Taj Mahal or Tejo Mahalaya - what's the truth?

The first time I heard about anything called 'Tejo Mahalaya' way back when emails used to be primary modus operandi for spamming people. Of course now Whatsapp has overtaken that with far more vicious lies and highly divisive agenda. The concept, though first proposed by revisionist historian PN Oak in 1989, was new to us - the first internet generation of India. Oak has to his credit a few interesting theories too, including the fact that Hindus once conquered Italy and that Westminister Abbey (one of world's most famous churches) was also a Shiva Temple. If nothing else, he needs to be lauded for his ingenious imagination.

Taj Mahal or Tejo Mahalaya

If you are curious to read more on this, here's a link to a blog about PN Oak's theory: Taj Mahal - Hidden Truth.

There's more...

There is another man, Mr Amarnath, who considers himself a disciple of PN Oak and has a few more fanciful claims about history, especially about Islamic history in India. Here are some excerpts:

That ‘Delhi’s Red Fort is Hindu Lalkot’, that the Mughal metropolis Delhi was itself founded by the much earlier Hindu ‘Pandvas or King Anangpal of the 11 th century A.D.’ or ‘some other Hindu monarch’!!

So was the Red Fort in Agra. It was ‘a Hindu building … Fatehpur Sikri is a Hindu city … Townships like Ferozabad, Tughlakabad, Ahmedabad and Hyderabad have been falsely ascribed to this or that sultan though they are ancient Hindu townships’.

‘Ancient Italy was a Hindu country and the Pope, a Hindu priest.’

‘English is a dialect of Sanskrit.’

Ancient England too was ‘a Hindu country.’

‘The term Christmas is Crishna-mas, i.e. the month of Crishna, the Hindu incarnation at the time of the Mahabharata era. The word “mas” in Sanskrit means “month”.

Read the full article here: What method in madness!

Fresh controversy

This year the conversation around Taj Mahal being 'Tejo Mahalaya' has been the loudest, primarily because of a bizarre legal case brought by six lawyers from Agra which claims that the monument famously built by a seventeenth-century Mughal emperor as a tomb for his beloved wife was originally an ancient shrine to the Hindu god Shiva. (ref). Most recently, a elected Member of Parliament, Vinay Katiyar has also repeated the same, though being a nice man he is, has added that he has not asked the monument to be destroyed (ref). I remember growing up in Uttar Pradesh, when the agitation for building a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya was at it's peak. Though even then I can't recall anyone calling out publicly for the demolition of Babri Masjid, but we do know what happened. Words are powerful, very powerful, and must be used with caution.

Coming back to the story, once the court admitted the petition, it issued notices to the central government, Union ministry of culture, home secretary and ASI to file their replies. Dr Mahesh Sharma, India’s culture minister, said he was aware of the suit, but that “the government has not found any evidence which can suggest that Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple of Shiva” (ref). The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has stated in a court that the Taj Mahal is a tomb and not a temple. According to officials, a 1920 notification to protect the Taj Mahal has been made the basis for this affidavit in a local court here. The ASI even went on to say that the contentions of the plaintiffs were “concocted” and “imagined”, urging the court to dismiss the petition. (ref).

Watch this short video by Times of India on the current controversy and discussion.

So what's the conclusion?

Whether Taj Mahal is a tomb or a temple is not a matter of faith, but something that's for the experts to decide as well as study from historical records. I strongly believe that it's not for you and me to take a call on this based on distorted information being shared on social media and irresponsible statements by elected representatives of parliament. ASI, which is the best authority to decide on this, as well as government have a taken a stand - Taj Mahal is a Mughal tomb and NOT a Shiva temple. With this the controversy should end, though I think it's hoping against hope considering how irrelevant logic is for those who propagate these beliefs.

What do you think?