From: c4sg@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca
Subject: The Taj Mahal is a Hindu Temple - Part 2 of 6.
Keywords:  Taj Mahal, Hindu, temple
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 17:12:00 GMT


************* THE TAJ MAHAL IS A HINDU TEMPLE **************

                     By Shri P. N. Oak.
                        (Copyright)
============================================================

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  archaeology 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 bun-
gling. Firstly, the plaque sites no authority for its claim.
Secondly  the lady's name was Mumtaz-ul- Zamani and not Mum-
tazmahal. Thirdly, the period of 22 years is taken from some
mumbo-jumbo  noting  by  an unreliable French visitor Taver-
nier, to the exclusion of all muslim versions, which  is  an
absurdity.

20.  Prince  Aurangzeb's  letter   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 recommend-
ing 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
`Kapad-  Dwara'  collection  two orders from Shahjahan dated
Dec 18, 1633 (bearing modern nos. R.176 and 177) requestion-
ing  the Taj building complex. That was so blatant a usurpa-
tion 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
Jaising ordering the latter to supply marble  (for  Mumtaz's
grave  and  Koranic  grafts) from his Makranna quarries, 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  engrav-
ings  and  fake  cenotaphs  for  further desecration of  the
Tajmahal. Jaising 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 insignifi-
cant quantity of marble was needed just for some superficial
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 foreigners  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 commis-
sioned in the Tejomahalaya Shiva temple  was  plundering  at
the  costly  fixtures  inside it, uprooting the Shiva idols,
planting the  cenotaphs  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, desecrat-
ing and plundering 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,  gar-
dens  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 refferred to the
silver doors, gold railing,  the  gem  studded  lattice  and
strings of pearl hanging over Shiva's idol. Shahjahan coman-
deered the building to grab all the wealth, making  Mumtaz's
death a convenient 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  construction  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 "cry-
stal 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. His-
torians and  Archaeologists have  blundered in  terming  the
inscription  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 Archaeological 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".

====================== End of Part 2 =======================