who understood and spoke the language of humans. One day a hunter caught this parrot and in his greed he sold the parrot to a Brahmin. The Brahmin in turn gave it to the King of Chittorgarh, Ratan Singh. One day the wife of Ratan Singh was praising her own beauty when the parrot began to praise the beauty of Padmini. Ratan Singh having heard the parrot’s praises became determined to have the princess for himself and went to the kingdom of Singhal, which is in modern day Sri Lanka.

As he was a lone warrior, King Ratan Singh abandoned the idea of war and decided to spend twelve years as a sadhu, or wandering sage during which time he made many attempts to try and get Princess Padmini. One day the parrot Heeramun, escapes from Ratan Singh and goes to Princess Padmini and he tells her about Ratan Singh. By just listening to Heeramun’s account she falls in love with Ratan Singh. One day, both Ratan Singh and Padmini meet and Ratan Singh on seeing Padmini’s beauty faints. King Gandharvasen witnessing the princess’ love for him, respects his daughter’s wishes and both Ratan Singh and Padmini get married. Ratan Singh then takes Padmini back to Chittorgarh.

Now, in order to make this tale more interesting and to link the royal couple to Khilji, Jayasi adds another character, RaghavChetan to the story, One day this person enters the court of King Ratan Singh and requests employment from him. The king gives him employment but later finds out that RaghavChetan, knows black magic.

He removes him from the court, however Queen Padmini takes pity on him and personally gives him money. When Raghav sees the Queen in person, he falls madly in love with her beauty.

Filled with feelings of vengeance against King Ratan Singh he goes to Delhi and poisons the mind of Sultan AlauddinKhilji and incites him to wage war against him. Raghav also tells him about Padmini’s beauty and cunningly persuades him that he needs to make Padmini a part of his court. Khilji then attacks Chittorgarh and a battle ensues between him and King Ratan Singh for sixth months.

The Mughal army become despondent but then Khilji hits apon a great idea; he tells Ratan Singh that if you allow me and my army to see your wife through a mirror, then we will leave you. King Ratan Singh accepts Khilji’s proposal, and he makes preparations for a mirror to be brought to the palace through which Khilji can see Ratan Singh’s wife from afar. When Khilji sees Padmini he becomes enchanted by her beauty.

He makes arrangements to leave Chittorgarh and King Ratan Singh comes to see him off personally. However the king is deceived by Khilji and gets captured by him instead and he is taken to Delhi. Having taken Ratan Singh there, Khilji sends a message to Chittorgarh, that if you give me Queen Padmini, then I will let Ratan Singh go.

Queen Padmini then makes a plan to rescue her husband. She goes with seven hundred soldiers dressed in royal maid servants’ clothes in palanquins to Khilji. With great cunning and skill the Queen rescues her King from Khilji’s clutches and brings him back to Chittorgarh. Khilji on discovering this deception attacks Chittorgarh again, during which Ratan Singh becomes martyred and Queen Padmini and her many royal maidservants commit “jauhar” or self immolation.

Khilji on hearing the news of Queen Padmini’s death becomes very depressed and full of despair. He leaves soon after for Delhi. (This brief summary of “Jayasi’sPadmavat” has been taken from DamodarlallGarg’s book –ChittorgarhkiJvala Rani Padmini- Chittorgarh’s Fiery Queen Padmini)

The Jayasi’s “Padmavat” story has been given in brief here but this is enough to show that the poem has been laced with so much romance that the honour, duty, traditions and bravery of the Rajputs are nowhere to be seen.

According to the writer of the book “The History of the Kingdom of Udaipur p. 174” (in the original Hindi – “Udaipur RajyaKaItihaas)

“at the end of the “Padmavat” tale, Jayasi calls the whole tale a metaphor”. Writers that come after Jayasi have also regarded the tale as authentic and have used it to support their works, by diluting the story even further and writing their own even more watered-down version.

Readers who already have knowledge of the honour and the sense of duty of the Rajputs on actually reading the “Padmavat” can easily see that in this tale Queen Padmavat’s “jauhar” and Rajputivalour have been meddled with.

Evidence instead of their actual bravery can be seen in these lines from other poems –

“Chittor champak hi rahayadyapiyavanali ho gaye, dharamarthHaldighat me kitnesubhatbali ho gaye”

(Chittor’s rose fragrance remained despite the foreigners turning into wasps, how many great warriors were sacrificed for Dharma, righteousness at Haldighat!),

“Kulmaan jab takpraan tab tak, yah nahin to vahnahin”

(maintain the honour of the clan until the last breath, as if that disappears so will it (the clan)”.

These instructions have resounded throughout the Mewar region of Rajasthan. The burning fiery blood of those born on Rajasthani soil can also be seen in these lines

“vikhyaat ve jauhar yahan ke aaj bhi hai lok men, ham magna hai, un padmini-si deviyon ke shok men! Aarya striya nij dharm par marti hui darti nahin, sadyant sarv satitva-shiksha visva men milti nahin”

(jauhar is still commemorated today and throughout the world, we are plunged into mourning for noble, virtuous ladies such as Padmini! Arya ladies defend their own virtue, are never afraid to die and such a lesson in wifely fidelity you will never see anywhere else in the whole world”.)

The following points are also worthy of serious consideration:

  1. By reading the Padmavat poem and comparing it with the actual reign of Ratan Singh then Jayasi’s whole poem becomes clearly a baseless total lie. According to the evidence that is available, the inscriptions that have been found, Ratan Singh’s reign was only for around a year (see “The History of the Kingdom of Udaipur” p. 187) Now what’s worth thinking about is how in reality all of the events described in the poem could have occurred within his very short reign, for example Ratan Singh’s coronation, his taking care of his kingdom, then shortly after meeting the parrot, making plans to go to the Kingdom of Singhal, actually going to Singhal and spending twelve years as a sadhu, a wandering ascetic, coming back to Chittor, the arrival of RaghavChetan in his court, his subsequent removal, Raghav’s trip to Delhi where after several months he meets Khilji, Khilji’ssubsequent six month attack on Chittor, the imprisonment of King Ratan Singh and his removal to Delhi, his subsequent release and return to Chittor, followed by a battle and the jauhar of Queen Padmini. If these events really did happen they would have taken years to take place! But the clear evidence that the duration of Ratan Singh’s reign was only for one year is proof enough that Jayasi’s poem is pure fantasy.


  1. If for argument’s sake Ratan Singh’s reign was longer, then for a king to wander around for twelve years dressed as a sadhu seems not in keeping with the world famous reputation of the Rajputs. It is more plausible and credible that Ratan Singh in his capacity as king would have gone to King Gandharvasen and asked for Padmini’s hand in marriage up front and that it would have been readily accepted.


  1. There was in fact no King Gandharvasen of the Kingdom of Singhal during the reign of King Ratan Singh. Nor was there a person called HammeerShankh who was king as written somewhere else. The ruler of Singhal was actually KeertinisshankdevParakrambahu the Fourth (“The History of the Kingdom of Udaipur” p. 187)



  1. It is very doubtful that Queen Padmini would have helped the courtier RaghavChetan as described in Jayasi’s tale because according to Rajput etiquette no wife, daughter, sister can speak to a man who doesn’t belong to her family, let alone give him alms. This is not only the etiquette of the Rajput’s but of all good families in India.


  1. It also impossible that King Ratan Singh would have gone against all Rajput etiquette and ignored the Rajput’s great history of chivalry and accept Khilji’s alleged proposal – i.e. that of showing his wife off to another man in exchange for Khilji’s cessation of war. Ratan Singh being a very powerful King with everything at his disposal would never have acted against the honour and dignity of the Rajputs. No husband in his right mind would ever accept such a proposal.



  1. There is no evidence whatsoever also for – the imprisonment of King Ratan Singh by Khilji and the seven hundred palanquins that are taken to Delhi to attack Khilji. These are all figments of Jayasi’s very vivid imagination.


  1. As during King Ratan Singh’s time the blood of a Rajput was a synonym for valour, it is very wrong of Jayasi to depict Ratan Singh as fainting on seeing Padmini for the first time. It is frankly laughable when even today men do not swoon on seeing a woman.


  1. Queen Padmini did not in fact live in Singhal. She belonged to the Kingdom of Pangal, Pingal or Pungalgadh, which is within modern day Bikaner, Rajasthan. The heroine of the romantic folk tale of Dhola-Maru lives in fact in this citadel. Lines from Rajasthani folk songs also are proof that Queen Padmini lived in Pangal (Pungalgadh) such as – “Pagipagipangipanth sir upariambarchah, pavaspragatuPadmini, kahutpangaljah”. To re-emphasise the truth about Queen Padmini’s parents and husband, it must be underlined that her father’s name was actually King Punyapal, her mother was Queen Jamkavar and her husband was King Ratan Singh.    (See –ChittorkiJvala “Rani Padmini” –from Rani Padmini Ki AitihasiktaaurKhyatipraptJauhar -Chittor’s Flame – “Queen Padmini” in the Hindi book – “Queen Padmini’s Historical and Famous Jauhar” – p. 51)


In conclusion, the historical authenticity of Jayasi’s “Padmavat” is non-existent due to a lack of evidence. Spatially, geographically and in terms of the alleged events that occurred theygo against all authentic historical accounts.


Having read and understood all these facts my opposition to Bhansali and his film is that he has based his film on “historical” accounts which can not be regarded as the truth.

In doing so Bhansali has distorted history, which is unacceptable. Another unacceptable thing about this film is the choice of actress to play the role of Queen Padmavati (DeepikaPadukone).

She is in my view a person with a questionable character. Contrast the input of such a person in this film to the non-existent consultation of the Rajput community who are rightly very concerned about how this film depicts their iconic Queen, Queen Padmini.

By stubbornly ignoring their sentiments and continuing to distort history this has inevitably led to this level of opposition. A cynic would say that this is what Bhansali has always wanted as courting such opposition is only giving him free publicity.

Whatever Bhansali’s secret agenda is, one can only make a final judgment on his film once it is released. It is left to the reader’s own conscience whether s/he should go and see this film or not.



(Hindi Article translated and edited by Vinita Arya)



THE religion of Mahomed is based chiefly on Judaism,

and partly on Zoroastrianism on which Judaism

itself is based. The first proposition is not denied

by the Mahomedans themselves, who only claim that their

Prophet has improved upon the Jewish religion in certain

respects. A detailed comparison of the two religions would,

however, show how closely Mahomed has followed the

Jewish religion even on points of detail, and would lead to

the conclusion that there is little or .nothing important in

Mahomedanism for which the Prophet could lay claim to


We shall in this branch of our enquiry follow Dr. Sale,

whose preliminary discourse, appended to his celebrated

translation of the Koran, contains a wealth of information

on this subject.






The idea that this universe is the first and the last of

its kind is purely a Jewish idea, and forms a distinctive feature

of Judaism, and the two great religions founded

upon it, Viz., Christianity and Mahomedanism. Again,

the belief that this world was created out of nothing by

a fiat of the Almighty is also borrowed from Judaism. The

story of Adam and Eve being created and placed in the

garden of Eden, where they were allowed to partake of

all things except the fruit of a particular tree; of their being

I tempted by Satan in the form of a serpent to eat of that very

fruit; and of their subsequent fall from paradise is borrowed

almost literally from the Jewish scriptures.

The same may be said of the existence of a higher order

of beings than man, Viz., the angels who have pure and

subtle bodies, created of fire, and who neither eat nor drink,

nor propagate species. These angels are supposed to have

various forms and offices, and the most eminent among them

are Gabriel, Michael, Azracl and Israfil. “This whole

doctrine concerning angels,” says Dr. Sale, “Mahomed

borrowed from the Jews, Who learned the names and offices

of those beings from the Persians, as they themselves confess.

-( Talmud Hieros and Roshbhashan). “:j:

The Koran teaches the existence of also an inferior class

of beings called jin or genii’ created also of fire, but of a

grosser fabric than angels, since they eat, drink and propagate

their species and are subject to death.’ “These notions,”

says Dr. Sale, “agree almost exactly with what the Jews

write of a sort of demons called Shedim. It




– The Mahomedans believe in the immortality of the

soul and think that there will be a day of resurrection

when the dead will rise to receive the rewards and punishment

of their actions in life according to their merits and

demerits. The whole of this doctrine has been taken from


The ,Resurreclion.-According to some writers the

resurrection will be merely spiritual. The generally received

opinion, however, is that both the body and the soul will

be raised.::: It might be asked: how will the body, which

has been decomposed rise again ~ “But Mahomed has

taken care to preserve one part of the body, whatever

becomes of the rest, to serve for a basis of future edifice, or

rather a leaven for the mass which is to be joined to it.

For he taught that a man t s body was entirely consumed by

the earth, except only the bone called AI Ajb which we

name the os coceygis or rumpbone; and that as it was the

first formed in the human body, it will also remain uncorrupted

till the last day, as a seed from whence the whole

is to be renewed; and this, he said, would be effected by

a forty days’ rain which Cod would. send, and which w~uld

cover the earth 10 the height of twelve cubits, and cause the

bodies to sprout forth like plants. Herein also is Mahomed

beholden to the Jews who say the same things of the bone,

Luz excepting that what Mahomed attributes to a great rain

would be effected according to them by a dew impregnating

the dust of the earth.

Signs of the Resurrection.-The approach of the day of

resurrection will be known from certain signs which are to

precede it; for example:-

  1. The rising of the sun’in the west.

(b) The appearance of the beast Dajjal, a monster of

the most curious appearance, who would preach

the truth of Islam in Arabic language. The

beast in the Revelation (Luke, xxiii: 8) seems,

according to Dr. Sale, to be responsible for this


( c) The coming of the Mehdi.

(d). The blast of the trumpet called Sur, which will be sounded three times.

All these are more or less Jewish ideas, So is the teaching that after the Resurrection, but before Judgment the resuscitated souls will have to wait for a long time

under the burning heat of the sun which would descend to

within a few yards of their heads

The Day of Judgment .-After mankind have waited

for fixed time God will, at length, appear to judge them,

Mahomed taking the office of intercessor. Then everyone

will be examined concerning all his actions in this life.

Some say that all the limbs and parts of the body ,will be

made to confess the sins committed by each. Each person

will be given a book in which all his actions arc recorded.

These books will-be weighed in a balance to be held by

Gabriel. Those whose good actions are heavier than the

bad ones, will be sent to Heaven; and those whose evil

actions preponderate, to the Hell. This belief has been taken

in its entirety from the Jews, “The old Jewish writers,”

says Dr, Sale, “make mention as well of the books to be

produced at the last day wherein men’s actions are registered,

as of the balance wherein they shall be weighed.


The Jews in their turn borrowed this idea from the

Zoroastrians. Dr. Sale hints that the Old Testament seems

to have given the first notion of both (Exod., xxxii, 32-33 ;

Dan., vii, 10; Revel., xx, 12; Dan., v, 27.) but, he

admits, “what the Persian Magi believe of the’ balance’

comes nearest to the Mahomedan opinion. They hold that

on the day of Judgment two angels named Mehr and Sarush

will stand on the bridge we shall describe by and by, to

examine every person as he passes; that the former ,,,ho

represents divine mercy will hold a balance in his hand to

weigh the actions of men; that according to the report he

shall make thereof to God sentence will be pronounced, and

those ‘whose good works are found more ponderous, if they

turn the scale but by the weight of a hair, will be permitted

to pass forward to paradise; but those whose good works

shall be found light will be, by the other angel who represents

God’s justice, precipitated from the bridge into hell.”*

On the road to heaven is the bridge called by

Mahomed Al Sirai. This bridge is thrown over the abyss

of hell, and is said to be finer than a hair, and sharper than

the edge of a sword. Over this bridge the Muslims will

easily pass led by Mahomed; whereas the wicked will

soon miss their footing and fall down headlong into hell

which is gaping beneath them. The Jews likewise speak

of the bridge of hell which, according to them, is no

broader than a thread. For this idea the Jews and

the Mahomedans seem to be equally indebted to the

Zoroastrians who teach that on the last day all men will be

obliged to pass over a bridge called Pul Chinavad.


Paradise.-After passing the Al Sirai, the faithful will

reach paradise ‘which is situated in the seventh heaven.

The Mahomedan conception of paradise is that of a

beautiful garden, furnished with springs, fountains, and

rivers flowing with water, milk, honey and balsam, and

trees having their trunks of gold, and producing the most

delicious fruits. Above all, there will be seventy resplendent

ravishing girls called hur-ul-ayun on account of their big

black eyes. For almost. the whole of this description

Mahomed is indebted to the Jews. “The Jews constantly

describe the future mansion of the just as a delicious garden,

and make it also reach the seventh heaven ( vide Gemar

Tanith, f. 25; Biracoth, f. 34; Midrash Sabboth, f. 37).

They also say it has three gates ……… and four rivers

Flowing with milk, wine, balsam and honey.-( MiJrash,

Yalkul Shcwini).”:::

It is more than probable that the Jews themselves

borrowed this idea from the Zoroastrians, who described

the felicities of paradise in similar language. Dr. Sale

observes: “The Persian Magi had also an idea of the

future happy state of the good, very little different from

that of Mahomed. Paradise they call Bihishl, and Minu,

which signifies crystal, where they believe the righteous’

shall enjoy all manner of delights and particularly, the

company of huran-i-Bihisht or black-eyed nymphs of

paradise, the care of whom, they say, is committed to the

angel Zamiyad and hence Mahomed seems to have taken the

first hint of his paradisiacal ladies. “t

We may also quote from Nama Mihabad, one of the

later writings of the Parsis: “The lowest order of heaven

is this that its inmates will enjoy all the delights of this

world: nymphs, male and female slaves, meat and drink,

clothing and bedding, articles of furniture, and other things

which ca~not be enumerated here.”-Mihabad, 40 & 41. :::


Hell.-Similarly the different torments of hell, the

seY~n compartments into ,,,·hich it is said to be divided,

and the partition called Al Aira/, separating heaven from

hell, all seem to be copied from the Jews.





The Mahomedan conception of God agrees almost

exactly with the Jewish notion. And the doctrine that there

arc two powers in the world, a good and benevolent

power, viz., God, and an evil’ and malevolent power, Viz.,

Satan, is also taken from the Jews. This notion, which

seriously mars the Monotheism of the Bible and the

Koran, was certainly borrowed by the Jews from the

Zoroastrians, vrho call these (wo principles Spenla Mainyu

and A ngira M ainyu. In a later chapter we shall discuss

this question more fully, and show how this Zoroastrian

idea can be traced to a beautiful allegory in the Veda,

describing the struggle of good and evil in this world; and

how this allegory was misunderstood till in the hands of the

Jews, Christians, and Mahomedans, it degenerated into a

belief in two powers, Satan having been elevated to a

position a little below that of the Deily. This is a very

important point, and will show, in a remarkable manner,

how the stream of religious thought has flowed from the

Vedas to the Zend Avesta, and thence to the Bible and

the Koran.




We have show’n so far that the principal dogmas of the

Mahomedan religion have a Judaic origin. We shall next

show that their religious practices can’be traced to the same


There are four duties incumbent upon every

Mahomedan: viz., (i) Prayer; (ii) Fasting; (iii) Zakat

or charity; and ( iv) Pilgrimage to Mecca.

(i) Prayer.-The following extract from. the Dasalir

would show to the reader that the several postures of the

followers of the Prophet at prayers have been probably’

copied from the Zoroastrians:-

II During prayer a pious and wise man should stand

ahead, and the rest should stand behind him. A man

(during prayer) should stand erect and join his hands

together; then bow down, then prostrate himself on the

ground; then again stand erect, place one of his hands on

the head, and removing it place the other hand on the

head; then raise his head and clasp his hands without

joining the thumbs, place his thumbs on his eyes, making

the fingers reach the head, then bend his head down to his

breast; then raise it; then sit on the ground; then putting

his hand on the ground and kneeling down touch the

ground with his forehead, and then with each side of the

face; then prostrate himself on the ground like a staff;

then stretch his hand till the breast touches the ,ground,

then do the same with, the thighs; then kneel down;

then squat, and place his head on his folded hands.

Such prayer is to be addressed to none but God.”:::


The practice among Mahomedans of saying their

prayer with their faces towards the Kabah is likewise

borrowed from the Jews who constantly pray with their

faces turned towards the temple of Jerusale~. ” The

same,” observes Dr. Sale, ” was the Kibla of Mahomed

and his followers for six or seven months (some say eighteen

months, vide Abulfed, Nit. Moh., p. 54), till he found

himself obliged to change it for the. Kabah. tt;:;

The practice of performing before prayers ablutions

with water or sand is also borrowed from the Jews and

the Persians. The. circumcision is well-known to be a

Jewish custom.


(ii) Fasling.-Speaking of Mahomed’s ordinances

concerning fasting, Dr. Sale traces them to those of the Jews,

and observes: “That nation, when they fast abstain not

only from eating and drinking but from women and from

anointing themselves, from daybreak until sunset ……….. :

spending the night in taking what refreshments they please,

(Gemar Yama, f. 40, etc. )”


(iii) Charily.-This is of two kinds, viz., ( 1 ) Zakat,

and ( 2) Sadka; and specific rules are laid down for the

giving of these alms. In these rules also Dr. Sale observes the

footsteps of the Jews, ( Vide. Prel. Dis., p. 87).


(iv) The Haj or Pilgrimage to Mecca . …;;.. The pilgrimage

to Mecca was not borrowed from the Jews, but was a

relic of the pagan Arabs. The temple of Mecca had long

been held in singular veneration by the Arabs, and the

Prophet considered it inexpedient to disturb the belief.





Among the negative precepts common to the Jews and

the Mahomedans may be mentioned abstaining from gaming ;:::

wine ; usuryt and certain kinds of prohibited meats.

Regarding prohibited meats we read in the Koran as

follows :-” Ye are forbidden to eat that which diet of

itself, and blood, and swine’ s flesh, and that on which the

name of any besides God has been invocated, and that

which hath been strangled or killed by a blow, or by a

fall, or by the horns of another beast, and that which has

been eaten by a wild beast, except what ye shall kill yourselves,

and that which, had been sacrificed to idols.”


In these particulars,” says Dr. Sale, ” Mahomed seems chiefly

to have imitated the Jews, by whose law, as is well-known,

all those things are for bidden, but he allowed some things

to be eaten which Moses did not. ”





The civil institution of the Mahomedans are founded

upon the Koran, as those of the Jews are founded on the

Pentateuch. That the former were copied from the latter

would be evident from the following!-


( i) Polygamy is allowed by both, but no Mussalman

may marry more than four wives at a time. U In

making the above mentioned limitation,” observes Dr. Sale


Mahomed was directed by the decision of the Jewish

doctors who, by way of counsel, limit the number of wives

to four ( rJide Maimon in Halachoth Ishath, c. 14), though

their law confines them not to any certain number. “:::


( ii) Dirvorce is an institution common to both religions.

In allowing divorce Mahomed has followed Jews. When

a woman is divorced, she must wait for three months before

she can re-marry. This period, is called iddal. At the end

of this period, if she is found with child, she must be

delivered of it before she can marry again. These rules”

says Dr. Sale, are also copied from the Jews, according to

whom a divorced woman or widow cannot marry another

man till ninety days be passed after the divorce or death

of the husband.” Dr. Sale adds: “The institutions of

Mahomed relating to the pollution of women during their

courses, the taking of slaves to wife, and the prohibiting of

marriage within certain degrees, have likewise no small

affinity with the institution of Moses.




( 😉 The setting apart of one day in the week for

the special service of God is also an institution of the Jews

who keep Saturday sacred. THe Christians have Sunday for

their Sabbath day. Mahomed has imitated these religions

in this respect; but for the sake of distinction he has ordered

his followers to observe Friday, instead of Saturday or

Sunday. ,


(if) The celebrated formula of the Koran “La-Elah-illillah” (there is no God but God) is a mere paraphrase of the Zoroastrian formula, “Nest ezad magar


( iii ) It should be further noted that every chapter of the Koran (excepting only the ninth) opens with the words “Bismillah uar Rahman er Rahim,” which. exactly

correspond to the formula with which the Zoroastrians begin

their books, Viz., fI Banam Yazdan bakhshish gar dadar (in the name of the most merciful God ).




The above is sufficient to show that Mahomedanism

has borrowed almost all its doctrines and precepts mainly

from Judaism and partly from Zoroastrianism. The religion

of the Koran cannot, therefore, claim to be a new revelation,

or a special dispensation of the Will of God. Our

Mahomedan brethren will perhaps urge; “the monotheism

of the Koran is purer and better than that of Judaism and

Christianity, to speak nothing of Zoroastrianism which is not

monotheism at all, being a belief in two gods.”· Now there

can be no doubt that the Christian conception of God is’, in

several ways, superior to the Mahomedan conception. God

is represented by the Christians as a more righteous, more

merciful, more holy and more loving being than the God of

the Koran. In another way, the theism of Christianity is

certainly inferior to that of the Koran. Christianity teaches

the doctrine of Trinity which is virtually a belief in three

gods. and in this respect the Koran teaches a stricter monotheism

than Christianity. But it is difficult to understand how

Mahomedanism can claim to teach a better theism than

Judaism; because both are equally monotheistic or equally

dualistic. Both raise Satan to a position all but equal to

that of God, and thus equally mar the purity of their

monotheism. Both have the same conception of the Divine

character; and the anthropomorphic, vacillating, and

revengeful Jehovah of the Jews finds an exact counterpart

in the Allah of the Koran, who is described as an intolerant

and despotic potentate, urging his worshippers to make war

upon, and slay, the infidels.

As for Zoroastrianism, its theism is in no way inferior ,

to that of either Judaism or Mahomedanism. ” Ahurmazda ”

says the Rev. L. H. Mills, “is one of the purest conceptions

which had yet been produced,”::: and-we may add,-is

undoubtedly the prototype ~ of the God of the Koran as

well as the God of the Bible. We shall revert to this

subject in detail later on it The great value of Mahomed’s

doctrine of the unity of God lies in its being a protest against

the degenerate Christianity of his time and the polytheism

of the Arabs among whom he lived. But however superior

to the belief of his contemporaries, the theism of the Koran

can hardly be said to be superior to that of Judaism. The

claim of the Koran, therefore, to be an independent

revelation of God, on the plea of teaching a better theism

than Judaism and Zoroastrianism, to which it can be

traced, is untenable.



If a woman has just delivered and there is an apprehension that flogging might kill her, she may be spared �until she is alright� (4225).

�AlI says: �O people, impose the prescribed punishment upon your slaves, those who are married and those not married, for a slave-woman belonging to Allah�s Messenger had committed adultery, and he committed me to flog her.  But she had recently given birth to a child and I was afraid that if I flogged her I might kill her.  So I mentioned that to Allah�s Messenger and he said �You have done well� � (4224).  The Prophet was a merciful man.

On the basis of this hadIs, Muslim jurists conclude that flogging can be spread over several days, depending on the physical condition of the offender; and if he is sick, the flogging can be postponed until he recovers.

author : ram swarup



A more lenient view was taken in cases of adultery involving slave-women.  A slave-woman, even if she was married, was not to be stoned to death, and if she was unmarried, she was liable to half the penalty (fifty strokes).  If a slave-girl is unprotected (unmarried) and �commits adultery, then flog her and if she commits adultery again, then flog her and then sell her even for a rope of hair� (4221).

author : ram swarup



The punishment of stoning to death (rajm) is Mosaic.  The Old Testament prescribes it for adultery and fornication (Deuteronomy 22:19-23), and also for those who �serve other gods� (Deuteronomy 13:10).  Muhammad retained it for adultery but prescribed death by other means for crimes like apostasy.

Among the Jews themselves, by the time of Muhammad, stoning had fallen into disuse.  According to one tradition, a Jew and a Jewess who had committed adultery were brought to Muhammad.  He asked the Jews what their Torah prescribed for such offenses.  The Jews replied: �We darken their [the culprits�] faces and make them ride on a donkey with their faces turned to the opposite direction.� Muhammad said: �Bring the Torah.� The prescribed punishment was found to be stoning to death.  So �Allah�s Messenger pronounced judgment about both of them and they were stoned,� says �Abdullah, the son of �Umar.  �I was one of those who stoned them, and I saw him [the Jew] protecting her [the Jewess] with his body,� he adds (4211).

Another hadIs gives more details about the same incident.  The Jews sent the two accused to Muhammad, telling their chiefs: �Go to Muhammad; if he commands you to blacken the face and award flogging as punishment, then accept it; but if he gives verdict for stoning, then avoid it.� Muhammad was grieved at this softening of the Scriptures.  But Allah comforted him: �O Messenger, the behaviour of those who vie with one another in denying the truth should not grieve you� (QurAn 5:41).  Allah also told him that �they who do not judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed-they are indeed wrongdoers, they are the iniquitous� (5:45, 47).  The man and woman were stoned to death at Muhammad�s order, and he was happy and thanked Allah: �O Allah, I am the first to revive thy command when they had made it dead� (4214).

author : ram swarup



These cases provide a model for all future persecutions.  When a woman is to be stoned, a chest-deep hole is dug for her, just as was done in the case of GhamdIya (the woman of GhAmid), so that her nakedness is not exposed and the modesty of the watching multitude is not offended.  No such hole need be dug for a man, as no such hole was dug for MA�iz, the self-confessed adulterer whose case we have just narrated.

The stoning is begun by the witnesses, followed by the imAm or qAzI, and then by the participating believers.  But in the case of a self-confessed criminal, the first stone is cast by the imAm or qAzI, following the example of the Prophet in the case of GhamdIya.  And then the multitudes follow.  The QurAn and the Sunnah, in fact, enjoin the believers to both watch and actively participate in the execution.  �Do not let pity for them take hold of you in Allah�s religion. . . . and let a party of the believers witness their torment,� the QurAn urges while prescribing punishment for the fornicators.