Forgotten craftsmen who built Taj Mahal
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3272
Printed Date: 05-May-2024 at 02:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Forgotten craftsmen who built Taj Mahal
Posted By: Behi
Subject: Forgotten craftsmen who built Taj Mahal
Date Posted: 06-May-2005 at 09:46
|
Forgotten craftsmen who built Taj Mahal As it's Iranian Architect The names of more than 670 previously unknown "masons and labourers" who helped build the Taj Mahal have been discovered by a team of Indian archaeologists. The findings by the Indian Archaeological Survey tell a forgotten story of the craftsmen who were summoned to Agra in northern India 350 years ago to build the great monument to loss and love. The names, mostly in Arabic and Persian, were found etched into the sandstone walls and peripheral structures on the northern side of the monument. "Most of these masons came from Iran, Central Asia and India," said D Dayalan, the superintending archaeologist. "The names have been meticulously divided into sections such as dome makers, garden development department, furnishing workers and inlay artists." [Continue]: |
Replies:
Posted By: Alparslan
Date Posted: 07-May-2005 at 08:11
|
Taj Mahal has been built by Turco/Mongols. Ottomans have sent architects to India to work in the building of Taj Mahal. http://spirituality.indiatimes.com/articleshow/846462.cms - http://spirituality.indiatimes.com/articleshow/846462.cms The ego-centric Europeans have inverted their own story as well. Enjoy it when you read European version. |
Posted By: Behi
Date Posted: 09-May-2005 at 06:34
|
It was commissioned by the mughul Emperor Shah Jahan, the son of Jahangir, as a mausoleum for his Persian wife, Princess Arjumand Banu Begum, also known as Mumtaz-ul-Zamani. Architect & craftsmen were Persian. recently Europeans said Architect was Italian!!! Surely This Italian was Shiraz Lover, or He has Built Shiraz & Isfahan Palace before, ------------- |
Posted By: Behi
Date Posted: 13-May-2005 at 09:31
|
I Found Architects name: Hail to: Ostad Eisa Shirazi & his son Mohamad Shirazi
------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 07:46
|
The architect of the modification was one Usman Beg. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 15:38
|
There were Turkic, Indian and Persian architects who built this great architectural splendor, they all had their influences, the grand master architects of the buildings were mostly local Indians and Turks trained by Mimar Sinan of the Ottomans. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 19:39
|
Didn't the stones for Taj Mahal come from iran? |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 04:54
|
These craftsmen did not actually build the Taj Mahal. What was done by Shah Jahan was a retrofitting & modification of the Tejo Mahalaya temple - palace complex of maharaja Jai Singh, after aquiring it from him forcibly.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 18:17
|
Lol. I think you should learn Persian before you attempt to translate it. Seriously. ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 02:40
|
That anyway does not affect the brutality of Shah Jahan ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 16:08
|
Get a clue, or better yet, follow my previous advice and learn Persian before trying to translate it. I don't know what language you thought you were writing, if Dari is your "motheric" tongue, then I suggest you learn it, bacheh, the verse goes like this:
"Agar un tork e Shirazi be dast aarad dil e mara,
Ba khaal e Hinduash bakhsham Samarqand o Bukhara ra"
If that beautiful woman (turk-e-Shirazi) takes my heart in her hand,
just for her Hindu spot I will relinquish Samarqand and Bukhara...
(to show the value he placed on her by giving up Bukhara and Samarqand, two of teh most revered cities of the time, for merely for her spot) It has NOTHING to do with Shirazis being Turks - turk-e-Shirazi here is used as an expression for a beautiful woman. Hafez himself was a Shirazi, I have been to his mausaleam.
------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 17:47
|
Its interesting that Banu Begum is a Turkic name, why would she have this name also she was initially a Hindu, are their Persian Hindu's or was she from a mixed Hindu family?
The crafstmen who built the Taj Mahal are not forgotten.
Ustad Isa is given credit as being the architect of the Taj Mahal, he was a Turk, he was accompanied by a Turkish architect, Isa Muhammad Effendi, a pupil of the great Turkish architect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinan - Sinan , who presumably drew the final plan of the building, a Venetian named Geronimo Veroneo, who played a major role in the planning stage of the construction and Amanat Khan Shirazi, a Persian, who was possibly in charge of the calligraphy, where verses from the Koran are carved onto the marble.
Chiranjilal, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi - Delhi , was chosen as the chief sculptor and mosaicist.
The creative team included sculptors from Bukhara, calligraphers from Ottoman lands and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire - Persia , inlayers from southern India, stonecutters from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistan_and_Baluchistan - Baluchistan , a specialist in building turrets, another who carved only marble flowers — thirty seven men in all formed the creative nucleus. To this core was added a labour force of twenty thousand workers recruited from across northern India.
The main dome was designed by Ismail Khan from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire - Ottoman Empire , considered to be the premier designer of hemispheres and builder of domes of that age. Qazim Khan, a native of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore - Lahore , cast the solid gold finial that crowned the Turkish master's dome. So clearly it was an Indian, Turkish, Persian who built it. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 18:04
|
Banoo is Persian for lady or madam, eg. Shahbanoo, shah's lady. Where did you read Banu Begam?
Anyway... The turk-e-Shirazi (notice without key capital) - is an expression for "Shirazi beauty". Turkic features were considered aesthetically pleasing in Iran during that period. If you have ever noticed, paintings from the period in Iran depict round faced almond eyed manifestations of Shahs and other characters (even Shah Nameh depictions). An example would be Shah Abbas (IIRC) - whose portrait by a Frenchman look nothing like those of his Iranian contemporaries who use the "turk" features. Also - the Hindu spot was a cosmetic thing women used to put on in Iran for aesthetic reasons. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 18:40
Yes and mixed Persian Turkic children were meant to grow up to be incredibly beauitul 
Begum is Beg for females as far as I know.
Banu is Farsi your correct.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 19:00
|
banu begam
lady lady, interesting name. ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 06:43
|
Taj mahal was not built by Shah Jahan. It was an old palace complex, belonging to the King of Jaipur and just modified by Shah Jahan. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 07:40
|
[QUOTE=Vivek Sharma] Taj mahal was not built by Shah Jahan. It was an old palace complex, belonging to the King of Jaipur and just modified by Shah Jahan.html
Hi Vivek, King of Jaipur was salve king of Mughals. Hence every thing which the Raja of Jai Pur had belonged to his overlords, the Mughals. He was also given the Alwar which was ruled by Bad Gujjars earlier and Ranthambor to rule which was ruled by Gujjars of Chauhan gotra earlier. It does not mean that both these places belong to him but he was ruling these places on behalf of his overlords, the Mughals. The actual site was where Taj Mahal is made is Shiva tepmle and big garden made by Gujjars Partihar Emperor Samrat Mihir Bhoj Mahan. There are many places in India like Delhi founded by Gujjar Tanwars and was named Mihirawli (Meharauli) and Bhopal (Founded by Gujjar parmars named after him as Bhoj Pal. Both the Tanwars and Parmars were his fuedatory kings and have done so please their overlord, the Gujjar Samrat Mihir Bhoj Mahan. About tajmahal Here is the authentic details of my claim. [http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/godbole_taj2 1872-73 Archaeological Survey of India Report for the Year 1871-72 was prepared by M/s Beglar ( on Delhi ) and Carllyle (on Agra ) In volume II Mr Carlleyle tells us : p 4 " ... Again as bearing on the other side of the argument I have now to mention that, on the right bank of the river about three miles above the fort, there is the site of an ancient garden palace called the garden and palace of Raja Bhoj! Certain intelligent educated Hindus in Agra say that it is traditionally held to have been a palace of Raja Bhoj of Malwa of the fifth to sixth century; but at any rate all agree as to the fact that this garden palace of Raja Bhoj was in existence previous to the Muhammadan conquest of this part of the country. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 01:32
|
You are right APji, Once a person has accepted slavery, all his objections come to a naught.
Infact, he does not have the right to object, but can only feel frustrated. If he had really objected, he would have taken sword to fight, which he did not do, implying his silent nod to the torturous aquisition of the Tejo Mahalaya temple - palace complex by the mughals & it's retrofittment & relabeling as Taj Mahal. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 13:25
I haven't read Oak's book, but if it was a retrofit, it must've been very extensive if not a full remodeling. Compare it say with the Hagia Sophia where it's very obvious to see what was added on later and what is original. The Taj's domes are pure muslim, derived from Byzantine domes which were an improvement on Roman domes, only the upturned lotus at the pinnacle is a Hindu element. There is no such thing as a circular dome element in Hindu architecture. The Taj's arches wouldn't look out of place in a mosque from Shiraz or Isfahan. Arches don't occur anywhere in Hindu temples from Kanchipuram to Angkor Wat. The whole structure of the Taj (simple outside silhouette, intricate inside) is foreign to Hindu construction and I have trouble seeing how the Taj Mahal gets any of its character from a pre-existing structure. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 15:06
|
Everything you stated makes absolute sense and it is almost certain to be true. However, I have to disagree on one point, these domes bear no resemblence to Byzantine and Roman domes, other than that they are domes. They are a different innovation. Their method of construction is different I don't believe that they used cement int eh same way to support the trscture, and the insides of these domes are honeycombed to support the weight.
Their origins are Sassanid domes which resemble them to a much greater extent than Roman ones.
Spoken like a true Hindutva chauvinist. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 15:37
|
The dome was built by Ismail Khan, an Ottoman Turk, it does not resemble Roman domes at all, they look pretty original the closest domes they resemble in my opinion are Volga Tatar Domes for example in Kazan which was later reproduced in Moscow. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: mard
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 22:57
| i still can't beleive some people claim taj mahal is a hindu temple. |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 11:33
Ah thanks, I learned something today. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 12:19
Yes the Taj Mahal is an Islamic Mausoleum, no question, but its not correct to say that it is foreign to Hindu construction completely.
The Mughals had been in India for a few centuries and so naturally assimilated Hindu culture. Mughal architecture from Akbar to Shah Jahan's time is a blend of Islamic/hindu elements.
Shah Jahans mother and his father Jahangir's Mother were Hindu Rajputs, so obviously Rajput architecture was going to influence the Mughals.
The "chattris" on either side of the Taj Mahal Dome is an element of Hindu style of Architecture. Chattris actually means in sanskrit "umbrella".
Also with regards to your point about Domes, well they may not have been part of Hindu Architecture but were definitely used In Indian Buddhist design in the Stupas that held Buddhist relics. My point is that Domes did exist in India from around the second century BC.
|
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 12:47
I don't disagree. That's the beauty of Mughal architecture, that it combines classical Persian forms with local Hindu elements making it unique.
Stupas weren't true domes though, they were either carved out of rock or partially or completely filled in mounds. The outside shape is similar, but structurally it's very different. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 00:13
Off course, A muslim chauvinist deserves an equivalent hindu chauvinist.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 00:16
This is the correct account of the history of Taj Mahal. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 00:19
It is not now. It was before forcible conversion, like the thousands of others which all exist today & display tales of conversion. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 02:13
|
You can't foribly convert a building Vivek. It is very possibly that the site of the Taj Mahal was once the site of a previous building. This doesn't mean that the later building is 'nicked' from the earlier one. Things get built on top of other things. There is, according to APSinghs post, 1000 years between Raja Bhoj's gardens and the Taj. I ask you Vivek, how many building last 1000 years? Very few. How many buildings are built on land that had a building on it 1000 years ago? Much more! I would appreciate if you gave credit where credit's due instead of trying to claim everything for your own ethnic group. ------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 03:05
|
That temple palace complex was occupied & off the present size, when it was forcibly taken & converted into what it is today. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 03:40
Hi Omar, Before writing anything here I do a lot of reaseach and take a lot of pain to write the truth and gather lot of evidences in support of my claim. There was a extensive research work done and a report was prepared based on findings and the facts were prepared by the BBC in thi sregard and I have the pictures taken by them with me to prove that it was a shiva temple but unfortunately I am not able to cut and paste those pictures here.These pictures are sent to me by a friend and are in JPG format. These reports shows that it was a refurbishing work done on the existing Shiva Temple. In these pictures certain things were hidden by the newly created wall but certain things like the OM! written by engraved flowers are still present. I also have the pictures taken by NASA of a bridge constructed by Rama between Rameshwaram and Sri Lanka to attack the Ravana.There are other temples also which are more than 1000 years old which still do exist. Sahajahan has built one memorial at Burhan Pur where Mumtaz Mahal died and buried which is nothing compared to even the Lodi tombs built by Lodi Sultan in Delhi.Logically he should have selected Burhan Pur to build a memorial but unfortunately there was no building available in Burhan Pur where he could have erected the Memorial without doing much work.Also as written by Vedam there is no Vedic architecture used at the memorial erected at Burhan pur where the Mumtaj was buried. The kingdom of Gurjar Samrat Mihir Bhoj Mahan, who built the Shiva Temple and the big Garden at Agra was much bigger than the Mughals and the size of his army as stated by Abu Ziad an arab scholar was 80 Lakhs. The size of the Mughal army at the time of Akbar was only 40 Lakhs. Moreover Mihir Bhoj Mahan sucessfully kept away the Muslim invaders from Sindh Border, Wiped out the race of Huns in India and got them assimilated among the Gujjars, extended his kingdom to Dhaka in the east and Kerals in the South by completely wiping out the Palas and Rashtrakutas. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 06:08
|
That cruel guy did not do anything for Mumtaz when she was alive, why would he build a taz for her after she died. He was much closer to Jahanara begum. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 06:09
|
It was just an excuse for him to annexe that temple palace complex. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 06:11
Hi Vedam, Probably you must have have been very closely associated with these Rajput relatives of Mughals and I can not challenge your knowledge about the subject related to them. There are many such false stories of this kind can be found in the poems written by their bards but without any authentic evidence and without any logic to support and are not trusted. I would like to ask you why these Chattris and Hindu Architecture taken by Mughals from their mother's side and not used at all in other Buildings like Lal Kila in Delhi and a Memorial of Mumtaz Mahal built by Shaha jajan at Burhan Pur where Mumtaz actually died and was buried. |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 06:21
Hi vivek, You know how akbar died? Though it look strange that when the Raja of Jaipur was his slave king he really did not need any excuse but these Mughals were diplomatic. Col Todd. has written that Akbar wanted to get rid off Raja jai Singh of Jaipur who served him all through his life. So he got prepared two Pans (I dont know the english word for it), one with poison for Jai Singh, his brother in law, but by mistake Akber himself ate the pan which was mixed with poison and died. In this case also there was no need for him to get him killed in this manner but he wanted to ramain a good person in history books and at the same time wanted to get rid of Jai Singh by dubious means. |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 14:35
Could you give some links or sources AP. That would really help the debate. I don't think anyone is denying that there could have been a pre-existing structure on the Taj's current site, but the point is that you can' t just 'refurbish' a Shiva temple and end up with that. No Hindu temple looks like the Taj Mahal, from Mauryan times to present day, from India to Indonesia.
Regardless of what was or wasn't at Burhanpur. Hindu motifs like the upturned lotus were on the tomb of Sher Shah Suri built a century (!) before the Taj. Well before Shah Jahan came into the picture, Hindu and Muslim architectural forms (not unlike other cultural commodities) were being intermixed on the subcontinent. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 15:02
I NEVER said any such thing, you say you do a lot of research to write the truth. I advise to be careful before you mis-quote others
|
Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2006 at 15:09
"Probably......" So not only are you putting words in my mouth (see post above) but you also seem to be very presumptuous.
To answer your question no i am not closely associated with these Rajput relatives of Mughals, and i am not from the Bard community.
If anything by the name that you choose to call yourself i would say you wish to proclaim you are closely associated to these Rajput relatives of Mughals
|
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 00:09
|
the Tejo Mahalaya complex was a temple - palace complex around the centuries old temple of Agreshwar Mahadev, the ruling diety of Agra. It's use as a palace also, explainst a lot of the architecture elements. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 05:04
|
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 05:05
QUOTE=Vedam]
"Probably......" So not only are you putting words in my mouth (see post above) but you also seem to be very presumptuous.
To answer your question no i am not closely associated with these Rajput relatives of Mughals, and i am not from the Bard community.
If anything by the name that you choose to call yourself i would say you wish to proclaim you are closely associated to these Rajput relatives of Mughals [/QUOTE]
Yes I am closely associated with these Rajputs in a different sense. These all were our fuedatory kings before they shifted their loyalties to their new overlords, the Mughals since I belong to the clan of Gurjar pratihar samrat Mihir Bhoj Mahan who built the Shiva temple a Agra which is the present day taj Mahal. In one of your postings you have written Chuadhary Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, a Supreme court lawyer of Pakistan a low caste and you are aware that Bhatti is one of the most celebrated tribe and one of the complete regiment of Bhattis under the Gurjar Pratihars was posted under the King Raja Ram Bhatti at the place which the present day NWFP in pakistan and bordering Afghanistan to repulse the Muslim attack which they were able to control for three hundred years.So I thought that you may be a bard of the rival tribe of the rajputs who were the relatives of Mughals. If that is not so I am reallyu very sorry to hurt your sentiments but at the same time please note that you also have no right to hurt the sentiments of a great clan like the Bhattis. |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 06:02
|
BBC says about Taj Mahal---Hidden Truth - Never say it is a Tomb. BBC has given the complete pictorial details of Taj Mahal as a conclusive evidence that it was a Hindu Temple earlier. As per the Historical records also it was the Shiva temple built by the kings of Gurjar Pratihar Empire, the greatest empire of India. The following are the salient points given as conclusive proofs by BBC alongwith the pictorial details.
1. Aerial view of the Taj Mahal 2.The interior water well 3.Frontal view of the Taj Mahal and dome 4.Close up of the dome with pinnacle 5.Close up of the pinnacle Inlaid pinnacle pattern in courtyard 6.Red lotus at apex of the entrance 7. Rear view of the Taj & 22 apartments 8. View of sealed doors & windows in back 9. Typical Vedic style corridors 10.The Music House--a contradiction 11.A locked room on upper floor 12. A marble apartment on ground floor 13. The OM in the flowers on the walls 14. Staircase that leads to the lower levels 15. 300 foot long corridor inside apartments 16. One of the 22 rooms in the secret lower level 17. Interior of one of the 22 secret rooms 18. Interior of another of the locked rooms 19. Vedic design on ceiling of a locked room 20. Huge ventilator sealed shut with bricks 21. Secret walled door that leads to other rooms 22. Secret bricked door that hides more evidence 23. Palace in Barhanpur where Mumtaz died 24.Pavilion where Mumtaz is said to be buried |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 06:17
|
Look at the contrasts between the tomb of mumtaz at taj mahal, the difference is obvious. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 06:38
|
Hi Historioans,
I would like to inform that the time when the Shiva Temple was built at Agra (where the Taj mahal is erected later)by Gujjar Pratihars (of Malwas who later shifted their capital to kannauj) the situation was entirely different. The Kachwaha chieftain of Jaipur was not even the the vassal of second rank to Gujjars but was a vassal of the third rank of Gujjars Pratihars and their capital was Nishidha (the original name of present day Narwargarh, near Gwalior, the home of Nishadraj Nal and Nishads,the clan to which Raja of jaipur belonged). That was also the time when the Muslim Invaders used to hide themselves behind the Idols of Hindu gods due to fear of Gujjars armies as per the historical records of Muslim invaders themselves. See the link for authentic details: http://www.bharatvani.org/books/hhrmi/ch2.htm Arab travellers to India of the 10th century “all speak of only two independent Arab principalities with Multan and Mansurah as their capitals”. The Zuzr (The Gurjar Pratihara) kings waged constant war “against the Arab prince of Multan, and with the Mussalmans, his subjects on the frontier”. Multan would have been lost by the Arabs but for a Hindu temple. Dr. Misra quotes Al-Istakhri who wrote about AD 951 that in Multan “there is an idol held in great veneration by the Hindus and every year people from distant parts undertake pilgrimages to it… When the Indians make war upon them and endeavour to seize the idol, the inhabitants [Arabs] bring it out pretending that they will break it and burn it. Upon this the Indians retire, otherwise they would destroy Multan.” Finally, he observes: “Thus after three centuries of unremitting effort, we find the Arab dominion in India limited to two petty states of Multan and Mansurah. And here, too, they could exist only after renouncing their iconoclastic zeal and utilizing the idols for their own political ends. It is a very strange sight to see them seeking shelter behind the very budds, they came here to destroy |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 07:44
|
Unfortunately the historical records of the Gujjar empire has been lost during the Constant raids of Arabs and Turks (After conversion to Islam), and whatever records are available are with the Stone Inscription found at various places or the Historical records of Arab scholars. The Arab scholars made the following proverb about the Indian armies based on their experience with the Gujjar armies since as per the records of Abu Zaid the size of the army of Mihir Bhoja Mahan was 80 lakhs. This figure is twice of the size of the army of Mughals at the time of akbar.
The Arab proverb about the Indian armies (Gurjara Pratiharas armies since Arabs were greatly exposed to this army only). The Persians are famed for their archers, the Turks for their horsemen, and India for its armies. |
Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 07:54
"Probably......" So not only are you putting words in my mouth (see post above) but you also seem to be very presumptuous. To answer your question no i am not closely associated with these Rajput relatives of Mughals, and i am not from the Bard community. If anything by the name that you choose to call yourself i would say you wish to proclaim you are closely associated to these Rajput relatives of Mughals [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] By AP singh
Yes I am closely associated with these Rajputs in a different sense. These all were our fuedatory kings before they shifted their loyalties to their new overlords, the Mughals since I belong to the clan of Gurjar pratihar samrat Mihir Bhoj Mahan who built the Shiva temple a Agra which is the present day taj Mahal. In one of your postings you have written Chuadhary Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, a Supreme court lawyer of Pakistan a low caste and you are aware that Bhatti is one of the most celebrated tribe and one of the complete regiment of Bhattis under the Gurjar Pratihars was posted under the King Raja Ram Bhatti at the place which the present day NWFP in pakistan and bordering Afghanistan to repulse the Muslim attack which they were able to control for three hundred years.So I thought that you may be a bard of the rival tribe of the rajputs who were the relatives of Mughals. If that is not so I am reallyu very sorry to hurt your sentiments but at the same time please note that you also have no right to hurt the sentiments of a great clan like the Bhattis. [/QUOTE] MR AP SINGH, i am really requesting you to be CAREFUL before you start making accusations. I have not made any insult of the BHATTI tribe, and i ask you, to provide evidence. I dont even know who Chaudary Muhammed Ashraf Bhatti is.
You say i have no right to hurt the sentiments of a rival clan, and that is why you called me a "bard". You dont even bother getting your facts straight, and you talk about research
You now must provide evidence of where i attacked Bhattis, i think someone else who has quoted me has attacked Bhattis and for this you have RECKLESSY put my name to it, and then decided to insult me.
The only time i mentioned Bhattis was in saying that Pakistanis are not a seperate ethnicity to Indians, as they have the clans of Bhatti, chauhan, sial.
You now MUST provide proof of where i attack the great Bhatti tribe.
|
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 07:59
|
Hi Vedam,
You are right. Somebody has mis-quoted you and I thought that you may have edited your original postings later. I am really very sorry and will be carefull next time. With best regards. AP Singh It is here you have been misquoted. Joined: 07 March 2006 Location: Paraguay Online Status: Offline Posts: 613 Posted: 12 October 2006 at 10:03am Originally posted by Vedam I don't believe in the caste system, and caste atrocities are truely disgusting but TeldeInduz to say that the caste does not exist in Pakistan, and exists amongst muslims only in India is simply not true. You need to read current affairs more. There was a recent case in September of Gazala Shaheen, a graduate from near Multan who was raped because "her Uncle was seen with someone of a higher caste." The police said there are hundreds of cases like this in Southern punjab. This is just false. These are NOT castes..these are family names. I don't know of this case, but I had a quick look and it seems that they're referring to "Bhattis" and "Miralis". These are NOT castes. If you don't believe me look at politicians, judges, lawyers, doctors in Pakistan. The "low caste Bhatti" occupies positions of power in all of these jobs. Here is the Rawalpindi chief judge..note he is clearly not lower caste. 9. Rawalpindi and Capital Teritory Islamabad Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti District and Session Judge Chairman, Drug Court Rawalpindi and Capital Teritory Islamabad. http://www.dcomoh.gov.pk/courts/ |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 09:48
Both those army sizes are impossible exagerrations. 80 lakhs means 8 million, which is an army size that was only approached by the Soviet Union in the 2nd world war (a very large modern state). How could a state in India of that time, whose entire population was below 150 million (so the state's population's must have been lower), possibly support an army of 8 million people? If we're talking about possible conscripts, that may be more credible, but such an army is rarely effective. The logistics of feeding and equiping such an army are next to impossible. Don't accept contemporary claims as valid: history is full of exagerrations. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 10:21
Well if you read this carefully, you will see the second paragraph is opposing the first which is mine so they can't be by the same person, because why wouid i be arguing with myself?
I in the first parragraph said there is a caste system in Pakistan, while in the second paragraph TedleInduz said there is no caste.
But i absolutley do NOT mention Bhattis, i just said there was caste violence, i did not even know the castes as they were not mentioned in the article i read.
But as you have apologised i accept it.
|
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 00:51
The Gurjar kingdom was from Sindh to Kerala and up to Pratihar Rajpur (Near Dhaka) in the east. Recently one incription of Gurjar king Mahendra Pal(son of Gujjar Samrat Mihir Bhoja Mahan) is found in this regard at Dinajpur (Now in Bagladesh) which supports the views of noted Historians like Dr. Roy Chaudhary that one complete regiment of Gujjar army consisting of Kamboja soldiers was placed in Bengal after the Palas were defeated. Some of these Kambojas can still be found in Bengal who were the soldiers of the Great Gujjar army and moved from Punjab area and were left in Bengal to rule the frontiers from that direction. There is still a prosperous village situated in Dinajpur District of Bangladesh named Pratirajpur on the bank of river Srimati named after the Pratihar clan of the Great Gujjar Emperors. On the Afghanistan Pakistan Border the best of fighters including Bhadana, Kasana etc. all having the title of Ranas ( and hence of Pratihar origin), Chechis (One of the branch of Chauhans) and Bhattis were placed and they can still be found there. Presently there are more than 50 lakhs Gujjars in NWFP and borders districts of Afghanistan and these belong to this army. Hence this size of army is real. The possibilities of exagerration is remote since this record is not taken from the Bards of Gujjar Pratihars but the records of Arab scholars who were the rival of Gujjar Pratihars and hence they will write less about the chivalry and power of their enemy and certainly not a bit more. |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 01:14
|
These are the Historical records that How the Gujjars moved from Malwa to Kannauj and then to Sindh to defeat the arab invaders. In the process the number of their fuedatory kings and size of their armies were continiously kept multiplying.
Gwalior Inscriptioon of Mihira Bhoja (verse 4). 1: About Naga bhatta 1: The Gwalior inscriptions announces Nagabhata's victory in the following manner: He crushed the mighty hosts of the mlechchhas Those foes of godly deeds. With terror-striking weapons as he stood He looked like Him of the four-arms. Nagabhata I founded the Gurjara power which held imperial sway at Kanauj for well-high Three Hundred years. About A.D. 780 his grandson Vatsaraja ruled at Jhalor while Varaba or Jayavaraha ruled over the kingdom of Sauryas, which may perhaps be identified with, Saurashtra. Gwalior Inscription about Nagabhatta II, the Grand father of Samrat Mihir Bhoj Mahan: (3 Ibid. (Verse 8) About A.D. 792 Nagabhata II, son of Vatsaraja, came to the throne of Gurjaradesha, then growing from strength to strength. His popular name was Ama. His mother, Sundaridevi, was a princess of the family of Yashovarman, who is described as belonging to the Maurya family. He is described as the Primeval Man born again, as once he was born as Nagabhata I, 3 for he I restored the fortunes of Gurjaradesha which had fallen low at the time of his accession. Immediately on coming to the throne, Nagabhata II proceeded to conquer the 'kings of Sindhu',. While moving from Ujjain (Malwa), which was left to another Gujjar clan (Parmars), to Sindh to check the invaders in their own space these Gujjars were called the Pratihars (The Protectors of the Nation) and the style to beat the enemy at his own place is particularly called the Pratihar Style. Here are some views of historians about the style of fighting of Gujjar Pratohars and Gujjar Parmars. Garud shakti Style of Gujjar Pratihars taken from the inscription of their one of the fuedatory king Gujjar Parmars: 1.Since the Gujjars were aware about the menace of these people they evolved a policy to end this menace and to safeguard the prosperity of their country. This was known as Garud shakti. In a Parmar (a clan of Gujjar tribe), copper plate we find ‘the flying figure of Garud holding a snake in its left claw’. This was a representation of Garud shakti for the liberation of the country from the clutches of Kali bhujangas (H.C. Roy, Dynastic history of North India, Vol. II, pp. 844) 2.Gurjar-Pratihar Style of fighing the enemy: The Pratiharan vidhi or giving battle to the enemy in his own state has been associated with the Gujjar Pratihar rulers. This policy proved to be the panacea for exterminating the invaders. If the Mandsor inscription of Yashodharman (6th century a.d.), is to be believed, the country was at that time ruined by Pakshaniti (factition politics). The earth was afflicted by the kings who manifested pride, who were cruel, through want of proper training, who from delusion transgressed path of good conduct and were destitute of virtuous delight’ (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarun (Vol III, pp. 146). During this adverse situation, Gurjar Pratihars emerged as the protectors of the nation. Hailing from Ujjain at first, they carried on ceaseless fight against Tajiks and Turuskas and battled with them in the Pamir region. They established their military camps in Kashmir, Gujrawala (Frontier Provinces). The grateful generations acknowledged their great contribution. It was accepted that Gujjar Pratihars, especially Mihirbhoj converted the age of vice into the age of virtue. These kings were endowed with 36 qualities. And the region (Kshetra), where the earlier Pratihars ruled was sanctified in literature especially Puranas as the Punya Avantika bhand (Sanctified Ujjain region) |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 02:02
|
Hi Historians,
The Kalchuris were one of the fuedatory kings of Gujjars from 7th. to 10th. century. They are Non Gujjar clans (Not sharing Gotras with Gujjars) and the other branches of this clan are Chedis and Haiheyas who were also the fuedaory kings og Gujjars. They ruled the Jabal Pur regions (presently in MP state of India)and Gorakh Pur (presently in UP state of India)areas as fuedatory kings on behalf of their Gujjar Overlords.The actual size of the Gujjar Empire was atleast 40 times of the size of the region given to Kalchuris to rule and now a days an army of 80 lakhs soldiers could be recruited from these two regions of Gorakhpur to Jabal Pur itself. Hence the Arab scholar seems to be correct in his records of citing the size of Gujjar army as 80 lakhs which is the twice the size of the army of Mughals at the time of akbar. Here is details of Historical records of Kalha plate found in Gorakh Pur District of UP state in India. From the Kahla plate, discovered in pargana Dhuriapar it is revealed that Mihir Bhoja ( 836-890 A.D.) of the Gurjara - Pratihara dynasty gave some land to Gunambodhideva, a chief of the Kalachuris in 856 A.D. in recognition of his services in the expedition against the Palas. The inscription on the plate amply testifies that in the ninth century A.D. this district was dominated by the Gurjara-Pratiharas and formed part of the Sravasti bhukti of their empire. Bhamana Kalachuri, a descendant of Gunambodhideva, led an expedition from Gorakhpur to help the pratihara king Mahipala, in his compaign of Ujjain. Evidently the Kalachuris continued to rule over a part of this district under the sovereignty of the Gurjara-Pratiharas. |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 10:26
|
AP Singh, now you're just spamming. Stick to the topic at hand thanks. Vivek, look at even Delhi Sultanate architecture and the Taj Mahal, the similarities are obvious. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 01:33
|
Hi Jayeshk,
I am not spamming but providing the authentic details about the Gujjar empire whose Emperor Mihir Bhoja Mahan built the Shiva temple and a big garden where Taz Mahal is raised later.These posts were required to prove that the size of army and the empire under Mihir Bhoja the Great was twice of the size Mughal empire when it was at its peak during the days of Akbar.Since in Historical records it is mentioned that the palace belonged to the Emperor Bhoja of Malwa and hence I had given the authentic detail that how the Gujjar Pratihars the ancestors of Samrat Bhoja or Samrat Mihir Bhoja Mahan moved from Malwa to Kannauj and ruled the entire undivided India from that place. Please specify where I have written an unrelated information about the topic or anything different than what is asked by other forum members? Now I would ask you that in Muslim religion the memorial tomb is made where the person is actually buried or elsewhere where already a suitable palace already exists. Also please specify where in entire Muslim history more than one tombs are built in the name of a single person? also Why in BurhanPur where Mumtaz is died and buried a small monument is made which is truly the Muslim architecture? In that monument none of the 22 contrasts appears which are pointed out by BBC about the Taz Mahal? I have given 22 points raised by BBC in one of my earlier post. As far as the similarity of the Delhi Sultanate architecture and the Taj Mahal is concerned we are not arguing that the existing Shiva temple was not renovated before it was named as taj Mahal. |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 20:13
How do your last two posts have anything to do with the Taj Mahal? It's like if I started a topic about the Sydney Opera House and began with a thorough recap of how Captain Cook discovered Australia.
That's the entire argument. A 'suitable palace' didn't exist. It was made after she died so either way, the tomb was made for her regardless of whether there was a Hindu temple or whatever in the Taj Mahal's location already
That's supposed to be part of the romantic story (that Shah Jahan wanted to give her a better resting place) and it's bizarre that you'd expect all Muslims everywhere who have ever lived to all agree to the same thing.
I'm surprised you're basing your whole argument on the small monument in Burhanpur. It's absurd to just look at that and totally ignore the hundreds of Islamic structures before Shah Jahan's time that have so much in common with the Taj Mahal. It's even more absurd to ignore the Islamic architecture in India itself even before the Mughals that is obviously related and connected to the design of the Taj Mahal.
No, but what you seem to be doing is minimizing the construction by using words like 'renovating' or 'retrofitting' when in fact it's hard to see how it could be anything other than a massive rebuild of any pre-existing structure. That said, if I've misunderstood you then I apologize. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 04:15
|
1. My last two posts are related to taz mahal since a comparison of the armies of the Gurjar Emperor,Mihir Bhoja Mahan who bulit the Shiva temple and the Mughal emperor Akbar, when this empire was its peak, the dynasty, which rebuilt Taz Mahal on Shiva temple was questioned by one of the forum member. The information was provided for him. Probably you may not have read the earlier posts and called it a spam.
2. I have seen many tombs but only one in the name of one person where the person is buried. Mumtaz Mahal was certainly not Saint Kabir Das where there was a dispute between his Hindu disciples and Muslim disciples to get control of his dead body and perform the lasts rites according to their own customs. So there is no question of using names of Hindu Gods like OM in her memorial which can still be seen in Taz mahal.So it was a Hindu temple. 3. No, You have taken me wrong. I dont expect all Muslims and for that matter any body irrespective of the the religion, to do the same but would expect that a new memorial tomb should be built where the person is actually buried since that is actual the resting place and certainly not to use an existing structure and that too a place of worship. In no manner you can call an existing place a memorial of the person, which was built 100s of years ago before the death of the person even after its renovation/alteration. 4. Now you are deviating from the point. Discuss only taz mahal and not hundreds of other buildings. 5.In a new constrution the old building is completely demolished. If it is not done the structure can not be called as newly constructed structure irrespective of the volume of renovations/alterations. Here are views of various scholars to support that it was an existing structure. i. Prof. 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. ii. European traveler 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. iii. 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 well before Shah Jahan's time. |
Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 06:10
|
Dear learned friends, kindly clarify the following points:
1. How iconoclasts all of sudden became iconogenistists?
2. How the art-haters became art-lovers?
3. I know from Tamilnadu, how Malik Kafur behaved with art and architecture of Tamilnadu, leave alone his loot of gold and all. So, how is that attitude of destroying one art and creating another art is explained? How such psyche was / is developed?
4. In art and architecture, how this psychology of violence and non-violence is understood to analyze the people of iconoclasm and iconogenesis?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 14:28
| as long as there is no clear evidence with pictures i wont beleive anything that these hindu nationalistics say. |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 21:30
It really was spam, almost every one of your posts finds some abstract way to reference some Gujjar person. Anyhow, it's besides the point.
Yes it is supposed to be unique, that's why it's special
You mean rebuilding?
Ok answer me this then. What part of the Taj was a Hindu temple and what part was 'renovated' as you keep implying? A couple of stories about an om here and there don't exactly explain away everything else in the structure that is so obviously Muslim. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 21:33
Yeah, the muslims hated art, that's why there was never anything architectural of note built in the middle east after the Sassanians  ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2006 at 02:09
Take one by one point. I pointed out that the Building did not belong to the Raja of Jai Pur. Raja of Jai Pur was not at all significant at the time of the battle between Babar and Rana Sanga, since the Gwalior was ruled by Tanwars, Mewat was ruled by Hasan Khan Mewati, Agra was probably under control of Delhi Sultnate, Alwar was ruled by Badgujars. Hence Agra was completely isolated from Jai Pur when this territory came under the control of Mughals. I have provided historical evidences that the big garden and Shiva temple where Taz mahal is erected was built by Gurjar Samrat Mihir Bhoja or Bhoja the Great.Now tell me where do you have objection to this historical fact? Not only that Delhi was founded by his fuedatory, the Gujjar Tanwars, and Bhopal was also founded (as Bhoj Pal) by one of his fuedatories called Gujjar Parmars and Agra is in between the two places. Another Gujjar clan named Chadelas were ruling Kalinjar as his fuedatory and in this mannere theAgra was completely surrounded by his fuedatories. Do you feel this post is also unrelated. |
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2006 at 14:50
|
It's not a historical fact. You've given one source and it's the predictable Carlyle quote that gets repeated ad infinitum on revisionist sites. If you're going to use their information, at least stick to their most agreed upon theory: that all examples of what we consider early Mughal and Indo-Islamic architecture are just converted temples, that North Indian construction somehow discovered the arch and the dome just in time for the arrival of the Muslim invaders but miraculously, South India which hitherto had shared many architectural elements with the North never learned this and continued building temples in the old style for centuries afterwards. Oh and all Central Asian and Middle Eastern buildings that look like the Taj Mahal are copies of Hindu designs as well.
------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 04:18
| What about the Carbon dating test done by Prof Marvin Miller of New york revealing that the part of construction was more than 300 hundred year older than Shah Jahan. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 06:01
|
Why does a so called mousoleum built allegedly in grief of of the dead wife resemble a palace more than a mousoleum. WHy does it have so many luxurious rooms, bathrooms etc...
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 06:36
|
I guess that the most probable answer will be "That is why it is unique".
Probably Shahajahan did not expect that his son Aurangjeb will put him in jail and rest of his life he has to spend only with Jahanara and need only one room. I guess that may be the reason. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 24-Jan-2007 at 17:15
I just came across a better translation than mine on wikipedia.
Except I don't know why it adds the middle part "that clinging..." because Hafez does not say this. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 04:00
|
I think archaeological evidences do not help Shajahan. When I visited Taj, I could note all the points made out. In fact, the Kutub Minar complex is nothing but a South Indian temple complex, as I could see the interior is just like that. Only, the super structure appears as Minar. The carved pillars, the geometrically placed lintels leading to Gopura like capola etc., has been typical. Above all, the idols and sculptures strewn all around are intriguing. Now, the Ganesa idol found there has been caged i.e, put inside a iron-grilled box with lock and key! Some 15 years back, it was just lying there. So, Whoever built the Taj, he has done an excellent work on the earth. The workers have shed their sweat and blood. Let us praise and rembember those workers, instead of arguing or fighting for their names, religion etc. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 04:43
|
||||||
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 07:01
I heard there were also some records of craftsmen who were paid money by the mughal court for services such as making tyles, engravings and floor and wall plates of the interior and exterior. Have you come across those records? |
|||||||
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-Feb-2007 at 09:01
|
Do you have a readable copy? ------------- |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 09-Feb-2007 at 07:22
|
As per the the Badshahnama, written by the emperor's own paid chronicler, Mullah Abdul Hamid Lahori provided evidence of the Taj's existence and was acquisitioned by Shahjahan from Raja man Singh. I would like to know how the palace, the earlier garden of Mihir Bhoja the Great, was acquired by Raja Man Singh himself or was it gifted to his forefathers by Akbar the Great in exchange of his marriage to Jodha bai or was it won by him and from whom? As far as history of his forefathers goes, at the time of the Babars invasion, they were not even having the complete control of Jaipur from Meenas, the original rulers of the place without the help of Akbar, the ( husband of his fathers sister) of Man Singh, leave aside to take the control of Agra which is quite far away.
In case it was gifted to Man Singh by Akbar then technically the Palace at that point of time belonged to Mughals themselves.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 06:48
| In any case, Taj Mahal was there before Moghuls. |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 13:17
| So basically Shah Jahan took a temple or castle and put tiles and flooring on it and did a little bit of remodelling? I am surprised this has not been comprehensibly covered and reported already. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 13:54
|
Well he must have redeveloped and redesigned it into this magnificent building which has no precedent in Indian architecture, as far as I am aware, though plenty in Persian. Whatever was there before the Taj Mahal may as well not have been.
The twin towers that were demolished will have a new building built on top of them too. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 15:00
|
Is there any drawing of how it looked before it took the form of what we now know as the "Taj Mahal".
I think it was more than just a refurbishment, why did they bring in master architects all the way from the Ottomans, like the student of master architect Mimar Sinan, Isa Efendi and others?
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2007 at 16:50
|
Has anyone got a list of all the builders and tilers and plumbers that worked on it along with a master plan? There must be records of who was paid how much and for what. I heard also that Shah Jahan almost bankrupted his treasury trying to build it. Its also possible that the mughals destroyed what it looked like after it was remodelled but so far all I hear is talk and claims what about some real facts. Are there any? For each side? Also I heard that certain parts of the palace were sealed off permanently and the govt does not allow anyone to unseal those parts. Whats up with that? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 06:16
|
Irrespective of the criticism heaped on P. N. Oak, definitely, he is who, perhaps for the first time raised the issue long back.
The Govt. of India being "secular" does not evidently want one more RJB-BM type issue to crop up and hence close the rooms of Taj for the enthusiastic and as well as curious visitors (after reading Oak, Godbole etc).
In any case, as all of you are obviously puzzled by "construction" of "Taj Mahal", that too emptying treasury and started pondering over ground plan, the workers employed, the construction on the basement and so on. Thus, the root cause of the issue is why such iconophile Muslims should have been iconoclast? Yes, I am repeating the question already raised by Mr. Nachiappan earlier and for which Jayshks sarcastically responded (12-11-2006, see above), "Yeah, the muslims hated art, that's why there was never anything architectural of note built in the middle east after the Sassanians
 "!!The issue of psychology of violence and non-violence is involved in it.
|
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 09:50
|
It is possible that materials from other buildings were used in the construction of the Taj Mahal, which would explain the carbon dating. Looking at its architectural features, the Persian influence seems very pronounced, so to me there`s no doubt when it was built. T.Selvam, the argument that iconoclast Muslims would not bother building this type of building is not only tenous, it is insulting to them. In some ways, it`s like saying that just because I don`t like a certain type of food, I won`t eat at all. Just because the muslims destroyed so many hindu temples, because of their underlying polytheism, that does not mean that they wouldn`t build other buildings, within certain rules. Honestly, my impression of this debate is that there are some Indians who believe that the muslims brought only death, destruction and regression to India. Thus, it is important for them to negate any important cultural contributions that the Muslims may have brought. Especially the Taj Mahal, virtually the icon of India in international eyes... ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 13:08
|
Is anyone at all interested in presenting FACTS rather than arrogant emotional outbursts? This should not be too hard to figure out if all the facts are laid out. So far it seems to me that a great deal of the Taj Mahal, including its actual foundations must have been built by someone prior to Shah Jahan. Also obviously there are some solid records of craftsmen retiling and remodelling[at the very least] the Taj Mahal to a more persian and ottoman flavor but since Shah Jahan was the ruler...surely he would not have "lost" all the records if he had built it from scratch so they must be around somewhere right? Or maybe everyone wants to speculate for the next 10 pages because its more fun? |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 17:17
Any other examples of pre-Moghul domes like that in India or anywhere else? I have never heard f nor seen such a thing.
Jamkaran Masjed, Iran. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 17:17
|
Where is that readable version of this document? ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 18:40
As far as I know Rajistan had many domed constructions in that style. Here is a random one off google:  I just had a look at a pic of the Taj Mahal and was struck by its sheer size, compared to that mosque its just huge and that makes me think its still possible that Shah Jahan took something massive that was built in a slightly different or even completely different style and persianized it to make it more suitable as a tomb. Also it had many precious stones pressed into it so that could possibly part of the refurbishing that he did. The only way to know for sure would be fpr someone to spend a lot of effort doing forensic analysis of the actual stones as well as Shah Jahan's expense records and of course..the master plans if they exist. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 18:42
|
What you posted looks nothing like it (the main dome to which I refered, that the building has features present in India is natural since that is where it was built and idnian craftsmen were also involved in its construction; though what I prescribed is not one of those features, it is distinctly Persian). Such domes are a regular feature in Post-Islamic and medieval Iranian architecture.
http://www.tomallwood.com/images/locations/india/north_india/delhi_mosque.jpg - http://www.tomallwood.com/images/locations/india/north_india/delhi_mosque.jpg Jammi Mosque in Delhi. Didn't some uncultured Hindu psycho extremist mob demolish a large mosque in India in the early 90s? No one would ever let them destroy the taj Mahal so they resort to claiming it's pre-Moghul and wholly Indian. ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 19:22
|
I don't see what is "distinctly persian" about domes. Can you show domes being constructed in Iran prior to them being constructed in Rajistan or Samarkand? By a few centuries? On that note I have a faint memory that Taimur the lame captured some masons and architects and took them back to samarkand on one of his sweeps so its quite possible that dome architecture may have originated in the East Indus region to begin with. Those who have money and force get to decide what will be built and what it will look like so it is entirely feasable that dome design and manufacture were initially not an innovation of Persia or Uzbekistan but rather an aquisition from abroad. As far as hindu fanatics go obviously they would have an interest in revealing pre-mughal origins of the Taj Mahal but that is no reason to completely discount all revisionist inquiries. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 19:44
|
Improve your reading comprehension or don't put words into my mouth. At no points did I say domes were distinctly Persian, I was being specific. Obviously you don't have an eye for architecture. Type Iranian Mosque in google pictures and you'll see the similarities, not just of the dome. The minor domes are similar in style to the picture you posted.
If you want to support revisionist claims then present evidence and facts, not conjecture. As far as the design being spread by Timur? Are you kidding me.  Check the ruins of Firuzabad and you will see the origins of this style of dome from the 5th century AD. Timur had a habit of capturing or sparing artisans and craftsmen, it did it all over Iran.
FYI Domes were first developed by the Romans and then the Sassanids as a part of architecture, but the Roman style is completely different, the Sassanid, very similar. ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2007 at 23:35
|
I checked out the ruins of Ferozabad and I saw the dome of Ardasher's palace but it was not the onion like designs of the Taj Mahal although it could have been its predecessor. Can you provide any pictures of Mosques with that onion dome that were built a couple of centuries before the Taj Mahal? Taimur conquered Delhi by 1400 and had access to masons and architects from the heart of India by then. Delhi and Agra are on the edge of Rajistan which was always famous for its palaces and temples so I am saying Taimur could have gotten people from that area back to Samarkand[and even to select sites in Iran] to eventually begin building domes, just as easily as from Iran. The domes in Samarkand look almost the same as the onion dome of the Taj Mahal. Just because today's mosques in Iran have onion like domes does not mean the design could not have originated in Rajistan. He who controls the present, controls the past and the future[by virtue of leaving selective history] and its also rumored that Shah Jahan killed off most of the builders of the Taj Mahal. Now why would he do that? To make sure nobody else duplicates that achievment...or...to bury the fact that it was largely just a retiling job? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 02:26
|
We Indians have nothing to do with Muslisms, as in Tamilnadu here or elsewhere, we have many Muslim friends. They know about us and we know about them. And all of us know the "Taliban type" fundamentalist Muslims.
Coming back to your response, I want to respond as follows:
1. It is possible that materials from other buildings were used in the construction of the Taj Mahal, which would explain the carbon dating. So the destruction of earlier places of worship is accepted. 2.Looking at its architectural features, the Persian influence seems very pronounced, so to me there`s no doubt when it was built. The arch-type architecture is found in Rajasthan and Gujarat and tomb like projections have been used in south India for temples also.
3. T.Selvam, the argument that iconoclast Muslims would not bother building this type of building is not only tenous, it is insulting to them. You are making generalized statement. Read my posting. The reference points to such iconoclast Muslims only. So if such iconoclast Muslims had iconogenetic tendenies, you have to analyse them to find out the existence of such incongruence.
4. In some ways, it`s like saying that just because I don`t like a certain type of food, I won`t eat at all. Just because the muslims destroyed so many hindu temples, because of their underlying polytheism, that does not mean that they wouldn`t build other buildings, within certain rules. Anybody can eat or not to eat one thing or any thing according to his / her food habits or religious injunctions. As you could understand, I would not elaborate this point.
So the destruction of Hindu temples is accepted, but now, many Indians, particularly, Indian Hindus do not know such basic fact, because of the existing historiography in India. If this is the case in India, I do not know about the history books of Pakistan and other Muslim countries. Do they accept that, ".........the muslims destroyed so many hindu temples, as accepted by you?
5. "Honestly, my impression of this debate is that there are some Indians who believe that the muslims brought only death, destruction and regression to India. Yes, only "some Indians" as pointed out by you, whereas, most of the Indians know about good Muslims.
6. "Thus, it is important for them to negate any important cultural contributions that the Muslims may have brought. Especially the Taj Mahal, virtually the icon of India in international eyes... " Do not worry, I never knew that Talat Mehmud, Mohammed Rafi, Nurjahan and others were Muslims, till, media started telling so during early ninties, but still, enjoying their songs. So also, the Gazals, the handicrafts and so on. We treat them as Indians only not otherwise. We respect the sentiments and contributions of Indian Muslims or any Muslims. For example, take the Muslims of Indonesia, Malaysia etc., Indians cannot have anything with them.
That is why I mentioned that the issue is the question of "violence and non-violence" lying behind.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 02:31
Kindly tell me whether the following is Persian dome or otherwise?
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 02:36
|
t about this one?
http://www.pbase.com/speedyg/favorites">
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2007 at 02:42
|
What about this? http://yume-dreams.cool.ne.jp/photo/india/dehli/qutb-minar/t_qutb-minar_08.jpg"> http://yume-dreams.cool.ne.jp/photo/india/dehli/qutb-minar/t_qutb-minar_17.jpg">
 And this.
Both are one and the same or known as by the same name!
Figure them out friends !!
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2007 at 15:29
|
Maqsad
I don't see what is "distinctly persian" about domes. Can you show domes being constructed in Iran prior to them being constructed in Rajistan or Samarkand? By a few centuries? On that note I have a faint memory that Taimur the lame captured some masons and architects and took them back to samarkand on one of his sweeps so its quite possible that dome architecture may have originated in the East Indus region to begin with. Those who have money and force get to decide what will be built and what it will look like so it is entirely feasable that dome design and manufacture were initially not an innovation of Persia or Uzbekistan but rather an aquisition from abroad.
You have a strong point, Timur bought back thousands of architects and artisans from Kunya-Urgench Turkmenistan, it seems he did the same in Pakistan, India, also Iran and everywhere else he went, there are even some Orietnal touches in Timurid architecture. Also these type's of domes are not that widespread before the Timurid reign, later you see these type's of domes as far as Kazan in Volga Bulgaria to Delhi.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 00:36
| the most ancient of hindu temples dont have any types of domes, these domes temple in places like Rajhistan only started coming the middle ages, obviously the influence was islamic and persian architecture. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Feb-2007 at 00:45
|
and Taj mahal doesn't look like a hindu temple at all. even if there was a hindu temple underneath it, it would have have been totally different. There is no hindu temple in india that looks like the Taj mahal, this proves that its not hindu architecture.
And people who say Middle east has no architecture are nothing but idiots, Middle East is filled with so many architecture wonders.
|
Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 19:11
|
For dating, there are different methods. After getting datings from those methods, we can correlate and corroboarate the material evidences. Dating based on the style of sculpture and architecture and corresponding it with a type of script found in the inscription etc., would not give any absolute dating of monuments. This has been done in India and that is why there has been a lot of confusion among the scholars of different disciplines, as they could find such discrepancies in their studies. ------------- History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past. |
Posted By: Hick
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 22:17
| Taj Mahal architechture is total persian and islamic, so how is it s hindu temple? |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 10:16
Where is this structure located and who built it in what year? |
Posted By: dass
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 14:45
| if this is a hindu temple they definatly took islamic architecture as its basis, i mean there are no hindu temples like this. and it doesn't even look to old maybe 300 to 400 years old. |
Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 19:19
|
We are in scientific world and there are dating methods.
If we send samples, laboratories decide the dates, so that they (the monuments) can be decided about their dating etc. ------------- History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past. |
Posted By: Bhola Bhakt
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 08:24
|
Hi I was searching on net , I seen some link related to your thread ,
Pls see the matter in my posts now ....
Was the Taj Mahal a Vedic Temple? The Photographic Evidence
This presents photographs (listed below) that show the Vedic influence found in such buildings as the Taj Mahal, Red Fort, and other structures in India. It also presents photos of drawings and art that have been discovered from other parts of the world, such as Arabia, Egypt, Greece and Italy, that show a definite Vedic influence. No matter whether you accept all of this or not, it nonetheless makes for an extremely fascinating and interesting story. Take a look and decide for yourself what you think. Also, let other people know about these, or download them to print and use them for your own displays in your temple, office or home.
We have all heard how the Taj Mahal, which is considered one of the great wonders of the world, was built as the preeminent expression of a man's love for a wife. That it was built by emperor Shah Jahan in commemoration of his wife Mumtaz. However, in our continuous effort to get to the truth, we have recently acquired some very important documents and information. There is evidence that the Taj Mahal was never built by Shah Jahan. Some say the Taj Mahal pre-dates Shah Jahan by several centuries and was originally built as a Hindu or Vedic temple/palace complex. Shah Jahan merely acquired it from its previous owner, the Hindu King Jai Singh. This controversy is something I have explained more thoroughly in my book, "Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence." So, for those who want to know the details of this issue, you can find it there. And here is the photographic evidence that will provide greater insights into this. The point to consider is how much more of India's history has been distorted if the background of such a grand building is so inaccurate. These photographs are taken from an album that was found and then smuggled out of India. On the back of each photo there is a stamp mark that says, "Archaeology Survey of India." This signifies their authenticity and that they were the property of that institution. This means a number of things: That the Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) has been researching the evidence that proves the Taj Mahal and many other buildings were not of Muslim origin, and that they know this information but remain silent about it. It also shows that in spite of this evidence they refuse to open up further research that would reveal the true nature and originality of the buildings, and lead to understanding another part of the real history and glory of India. These photos are black and white and were found in a simple photo album in India. Except for old age and some water damage on some of them (creating white spots in areas), most are still in relatively good condition. Each photograph was accompanied by a typed caption taped in the album near the photo, each of which gives a very interesting explanation of the subject and the Vedic influence recognized on the building and what it means. The captions accompany the photos on the following pages just as they were written in the album, so the style of English and the explanations are kept the same. I did not write them myself. They are obviously written from an Indian perspective. Whatever I may say about the photos are displayed in brackets [ ]. Otherwise I let the captions and photos speak for themselves. Some of these photos will show areas of the Taj where the public has no access, or what is rarely seen or noticed. It is because of the manipulation of history by invaders that the true greatness of India and Vedic culture has been stifled or hidden. And it is time that people everywhere realize how numerous lies and false propaganda have been passed around as if it were the truth in regard to India and its past, as well as its art, archeology, and the wonder of its culture. India and its Vedic society was one of the preeminent civilizations of the world, as I explained in "Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence." Now, through the increasing amount of revealing evidence that is being uncovered, that greatness of India's past and its contributions to the world are gradually being recognized. It is because of this that it is now time to rewrite the history of India.
ADDITIONAL ONLINE ARTICLES http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm - "The Question of the Taj Mahal" (Itihas Patrika, vol 5, pp. 98-111, 1985) by P. S. Bhat and A. L. Athavale is a profound and thoroughly researched and well balanced paper on the Taj Mahal controversy. This paper goes well with the photographs listed below. It uncovers the reasons for the rumors and assumptions of why it is said that Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal, and presents all the inconsistencies of why that theory doesn't hold up. It also covers such things as the descriptions found in the old Agra court papers on the Taj; descriptions and measurements of the building in the old records; Aurangzeb's letter of the much needed repairs even in 1632 which is unlikely for a new building; records that reveal Shah Jahan acquired marble but was it enough for really building the Taj or merely for inlay work and decorative coverings; the observations of European travelers at the time; the actual age of the Taj; how the architecture is definitely of Indian Hindu orientation and could very well have been designed as a Shiva temple; the issue of the arch and the dome; how the invader Timurlung (1398) took back thousands of prisoner craftsmen to build his capital at Samarkhand and where the dome could have been incorporated into Islamic architecture; how it was not Shah Jahan's religious tolerance that could have been a reason for Hindu elements in the design of the Taj; how the direction of the mosque does not point toward Mecca as most mosques do; the real purpose of the minarets at the Taj; the Hindu symbolism recognized in the Taj which would not have been allowed if it was truly Muslim built; and even as late as 1910 the Encyclopaedia Britannica included the statement by Fergusson that the building was previously a palace before becoming a tomb for Shah Jahan; and more. A most interesting paper. " http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm - An Architect Looks at the Taj Mahal Legend " by Marvin Mills, is a great review of the information available on the Taj Mahal and raises some very interesting questions that make it obvious that the Taj could not have been built the way or during the time that history presents, which makes it more like a fable than accurate history. This suggests a construction date of 1359 AD, about 300 years before Shah Jahan. http://www.stephen-knapp.com/true_story_of_the_taj_mahal.htm - The True Story of the Taj Mahal . This article by P. N. Oak (from Pune, India) provides an overview of his research and lists his 109 proofs of how the Taj Mahal was a pre-existing Hindu temple palace, built not by Shah Jahan but originally at least 500 years earlier in 1155 AD by Raja Paramardi Dev as a Vedic temple. Mr. P. N. Oak is another who has done much research into this topic, and such a study is hardly complete without considering his findings. The evidence he presents here is a most interesting read, whether you agree with it all or not, or care for some of the anger in his sentiment. Mr. Oak has presented his own conclusions in his books, most notably Taj Mahal--The True Story (ISBN: 0-9611614-4-2). http://www.stephen-knapp.com/letter_of_aurangzeb.htm - The Letter of Aurangzeb ordering repairs on the old Taj Mahal in the year just before it is said to have been completed. http://www.stephen-knapp.com/badshahnama.htm - The Badshahnama is the history written by the Emperor's own chronicler. This page shows how Aurangzeb had acquired the Taj from the previous owner, Jai Singh, grandson of Raja Mansingh, after selecting this site for the burial of Queen Mumtaz. |
Posted By: Bhola Bhakt
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 08:25
Taj Mahal - A Hindu Temple-PalaceBy now you all know through my previous articles, the irrefutable facts and deductive logic which prove that Islam is evil right at its very foundation. It is not a religion, but a means to legalize rape, murder, loot and destruction! Given what I have shown in these previous weeks, no one should have the slightest doubt that the true followers of such a "religion" can only be called dacoits! These dacoits have looted and raped many countries, but no country can tell a bloodier tale of muslim oppression than India! The muslim dacoits started their rule over India in 712 A.D. with the invasion of Mohammed Qasem and looking at the present situation of our country it still continues on today! During their rule they looted and destroyed hundereds of thousands of Hindu temples. Aurangzeb himself destroyed 10,000 Hindu temples during his reign! Some of the larger temples were converted into mosques or other Islamic structures. Ram Janmbhoomi(at Ayodhya) and Krishna Temple(at Mathura) are just two examples. Many others exist! The most evident of such structures is Taj Mahal--a structure supposedly devoted to carnal love by the "great" moghul king Shah Jahan to his favorite wife Mumtaz Mahal. Please keep in my mind that this is the same Shah Jahan who had a harem of 5,000 women and the same Shah Jahan who had a incestuous relationship with his daughter justifing it by saying, 'a gardner has every right to taste the fruit he has planted'! Is such a person even capable of imagning such a wondrous structure as the Taj Mahal let alone be the architect of it? The answer is no. It cannot be. And it isn't as has been proven. The Taj Mahal is as much a Islamic structure as is mathematics a muslim discovery! The famous historian Shri P.N. Oak has proven that Taj Mahal is actually Tejo Mahalaya-- a shiv temple-palace. His work was published in 1965 in the book, Taj Mahal - The True Story. However, we have not heard much about it because it was banned by the corrupt and power crazed Congress government of Bharat who did not want to alienate their precious vote bank--the muslims. After reading Shri Oak's work which provides more than adequate evidence to prove that Taj Mahal is indeed Tejo Mahalaya, one has to wonder if the government of Bharat has been full of traitors for the past 50 years! Because to ban such a book which states only the truth is surely a crime against our great nation of Bharat. The most valuable evidence of all that Tejo Mahalaya is not an Islamic building is in the Badshahnama which contains the history of the first twenty years of Shah Jahan's reign. The writer Abdul Hamid has stated that Taj Mahal is a temple-palace taken from Jaipur's Maharaja Jaisigh and the building was known as Raja Mansingh's palace. This by itself is enough proof to state that Tejo Mahalaya is a Hindu structure captured, plundered and converted to a mausoleum by Shah Jahan and his henchmen. But I have taken the liberty to provide you with 109 other proofs and logical points which tell us that the structure known as the Taj Mahal is actually Tejo Mahalaya. There is a similar story behind Every Islamic structure in Bharat. They are all converted Hindu structures. As I mentioned above, hundereds of thousands of temples in Bharat have been destroyed by the barbaric muslim invaders and I shall dedicate several articles to these destroyed temples. However, the scope of this article is to prove to you beyond the shadow of any doubt that Taj Mahal is Tejo Mahalaya and should be recognized as such! Not as a monument to the dead Mumtaz Mahal--an insignificant sex object in the incestous Shah Jahan's harem of 5,000.Another very important proof that Taj Mahal is a Hindu structure is shown by figure 1 below. It depicts Aurangzeb's letter to Shah Jahan in Persian in which he has unintentionally revealed the true identity of the Taj Mahal as a Hindu Temple-Palace. Refer to proofs 20 and 66 stated below.
Take the time to read the proofs stated below and know to what extent we have been lied to by our own leaders. These proofs of Shri P.N. Oak have been taken from the URL: http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html - http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html I would like to commend the creator of the above mentioned web site for taking the time to put up the proofs given by Shri P.N. Oak. For more information you can order the book, Taj Mahal - The True Story authored by Shri P.N. Oak. The ISBN number of the book is ISBN 0-9611614-4-2. The book is available through A. Ghosh (Publisher), 5720 W. Little York, #216, Houston, Texas 77091. Visit http://www.swordoftruth.com/ - Sword Of Truth - Online Magazine for more information Proofs follow below: Name 1.The term Tajmahal itself never occurs in any mogul court paper or chronicle even in Aurangzeb's time. The attempt to explain it away as Taj-i-mahal is therefore, ridiculous. 2.The ending "Mahal" is never muslim because in none of the muslim countries around the world from Afghanistan to Algeria is there a building known as "Mahal". 3.The unusual explanation of the term Tajmahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal, who is buried in it, is illogical in at least two respects viz., firstly her name was never Mumtaj Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani and secondly one cannot omit the first three letters "Mum" from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name of the building. 4.Since the lady's name was Mumtaz (ending with 'Z') the name of the building derived from her should have been Taz Mahal, if at all, and not Taj (spelled with a 'J'). 5.Several European visitors of Shahjahan's time allude to the building as Taj-e-Mahal is almost the correct tradition, age old Sanskrit name Tej-o-Mahalaya, signifying a Shiva temple. Contrarily Shahjahan and Aurangzeb scrupulously avoid using the Sanskrit term and call it just a holy grave. 6.The tomb should be understood to signify Not A Building but only the grave or centotaph inside it. This would help people to realize that all dead muslim courtiers and royalty including Humayun, Akbar, Mumtaz, Etmad-ud-Daula and Safdarjang have been buried in capture Hindu mansions and temples. 7.Moreover, if the Taj is believed to be a burial place, how can the term Mahal, i.e., mansion apply to it? 8.Since the term Taj Mahal does not occur in mogul courts it is absurd to search for any mogul explanation for it. Both its components namely, 'Taj' and' Mahal' are of Sanskrit origin. Temple Tradition 9.The term Taj Mahal is a corrupt form of the sanskrit term TejoMahalay signifying a Shiva Temple. Agreshwar Mahadev i.e., The Lord of Agra was consecrated in it. 10.The tradition of removing the shoes before climbing the marble platform originates from pre Shahjahan times when the Taj was a Shiva Temple. Had the Taj originated as a tomb, shoes need not have to be removed because shoes are a necessity in a cemetery. 11.Visitors may notice that the base slab of the centotaph is the marble basement in plain white while its superstructure and the other three centotaphs on the two floors are covered with inlaid creeper designs. This indicates that the marble pedestal of the Shiva idol is still in place and Mumtaz's centotaphs are fake. 12.The pitchers carved inside the upper border of the marble lattice plus those mounted on it number 108-a number sacred in Hindu Temple tradition. 13.There are persons who are connected with the repair and the maintainance of the Taj who have seen the ancient sacred Shiva Linga and other idols sealed in the thick walls and in chambers in the secret, sealed red stone stories below the marble basement. The Archaeological Survey of India is keeping discretely, politely and diplomatically silent about it to the point of dereliction of its own duty to probe into hidden historical evidence. 14.In India there are 12 Jyotirlingas i.e., the outstanding Shiva Temples. The Tejomahalaya alias The Tajmahal appears to be one of them known as Nagnatheshwar since its parapet is girdled with Naga, i.e., Cobra figures. Ever since Shahjahan's capture of it the sacred temple has lost its Hindudom. 15.The famous Hindu treatise on architecture titled Vishwakarma Vastushastra mentions the Tej-Linga amongst the Shivalingas i.e., the stone emblems of Lord Shiva, the Hindu deity. Such a Tej Linga was consecrated in the Taj Mahal, hence the term Taj Mahal alias Tejo Mahalaya. 16.Agra city, in which the Taj Mahal is located, is an ancient centre of Shiva worship. Its orthodox residents have through ages continued the tradition of worshipping at five Shiva shrines before taking the last meal every night especially during the month of Shravan. During the last few centuries the residents of Agra had to be content with worshipping at only four prominent Shiva temples viz., Balkeshwar, Prithvinath, Manakameshwar and Rajarajeshwar. They had lost track of the fifth Shiva deity which their forefathers worshipped. Apparently the fifth was Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheshwar i.e., The Lord Great God of Agra, The Deity of the King of Cobras, consecrated in the Tejomahalay alias Tajmahal. 17.The people who dominate the Agra region are Jats. Their name of Shiva is Tejaji. The Jat special issue of The Illustrated Weekly of India (June 28,1971) mentions that the Jats have the Teja Mandirs i.e., Teja Temples. This is because Teja-Linga is among the several names of the Shiva Lingas. From this it is apparent that the Taj-Mahal is Tejo-Mahalaya, The Great Abode of Tej. Documentary Evidence 18.Shahjahan's own court chronicle, the Badshahnama, admits (page 403, vol 1) that a grand mansion of unique splendor, capped with a dome (Imaarat-a-Alishan wa Gumbaze) was taken from the Jaipur Maharaja Jaisigh for Mumtaz's burial, and the building was known as Raja Mansingh's palace. 19. The plaque put the archealogy department outside the Tajmahal describes the edifice as a mausoleum built by Shahjahan for his wife Mumtaz Mahal, over 22 years from 1631 to 1653 That plaque is a specimen of historical bungling. Firstly, the plaque sites no authority for its claim. Secondly the lady's name was Mumtaz-ulZamani and not Mumtazmahal. Thirdly, the period of 22 years is taken from some mumbo jumbo noting by an unreliable French visitor Tavernier, to the exclusion of all muslim versions, which is an absurdity. 20. Prince Aurangzeb's letter (Refer to Figure 1 above) to his father, emperor Shahjahan, is recorded in atleast three chronicles titled Aadaab-e-Alamgiri, Yadgarnama, and the Muruqqa-i-Akbarabadi (edited by Said Ahmed, Agra, 1931, page 43, footnote 2). In that letter Aurangzeb records in 1652 A.D itself that the several buildings in the fancied burial place of Mumtaz were seven storeyed and were so old that they were all leaking, while the dome had developed a crack on the northern side. Aurangzeb, therefore, ordered immediate repairs to the buildings at his own expense while recommending to the emperor that more elaborate repairs be carried out later. This is the proof that during Shahjahan's reign itself that the Taj complex was so old as to need immediate repairs. 21. The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur retains in his secret personal KapadDwara collection two orders from Shahjahan dated Dec 18, 1633 (bearing modern nos. R.176 and 177) requestioning the Taj building complex. That was so blatant a usurpation that the then ruler of Jaipur was ashamed to make the document public. 22. The Rajasthan State archives at Bikaner preserve three other firmans addressed by Shahjahan to the Jaipur's ruler Jaisingh ordering the latter to supply marble (for Mumtaz's grave and koranic grafts) from his Makranna quarris, and stone cutters. Jaisingh was apparently so enraged at the blatant seizure of the Tajmahal that he refused to oblige Shahjahan by providing marble for grafting koranic engravings and fake centotaphs for further desecration of the Tajmahal. Jaisingh looked at Shahjahan's demand for marble and stone cutters, as an insult added to injury. Therefore, he refused to send any marble and instead detained the stone cutters in his protective custody. 23. The three firmans demanding marble were sent to Jaisingh within about two years of Mumtaz's death. Had Shahjahan really built the Tajmahal over a period of 22 years, the marble would have needed only after 15 or 20 years not immediately after Mumtaz's death. 24. Moreover, the three mention neither the Tajmahal, nor Mumtaz, nor the burial. The cost and the quantity of the stone also are not mentioned. This proves that an insignificant quantity of marble was needed just for some supercial tinkering and tampering with the Tajmahal. Even otherwise Shahjahan could never hope to build a fabulous Tajmahal by abject dependence for marble on a non cooperative Jaisingh. European Visitor's Accounts 25. Tavernier, a French jeweller has recorded in his travel memoirs that Shahjahan purposely buried Mumtaz near the Taz-i-Makan (i.e.,`The Taj building') where foriegners used to come as they do even today so that the world may admire. He also adds that the cost of the scaffolding was more than that of the entire work. The work that Shahjahan commissioned in the Tejomahalaya Shiva temple was plundering at the costly fixtures inside it, uprooting the Shiva idols, planting the centotaphs in their place on two stories, inscribing the koran along the arches and walling up six of the seven stories of the Taj. It was this plunder, desecrating and plunderring of the rooms which took 22 years. 26. Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra recorded in 1632 (within only a year of Mumtaz's death) that `the places of note in and around Agra, included Taj-e-Mahal's tomb, gardens and bazaars'. He, therefore, confirms that that the Tajmahal had been a noteworthy building even before Shahjahan. 27. De Laet, a Dutch official has listed Mansingh's palace about a mile from Agra fort, as an outstanding building of pre shahjahan's time. Shahjahan's court chronicle, the Badshahnama records, Mumtaz's burial in the same Mansingh's palace. 28. Bernier, a contemporary French visitor has noted that non muslim's were barred entry into the basement (at the time when Shahjahan requisitioned Mansingh's palace) which contained a dazzling light. Obviously, he reffered to the silver doors, gold railing, the gem studded lattice and strings of pearl hanging over Shiva's idol. Shahjahan comandeered the building to grab all the wealth, making Mumtaz's death a convineant pretext. 29. Johan Albert Mandelslo, who describes life in agra in 1638 (only 7 years after mumtaz's death) in detail (in his Voyages and Travels to West-Indies, published by John Starkey and John Basset, London), makes no mention of the Tajmahal being under constuction though it is commonly erringly asserted or assumed that the Taj was being built from 1631 to 1653. Sanskrit Inscription 30. A Sanskrit inscription too supports the conclusion that the Taj originated as a Shiva temple. Wrongly termed as the Bateshwar inscription (currently preserved on the top floor of the Lucknow museum), it refers to the raising of a "crystal white Shiva temple so alluring that Lord Shiva once enshrined in it decided never to return to Mount Kailash his usual abode". That inscription dated 1155 A.D. was removed from the Tajmahal garden at Shahjahan's orders. Historicians and Archeaologists have blundered in terming the insription the Bateshwar inscription when the record doesn't say that it was found by Bateshwar. It ought, in fact, to be called The Tejomahalaya inscription because it was originally installed in the Taj garden before it was uprooted and cast away at Shahjahan's command. A clue to the tampering by Shahjahan is found on pages 216-217, vol. 4, of Archealogiical Survey of India Reports (published 1874) stating that a "great square black balistic pillar which, with the base and capital of another pillar....now in the grounds of Agra, ...it is well known, once stood in the garden of Tajmahal". Missing Elephants 31. Far from the building of the Taj, Shahjahan disfigured it with black koranic lettering and heavily robbed it of its Sanskrit inscription, several idols and two huge stone elephants extending their trunks in a welcome arch over the gateway where visitors these days buy entry tickets. An Englishman, Thomas Twinning, records (pg.191 of his book "Travels in India A Hundred Years ago") that in November 1794 "I arrived at the high walls which enclose the Taj-e-Mahal and its circumjacent buildings. I here got out of the palanquine and.....mounted a short flight of steps leading to a beautiful portal which formed the centre of this side of the Court Of Elephants as the great area was called." Koranic Patches 32. The Taj Mahal is scrawled over with 14 chapters of the Koran but nowhere is there even the slightest or the remotest allusion in that Islamic overwriting to Shahjahan's authorship of the Taj. Had Shahjahan been the builder he would have said so in so many words before beginning to quote Koran. 33. That Shahjahan, far from building the marble Taj, only disfigured it with black lettering is mentioned by the inscriber Amanat Khan Shirazi himself in an inscription on the building. A close scrutiny of the Koranic lettering reveals that they are grafts patched up with bits of variegated stone on an ancient Shiva temple. Carbon 14 Test 34. A wooden piece from the riverside doorway of the Taj subjected to the carbon 14 test by an American Laboratory and initiated by Professors at Pratt School of Architecture, New York, has revealed that the door to be 300 years older than Shahjahan,since the doors of the Taj, broken open by Muslim invaders repeatedly from the 11th century onwards, had to b replaced from time to time. The Taj edifice is much more older. It belongs to 1155 A.D, i.e., almost 500 years anterior to Shahjahan. Architectural Evidence 35. Well known Western authorities on architechture like E.B.Havell, Mrs.Kenoyer and Sir W.W.Hunterhave gone on record to say that the TajMahal is built in the Hindu temple style. Havell points out the ground plan of the ancient Hindu Chandi Seva Temple in Java is identical with that of the Taj. 36. A central dome with cupolas at its four corners is a universal feature of Hindu temples. 37. The four marble pillars at the plinth corners are of the Hindu style. They are used as lamp towers during night and watch towers during the day. Such towers serve to demarcate the holy precincts. Hindu wedding altars and the altar set up for God Satyanarayan worship have pillars raised at the four corners. 38. The octagonal shape of the Tajmahal has a special Hindu significance because Hindus alone have special names for the eight directions, and celestial guards assigned to them. The pinnacle points to the heaven while the foundation signifies to the nether world. Hindu forts, cities, palaces and temples genrally have an octagonal layout or some octagonal features so that together with the pinnacle and the foundation they cover all the ten directions in which the king or God holds sway, according to Hindu belief. 39. The Tajmahal has a trident pinncle over the dome. A full scale of the trident pinnacle is inlaid in the red stone courtyard to the east of the Taj. The central shaft of the trident depicts a Kalash (sacred pot) holding two bent mango leaves and a coconut. This is a sacred Hindu motif. Identical pinnacles have been seen over Hindu and Buddhist temples in the Himalayan region. Tridents are also depicted against a red lotus background at the apex of the stately marble arched entrances on all four sides of the Taj. People fondly but mistakenly believed all these centuries that the Taj pinnacle depicts a Islamic cresent and star was a lighting conductor installed by the British rulers in India. Contrarily, the pinnacle is a marvel of Hindu metallurgy since the pinnacle made of non rusting alloy, is also perhaps a lightning deflector. That the pinnacle of the replica is drawn in the eastern courtyard is significant because the east is of special importance to the Hindus, as the direction in which the sun rises. The pinnacle on the dome has the word `Allah' on it after capture. The pinnacle figure on the ground does not have the word Allah. Inconsistencies 40. The two buildings which face the marble Taj from the east and west are identical in design, size and shape and yet the eastern building is explained away by Islamic tradition, as a community hall while the western building is claimed to be a mosque. How could buildings meant for radically different purposes be identical? This proves that the western building was put to use as a mosque after seizure of the Taj property by Shahjahan. Curiously enough the building being explained away as a mosque has no minaret. They form a pair af reception pavilions of the Tejomahalaya temple palace. 41. A few yards away from the same flank is the Nakkar Khana alias DrumHouse which is a intolerable incongruity for Islam. The proximity of the Drum House indicates that the western annex was not originally a mosque. Contrarily a drum house is a neccesity in a Hindu temple or palace because Hindu chores,in the morning and evening, begin to the sweet strains of music. 42. The embossed patterns on the marble exterior of the centotaph chamber wall are foilage of the conch shell design and the Hindu letter OM. The octagonally laid marble lattices inside the centotaph chamber depict pink lotuses on their top railing. The Lotus, the conch and the OM are the sacred motifs associated with the Hindu deities and temples. 43. The spot occupied by Mumtaz's centotaph was formerly occupied by the Hindu Teja Linga a lithic representation of Lord Shiva. Around it are five perambulatory passages. Perambulation could be done around the marble lattice or through the spacious marble chambers surrounding the centotaph chamber, and in the open over the marble platform. It is also customary for the Hindus to have apertures along the perambulatory passage, overlooking the deity. Such apertures exist in the perambulatories in the Tajmahal. 44. The sanctom sanctorum in the Taj has silver doors and gold railings as Hindu temples have. It also had nets of pearl and gems stuffed in the marble lattices. It was the lure of this wealth which made Shahjahan commandeer the Taj from a helpless vassal Jaisingh, the then ruler of Jaipur. 45. Peter Mundy, a Englishman records (in 1632, within a year of Mumtaz's death) having seen a gem studded gold railing around her tomb. Had the Taj been under construction for 22 years, a costly gold railing would not have been noticed by Peter mundy within a year of Mumtaz's death. Such costl fixtures are installed in a building only after it is ready for use. This indicates that Mumtaz's centotaph was grafted in place of the Shivalinga in the centre of the gold railings. Subsequently the gold railings, silver doors, nets of pearls, gem fillings etc. were all carried away to Shahjahan's treasury. The seizure of the Taj thus constituted an act of highhanded Moghul robery causing a big row between Shahjahan and Jaisingh. 46. In the marble flooring around Mumtaz's centotaph may be seen tiny mosaic patches. Those patches indicate the spots where the support for the gold railings were embedded in the floor. They indicate a rectangular fencing. 47. Above Mumtaz's centotaph hangs a chain by which now hangs a lamp. Before capture by Shahjahan the chain used to hold a water pitcher from which water used to drip on the Shivalinga. 48. It is this earlier Hindu tradition in the Tajmahal which gave the Islamic myth of Shahjahan's love tear dropping on Mumtaz's tomb on the full moon day of the winter eve. Treasury Well 49. Between the so-called mosque and the drum house is a multistoried octagonal well with a flight of stairs reaching down to the water level. This is a traditional treasury well in Hindu temple palaces. Treasure chests used to be kept in the lower apartments while treasury personnel had their offices in the upper chambers. The circular stairs made it difficult for intruders to reach down to the treasury or to escape with it undetected or unpursued. In case the premises had to be surrendered to a besieging enemy the treasure could be pushed into the well to remain hidden from the conquerer and remain safe for salvaging if the place was reconquered. Such an elaborate multistoried well is superflous for a mere mausoleum. Such a grand, gigantic well is unneccesary for a tomb. Burial Date Unknown 50. Had Shahjahan really built the Taj Mahal as a wonder mausoleum, history would have recorded a specific date on which she was ceremoniously buried in the Taj Mahal. No such date is ever mentioned. This important missing detail decisively exposes the falsity of the Tajmahal legend. 51. Even the year of Mumtaz's death is unknown. It is variously speculated to be 1629, 1630, 1631 or 1632. Had she deserved a fabulous burial, as is claimed, the date of her death had not been a matter of much speculation. In an harem teeming with 5000 women it was difficult to keep track of dates of death. Apparently the date of Mumtaz's death was so insignificant an event, as not to merit any special notice. Who would then build a Taj for her burial? Baseless Love Stories 52. Stories of Shahjahan's exclusive infatuation for Mumtaz's are concoctions. They have no basis in history nor has any book ever written on their fancied love affairs. Those stories have been invented as an afterthought to make Shahjahan's authorship of the Taj look plausible. Cost 53. The cost of the Taj is nowhere recorded in Shahjahan's court papers because Shahjahan never built the Tajmahal. That is why wild estimates of the cost by gullible writers have ranged from 4 million to 91.7 million rupees. Period Of Construction 54. Likewise the period of construction has been guessed to be anywhere between 10 years and 22 years. There would have not been any scope for guesswork had the building construction been on record in the court papers. Architects 55. The designer of the Tajmahal is also variously mentioned as Essa Effendy, a Persian or Turk, or Ahmed Mehendis or a Frenchman, Austin deBordeaux, or Geronimo Veroneo, an Italian, or Shahjahan himself. Records Don't Exist 56. Twenty thousand labourers are supposed to have worked for 22 years during Shahjahan's reign in building the Tajmahal. Had this been true, there should have been available in Shahjahan's court papers design drawings, heaps of labour muster rolls, daily expenditure sheets, bills and receipts of material ordered, and commisioning orders. There is not even a scrap of paper of this kind. 57. It is, therefore, court flatterers, blundering historians, somnolent archeologists, fiction writers, senile poets, careless tourists officials and erring guides who are responsible for hustling the world into believing in Shahjahan's mythical authorship of the Taj. 58. Description of the gardens around the Taj of Shahjahan's time mention Ketaki, Jai, Jui, Champa, Maulashree, Harshringar and Bel. All these are plants whose flowers or leaves are used in the worship of Hindu deities. Bel leaves are exclusively used in Lord Shiva's worship. A graveyard is planted only with shady trees because the idea of using fruit and flower from plants in a cemetary is abhorrent to human conscience. The presence of Bel and other flower plants in the Taj garden is proof of its having been a Shiva temple before seizure by Shahjahan. 59. Hindu temples are often built on river banks and sea beaches. The Taj is one such built on the bank of the Yamuna river an ideal location for a Shiva temple. 60. Prophet Mohammad has ordained that the burial spot of a muslim should be inconspicous and must not be marked by even a single tombstone. In flagrant violation of this, the Tajamhal has one grave in the basement and another in the first floor chamber both ascribed to Mumtaz. Those two centotaphs were infact erected by Shahjahan to bury the two tier Shivalingas that were consecrated in the Taj. It is customary for Hindus to install two Shivalingas one over the other in two stories as may be seen in the Mahankaleshwar temple in Ujjain and the Somnath temple raised by Ahilyabai in Somnath Pattan. 61. The Tajmahal has identical entrance arches on all four sides. This is a typical Hindu building style known as Chaturmukhi, i.e.,four faced. The Hindu Dome 62. The Tajmahal has a reverberating dome. Such a dome is an absurdity for a tomb which must ensure peace and silence. Contrarily reverberating domes are a neccesity in Hindu temples because they create an ecstatic dinmultiplying and magnifying the sound of bells, drums and pipes accompanying the worship of Hindu deities. 63. The Tajmahal dome bears a lotus cap. Original Islamic domes have a bald top as is exemplified by the Pakistan Embassy in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, and the domes in the Pakistan's newly built capital Islamabad. 64. The Tajmahal entrance faces south. Had the Taj been an Islamic building it should have faced the west. Tomb is the Grave, not the Building 65. A widespread misunderstanding has resulted in mistaking the building for the grave.Invading Islam raised graves in captured buildings in every country it overran. Therefore, hereafter people must learn not to confound the building with the grave mounds which are grafts in conquered buildings. This is true of the Tajmahal too. One may therefore admit (for arguments sake) that Mumtaz lies buried inside the Taj. But that should not be construed to mean that the Taj was raised over Mumtaz's grave. 66. The Taj is a seven storied building. Prince Aurangzeb also mentions this in his letter to Shahjahan (Refer to the Figure 1 above). The marble edifice comprises four stories including the lone, tall circular hall inside the top, and the lone chamber in the basement. In between are two floors each containing 12 to 15 palatial rooms. Below the marble plinth reaching down to the river at the rear are two more stories in red stone. They may be seen from the river bank. The seventh storey must be below the ground (river) level since every ancient Hindu building had a subterranian storey. 67. Immediately bellow the marble plinth on the river flank are 22 rooms in red stone with their ventilators all walled up by Shahjahan. Those rooms, made uninhibitably by Shahjahan, are kept locked by Archealogy Department of India. The lay visitor is kept in the dark about them. Those 22 rooms still bear ancient Hindu paint on their walls and ceilings. On their side is a nearly 33 feet long corridor. There are two door frames one at either end ofthe corridor. But those doors are intriguingly sealed with brick and lime. 68. Apparently those doorways originally sealed by Shahjahan have been since unsealed and again walled up several times. In 1934 a resident of Delhi took a peep inside from an opening in the upper part of the doorway. To his dismay he saw huge hall inside. It contained many statues huddled around a central beheaded image of Lord Shiva. It could be that, in there, are Sanskrit inscriptions too. All the seven stories of the Tajmahal need to be unsealed and scoured to ascertain what evidence they may be hiding in the form of Hindu images, Sanskrit inscriptions, scriptures, coins and utensils. 69. Apart from Hindu images hidden in the sealed stories it is also learnt that Hindu images are also stored in the massive walls of the Taj. Between 1959 and 1962 when Mr. S.R. Rao was the Archealogical Superintendent in Agra, he happened to notice a deep and wide crack in the wall of the central octagonal chamber of the Taj. When a part of the wall was dismantled to study the crack out popped two or three marble images. The matter was hushed up and the images were reburied where they had been embedded at Shahjahan's behest. Confirmation of this has been obtained from several sources. It was only when I began my investigation into the antecedents of the Taj I came across the above information which had remained a forgotten secret. What better proof is needed of the Temple origin of the Tajmahal? Its walls and sealed chambers still hide in Hindu idols that were consecrated in it before Shahjahan's seizure of the Taj. Pre-Shahjahan References to the Taj 70. Apparently the Taj as a central palace seems to have an chequered history. The Taj was perhaps desecrated and looted by every Muslim invader from Mohammad Ghazni onwards but passing into Hindu hands off and on, the sanctity of the Taj as a Shiva temple continued to be revived after every muslim onslaught. Shahjahan was the last muslim to desecrate the Tajmahal alias Tejomahalay. 71. Vincent Smith records in his book titled `Akbar the Great Moghul' that `Babur's turbulent life came to an end in his garden palace in Agra in 1630'. That palace was none other than the Tajmahal. 72. Babur's daughter Gulbadan Begum in her chronicle titled Humayun Nama refers to the Taj as the Mystic House. 73. Babur himself refers to the Taj in his memoirs as the palace captured by Ibrahim Lodi containing a central octagonal chamber and having pillars on the four sides. All these historical references allude to the Taj 100 years before Shahjahan. 74. The Tajmahal precincts extend to several hundred yards in all directions. Across the river are ruins of the annexes of the Taj, the bathing ghats and a jetty for the ferry boat. In the Victoria gardens outside covered with creepers is the long spur of the ancient outer wall ending in a octagonal red stone tower. Such extensive grounds all magnificently done up, are a superfluity for a grave. 75. Had the Taj been specially built to bury Mumtaz, it should not have been cluttered with other graves. But the Taj premises contain several graves atleast in its eastern and southern pavilions. 76. In the southern flank, on the other side of the Tajganj gate are buried in identical pavilions queens Sarhandi Begum, and Fatehpuri Begum and a maid Satunnisa Khanum. Such parity burial can be justified only if the queens had been demoted or the maid promoted. But since Shahjahan had commandeered (not built) the Taj, he reduced it general to a muslim cemetary as was the habit of all his Islamic predeccssors, and buried a queen in a vacant pavillion and a maid in another idenitcal pavilion. 77. Shahjahan was married to several other women before and after Mumtaz. She, therefore, deserved no special consideration in having a wonder mausoleum built for her. 78. Mumtaz was a commoner by birth and so she did not qualify for a fairyland burial. 79. Mumtaz died in Burhanpur which is about 600 miles from Agra. Her grave there is intact. Therefore, the centotaphs raised in stories of the Taj in her name seem to be fakes hiding in Hindu Shiva emblems. 80. Shahjahan seems to have simulated Mumtaz's burial in Agra to find a pretext to surround the temple palace with his fierce and fanatic troops and remove all the costly fixtures in his treasury. This finds confirmation in the vague noting in the Badshahnama which says that the Mumtaz's (exhumed) body was brought to Agra from Burhanpur and buried `next year'. An official term would not use a nebulous term unless it is to hide some thing. 81. A pertinent consideration is that a Shahjahan who did not build any palaces for Mumtaz while she was alive, would not build a fabulous mausoleum for a corpse which was no longer kicking or clicking. 82. Another factor is that Mumtaz died within two or three years of Shahjahan becoming an emperor. Could he amass so much superflous wealth in that short span as to squander it on a wonder mausoleum? 83. While Shahjahan's special attachment to Mumtaz is nowhere recorded in history his amorous affairs with many other ladies from maids to mannequins including his own daughter Jahanara, find special attention in accounts of Shahjahan's reign. Would Shahjahan shower his hard earned wealth on Mumtaz's corpse? 84. Shahjahan was a stingy, usurious monarch. He came to throne murdering all his rivals. He was not therefore, the doting spendthrift that he is made out to be. 85. A Shahjahan disconsolate on Mumtaz's death is suddenly credited with a resolve to build the Taj. This is a psychological incongruity. Grief is a disabling, incapacitating emotion. 86. A infatuated Shahjahan is supposed to have raised the Taj over the dead Mumtaz, but carnal, physical sexual love is again a incapacitating emotion. A womaniser is ipso facto incapable of any constructive activity. When carnal love becomes uncontrollable the person either murders somebody or commits suicide. He cannot raise a Tajmahal. A building like the Taj invariably originates in an ennobling emotion like devotion to God, to one's mother and mother country or power and glory. 87. Early in the year 1973, chance digging in the garden in front of the Taj revealed another set of fountains about six feet below the present fountains. This proved two things. Firstly, the subterranean fountains were there before Shahjahan laid the surface fountains. And secondly that those fountains are aligned to the Taj that edifice too is of pre Shahjahan origin. Apparently the garden and its fountains had sunk from annual monsoon flooding and lack of maintenance for centuries during the Islamic rule. 88. The stately rooms on the upper floor of the Tajmahal have been striped of their marble mosaic by Shahjahan to obtain matching marble for raising fake tomb stones inside the Taj premises at several places. Contrasting with the rich finished marble ground floor rooms the striping of the marble mosaic covering the lower half of the walls and flooring of the upper storey have given those rooms a naked, robbed look. Since no visitors are allowed entry to the upper storey this despoilation by Shahjahan has remained a well guarded secret. There is no reason why Shahjahan's loot of the upper floor marble should continue to be hidden from the public even after 200 years of termination of Moghul rule. 89. Bernier, the French traveller has recorded that no non muslim was allowed entry into the secret nether chambers of the Taj because there are some dazzling fixtures there. Had those been installed by Shahjahan they should have been shown the public as a matter of pride. But since it was commandeered Hindu wealth which Shahjahan wanted to remove to his treasury, he didn't want the public to know about it. 90. The approach to Taj is dotted with hillocks raised with earth dugout from foundation trenches. The hillocks served as outer defences of the Taj building complex. Raising such hillocks from foundation earth, is a common Hindu device of hoary origin. Nearby Bharatpur provides a graphic parallel. Peter Mundy has recorded that Shahjahan employed thousands of labourers to level some of those hillocks. This is a graphic proof of the Tajmahal existing before Shahjahan. 91. At the backside of the river bank is a Hindu crematorium, several palaces, Shiva temples and bathings of ancient origin. Had Shahjahan built the Tajmahal, he would have destroyed the Hindu features. 92. The story that Shahjahan wanted to build a Black marble Taj across the river, is another motivated myth. The ruins dotting the other side of the river are those of Hindu structures demolished during muslim invasions and not the plinth of another Tajmahal. Shahjahan who did not even build the white Tajmahal would hardly ever think of building a black marble Taj. He was so miserly that he forced labourers to work gratis even in the superficial tampering neccesary to make a Hindu temple serve as a Muslim tomb. 93. The marble that Shahjahan used for grafting Koranic lettering in the Taj is of a pale white shade while the rest of the Taj is built of a marble with rich yellow tint. This disparity is proof of the Koranic extracts being a superimposition. 94. Though imaginative attempts have been made by some historians to foist some fictitious name on history as the designer of the Taj others more imaginative have credited Shajahan himself with superb architechtural proficiency and artistic talent which could easily concieve and plan the Taj even in acute bereavment. Such people betray gross ignorance of history in as much as Shajahan was a cruel tyrant ,a great womaniser and a drug and drink addict. 95. Fanciful accounts about Shahjahan commisioning the Taj are all confused. Some asserted that Shahjahan ordered building drawing from all over the world and chose one from among them. Others assert that a man at hand was ordered to design a mausoleum amd his design was approved. Had any of those versions been true Shahjahan's court papers should have had thousands of drawings concerning the Taj. But there is not even a single drawing. This is yet another clinching proof that Shahjahan did not commision the Taj. 96. The Tajmahal is surrounded by huge mansions which indicate that several battles have been waged around the Taj several times. 97. At the south east corner of the Taj is an ancient royal cattle house. Cows attached to the Tejomahalay temple used to reared there. A cowshed is an incongruity in an Islamic tomb. 98. Over the western flank of the Taj are several stately red stone annexes. These are superflous for a mausoleum. 99. The entire Taj complex comprises of 400 to 500 rooms. Residential accomodation on such a stupendous scale is unthinkable in a mausoleum. 100. The neighbouring Tajganj township's massive protective wall also encloses the Tajmahal temple palace complex. This is a clear indication that the Tejomahalay temple palace was part and parcel of the township. A street of that township leads straight into the Tajmahal. The Tajganj gate is aligned in a perfect straight line to the octagonal red stone garden gate and the stately entrance arch of the Tajmahal. The Tajganj gate besides being central to the Taj temple complex, is also put on a pedestal. The western gate by which the visitors enter the Taj complex is a camparatively minor gateway. It has become the entry gate for most visitors today because the railway station and the bus station are on that side. 101. The Tajmahal has pleasure pavillions which a tomb would never have. 102. A tiny mirror glass in a gallery of the Red Fort in Agra reflects the Taj mahal. Shahjahan is said to have spent his last eight years of life as a prisoner in that gallery peering at the reflected Tajmahal and sighing in the name of Mumtaz. This myth is a blend of many falsehoods. Firstly, old Shajahan was held prisoner by his son Aurangzeb in the basement storey in the Fort and not in an open, fashionable upper storey. Secondly, the glass piece was fixed in the 1930's by Insha Allah Khan, a peon of the archaelogy dept.just to illustrate to the visitors how in ancient times the entire apartment used to scintillate with tiny mirror pieces reflecting the Tejomahalay temple a thousand fold. Thirdly, a old decrepit Shahjahan with pain in his joints and cataract in his eyes, would not spend his day craning his neck at an awkward angle to peer into a tiny glass piece with bedimmed eyesight when he could as well his face around and have full, direct view of the Tjamahal itself. But the general public is so gullible as to gulp all such prattle of wily, unscrupulous guides. 103. That the Tajmahal dome has hundreds of iron rings sticking out of its exterior is a feature rarely noticed. These are made to hold Hindu earthen oil lamps for temple illumination. 104. Those putting implicit faith in Shahjahan authorship of the Taj have been imagining Shahjahan-Mumtaz to be a soft hearted romantic pair like Romeo and Juliet. But contemporary accounts speak of Shahjahan as a hard hearted ruler who was constantly egged on to acts of tyranny and cruelty, by Mumtaz. 105. School and College history carry the myth that Shahjahan reign was a golden period in which there was peace and plenty and that Shahjahan commisioned many buildings and patronized literature. This is pure fabrication. Shahjahan did not commision even a single building as we have illustrated by a detailed analysis of the Tajmahal legend. Shahjahn had to enrage in 48 military campaigns during a reign of nearly 30 years which proves that his was not a era of peace and plenty. 106. The interior of the dome rising over Mumtaz's centotaph has a representation of Sun and cobras drawn in gold. Hindu warriors trace their origin to the Sun. For an Islamic mausoleum the Sun is redundant. Cobras are always associated with Lord Shiva. Forged Documents 107. The muslim caretakers of the tomb in the Tajmahal used to possess a document which they styled as Tarikh-i-Tajmahal. Historian H.G. Keene has branded it as a document of doubtful authenticity. Keene was uncannily right since we have seen that Shahjahan not being the creator of the Tajmahal any document which credits Shahjahn with the Tajmahal, must be an outright forgery. Even that forged document is reported to have been smuggled out of Pakistan. Besides such forged documents there are whole chronicles on the Taj which are pure concoctions. 108. There is lot of sophistry and casuistry or atleast confused thinking associated with the Taj even in the minds of proffesional historians, archaelogists and architects. At the outset they assert that the Taj is entirely Muslim in design. But when it is pointed out that its lotus capped dome and the four corner pillars etc. are all entirely Hindu those worthies shift ground and argue that that was probably because the workmen were Hindu and were to introduce their own patterns. Both these arguments are wrong because Muslim accounts claim the designers to be Muslim, and the workers invariably carry out the employer's dictates. The Taj is only 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. It is hoped that people the world over who study Indian history will awaken to this new finding and revise their erstwhile beliefs. |
