Re-examining History: The Gold Railing, The Leaks, The Palaces

…or was the Taj an extant structure prior to 1631?

*** CAUTION: Long Post ***

In the first part of this series, we noticed the wide discrepancy in historical accounts of the construction of the Taj which led us 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?”

What makes me think that? Is the fact of wide divergence in the accounts of construction of the Taj basis enough to conclude that the structure pre-dates the death of Mumtaz Mahal? Not quite.

But there are other, strange, unexplained and inconvenient facts.

For instance, the intriguing mention of a gold railing by Peter Mundy  who we know was at Agra[i] at the time of Mumtaz-Mahal’s death. He writes, “There is alreadye about her Tombe, a raile of gold[ii].”

This is a railing of solid gold. Peter Mundy mentions it was already in place when Mumtaz Mahal’s body was brought to Agra in January 1632. Let us leave aside, for the moment, the obvious question of why would such a railing of enormous value be placed (or be already present) in a building that – by almost all accounts – had just begun to be constructed.

Here, an important digression.

Not many would know that the Taj Mahal is actually a seven storied structure. The courtyard in front of the building corresponds to the third storey of the edifice. The marble platform on which the central edifice stands is the fourth storey.  This platform – or a structure built over it – must be the place where Mumtaz Mahal’s body was placed.

This assumes that the foundations of the monument – and the three lower floors were already complete when Mumtaz Mahal’s body was brought to Agra in January 1632 – or at the very latest by February 1633 – which is the date of Peter Mundy’s account.

Is this realistic?

Does it not strain credulity that work on this monument – that could not have begun before Mumtaz Mahal’s death in June 1631 could have – in the bare space of 20 months – progressed to such an extent that not only would the foundations but at least three floors would be complete and the fourth storey (where the cenotaph is) would be ready for decorations with gold etc.? All this in a record time of 20 months (at best)?

The railing must have been notable for it does find mention in other sources, including the “Badhshahnama”[iii].

This is Syad Mohammad Latif writing about it in 1896, “ We are told in the Badshah Namah that, in 1042 A.H. (1632 A.D.), a fence or enclosure of solid gold studded with gems was placed around the Empress’s sarcophagus. It was made under the directions of Bebadal Khan, the Superintendent of the Royal Kitchen (Khasa Sharifa), and was a perfect specimen of the art of Indian jewelry. It weighed forty thousand tolahs of pure gold and was valued at six lakhs of rupees.

Ignore and oddity about the Superintendent of the Royal Kitchen[iv] supervising a “perfect specimen of the art of Indian jewelry” and read on.

“In the year 1052 A.H. (1642 A D) the golden palisade above mentioned was removed, as it was feared that gold in such mass would exposed to the danger of theft by ill-disposed people, and in its stead the present net work of marble, previously referred to, was put up. This structure, which in elegance and beauty is a master-piece of sculpture, was according to the Badshah Nama, prepared in a period of ten years, at a cost of fifty thousand rupees.”

This is getting “curiouser and curiouser”. Why was the gold railing removed only after ten years? Was it because  the marble net work was now ready and the railing could now be taken into the royal treasury? Or was it really because of the “danger of theft”? “Theft” of a piece of solid gold weighing “40,000 tolahs”?

And why was work on the marble net work begun almost as soon as the golden railing was in place (note that the work took 10 years to construct)? Or was the railing placed purely as a temporary measure (in which case it is hard to explain its precious worth and intricate work)? Or, was it already in place, part of a grand structure that pre-dated Mumtaz Mahal’s death?

Recall that Peter Mundy had already included the “Tombe” in his list of “places of noate[v]” in Agra, barely a few months into its supposed construction.

But we are at risk of clutching at straws to prove our point. Is there anything more substantive that might suggest the structure existed before Shah-Jahan supposedly had it built?

As it happens, there is.

Which brings us to the strange story of a leaking Taj Mahal. That’s right, “leaking”. Well, you might expect a 350-year old building to leak after these many years, right? Except that the leaks we are talking about, started appearing much earlier. Much, much earlier. They are mentioned in a report that dates back to 1652 – the 21^st year of “construction” of the Taj!

The report is actually a letter of 1652 from Prince Aurangzeb to Shahjahan.

In the letter, Aurangzeb writes, ” the dome of the holy tomb leaked in two places towards the north during the rainy season and so also the fair semi-domed arches, many of the galleries on the second storey, the four smaller domes, the four northern compartments and the seven arched underground chambers which have developed cracks”

“During the rains last year the terrace over the main dome also leaked in two or three places. It has been repaired but it remains to be seen during the ensuing rainy season how far the operations have proved successful.”

“The domes of the Mosque and Jama’at Khana leaked during the rains and were made watertight. The master builders are of the opinion that if the roof of the second storey is re-opened and dismantled and treated afresh with concrete over which half a yard of mortar grout is laid, the semi-domed arches, the galleries and the smaller domes will probably become watertight, but they say that they are unable to suggest any measures of repairs to the main dome…” [Ancient India, 1946, pp 4-7]

But is the letter authentic? Is it credible? How could such a remarkable example of architecture and design start leaking even as it was being constructed?

Let’s check the authenticity and reliability of this “letter”. The letter was published in Muraqqa-I-Akabarabadi edited by Said Ahmad of Agra in 1931 (page 43, footnote 2). A translation by MS Vats, a Superintendent in ASI appeared in a publication by Archaeological Survey of India, titled, “Ancient India” in 1946, Volume 1[vi] (Pages 4-7[vii]) in 1946.

Strangely, the letter finds no mention in some of the major publications on this subject since then[viii].

It does however find a brief mention in “The Peacock Throne” by Waldemar Hansen on page 181 but is not explored further.

We do find other, scattered references to this letter. For instance, this news-report about a book on Taj Mahal[ix]. It is therefore, safe to assume that the letter exists and is credible.

The letter is odd for several reasons. A few of these oddities are worth highlighting. First, the very fact that such a structure could begin to leak merely a few months, or at best a few years after its construction was ‘complete’ (if we take the period of 17 years, the monument was complete by 1648) is difficult to believe.

Second, the leaks had started appearing much earlier. They were noticed “last year..” too. Third, they appear to be extensive and not localized.

But the strangest bit is this sentence, “..The master builders…are unable to suggest any measures of repairs to the main dome.”

Read that again: “The master builders..are unable to suggest any measures of repairs..”.

Which begs the question, were these “master builders” the original designers & builders of this monument? Or were they clueless since they had no awareness or knowledge of the original structure?

But perhaps the leaks were just symptomatic of poor design? Or poor maintenance? Or a freak design fault?  Regardless of circumstances, by themselves they are not enough to establish the fact of an extant structure.

We need more evidence before we can seriously consider this possibility. Is there anything else?

Turns out there is, Again, not conclusive, but reason enough to raise serious doubts about the story of the Taj, as we are told in history books.

What is this piece of evidence? What oddity is it that can cause such serious concern?

This is where we come to “Badhshahnama” (also referred to as “Padshahnama”), a collection of volumes that detail events during the reign of Shahjahan by Abdul Hamid Lahori. The preface mentions how Lahori was summoned by the Emperor form his retirement since he wanted someone to write an account of his reign in the style of Akbarnama of Abul Fazl which greatly admired[x].

So we can fairly assume this to be probably the most authoritative account of the regime*.

The Persian text of these accounts was published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1867.  Extracts from the text, translated in English, were published in 1877 in “History of India as told by its Own Historians”, by Elliot and Dowson in Volume VII that dealt with the reigns of Shahjahan and Aurangzeb.

Strangely, these extracts (all of 168) pages have only a fleeting reference to the passing away of Aliya Begum (Mumtaz Mahal). Even more strangely, they make no mention at all of either the Taj Mahal or any massive construction at Agra – neither in the main text, nor in the index. It is important to note here that the monument was not called “Taj Mahal” during those times but there is no mention of any of its alternative names (Rauza-e-Mumtaz Mahal, Rauza-i-Munauwara, Rauza-i-Muqqadas or Imarat-i-Rauza-i-Mutahhara) in the extracts either.

This in spite of the work being “…most voluminous..(entering) into most minute details of all the transactions in which the Emperor was engaged, the pensions and dignities conferred upon the various members of the royal family, the titles granted to the nobles, their changes of office, the augmentations of their mansabs, and…. lists of all the various presents given and received on public occasions[xi]…”.

Unfortunately, the full text of the Badshahnama has still not been translated in English[xii]. So we have no means to conclusively say (as yet) whether these records of the court and the reign of Shah Jahan mention the construction and other details of Taj Mahal or not[xiii].

But we do have references to this text in other books. One such book is “Agra – Historical and Descriptive” by Syed Muhammad Latif, Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, that was published in 1896.

Latif’s book is notable not because of its reference to the BadshahNama, but for something else – a seemingly casual sentence that nevertheless is remarkable in contradicting everything we are told about the structure. It appears on Page 105, Latif, referring to BadshahNama, writes:

“The site selected for the mausoleum was to the south of the City. It was originally a palace of Raja Man Singh, but it was the property of his grandson, Raja Jey Singh.”

Read that again. Slowly. “The site selected for the mausoleum was…originally a palace of Raja Man Singh” This is odd, to say the least and raises a number of difficult questions.

If this extract from the Badshahnama is true, what happened to the palace? Was it demolished? Or was it re-designed and converted into the marvel we see today? Or is the palace itself what we call the Taj today?

But before anything else, we need to establish the credibility of this sentence – particularly since it appears to turn the entire story about this “labour of love” on its head.

Does it appear in any other accounts? Is it referred by any other writer? Or writers?

Our next exhibit in this curious tale – which alludes to this very same fact – is a most unlikely source, published almost a 100 years after Latif’s book. It is a 1982 booklet on Taj Mahal titled “Taj Museum”. On Page 4 of this slim volume, we find this sentence, “The site selected for the burial was an extremely pleasant and lofty land situated to the south of the city on which, till then stood the mansion (Manzil) of Raja Man Singh and which was, at that time, in possession of the latter’s grandson, Raja Jai Singh.”

Guess who published this booklet? The Archeological Survey of India!

The reference in Badshahnama would have probably gone unnoticed – until at least such time as the full translation of the text was not done, had it not been for the work of PN Oak, who published a book in 1968 titled, “Taj Mahal was a Rajput Palace”. In that book, he reproduced two pages from the Badhshahnama, along with the translation. In those two pages, he identified the sentence, “Raja Mansingh’s palace, at that time owned by Raja Jaisingh (grandson of Raja Mansingh) was selected for burial of Arjumand Banu Begum alias Mumtaz-ul-Zamani.”

Unfortunately PN Oak’s work was discredited soon after it was published – largely owing to some of the hypothesis that appeared to be far-fetched and in the realm of fantasy. The source of the translation – or the translation itself – was never challenged, to the best of my knowledge[xiv].

Critics usually counter this by pointing to the fact  that there is a mention of a “foundation was laid” towards the end of the extract, although no further details of the work, labour and costs related to this “foundation” are available. It is possible that this reference to the “foundation” was not literal. But, in the absence of any other details and lack of the complete translation of the Badshahnama, it is difficult to say for certain whether the account mentions the details of construction of this amazing edifice or not.

There is at least one more account which mentions the “manzil” of Raja Jai Singh.  It is a book titled, “Jehangir’s India” by W H Moreland, first published in 1925.  Although the title mentions Jehangir, the book has little to do with Jehangir, the Emperor. It is actually a translation of Pelsaert’s Remonstrantie of 1626. It is “primarily a commercial document, but, fortunately for posterity, Pelsaert included in it a detailed account of the social and administrative environment in which commerce had to be conducted.”

Pelsaert was posted to India in 1620. “He reached Surat in December of that year, travelling overland from the East coast, and was forthwith sent to Agra, where he remained until the end of 1627”. Moreland tells us that “There can be no question that he had an accurate ear, while we know …that he had mastered the language of the country”.

In his description of Agra, that begins right at the start of the book, Pelsaert wrote, “The breadth of the city is by no means so great as the length, because everyone has tried to be close to the river bank, and consequently the water-front is occupied by the costly palaces of all the famous lords, which make it appear very gay and magnificent…I will record the chief of these palaces in order.

After passing the Fort, there is the Nakhas, a great market, where in the morning horses, camels, oxen, tents, cotton goods, and many other things are sold. Beyond it lie the houses of some great lords, such as Mirza Abdulla, son of Khan Azam (3000 horse); Aga Nur, provost of the King’s army (3000 horse); Jahan Khan (2000 horse); Mirza Khurram son of Khan Azam (2000 horse); Mahabat Khan (8000 horse); Khan Alam (5000 horse); Raja Bet [?] Singh 1 (3000 horse); the late Raja Man Singh (5000 horse); Raja Madho Singh (2000 horse). 

We know that several of these palaces (which were lso noticed by other travelers e.g. Bernier, the French Doctor who stayed at Aurangzeb’s court between 1658-1665) survived well into the 19^th century although most were in ruins by then. The remaining “were demolished during the famine works of 1838 when the Strand Road was constructed[xv] or were blown up during the first war of independence in 1857[xvi].

Pelsaert had already left India by the time of Mumtaz Mahal’s death. So we cannot say for certain – at least based on this evidence – that the palace of Raja Man Singh is what we know today as the “Taj Mahal”.

But there are now enough reasons to doubt the credibility of the claim that Shah Jahan started the construction of this magnificent architecture as a tribute to the memory of Mumtaz Mahal.

The list of these reasons is now getting longer. And the inconvenient facts keep accumulating.

For instance, the mention of an extant palace (‘manzil’) on the same site where the Taj stands today.  The implausible pace of construction, the lack of eye-witness accounts, the lack of details in Badshahnama, the wide discrepancy in contemporary accounts by foreign travellers. The damning mention of extensive leaks in the structure which puzzled the ‘master-builders’ etc. etc.

How does one reconcile these inconvenient pieces of evidence and records with the “history” that we read? Are these not enough to warrant a deeper investigation, a fresh look at the whole “history” of this monument?

In Part III, we will look at other evidence (including design and architectural components) that lead us to believe that the edifice may have been originally designed for purposes other than to serve as a mausoleum.

Stay tuned. Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!

Read Part III here

P.S. The above is a scanned image of a (unverified) letter by ASI in response to an RTI. It states that ASI does not have any “scientific evidence” that Taj Mahal was constructed/ ordered to be constructed by Shah Jahan

---