The Taj Mahal: True Story?

[Guest guest]

> The Taj Mahal was built by the mogul emperor ShahJahan in the memory of

> his wife Mumtaz Mahal. It was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by 20,000

> artisans brought to India from all over the world. Many people believe it

> was designed by Ustad Isa of Iran. This is what your guide would have told

> you if you ever visited the Taj Mahal in India. This is the story I read

> in my history book as a student in India. No one has ever challenged it

> except Professor P.N. Oak, who believes the whole world has been duped. In

> his book Tajmahol: The True Story, Oak says the Taj Mahal is not Queen

> Mumtaj Mahal's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then

> known as Tejo Mahalaya). In the course of his research, Oak discovered the

> Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of

> Jaipur, Jai Singh. Shah Jahan then remodelled the palace into his wife's

> memorial. In his own court chronicle, Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that

> an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai Singh

> for Mumtaz's burial. The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur still retains in his secret

> collection two orders from Shah Jahan for surrendering the Taj building.

> Using captured temples and mansions as a burial place for dead courtiers

> and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers.

> For example. Hamayun, Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried

> in such mansions. Oak's

> inquiries begin with the name Taj Mahal. He says this term does not occur

> in any Mogul court papers or

> chronicles, even after Shah Jahan's time. The term "mahal" has never been

> used for a building in any of the Muslim countries, from Afghanistan to

> Algeria. "The unusual explanation of the term Taj Mahal derives from

> Mumtaj Mahal is illogical in at least two respects. Firstly, her name was

> never Mumtaj Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani," he writes. "Secondly, one

> cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman's name to derive

> the remainder as the name for the building." Taj Mahal, he claims, is a

> corrupt version of Tejo-mahalaya, or the Shiva's Palace.

>

> Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale

> created court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archeologists.

> Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love

> story. Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal

> predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple palace dedicated to Shiva

> worshipped by the Rajputs of Agra city. For example, Professor Marvin

> Miller of New York took a few samples from the riverside doorway of the

> Taj. Carbon dating tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than

> Shah Jahan. European traveller Johan Albert Mandelslo, who visited Agra in

> 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the

> city in his memoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being

> built. The writings of Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a

> year of Mumtaz's death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building

> long well before Shah Jahan's time. Oak points out a number of design and

> architectural inconsistencies that support the belief of the Taj Mahal

> being a typical Hindu temple rather than a mausoleum.

> Many rooms in the Taj Mahal have remained sealed since Shah Jahan's time,

> and are still inaccessible to the public. Oak asserts they contain a

> headless statue of Shiva and other objects commonly used for worship

> rituals in Hindu temples. Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's

> government tried to have Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and

> threatened the Indian publisher of the first edition with dire

> consequences.

> There is only one way to discredit or validate Oak's research. The current

> Indian government should open the sealed rooms of Taj Mahal under UN

> supervision, and let international experts investigate.

>

>

> Bye guys...

>

> Sridhar

 

I would be cautious about anything written by Mr. P.N. Oak. No doubt that

Indian history has been played with by various parties during the ages. And

especially regarding the Taj Mahal. But Mr. Oak and others of his vien have

a tendency to use less that exacting scholalrly methods which often leave

them with egg on the face. An example is some of the wild speculations on

the world pan-Vedic culture based on very speculative word etymologies. For

example that Australia was part of the world Vedic empire because it is the

"Land of Weapons" Astra-laya. Similalrly England, the "Land of Fingers"

"Anguli-desha" was a part of the same vedic world empire. Etc, etc. Such

arguments on such fantastic word etymologies are farcical and continue to go

on. Support of the Vedic World Empire should not have to rest on such weak

support easily destroyed support.

 

Shyama