Distortion of Indian History For Muslim Appeasement, Part 6F
By: Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
While the pseudo secular and the
Marxist historians of India are bent on to prove that Taj Mahal is an example
of Islamic architecture, well known Western authorities on architechture like
E.B.Havell, Mrs.Kenoyer and Sir W.W.Hunterhave are convinced that the Taj Mahal
was built in the Hindu temple style. Furthermore, Mr Havell, who prepared, for
the first time, the ground plan of Taj Mahal, believed that ground plan of the
ancient
P N Oak has pointed out another evidence to prove that the
Taj Mahal was there before the death of Shah Jahan’s wife Arjumand banu and he
writes, “Peter Mundy, a Englishman records (in 1632, within a year of
Mumtaz's death) having seen a gem studded gold railing around her tomb. Had the
Taj been under construction for 22 years, a costly gold railing would not have
been noticed by Peter Mundy within a year of Mumtaz's death. Such costly
fixtures are installed in a building only after it is ready for use. This
indicates that Mumtaz's centotaph was grafted in place of the Shivalinga in the
centre of the gold railings. Subsequently the gold railings, silver doors, nets
of pearls, gem fillings etc. were all carried away to Shahjahan's treasury. The
seizure of the Taj thus constituted an act of highhanded Moghul robbery causing
a big row between Shahjahan and Jaisingh.” [2][3]
It has been mentioned earlier that several other historians have
mentioned the existence of the said railing and in this regard and before the
advent of the Muslim invaders, when today’s Taj Mahal was a Shiva temple, there
was an extremely valuable railing made of gold decorated with costly gems and
jewels, surrounding the emblem of Lord Shiva. Later on, Shah Jahan
misappropriated it and replaced the same with a marble railing, which one
observes today. Historian R C Majumdar, regarding this older and valuable
railing, says, “The marble railing around the cenotaphs is said to be a
later replacement, the original having been one gold set with jewels.” [4]
It has been mentioned above that E B Havell, for the
first time, prepared the ground plan of octagonal central chamber of Taj Mahal.
The figure1 shows Havell’s plan and one finds that the dimensions are given in
feet and inches [5]. It is not
difficult to understand that these could not be the units for measuring length
of any part whatsoever of Taj Mahal, as these units were unknown to the people
who designed and built it. These British units became popular in
In fact, the first detailed scholastic study of the modular
planning of the Taj complex was undertaken only in 1989, by Begley and Desai [7]. They analyzed the
measurements of different parts of the complex listed by Lahori [8]. As mentioned above,
Lahori was the official historian of Shah Jahan (AD 1628–56). During the Mughal
Period, the standard units of linear measurement were Gaz, Zira etc. and
Lahori described the dimensions of the buildings, gardens and other structures
of the Taj complex in terms of these units.[9]. But Dr R. Balasubramaniam
has succeeded to show that the narrations of Lahori were grossly illogical and
erroneous.[10] Mr R A Barraud, has also
sahown that all such measurements of Lahori were incorrect and baseless [11]
Figure
2 shows the ground plan of Taj Mahal prepared by Dr Balasubramaniam and one
should notice that he utilized the traditional Indian or Hindu units as given
in table-1. [12] He particularly used the
Hindu unit Vitasti (V), which is equal to 12 Angulams or 25.256 cm. One also finds that the main octagonal structure
of Taj Mahal is, in fact, measures a square of 270V×270V, which is divided into
9 squares of 90V×90V each. So the total area of this octagonal central chamber
is 9× 90V× 90V. The four sides facing east, west, north and south are of 180 V
each while the four sides facing northwest, northeast, southwest and northwest
measure 45 V or 90/2 V each. Figure 3, on the other hand, shows the modular
plan of the entire riverfront terrace and the marble platform on which the
plinth of the octagonal central chamber rests. The figure shows that entire
area of the structure is a square of 540V× 540V, while the plinth area is
450V×450V. It is important to notice that the length all the eight sides are
integral multiples of Vitasti and this confirms that designers of Taj Mahal
used the traditional Hindu units, as given in Table 1, for preparing the design
of the building now called Taj Mahal.

Table-I The Hindu units of length
measurement
|
|
Unit |
Numbers of Angulam |
Measure in cm |
|
1 |
Angulam |
1 |
1.763 |
|
2 |
Vitasti |
12 |
21.256 |
|
3 |
Pada |
14 |
24.682 |
|
4 |
Aratni |
24 |
42.312 |
|
5 |
P - Hasta |
24 |
42.312 |
|
6 |
C - Hasta |
28 |
49.364 |
|
7 |
F - Hasta |
54 |
95.202 |
|
8 |
Kishku |
42 |
74.046 |
|
9 |
Kamsa |
32 |
56.416 |
|
10 |
Danda |
96 |
169.248 |
|
11 |
Dhanus |
108 |
190.404 |
|
|
|
|
|

Figure 4
shows a satellite image of the taj Mahal complex. The three sections of the
complex are marked in this image and these are (T) the northernmost riverside
terrace. (C) the gardens or the Charbag and (J) the Jilaukhana. The figure 5
shows the modular plan of the same sections. The important lengths, being
longer, in these sections have been given in terms of the larger unit dhanus
(D), which is equal to 108 angulam (A) or 9 vitastis (V), i.e. 190.404 cm. The
design of this riverfront terrace and the area may be understood in terms of
square grids of each side measuring 10 dhanus (D). The important lengths in
this riverfront terrace and Charbag are shown in the plan of the same shown in
Figure 5. The figure 4 and figure 5 display that the entire complex is
perfectly symmetrical on both sides of the north-south axis. Or in other
words, “The overall plan of the Taj Mahal complex reveals that it was
planned as bilateral mirror symmetry along the north–south axis.”[12]

The Table II, below, gives the data of actual measurement by
Dr R Balasubramaniam in the units of Vitasti (V). From the table, one observes
that Dr Balasubramaniam has expressed the lengths in multiples of Vitastis and
converted the data in terms of cm. Then he measured the lengths in cm and the
difference have been expressed as percentage errors. And the maximum error he
obtained in the case of the N–S length of outer enclosure of attendants’
quarters in jilaukhana amounting to –5.68%.
Table II
|
|
Units of
Vitasti |
Units in
cm |
Actual in
cm |
Error (%) |
|
E-W
Length terrace |
1440 |
30464.64 |
30084 |
+1.25
|
|
N–S
length of terrace |
540 |
11424.24 |
11189 |
+2.06
|
|
E–W and
N–S lengths of marble platform |
450 |
9520.20 |
9569 |
–0.51
|
|
E–W and
N–S lengths of mausoleum plinth |
270 |
5712.12 |
5690 |
+0.39
|
|
E–W and
N–S length of charbag |
1440 |
30464.64 |
29631 |
+2.74
|
|
E–W
length of platform on gate facing jilaukhana |
300 |
6346.80 |
6436 |
–1.41
|
|
N–S
length of platform on gate facing jilaukhana |
120 |
2538.72 |
2620 |
–3.20
|
|
Length of
door in gate on N/S face |
60 |
1269.36 |
1290 |
–1.63
|
|
Length of
door in gate on E/W face |
45 |
952.02 |
975 |
–2.41
|
|
E–W
length of central hall in gate |
60 |
1269.36 |
1290 |
–1.63
|
|
E–W and
N–S length of central square of corner room in gate |
24 |
507.74 |
525 |
–3.40
|
|
E–W
length of jilaukhana |
1440 |
30464.64 |
30084 |
–1.25
|
|
E–W
length of court in jilaukhana |
780 |
16501.68 |
16523 |
–0.13
|
|
N–S
length of court in jilaukhana |
600
|
12693.60 |
12351 |
+2.70 |
|
E–W
length of bazaar street in jilaukhana |
300 |
6346.80 |
6250 |
+1.53 |
|
N–S
length of bazaar street in jilaukhana |
75 |
1586.70 |
1618 |
–1.97
|
|
E–W
length of south gate in jilaukhana |
60 |
1269.36 |
1220 |
+3.89
|
|
E–W
length of inner enclosure of attendants’ quarters in jilaukhana |
240 |
5077.44 |
4965 |
+2.21 |
|
N–S
length of inner enclosure of attendants’ quarters in jilaukhana |
165 |
3490.74 |
3522 |
–0.90
|
|
E–W
length of outer enclosure of attendants’ quarters in jilaukhana |
300 |
6346.80 |
6185 |
+2.55
|
|
N–S
length of outer enclosure of attendants’ quarters in jilaukhana |
240 |
5077.40 |
5366 |
–5.68
|
|
E–W
length of caravanserai |
1440 |
30464.64 |
30084 |
–1.25
|
|
N–S
length of caravanserai |
1560 |
33003.36 |
33490 |
–1.47
|
|
E–W
length of central street of caravanserai |
120 |
2538.72 |
2530 |
+0.34
|
|
E–W and
N–S length of typical courtyard of caravanserai |
660 |
13962.96 |
13777 |
+1.33
|
Conclusion:
The
conventional units of length measurement during the Mughal period were Gaz and
Zira. But failure of Abdul Hamid Lahori to describe the modular planning of the
Taj complex with these units indicates that some other units have been used for
designing and constructing the Taj complex. The question of using English units
like foot and inch does not arise as these units were unknown in
References:
[1] http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/tajmahal.html
[2] P N
Oak, Tajmahal-The True Story, A Ghosh Publication (1969), p-251
[3] http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/true-story-taj-mahal
[4] R.C. Majumdar (General Editor), The History and Culture of the Indian People,
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
(in 12 volumes), Mumbai (1996) VII, 795.
[5] E B Havell, Indian Architecture, Chapter XI
[6] Maulavi
Moinuddin Ahmad, The Taj and Its Environments, as quoted by PN
Oak,
Tajmahal: The True Story (1969), p-168
[7] Begley,
W. E. and Desai, Z. A., Taj Mahal – The Illumined Tomb:An Anthology
of
Seventeenth Century Mughal and European Documentary Sources, University of
[8] A H Lahori,
Padshahnama (eds Kabir-ud-din Ahmad, M. and Abd al-Rahim,
M.),
[9] Habib,
[10] 5.
Balasubramaniam, R., New insights on metrology during the Mughal period.
Indian J. Hist. Sci.,
2008, 43, 569–588.
[11]
Barraud, R. A., Modular planning of the Taj. In The Complete
Taj Mahal and the
108–109.
[12] R Balasubramaniam, Current Science, Vol 97, No 1, 10 July,
2009.
(To be continued)
- Op-Ed
- Technology
- Agra
- Calcutta
- London
- Mumbai
- Washington
- General
- Asia
- India
- Abdul Hamid Lahori
- B.Havell
- editor
- General
- Hindu Chandi Seva Temple
- historian of Shah Jahan
- http://www.faithfreedom.org/content/true-story-taj-mahal
- http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/tajmahal.html
- Hudson
- Illumined Tomb
- Java
- Kenoyer
- Mumtaz
- official
- Olympus IS-10 Film Camera
- Person Career
- Peter Mundy
- R
- R. Balasubramaniam
- R.C. Majumdar
- Radhasyam Brahmachari
- Shah Jahan
- Shiva
- Taj Complex
- Taj Mahal
- the Hindu
- W.W.Hunterhave
- Washington
Great article
Mughal/Islamic history is replete with loot and destruction. Once an infidel property is captured, it becomes halal and a property of Islam. Basically Muslims are lazy and always look for ready-made things to capture and enjoy.
Moslem atrocities
The invaders committed a lot of atrocities in India.This would mean that the moslems and the evil twin of moslems the colonial cousins were no less barbarians.Visit the goa temples to read for your self the destruction by the surprise surpise the catholics! Tippus sultan, akbar etc were brutal no doubt, but the portugese and brits were no less brutal.
It's important to learn a few lessons from history.
1.Record history with out distortion so that future generation can learn from the mistakes of their ancestors.
2.Invaders no matter what religion, will always be brutal to the lost population in a war overt or covert.
3.For the self preservation it's important to fight the invasion with determination.
4.The invaders can not easily succeed if there is no local (disgruntled elements like moslems perhaps) support.
5.At present communists and moslems are the enemies of the state.No wonder they make good bed mates to each other.
Re: Muslim atrocities
Well said
Taj Mahal not Islamic architecture but Hindu architecture
The author has referred to the work of P.N. Oak. I have read his book on "The Taj Magal is a Temple Place" published by Hindi Sahitya Sadan.
http://www.archive.org/details/EnglishBooksOfP.n.Oak
One can get his works at above link. The editors may add this to the Library. Briefly, Shri P.N.Oak makes the following points regarding Taj Mahal:
1. No records or accounts of expenditure incurred on Taj Mahal construction available with Mughal records. No other documents like building plans, correspondence for purchase of materials etc also avaialble with Mughal records. These are not available since Mughals did not build it.
2. The Encyclopaedia Britannica referes to guest rooms, outhouses, stables etc in Taj Mahal. What need for these in a toomb?
3.In his letter in Persian, Aurangzeb mentions that it is a big mystery that when Yamuna is in flloods, the Mehtab Garden has been innundated but rear portion of building complex reamins safe as the stream keeps way from it. If Shah Jehan ahd built Taj, what was so mysterious about this? He could have asked Taj Builders and found out.
4.For scaffoldings, Shah Jehan could not afford timber and had toi use bricks. One who could not afford timber for scaffolding, can he afford the cost of entire Taj Mahal?
5.Mumtaz(Arjumand Banu Begum) was buried at Burhanpur . Then again, it seems, she was exhumed and buried at Taj Mahal. And hold ur breath, there are two pairs of Ceotaphs for Shah Jehan and Mumtaz. So, it seems, Mumtaz was buried thrice, once in Burhanpur and again twice in Taj.
6.Shah Jehan's own chronicler Mulla Abdul Hamid Lahori admits that the Taj Mahal premises was commandeered from JaiSingh grandson of Mansingh.