Separating the Taj Mahal From Legend

JAN. 9, 1992

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication
in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update
them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems. Please send reports
of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

Figure 1: January 9, 1992, Page 00022 The New York Times Archives

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/09/opinion/l-separating-the-taj-mahal-from-legend-894592.html
To the Editor:

You alert the world to the "irreversible toll that may be taking place on this symbol of India," the Taj
Mahal, in your "Agra Journal" (Dec. 6). Unfortunately, you call the building complex "one of the most
remarkable monuments of Mogul architecture" and "the tomb of Shah Jahan's beloved Mumtaz Mahal."

New information and analysis have come forth to constitute a compelling argument that the Taj was
actually a former Hindu palace occupied and converted to a tomb by the Moguls. P. N. Oak of New
Delhi first shed new light on the problem in the 1964 book "Taj Mahal Is a Hindu Palace."

In discussing the accounts of travelers who passed through Agra from 1632 to 1653, when demolition
and new construction were said to have taken place, Mr. Oak noted that none reported any massive
excavations nor formation of the necessary deep and formidable foundations. Their accounts of building
finishes, furnishings and landscaping were, it seems, preparations for a new tenant.

There are many other inconsistencies in the Taj legend. The building to its left is now a mosque. Had it
been built originally as a mosque it would almost certainly have been oriented directly to Mecca, instead
of due west. The four "minarets" that surround the Taj mausoleum are inappropriate, for they logically
should have been in front of the "mosque" for convenient calls to prayer.

The building to the right of the Taj is a mirror image of the "mosque," yet its function has always been
described as residential, an improbable design decision. The character of the Taj as a whole suggests
gaiety and lightheartedness -- hardly appropriate for the universal sentiment of respect for the dead.

Mr. Oak translated the Persian script of a section of the court chronicle of Shah Jahan by the courtier
Lahori that describes the appropriation of a palace on the site from the grandson of Raja Jaisingh, its last
recorded owner. It is not reasonable to believe that this palace was then destroyed and a new one built in
its place as a mausoleum.

The origin of the Taj can best be determined through scientific dating by carbon-14 and
thermoluminescence, which the Archeological Survey of India should be urged to undertake. The data
will most likely give credit to the Moguls for having preserved, but not built, this architectural
masterpiece. MARVIN H. MILLS White Plains, Dec. 20, 1991 The writer is an architect.

https://nyti.ms/29aU31L

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/09/opinion/l-separating-the-taj-mahal-from-legend-894592.html