From
A parched monument?
From Garden Level to Main Terrace 4 ft
Marble plinth 19 ft
We climb up 4 more steps 3 ft
2 more steps in the doorway
of Cenotaph Chamber 1 ft
------------------------------ --------------------
Total 27 ft (above garden level)
Now look at the so called Real Grave chamber. A visitor can't enter but still see the steps. They are
A parched monument?
That the great Indian monument, Taj Mahal is sinking should be a matter for concern. It is a matter of urgency that Hon'ble SC should be approached to have the structure evaluated by an inter-disciplinary team of experts and also to resolve the controversial conversations about the history of the monument by making an inventory of the artifacts in and archaeological account of the monument so as to rewrite the proper historical account of the monument.
Recently, Hon'ble SC directed the opening up of the vaults of Sri Padmanabhaswamy temple in Trivandrum for making an inventory. Same grounds exist for directing the Archaeological Survey of India to open up of the unopened rooms of the monument since ASI is responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the national monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
See: http://channel. nationalgeographic.com/ channel/access-360-world- heritage/videos/is-the-taj- mahal-sinking/ Is the Taj Mahal Sinking? (Video) October 8, 2012
Published on Mar 15, 2012
The Taj Mahal, built to stand as an eternal symbol of the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan's love for his wife Mumtaz Mahal, could slowly be sinking according to architects.
The building's foundations require a steady stream of moisture from the Yamuna River to retain its strength - but the river is slowly drying up.
The building's foundations require a steady stream of moisture from the Yamuna River to retain its strength - but the river is slowly drying up.
Dry Yamuna giving Taj Mahal that sinking feeling?
Manjari Mishra, TNN Apr 12, 2011, 02.22am IST
LUCKNOW: When Shah Jahan decided to build theTaj Mahal on
a wooden base on the banks of the Yamuna, he got everything right from design
to science. Except for one thing: he never factored in the Yamuna going dry.
In the Mughal era, wood was used to lay solid foundations.
And Shah Jahan did not stint on the ebony which props the Taj up. But even the
finest ebony in the world needs a steady stream of moisture to ensure it does
not expand or contract, posing a grave threat to the structure.
That is where, experts say, a dry Yamuna could play havoc
with the Taj's foundation, making a solid love story in marble wobbly at the
base. In the past decade or so, the 'perennial' river has been completely
drying up in the summer months in Agra, posing a potent threat to India's most
famous monument.
Fearing the worst, a Save Taj campaign has gathered momentum
in Agra with everyone from environmentalists, activists, politicians and
businessmen joining hands. Agra MP R S Katheria (BJP) went knocking at the door
of Rashtrapati Bhavan last month. On March 23, Katheria led a delegation to
President Pratibha Patil and pleaded for ''a decent water level in Yamuna''.
Quoting from a recent latest book by professor R Nath
(another Taj activist), Taj Mahal History and Architecture, he claimed that the
depleting water would eventually dry up the wood, make it shrink and crack, and
spell doom for the edifice.
The MP is now rooting for an independent agency to inspect
the boarded and barred basement of Taj Mahal. ''No one has been allowed to
enter the 16 underground chambers for more than three decades and we have only
ASI's word that all is well."
http://articles.timesofindia.
indiatimes.com/2011-04-12/ lucknow/29409491_1_shah-jahan- mughal-ebony
The issue regarding the history of Taj Mahal will not go
away, as noted in the recent BBC news report reported in the above-mentioned
URL.
I have put up the two articles under a title: History
of Indian Muslims (Ashok Joshi and VS Godbole) at http://bharatkalyan97.
blogspot.in/2012/03/history- of-indian-muslims-ashok-joshi. html This
includes:
If Indonesian muslims can proudly celebrate Ramakatha every
day, there is no reason why Indian Muslims cannot do the same. Their history
has to be retold removing the distortions introduced by motivated historians.
Agniveer's move of paraavartan has its own effect. If village after village
convert back to sanatana dharma, there will be a veritable social revolution
and hopefully, muslims can disown jihad legacy.
There are evidences that Taj was a temple. Someone
mentioned that the issue was put to Supreme Court and the SC rejected twice in
2000 and 2005. Now that SC had ordered the opening of the vaults of Sri
Padmanabhaswamy temple in Trivandrum, a case can be made out to approach the SC
again asking for opening up of Tan Mahal to settle the structural and
historical questions which are of profound importance in a correct
understanding the history of Indian civilization.
Let us make simple calculations, says Dr. Vasudev Godbole:
From Garden Level to Main Terrace 4 ft
Marble plinth 19 ft
We climb up 4 more steps 3 ft
2 more steps in the doorway
of Cenotaph Chamber 1 ft
------------------------------ --------------------
Total 27 ft (above garden level)
Now look at the so called Real Grave chamber. A visitor can't enter but still see the steps. They are
21 in number = 15.75 ft
So, the floor of Real Grave chamber is 27 - 15.75 = 11.25 ft
above the garden level.
In 1970-s when one of the vertical marble slabs got
loosened, the Archeology Dept. went ahead to repair the same. On removing the
slab, many Hindu temple idols and artifacts tumbled down and the embarrassed
officials went to Indira Gandhi and reported. She asked her to put them back in
their cavities and fix the slab as before and not to inform anyone.
Read Vasudev Godbole's publication: Taj Mahal :
Simple Analysis of a Great Deception. Why Rewrite Indian History (explains
attitude of Historians)
His work, Taj Mahal and the Great British Conspiracy -
covers all the information available on the subject for 200 years (1784 to
1984).
Taj Mahal and the Great British Conspiracy Parts I and
II:
*There is also a CD with PowerPoint presentations on the
subject.
See: http://www.facebook.com/
notes/hardik-bhammar/taj- mahal-the-mystery-unleashed/ 470597839659748 Taj
Mahal: The Mystery Unleashed by Hardik Bhammar (Notes)
on Sunday, November 18, 2012 at 2:30am
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/w
as_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_templ e.htm Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple?
The photographic evidence.
http://www.esamskriti.com/
essay-chapters/Taj-Mahal-a- Shiv-Temple-1.aspx Taj Mahal A Shiv
Temple By P N Oak, November 2001
The Question of the Taj Mahal
By P. S. Bhat and A. L. Athawale
(from the Itihas Patrika, Vol. 5, pp 98-111,
1985)
ABSTRACT
This paper deals with the Taj Mahal, the magnificent marble
edifice on the banks of the river Jamuna, in the southern part of Agra city. It
is generally believed by historians and laymen alike that the building was
erected as a mausoleum by the 5th generation Mogul Emperor Shah
Jahan in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal, and that the period of its
construction was 1631-53 AD.
The basis of these claims has been questioned by Shri P. N. Oak in his book "The Taj Mahal is a Temple Palace." The substance of Shri Oak's thesis is that the edifice was originally built as a temple in the 12th century AD, and was subsequently used as a palace by the alien aggressors. The building again fell into the hands of the Rajput kings during the period of Humayun, and was put to use as a palace by Raja Man Singh of Jaipur. And that it was finally commandeered by Shah Jahan from Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur, and was converted into a mausoleum.
The controversy assumes importance as it questions some of the basic premises of mediaeval Indian archeology. This paper attempts to place in perspective some of the pertinent questions that arise on the subject.
The basis of these claims has been questioned by Shri P. N. Oak in his book "The Taj Mahal is a Temple Palace." The substance of Shri Oak's thesis is that the edifice was originally built as a temple in the 12th century AD, and was subsequently used as a palace by the alien aggressors. The building again fell into the hands of the Rajput kings during the period of Humayun, and was put to use as a palace by Raja Man Singh of Jaipur. And that it was finally commandeered by Shah Jahan from Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur, and was converted into a mausoleum.
The controversy assumes importance as it questions some of the basic premises of mediaeval Indian archeology. This paper attempts to place in perspective some of the pertinent questions that arise on the subject.
I HISTORY
1. INTRODUCTION
The legend of the Taj Mahal tells us that it was built by Shah Jahan (1628-1658 AD), the fifth generation Mogul Emperor, as a mausoleum to his wife Mumtaz Mahal. And that 20,000 men worked incessantly for 22 years to complete the magnificent marble edifice.
Mumtaz died in 1631 AD, at Barhanpur where she was buried and a mausoleum was erected. Six months later her body was shifted to Agra to be buried in what is known as the Temporary Grave--which is demarcated and can be seen even today--a few meters to the southwest of the Taj Mahal. And subsequently her body was laid to rest inside the Taj Mahal.
The main supporting pieces of the above thesis are cited from the following documents, which will be discussed in detail in the course of this paper.
i) The Badshahnama1, an important court journal of Shah Jahan, written by Mulla Abdul Hamid Lahori.
ii) The firmans (court orders) of Shah Jahan to Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur2, pertaining to the acquisition of marble from the Makrana quarries in Rajasthan.
iii) Travelogue of Peter Mundy3, an employee of the East India Company, who visited Agra between 1631-1633 AD.
iiii) Travelogue of J. B. Tavernier4, a French merchant who visited India five times between 1638-1668 AD.
The Taj Mahal is a seven storeyed edifice with its plinth at the level of the riverbed. The courtyard in front of the building corresponds to the third storey of the edifice. The entire skeleton of the edifice is made of red stone, the top four floors being plastered with marble. It measures a height of 243 ½ ft (whereas the Qutb Minar of Delhi is only 238 ft). The marble platform (4th storey) on which the central edifice is standing has a floor area of 328 ft x 328 ft, and has four marble minarets at its corners. The marble superstructure covers an area of 187 ft x 187 ft with 33 ft chambers cut off at each corner. It has a huge central dome with an inner diameter of 58 ft and a wall thickness of 14 ft -- surrounded by four smaller copulas with a diameter of 26'8".
The central edifice is flanked with two identical red-stone buildings--the one on the western side is a mosque and the other a community hall--each having three domes. Facing the main building at the other end of the courtyard is the Main Gateway, which is a four-storeyed edifice covering a floor area of 140 ft x 110 ft. Midway between the Gateway and the marble edifice, there are two identical double-storeyed buildings, placed on either side of the courtyard known as the "Nagar Khanas" (Drum Houses). The courtyard covers a net area of 1460 ft x 100 ft.
Outside the Main Gateway is the Great courtyard, which covers an additional area of 430 ft x 1000 ft, having rows of redstone constructions, at present used as shops. Thus, the Taj Complex covers a net area of 1890 ft x 1000 ft, which is roughly equal to half the area of the Red Fort of Agra. The whole complex is perfectly symmetrical about the North-South axis, the two halves forming mirror images of each other to minutest details.
It must have been a challenging project both architecturally and financially, so much so that it made both Shah Jahan and his wife immortal. But it is surprising that in none of the hitherto known court papers of Shah Jahan--there are several of them--there is any record of the date of its commencement or of its completion, or the total period of its construction or the details of expenditure. (There is a brief remark in the Badshahnama that the expenditure incurred upon the building was Rs. 40 lakhs. And the present estimate of 20,000 workers and 22 years are based upon the writings of Tavernier, which shall be examined later.) Besides, several details of traditional Hindu symbolism can be located at various places in the Taj Complex. Therefore, it is a pertinent question whether Shah Jahan himself built the edifice, or he converted an existing building into a mausoleum.
2. Court Papers
Badshahnama, one of the most important court journals of Shah Jahan, deals with the burial of Mumtaz in two pages of its first volume (pp.403-404). A line by line translation of these pages was provided by Sri P. N. Oak5 in his book published in 1966. The following passages are quoted from that source.
(On) "Friday--15th Jamadi-ul Awwal, the sacred dead body of the traveller to the kingdom of Holiness, hazrat Mumtaz-ul Zamani--who was buried temporarily.... was brought to the capital Akbarabad (Agra)...
The site covered with magnificent lush garden, to the south of that great city and amidst which (garden) the building known as the palace of Raja Mansingh, at present owned by Raja Jaisingh (Pesh az ein Manzil-e Rajan Mansingh bood Wadaree Waqt ba Raja Jaisingh), grandson (of Mansingh) was selected for the burial of the queen whose abode is in heaven.
"Although Raja Jaisingh valued it greatly as his ancestral heritage and property, yet would have been agreeable to part with it gratis for the Emperor Shahjahan. (Still) out of sheer scrupulousness so essential in the matters of bereavement and religious sanctity, in exchange of that grand place, he was granted a piece of government land (Dar' awaz aan aali Manzil-e az khalisa-e sharifah badoo marahmat farmoodand) after the arrival of the dead body in that great city on 15th Jamadul Soniya.
"Next year that illustrious body of the heavenly queen was laid to rest. The officials of the capital, according to the royal orders of the day, under the sky-high lofty mausoleum hid the pious lady from the eyes of the world, and the edifice so majestic and with a dome, and so lofty in its stature, is a memorial to the courage of sky-dimensions of the king--and a strength so mighty in resolution so firm--the foundation was laid and geomatricians of farsight and architects of talent incurred an expenditure of Rs. 40 lakhs (chihal lakh roopiah) on this building."
Normally, the above quoted passages would need no further commentary. It is explicitly stated that the "palace of Raja Mansingh was selected for the burial of the queen". That it is no ordinary building is obvious as Raja Jaisingh "valued it greatly as his ancestral heritage and property". And piece of government land was given in exchange of that great palace (aali manzil). The transaction was clinched only after the arrival of the dead body in Agra (which explains the presence of the Temporary Grave). The body was finally buried in the "sky-high lofty mausoleum" the following year (probably soon after the palace was suitably modified). And the subsequent decorations and calligraphical work upon the building cost Rs. 40 lakhs.
What then is the basis of the claim that Shah Jahan built the edifice? In the last paragraph quoted above, there occurs a phrase, "...foundation was laid..." Some historians interpret it to mean that Shah Jahan laid the foundation of a new edifice--the Taj Mahal, and the support to this view is drawn from the Persian line quoted in the third paragraph dealing with the transaction. It is interpreted as a grand palace being granted to Raja Jai Singh in exchange of the land for building the mausoleum.
From the clear and explicit reference to Raja Man Singh's palace, and the absence of any details about the duration and efforts involved in building the gigantic edifice, the operative phrase, "foundation was laid" can also be viewed as a figurative reference to the initiation of alterations in the edifice. However, the controversy makes it necessary to examine the issue more carefully.
The confusion can be resolved only by examining all other evidences including the architecture of the edifice. The details of architecture--the bulbous dome and the minarets being Mogul characteristics, etc.--are examined in the second part of this paper; but it is relevant to examine one particular aspect of the architecture at this stage.
As mentioned earlier, the Taj Mahal is a multi-storeyed edifice with its plinth at the level of the riverbed. The entire skeleton of the edifice is of brick and red-stone, with the superstructure standing upon the red-stone terrace being plastered with marble. In Mogul tombs it is customary to have two graves: the real grave containing the dead body in the basement of the building, and a well decorated cenotaph meant for the public eye on the upper floor. In the Taj Mahal the real grave is on the third storey of the edifice and the decorated cenotaph is on the fourth.
The basement floor is now completely sealed; but the floor immediately below the real grave has long corridor running East-West on the northern part of the edifice, which can be entered at either end by means of staircases from the red-stone terrace. The corridor is 5'8" wide and about 322 ft long and opens into 22 rooms (between the corridor and the river side wall) of sizes ranging from 11 ft x 20 ft, to 22 ft x 20 ft. These rooms had windows opening to the riverside, but all of them are permanently sealed with brick and mortar from inside and with red-stone slabs having floral decorations from outside. On the other side of the corridor there are at least three entrances opening to the South, which are crudely sealed with brick and mortar. The staircases to the corridor from the floor above were detected in 1900 AD.
If the edifice was originally constructed for the purpose of a tomb, of what utility were these underground chambers conceived? And then why were they sealed subsequently? Or, was it that the edifice was originally constructed for an altogether different purpose?
Badshahnama (vol I, p. 384) records the date of Mumtaz's death at Barhanpur as the 17th Zi-it Quada 1040 AH (20th June, 1631). The passages quoted above mentions the date of arrival of the dead body at Agra as the 15th Jamad-ul Sanya 1041 AH (8th Jan., 1632). But the date of final burial of Mumtaz inside the Taj Mahal is not precisely recorded, except that it was done the following year.
That it was done certainly before the 25th February, 1633 becomes obvious from the writings of Peter Mundy (see Section 5), who finally left Agra on the date but has recorded that he had seen a rail of gold around the tomb of Mumtaz.
A completed mausoleum at Barhanpur indicates that the idea of a sepulcher in Agra must have occurred to Shah Jahan at least a few months after the death of Mumtaz. And the burial inside the Taj was complete with costly decorations and the tourists were allowed to visit by February, 1633. Even if one were to accept that the burial was done when the building was still under construction, it is unlikely that the cenotaph on the 4th storey would be decorated with gold, etc., unless the three lower floors of the edifice were complete.
How does it compare with the supposed period of construction of the Taj Mahal, 1631-53 AD? Is it plausible that beginning with the selection of the architects and building plan, the lower three floors of the edifice would be raised upon the riverbed within the span of a year?
Therefore, the translations quoted above regarding the acquisition of Raja Man Singh's palace seem to be the correct interpretation of the Badshahnama. However, there is another aspect of the question which needs to be examined. Could it be that the marble superstructure upon the red-stone terrace was erected by Shah Jahan himself?
3. Aurangzeb's Letter
In the year 1652 AD, Aurangzeb assumed charge as the Governor of Deccan. On his way, he visited Agra and inspected the Taj Mahal. In his letter written from Dholpur6, he wrote about the badly needed repairs to the Taj Mahal. Excerpts from the translation of the letter provided by M. S. Vats are quoted below:
"The dome of the holy tomb leaked in two places towards the north during the rainy season and so also the fair semi-domed arches, many of the galleries on the second storey, the four smaller domes, the four northern compartments and seven arched underground chambers which have developed cracks. During the rains last year the terrace over the main dome also leaked in two or three places. It has been repaired, but it remains to be seen during the ensuing rainy season how far the operations prove successful. The domes of the Mosque and the Jama'at Khana leaked during the rains...
"The master builders are of the opinion that if the roof of the second storey is reopened and dismantled and treated afresh with concrete, over which half a yard of mortar grout is laid the semi-domed arches, the galleries and the smaller domes will probably become watertight, but they are unable to suggest any measures of repairs to the main dome..."
The letter is eloquent enough. In 1652 AD, the dome of the holy tomb, the fair semi-domed arches, the four smaller domes and the domes of the Mosque and the Jama'at Khana all had developed serious defects. How does it compare with the supposed period of its construction 1631-53 AD?
And do the master builders of Shah Jahan who were "unable to suggest any measures of repairs to the main dome" appear to be the original architects of the edifice? Does it mean that the statement of Badshahnama, "Next year that illustrious body... was laid to rest... under the sky-high lofty mausoleum... with a dome" is literally true?
4. The Firmans
There are records of three firmans by Shah Jahan to Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur pertaining to the acquisition of marble2. These firmans are cited as a conclusive proof of the claim that it was Shah Jahan who built the Taj Mahal.
i) dated 9 Rajab, 1041 Hijra (Jan 21, 1632)
"As a great number of carts are required for transportation of marble needed for constructing building (at the capital), a firman was previously sent to you (to procure them). It is again desired of you, that as many carts on hire be arranged as possible in the earliest time, as has already been written to you, and be dispatched to Makrana for expediting the transport of marble to the capital. Every assistance be given to Allahood who has been deputed to arrange the transportation of marble to Akbarabad. Account (of expenditure on carts) along with the previous account of amount allocated for the purchase of marble be submitted (to the mutsaddi in charge of payment).
ii) dated 4 Rabi-ul-Awwal, 1043 Al Hijra (Sept. 9, 1632)
"Mulkshah has been deputed to Amber (Amer) to bring marble from the new mines (of Makrana). It is commended that carts on hire be arranged for transportation of marble and Mulkshah be assisted to purchase as much marble as he may desire to have. The purchase price of marble and cartage shall be paid by him from the treasury. Every other assistance be given to him to procure and bring marble and sculptors to the capital expeditiously."
iii) dated 7 Saffer, 1047 Al Hijra (June 21, 1637)
"We hear that your men detain the stone-cutters of the region at Amber and Rajnagar. This creates shortage of stone-cutters (miners) at Makrana and the work (of procuring marble) suffers. Hence it is desired of you that no stone-cutter be detained at Amber and Rajnagar and all of them who are available be sent to the mutsaddis of Makrana."
The firmans conclusively prove that Shah Jahan did acquire marble from the Makrana quarries. But does it also prove that he was the original builder of the Taj Mahal?
The marble walls of the cenotaph chamber, the border of the door arches and the top border of the entire edifice are replete with Koranic inscriptions which can be attributed only to Shah Jahan, even if he was not the builder of the edifice. It is said that fourteen chapters of Holy Koran are inscribed on the walls of the Taj Mahal. In addition, there is commendable amount of inlay-work and flower carving in the Taj Mahal. All these would require considerable amount of fresh marble.
The body of Mumtaz arrived at Agra and was buried in a temporary grave on the 8th of January, 1632. In the firman written barely a fortnight later, Shah Jahan refers to a previous letter and orders Jai Singh to arrange for the transportation of marble "in the earliest time". That is, the acquisition of marble had begun at about the same time when the body was shifted to Agra. As noted earlier, the lower two floors (and all the other buildings in the Taj Complex) are completely of brick and red stone. Even the skeleton of the marble superstructure is made of brick--for example, the Central dome has a wall thickness of 14 ft, of which only 6 inches on either side is of marble and the rest of 13 ft is of brick. Therefore, if the edifice were to be raised from the foundation onward--not to speak of the selection of architects and building plan, etc.--it is unlikely that the work involving marble would have begun so soon. (It is noteworthy that a completed mausoleum at Barhanpur indicates that the idea of a sepulcher in Agra must have occurred to Shah Jahan only a few months after the death of Mumtaz.) Therefore, it is only reasonable to attribute the acquisition of marble to the alterations in an already existing edifice--the palace of Raja Man Singh.
5. Peter Mundy
He was an employee of the East India Company, and visited Agra three times between 1631 and 1633. His last visit was between 22ndDec, 1632 and 25th Feb, 1633. He has noted in his Travelogue (pp. 208-213):
"Places of note (in and about Agra) are castle, King Akbar's tombe, Moholl's tombe, garden and bazare...
"The king is now building a sepulchre for his late deceased queen Taje Maholl... There is already about her tombe a rail of gold... the building is begun and goes on with excessive labor and cost, prosecuted with extraordinary diligence, gold and silver esteemed common metal and marble but ordinary stones..."
Mundy uses two phrases, "The king is now building a sepulchre..." and "The building is begun..." which can be understood as Shah Jahan was actually erecting an edifice.
But he also states that the Taj Mahal was already a centre of tourist attraction (in 1632-33 AD) comparable with Akbar's tomb and the fort. The cenotaph on the fourth storey was complete with a gold railing around it, and the tourists were allowed to visit the grave. "The building is begun", declares Peter Mundy, and the work in progress had much to do with "gold and silver... and marble". Was it the erection of the edifice or was it calligraphy and decorations?
6. J. B. Tavernier
Great importance is attached to Tavernier's (a French merchant) records about the Taj Mahal, as he was an impartial foreigner. His writings form the most important basis of the claim that Shah Jahan was the original builder of the Taj Mahal. He visited India five times between 1638-1668 AD. Excerpts from his Travelogue (Book I, pp. 110-111):
"I witnessed the commencement and accomplishment of the great work on which they expended 22 years during which 20,000 men worked incessantly...
"It is said that the scaffolding alone cost more than the entire work, because, for want of wood, they had all to be made of brick as well as the support of the arches."
Tavernier made his first appearance in Agra in the winter of 1640-41 AD (Dr. Ball's Introduction, p. xiv) nearly a decade after the death of Mumtaz and makes the claim that he was an eye-witness to the commencement of the Taj Mahal. In the light of the discussion so far, it is superfluous to comment upon this part of the claim. But was he a witness to the completion of the building?
The marble walls of the cenotaph chamber are full of Koranic inscriptions8, which ends with the name of the calligrapher and the dates "...written by the insignificant being Amanat Khan Shirazi in the year 1048 Hijri and the 12th year of His Majesty's reign." (i.e, 1639 AD)
That is, the calligraphical work was complete at least a year before Tavernier first visited Agra. Therefore, if at all he had seen any work going on in the building, it can only be the last stages of decorations, not to speak of the erection of the edifice.
He then makes the other important claim that 20,000 men worked incessantly for 22 years to complete the building. This statement seems to the be the basis of the claim that the building was constructed between 1631-53 AD, though, obviously, it does not tally with his claim about its commencement. Nor does the supposed date of completion (1653 AD) tally with Tavernier's claim of seeing it completed. It is true that he visited India during 1651-55; but he did not visit Agra during that trip. His route, according to V. Ball, was Masulipttam-Madras-Gandekot- Golconda-Surat-Ahmedabad- Surat-Ahmedabad-Golconda- Surat. It is probable, as noted earlier, that he had seen the decorative work completed in the Taj during his first visit to Agra in 1640-41 AD. However, the validity of his claim can be more conclusively examined by comparing it with the expenditure incurred upon the building (Rs. 40 lakhs) as claimed in the Badshahnama.
If the above amount is assumed to have been spent purely upon the labour charges to the exclusion of material costs, then the average salary of a worker comes out to be three-quarters of a rupee per month. Obviously, the lowest paid worker would be getting only a small fraction of this amount. Compare it with Tavernier's own account (Book I, p. 46) of contemporary labour charges "...you pay each attendant for everything only 4 rupees a month, but up to 5 rupees when the journey is long."
Surprisingly, he then goes on to quote a rumour, that the brick scaffolding alone had cost more than the entire work! Is this claim reliable? Can the cost of brick scaffolding be more than that of the marble edifice? If at all it is true, then the "entire work" can only mean the alterations in the building and not the erection of it.
That is, the claims of Tavernier regarding the commencement of the edifice, the duration of the work and the labour involved are unreliable; but the rumour he quoted appears to be closer to truth.
7. Other Records
(i) Havell9 quotes a Persian manuscript having the name of several chief craftsmen working in the Taj Mahal as drawing monthly salaries ranging from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1000/-. The name of the chief calligrapher (Amanat Khan Shirazi) listed in the manuscript is also inscribed inside the cenotaph chamber (Section 6). And, therefore, the manuscript seems to be authentic (Table 1).
It lists the names of a chief architect (Ustad Isa), a dome expert (Ismail Khan Rumi), two pinnacle experts, four calligraphers, four inlay workers, five flower carvers, six master masons, etc. The net salary of 20 of these craftsmen exceeds Rs. one lakh per year. It further weakens the claim of Tavernier, since it reduces the average salary of the rest of 20,000 workers to less than half the amount calculated above.
It is also noteworthy that the chief architect (Ustad Isa), the chief mason (Muhammad Hanief) and the chief calligrapher (Amanat Khan Shirazi)--each was drawing the highest salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. If the chief architect were the one who conceived and designed the Taj Mahal, it is unlikely that he would be treated at par with the chief mason and the calligrapher. Note also the fact that among the names listed, the architect and the dome expert are vastly outnumbered by the masons, calligraphers, flower-carvers and inlay workers.
(ii) Fray Sebastion Manrique10, a Portugese traveller who also visited Agra at about the same time (winter of 1640-41) as Tavernier did. Excerpts from his Travelogue:
"On this building as well as other works, 1000 men were usually engaged as overseers, officials and workmen; of these many were occupied in laying out ingenious gardens, others planting shady groves and ornamental avenues; while the rest were making roads and those receptacles for the crystal water, without which their labour could not be carried out.
"The architect of these works was a Venetian, by the name Geronimo Veroneo, who had come to this part in a Portugese ship and died in the city of Lahore just before I reached it... Fame, the swift conveyor of good and evil news, had spread the story that the Emperor summoned him and informed him that he desired to erect a great and sumptuous tomb to his dead wife, and he was required to draw up some design for this, for the Emperor's inspection... The architect Veroneo carried out this order... He (Shah Jahan) told Veroneo to spend 3 crores of rupees, that is 300 lakhs, and to inform him it was expended."
Manrique quotes a prevalent story about the architect Veroneo (who died before the arrival of Manrique) and the expenditure of Rs. 3 crores. But this seems to be a boneless legend, since it is enormously at variance with the Persian manuscript (which records the name of Ustad Isa as the chief architect) and the official account of expenditure (Rs. 40 lakhs) as recorded in the Badshahnama.
But Manrique seems to be an eye-witness for the work inside the Taj Complex, since he is very specific about the nature of the work in the gardens. He does not say anything about the work upon the edifice, which also tallies well with the inscription inside the cenotaph chamber that the calligraphical work was complete by 1639 AD.
He mentions the number of workers to be around 1,000. This is significantly different from the claim of Tavernier; but it tallies well with the expenditure upon the building, as stated in the Badshahnama. If it is assumed that a thousand workers worked in the Taj Complex for a decade since 1632 AD, making allowance for the salaries of the chief craftsmen mentioned in the Persian manuscript, the average salary of the rest of 1000 workers comes out to be Rs. 25/- per month. Compared with the contemporary labour charges, this claim appears to be more reasonable than that of Tavernier. (The actual number of workers would certainly be fluctuating and their average number over the decade could be substantially lower than what Manrique had seen in 1641.)
The legend of the Taj Mahal tells us that it was built by Shah Jahan (1628-1658 AD), the fifth generation Mogul Emperor, as a mausoleum to his wife Mumtaz Mahal. And that 20,000 men worked incessantly for 22 years to complete the magnificent marble edifice.
Mumtaz died in 1631 AD, at Barhanpur where she was buried and a mausoleum was erected. Six months later her body was shifted to Agra to be buried in what is known as the Temporary Grave--which is demarcated and can be seen even today--a few meters to the southwest of the Taj Mahal. And subsequently her body was laid to rest inside the Taj Mahal.
The main supporting pieces of the above thesis are cited from the following documents, which will be discussed in detail in the course of this paper.
i) The Badshahnama1, an important court journal of Shah Jahan, written by Mulla Abdul Hamid Lahori.
ii) The firmans (court orders) of Shah Jahan to Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur2, pertaining to the acquisition of marble from the Makrana quarries in Rajasthan.
iii) Travelogue of Peter Mundy3, an employee of the East India Company, who visited Agra between 1631-1633 AD.
iiii) Travelogue of J. B. Tavernier4, a French merchant who visited India five times between 1638-1668 AD.
The Taj Mahal is a seven storeyed edifice with its plinth at the level of the riverbed. The courtyard in front of the building corresponds to the third storey of the edifice. The entire skeleton of the edifice is made of red stone, the top four floors being plastered with marble. It measures a height of 243 ½ ft (whereas the Qutb Minar of Delhi is only 238 ft). The marble platform (4th storey) on which the central edifice is standing has a floor area of 328 ft x 328 ft, and has four marble minarets at its corners. The marble superstructure covers an area of 187 ft x 187 ft with 33 ft chambers cut off at each corner. It has a huge central dome with an inner diameter of 58 ft and a wall thickness of 14 ft -- surrounded by four smaller copulas with a diameter of 26'8".
The central edifice is flanked with two identical red-stone buildings--the one on the western side is a mosque and the other a community hall--each having three domes. Facing the main building at the other end of the courtyard is the Main Gateway, which is a four-storeyed edifice covering a floor area of 140 ft x 110 ft. Midway between the Gateway and the marble edifice, there are two identical double-storeyed buildings, placed on either side of the courtyard known as the "Nagar Khanas" (Drum Houses). The courtyard covers a net area of 1460 ft x 100 ft.
Outside the Main Gateway is the Great courtyard, which covers an additional area of 430 ft x 1000 ft, having rows of redstone constructions, at present used as shops. Thus, the Taj Complex covers a net area of 1890 ft x 1000 ft, which is roughly equal to half the area of the Red Fort of Agra. The whole complex is perfectly symmetrical about the North-South axis, the two halves forming mirror images of each other to minutest details.
It must have been a challenging project both architecturally and financially, so much so that it made both Shah Jahan and his wife immortal. But it is surprising that in none of the hitherto known court papers of Shah Jahan--there are several of them--there is any record of the date of its commencement or of its completion, or the total period of its construction or the details of expenditure. (There is a brief remark in the Badshahnama that the expenditure incurred upon the building was Rs. 40 lakhs. And the present estimate of 20,000 workers and 22 years are based upon the writings of Tavernier, which shall be examined later.) Besides, several details of traditional Hindu symbolism can be located at various places in the Taj Complex. Therefore, it is a pertinent question whether Shah Jahan himself built the edifice, or he converted an existing building into a mausoleum.
2. Court Papers
Badshahnama, one of the most important court journals of Shah Jahan, deals with the burial of Mumtaz in two pages of its first volume (pp.403-404). A line by line translation of these pages was provided by Sri P. N. Oak5 in his book published in 1966. The following passages are quoted from that source.
(On) "Friday--15th Jamadi-ul Awwal, the sacred dead body of the traveller to the kingdom of Holiness, hazrat Mumtaz-ul Zamani--who was buried temporarily.... was brought to the capital Akbarabad (Agra)...
The site covered with magnificent lush garden, to the south of that great city and amidst which (garden) the building known as the palace of Raja Mansingh, at present owned by Raja Jaisingh (Pesh az ein Manzil-e Rajan Mansingh bood Wadaree Waqt ba Raja Jaisingh), grandson (of Mansingh) was selected for the burial of the queen whose abode is in heaven.
"Although Raja Jaisingh valued it greatly as his ancestral heritage and property, yet would have been agreeable to part with it gratis for the Emperor Shahjahan. (Still) out of sheer scrupulousness so essential in the matters of bereavement and religious sanctity, in exchange of that grand place, he was granted a piece of government land (Dar' awaz aan aali Manzil-e az khalisa-e sharifah badoo marahmat farmoodand) after the arrival of the dead body in that great city on 15th Jamadul Soniya.
"Next year that illustrious body of the heavenly queen was laid to rest. The officials of the capital, according to the royal orders of the day, under the sky-high lofty mausoleum hid the pious lady from the eyes of the world, and the edifice so majestic and with a dome, and so lofty in its stature, is a memorial to the courage of sky-dimensions of the king--and a strength so mighty in resolution so firm--the foundation was laid and geomatricians of farsight and architects of talent incurred an expenditure of Rs. 40 lakhs (chihal lakh roopiah) on this building."
Normally, the above quoted passages would need no further commentary. It is explicitly stated that the "palace of Raja Mansingh was selected for the burial of the queen". That it is no ordinary building is obvious as Raja Jaisingh "valued it greatly as his ancestral heritage and property". And piece of government land was given in exchange of that great palace (aali manzil). The transaction was clinched only after the arrival of the dead body in Agra (which explains the presence of the Temporary Grave). The body was finally buried in the "sky-high lofty mausoleum" the following year (probably soon after the palace was suitably modified). And the subsequent decorations and calligraphical work upon the building cost Rs. 40 lakhs.
What then is the basis of the claim that Shah Jahan built the edifice? In the last paragraph quoted above, there occurs a phrase, "...foundation was laid..." Some historians interpret it to mean that Shah Jahan laid the foundation of a new edifice--the Taj Mahal, and the support to this view is drawn from the Persian line quoted in the third paragraph dealing with the transaction. It is interpreted as a grand palace being granted to Raja Jai Singh in exchange of the land for building the mausoleum.
From the clear and explicit reference to Raja Man Singh's palace, and the absence of any details about the duration and efforts involved in building the gigantic edifice, the operative phrase, "foundation was laid" can also be viewed as a figurative reference to the initiation of alterations in the edifice. However, the controversy makes it necessary to examine the issue more carefully.
The confusion can be resolved only by examining all other evidences including the architecture of the edifice. The details of architecture--the bulbous dome and the minarets being Mogul characteristics, etc.--are examined in the second part of this paper; but it is relevant to examine one particular aspect of the architecture at this stage.
As mentioned earlier, the Taj Mahal is a multi-storeyed edifice with its plinth at the level of the riverbed. The entire skeleton of the edifice is of brick and red-stone, with the superstructure standing upon the red-stone terrace being plastered with marble. In Mogul tombs it is customary to have two graves: the real grave containing the dead body in the basement of the building, and a well decorated cenotaph meant for the public eye on the upper floor. In the Taj Mahal the real grave is on the third storey of the edifice and the decorated cenotaph is on the fourth.
The basement floor is now completely sealed; but the floor immediately below the real grave has long corridor running East-West on the northern part of the edifice, which can be entered at either end by means of staircases from the red-stone terrace. The corridor is 5'8" wide and about 322 ft long and opens into 22 rooms (between the corridor and the river side wall) of sizes ranging from 11 ft x 20 ft, to 22 ft x 20 ft. These rooms had windows opening to the riverside, but all of them are permanently sealed with brick and mortar from inside and with red-stone slabs having floral decorations from outside. On the other side of the corridor there are at least three entrances opening to the South, which are crudely sealed with brick and mortar. The staircases to the corridor from the floor above were detected in 1900 AD.
If the edifice was originally constructed for the purpose of a tomb, of what utility were these underground chambers conceived? And then why were they sealed subsequently? Or, was it that the edifice was originally constructed for an altogether different purpose?
Badshahnama (vol I, p. 384) records the date of Mumtaz's death at Barhanpur as the 17th Zi-it Quada 1040 AH (20th June, 1631). The passages quoted above mentions the date of arrival of the dead body at Agra as the 15th Jamad-ul Sanya 1041 AH (8th Jan., 1632). But the date of final burial of Mumtaz inside the Taj Mahal is not precisely recorded, except that it was done the following year.
That it was done certainly before the 25th February, 1633 becomes obvious from the writings of Peter Mundy (see Section 5), who finally left Agra on the date but has recorded that he had seen a rail of gold around the tomb of Mumtaz.
A completed mausoleum at Barhanpur indicates that the idea of a sepulcher in Agra must have occurred to Shah Jahan at least a few months after the death of Mumtaz. And the burial inside the Taj was complete with costly decorations and the tourists were allowed to visit by February, 1633. Even if one were to accept that the burial was done when the building was still under construction, it is unlikely that the cenotaph on the 4th storey would be decorated with gold, etc., unless the three lower floors of the edifice were complete.
How does it compare with the supposed period of construction of the Taj Mahal, 1631-53 AD? Is it plausible that beginning with the selection of the architects and building plan, the lower three floors of the edifice would be raised upon the riverbed within the span of a year?
Therefore, the translations quoted above regarding the acquisition of Raja Man Singh's palace seem to be the correct interpretation of the Badshahnama. However, there is another aspect of the question which needs to be examined. Could it be that the marble superstructure upon the red-stone terrace was erected by Shah Jahan himself?
3. Aurangzeb's Letter
In the year 1652 AD, Aurangzeb assumed charge as the Governor of Deccan. On his way, he visited Agra and inspected the Taj Mahal. In his letter written from Dholpur6, he wrote about the badly needed repairs to the Taj Mahal. Excerpts from the translation of the letter provided by M. S. Vats are quoted below:
"The dome of the holy tomb leaked in two places towards the north during the rainy season and so also the fair semi-domed arches, many of the galleries on the second storey, the four smaller domes, the four northern compartments and seven arched underground chambers which have developed cracks. During the rains last year the terrace over the main dome also leaked in two or three places. It has been repaired, but it remains to be seen during the ensuing rainy season how far the operations prove successful. The domes of the Mosque and the Jama'at Khana leaked during the rains...
"The master builders are of the opinion that if the roof of the second storey is reopened and dismantled and treated afresh with concrete, over which half a yard of mortar grout is laid the semi-domed arches, the galleries and the smaller domes will probably become watertight, but they are unable to suggest any measures of repairs to the main dome..."
The letter is eloquent enough. In 1652 AD, the dome of the holy tomb, the fair semi-domed arches, the four smaller domes and the domes of the Mosque and the Jama'at Khana all had developed serious defects. How does it compare with the supposed period of its construction 1631-53 AD?
And do the master builders of Shah Jahan who were "unable to suggest any measures of repairs to the main dome" appear to be the original architects of the edifice? Does it mean that the statement of Badshahnama, "Next year that illustrious body... was laid to rest... under the sky-high lofty mausoleum... with a dome" is literally true?
4. The Firmans
There are records of three firmans by Shah Jahan to Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur pertaining to the acquisition of marble2. These firmans are cited as a conclusive proof of the claim that it was Shah Jahan who built the Taj Mahal.
i) dated 9 Rajab, 1041 Hijra (Jan 21, 1632)
"As a great number of carts are required for transportation of marble needed for constructing building (at the capital), a firman was previously sent to you (to procure them). It is again desired of you, that as many carts on hire be arranged as possible in the earliest time, as has already been written to you, and be dispatched to Makrana for expediting the transport of marble to the capital. Every assistance be given to Allahood who has been deputed to arrange the transportation of marble to Akbarabad. Account (of expenditure on carts) along with the previous account of amount allocated for the purchase of marble be submitted (to the mutsaddi in charge of payment).
ii) dated 4 Rabi-ul-Awwal, 1043 Al Hijra (Sept. 9, 1632)
"Mulkshah has been deputed to Amber (Amer) to bring marble from the new mines (of Makrana). It is commended that carts on hire be arranged for transportation of marble and Mulkshah be assisted to purchase as much marble as he may desire to have. The purchase price of marble and cartage shall be paid by him from the treasury. Every other assistance be given to him to procure and bring marble and sculptors to the capital expeditiously."
iii) dated 7 Saffer, 1047 Al Hijra (June 21, 1637)
"We hear that your men detain the stone-cutters of the region at Amber and Rajnagar. This creates shortage of stone-cutters (miners) at Makrana and the work (of procuring marble) suffers. Hence it is desired of you that no stone-cutter be detained at Amber and Rajnagar and all of them who are available be sent to the mutsaddis of Makrana."
The firmans conclusively prove that Shah Jahan did acquire marble from the Makrana quarries. But does it also prove that he was the original builder of the Taj Mahal?
The marble walls of the cenotaph chamber, the border of the door arches and the top border of the entire edifice are replete with Koranic inscriptions which can be attributed only to Shah Jahan, even if he was not the builder of the edifice. It is said that fourteen chapters of Holy Koran are inscribed on the walls of the Taj Mahal. In addition, there is commendable amount of inlay-work and flower carving in the Taj Mahal. All these would require considerable amount of fresh marble.
The body of Mumtaz arrived at Agra and was buried in a temporary grave on the 8th of January, 1632. In the firman written barely a fortnight later, Shah Jahan refers to a previous letter and orders Jai Singh to arrange for the transportation of marble "in the earliest time". That is, the acquisition of marble had begun at about the same time when the body was shifted to Agra. As noted earlier, the lower two floors (and all the other buildings in the Taj Complex) are completely of brick and red stone. Even the skeleton of the marble superstructure is made of brick--for example, the Central dome has a wall thickness of 14 ft, of which only 6 inches on either side is of marble and the rest of 13 ft is of brick. Therefore, if the edifice were to be raised from the foundation onward--not to speak of the selection of architects and building plan, etc.--it is unlikely that the work involving marble would have begun so soon. (It is noteworthy that a completed mausoleum at Barhanpur indicates that the idea of a sepulcher in Agra must have occurred to Shah Jahan only a few months after the death of Mumtaz.) Therefore, it is only reasonable to attribute the acquisition of marble to the alterations in an already existing edifice--the palace of Raja Man Singh.
5. Peter Mundy
He was an employee of the East India Company, and visited Agra three times between 1631 and 1633. His last visit was between 22ndDec, 1632 and 25th Feb, 1633. He has noted in his Travelogue (pp. 208-213):
"Places of note (in and about Agra) are castle, King Akbar's tombe, Moholl's tombe, garden and bazare...
"The king is now building a sepulchre for his late deceased queen Taje Maholl... There is already about her tombe a rail of gold... the building is begun and goes on with excessive labor and cost, prosecuted with extraordinary diligence, gold and silver esteemed common metal and marble but ordinary stones..."
Mundy uses two phrases, "The king is now building a sepulchre..." and "The building is begun..." which can be understood as Shah Jahan was actually erecting an edifice.
But he also states that the Taj Mahal was already a centre of tourist attraction (in 1632-33 AD) comparable with Akbar's tomb and the fort. The cenotaph on the fourth storey was complete with a gold railing around it, and the tourists were allowed to visit the grave. "The building is begun", declares Peter Mundy, and the work in progress had much to do with "gold and silver... and marble". Was it the erection of the edifice or was it calligraphy and decorations?
6. J. B. Tavernier
Great importance is attached to Tavernier's (a French merchant) records about the Taj Mahal, as he was an impartial foreigner. His writings form the most important basis of the claim that Shah Jahan was the original builder of the Taj Mahal. He visited India five times between 1638-1668 AD. Excerpts from his Travelogue (Book I, pp. 110-111):
"I witnessed the commencement and accomplishment of the great work on which they expended 22 years during which 20,000 men worked incessantly...
"It is said that the scaffolding alone cost more than the entire work, because, for want of wood, they had all to be made of brick as well as the support of the arches."
Tavernier made his first appearance in Agra in the winter of 1640-41 AD (Dr. Ball's Introduction, p. xiv) nearly a decade after the death of Mumtaz and makes the claim that he was an eye-witness to the commencement of the Taj Mahal. In the light of the discussion so far, it is superfluous to comment upon this part of the claim. But was he a witness to the completion of the building?
The marble walls of the cenotaph chamber are full of Koranic inscriptions8, which ends with the name of the calligrapher and the dates "...written by the insignificant being Amanat Khan Shirazi in the year 1048 Hijri and the 12th year of His Majesty's reign." (i.e, 1639 AD)
That is, the calligraphical work was complete at least a year before Tavernier first visited Agra. Therefore, if at all he had seen any work going on in the building, it can only be the last stages of decorations, not to speak of the erection of the edifice.
He then makes the other important claim that 20,000 men worked incessantly for 22 years to complete the building. This statement seems to the be the basis of the claim that the building was constructed between 1631-53 AD, though, obviously, it does not tally with his claim about its commencement. Nor does the supposed date of completion (1653 AD) tally with Tavernier's claim of seeing it completed. It is true that he visited India during 1651-55; but he did not visit Agra during that trip. His route, according to V. Ball, was Masulipttam-Madras-Gandekot- Golconda-Surat-Ahmedabad- Surat-Ahmedabad-Golconda- Surat. It is probable, as noted earlier, that he had seen the decorative work completed in the Taj during his first visit to Agra in 1640-41 AD. However, the validity of his claim can be more conclusively examined by comparing it with the expenditure incurred upon the building (Rs. 40 lakhs) as claimed in the Badshahnama.
If the above amount is assumed to have been spent purely upon the labour charges to the exclusion of material costs, then the average salary of a worker comes out to be three-quarters of a rupee per month. Obviously, the lowest paid worker would be getting only a small fraction of this amount. Compare it with Tavernier's own account (Book I, p. 46) of contemporary labour charges "...you pay each attendant for everything only 4 rupees a month, but up to 5 rupees when the journey is long."
Surprisingly, he then goes on to quote a rumour, that the brick scaffolding alone had cost more than the entire work! Is this claim reliable? Can the cost of brick scaffolding be more than that of the marble edifice? If at all it is true, then the "entire work" can only mean the alterations in the building and not the erection of it.
That is, the claims of Tavernier regarding the commencement of the edifice, the duration of the work and the labour involved are unreliable; but the rumour he quoted appears to be closer to truth.
7. Other Records
(i) Havell9 quotes a Persian manuscript having the name of several chief craftsmen working in the Taj Mahal as drawing monthly salaries ranging from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1000/-. The name of the chief calligrapher (Amanat Khan Shirazi) listed in the manuscript is also inscribed inside the cenotaph chamber (Section 6). And, therefore, the manuscript seems to be authentic (Table 1).
It lists the names of a chief architect (Ustad Isa), a dome expert (Ismail Khan Rumi), two pinnacle experts, four calligraphers, four inlay workers, five flower carvers, six master masons, etc. The net salary of 20 of these craftsmen exceeds Rs. one lakh per year. It further weakens the claim of Tavernier, since it reduces the average salary of the rest of 20,000 workers to less than half the amount calculated above.
It is also noteworthy that the chief architect (Ustad Isa), the chief mason (Muhammad Hanief) and the chief calligrapher (Amanat Khan Shirazi)--each was drawing the highest salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. If the chief architect were the one who conceived and designed the Taj Mahal, it is unlikely that he would be treated at par with the chief mason and the calligrapher. Note also the fact that among the names listed, the architect and the dome expert are vastly outnumbered by the masons, calligraphers, flower-carvers and inlay workers.
(ii) Fray Sebastion Manrique10, a Portugese traveller who also visited Agra at about the same time (winter of 1640-41) as Tavernier did. Excerpts from his Travelogue:
"On this building as well as other works, 1000 men were usually engaged as overseers, officials and workmen; of these many were occupied in laying out ingenious gardens, others planting shady groves and ornamental avenues; while the rest were making roads and those receptacles for the crystal water, without which their labour could not be carried out.
"The architect of these works was a Venetian, by the name Geronimo Veroneo, who had come to this part in a Portugese ship and died in the city of Lahore just before I reached it... Fame, the swift conveyor of good and evil news, had spread the story that the Emperor summoned him and informed him that he desired to erect a great and sumptuous tomb to his dead wife, and he was required to draw up some design for this, for the Emperor's inspection... The architect Veroneo carried out this order... He (Shah Jahan) told Veroneo to spend 3 crores of rupees, that is 300 lakhs, and to inform him it was expended."
Manrique quotes a prevalent story about the architect Veroneo (who died before the arrival of Manrique) and the expenditure of Rs. 3 crores. But this seems to be a boneless legend, since it is enormously at variance with the Persian manuscript (which records the name of Ustad Isa as the chief architect) and the official account of expenditure (Rs. 40 lakhs) as recorded in the Badshahnama.
But Manrique seems to be an eye-witness for the work inside the Taj Complex, since he is very specific about the nature of the work in the gardens. He does not say anything about the work upon the edifice, which also tallies well with the inscription inside the cenotaph chamber that the calligraphical work was complete by 1639 AD.
He mentions the number of workers to be around 1,000. This is significantly different from the claim of Tavernier; but it tallies well with the expenditure upon the building, as stated in the Badshahnama. If it is assumed that a thousand workers worked in the Taj Complex for a decade since 1632 AD, making allowance for the salaries of the chief craftsmen mentioned in the Persian manuscript, the average salary of the rest of 1000 workers comes out to be Rs. 25/- per month. Compared with the contemporary labour charges, this claim appears to be more reasonable than that of Tavernier. (The actual number of workers would certainly be fluctuating and their average number over the decade could be substantially lower than what Manrique had seen in 1641.)
TABLE - 1
Taj Mahal - Details of Monthly Salaries
(From a Persian Manuscript placed in the National Library,
Calcutta, as quoted by E. B. Havell, pp. 31-33)
|
1. Ustad Isa (Agra/Shiraz)
|
Chief Architect
|
Rs. 1,000
|
|
2. Ismail Khan Rumi (Rum)
|
Dome Expert
|
Rs. 500
|
|
3. Muhammad Sharif (Samarkhan)
|
Pinnacle Expert
|
Rs. 500
|
|
4. Kasim Khan (Lahore)
|
Pinnacle Experts
|
Rs. 295
|
|
5. Muhammad Hanief (Khandahar)
|
Master Mason
|
Rs. 1,000
|
|
6. Muhammad Sayyid (Multan)
|
Master Mason
|
Rs. 590
|
|
7. Abu Torah (Multan)
|
Master Mason
|
Rs. 500
|
|
8. - - - (Delhi)
|
Master Mason
|
Rs. 400
|
|
9. - - - (Delhi)
|
Master Mason
|
Rs. 375
|
|
10. - - - (Delhi)
|
Master Mason
|
Rs. 375
|
|
11. Amanat Khan Shirazi (Shiraz)
|
Calligrapher
|
Rs. 1,000
|
|
12. Qadar Zaman
|
Calligrapher
|
Rs. 800
|
|
13. Muhammad Khan (Bagdad)
|
Calligrapher
|
Rs. 500
|
|
14. Raushan Khan (Syria)
|
Calligrapher
|
Rs. 300
|
|
15. Chiranji Lal (Kanauj)
|
Inlay Worker
|
Rs. 800
|
|
16. Chhoti Lal (Kanauj)
|
Inlay Worker
|
Rs. 380
|
|
17. Mannu Lal (Kanauj)
|
Inlay Worker
|
Rs. 200
|
|
18. Manuhar Singh (Kanauj)
|
Inlay Worker
|
Rs. 200
|
|
19. Ata Muhammad (Bokhara)
|
Flower Carver
|
Rs. 500
|
|
20. Shaker Muhammad (Bokhara)
|
Flower Carver
|
Rs. 400
|
|
21. Banuhar
|
Flower Carver
|
- - -
|
|
22. Shah Mal
|
Flower Carver
|
- - -
|
|
23. Zorawar
|
Flower Carver
|
- - -
|
|
24. Pira (Delhi)
|
Carpenter
|
- - -
|
|
25. Ram Lal Kashmiri (Kashmir)
|
Garden Expert
|
- - -
|
8. Age of the Taj Mahal
Modern techniques of archaeometry are used to determine the
approximate age of historical buildings with reasonable accuracy. Marvin Mills11 of
New York reports about the Carbon-14 dating of the Taj Mahal: "Another
item of evidence concerning the alleged date of the Taj is adduced from a
radiocarbon date from a piece of wood from a door on the north facade of the
Jumuna River's bank. The sample was tested by Dr. Even Williams, director of
the Brooklyn College Radiocarbon Laboratory. The date came to 1359 AD with a
spread of 89 years on either side and 67% probability, Masca corrected."
That is, it can be said with 67% certainty that the
particular door was made during the period 1270-1448 AD. However, the
radio-carbon dating of a single door is not a conclusive evidence about the age
of the building for two reasons; the sample itself might be contaminated. And
that there is a possibility of the door being a subsequent replacement of the
original one in the ancient edifice. Therefore, to arrive at a conclusion, more
such samples need to be examined.
To sum up: The statement of Badshahnama about the
acquisition of Raja Man Singh's palace for the burial of the queen is clear and
explicit. The numerous underground chambers and Aurangzeb's exhaustive list of
defects in all the three major buildings, including all the five domes of the
marble edifice give the distinct impression that the edifice was already
ancient and was built for an altogether different purpose. The statement of
Peter Mundy that the cenotaph (which is on the fourth storey of the edifice)
was complete with costly decorations in 1632-33 AD, and that the Taj Mahal was
already a centre of tourist attraction, only support the above claim. The radio
carbon test result, though not conclusive about the date, makes the above
conclusion more emphatic.
The work upon the building might have started in 1632 AD and
must have lasted as the inscription inside the cenotaph chamber indicates--for
nearly a decade. The records of Tavernier regarding the date of commencement,
total duration of work and labour involved are not reliable.
The firmans, if viewed in isolation, can mean that Shah
Jahan was actually erecting the marble superstructure. But in the light of
other evidences, the acquisition of marble could only be for the purpose of
alterations in the edifice. The Persian manuscript listing the names of several
craftsmen and their salaries, and the rumour quoted by Tavernier, further support
this thesis.
It may be relevant to discuss another pertinent point at
this stage. Usually the court historians do not spare an opportunity to indulge
in needless hyperboles to enhance the glory of their paymasters. But in the
1600 pages of Badshahnama, only two pages deal with the burial of Mumtaz and
only one paragraph can be construed as dealing with the construction of the Taj
Mahal. If Shah Jahan were to undertake so challenging a project like the Taj
Mahal, does it not merit greater attention in the Badshahnama than the single
paragraph quoted above? And that the date of Mumtaz's burial more than a casual
reference?
II - ARCHITECTURE
The discussion upon the historical evidences raises many
pertinent questions regarding the architecture of the building. Does the
edifice look like a palace or like a Mogul tomb? Is not the dome--the bulbous
dome--a characteristic of Mogul architecture? Do the minarets and the single
pointed arch not have religious significance in Islamic architecture? The discussion
upon the Taj Mahal cannot be complete unless one finds satisfactory answers to
the above questions.
Many historians (Havell, Batley, Kenoyer, Hunter, etc.),
from time to time, have pointed out that the architecture of the Taj Mahal is
not in the traditions of Saracenic style but resembles that of a Hindu temple.
But this view has largely gone unnoticed primarily because it runs against the
grain of some of the accepted premises of Indo-Saracenic architecture.
The single pointed door arch had great religious
significance in Saracenic architecture as it represents the one and the only
God of Islam. Such arches are commonly seen in the Islamic architecture of
Bagdad and surrounding places, and hence it is generally believed that the
single pointed arch and the arcuate style (as against the trabeate style) of
constructing it are exclusive innovations or Saracenic architecture. And that
it arrived at India as a resultant contribution of Afghan invasion at the close
of the 12th century.
It is also generally believed that the bulbous dome seen in
the Taj Mahal, migrated to India from Samarkhand, subsequent to the
establishment of Mogul dynasty by Babur in the 16th century.
There are significant differences between the Arab domes seen in Bagdad and Egypt
and the dome of Taj Mahal, the bulbous dome of Samarkhand forming the link
between the two. Since the arcuate style of constructing the arches and domes
is believed to be exclusively of Saracenic origin, it is also believed that the
bulbous dome originated outside India.
These premises were originally propounded by the well-known
British historian James Fergusson12 who conducted the pioneer
work in the field of Indian archaeology for nearly five decades from around
1835 AD. His assumptions--widely accepted today--preclude the question of the
Taj Mahal being a Hindu construction. However, the historical evidences
discussed so far, call for a thorough examination of the architecture of the
edifice, notwithstanding the assumptions.
9. The Arch And The Dome
It is not necessary here to go into the debate whether the
single pointed arch (and the arcuate style of constructing it) was exclusively
of Saracenic origin. Even if it were so, it was well assimilated into the Hindu
architecture by the middle of the 14th century. In the latter
half of the 14th century the rulers of Vijayanagara (1346-1563
AD) in South India employed the single pointed arch in their construction.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that it was used in the Hindu
architecture of North India several decades earlier. This tallies well with the
approximate period of construction of the Taj Mahal, as suggested by the
radio-carbon dating (i.e. 1359 AD).
However, the assumption that the bulbous dome originated in
Samarkhand requires a closer examination. The initiation and development of
medieval architecture of Samarkhand is attributed to Timurlung (1394-1404 AD),
the 6th generation predecessor of Emperor Babur. He invaded
India in 1398 AD and after sacking Delhi and surrounding cities, carried off a
large number of architects and other craftsman as captive labour to build his
capital Samarkhand. A passage from his autobiography (Malfuzat-i-Timuri) would
be illustrative:
"I ordered that all the artisans and clever mechanics
who were masters of their respective crafts should be picked out from among the
prisoners and set aside, and accordingly some thousands of craftsmen were
selected to await my command. All these I distributed among the princes and
amirs who were present, or who were engaged officially in other parts of my
dominions. I had determined to build a Masjid-i-Jami in Samarkhand, the seat of
my empire, which should be without a rival in my country; so I ordered that all
builders and stone masons should be set apart for my own especial
service."13
It is important to note that the approximate period of
construction of the Taj Mahal is around 1359 AD, whereas Timurlung invaded
India in 1398 AD. Could it be that the bulbous dome was prevalent in India
during that period and migrated to Samarkhand through the captive architects?
There are several important points which need to be
considered in favour of the above conjecture:
(i) Similar buildings of the same period: There are several
(more than a hundred) Jaina temples in the sacred mounts of Sonagarh
(Bundelkhand) and Muktagiri (Berar) which contain the bulbous domes as well as
the single pointed arches. Fergusson (p.62) attributes these temples to the 16th and
17th centuries, but it is important to note his uncertainty
about their true antiquity: "So far as can be made out most of these
temples date from 16th and 17th centuries, though
a few of them may be older. Their original foundation may be earlier, but
of that we know nothing, no one having yet enlightened us on the subject, nor
explained how and when this hill became a sacred mount.
In fact, Fergusson here uses his own assumption (about the
origin of the bulbous dome) as the touchstone to determine the period of the
superstructure though he could not reconcile their foundations to the same
period.
(ii) The Lotus Canopy: various kinds of domes were used in
the ancient temples of Mount Abu, Girnar, Udayapur, Mylass, Carla, etc., some
of them as old as the 4th century AD. All types of domes in
these temples are topped with an inverted lotus flower, its stem forming the
pinnacle of the building. The bulbous domes of Sonagarh and Muktagiri also
contain the lotus canopy. And every single dome in the Taj Campus contains a
similar lotus canopy. Havell (pp.23-26) traces the constituent elements of the
Taj dome to the Hindu Shilpa Shastra, and the lotus canopy to the 'Mahapadma'
in the 'stupi' (pinnacle) of the 'vimana' type of temple dome.
It is noteworthy that the lotus is a sacred flower of the
Hindus associated with their gods and goddesses, whereas it does not seem to
have any special significance in Islamic culture, and the Saracenic
architecture of Samarkhan, Persia, Bagdad and Egypt do not contain the lotus
canopy over the dome. Even the Humayun's tomb, widely believed to be the
prototype of the Taj, does not contain the lotus canopy.
In this regard, it is necessary to clarify another point.
There are many Hindu religious symbols seen in the Taj Mahal, which are often
attributed to the religious tolerance of Shah Jahan, under whom the Hindu
craftsmen enjoyed considerable freedom. But the Persian manuscript (Section 7)
lists the names of Ustad Isa and Ismail Khan Rumi as the chief architect and
the dome expert respectively. There is some ambiguity about the nativity of
Ustad Isa (as to whether he was a citizen of Agra or of Shiraz), but the dome
expert, as the name suggests, was from Rum which means the area around Bagdad
and Mesopotamia. Is it plausible that the dome expert from the heartland of
Islam, built the dome according to the Shilpa Shastra with a lotus canopy?
(Incidently, what was this dome expert doing in the Taj
Mahal? He was drawing a stately salary of Rs. 500/- per month, and if
Aurangzeb's letter (Section 3) is to be believed, he did not even carry out the
badly needed repairs to any of the five domes of the marble edifice!)
(iii) Arrangement of Domes: In architecture, even minor details
normally embody certain meaning, and it would be more so in the case of
gigantic domes which form the most important aspect of such buildings. Do the
arrangements of numerous domes in the Taj Complex have any special
significance?
A well-known authority on Indian architecture E. B. Havell
(pp.22-23) points out: "... the arrangement of the roofing of the
mausoleum itself consists of five domes... this structural arrangement is not
Saracenic, but essentially Hindu. It is known in Hindu architecture as thepancharatna,
the shrine of the five jewels, or the five-headed lingam of
Siva... A typical example of it is found in one of the small shrines of Chandi
Sewa at Prambanam in Java, which has an arrangement of domes strikingly similar
to that of the Taj." (According to Sir Stanford Raffles, the Chandi Sewa
temple was completed in 1098 AD.)
In front of the marble edifice, at the other end of the
courtyard is the main Gateway which contains 22 mini-domes arranged on top of
two parallel walls--one facing the Taj Mahal and the other facing the outer
southern gate. (According to the legend, it represents the 22 years it took to
build the Taj Mahal. The legend has its origin in the records of Tavernier,
which is already examined in an earlier section, and is found baseless.)
It is noteworthy that the two rows of mini-domes are
separated by more than 100 ft. (The floor area of the main Gateway is 140 ft x
110 ft.) And that the number derives its significance from the Ekadasa
Rudra (Eleven forms of Siva?).
The central edifice is flanked with two identical buildings,
each having three huge domes. Could it be that they derive their significance
from the Trinity of the Hindus? There seems to be no special significance
attached to the number of domes in Saracenic architecture. In India there are
mediaeval mosques which can be classified as having one, three, five, ten,
eleven or even fifteen domes. However, the triple domed version seems to be a
distinct Indian contribution to Saracenic architecture as such buildings are
scarcely seen outside India.
(iv) The Direction of the Mosque: Normally mosques are built
facing the Holy Mecca, the direction in which the faithful is commanded to turn
while he prays. But the mosque inside the Taj Complex is facing the cardinal
West instead of the Holy City. Marvin Mills10 of New York
states: "... by the ninth century, they (Muslims) were able to calculate
the direction of Mecca within two degrees from any city... the mosque that is
part of the Taj complex faces due West whereas Mecca from Agra is 14 degrees 55
minutes south of West."
Therefore, the fact that the Taj Mahal contains the bulbous
dome, in itself is not sufficient to attribute its authorship to Shah Jahan. On
the other hand, the fact that the domes having lotus canopy needed repairs in
1662 AD, the arrangement of the dome in the marble edifice, the main gateway
and the adjacent buildings and also the direction of the mosque give rise to
speculation that the bulbous dome was part of temple architecture. The temples
of Muktagiri and Sonagarh further substantiates this conjecture, indicating the
possibility of the bulbous dome existing in India before the Mogul invasion in
the 16th century.
10 The Minarets
In the mediaeval architecture of Persia and Bagdad, the
minaret had a functional utility--to give call for the prayer to the
faithful--in a mosque. Several of the mediaeval mosques in Gujarat do contain
such minarets. But in the northern Gangetic plain, during the first four
centuries of Pathan architecture, the minaret was not part of the building,
with the sole exception of the mosque of Ajmer. (The mosque of Ajmer was one of
the two earliest buildings built by the invading Afghans, and subsequently its
minarets fell off due to the faulty construction.) Says Fergusson (pp.219-20):
"...minarets...so far as I know, were not attached to mosques during the
so-called Pathan period. The call to prayer was made from the roof; and except
the first rude attempt at Ajmer, I do not know an instance of a minaret built solely
for such a purpose, though they were, as we know, universal in Egypt and
elsewhere long before this time, and were considered nearly indispensable in
the buildings of the Mughals very shortly afterwards."
However, the style and the purpose of the minarets of the
Taj Mahal appear to be quite different from those of the Saracenic architecture
of Persia or Bagdad for two reasons:
(i) The marble edifice, which is a mausoleum, has four
minarets at its corners, whereas the adjacent mosque for which a minaret would
have been of functional utility does not have any.
(ii) In pure Saracenic architecture, the minaret normally
rises from the shoulder of the edifice to well-above the dome. In the case of
the Taj Mahal, they stand separated from the edifice and are shorter than the
domes.
Therefore, the purpose of the minarets is not functional but
decorative, and the inspiration behind them is not Saracenic.
In fact, the "era of minarets" seems to have begun
with Shah Jahan himself. Among the buildings of his predecessors, only one--the
southern gateway to Sikandara (Akbar's tomb) in Agra--contains four marble
minarets. But there is good reason to believe that those are subsequent
additions (probably by Shah Jahan himself) and not part of original design.
Apart from the contrast of the marble minarets standing on top of red-stone
gateway, to quote Satish Grover1 "the location of the
minarets over the parapets flanking the main entrance, is to say the least unusual
and a clear case of fortuitous addition rather than comprehensive design. These
minarets were certainly built either as experiments before erecting those at
the Taj or immediately thereafter--more probably the latter."
Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that the minarets
of the Taj Mahal were not inspired by the Saracenic architecture; but on the
other hand, it is from the Taj Mahal that the subsequent Mogul architecture
adopted the concept of decorative minarets.
11. Hindu Symbolism
In addition to the lotus canopy over the dome, there are
many other symbolic and sculptural details in the Taj Mahal which are quite
appropriate in a Siva temple.14 Some of them are quoted below:
(i) Recess above the entrance: In the southern entrance to
the outer precincts of the Taj Complex (i.e., the Taj Gunj gate facing the main
gateway), above the door arch, there is a small arched recess. It is customary
in Hindu Forts (for example, the Nagardhan Fort, Nagpur) to place an idol of
Lord Ganesa in a similar recess above the main entrance. Could it be that the
recess above the Taj entrance also contained a similar idol, which was
subsequently removed by the iconoclastic invaders?
(ii) The Rajput Welcome Signs: The walls of the main gateway
and the "kitchen" in the great courtyard are marked with typical
Rajput welcome signs, such as the "gulab-dani" (rose-water cans) and
"ilaichi-dani" (cardamon pots). The Rajput palaces at Deeg
(Bharatpur) and Jaipur also contain similar welcome signs.
(iii) Ganesa Torana: On the main gateway, the entire border
at waist-height is decorated with what is called the "Ganesa Torana"
(the elephant trunk and the crown can be clearly identified). It is noteworthy
that animate decorations are taboo in Islam.
(iv) Other sculptural details: Upon the marble walls of the
central edifice, there are sculptural details of flowers in the shape of OM and
bell flowers which is of great significance in the worship of Lord Shiva.
(v) The pinnacle: On top of the central dome of the Taj
Mahal, there is a copper pinnacle which measures a height of 32' 5 ½". On
the eastern red-stone courtyard, in front of the community hall, there is a
figure of the pinnacle inlaid in black marble which measures a length of only
30' 6".
There is reason to believe that the copper pinnacle is not
the original one. The Shahjahannama of Muhammad Salah Kumbo mentions that the
pinnacle was pure gold15.
But by 1873-74 it was already of copper and when it was
taken down for regilding, the words "Joseph Taylor" were found
engraved on the copper16. Captain Taylor was the British official
who carried out the repairs to the Taj Mahal in 1810 AD. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that the original gold pinnacle was removed by either
Joseph Taylor or his predecessors. The discrepancy between the lengths of the
pinnacle and its figure in the courtyard supports this conclusion. However,
because of the similarity between the copper pinnacle and its figure in the
courtyard, it can be assumed that the original shape remains unaltered.
The end of the pinnacle branches into a trident, its central
tongue extending farther than that of the other two. On closer observation, the
central tongue appears to be in the shape of a "Kalasha" (water pot)
topped with two bent mango leaves and a coconut. This is a sacred Hindu motif.
Could it be that the trident pinnacle was symbolic of the deity Lord Shiva
worshipped inside?
The symbols listed above are directly Hindu and some of
them--the animate decorations such as the cobra twins and
Ganesha--"torana" are toboo in Islam. It is likely that these
details, not being very obvious, are only those that have survived the
alterations in the building.
An alternate explanation attributes the Hindu symbolism to
the benevolent religious tolerance of Shah Jahan, under whom the Hindu
craftsmen enjoyed complete freedom to express their talent in their own
traditional style. However, regarding his religious tolerance, his own court
journal Badshahnama has an altogether different commentary to make: "It
has been brought to the notice of His Majesty that during the late region many
idol temples had begun, but remained unfinished at Benaras, the great
stronghold of infidelity. The infidels were now desirous of completing them. His
Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benaras and throughout
all his dominions at every place, all temples should be cast down. It was now
reported from the province of Allahabad that 76 temples had been destroyed in
the district of Benaras."17
12. General Layout And Plan
(i) Numerous rooms in the edifice: It has been discussed in
an earlier section that there are two floors below the real grave containing
numerous rooms. Obviously, these rooms did not have any utility in a mausoleum,
and their presence is not explicable unless it is accepted to be an ancient
edifice built for an altogether different purpose. They do not appear to have
been living rooms, but were they meant for storing provisions and other
materials of a vast temple complex?
(ii) The Nagar Khanas: Midway between the main gateway and
the marble edifice, on either side of the courtyard, there are two identical
buildings known as the "Nagar-khanas" (Drum Houses).
Is it plausible that Shah Jahan, who was very "scrupulous...in
the matters of bereavement and religious sanctity" (Section 2) built these
drum houses? Music is taboo in Islam--there is a mosque nearby. And a mausoleum
is certainly not a place for festivity!
On the other hand, drums are important accompaniments in the
worship of Lord Shiva.
(iii) The Gow-Shala: within the precincts of the Taj Mahal,
to the east of the Main Gateway, at the extreme end of the courtyard, there is
a cow-shed known as the "Gow-Shala". What could have been the purpose
of a cow-shed in a mausoleum? Or was it part of the temple complex?
It is possible that it was not part of the original plan--as
it disturbs the symmetry of the complex--but because of its Sanskrit name, the
"Gow-Shala" appears to have been introduced by the Hindu rulers, who
were using the edifice as a palace or temple.
To Sum Up: The arrangement of the domes, the lotus
canopy, the trident pinnacle, the numerous rooms in the building, the direction
of the mosque and its triple domes, the "Gow-shala", the "Nagar-khanas,"
and the surviving Hindu symbolism indicate that it was originally built as a
temple complex. The purpose of the minarets is not functional but decorative,
and the inspiration behind them does not appear to be Saracenic. The graves and
the Koranic inscriptions upon the marble wall, of course, should be attributed
to Shah Jahan.
The whole argument about the Taj Mahal being a Mogul
construction hinges solely upon the assumption about the origin of the bulbous
dome, which certainly is debatable. Havell had emphatically asserted (pp.1-38)
that the prototype of bulbous dome existed in the Buddhist stupa and the
carvings of Ajanta several centuries before the Mogul invasion. He did not
question the claim of Shah Jahan building the Taj Mahal, but asserted that from
purely architectural considerations, the inspiration behind the edifice was
neither Arab, nor Persian, nor European but Indian--"more Indian than St.
Paul's cathedral and Westminster Abbey are English". (p. 13)
III--SUM TOTAL
The discussion on the historical evidence indicates that the
Taj Mahal was already ancient at the time of Shah Jahan. And the discussion
upon the architecture leads to the conclusion that the general layout of the
Taj Complex resembles a Shiva temple. The whole thesis of Shah Jahan himself
building the edifice rests upon the premise that the bulbous dome originated in
Samarkhand and migrated to India after the advent of Babur.
The discussion cannot be complete unless we examine two
other questions: What is the plausibility of Shah Jahan constructing the
edifice, and how did the legend come to be?
There is universal agreement about the architectural
splendour and grandeur of the Taj Mahal. It was conceived by an inspired mind
which knew the meaning of beauty, and it signifies the culmination of a mature
style in architecture. It is a testimony to the peace and prosperity of its
period.
The Moguls were rich in wealth and taste and seem to have
had the leisure to undertake a project of this kind. But what about its style?
Does it appear to be in the tradition of the style developed and perfected by
the successive rulers of Mogul dynasty? Listen to James Fergusson (pp.
307-308): "It would be difficult to point out in the whole history of architecture
any change so sudden as that which took place between the style of Akbar and
that of his grandson Shah Jahan--nor any contrast so great as that between the
manly vigour and exuberant originality of the first, as compared with the
extreme but almost effeminate elegance of the second. Certainly when the same
people, following the same religion, built temples and palaces in the same
locality, nothing of the sort ever occurred in any country whose history is
known to us."
It should be remembered that Fergusson was the pioneer in
the field of Indian archeaology and was the first--and considered the most
authoritative--historian to propound that the bulbous dome originated in
Samarkhand. But at the same time he found that the difference between the
styles of Akbar and Shah Jahan so unique, that it was the only one of its kind
in the human history. Having said this, he does not discuss the possibility of
some of those buildings belonging to an altogether different era, but a few
pages later (p. 316) makes a brief but startling remark about the Taj Mahal,
"When used as a Baradhari, or pleasure palace, it must always have been
the coolest and loveliest of garden retreats, and now that it is sacred to the
dead it is the most graceful and the most impressive of the sepulchres of the
world."
That is, the version of the Badshahnama as quoted at the
beginning of this essay--that Shah Jahan had acquired a palace for the burial
of his queen--was known to Fergusson during the middle of the 19th century.
(The above statement occurs repeatedly in his books published in 1855, 1867 and
1876.) He also found its style too uniquely different to reconcile with that of
Shah Jahan's immediate predecessors. And yet, the doyen of Indian archaeology
glossed over the issue of its antiquity and attributed it to Shah Jahan! Why
then did Fergusson not question the claim--if at all there was any single
cogent claim at the time--and thereby perpetuate the legend of Shah Jahan
himself building the Taj Mahal?
The legend had originated at the time of Shah Jahan
himself--as both Tavernier and Manrique testify, though their versions do not
match with each other--and drew powerful support from the writings of Fergusson
save the above quoted sentence. The above sentence not only appears in all the
three major publications of Fergusson (1867 and 1876), but also was quoted in
the 9th edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica (1875)--where it
remained until the 11th edition in 1910--and also in
"Murray's Handbook (for travellers) to India and Ceylon" (1891). In
1896, Syad Muhammad Latif19 wrote that the building "was
originally a palace of Raja Man Singh but now it was the property of his
grandson Raja Jai Singh. His Majesty gave the Raja a lofty edifice from the
Khalsa estate in exchange of this building; and the spot was used for the
mausoleum of the deceased empress."
Meanwhile the legend also grew, as can be made out from the
numerous writings of the period though the details pertaining to the
construction of the edifice, such as the identity of the architect,
expenditure, duration of construction, etc., did not go beyond vague
conjectures. In 1905, Moin-ud-din Ahmed20 quoted from
Badshahnama (Vol. II, pp. 325-6) that the gold railing around the tomb
"was made under the supervision of Bebadal Khan, Master of king's
kitchen". But the identity of the architect of the edifice remained
unsolved. The 22 basement rooms were detected in 1900 AD, and Moin-ud-din Ahmed
discussed them in his book (pp. 35-36) and stated that, "The real object
of building them remains a mystery."
In fact, by the turn of the century, the legend had grown so
powerful that it made all the evidences to the contrary appear irrelevant. Even
though the discovery of the sealed underground chambers was a powerful reason
to re-examine the legend carefully, the 11th edition of
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910) chose to omit the above statement of Fergusson
from its columns--apparently because of its incongruity with the powerful
legend. It mentioned the name of Ustad Isa as the Chief architect. By 1913, E.
B. Havell, while emphatically asserting that the architecture of the edifice is
Hindu, and not Saracenic, does not at all discuss the possibility of Shah Jahan
acquiring the edifice. By 1931, the letter of Aurangzeb discussing the serious
defects in the Taj Mahal was published ("Marakka-i-Akbarabad" by Said
Ahmed, 1931), which was translated by M. S. Vats of Archaeological Survey of
India in 1945. But the legend survived the publication.
To revert back to Fergusson, why did he not question the
legend, though he had very good reason to do so? Obviously, he was labouring
under the burden of his own assumption that the bulbous dome was a resultant
contribution of Mogul invasion upon India during the 16thcentury. In
this respect, his own uncertainty about the antiquity of the temples of
Sonagarh and Muktagiri [Section 9 (i)] is also quite significant. Fergusson
himself recorded (p. 286) this uncertainty and inconclusiveness, while
discussing the basis of his assumption:
"It is probable that very considerable light will yet
be throne upon the origin of the style which the Moguls introduced into India,
from an examination of the buildings erected at Samakhand by Timur, a hundred
years before Babar's time (A.D. 1393-1404). Now that the city is in the hands
of Russians, it is accessible to Europeans. Its buildings have been drawn and
photographed, but not yet described so as to be available for scientific
purposes..."
Therefore, it can be said with certainty that the legend of
Shah Jahan building the Taj Mahal rests purely upon the erroneous assumption
about the origin of the bulbous dome. (In fairness, Shah Jahan himself never
claimed that he built the Taj Mahal.) And that the architecture of the Taj
Mahal, to put it in the words of Havell, "more Indian than St. Paul's
Cathedral and Westminster Abbey are English."
What then is the true age of the Taj Mahal?
Though it was put to use as a palace, its architecture is
not that of a residential mansion, but of a temple. Obviously, it was converted
into a palace, and Raja Man Singh was not the one to effect the conversion. It
is not unreasonable to speculate that the edifice acquired his name due to his
pre-eminent position in the Mogul Court and his fairly long occupation of the
building. The fact that the edifice required elaborate repairs in 1652 AD, also
indicates that it belonged to a period earlier to Raja Man Singh. The
radio-carbon dating--though not conclusive about the date--further reinforces
the possibility of the Taj Mahal being a couple of centuries older than Shah
Jahan. However, a conclusive dating can be done only by several radio-carbon
tests of different samples from the edifice. And it is almost certain that the
sealed underground chambers would reveal enough evidence about the original
purpose and the true age of the edifice. The historical antecedents of the
building can be traced only by considerable diligent study of the documents
pertaining to several centuries prior to Shah Jahan.
However, if radio-carbon test result quoted above can be
treated as a pointer, it raises certain important questions regarding Indian
archaeology.
i) Was the bulbous dome an exclusive innovation of Indian
architecture, and migrated to Samakhand through the architects taken captive by
Timurlung?
ii) If the architecture style could produce so fine a piece
as the Taj Mahal in the 14th century, how long ago did the
style originate? Is it true, as Havell has asserted, that the bulbous dome had
its origin in the Buddhist stupas and the carvings of Ajanta (which was at
least a thousand years before the initial Afgan invasion)? If so, it brings us
face to face with the other assumptions of Fergusson that the single pointed
arch and the arcuate style of constructing the arches and domes--the Taj Mahal
answer to both these characteristics--have arrived at India only during the 13th century
AD after the initial Afgan invasion.
Thus, the question of antiquity of the Taj Mahal has
powerful bearing upon the study of Indian archaeology. It raises certain
pertinent questions about the origin, development, influence and classification
of one of the important streams of mediaeval architecture. And since an
architectural style carries with it the stamp of the contemporary epoch, the above
questions have bearing upon the study of Indian history as well. Therefore, it
calls for a thorough re-examination of the Mogul architecture--particularly
that of Shah Jahan, which Fergusson found it so difficult to reconcile with the
style of that period.
(The authors wish to acknowledge their debt to Shri V. S.
Godbole for his notes on the subject)
References
1. Abdul Hamid Lahori, "Badshahnama", Vol. 1,
Royal Asiatic society, Bengal, 1867, pp. 402-403.
2. Rajasthan State Archives, Bikaner.
3. Peter Mundy, "Travels in Asia and Europe", Vol.
II, Edited by R. C. Temple, Hakluyt Society, 1907-36, pp. 208-213.
4. J. B. Tavernier, "Travels in India", Translated
by V. Ball, Macmillan & Co., London, 1889, Book I, pp. 46, 110-111.
5. P. N. Oak, "The Taj Mahal is a Temple Palace",
1966, pp.20-26.
6. "Adaab-a-Alamgir", National Archives, New
Delhi, p. 82.
7. M. S. Vats, "Repairs to the Taj Mahal", An
Archaeological Survey of India bulletin, 1945.
8. "Keene's Handbook for Visitors to Agra and Its
Neighborhood", Re-written by E. A. Duncan, Thacker's Handbook of
Hindustan, pp. 170-4.
9. E. B. Havell, "Indian Architecture", S. Chand
& Co.(Pvt) Ltd., 1913, pp. 1-38.
10. "Travels of Fray Sebastion Manrique", Vol. II,
Translated by St. Pau Lt. Col. Luard and Father Hasken, Hakluyt Society, 1927,
pp. 171-2.
11. Marvin H Mills, "Archaeometry in the Service of
Historical Analysis to Re-examine the Origin of Moslem Building", Itihas
Patrika Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1984, pp. 12-13.
12. James Fergusson, "History of Indian and Eastern
Architecture", 2nd Edition, Munshiram Manoharlal, New
Delhi, 1972, pp. 62-66, 196-221, 283-320.
13. Elliot and Dowson, "History of India", Vol.
III, 2nd Edition, Sushil Gupta (India) Ltd., 1953, p. 448.
14. Satish Grover, "The Architecture of India",
Vikas Publishing House, Pvt., 1981, pp. 190-193.
15. Hemant Gokhale, "The Taj Mahal--A Tomb or Shiva
temple?", Itihas Patrika, Vol. 2, No. 3, Sept. 1982, pp. 99-113.
16. Reference Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
London, 1843, Vol. VII, p. 58.
17. Ram Nath, "The Immortal Taj", Taraporewala,
Bombay, 1972, p. 81.
18. Elliot and Dowson, "History of India", Vol.
VII, 2nd Edition, Sushil Gupta (India) Ltd., 1953, p. 36.
19. Syad Mohammad Latif, "Agra--Historical &
Descriptive", 1896, p. 105.
20. Moin-ud-din-Ahmed, "History of the Taj", 1903,
pp. 35-36, 46-47.
21. V. S. Godbole, "The Taj Mahal--Simple Analysis of
Great Deception", Itihas Patrika, Vol 2, No. 1, March, 1982, pp. 16-32.
http://voi.org/02aug2009/
sourced/bharatspeaks/tajmahal: itistimetotellthetruth.html Mirrored
at: http://jayasreesaranathan.
blogspot.in/2009/08/taj-mahal- was-palace-of-raja-mansingh. html
Taj Mahal: It is time to tell the truth.
By
Dr V S Godbole
There are many legends about the Taj Mahal. But one sentence
is common in all of them. "For the construction, 20,000 men worked for 22
years." This is well known throughout the world. The simple question is
- where do these figures come from?
These figures come from a book Travels
in India by J B Tavernier, a French jewel merchant. He was a
great adventurer who made six voyages to India in the days of Shivaji
(1638 to 1668). Tavernier says," I witnessed the commencement and
completion of this monument (Taj Mahal) on which 20,000 men worked incessantly
for 22 years."
Tavernier's book was first published in French in 1675. In
those days, it was a great adventure for a single man to travel over such a
long distance, face many difficulties, deal with peoples of many cultures and
languages, adjust to their customs and traditions, and come home safely - that
in itself was incredible. In addition Tavernier carried out a trade in precious
stones like diamonds. He completed such voyages, not once but six times. His book
was therefore a great sensation at that time. It was naturally translated into
English and during 1677 to 1811; nine editions of the English translation were
published, whereas during the same period twenty-two editions of the French
book were printed. In 1889 Dr Ball translated the original French book
into English, corrected some mistakes in earlier translation and provided
extensive footnotes. He also studied Tavernier's movements thoroughly and
provided details of his six voyages. From this it is clear that Tavernier came
to Agra only twice - in the winter of 1640-41 and in 1665. This
raises another interesting question.
Historians say that Mumtaz, wife of Shahjahan died in 1631
and the construction of Taj Mahal started immediately. But if that is the
case Tavernier could not have seen the commencement of Taj Mahal, as he came
to Agra nearly 10 years later.
Aurangzeb had imprisoned his father Shahjahan in the Red
Fort of Agra since 1658 and usurped power. No historian claims that
Aurangzeb completed Taj Mahal. So, Tavernier could not have seen the completion
of Taj Mahal either. And that being the case his statement that 20,000 men
worked on it incessantly is meaningless.
Why have Historians kept this truth from us for the last 117
years? The reason is simple. It strikes at the heart of the legend.
Badshahnama - what does it say?
British Historians have proclaimed that in India, Hindu
Kings had no historical sense. Historical records were kept only by the Muslim
rulers. Fair enough, then let us turn to Badshahnama which was written during
the reign of Shahjahan. Asiatic Society of Bengal published the Persian text of
Badshahnama in two parts, part I in 1867 and part II in 1868. The compilation
was done by two Maulavis, under the superintendence of an English Major. The
funny thing is that no one quotes Badshahnama to explain how Taj Mahal was
built. Why?
Elliot and Dowson, two English gentlemen undertook the
formidable task of writing history of India from the attack on Sindh
by Mohammed bin Kasim in the 8th century to the fall of
Marathas in the 19th century. A period covering some 1200
years. But it was written, based on chronicles of Muslim rulers only. Elliot
and Dowson's work was published in 8 volumes during 1867 to 1877. Volume 7
deals with the reigns of Shahjahan and Aurangzeb. And yet in the entire
volume we do not find the word 'Taj Mahal.' The authors should have said,
"Though we have presented history of Shahjahan based on his official
chronicle Badshahnama, we did not find any reference to Taj Mahal in it."
They did no such thing. And Historians have kept even this information from us
for the last 130 years.
In 1896 Khan Bahaddur Syed Muhammad Latif wrote a book
entitledAgra Historical and Descriptive. He refers to Badshahnama many times
but does not quote specific page numbers. On page 105 he says, " - The
site selected for the mausoleum was originally a palace of Raja
Mansinghbut it was now the property of his grandson Raja Jaisingh." Many
authors have referred to Latif in their bibliography but have not cared to see
what he has said. This truth was also hidden away from us by our
Historians. In 1905 H R Nevill, ICS, compiled Agra District Gazetteer. In
it he changed the words 'Raja Mansingh's Palace' to 'Raja
Mansingh's piece of land'. Ever since all historians have followed suit and
repeated ' Shahjahan purchased Raja Mansingh's piece of land, at that time in
the possession of his grandson Raja Jaisingh.' This deception has been going on
for more than a century.
One may ask, "Why would an English officer be
interested in playing such a mischief?" Well if we look at the events
of those times the reason is clear cut.
|
1901
|
Viceroy Lord Curzon separated some districts
fromPunjab to create a
Muslim majority North
West Frontier Province. Hindus became an insignificant minority in
this province and that marked the beginning of their misfortune.
|
|
1903
|
Curzon declared his intention to
partition Bengal to create a Muslim
majority province of East Bengal
|
|
1905
|
Curzon resigned but put into effect the partition ofBengal
|
|
1906
|
A Muslim delegation led by Agakhan called upon new Viceroy
Lord Minto. Muslims pleaded that in any political reforms they should be
treated separately and favourably. This move was obviously engineered by the
British rulers.
December - Muslim League was started in Dacca.
|
|
1909
|
In the Morley - Minto reforms Muslims were granted
separate electorates.
|
We should also remember that during 1873 and 1914, some
English officers had translated into English the Persian texts of Babur-nama.
Humayun-nama, ,Akbar-nama, Ain-e-Akbari and Tazuk - i - Jehangiri, but NOT
Badshahnama.
Judging from above events it is obvious why Mr Nevill
played the mischief when compiling Agra District Gazetteer in 1905.
It is astonishing that though Maulavi Ahmad (History of Taj
1905) and Sir Jadunath Sarkar (Anecdotes of Aurangzeb, 1912) repeat that Raja
Mansingh's piece of land was purchased by Shahjahan, they also provide a
reference - Badshahnama,
Volume I page 403. Strange as it may sound, no one had
bothered to see what is written on that page.
In 1964 Mr P N Oak of New
Delhi started having his doubts about Taj Mahal. He put forward an
argument that it was originally a Hindu Palace. Oak had to cross
swords with many historians. One of his opponents was a Kashmiri Pandit.
Eventually they went to Government of India Archives. At the suggestion of the
Librarian there the Pandit started to read Badshahnama, soon he came to Volume
I page 403. One line read - va pesh azin manzil-e-Raja Mansingh bood,
vadari vakt ba Raja Jaisingh. He confessed that Shahjahan took over Raja
Mansingh's palace for burial of Mumtaz. We owe so much to this honest opponent
of Mr Oak. He gave word by word translation of pages 402 and 403 to Mr Oak who
promptly published it in his book Taj Mahal is
a Hindu Palace(1968). However, Mr Oak never stated that the
translation was NOT his. It was done for him by a Persian expert. That made
life of his opponents easy. They said, "Mr Oak's translation is
wrong."
I obtained Oak's book in London in 1977. I made a
study for one year. First of all I read all the references generally
quoted by Historians and writers. That was made possible by my being
in England. Mr Oak did not have that facility. All the references led to
the same conclusion that Taj Mahal is a Hindu Palace and it was
NOT built by Shahjahan. My booklet entitled - Taj Mahal : Simple Analysis
of a Great Deception was published in 1986. In 1981 while going through
some references I started suspecting that the British knew the true nature of
Taj Mahal for a long time but had deliberately suppressed the truth. Eventually
my research was published in 10 parts in the Quarterly Itihas
Patrika of Thane (India). I collected all the information available on Taj
Mahal over the 200 year period from 1784 to 1984, and shown how the British
suppressed vital pieces of evidence or twisted the truth. My research continued
and was published in 1996 under the title - Taj Mahal and the Great
British Conspiracy.
Taj legend exposed in England in 1980 Royal
Institute of British Architects (RIBA) is a reputable Institution inLondon. In1980,
in their monthly Journal, they published two letters challenging the validity
of usual Taj Legend. One was by Mr Oak, the other by me. No one has refuted our
arguments. Mr Oak refers to Badshahnama, Volume I page 403. What have I
disclosed in my letter? What was Agra City like before
Shahjahan came to power? That is the question dodged by all Historians. In the
17th century, the Dutch like the English were trying to trade
in India. They had a Factory (trading post) inAgra. Fransisco Pelsaert,
was their Senior Factor (Merchant) at Agrafrom 1620 to 1627. In 1626 he
prepared a commercial report for his directors in Holland. By strange
coincidence, he describes Agra City at that time. He
says, "The city is narrow and long, because all the rich and influential
people have built their palaces on the river bank and this stretches for
10 ½ miles. I will mention some of the well known
ones. Starting from the North there is
the palace of Bahadur Khan, Raja Bhoj, ....... Then comes
the Red Fort.
(Pelsaert then describes the Fort) beyond it is Nakhas - a
great market, then follow the palaces of great Lords - Mirza Abdulla, Aga Naur
...... Mahabat Khan, Late Raja Mansingh, Raja Madho Singh."
English translation of this report was available since 1925.
And yet no Historian refers to it. Why? The reason is simple. In 1626
Pelsaert has said that 10 ½ mile stretch of the river-bank was full of palaces,
Late Raja Mansingh's Palace being the last but one. Badshahnama says that
Shahjahan took over this palace for burying his wife Mumtaz. Thus what we call
Taj Mahal today is nothing but Late Raja Mansingh's Palace. That is the truth
which Historians have kept away from us.
My efforts had one effect. In 1982 Archaeological Survey of
India, published a booklet entitled - Taj Museum. Though the authors
repeat the usual legend they say, " Mumtaz died in Burhanpur and was
buried there. Six months later Shahjahan exhumed her body and sent her coffin
to Agra, on that site until then stood Late Raja Mansingh's Palace......
"
Today that palace is called Taj Mahal. Nothing could be
simpler. What building work is needed for burying a corpse in a Palace?
*********************
Related post in this blog:-
Posted by jayasree at 3:40 PM 
3 comments:
Amit said...
Nice article; have come across related matter before. I
don't know why the govt. tries to suppress these facts. Do you know if any
country you have things named after tyrants? Easy answer - India. You have
Aurangzeb Road in Delhi. Jayasree, could you also please write about Maharaja
Ranjit Singh if you wish to. Sikhism started to build bridges between Hindus
and Muslims but when their gurus were tortured and killed by muslim rulers,
they organized themselves as fighters. Until Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the muslims
came from Afghanistan to conquer Indian territories but he reversed it. He went
deep into Afghanistan, reconquered Lahore and Kashmir. And it's not only about
his conquests. These people were Hindus. Like in the south, people pray to God
to fullfil their prayers and if that's done, they shave off their hair or
something like that. On similar lines, Hindus in Punjab would offer their first
son to the guru to become sikh and that's how the religion spread. Ranjit Singh
got the dome of famous Kashi temple gold plated and had even willed the famous
kohinoor to the Jagannath temple of Puri. But after his death, the british
seized it and offered it to their queen. If you can please write about him. But
you are the boss and this blog is yours. I liked your article.
jayasree said...
Thanks Amit. I noted your suggestion.
pranav said...
i think our country is rich in culture but that staunch
culture was demolished by muslim invaders. not only demolished our temples and
they modified hindu temple to musjid. Professor Purushottam oak. as you said and
one more Stephen Knapp is also studied about the taj mahal and said that The
dome of the Taj Mahal bearing a trident pinnacle made of a non-rusting
eight-metal Hindu alloy. The pinnacle served as a lightning deflector too. This
pinnacle has been blindly assumed by many to be an Islamic crescent and star,
or a lightning conductor installed by the British. This is a measure of the
careless manner in which Indian history has been studied till now. Visually
identifiable things like this pinnacle too have been misinterpreted with
impunity. The flower top of the dome, below the pinnacle, is an unmistakable
Hindu sign. A full scale figure of this pinnacle is inlaid in the eastern
courtyard. The Hindu horizontal crescent and the coconut top together look like
a trident from the garden level. Islamic crescents are always oblique. Moreover
they are almost always complete circles leaving a little opening for a star.
This Hindu pinnacle had all these centuries been misinterpreted as an Islamic
crescent and star or a lightning conductor installed by the British. The word
"Allah" etched here by Shahjahan is absent in the courtyard replica.
The coconut, the bent mango leaves under it and the supporting Kalash (water
pot) are exclusive Hindu motifs.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete