The Truth Of Taj Mahal

No one has ever challenged it except Prof. P. N. Oak, who believes that the whole world has been duped. In his book on the 'Taj Mahal: The True Story', Oak says that theTaj Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz's tomb but an ancient Hindu temple palace of Lord Shiva (then known as Tejo Mahalaya ) . In the course of his research Oak discovered that the Shiva temple palace was usurped by Shah Jahan from the then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai Singh. In his own court chronicle, the Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that an exceptionally beautiful grand mansion in Agra was taken from Raja Jai Singh for Mumtaz's burial . The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur 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 the Muslim rulers in India. 

For example, Humayun, Akbar, Etmud-ud-Daula and Safdarjung are all buried in such mansions. Oak's inquiries began with the very name of the Taj Mahal. He says that the term " Mahal " has never been used for a building in any Muslim country, from Afghanisthan to Algeria . The unusual explanation that the term Taj Mahal was derived from Mumtaz Mahal is illogical in atleast two respects : 

Firstly, her name was never Mumtaz 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, that it is a corrupt version of "Tejo Mahalaya", or Lord Shiva's Palace .. Oak also says that the love story of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan is a fairy tale that was created by the court sycophants, blundering historians and sloppy archaeologists. Not a single royal chronicle of Shah Jahan's time corroborates this love story. 

Furthermore, Oak cites several documents suggesting the Taj Mahal predates Shah Jahan's era, and was a temple dedicated to Shiva, worshipped by the Rajputs living in Agra city. For example, Prof.. 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. The European traveler Johan Albert Mandelslo, who visited Agra in 1638 (only seven years after Mumtaz's death), describes the life in 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 that the Taj was a noteworthy building well before Shah Jahan's time.

Prof. 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 . Oak asserts that they contain a headless statue of Lord Shiva and other objects commonly used for worship and for performing rituals in Hindu temples. Fearing political backlash, Indira Gandhi's government tried to have Prof. 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 present government should open the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal under U.N. supervision if necessary, and let the international experts investigate to arrive at the truth of this matter.