Posted by girish on October 13, 2001 at 01:11:11:In Reply to: Fact about Taj Mahal - India posted by Rashi on July 23, 2001 at 23:16:09:
P.N.Oak is a fanatic who dupes gullible people with specious arguments.
In the case of the Taj Mahal:
It is true that there is no mention of the 'Taj Mahal' in the Badshahnama. But there is ample mention of the grand Rauza - e - Mumtaz Mahal. This was shortened to Taj Mahal in colloquial speech. About Mumtaz's name, it was actually Arjumand Bano Begum, but she was referred to as Mumtaz Mahal, and there are many such references to her in Mughal records.Many of the names we use for our great monuments are similarly colloquial: the Konark temple, the Ajanta Caves etc.
Raja Jai Singh was one of the pillars of the Mughal establishment, one of Shah Jahan's most trusted leiutenants. How likely is it that Shah Jahan, who had the whole of North India as his fief, would snatch a valued temple of Raja Jai Singh and offend the Rajput by converting this temple into a Muslim mausoleum with mosque attached?
When P.N.Oak first began to write about the Taj Mahal in the 1960s, he claimed that it was a Rajput palace; a few decades later he began claiming that it was a Shiva temple. The fact is that the Taj Mahal looks nothing like a Rajput Palace or a Hindu temple, and looks exactly like what it is: the pinnacle of Muslim architecture in India.
There are many travellers' accounts contemporary to the building of the Taj Mahal, including that of the travellers Tavernier and Bernier, the first of whom witnessed the construction of the edifice.
The GROUNDS for the Taj Mahal were acquired from Raja Jai Singh for the purposes of building the Taj, but there was no building on them. In keeping with the Timurid tradition of never having royal tombs on usurped or conquered land, Jai Singh was compensated with three mansions in return for the grounds on which the Taj was built. In fact, Jai Singh's palace, very close to the grounds which were used for the Taj, became historically noteworthy when Shivaji was incarcerated there and later made a daring escape. Would Jai Singh have two palaces side by side, or is it more likely that the grounds of his mansion were taken over for building a memorial to the dead empress of India?
The Taj Mahal stands in an impeccable line of Mughal tomb and mosque contruction: the mausoleum of Humayun, with its octagonal base, is one of the inspirations behind the Taj; the mausoleum of Itmad ud Daulah at Agra, built in marble with a lot of decorative inlay work, is another. The Moti Masjid mosque, also built in Agra by Shah Jahan immediately after the construction of the Taj was completed, continues this tradition.
It is true that the Taj Mahal contains many Hindu motifs, but this only points to the liberal nature of the Mughals before Aurangzeb. In Akbar's time Hindu motifs actually predominated in some Mughla constructions. So we should not be surprised to find a kalash or Hindu floral motifs in the Taj Mahal.
Carbon dating will only reveal how old the wood in a door is, not how long ago the door was carved. In other words, if a 300 year old tree was felled to carve the Taj door, it would register as a 600 year old piece of wood today. Besides, some of the original features of the Taj have been reconstructed after the damage caused by Jats in the 18th century. A new door may conceivably have been placed there, I will need to check the facts on this.
The basic point of Oak and his fellow fanatics is that Hindus produced all that is beautiful and valuable in India, and Muslims were only despoilers and conquerors. It is a tragic fact that many temples were destroyed by invaders, particularly in North India. But to compensate for this loss by claiming as Hindu architecture which is clearly Muslim is irrational and counter-productive.
|
Search
ArchWeek
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|