Was The Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple

Was the Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple

Was the Taj Mahal a Vedic Temple? The Photographic Evidence This presents photographs (listed below) that show the Vedic influence found in such buildings as the Taj Mahal, Red Fort, and other structures in India. It also presents photos of drawings and art that have been discovered from other parts of the world, such as Arabia, Egypt, Greece and Italy, that show a definite Vedic influence. No matter whether you accept all of this or not, it nonetheless makes for an extremely fascinating and interesting story. Take a look and decide for yourself what you think. Also, let other people know about these, or download them to print and use them for your own displays in your temple, office or home.

We have all heard how the Taj Mahal, which is considered one of the great wonders of the world, was built as the preeminent expression of a man's love for a wife. That it was built by emperor Shah Jahan in commemoration of his wife Mumtaz. However, in our continuous effort to get to the truth, we have recently acquired some very important documents and information. There is evidence that the Taj Mahal was never built by Shah Jahan. Some say the Taj Mahal pre-dates Shah Jahan by several centuries and was originally built as a Hindu or Vedic temple/ palace complex. Shah Jahan merely acquired it from its previous owner, the Hindu King Jai Singh. This controversy is something I have explained more thoroughly in my book, "Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence." So, for those who want to know the details of this issue, you can find it there. And here is the photographic evidence that will provide greater insights into this. The point to consider is how much more of India's history has been distorted if the background of such a grand building is so inaccurate. These photographs are taken from an album that was found and then smuggled out of India. On the back of each photo there is a stamp mark that says, "Archaeology Survey of India." This signifies their authenticity and that they were the property of that institution. This means a number of things: That the Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) has been researching the evidence that proves the Taj Mahal and many other buildings were not of Muslim origin, and that they know this information but remain silent about it. It also shows that in spite of this evidence they refuse to open up further research that would reveal the true nature and originality of the buildings, and lead to understanding another part of the real history and glory of India. These photos are black and white and were found in a simple photo album in India. Except for old age and some water damage on some of them (creating white spots in areas), most are still in relatively good condition. Each photograph was accompanied by a typed caption taped in the album near the photo, each of which gives a very interesting explanation of the subject and the http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm (1 of 4)10/7/2006 9:41:04 AM

Was the Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple

Vedic influence recognized on the building and what it means. The captions accompany the photos on the following pages just as they were written in the album, so the style of English and the explanations are kept the same. I did not write them myself. They are obviously written from an Indian perspective. Whatever I may say about the photos are displayed in brackets [ ]. Otherwise I let the captions and photos speak for themselves. Some of these photos will show areas of the Taj where the public has no access, or what is rarely seen or noticed. It is because of the manipulation of history by invaders that the true greatness of India and Vedic culture has been stifled or hidden. And it is time that people everywhere realize how numerous lies and false propaganda have been passed around as if it were the truth in regard to India and its past, as well as its art, archeology, and the wonder of its culture. India and its Vedic society was one of the preeminent civilizations of the world, as I explained in "Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence." Now, through the increasing amount of revealing evidence that is being uncovered, that greatness of India's past and its contributions to the world are gradually being recognized. It is because of this that it is now time to rewrite the history of India.

ADDITIONAL ONLINE ARTICLES "The Question of the Taj Mahal" (Itihas Patrika, vol 5, pp. 98-111, 1985) by P. S. Bhat and A. L. Athavale is a profound and thoroughly researched and well balanced paper on the Taj Mahal controversy. This paper goes well with the photographs listed below. It uncovers the reasons for the rumors and assumptions of why it is said that Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal, and presents all the inconsistencies of why that theory doesn't hold up. It also covers such things as the descriptions found in the old Agra court papers on the Taj; descriptions and measurements of the building in the old records; Aurangzeb's letter of the much needed repairs even in 1632 which is unlikely for a new building; records that reveal Shah Jahan acquired marble but was it enough for really building the Taj or merely for inlay work and decorative coverings; the observations of European travelers at the time; the actual age of the Taj; how the architecture is definitely of Indian Hindu orientation and could very well have been designed as a Shiva temple; the issue of the arch and the dome; how the invader Timurlung (1398) took back thousands of prisoner craftsmen to build his capital at Samarkhand and where the dome could have been incorporated into Islamic architecture; how it was not Shah Jahan's religious tolerance that could have been a reason for Hindu elements in the design of the Taj; how the direction of the mosque does not point toward Mecca as most mosques do; the real purpose of the minarets at the Taj; the Hindu symbolism recognized in the Taj which would not have been allowed if it was truly Muslim built; and even as late as 1910 the Encyclopaedia Britannica included the statement by Fergusson that the building was previously a palace before becoming a tomb for Shah Jahan; and more. A most interesting paper. "An Architect Looks at the Taj Mahal Legend" by Marvin Mills, is a great review of the information available on the Taj Mahal and raises some very interesting questions that make it http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm (2 of 4)10/7/2006 9:41:04 AM

Was the Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple

obvious that the Taj could not have been built the way or during the time that history presents, which makes it more like a fable than accurate history. This suggests a construction date of 1359 AD, about 300 years before Shah Jahan. The True Story of the Taj Mahal. This article by P. N. Oak (from Pune, India) provides an overview of his research and lists his 109 proofs of how the Taj Mahal was a pre-existing Hindu temple palace, built not by Shah Jahan but originally at least 500 years earlier in 1155 AD by Raja Paramardi Dev as a Vedic temple. Mr. P. N. Oak is another who has done much research into this topic, and such a study is hardly complete without considering his findings. The evidence he presents here is a most interesting read, whether you agree with it all or not, or care for some of the anger in his sentiment. Mr. Oak has presented his own conclusions in his books, most notably Taj Mahal--The True Story (ISBN: 0-9611614-4-2). The Letter of Aurangzeb ordering repairs on the old Taj Mahal in the year just before it is said to have been completed. The Badshahnama is the history written by the Emperor's own chronicler. This page shows how Aurangzeb had acquired the Taj from the previous owner, Jai Singh, grandson of Raja Mansingh, after selecting this site for the burial of Queen Mumtaz.

THE PHOTOGRAPHS The following photographs are divided according to content and accessed through the links. Click on the photo number for access: Taj Mahal Photo #1

Aerial view of the Taj Mahal

Taj Mahal Photo #2

The interior water well

Taj Mahal Photo #3

Frontal view of the Taj Mahal and dome

Taj Mahal Photo #4

Close up of the dome with pinnacle

Taj Mahal Photo #5

Close up of the pinnacle

Taj Mahal Photo #6

Inlaid pinnacle pattern in courtyard

Taj Mahal Photo #7

Red lotus at apex of the entrance

Taj Mahal Photo #8

Rear view of the Taj & 22 apartments

Taj Mahal Photo #9

View of sealed doors & windows in back

Taj Mahal Photo #10

Typical Vedic style corridors

Taj Mahal Photo #11

The Music House--a contradiction

Taj Mahal Photo #12

A locked room on upper floor

Taj Mahal Photo #13

A marble apartment on ground floor

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm (3 of 4)10/7/2006 9:41:04 AM

Was the Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple

Taj Mahal Photo #14

The OM in the flowers on the walls

Taj Mahal Photo #15

Staircase that leads to the lower levels

Taj Mahal Photo #16

300 foot long corridor inside apartments

Taj Mahal Photo #17

One of the 22 rooms in the secret lower level

Taj Mahal Photo #18

Interior of one of the 22 secret rooms

Taj Mahal Photo #19

Interior of another of the locked rooms

Taj Mahal Photo #20

Vedic design on ceiling of a locked room

Taj Mahal Photo #21

Huge ventilator sealed shut with bricks

Taj Mahal Photo #22

Secret walled door that leads to other rooms

Taj Mahal Photo #23

Secret bricked door that hides more evidence

Taj Mahal Photo #24

Palace in Barhanpur where Mumtaz died

Taj Mahal Photo #25

Pavilion where Mumtaz is said to be buried

Now for the Next Section: The Photographic Evidence of the Vedic Influence Found in the Red Fort and Other Buildings in Delhi and India, as well as in Drawings and Art from Elsewhere in the World. Click Here [This is available at: http:www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [ The Books by Stephen Knapp ] [ Book Reviews ] [ CD Slide Shows ] [ Order Form ] [ The World Relief Network ] [ Articles to Read ] [ Seeing Spiritual India ] [ A Little Book of Prayers Mantras & Gayatris ] [ Krishna Darshan Art Gallery ] [ Vegetarian Recipes and Resources ] [ Stay in Touch with Us ] [ Links to Other Websites ] [ Jokes and Anecdotes ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm (4 of 4)10/7/2006 9:41:04 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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.

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.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (1 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 16381668 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

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (2 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (3 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (4 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (5 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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)

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (6 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

"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 22nd Dec, 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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (7 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 16381668 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 eyewitness 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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (8 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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-GandekotGolconda-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 164041 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

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (9 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (10 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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

---

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (11 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (12 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (13 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (14 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

(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 the pancharatna, 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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (15 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (16 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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? http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (17 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

(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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (18 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 "Gowshala", 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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (19 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (20 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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. http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (21 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 16th century. 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,

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (22 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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 reexamination 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. 402403. 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.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (23 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

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. [Available at: http://www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (24 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Letter of Aurangzeb

The Letter of Aurangzeb This is supposed to be a copy of the original letter from Aurangzeb himself written in 1652, complaining of the extensive repairs that are in need of being done on the Taj Mahal. He says that several rooms on the second storey, the secret rooms and tops of the seven storey ceilings have all absorbed water through seepage and are so old that they were all leaking, and the dome had developed a crack on the northern side. This was in spite of the fact that the rumor is that the Taj was finished being built in 1653. The logic of this is that Mumtaz was supposed to have died around 1631, and it is said that it took 22 years to build the Taj. However, in the letter herein Aurangzeb ordered immediate repairs at his expense while recommending to the emperor that more elaborate repairs such as the roof be opened up and redone with mortar, bricks and stone. Aurangzeb's letter is recorded in at least three chronicles titled 'Aadaab-e-alamgiri ', 'Yaadgaarnama 'and the ' Muraaqqa-I-Akbarabadi ' (edited by Said Ahmad, Agra, 1931, page 43, footnotes 2). In any case, if the Taj was a new building, there would no doub not be any need for such extensive repairs.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/letter_of_aurangzeb.htm (1 of 2)10/7/2006 9:41:53 AM

The Letter of Aurangzeb

[Home] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/letter_of_aurangzeb.htm (2 of 2)10/7/2006 9:41:53 AM

AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND

AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND by Professor Marvin H. Mills Pratt Institute, New York In their book TAJ MAHAL-THE ILLUMINED TOMB, Wayne Edison Begley and Ziyaud-Din Ahmad Desai have put together a very commendable body of data and information derived from contemporary sources and augmented with numerous photo illustrations, chroniclers' descriptions, imperial directives plus letters, plans, elevations and diagrams. They have performed a valuable service to the community of scholars and laymen concerned with the circumstances surrounding the origin and development of the Taj Mahal. But these positive contributions exist within a framework of analysis and interpretation that distorts a potential source of enlightenment into support for fantasy and misinformation that has plagued scholarship in this field for hundreds of years, thus obscuring the true origin of the Taj Mahal complex. The two basic procedural errors that they make is to assume that the dated inscriptions are accurate and that court chroniclers are behaving like objective historians. As an architect, my principal argument with the authors is their facile acceptance of the compact time frame that they uncritically accept for the coming into being of the Taj from conception to its first Urs (anniversary) of the death of Mumtaz and the completion of the main building. Construction processes that had to consume substantial blocks of time are condensed into a few months. They feel justified in relying on what evidence is available, but fail to consider the objective needs of construction. They regret the loss of what, they say, must have been millions of Mughal state records and documents produced each year on all aspects of the Taj's construction. They do not consider that the lack of drawings, specifications and records of payment may be due to their not being generated at the time. Nor do they consider Shahjahan's potential for deception as to when and by whom it was built. Yet they point out Shahjahan's careful monitoring of the contents of court history: "Shajahan himself was probably responsible for this twisting of historical truth. The truth would have shown him to be inconsistent and this could not be tolerated. For this reason also, the histories contain no statements of any kind that are critical of the Emperor or his policies, and even military defeats are rationalized so that no blame could be attached to him. ... effusive praise of the Emperor is carried to such extremes that he seems more a divinity than a mortal man." (p. xxvi) With the court chroniclers' histories carefully edited, and with the great scarcity of documents we are fortunate to have four surviving farmans or directives issued by Shahjahan to Raja Jai Singh of Amber-the very same local ruler from whom the Emperor acquired the Taj property. On the basis of these farmans, the court chroniclers and a visiting European traveler, we learn that: (i) http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (1 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND

Mumtaz died and was buried temporarily at Burhanpur on June 17, 1631; (ii) her body was exhumed and taken to Agra on December 11, 1631; (iii) she was reburied somewhere on the Taj grounds on January 8, 1632; and (iv) European traveler Peter Mundy witnessed Shahjahan's return to Agra with his cavalcade on June 11, 1632. The first farman was issued on September 20, 1632 in which the Emperor urges Raja Jai Singh to hasten the shipment of marble for the facing of the interior walls of the mausoleum, i.e., the Taj main building. Naturally a building had to be there to receive the finish. How much time was needed to put that basic building in place? Every successful new building construction follows what we call in modern-day construction a "critical path". There is a normal sequence of steps requiring a minimum time before other processes follow. Since Mumtaz died unexpectedly and relatively young (having survived thirteen previous child-births), we can assume that Shahjahan was unprepared for her sudden demise. He had to conceive, in the midst of his trauma, of a world class tomb dedicated to her, select an architect (whose identity is still debated), work out a design program with the architect, and have the architect prepare designs, engineer the structure and mechanical systems, detail the drawings, organize the contractors and thousands of workers, and prepare a complex construction schedule. Mysteriously, no documents relating to this elaborate procedure, other than the four farmans have survived. We cannot assume that the Taj complex was built additively with the buildings and landscaping built as needed. It was designed as a unified whole. Begley and Desai make this clear by their analysis of the grid system that was employed by the designer to unite the complex horizontally and vertically to into a three-dimensional whole. If one did not "know" that it was a solemn burial grounds, one would believe that it was designed as a palace with a delightful air of fantasy and secular delights of waterways and flowering plants. Could it be that this is Raja Jai Singh's palace, never destroyed, converted by decree and some minimum face-lifting to a Mughal tomb? Assuming that Shahjahan was galvanized into prompt action to initiate the project on behalf of his deceased beloved, we can safely assume that he needed one year minimum between conception and ground-breaking. Since Mumtaz died in June 1631, that would take us to June 1632. But construction is said to have begun in January 1632. Excavation must have presented a formidable task. First, the demolition of Raja Jai Singh's palace would have had to occur. We know that the property had a palace on it from the chronicles of Mirza Qazini and Abd al-Hamid Lahori. Lahori writes: "As there was a tract of land (zamini) of great eminence and pleasantness towards the south of that large city, on which before there was this mansion (manzil) of Raja Man Singh, and which now belongs to his grandson Raja Jai Singh, it was selected for the burial place (madfan) of that tenant of paradise.[Mumtaz]" (p. 43) Measures would have to be taken during excavation of this main building and the other buildings to the north to retain the Jumna River from inundating the excavation. The next steps would http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (2 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND

have been to sink the massive foundation piers, put in the footings, retaining the walls and the plinth or podium to support the Taj and its two accompanying buildings to the east and west plus the foundations for the corner towers, the well house, the underground rooms, and assuming the complex was done at one time, all the supports for the remainder of the buildings throughout the complex. To be conservative in our estimate, we need at least another year of construction which takes us up to January 1634. But here is the problem. On the anniversary of the death of Mumtaz, each year Shahjahan would stage the Urs celebration at the Taj. The first Urs occurred on June 22, 1632. Though construction had allegedly begun only six months earlier, the great plinth of red sandstone over brick, 374 yards long, 140 yards wide, and 14 yards high was already in place! Even Begley and Desai are somewhat amazed. Where was all the construction debris, the piles of materials, the marble, the brick scaffolding, the temporary housing for thousands of workers, the numerous animals needed to haul materials? If "heaven was surpassed by the magnificence of the rituals", as one chronicler puts it, then nothing should have been visible to mar the exquisite panorama that the occasion called for. But by June 1632, it was not physically possible that construction could have progressed to completion of excavation, construction of all the footings and foundations, completion of the immense platform and clearing of all the debris and eyesores in preparation for the first Urs. Begley and Desai have little use for the testimony of the European travelers to the court of Shahjahan. But they consider Peter Mundy, an agent of the British East India Company, to be the most important source on the Taj because he was there shortly before the first Urs at the new grave site, and one year later at the second Urs. It was Mundy who said that he saw the installation of the enameled gold railing surrounding Mumtaz's cenotaph at the time of the second Urs on May 26, 1633. But there is no way that construction could have moved ahead so vigorously from January 1632 to May 1633 as to be ready to receive the railing. After all, the railing could not have stood forth in the open air. It means that the Taj building had to be already there. It must have been immensely valuable since the cost of the Taj complex was reported to be fifty lakhs, while the cost of the gold railing was six lakhs of rupees. The gold railing was removed by Shahjahan on February 6, 1643 when it was replaced by the inlaid white marble screen one sees now. An alternate interpretation of events regarding the railing is that Shahjahan revealed the gold railing of Raja Jai Singh at the first or second Urs. In 1643 he appropriated it for himself and put in its place the very fine marble screen with its inlaid semi-precious stones, a screen that was not nearly as valuable as the gold railing. If Shahjahan's construction and interior adornment of the Taj are in question, what rework of the Taj can we attribute to him? The inscriptions were undoubtedly among the few rework tasks that he was obliged to do. He may also have removed any obvious references to Hinduism in the http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (3 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND

form of symbolic decor that existed. The book's plate illustrations show that the inscriptions are almost always in a discrete rectangular frame which renders them capable of being modified or added to without damaging the adjascent material. In my judgement the black script on the white marble background seems inappropriate esthetically in the midst of the soft beige marble that surrounds it. By adding the inscriptions Shahjahan probably sought to establish the credibility of its having been his creation as a sacred mausoleum instead of the Hindu palace that time will undoubtedly prove that it was. Based on the latest inscriptions dated 1638-39, which appear on the tomb, the authors estimate a construction period of six years. Six years in my judgement is simply not enough time. As reasonable approximation of the total time required to build the Taj complex, we can consider Tavernier's estimate of twenty-two years. Although he first arrived in Agra in 1640, he probably witnessed some rework or repair. The time frame of twenty-two years may have been passed on to him by local people as part of the collective memory from some previous century when the Taj was actually built. The issue of repairs is taken up by the authors in their translation of the original letter of Aurangazeb to his father dated December 9, 1652. He reports serious leaks on the north side, the four arched portals, the four small domes, the four northern vestibules, subchambers of the plinth, plus leaks from the previous rainy season. The question the authors do not raise is: Would the Taj, being at most only thirteen years old, already have shown symptoms of decay? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that by 1652 it was already hundreds of years old and was showing normal wear and tear. Who built the Taj? The authors say it was Ahmad Ustad Lahori, chief architect for Shahjahan. They base this belief mainly on the assertion by Luft Allah, the son of Lahori, in a collection of verses, that Shahjahan commanded Lahori to build both the Taj and the Red Fort at Delhi. As evidence this is quite weak. The court historians are unfailing in their praise for the Emperor's personal participation in his massive architectuaral projects and they are never lacking in glorifying his sterling character. But the European travelers have other things to say about his personality and his inability to focus on anything for long except his lust for women. Nor is the object of his supposed great love either tender or compassionate. It seems that both "lovers" were cruel, self-centred and vicious. To believe that out of this relationship, with the support of Shahjahan's alleged great architectural skills, came what many consider to be the most beautiful building complex in the world, is sheer romantic nonsense. While Begley and Desai are sceptical of the Taj Mahal's being a consequence of romantic devotion, they yield not an inch in asserting its Mughal origin. They support this traditional view by overlooking some key problems: 1. Consider the identical character of the two buildings on either side of the Taj main building. If they had different functions-one a mosque, the other a guest residence-then, they should have http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (4 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND

been designed differently to reflect their individual functions. 2. Why does the perimeter wall of the complex have a Medieval, pre-artillery, defense character when artillery (cannons) was already in use in the Mughal invasions of India? [Why does a mausoleum need a protective wall in the first place? For a palace it is understadable.] 3. Why are there some twenty rooms below the terrace level on the north side of the Taj facing the Jumna River? Why does a mausoleum need these rooms? A palace could put them to good use. The authors do not even mention their existence. 4. What is in the sealed-up rooms on the south side of the long corridor opposite the twenty contiguous rooms? Who filled in the doorway with masonry? Why are scholars not allowed to enter and study whatever objects or decor are within? 5. Why does the "mosque" face due west instead of facing Meccah? Certainly, by the seventeenth century there was no problem in orienting a building precisely! 6. Why has the Archaeological Survey of India blocked any dating of the Taj by means of Carbon-14 or thermo-luminiscnece? Any controversy over which century the Taj was built could easily be resolved. [Radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood surreptiously taken from one of the doors gave 13th century as a possible date. But more data is needed.] If Shajahan did not build the Taj for the love of Mumtaz, then why did he want it? His love for Mumtaz was evidently a convenient subterfuge. He actually wanted the existing palace for himself. He appropriated it from Raja Jai Singh by making him an offer he could not refuse, the gift of other properties in exchange. He also acquired whatever was precious within the building including the immensely valuable gold railing. By converting the complex into a sacred Moslem mausoleum he insured that the Hindus would never want it back. Shahjahan converted the residential quarters to the west of the main building to a mosque simply by modifying the interior of the west wall to create a mihrab niche. He added Islamic inscriptions around many doorways and entries to give the impression that the Taj had always been Islamic. Sure enough, the scholars have been silent or deceived ever since. Yet, we must thank Begley and Desai for having assembled so much useful data and translated contemporary writings and inscriptions. Where they failed is in accepting an apocryphal legend of the Taj for an absolute fact. Their interpretations and analyses have been forced into the mold of their bias. It would be well to take advantage of their work by scholars and laymen interested in deepening their knowledge of the Taj Mahal to read the book while keeping an open mind as to when and by whom it was built. Added note: A leading Indian architect, former professor of architecture at Mysore University adds: There are fundamental problems with the current theory of Islamic Architecture in India of which

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (5 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND

the following may be noted. (1) Unlike in the case of Hindu architecture, where there are literally hundreds of works on Vastu in several Indian languages, there seem to be almost no texts or manuals on Islamic architecture. It is difficult to see how a great school of architecture lasting 600 years could flourish without any technical literature. (2) Hindu architectural practices and traditions are maintained by thousands of mason families, especially in South India. These are known as Vishwakarmas or Vishwa Brahmanas. They are greatly in demand all over the world. No such Muslim families are known. (3) There are no standards of units and measurements for Islamic architecture in India. It is inconceivable that great works of architecture could come up without them. This is an objective requirement. TAJ MAHAL-The Illumined Tomb, an anthology of seventeenth century Mughal and European documentary sources, by W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai: Published by the University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1989 (The Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture). The reviewer Marvin Mills is a leading New York architect and professor of architecture at the Pratt Institute.

[Home] [Back to the Taj Mahal page]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (6 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

The Badshahnama

The Badshahnama Here is a copy of a page of the Badshahnama, the history of Shah Jahan, the so-called builder of the Taj Mahal. This is from the Government of India's National Archives, and available from the instituional libraries dealing with the medieval history of India. This is supposed to have been written by the emperor's chronicler, the Mullah Abdul Hamid Lahori. It describes the site of the Taj Mahal as being full of majestic and lush gardens just south of the city (Agra). It goes on to say that the palace of Raja Mansingh, which was owned by his grandson Raja Jaisingh, was selected as the place for the burial of the queen Mumtaz. This means, of course, that Shah Jahan never built the Taj Mahal but only acquired it from the previous owner, who was Jaisingh.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/badshahnama.htm (1 of 2)10/7/2006 9:42:30 AM

The Badshahnama

[Home] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/badshahnama.htm (2 of 2)10/7/2006 9:42:30 AM

Taj Mahal Photo One

Taj Mahal Photo #1 [Below is] An aerial view of the Taj Mahal alias Tejo Mahalaya, ancient Hindu temple complex in Agra. For the last 300 years the world has been fooled to believe that this stupendous edifice was built by the 5th generation Mogul emperor Shahjahan to commemorate one of his dead wives--Mumtaz. The two flanking buildings although identical, only the one in the rear is known as a mosque. The Taj Mahal has seven stories. Five of them lie sealed and barred concealing rich evidence. The marble building in the centre is flanked by two symmetrical ones. The one in the foreground is the eastern one. The one in the background is being represented as a mosque because it is to the west. They should not have been identical if only one was to be a mosque. In the courtyard at the foot of the eastern building is inlaid a full scale replica of the trident pinnacle [found at the top of the dome]. The tiny tower at the left near the western building, encloses a huge octagonal multi-storied well.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_one.htm10/7/2006 9:43:01 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Two

Taj Mahal Photo # 2 This is the massive octagonal well with palatial apartments along its seven stories. A royal staircase descends right down to the water level indicated by the tiny white patch showing the sun's reflection. This was the traditional treasury well of the Hindu temple palace. Treasure chests used to be stacked in the lower stories. Accountants, cashiers and treasurers sat in the upper stories. Cheques called handies used to be issued from here. On being besieged, if the building had to be surrendered to the enemy, the treasure used to be pushed into the water for salvage later after recapture. For real research, water should be pumped out of this well to reveal the evidence that lies at the bottom. This well is inside a tower near the so-called mosque to the west of the marble Taj. Had the Taj been a mausoleum this octagonal multistoried well would have been superfluous.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_two.htm10/7/2006 9:43:31 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Three

Taj Mahal Photo # 3 A frontal view of the Taj Mahal alias Tejo Mahalaya in Agra. It is octagonal because the Hindus believe in 10 directions. The pinnacle pointing to the heaven and the foundation to the nether world, plus the eight surface directions make the 10 directions. Divinity and royalty are believed to hold sway in all those 10 directions. Hence in Hindu tradition, buildings connected with royalty and divinity must have some octagonal features or the buildings themselves should be octagonal. The two flanking cupolas (two others to the rear are not seen in this photo) are also identical. The towers at the four plinth corners served as watch towers during the day, and to hold lights at night. Hindu wedding altars and Satyanarayan worship altars invariably have such towers at corners. [Many other Hindu temples, such as those at Khajurao, also can be found to have four towers or temples, one at each corner of the temple foundation.] The lotus flower cap on the head of the dome is a Hindu feature. Muslim domes are bald. This marble edifice has four stories. Inside the dome is an 83 ft. high hall. The Taj has a double dome. The dome one sees from inside ends like an inverted pan on the terrace. The dome seen from outside is a cover on the inner dome. Therefore, in between them is an 83 ft. hall. This may be considered as one storey. Underneath may be seen the first storey arches and the ground floor rooms. In the basement, visitors are shown one room. All these constitute the four storeys in the marble edifice. Below the marble structure are two stories in red stone reaching down to the river level. The 7th storey must be below the river level because every ancient Hindu historic building did have a basement. Thus, the Taj is a seven-storied structure.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_three.htm (1 of 2)10/7/2006 9:44:04 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Three

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_three.htm (2 of 2)10/7/2006 9:44:04 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Four

Taj Mahal Photo # 4 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.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_four.htm10/7/2006 9:44:28 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Five

Taj Mahal Photo # 5 A close up of the upper portion of the pinnacle of the Taj Mahal, photographed from the parapet beneath the dome. 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.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_five.htm10/7/2006 9:44:52 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Six

Taj Mahal Photo # 6 The full scale figure of the pinnacle on the dome has been inlaid on the red stone courtyard of the Taj Mahal. One may see it to the east at the foot of the riverside arch of the flanking building wrongly dubbed as Jamiat Khana (community hall) by Muslim usurpers. Such floor sketches in courtyards are a common Hindu trait. In Fatehpur Sikri it is the backgammon board which is sketched on a central courtyard. The coconut top and the bent mango leaves underneath, resting on a kalash (i.e. a water pot) is a sacred Hindu motif. Hindu shrines in the Himalayan foothills have identical pinnacles [especially noticed at Kedarnath, a prominent Shiva temple]. The eastern location of the sketch is also typically Hindu. The length measures almost 32 ft.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_six.htm10/7/2006 9:45:17 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Seven

Taj Mahal Photo # 7 The apex of the lofty entrance arch on all four sides of the Taj Mahal bears this red lotus and white trident--indicating that the building originated as a Hindu temple. The Koranic lettering forming the middle strip was grafted after Shahjahan seized the building from Jaipur state's Hindu ruler.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_seven.htm10/7/2006 9:45:46 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Eight

Taj Mahal Photo # 8 This is a riverside view of the Taj Mahal. The four storied marble structure above has under it these two stories reaching down to the river level. The 22 rooms shown in other photos are behind that line of arches seen in the middle. Each arch is flanked by Hindu lotus discs in white marble. Just above the ground level is the plinth. In the left corner of the plinth is a doorway indicating inside the plinth are many rooms sealed by Shahjahan. One could step out to the river bank from the door at the left. The 7th storey is surmised to be under the plinth below the ground because every ancient Hindu mansion had a basement. Excavation to reach the basement chamber should start under this door.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_eight.htm10/7/2006 9:46:07 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Nine

Taj Mahal Photo # 9 Most people content to see Mumtaz's grave inside the Taj fail to go to the rear riverside. This is the riverside view. From here one may notice that the four-storied marble structure on top has below it two more stories in red stone. Note the window aperture in the arch at the left. That indicates that there are rooms inside. Inside the row of arches in the upper part of the wall are 22 rooms. In addition to the four stories in marble, this one shows red stone arches in the 5th storey. The 6th storey lies in the plinth in the lower portion of the photo. In another photo a doorway would be seen in the left corner of the plinth, indicating the presence of apartments inside, from where one could emerge on the river for a bath.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_nine.htm10/7/2006 9:46:28 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Ten

Taj Mahal Photo # 10 These corridors at the approach of the Taj Mahal are typically Hindu. They may be seen in any ancient Hindu capital. Note the two octagonal tower cupolas at the right and left top. Only Hindus have special names for the eight directions and celestial guards assigned to each. Any octagonal feature in historic buildings should convince the visitor of their Hindu origin. Guards, palanquin bearers and other attendants resided in hundreds of rooms along numerous such corridors when the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple palace. Thus the Taj was more magnificent and majestic before it was reduced to a sombre Islamic cemetery.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_ten.htm10/7/2006 9:46:56 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Eleven

Taj Mahal Photo # 11 This Naqqar Khana alias Music House in the Taj Mahal garden is an incongruity if the Taj Mahal were an Islamic tomb. Close by on the right is the building which Muslims claim to be a mosque. The proximity of a mosque to the Music House is incongruous with Muslim tradition. In India, Muslims have a tradition of pelting stones on Hindu music processions passing over a mosque. Moreover a mausoleum needs silence. A dead person's repose is never to be disturbed. Who would then provide a band house for a dead Mumtaz? Contrarily Hindu temples and palaces have a music house because morning and evening Hindu chores begin to the sweet strains of sacred music.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_eleven.htm10/7/2006 9:47:18 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Twelve

Taj Mahal Photo # 12 Such are the rooms on the 1st floor of the marble structure of the Taj Mahal. The two staircases leading to this upper floor are kept locked and barred since Shahjahan's time. The floor and the marble walls of such upper floor rooms can be seen in the picture to have been stripped of its marble panels. Shahjahan used that uprooted marble from the upper floor for constructing graves and engraving the Koran because he did not know wherefrom to procure marble matching the splendour of the rest of the Taj Mahal. He was also so stingy as not to want to spend much even on converting a robbed Hindu temple into an Islamic mausoleum.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twelve.htm10/7/2006 9:47:40 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Thirteen

Taj Mahal Photo # 13 Such are the magnificent marble-paved, shining, cool, white bright rooms of the Taj Mahal temple palace's marble ground floor. Even the lower third portion of the walls is covered with magnificent marble mosaic. The doorway at the left looks suspiciously closed with a stone slab. One can perambulate through these rooms around the central octagonal sanctorum, now occupied by Mumtaz's fake grave. The aperture, seen through of the central door, enabled perambulating devotees to keep their eyes fixed on the Shiva Linga in the central chamber. Hindu Shiva Lingas are consecrated in two chambers, one above the other. Therefore, Shahjahan had to raise two graves in the name of Mumtaz--one in the marble basement and the other on the ground floor to desecrate and hide both the Shiva emblems from public view. [The famous Shiva temple in Ujjain also has an underground chamber for one of its Shiva-lingams.]

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_thirteen.htm10/7/2006 9:48:11 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Fourteen

Taj Mahal Photo # 14 This is the Dhatura flower essential for Hindu Shiva worship. The flower is depicted in the shape of the sacred, esoteric Hindu incantation 'OM.' Embossed designs of this blooming 'OM' are drawn over the exterior of the octagonal central sanctorum of Shiva where now a fake grave in Mumtaz's has been planted. While perambulating around the central chamber one may see such 'OM' designs.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_fourteen.htm10/7/2006 9:48:32 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Fifteen

Taj Mahal Photo # 15 This staircase and another symmetrical one at the other end lead down to the storey beneath the marble platform. Visitors may go to the back of the marble plinth at the eastern or western end and descend down the staircase because it is open to the sky. But at the foot the archaeology department has set up an iron door which it keeps locked. Yet one may peep inside from the iron gate in the upper part of the door. Shahjahan had sealed even these two staircases. It was the British who opened them. But from Shahjahan's time the stories below and above the marble ground floor have been barred to visitors. We are still following Mogul dictates though long free from Mogul rule.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_fifteen.htm10/7/2006 9:48:54 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Sixteen

Taj Mahal Photo # 16 On the inner flank of the 22 locked rooms (in the secret storey in red stone below the marble platform) is this corridor about 12 ft. broad and 300 ft. long. Note the scallop design at the base of the plinth supporting the arches. This is the Hindu decoration which enables one to identify even a bare plinth.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_sixteen.htm10/7/2006 9:49:12 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Seventeen

Taj Mahal Photo # 17 One of the 22 rooms in the secret storey underneath the marble plinth of the Taj Mahal. Many such features of the Taj remain unknown to the public so long as they see it only as a tomb. If the public knew how much it is missing in the Taj Mahal it will insist that the government unseal its many stories. Two doorways at either end of this corridor in the right side wall leading to inner apartments have been sealed by Shahjahan. If those doorways are opened, important evidence concealed inside by Shahjahan may come to light.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_seventeen.htm10/7/2006 9:49:27 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Eighteen

Taj Mahal Photo # 18 A corner of one of the 22 rooms in the secret storey immediately below the marble platform of the Taj Mahal. Note the strips of Hindu paint on the wall. The ventilator at the left, meant for air and light from the riverside, has been crudely walled up by Shahjahan. He did not bother even to plaster them. Had Shahjahan built the Taj as a mausoleum what was the purpose of the 22 rooms? And why are they kept locked and hidden from the public?

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_eighteen.htm10/7/2006 9:49:58 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Nineteen

Taj Mahal Photo # 19 One of the 22 locked rooms in the secret storey beneath the marble platform of the Taj Mahal. Strips of ancient Hindu paint are seen on the wall flanking the doorway. The niches above had paintings of Hindu idols, obviously rubbed off by Muslim desecraters. The rooms may be seen door within door in a row. If the public knew that the Taj Mahal is a structure hiding hundreds of rooms, they would insist on seeing the whole of it. At present they only peep into the grave chamber and walk away.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_nineteen.htm10/7/2006 9:50:29 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Twenty

Taj Mahal Photo # 20 This esoteric Hindu design is painted on the ceiling of some of the 22 locked rooms in the secret storey below the marble platform of the Taj Mahal in Agra. Had Shahjahan built the Taj Mahal he would not have kept such elaborately painted rooms sealed and barred to the public. Even now one can enter these rooms only if one can influence the archaeology department to remove the locks.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twenty.htm10/7/2006 9:50:43 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-one

Taj Mahal Photo # 21 A huge ventilator of one of the 22 rooms in a secret storey of the Taj, is seen here crudely sealed with unplastered bricks by Shahjahan. History has been so perverted and inverted that alien Muslims like Shahjahan who spoiled, damaged, desecrated and destroyed historic Hindu buildings, are being falsely paraded as great builders.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentyone.htm10/7/2006 9:51:29 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-two

Taj Mahal Photo # 22 One of the 22 riverside rooms in a secret storey of the Taj Mahal, unknown to the public. Shahjahan, far from building the shining marble Taj, wantonly disfigured it. Here he has crudely walled up a doorway. Such imperial Mogul vandalism lies hidden from the public. This room is in the red stone storey immediately below the marble platform. Indian history has been turned topsy turvy in lauding destroyers as great builders.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentytwo.htm10/7/2006 9:52:00 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-three

Taj Mahal Photo # 23 Many such doorways of chambers in secret stories underneath the Taj Mahal have been sealed with brick and lime. Concealed inside could be valuable evidence such as Sanskrit inscriptions, Hindu idols, the original Hindu model of the Taj, the desecrated Shiva Linga, Hindu scriptures and temple equipment. Besides such sealed chambers there are many which are kept locked by the Government. The Public must raise its voice to have these opened or it should institute legal proceedings. Shree P. N. Sharma of Green Park, New Delhi who peeped through an aperture in these chambers in 1934 A.D. saw a pillared hall with images carved on the pillars.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentythree.htm10/7/2006 9:52:22 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-four

Taj Mahal Photo # 24 Burharpur is a very ancient historic city on the Central Railway between Khandwa and Bhusawal junctions. Burhanpur and the nearby Asirgarh (fort) used to provide hospitality to Hindu royals proceeding north or south on pilgrimage, weddings or military expeditions. Barhanpur has many magnificent mansions which are currently being described as mosques and tombs of alien Islamic invaders. This building is one such ancient Hindu royal palace captured by the Moghuls. Mumtaz died here during her 14th delivery around 1630 A.D. while she and Shahjahan were camping here. She is said to be buried in a Hindu pavilion in front of this palace.

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentyfour.htm10/7/2006 9:52:45 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-five

Taj Mahal Photo # 25 Mumtaz is supposed to be buried in this garden pavilion of the ancient Hindu palace (Ahu Mahal) 600 miles from Agra, in Burhanpur. Another version says that Mumtaz's corpse was kept here exposed to sun, rain, and wild beasts for six months. The date of her death, the date of her removal from Burhanpur to Agra, and the date of her assumed burial in the Taj Mahal are all unknown because the entire Taj Mahal-Mumtaz legend is a concoction from the beginning to end. [Mumtaz was only one of several hundred wives and women that Shahjahan kept in his harem.]

[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]

[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentyfive.htm10/7/2006 9:53:07 AM