Re-examining History: The Making of the Taj

*** CAUTION: Long Post ***

This article is the first in a series in which I intend to probe some of the odd “facts” about Taj Mahal – the iconic structure that has become symbolic of grandeur & beauty in medieval Indian architecture.  This series will largely draw on the seminal research and study of primary sources & contemporary accounts by Dr V S Godbole during the years 1981 – 1996, condensed in his book, “Taj Mahal: Analysis of A Great Deception”

In the first part, a closer look at the effort that went into construction of the Taj Mahal, specifically the oft-cited figures of “20,000 men” who worked on it “incessantly for 22 years”. The official website of the monument mentions that “..the construction of the Taj Complex began about 1631 AD. The principal mausoleum was completed in 1648 AD by employing thousands of artisans and craftsmen, whereas, the outlying buildings and gardens were finished five years later in 1653 AD. …A labour force of about twenty thousand workers was recruited from across the Northern India.”

What is the basis of this “fact”? Where did this figure come from?

The figures are first mentioned in the book, “Travels in India” by J B Tavernier, a French jewel merchant who made five voyages to India in the 17th century. He wrote[i], “I witnessed the commencement and accomplishment of this great work, on which twenty-two years have been spent, during which twenty thousand men worked incessantly”

Interestingly, Tavernier did not say when the construction began nor when it finished.

More interestingly, while Tavernier’s first visit to Agra was only in 1640, almost every account of the Taj states that its construction began in 1631-1632.

So it is highly unlikely that Tavernier could have seen the commencement “of this great work”. His second visit to Agra was in 1665, by which time almost all historians agree that the construction had completed. The duration of 22 years is therefore almost certainly based on hear-say. Oddly, the translator of Tavernier’s accounts, Dr Ball makes no mention of (much less explain) this discrepancy. And no one doubts the veracity of the account[ii].

Although Dr Ball’s translation of Tavernier’s book was only published in 1889, these numbers were beginning to get quoted by other historians and writers. In the early part of 20^th century, they began to acquire a life of their own.

Here is E B Havell, Principal of the Government School of Arts, Calcutta writing in, “A Handbook to Agra and the Taj[iii]” (1904), “The master-builders came from many different parts…Twenty thousand men were employed in the construction, which took seventeen years to complete”. Havell did note the discrepancy in number of years in a footnote, “Tavernier says twenty-two years, probably including all the accessory buildings”.

Here is Vincent Smith in his book “History of Fine Arts in India and Ceylon[iv]” (1911), “..We know..from Tavernier who witnessed both the commencement and completion of the buildings that operations did not cease finally until 1653 nearly 22 years after they had begun ”

The figures were now well on their way to becoming accepted facts. The list of books in which these were quoted, grew in number over the years, from Major Thorn’s “Memoir of War in India”, (1813[v]) through to “India Discovered” by John Keay (1981).

But was Tavernier the only foreign traveler in India during the time the Taj was being constructed?  Or were there others? Turns out there were.

Did they write about their travels? Yes, they did. Did they visit Agra during their journey? Yes, at least a few did.

Surely they must have written about this remarkable structure being constructed? And written about its grandeur? And mentioned the number of men working on it?

Let’s find out what they had to say.

One such traveler was Fray Sebastian Manrique, a Portuguese missionary who was in Agra for four weeks in Dec-Jan 1640-1641[vi].  His eye-witness account (one of the rare ones that actually mentions the construction) talks about “..a vast, lofty, circular structure” inside “a huge square-shaped enclosure”.

How many people do you think he found working on the site?  “On this building, as well as other works, a thousand men were usually engaged”. Read that again. “A thousand men”.

The figure is odd not just because of the wide divergence from the number cited by Tavernier[vii] but also because of what these men were doing, namely, “.. many were occupied in laying out ingenious gardens, others planting shady groves and ornamental avenues; while the rest were making roads and those receptacles for crystal water, without which their labour could not be carried out[viii]”

Strangely, no mention of masons. Or bricklayers, or stone cutters or the thousands supposedly working on the actual building. This even as the building was “..still incomplete, the greater part of it remaining to be done[ix]”

If true, this was an awkward fact. Especially because both Tavernier and Manrique were apparently in Agra at around the same time & had travelled by the same road from Dacca.

How do historians explain this discrepancy?

Vincent Smith writes, “ …The number (20,000) rests on Tavernier’s excellent authority. According to Manrique, the staff of workmen numbered only 1,000 in 1640. No doubt the numbers varied much from time to time[x]”

The translators of Manrique’s travels say, “ Manrique’s figure is certainly a rough one.

…Tavernier says 20,000 men worked incessantly. Manrique, however is writing long after and without notes and again his visit seems to have been but cursory.”

But we know that Manrique wrote his account within a year of returning from his travels in 1641. So it certainly was not “long after”. As for cursory, it is not clear what was the basis of this statement. Was it because the number was so much at odds with the 20,000 figure?  But perhaps Manrique was not so reliable after all. Were there any other travelers? There were.

One of them was Albert de Mandelslo, a German who was in Agra in October-November 1638[xi].   Surely he too must have witnessed the building and the construction activity – now in its sixth year?

What does he say about it? Nothing.

That is right, absolutely nothing. As Dr Godbole notes in his book, “He, however, describes Red Fort of Agra in detail. He describes the Mughal treasure…(of)..diamonds, rubies, emeralds, statues of gold, brass, copper, brocades, books, artillery, horses, elephants and other valuables.

He tells us of king’s ministers and their duties, gives details of cavalry, artillery, guards… describes celebrations of Nauros and king’s birthday. He even describes the fights of lions, bulls, elephants, tigers and leopards arranged by Shahjahan[xii]”

But no mention of Taj Mahal at all. Let alone any construction activity.

Don’t any historians refer to Mandelslo? Some do, but keep quiet about that fact that he says nothing about Taj Mahal[xiii]. Others try and explain it away, e.g. here’s Fergus Nicoll[xiv], “Despite providing detailed observations on life in Agra, Mandelslo apparently did not visit the Taj Mahal (then in its sixth year of construction). The omission may be explained by his premature departure from the city, prompted by a chance meeting with the relative of a man he had killed in Persia, fearing reprisals (and notwithstanding the efforts of servants and colleagues  to lie on his behalf), he retreated to Lahore before continuing his journey to the Far East.”

In short, we are asked to believe that a man who provided “detailed observations on life in Agra” – and was certainly present in Agra when the construction was going on, did not visit the building or saw any activity, since he had to flee from a relative of someone he had killed in Persia, even though servants and colleagues were prepared to “lie on his behalf”!

Image showing the basement of the Taj and one of the rooms with a timber door (since sealed by masonry and now inaccessible to general public) courtesy, website of Dr Stephen Knapp

So we have one historical account which appears to be unreliable, another that does not square up to the first and a third which makes no mention of this remarkable structure.

Were there any other travelers? There were.

We have at least one more eye-witness account of the activity around the construction of this masterful edifice.

This account comes from Peter Mundy, a merchant of the (English) East India Company, who was stationed at Agra[xv]. Peter Mundy’s account is useful since he was in Agra at the time of Mumtaz-Mahal’s death.

Oddly, he makes no mention of the death (or to be more precise, the news of her death). For such a beloved queen, one would expect shock at the news of her passing away and even public mourning. But Peter Mundy makes no mention of this.

Surely Mundy must have seen the beginning of the construction?  What does he say about Taj Mahal?

“(In Agra) places of noate..are the Castle, King Ecbars [Akbar’s] Tombe, Tage Moholls Tombe, Gardens and Bazare[xvi]”

Isn’t it odd that a tomb whose construction had begun only a few months back was already a ‘place of note’?

But wait, “ This Kinge is now buildinge a Sepulchre for his late deceased Queene Tage Moholl[xvii]”, he writes.

Looks like we do have evidence of the building being constructed after all. Except that there is a slight complication – or two.

Mundy goes on to describe the scene at the site thus, “The buildinge is begun and goes on with excessive labour and cost, prosecuted with extraordinary diligence, Gold and silver esteemed comon Mettall, and Marble but as ordinarie stones[xviii]”

Mundy does not say at what date he saw this but it would be fair to assume that this was in early 1633[xix], after Shah Jahan’s return to Agra (in June 1632). It is very unlikely that construction could have begun before October 1632 due to the monsoon rains.

And yet neither Peter Mundy nor Albert Mandelslo mention any digging of foundations – in spite of the fact that a structure of this size would typically require massive support.

Of course, Taj Mahal does have foundations – in the form of masonry wells. But only one historian has made specific reference to them[xx]. Why did Mundy not notice these wells or foundations being dug? Or did they already exist at the site?

There is a second complication in Mundy’s account. Did you notice the reference to “marble” being used as “ordinarie stones”?

Well, isn’t the Taj Mahal made of marble?  Actually not.

Contrary to popular perception, the entire construction is of brick and red sandstone. It is only the lining that is of marble.

So how did Mundy notice men working with marble, barely a few months into the construction of the edifice – which by then was already a “place of note”, counted alongside the Red Fort and Akbar’s tomb?

One final oddity.

As some of you would know, the (English) East India Company had a factory at Agra from 1618 to 1655. This was also the period during which the Taj Mahal was supposedly built. “And yet there is no mention of the Taj Mahal, Mumtaz Mahal or tomb of the queen of Shahjahan…in their records[xxi]”

No historian has so far referred to the Dutch East India Company records[xxii]. So it is safe to surmise that they do not contain any information about the Taj Mahal either. Isn’t this odd? Very odd?

And thus, one is compelled to wonder whether the brickwork of the central edifice, the foundations, the layout, indeed the entire structure, was already complete when Shah Jahan started to “build” the Taj Mahal?

In the next part, we will examine whether the Taj was an extant structure that predates Mumtaz Mahal’s death in 1631. Stay tuned!  Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!

***

Read Part 2 of this post here. 

Related Posts: Taj Mahal: The Biggest Whitewash in Indian History?,  Was the Taj Mahal a Vedic Temple?

Also read how designers of the 17th century Taj Mahal employed the same unit of measurement used by the Harappan civilization as far back 2000 BC in this ground-breaking research by Prof R. Balasubramaniam, IIT-Kanpur.

Cross-posted over at ToI in two parts.