Tuesday, September 05, 2006

True Story About TajMahal

No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes
> >the
> >whole world has been duped. In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak
> >says the Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu
> >temple palace
> >of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya). In the course of his
> >research
> >Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan
> >from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle,
> >Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand
> >mansion in Agra was taken from Jai SIngh for Mumtaz's burial . The
> >ex-Maharaja of
> >Jaipur still retains in his secret collection two orders from Shah
> >Jahan for
> >surrendering the Taj building. Using captured temples and mansions, as
> >a burial place for dead courtiers and royalty was a common practice
> >among Muslim rulers.
> >
> >For example, Humayun,Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all
> >buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the name of Taj
> >Mahal. He
> >says the term "Mahal" has never been used for a building in any Muslim
> >countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. "The unusual explanation that
> >the term
> >Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in atleast two
> >respects.
> >
> >Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani, " he
> >writes. Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a
> >woman's
> >name to derive the remainder as the name for the building."Taj Mahal,
> >he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva's
> >Palace .
> >Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale
> >created by court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy
> >archaeologists . Not
> >a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates the love
> >story.
> >
> >Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal
> >predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated to Shiva,
> >worshipped by
> >Rajputs of Agra city. For example, 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. European
> >traveler
> >Johan Albert Mandelslo,who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after
> >Mumtaz's death), describes the life of the cit y in his memoirs. But he
> >makes no
> >reference to the Taj Mahal being built. The writings of Peter Mundy, an
> >English visitor to Agra within a year of Mumtaz's death, also suggest
> >the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan's time.
> >
> >Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural
> >inconsistencies
> >that support the belief of the Taj Mahal being a typical Hindu temple
> >rather
> >than a mausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj ! Mahal have remained sealed
> >since Shah Jahan's time and are still inaccessible to the public. Oak
> >asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects
> >commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples . Fearing political
> >backlash, Indira Gandhi's government tried to have Prof. Oak's book
> >withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of
> >the first edition dire consequences . There is only one way to
> >discredit or
> >validate Oak's research.
> >
> >The current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal
> >under U.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate.
> >
> >Do circulate this to all you know and let them know about this
> >reality.....
> >

No comments: