the taj mahal...its real origins!
Created | Updated Jan 25, 2006
i was going thru the site: "http:// www.stephen-knapp.com". Living currently in the city of the taj, and sometime back in the city whose rulers apparantly gave up the tejo mahalaya to the mughals, i am assailed by concrns about projecting the mughal ruler shahjehan as an absolute villian of history.
Some aspects that come to mind on reading the captions to the photographs:
1.Why is it constantly said that certain doorways were walled up 'by shahjahan'? could the activity not have been done by later rulers, hindu, muslim, or even the English rulers? The entries and captions sound like an accusation! It would be more in order and more interesting to have details of the real picture - as in details of the temple as it perhaps was, its significance, sources of more information on it, rather than vilifying a single mughal ruler.
2.all conquerers thru history attempted to destroy all traces of the culture existing in the land they conquered? And then imposed their version of culture on the land? Has this not happened thru Christendom? What happened to the Buddha Statues at Baamiyan? why pick on a mughal ruler?
3.While it may be RIGHT that the absolute truth emerge, and a TRUE picture of history be made available to all, what we are putting at risk here is a fragile politico-social scenario in a country already facing uncalled for turmoil on matters not meriting such attention.Do we go ahead and perhaps embark on a path to repeating something akin to the babri masjid fiasco?
4. The taj mahal as it stands today is a centuries old monument, an architectural wonder, certified as being so by the ASI. Should it emerge as being historically different from what has been so far expounded, historians could take up the matter and proceed in a dignified manner to relate and reveal the facts .
5. It has been stated in ASI templates thet the land for the monument was 'bought' by shahjahan from the Kachcwaha rulers. Would the Rajput rulers not have objected to the situation if things were not all right? why have they been so quiet and secretive thru the centuries. Unlike them, no?
6.Many readers on this site seem to be outraged, and seem to wish to do something about this turn of the history page. Let us also be outraged by the current state of Indian affairs-administratively, socially, politically, culturally. Outrage would be meaningless if all it leads to is destruction of historical monuments, without contributing to the country in any way , except negatively!
It is correct to inform and to know the truth behind history,but without maligning it, as an exercise in academics. Let us do the right deed for the right reason.
Do let your views be known!
Some aspects that come to mind on reading the captions to the photographs:
1.Why is it constantly said that certain doorways were walled up 'by shahjahan'? could the activity not have been done by later rulers, hindu, muslim, or even the English rulers? The entries and captions sound like an accusation! It would be more in order and more interesting to have details of the real picture - as in details of the temple as it perhaps was, its significance, sources of more information on it, rather than vilifying a single mughal ruler.
2.all conquerers thru history attempted to destroy all traces of the culture existing in the land they conquered? And then imposed their version of culture on the land? Has this not happened thru Christendom? What happened to the Buddha Statues at Baamiyan? why pick on a mughal ruler?
3.While it may be RIGHT that the absolute truth emerge, and a TRUE picture of history be made available to all, what we are putting at risk here is a fragile politico-social scenario in a country already facing uncalled for turmoil on matters not meriting such attention.Do we go ahead and perhaps embark on a path to repeating something akin to the babri masjid fiasco?
4. The taj mahal as it stands today is a centuries old monument, an architectural wonder, certified as being so by the ASI. Should it emerge as being historically different from what has been so far expounded, historians could take up the matter and proceed in a dignified manner to relate and reveal the facts .
5. It has been stated in ASI templates thet the land for the monument was 'bought' by shahjahan from the Kachcwaha rulers. Would the Rajput rulers not have objected to the situation if things were not all right? why have they been so quiet and secretive thru the centuries. Unlike them, no?
6.Many readers on this site seem to be outraged, and seem to wish to do something about this turn of the history page. Let us also be outraged by the current state of Indian affairs-administratively, socially, politically, culturally. Outrage would be meaningless if all it leads to is destruction of historical monuments, without contributing to the country in any way , except negatively!
It is correct to inform and to know the truth behind history,but without maligning it, as an exercise in academics. Let us do the right deed for the right reason.
Do let your views be known!
