This is another Ramajanma bhoomi case and no progress is possible in our lifetime. We have to wait for a more favourable environment when an archeological investigation can be done without destroying anything, perhaps a radar survey by the canadian experts. Till then it is futile to discuss. Sampath
This theory is almost definitely something made up by arm-chair historians of the revisionist stripe, to promote an agenda of claiming that every piece of heritage in India is purely Hindu, and that outsiders did not add anything, possibly with a view to suit certain political viewpoints. This is not how history should be looked at.
For the Taj, we have quite a few secondary pieces of evidence - we know how much it cost (about 32 million rupees at the time), how long it took (10 years for the base and plinth, 12 years or the rest), who were the principal architects (Ustad Isa and others), the material used for the base (rubble), who originally owned the parcel of land where it stands, and details of the acquisition (Maharaja Jai Singh, who was compensated with a palace at another location), and a whole lot more.
That the structure is definitely Islamic, there can be no doubt. There's no garba griha, or any of the other standard components of a Hindu temple. Yet, when we compare to Humayun's tomb, it's quite obvious that there's a continuity in Islamic architecture. The Mughals, and especially Shah Jahan, came at a time when Muslim rulers had been established in India for about 400 years, which is sufficient time for architectural styles to diffuse. Other examples of this diffusion can be found in the palaces of Rajput kings of the time, which employ several techniques and themes more common in Islamic architecture than in traditional Indian architecture (and in other fields like music and religion, which I don't think I need to get into).
Given all this, the preponderance of current evidence points to the Taj being what it has been claimed to be, not what wishful thinkers with an agenda would like it to be. The burden of evidence lies on the proposers of the so-called "Tejo Mahalaya", not with people in the mainstream. As of now, they haven't even made a decent *prima facie* case for re-examining the evidence at hand.
It's wrong to try and show an equivalence between what's established using so much evidence and the small claims of a few, who, in the words of the Supreme Court, have a "bee in their bonnet" about the subject, and then say that "it needs further investigation". Such questions warrant further investigation *if and only if* the proposers can show that there is a large piece of evidence that cannot be explained by current theories. It's irresponsible to propose a hypothesis without a need for it.
Our patron, Rajaraja Cholan was responsible for unlocking the vaults in Chidambaram and rescuing the Thevaram manuscripts. We need another Arulmozhi to break the barriers and shine a torch on the hidden secrets and locked chambers. I remember Koenrad Elst saying that the history of Taj may be different from the official version; of course, he also doesn't subscribe to the hindu temple theory. The poor guy Oak would have escaped vilification, had he stopped with his original premise, that it was a palace. He too wanted further study by others. A request for a new study, should not be dismissed as one motivated by political or religious hindutva. We are now in an age when every historical theory and version is questioned. Sampath
Rajarajam unlocking thevaram? That is a story. There are enough epigraphs to show that thevaram singing was in practice even in pallava period and pre RRC period.
Arulmozhi had two things to do. 1. To confront Uttama Chola for the murder of Karikalan and order him to abdicate. 2. To rescue thevarams from Thillai temple. He chose the second as it was more important than exposing Uttama. Ref' Udayar by Balakumaran. Even existence of azhwar pasurams was known and some pasurams were sung in temples. But the pasurams were collected, classified and set to music by Nathamuni. By the way, there are many such historical 'facts' in Udayar. I wish Venkatesh is here to add interesting information. Sampath
It is a kind of bantering we, some members, do from time to time. Of course, you don't get it. Doesn't matter. Such references are not arguments in favour or against. Coming back to the old issue - why such an opposition to do a non-invasive, non-destructive study of taj - current view is that there was a palace (not place!) where the taj stands. Was it fully demolished, or partially demolished up to the basement or simply converted - this is the issue. When something like this is vehemently opposed, doubts crop up. That is why we need Rajaraja to pierce the 'historic/secular' protective layer. A planned study by ASI, under supervision of Supreme court (necessary for all sensitive issues) will only gladden historians and common folks, by providing proof or anti-proof. Quotes from Dr. V S Godbole's article: "In 1905, H. R. Nevill, ICS, compiled Agra District Gazetteer. In it he changed the words "Raja Mansingh's Palace" to "Raja Mansingh's piece of land." Ever since all historians have followed suit and repeated "Shahjahan purchased Raja Mansingh's piece of land, at that time in the possession of his grandson Raja Jaisingh." This deception has been going on for more than a century.
In 1982, the Archaeological Survey of India published a booklet entitled "Taj Museum." Though the authors repeat the usual legend, they say "Mumtaz died in Burhanpur and was buried there. Six months later Shahjahan exhumed her body and sent her coffin to Agra, on that site until then stood Late Raja Mansingh's Palace " Sampath
Coming to the legend of the thirumurais - the moovar are supposed to have ordered the thillai 3000 to keep the verses locked up till they come back and ask for it. If that were true, can we list the circumstances of the last songs of each of the moovar and the circumstances when they were sung.
Since ASI is cash strapped, manpower deficient, and has to tread cautiously when a beehive is likely to be disturbed, I will wait patiently for a private initiative to do a re-archeological-document (original persian and not just translations) study of Taj. I hope, due permission will be given by ASI when such a study is proposed. It is difficult to put a Q.E.D. for history. And all those who demand a study need not be historians. Like saying, one must not become be a music critic unless he can do a 3 hour concert. One cannot just brush aside historical novels as more fiction than fact; the authors spend some time in research and structure their novel based on data collected by them, as done by Balakumaran for Udayar, which is radically different from Kalki's Ponniyin Selvan. Even in case of Nandini, a hotly debated character, Kalki leaves several hints outside the novel, that she is real, though many argue otherwise. To conclude, I vote for reassessment of Taj's history with modern tools. Nothing more on this subject from me.