The Taj Mahal: perception and reality

At regular intervals one comes across many news groups heated discussions about the Taj Mahal: Who had it built? When? What purpose was it intended to serve? The name of P. N. Oak, an amateur historian fro India, often surfaces in these debates. Back in 1965 Mr Oak put forward a theory that the Taj Mahal was not a mausoleum built by Shahjahan but a Rajput Palace. In 1968 he found supporting evidence to that effect in Shahjahan's official chronicle called the Badshahnama and in 1974 he came across a letter by Aurangzeb in 1652 (the year when Taj Mahal is supposed to have been just completed) complaining that the roof of the Taj Mahal was leaking.

In 1978 Oak revised his research findings and argued that the Taj Mahal was really a temple built in honour of Shiva and was therefore known as Tejomahalaya. Mr V. S. Godbole, an engineer working for the British Rail in UK and also a researcher in Indian history read Oak’s works and found them thought provoking. Over the next two years Godbole went through the relevant references provided by Oak and became convinced of some of Oak’s assertions. In 1981 Godbole’s research went deeper and he began to wonder, "Were the British scholars just a neutral third party who were either (1) misled by the prolonged misuse of Hindu buildings as Mosques and Tombs or (2) were not cunning enough to see through chauvinistic Muslim claims? Or (3) did they know the truth about Taj Mahal and other monuments all along but, for political reasons, hid the truth?”

By the end of 1981 Godbole had prepared an eighty page dossier on the subject placing his findings in a chronological order. He was surprised to find that there was indeed a British conspiracy of suppression of truth about Taj Mahal and other monuments over the last two hundred years. The main personalities involved either knew each other and/or referred to works of each other. With time new information came to light which confirmed Godbole’s findings. In his painstakingly done research now published as a book “Taj Mahal: The Great British Conspiracy,” Godbole makes the following points (admirably summarized in B. Shantanu’s Blog Hindu Dharma News Letter # 5):

(1) Architect: On the question of who planned the Taj Mahal, there is very little agreement amongst various writers and travellers. Even the origin of the person (whether he was Farsi, Indian, Italian) is disputed. The name that comes up most frequently though is that of Ustad Isa: For Godbole, it certainly is a fabrication because there is no mention of him prior to the 19th century.

(2) Time Taken and People Involved: Almost all the accounts quote Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, one of the first European visitors to the Taj Mahal, who says that the building took 20,000 people and was twenty-two years in the making. This account differs considerably from Father Manrique’s (a Portuguese preacher) who was in India during the same time. He only noticed one thousand people working there. Although Manrique’s testimony is not completely reliable either, the difference in numbers is too stark to ignore One way of resolving the contradiction would be to say that twenty-two years were taken and 20,000 people were employed to build the original Taj; not by Shah Jahan but by Raja Mansingh or someone else. Manrique saw one thousand people engaged in the "embellishment" and other suitable changes that were ordered by Shah Jahan to (i) formally complete the acquisition of the property and (ii) to change the character of the building by including Islamic motifs and style (inscribing verses from the Qu’aran on it).

(3) Badshahnama: There are scant references to this official chronicle of Shah Jahan’s reign in most accounts by historians or Indologists. It makes no mention of any grand building newly constructed by Shah Jahan during his reign. One important passage in Badshahnama is ignored by the mainstream scholars and historians presumably because they are unable to verify the authenticity of the actual document itself. The passage in question clearly states that Shah Jahan acquired Raja Mansingh’s "manzil" (not "zamin" i.e. plot or tract of land as quoted by some scholars).

(4) Architecture: The architecture of the building, when examined in detail and without bias, clearly reveals a number of features that are unmistakably "Hindu."

(5) Unexplained structures and underground chambers: Other than long corridors and rooms at several levels (actually, there are seven of them!), the Taj complex includes moorings for pleasure boats (what purpose could they conceivably have in a mausoleum?). Several photographs, drawings and reports about the Taj are either still classified or are untraceable. No one quite knows when was the last time (or indeed at all that the monument was "surveyed" by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI).

(6) Missing documents: No extant blueprints or scale models of the building have been found to date. There is no mention about these at all except for a "legend" of a wooden model that was supposedly built.

(7) Missing credits: The only signature on the tomb is that of the calligrapher who presumably inscribed the verses from the Qu’aran. Was he the only person of note or the only important contributor to the structure? How is it that there is no mention of the designer, the architect, or indeed even of Shah Jahan? Is that realistic if a building of such grandeur was constructed from the scratch?

Continued silence by the ASI and the Government of India does not inspire confidence. The Government is obviously more interested in keeping the status quo for the sake of "communal harmony" and for the sake of continued tourist interest (which might possibly wane if it turned out that the Taj was actually not a monument to true love but a building usurped by force).
Most academics and scholars are fearful of a Muslim backlash if the building that has been proudly trumpeted as representing the best of Islamic art turns out to be Hindu. They are also fearful that a long history of lies and forceful occupation (far removed from the romance and mystery that has come to be associated with it) will be exposed. They are willing to sacrifice historical truth and academic integrity in order to maintain "communal harmony."

All those who are interested in learning more about the history behind the Taj Mahal controversy need to read through the relevant chapters in Mr Godbole’s book which available from Institute for Oriental Study, Shivashakti, Thane (W), Maharashtra, India 400 602.

Mr Oak is a trained lawyer and some of his arguments are worth investigating. I have known and met him on many occasions over the last forty years to discuss matters of historical interest. By dismissing him as a crackpot or fanatic, scholars do great disservice to historical research. I also met Mr V. S. Godbole in London a few years ago. If a good scholar like him is able to pick up many worthwhile points from Oak's works, I am sure others can too.

Shrinivas Tilak