मित्रोँ हमेँ और हमारे बच्चोँ को पढाया जा रहा गलत इतिहास! ताजमहल मुमताज की कब्र नही तेजो महालय नाम का एक शिव मन्दिर है । इसको कई बार हमने बताया भी है लेकिन कुछ लोग मानने को तैयार ही नही हैँ। इसी बाबत पढिये BBC की एक रिपोर्ट! If you have ever visited the Taj Mahal then your guide probably told you that it was designed by Ustad Isa of Iran, and built by the Moghul Emperor, Shah Jahan, in memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal. Indian children are taught that it was built in 22 years (1631to 1653) by 20,000 artisans brought to India from all over theworld. This story has been challenged byProfessor P.N. Oak, author of Taj Mahal: The True Story , who believes that the whole world hasbeen duped. He claims that the Taj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz Mahals tomb, but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva(then known as Tejo Mahalaya), worshipped by the Rajputs of Agra city. In the course of his research, Oakdiscovered that the Shiva temple palace had been usurped by ShahJahan from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. Shah Jahan then remodelled the palace into his wifes memorial. In his own courtchronicle, Badshahnama , Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Jai Singh for Mumtazs burial. The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur is said to retain in his secret collection two orders from Shah Jahan for the surrender of the Taj building. The use of 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. Oaks inquiries begin with the name Taj Mahal. He says this termdoes not occur in any Moghul court papers or chronicles, even after Shah Jahans time. The term Mahal has never been used for abuilding in any of the Muslim countries, from Afghanistan to Algeria. The usual explanation that the term Taj Mahal derives from Mumtaz Mahal is illogical in at least two respects. Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-Zamani, he writes.Secondly, one cannot omit the first three letters from a womansname to derive the remainder as the name for the building. Taj Mahal is, he claims, a corrupt version of Tejo-mahalaya, or the Shivas Palace. Oak also says that 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 Jahans time corroborates the love story. Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting that the Taj Mahal predates Shah Jahans era: *. Professor Marvin Miller of New York took samples from the riverside doorway of the Taj. Carbon dating tests revealed that the door was 300 years older than Shah Jahan. *. European traveller Johan Albert Mandelslo, who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtazs death), describes the life of the city in his memoirs, but makes no reference to the Taj Mahal being built. *. The writings of Peter Mundy, anEnglish visitor to Agra within a year of Mumtazs death, also suggest that the Taj was a noteworthy building long well before Shah Jahans time. Oak also points out a number of design and architectural inconsistencies that support the belief that the Taj Mahal is a typical Hindu temple rather than amausoleum. Many rooms in the Taj Mahal haveremained sealed since Shah Jahans 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 Gandhis government tried to have Oaks book withdrawn fromthe bookstores, and threatened the Indian publisher of the first edition with dire consequences. The only way to really validate or discredit Oaks research is to open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal, and allow international experts to investigate. 5Like
Posted on: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:21:10 +0000