From Subramanian Fri Sep 17 04:01:55 1999
Delivered-To: listsaver-of-agathiyar@egroups.com
Mailing-List: contact agathiyar-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: agathiyar@egroups.com
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/agathiyar/
Received: (listserv 1.259); by m5; 17 Sep 1999 11:04:52 -0000
Reply-To: agathiyar@egroups.com
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-agathiyar@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 20434 invoked from network); 17 Sep 1999 11:04:48 -0000
Received: from gatekeeper.wipsys.soft.net (164.164.90.8) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 1999 11:04:48 -0000
Received: by gatekeeper.wipsys.soft.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA00593; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:35:24 -0500
Received: from kmglmail(164.164.26.11) by gatekeeper via smap (V2.0) id xma000576; Fri, 17 Sep 99 16:35:16 -0500
Received: from nortelgw.wipsys.soft.net ([164.164.26.5]) by kmglmail.wipsys.soft.net (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA4E43 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:34:54 +0530
Received: by nortelgw.wipsys.soft.net; id QAA20996; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:48:01 +0530 (IST)
Received: from wslexch.wipsys.soft.net(192.219.223.59) by nortelgw.wipsys.soft.net via smap (4.0a) id xma020990; Fri, 17 Sep 99 16:47:47 +0530
Received: from neptune (neptune.wipsys.soft.net [164.164.24.30]) by wslexch.wipsys.soft.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0) id STVM5ATK; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:34:59 +0530
Sender: rrsubram@...
Message-ID: <37E21F25.2E8@...>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:29:49 +0530
From: Subramanian
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/770)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: agathiyar@egroups.com
Subject: [agathiyar] Taj Mahal or Tejo Mahalaya
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2093

Disclaimer: I received the mail below from a friend. The opinions
are not mine. Agathiyam netters can clarify whether it could be true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------


The mogul emperor Shah Jahan in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal
built the Taj Mahal. It was built in 22 years (1631 to 1653) by 20,000
artisans brought to India from all over the world. Many people believe
Ustad Isa of Iran designed it. This is what your guide probably told you
if you ever visited the Taj Mahal in India. This is the story I read in
my history book as a student in India. No one has ever challenged it
except Professor P.N. Oak, who believes the whole world has been duped.
In his book Tajmahal: The True Story,

Oak says the Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaj Mahal's tomb but an ancient
Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya).In the
course of his research, Oak discovered the Shiva temple palace was
usurped by Shah Jahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh.

Shah Jahan then remodeled the palace into his wife's memorial.
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 ofJaipur 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, Hamayun, Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried in
such mansions.

Oak's inquiries begin with the name TajMahal. He says this term
does not occur in any Mogul court papers or chronicles, even after
ShahJahan's time. The term "Mahal" has never been used for a
building in any of the Muslim countries, from Afghanistan to Algeria.
"The unusual explanation of the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaj Mahal
is illogical in at least two respects. Firstly, her name was never
Mumtaj Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani," he writes. "Secondly, one cannot
omit the first three letters 'Mum' from a woman's name to derive the
remainder as the name for the building."

Taj Mahal, he claims, is a corrupt version of Tejo-mahalaya,
or the Shiva's Palace.

Oak also says the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a
fairy tale created court sycophants, blundering historians and
sloppy archeologists. Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time
corroborates the love story.Furthermore, Oak cites several
documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predate Shah Jahan's era, and was a
temple palace dedicated to Shiva worshipped by the Rajputs of Agra city.

For example, Professor 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 long well before Shah Jahan's
time.

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 Shiva and other
objects commonly used for worship rituals in Hindu temples.

Fearing political backlash,Indira Gandhi's government tried to have
Oak's book withdrawn from the bookstores, and threatened the Indian
publisher of the first edition with dire consequences.

There is only one way to discredit or validate Oak's research. The
current Indian government should open the sealed rooms of Taj Mahal
under UN supervision, and let international experts investigate.

------------------------------------------------