AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ LEGEND

April 25, 2006

SIARAM (AT) aol (DOT) com

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:02:47 EDT

Subject: AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ LEGEND

by Professor Marvin H. Mills,NY

BOOK REVIEW

by Professor Marvin H. Mills

Pratt Institute, New York

TAJ MAHALâ€"The Illumined Tomb, an anthology of seventeenth century Mughal and

European documentary sources, by W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai: Published by the University of

Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1989 (The Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture).

In their book TAJ MAHALâ€"THE ILLUMINED TOMB, Wayne Edison Begley and

Ziyaud-Din Ahmad Desai have put together a very commendable body of data and information derived

from contemporary sources and augmented with numerous photo illustrations, chroniclers'

descriptions, imperial directives plus letters, plans, elevations and diagrams. They have

performed a valuable service to the community of scholars and laymen concerned with the

circumstances surrounding the origin and development of the Taj Mahal.

But these positive contributions exist within a framework of analysis and

interpretation that distorts a potential source of enlightenment into support for fantasy and

misinformation that has plagued scholarship in this field for hundreds of years, thus obscuring

the true origin of the Taj Mahal complex. The two basic procedural errors that they make is to

assume that the dated inscriptions are accurate and that court chroniclers are behaving like

objective historians.

As an architect, my principal argument with the authors is their facile acceptance

of the compact time frame that they uncritically accept for the coming into being of the Taj from

conception to its first Urs (anniversary) of the death of Mumtaz and the completion of the main

building. Construction processes that had to consume substantial blocks of time are condensed into

a few months. They feel justified in relying on what evidence is available, but fail to consider

the objective needs of construction. They regret the loss of what, they say, must have been

millions of Mughal state records and and documents produced each year on all aspects of the Taj's

construction. They do not consider that the lack of drawings, specifications and records of

payment may be due to their not being generated at the time. Nor do they consider Shahjahan's

potential for deception as to when and by whom it was built.

Yet they point out Shahjahan's careful monitoring of the contents of court history:

"Shajahan himself was probably responsible for this twisting of historical truth.

The truth would have shown him to be inconsistent and this could not be tolerated. For this reason

also, the histories contain no statements of any kind that are critical of the Emperor or his

policies, and even military defeats are rationalized so that no blame could be attached to him.

.... effusive praise of the Emperor is carried to such extremes that he seems more a divinity than

a mortal man." (p. xxvi)

With the court chroniclers' histories carefully edited, and with the great scarcity

of documents we are fortunate to have four surviving farmans or directives issued by Shahjahan to

Raja Jai Singh of Amberâ€"the very same local ruler from whom the Emperor acquired the Taj

property. On the basis of these farmans, the court chroniclers and a visiting European traveler,

we learn that: (i) Mumtaz died and was buried temporarily at Burhanpur on June 17, 1631; (ii) her

body was exhumed and taken to Agra on December 11, 1631; (iii) she was reburied somewhere on the

Taj grounds on January 8, 1632; and (iv) European traveler Peter Mundy witnessed Shahjahan's

return to Agra with his cavalcade on June 11, 1632.

The first farman was issued on September 20, 1632 in which the Emperor urges Raja

Jai Singh to hasten the shipment of marble for the facing of the interior walls of the mausoleum,

i.e., the Taj main building. Naturally a building had to be there to receive the finish. How much

time was needed to put that basic building in place?

Every successful new building construction follows what we call in modern-day

construction a "critical path". There is a normal sequence of steps requiring a minimum time

before other processes follow. Since Mumtaz died unexpectedly and relatively young (having

survived thirteen previous child-births), we can assume that Shahjahan was unprepared for her

sudden demise. He had to conceive, in the midst of his trauma, of a world class tomb dedicated to

her, select an architect (whose identity is still debated), work out a design program with the

architect, and have the architect prepare designs, engineer the structure and mechanical systems,

detail the drawings, organize the contractors and thousands of workers, and prepare a complex

construction shedule. Mysteriously, no documents relating to this elaborate procedure, other than

the four farmans have survived.

We cannot assume that the Taj complex was built additively with the buildings and

landscaping built as needed. It was designed as a unified whole. Begley and Desai make this clear

by their analysis of the grid system that was employed by the designer to unite the complex

horizontally and vertically to into a three-dimensional whole. If one did not "know" that it was a

solemn burial grounds, one would believe that it was designed as a palace with a delightful air of

fantasy and secular delights of waterways and flowering plants. Could it be that this is Raja Jai

Singh's palace, never destroyed, converted by decree and some minimum face-lifting to a Mughal

tomb?

Assuming that Shahjahan was galvanized into prompt action to initiate the project on

behalf of his deceased beloved, we can safely assume that he needed one year minimum between

conception and ground-breaking. Since Mumtaz died in June 1931, that would take us to June 1632.

But construction is said to have begun in January 1632.

Excavation must have presented a formidable task. First, the demolition of Raja Jai

Singh's palace would have had to occur. We know that the property had a palace on it from the

chronicles of Mirza Qazini and Abd al-Hamid Lahori. Lahori writes:

"As there was a tract of land (zamini) of great eminence and pleasantness towards

the south of that large city, on which before there was this mansion (manzil) of Raja Man Singh,

and which now belongs to his grandson Raja Jai Singh, it was selected for the burial place

(madfan) of that tenant of paradise.[Mumtaz]" (p. 43)

Measures would have to be taken during excavation of this main building and the

other buildings to the north to retain the Jumna River from inundating the excavation. The next

steps would have been to sink the massive foundation piers, put in the footings, retaining the

walls and the plinth or podium to support the Taj and its two accompanying buildings to the east

and west plus the foundations for the corner towers, the well house, the underground rooms, and

assuming the complex was done at one time, all the supports for the remainder of the buildings

throughout the complex. To be conservative in our estimate, we need at least another year of

construction which takes us up to January 1634.

But here is the problem. On the anniversary of the death of Mumtaz, each year

Shahjahan would stage the Urs celebration at the Taj. The first Urs occurred on June 22, 1632.

Though construction had allegedly begun only six months earlier, the great plinth of red sandstone

over brick, 374 yards long, 140 yards wide, and 14 yards high was already in place! Even Begley

and Desai are somewhat amazed.

Where was all the construction debris, the piles of materials, the marble, the brick

scaffolding, the temporary housing for thousands of workers, the numerous animals needed to haul

materials? If "heaven was surpassed by the magnificence of the rituals", as one chronicler puts

it, then nothing should have been visible to mar the exquisite panorama that the occasion called

for.

But by June 1632, it was not physically possible that construction could have

progressed to completion of excavation, construction of all the footings and foundations,

completion of the immense platform and clearing of all the debris and eyesores in preparation for

the first Urs.

Begley and Desai have little use for the testimony of the European travelers to the

court of Shahjahan. But they consider Peter Mundy, an agent of the British East India Company, to

be the most important source on the Taj because he was there shortly before the first Urs at the

new grave site, and one year later at the second Urs.

It was Mundy who said that he saw the installation of the enameled gold railing

surrounding Mumtaz's cenotaph at the time of the second Urs on May 26, 1633.. But there is no way

that construction could have moved ahead so vigorously from January 1632 to May 1633 as to be

ready to receive the railing. After all, the railing could not have stood forth in the open air.

It means that the Taj building had to be already there. It must have been immensely valuable since

the cost of the Taj complex was reported to be fifty lakhs, while the cost of the gold railing was

six lakhs of rupees. The gold railing was removed by Shahjahan on February 6, 1643 when it was

replaced by the inlaid white marble screen one sees now.

An alternate interpretation of events regarding the railing is that Shahjahan

revealed the gold railing of Raja Jai Singh at the first or second Urs. In 1643 he appropriated it

for himself and put in its place the very fine marble screen with its inlaid semi-precious stones,

a screen that was not nearly as valuable as the gold railing.

If Shahjahan's construction and interior adornment of the Taj are in question, what

rework of the Taj can we attribute to him? The inscriptions were undoubtedly among the few rework

tasks that he was obliged to do. He may also have removed any obvious references to Hinduism in

the form of symbolic decor that existed.

The book's plate illustrations show that the inscriptions are almost always in a

discrete rectangular frame which renders them capable of being modified or added to without

damaging the adjascent material. In my judgement the black script on the white marble background

seems inappropriate esthetically in the midst of the soft beige marble that surrounds it. By

adding the inscriptions Shahjahan probably sought to establish the credibility of its having been

his creation as a sacred mausoleum instead of the Hindu palace that time will undoubtedly prove

that it was.

Based on the latest inscriptions dated 1638-39, which appear on the tomb, the

authors estimate a construction period of six years. Six years in my judgement is simply not

enough time. As reasonable approximation of the total time required to build the Taj complex, we

can consider Tavernier's estimate of twenty-two years. Although he first arrived in Agra in 1640,

he probably witnessed some rework or repair. The time frame of twenty-two years may have been

passed on to him by local people as part of the collective memory from some previous century when

the Taj was actually built.

The issue of repairs is taken up by the authors in their translation of the original

letter of Aurangazeb to his father dated December 9, 1652. He reports serious leaks on the north

side, the four arched portals, the four small domes, the four northern vestibules, subchambers of

the plinth, plus leaks from the previous rainy season. The question the authors do not raise is:

Would the Taj, being at most only thirteen years old, already have shown symptoms of decay?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that by 1652 it was already hundreds of years old and

was showing normal wear and tear.

Who built the Taj? The authors say it was Ahmad Ustad Lahori, chief architect for

Shahjahan. They base this belief mainly on the assertion by Luft Allah, the son of Lahori, in a

collection of verses, that Shahjahan commanded Lahori to build both the Taj and the Red Fort at

Delhi. As evidence this is quite weak.

The court historians are unfailing in their praise for the Emperor's personal

participation in his massive architectuaral projects and they are never lacking in glorifying his

sterling character. But the European travelers have other things to say about his personality and

his inability to focus on anything for long except his lust for women. Nor is the object of his

supposed great love either tender or compassionate. It seems that both "lovers" were cruel,

self-centred and vicious. To believe that out of this relationship, with the support of

Shahjahan's alleged great architectural skills, came what many consider to be the most beautiful

building complex in the world, is sheer romantic nonsense.

While Begley and Desai are sceptical of the Taj Mahal's being a consequence of

romantic devotion, they yield not an inch in asserting its Mughal origin. They support this

traditional view by overlooking some key problems:

1. Consider the identical character of the two buildings on either side of the Taj

main building. If they had different functionsâ€"one a mosque, the other a guest

residenceâ€"then, they should have been designed differently to reflect their individual

functions.

2. Why does the perimeter wall of the complex have a Medieval, pre-artillery,

defense character when artillery (cannons) was already in use in the Mughal invasions of India?

[Why does a mausoleum need a protective wall in the first place? For a palace it is

understadable.]

3. Why are there some twenty rooms below the terrace level on the north side of the

Taj facing the Jumna River? Why does a mausoleum need these rooms? A palace could put them to good

use. The authors do not even mention their existence.

4. What is in the sealed-up rooms on the south side of the long corridor opposite

the twenty contiguous rooms? Who filled in the doorway with masonry? Why are scholars not allowed

to enter and study whatever objects or decor are within?

5. Why does the "mosque" face due west instead of facing Meccah? Certainly, by the

seventeenth century there was no problem in orienting a building precisely!

6. Why has the Archaeological Survey of India blocked any dating of the Taj by means

of Carbon-14 or thermo-luminiscnece? Any controversy over which century the Taj was built could

easily be resolved. [Radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood surreptiously taken from one of the

doors gave 13th century as a possible date. But more data is needed.]

If Shajahan did not build the Taj for the love of Mumtaz, then why did he want it?

His love for Mumtaz was evidently a convenient subterfuge. He actually wanted the existing palace

for himself. He appropriated it from Raja Jai Singh by making him an offer he could not refuse,

the gift of other properties in exchange. He also acquired whatever was precious within the

building including the immensely valuable gold railing.

By converting the complex into a sacred Moslem mausoleum he insured that the Hindus

would never want it back. Shahjahan converted the residential quarters to the west of the main

building to a mosque simply by modifying the interior of the west wall to create a mihrab niche.

He added Islamic inscriptions around many doorways and entries to give the impression that the Taj

had always been Islamic. Sure enough, the scholars have been silent or deceived ever since.

Yet, we must thank Begley and Desai for having assembled so much useful data and

translated contemporary writings and inscriptions. Where they failed is in accepting an apocryphal

legend of the Taj for an absolute fact. Their interpretations and analyses have been forced into

the mold of their bias. It would be well to take advantage of their work by scholars and laymen

interested in deepening their knowledge of the Taj Mahal to read the book while keeping an open

mind as to when and by whom it was built.

Added note:

A leading Indian architect, former professor of architecture at Mysore University adds:

There are fundamental problems with the current theory of Islamic Architecture in India of which

the following may be noted.

(1) Unlike in the case of Hindu architecture, where there are literally hundreds of works on

Vastu in several Indian languages, there seem to be almost no texts or manuals on Islamic

architecture. It is difficult to see how a great school of architecture lasting 600 years could

flourish without any technical literature.

(2) Hindu architectural practices and traditions are maintained by thousands of mason

families, especially in South India. These are known as Vishwakarmas or Vishwa Brahmanas. They are

greatly in demand all over the world. No such Muslim families are known.

(3) There are no standards of units and measurements for Islamic architecture in India. It is

inconceivable that great works of architecture could come up without them. This is an objective

requirement.

The reviewer Marvin Mills is a leading New York architect and professor of

architecture at the Pratt Institute.

Tired of spam? Mail has the best spam protection around

This is an information resource and discussion group for people interested in the World's Ancient Vedic Culture, with a focus on its historical, archeological and scientific aspects. Also topics about India, Hinduism, God, and other aspects of World Culture are welcome.

Remember, Vedic Culture is not an artificial imposition, but is the natural state of a society that is in harmony with God and the environment.Om Shantih, Harih Om

India calling card Terms of Service.