Archive for August, 2010

Taj Mahal a Love Symbol or a Shiva Temple.

Purushottam Nagesh Oak (March 2 1917 – December 4 2007), commonly referred to as P. N. Oak, was an Indian writer and a Professor, notable for his historical revisionism based on the ideology of Hindutva.

Intent on rectifying what he believes to be “biased and distorted versions of India’s history produced by the invaders and colonizers”, Oak has written several books and articles on Indian history and founded an “Institute for Rewriting Indian History” in 1964.

To know more about P.N.Oak visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purushottam_Nagesh_Oak

Let’s see what he said about Taj Mahal in his banned book The true story of Taj Mahal. Few days back I received a mail saying hidden truth of Taj Mahal and thought to share it with you coz its very interesting.

In his book Taj Mahal: The True Story, Oak says the Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz’s tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya).

In the course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle, Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai Singh for Mumtaz’s burial.

The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur still retains in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for surrendering the Taj building.

Using captured temples and mansions, as a burial place for dead courtiers and royalty was a common practice among Muslim rulers. For example, Humayun, Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried in such mansions. Oak’s inquiries began with the name of Taj Mahal. He says the term “Mahal” has never been used for a building in any Muslim countries from Afghanisthan to Algeria. The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal was illogical. Her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani,” he writes”.

Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva’s Palace. Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale created by court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan’s time corroborates the love story.

Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predates Shah Jahan’s era, and was a temple dedicated to Shiva, worshipped by Rajputs of Agra city.

For example, Prof. Marvin Miller of New York took a few samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan.

European traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo, who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz’s death), describes the life of the city in his memoirs. But he makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built.

The writings of Peter Mundy, an English visitor to Agra within a year of Mumtaz’s death, also suggest the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan’s time. Prof. Oak points out a number of design and architectural inconsistencies that support the belief of the Taj Mahal being a typical Hindu temple rather than a mausoleum.

Many rooms in the Taj Mahal have remained sealed since Shah Jahan’s time and are still inaccessible to the public. Oak asserts they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples Fearing political backlash,

Indira Gandhi’s government tried to have Prof. Oak’s book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the first edition dire consequences.

Now after reading this what you say about TAJ MAHAL, you believe in which story ? the story which has been told to us in our history or the story which has told by Mr. P.N. Oak ?

Ideally the current government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal under U.N. supervision, and let international experts investigate. There is only one way to prove a research wrong just prove the research findings wrong.

If government knows that Taj Mahal was built by Shah Jahan for his beloved Mumtaj & they have enough evidence about it than why not they are proving Oak’s findings wrong?

Why are they not opening those doors which are sealed?

Why Indira Gandhi’s government tried to threaten publishers & banned the book?

To all these questions there are no answers but in the year 2000 India’s Supreme Court dismissed Oak’s petition to declare that a Hindu king had built the Taj Mahal and reprimanded him for bringing the action, saying he had a “bee in his bonnet” (strange idea or notion; also, an idea that is harped on, an obsession) about the Taj.

Let’s assume if Mr. Oak is right in his findings but the government is in such situation that they can’t disclose the truth, it can change our cultural and political scenario.

I only like to say that these facts will remain always be a myth & will always be open for discussions. In this world somewhere someone will be discussing about these issues. Few will agree with Oak’s findings & few will say that he has a bee in his bonnet.

Many things will change if Oak’s findings are proved right,

the world will come to know few facts which are hidden in the Indian history.

children will learn true history instead of the crap.

But finally I think Taj Mahal or Tejo Mahalaya the beauty of Taj will never go in vain. Number of tourist visiting Taj Mahal will also not decline, what will change is, the reason, the reason of visiting TAJ.

Advertisements
Ashish Shakya

Writer. Stand-up comic. General idiot for hire.

Consumers & Brands

Marketing is all about narrowing the focus

South of the Border, West of the Sun

In a place far away from anyone or anywhere, I drifted off for a moment.

goodbadnews

yogesh dawda

The Wanderer's Thoughts...

With Love, anything is possible...

Gyaniz Blog

Ministry of Q&A

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

Mia Rose World

Mia Rose's official website

Paradisaic ADS - I could be Rwong!!!

The Thought behind myadpsyche is to create a community of professionals/beginners, genuinely interested in analysing ads and suggesting a better alternative... speaking out their PSYCHE