The Motifs, The Design, The Features – Was the Taj Mahal really built to be a Tomb?

In the earlier part of this series, I mentioned how there were now enough reasons to warrant a deeper investigation and a fresh look at the whole “history” of Taj. The list of reasons included the mention of an extant palace (‘manzil’) on the very same site where the Taj stands today, the implausible pace of construction, the lack of eye-witness accounts, the lack of details in Badshahnama and the extensive leaks in the structure which puzzled the ‘master-builders’.

In this concluding part, I will outline evidence & incongruities regarding design & architectural features that appear to support our belief about the Taj being a redesigned or re-modelled extant structure. Even as I write this, I realise I am handicapped in exploring this specific aspect. I am neither a trained architect nor a student of Indian, Persian, Saracenic, Hindu architecture or design. Much of what I have written below therefore depends on the testimony of others; some of these odd features are of course, obvious even to the untrained eye. As always, I am happy to stand corrected on some or all of these points. With that caveat, let’s get back to the features and design elements that make us question the received wisdom on Taj.

As it happens, quite a number of these features are readily apparent.

For instance the four towers that are mistakenly labelled as “Minarets”. Unlike a traditional “Minar”, these towers are all equal in height. Typically the minars are the highest points in a Mosque or Islamic structure unlike in the Taj where the dome rises above all the towers. The towers themselves are far more elaborate than traditional minars – and do not rise from the walls of the mausoleum. Their character is more that of a watch-tower than a minar. Strangely the “Masjid” itself has no minars!

Or the mosque and its counter-part on the other side, the so-called “Jawab”. Why would a mosque need a counter-part? Was it really built as a counter-part or did it have some purpose? As Dr Godbole wonders in his book, “Simple Analysis of a Great Deception”, “Was it a caravansary for pilgrims or a meeting hall where the faithful gathered before prayer? Aurangzeb calls it Jamait Khana – a guest house, which is quite appropriate in a Hindu Temple or a Palace, but has no place in a Mausoleum[i]. Even if we accept the point about “balance” and aesthetic necessity, why is the mosque not in the direction of Mecca?

Or the underground chambers which are clearly visible if one ever descends to the river bank and looks up at the Taj. Strangely, while these were noticed by numerous chroniclers (e.g. Sleeman, Keene, Vincent Smith, James Fergusson), few bothered to explore the purpose of their construction. Those that did, found their presence puzzling. E.g. “It was these openings that brought to view the existence of these long-hidden chambers. The mouths of staircases were shut up with stone slabs. It is hard to find out why these underground chambers were built…From the existence of the sand, lying thickly on the floor it might be reasonably supposed that there was a ghat or landing place on the spot, which however was disused subsequently for some reason unknown. The real object of building them remains a mystery”. This on Pg 36 of Md. Moin-Ud-Din’s book on “The History of the Taj[ii]”

Or the numerous rooms that are hidden from view and are no longer accessible to visitors, including the eights rooms on each storey around the cenotaph, the rooms under the marble plinth, the rooms under the mosque and the “Jawab“. Why were they built? Why were some of them sealed? Why are some locked? Why is it that none are accessible to the public? What dark secrets do they harbour? What is there to hide?

Or the medieval, pre-artillery, defense character of the perimeter wall of the complex, when artillery (cannons) was already in use by the time Mughals came to India[iii]? Something that was also noticed by Dr Godbole[iv], “The perimeter walls on the East and West side of Taj Mahal …have defence mechanisms built in at the top. If attacked by an enemy the defenders would pour hot water or oil through the holes on the enemy soldiers climbing up the wall. This gives a clue of when Taj Mahal was originally built. Such walls are not needed in a mausoleum, but are appropriate to defend a Palace”.

Or the unexplained structures, for instance the well-documented large well (Baoli) in one of the towers near the mosque? Here is Fanny Parks[v] writing about it in 1850, “The two jamma khanas are beautiful buildings, on each side of the tomb…One of them is a masjid:…One of the burj near the masjid contains a fine baoli (well)” (By the way, did you notice she refers to the two buildings flanking the Taj as a “Jamma Khanas”?).

The list of oddities keeps getting longer. For instance, the presence of Nakkar-khanas (drum houses), guest rooms, Gaushala, stables, pavilion for elephants[vi] and horses[vii]. What was the point of having all these in a solemn place of burial? Or the odd stairs on the platform on the sides leading down to the river. For what purpose?

Or the strange pillars mentioned by Carllyle (a British Civil Servant who served in India in the 1870s) [viii], one of which “once stood in the garden of Taj Mahal; and while there, for some reason or other now unknown, the shaft of the pillar used to rock on its base, with a slight touch of the hand[ix]. Or the repeated reference to the pinnacle as “Kalas[x]”, a Sanskrit term, in an account by a Muslim author. Was this a throwback to a past that is deliberately not spoken of?

Or the revelation from dimensional analysis suggesting that “Taj Mahal complex was executed using the traditional measurement units mentioned in the Arthasastra[xi]”? Or the numerous Hindu symbolisms detailed in “The Question of the Taj Mahal”, by P. S. Bhat and A. L. Athawale?[xii].  Or the lack of elaborate records referring to the construction and the effort it must have taken.

I could perhaps list a few more but I don’t think it’s necessary.  This exploration of the history of Taj has been a wonderful learning experience for me. Unfortunately it has left me with more questions than answers.

Many of these questions cannot be answered unless the ASI opens up the monument to experts including historians, architects, students of art and design. Until that happens, we are unlikely to know the full story behind this remarkable piece of Indian architecture; we are unlikely to get any closer to the truth.

Although speculation is always dangerous in such situations, it is becoming increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that the original structure of the Taj (and the surrounding complex of buildings) predates ShahJahan. The original structure was most likely a palace-temple complex. It may have been in disuse for a few years before the death of Mumtaz and had probably suffered some neglect. It certainly needed some maintenance (as we know from the extensive leaks). It is very likely that ShahJahan undertook extensive renovations and restoration of the building, even as he changed the very nature of the structure. It is almost certain that the marble overlay on the exterior was ordered by him, as were the floral motifs, the marble screen and the inscription of verses from the Quran. It is likely that extensive records relating to its construction do not exist since the building was not built during Mughal times. But there is also the possibility that such records were destroyed – or are not traceable – or are traceable but in private hands (e.g. in the archival collection of the royal families of Rajasthan).

We shall never know unless we dig deeper, metaphorically speaking. This is not a matter that can be pursued by amateurs. The history of this monument cannot be decided on the basis of speculation. It will need research. The push for this research can only come from ASI. The ASI will move only if there is political will. This brings me to a close of this series but this mystery remains far from closed. Someday, I hope we will learn the truth.

To conclude (and as a bonus), here are some startling sentences from a 1979 publication by Wayne Begley on “The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning” which give us good reasons to doubt the apocryphal story about this “monument of love”. Begley writes,  “this (that it was ShahJahan’s great love for Mumtaz that inspired the monument)…can be shown to be essentially a myth – a myth which ignores a great deal of evidence to the contrary, that Shah Jahan was less noble and romantically devoted than we thought, and that the Taj Mahal is not purely and simply a memorial to a beloved wife. A serious reassessment of this important monument is long overdue”.

I rest my case. Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!

Related Posts: Part 1 and Part 2 in the series, The Biggest Whitewash in Indian History? Cross-posted over at ToI blogs

Bonus Link: An online compendium of articles & images that I came across during my research on the Taj.