SOME FACTS FROM THE WIKIPEDIA FREE DICTIONARY ABOUT YOUR SO CALLED “PROFESSOR” P.N. OAK WHO SADLY DOES NOT HAVE EVEN A DEGREE TO SUPPORT HIS PROFESSORSHIP.

Oak was born in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. During World War II, he was with the Indian army, and was in Malaya. He joined the Indian National Army[6] after Singapore fell to the Japanese, and thereafter was involved in Radio bulletins. “From 1947 to 1974 his profession has been mainly journalism having worked on the editorial staffs of the Hindustan Times and The Statesman, as a Class I officer in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and as editor in the American Embassy’s Information Service.” [6]

Dozens of blogs and websites refer to him as “Professor” P. N. Oak, but he never was a professor, nor was he a PhD. According to his own account,he did M.A. (Agra) and L.L.B (Mumbai), and was an official in the Ministry for Information, and wrote various journalistic pieces.

Revisionist theories
Intent on rectifying what he believes to be “biased and distorted versions of India’s history produced by the invaders and colonizers”, Oak has written several books and articles on Indian history and founded an “Institute for Rewriting Indian History” in 1964. According to Oak, modern secular and Marxist historians have fabricated “idealized versions” of India’s past and drained it of its “Vedic context and content”. Srinivas Aravamudan noted that Oak’s work typically resorts to “deep punning” associating Sanskrit sound-alikes with non-Sanskrit religious terms (such as Vatican=vatika “hermitage”, Islam=ishalayam “temple of God” and similar). Based on this, Oak claims that both Islam and Christianity originated as distortions of “Vedic” beliefs. He thus alleges that the Kaaba in Mecca was originally a shrine to Shiva (LAUGHABALE)and that the Papacy was “a Vedic priesthood” until Constantine the Great killed the “Vedic Pope” and replaced him with the head of the hitherto unimportant Christian sect.

Oak finds some mention in passing as an eccentric in academic literature on the Hindutva wing of Hindu nationalism. Aravamudan (2005) calls him a “mythistorian”[4] whose life’s work may be summarized by the title of his work World Vedic Heritage: A History of Histories, Presenting a Unique Unified Field Theory of History that from the Beginning of Time the World Practised Vedic and Spoke Sanskrit. Edwin Bryant writes that most academics would consider him a ‘crackpot’. Giles Tillotson describes his work as a “startling piece of pseudo-scholarship”.

While Oak’s theories have been summarily rejected in academia, they have found a popular following among Indocentrists and some members of India’s Hindu right. Art historian Rebecca Brown describes Oak’s books as “revisionist history as subtle as Captain Russell’s smirk” (referring to a character in the Hindi movie Lagaan).

The Taj Mahal
In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak claims that the Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple or a Rajput palace seized by Shah Jahan and adopted as a tomb.

The Taj, Oak says, is a “typical illustration of how all historic buildings and townships from Kashmir to Cape Comorin though of Hindu origin have been ascribed to this or that Muslim ruler or courtier”.He goes on to propose Hindu origins for the tombs of Humayun, Akbar and Itmiad-u-Dallah and “all historic buildings” in India as well as the Vatican, the Kaaba and Stonehenge.

Oak claims that Hindu ornaments and symbols were effaced from the Taj, whose sealed chambers hold the remnants, including a Shiva Lingam, of the original temple and that Mumtaz Mahal was not buried at her cenotaph.

In support of these claims, Oak presents carbon dating results of the wood from the riverside doorway of the Taj, quotes from European travellers’ accounts and the Taj’s Hindu architectural features. Oak further alleges that eyewitness accounts of the Taj Mahal’s construction as well as Shah Jahan’s construction orders and voluminous financial records are elaborate frauds meant to hide its Hindu origin[citation needed].

Oak petitioned demanding that the Taj be declared a Hindu monument and that cenotaphs and sealed apartments be opened to determine whether Shivalingam or other temple remains were hidden in them. According to Oak, the Indian government’s refusal to allow him unfettered access amounts to a conspiracy against Hinduism.

Oak’s denial of Islamic architecture in India has been described as one of the “more extreme manifestations of anti-Muslim sentiment” in Maharashtrian popular culture. K. N. Panikkar locates Oak’s work in the Hindutva movements attempt to foster a communal understanding of Indian history. Tapan Raychaudhuri has referred to him as “a ‘historian’ much respected by the Sangh Parivar.”

The writer Koenraad Elst sees Oak’s claim as an example of “funny attempts at compensation” within a “Hindu inferiority complex” arising from what he describes as a crackdown by “arrogant Leftists” on Hindutva following the murder of Gandhi.

In 2000 India’s Supreme Court dismissed Oak’s petition to declare that a Hindu king had built the Taj Mahal and reprimanded him for bringing the action, saying he had a “bee in his bonnet” about the Taj. In 2005 a similar petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. This case was brought by Amar Nath Mishra, a social worker and preacher who says that the Taj Mahal was built by the Hindu King Parmar Dev in 1196.

The Kaaba
In a 13 page pamphlet headed ‘WAS KAABA A HINDU TEMPLE? IS ALLAH A HINDU GOD?’, Oak derives a claim of a “Vedic past of Arabia” based on an alleged inscription mentioning king Vikramāditya found at the Kaaba. He further claims Muhammad was born to a Hindu family. The text of the inscription Oak quotes from is said to be taken from a manuscript he identifies as Sayar-ul-Okul, allegedly an anthology of Arabic poetry kept in the Makhtab-e-Sultania Library in Istanbul, Turkey. Oak claims the anthology was compiled in 1742 on the orders of a “Sultan Salim” (the actual Sultan at the time being Mahmud I), and alleges it was first edited in 1864 in Berlin. The Sayar ul-Okul has since been propagated by fringe Vedic mysticist Stephen Knapp, but is unknown to the pertinent Arabist reference works.

WHEN WILL THESE HATE MONGERS LEARN THAT INDIA IS INDEED A COMPOSITE CULTURE COMPOSED OF VARIOUS RELIGIONS BIG AND SMALL AND ALL THESE RELIGIONS HAVE AN EQUAL PLACE IN THE EYES OF THE CONSTITUTION. PLEASE DONT PROPAGATE FALSEHOOD. AS THE SAYING GOES “A LIE WHICH IS SHOUTED FROM THE ROOFTOPS A THOUSAND TIMES TENDS TO BECOME A TRUTH. PLEASE DONT BELIEVE THE WRITINGS OF THESE FUNNY MEN, MAYBE MR.OAK WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE WEED WHEN HE WROTE ALL THIS RUBBISH. – VOTE FOR THE TAJ AND IF YOU WISH VOTE FOR THE COMBODIAN TEMPLE OF ANGKOR WAT. BUT REMEMBER IT IS NOT AN INDIAN MONUMENT. EVEN IF IT IS A HINDU OR A BUDDISHT TEMPLE, IT IS STILL ON FOREIGN SOIL. PLEASE DONT BELIEVE THE WRITINGS AND SAYING OF THESE RIGHT WING HINDU BIGOTS WHO ONLY WANT TO CREATE EVERLASTING ENMITY BETWEEN THE HINDU BROTHERS AND THEIR MUSLIM COUNTERPARTS. ALWAYS SEARCH FOR AND FIND THE TRUTH BEFORE YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING.

Angkor Wat combines two basic plans of Khmer temple architecture: the temple mountain and the later galleried temple, based on early South Indian Hindu architecture, with key features such as the Jagati. It is designed to represent Mount Meru, home of the devas in Hindu mythology: within a moat and an outer wall 3.6 kilometres (2.2 mi) long are three rectangular galleries, each raised above the next. At the centre of the temple stands a quincunx of towers. Unlike most Angkorian temples, Angkor Wat is oriented to the west; scholars are divided as to the significance of this. The temple is admired for the grandeur and harmony of the architecture, its extensive bas-reliefs and for the numerous devatas (guardian spirits) adorning its walls.

The modern name, Angkor Wat, means “City Temple”; Angkor is a vernacular form of the word nokor which comes from the Sanskrit word nagara meaning capital. wat is the Khmer word for temple. Prior to this time the temple was known as Preah Pisnulok, after the posthumous title of its founder, Suryavarman II.[1]

Angkor Wat lies 5.5 km north of the modern town of Siem Reap, and a short distance south and slightly east of the previous capital, which was centred on the Baphuon. It is in an area of Cambodia where there is an important group of ancient structures. It is the southernmost of Angkor’s main sites.

The initial design and construction of the temple took place in the first half of the 12th century, during the reign of Suryavarman II (ruled 1113 – c. 1150), Dedicated to Vishnu, it was built as the king’s state temple and capital city. As neither the foundation stela nor any contemporary inscriptions referring to the temple have been found, its original name is unknown, but it may have been known as Vrah Vishnulok after the presiding deity. Work seems to have ended shortly after the king’s death, leaving some of the bas-relief decoration unfinished.[2] In 1177, approximately 27 years after the death of Sulyavarman II, Angkor was sacked by the Chams, the traditional enemies of the Khmer. Thereafter the empire was restored by a new king, Jayavarman VII, who established a new capital and state temple (Angkor Thom and the Bayon respectively) a few kilometres to the north.

In the late 13th century, King Jayavarman VIII, who was Hindu, was deposed by his son in law, Srindravarman. Srindravarman had spent the previous 10 years in Sri Lanka becoming ordained as a Buddhist monk. Hence, the new King decided to convert the official religion of the empire from Hindu to Buddhist. Given the constant political corruption of the time, citizens were quick to follow a faith founded on tranquility without a need for material gain and power. This made the conversion relatively easy. [3] Hence, Angkor Wat was converted from Hindu to Theravada Buddhist use, which continues to the present day. Angkor Wat is unusual among the Angkor temples in that although it was somewhat neglected after the 16th century it was never completely abandoned, its preservation being due in part to the fact that its moat also provided some protection from encroachment by the jungle.[4]
SO TECHNICALLY SPEAKING JAYAVARMAN AND SURYAVARMAN INVADED COMBODIA AND BUILT THAT GRAND TEMPLE AFTER RAZING TO THE GROUND WHATEVER REMAINED THERE ( WE CANNOT SPEAK RUBBISH LIKE YOU PEOPLE DO, BEFORE WE SPEAK WE HAVE TO GET OUR FACTS TOGETHER)THEREFORE IF SHAHJAHAN WAS AN INVADER (WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY RUBBISH)THEN JAYAVARMAN WAS ALSO AN INVADER WHO INVADED COMBODIA AND THEN BUILT THAT TEMPLE – LEAVE THE CONTROVERSY BEHIND, I TELL YOU VOTE FOR THE TAJ AND ALSO FOR THE TEMPLE. TELLING PEOPLE TO REJECT THE TAJ AND VOTE FOR THE TEMPLE IS LIKE SAYING THAT WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR COUNTRY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH SO YOU ARE ASKING TO VOTE FOR A BUILDING WHICH IS IN A FORIEGN COUNTRY. YOU A HINDU BIGOT IF I HAVE SEEN ONE. ANGKOR WAT IS NOT A HINDU TEMPLE BUT A BUDDISHT TEMPLE. BECAUSE IT WAS CONVERTED INTO A BUDDISHT TEMPLE BY SURYAVARMAN. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.