Real stoy of Taj Mahal

[Guest guest]

Here is another Amazon.com review of PN Oak's book:

 

-------------

 

A very good original research work on the Taj Mahal, October 26, 2000

Reviewer: Dr Prakash Narayana Swamy (Lyons, France) - See all my reviews

P. N. Oak expounds an intriguing version of the Taj Mahal's origins in this

book. He strongly refutes the traditionally accepted belief that the

monument was constructed by 17th century Mughal emperor Shah Jehan as a

mausoleum to his deceased wife Mumtaz Mahal, by attempting to prove that it

was in fact a 12th century temple-palace seized from Raja Jaisingh of Jaipur

and converted to accommodate Mumtaz's tomb. Mr Oak forcefully argues his

case on several fronts, his first point being that the only original source

of the claim for the Taj Mahal to be Shah Jehan's creation is an inaccurate

and misinterpreted journal written by 17th century French jewel merchant and

sometime India traveller, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, and that all other

subsequent accounts were either based on Tavernier's unverified statements

or were sycophantic additions after Shah Jehan's time. Mr Oak quotes firstly

from Mullah Abdul Hamid Lahori, Shah Jehan's own official chronicler, that

Mumtaz's body was laid to rest in a "lofty sky-high palace with a majestic

dome" procured from Raja Jaisingh. He further quotes from the journals of

Tamerlane (1336-1405) and Babur (1483-1530) to show that this palace

pre-dates Shah Jehan and also points to the notable absence of any claim by

Shah Jehan himself for its construction. He particularly refutes Tavernier's

claim of having seen the beginning and end of the entire construction work

being carried out during his sojourn at Agra by pointing out the enormous

discrepancies between the three periods during which Tavernier stayed at

Agra, between 1641 and 1663, and the period over which it is clamed to have

been constructed (1631-1653). He also disputes the latter part of the

presumed construction period as being implausible as they coincide with Shah

Jehan's incarceration, according to all accounts, and he conjectures that

what Tavernier saw was actually the work to reconvert it to a mausoleum and

not the original construction itself, and advances convincing details on

construction costs and labour requirements to support his theory. Mr Oak

further ridicules the widely conflicting other existing accounts, which

appear to differ on everything from the year of Mumtaz's death to the time

and cost spent in building the Taj Mahal. His second point is etymological.

Mumtaz's real name was Arjumand Banu Begum, and she was conferred the

honorific title Mumtaz-ul-Zamani by her father-in-law Jehangir, but never

Mumtaz Mahal, and he contends that she acquired the addition "Mahal"

posthumously by virtue of being entombed in a palace, and that on the

contrary it was not the monument which acquired her name, as latter-day

historians would have us believe. He points out that the term "Mahal" is

exclusively used in India, is not of Arabic or Persian origin therefore not

of the Mughal period, and contends that it is instead of Sanskrit origin.

One can easily identify "Mahal" as a contraction of the Sanskrit "Mahalaya"

or "Maha-alaya" meaning "Grand Residence" and when "Taj or Tej" meaning a

crown is the qualifying adjective, the term takes on a whole new meaning,

i.e. Grand Residence of the Crown, or Grand Royal Palace. "Tejas" is also

the Sanskrit term for "resplendence" and "Teja Mahalaya" also means

"Resplendent Shrine". The latter contentions would seem to be borne out by

the immensity and opulence of the Taj Mahal and its environs, which are more

consistent with the structure of a palace complex than that of a mausoleum

and Mr Oak elaborates sufficiently on this point. The author also supports

his assertions to the Taj Mahal's pre-Shah Jehan Hindu origins with a wealth

of corroborative detail, from the "Trishul" present on its dome to specific

details on its decor. He is also able to relate several of the terms in

current use to Sanskrit origins. It is a pity though, that relevant

photographs are not also included in his book.. Mr Oak's reasoning is

methodical and his method of drawing conclusions is reminescent of the

incisive and logical cross-examination methods of the courtroom. His

arguments up to this point can however be considered to be circumstantial.

His continual harping on Mughal tyranny and perfidy also detract from his

otherwise brilliant analysis, and constitute a digression from the central

point, i.e. who built the Taj Mahal. For instance the negative character

traits of Shah Jehan and Mumtaz Mahal and their incongruency with the

building of a monument of love from one to the other, while being

paradoxical, are not necessarily proofs of Shah Jehan's not building the Taj

Mahal. It is therefore highly commendable to find that Mr Oak has

supplemented his excellent literary research with scientific methods.

Radiocarbon dating was performed on some door samples taken from the Taj

Mahal by Prof Marvin Mills of the Pratt Institute Archaeological History

Department, New York, who with Dr. Evan Williams of the Brooklyn College

radiocarbon laboratory, thereby determined that the monument pre-dates Shah

Jehan by at least three centuries. Prof Mills has already presented his

findings at an annual meeting of the Archaeological Society and it might be

interesting to include a reference of one of his relevant publications, in

this already well-referenced book. Archaeometric methods are indubitably of

great value in determining the true ages of buildings like the Taj Mahal and

the fact of their inclusion considerably adds to the strength of Mr Oak's

theory. Radiocarbon dating is based on the measurement of the constant decay

of C-14 radioactivity in organic materials and is a relatively

well-established technique, limited however to materials such as wood and

fibres. Thermoluminescence is another recent technique applicable among

others, to pottery sherds, baked brick and sediments and is also fairly

precise for dates up to the last 3000 years, but its application requires

careful sampling which is not easily handled by the non-specialist. Other

relevant absolute radioactive dating techniques are the relatively new

Optically Stimulated Luminescence method and Uranium-Thorium or

Potassium-Argon dosage methods. Any or several of these techniques, properly

applied to the study of the Taj Mahal, would unambiguously reveal her true

age. It would indeed be in the interest of science, history and posterity,

to have a complete study undertaken by competent scientists. The famous

Shroud of Turin was proved by C-14 dating to be a medieval era fabrication

instead of its acclaimed status as the Shroud which wrapped the body of the

Christ. Similarly, scientific dating is the only honest, truly objective

means of determining when the Taj Mahal was first built, if and when

alterations were carried out, and to what extent. The Taj Mahal complex is

also a rich archaeological treasure house that needs to be explored to

better understand Indian history and to put all the various myths of

whatever origin, to rest. This has nothing to do with belittling the

achievements of one community or another. For all we know every one of the

stories surrounding the Taj Mahal could be a myth and the truth be

elsewhere. This book is an excellent treatise on the Taj Mahal and its

origins. In spite of the author's obvious prejudices, it is on the whole,

objective, excellently researched, well-referenced and logically presented,

and should prove to be a valuable aid to all persons who are interested in

obtaining an honest perspective of Indian history.

 

 

And from another review:

 

.... The so-called 'Islamic Arch and Dome' are charactoristics of Mauryan

Architecture (ce.300BCE-100AD) in Buddhist India long before Islam even

arose. Secondly, the Taj, even if not a Hindu Temple, was built by Hindu

Hands and according to Hindu Shilpa Shastra, used as early as the

Indus-Valley in 4000BCE, the so-called "Islamic Designs" are again seen on

pre-Mughal Jaina Temples such as Mt. Abu and Buddhist Monuments. ...