The document discusses the controversy over whether the Taj Mahal was originally built as a Hindu temple. It presents the views of historian P.N. Oak, who argued that the Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple called Tejo Mahalaya that was converted into a mausoleum by Shah Jahan. However, others criticize Oak's arguments and personality. The document concludes that having basic knowledge of history is important to understand such controversies and prevent communal conflicts in India.

2.  Is Basic Knowledge of
history Necessary?
• The answer may differ now
but after you watch this
presentation we will have a
common answer…..

29. • No One Have Ever Challenged it
except Prof P.N.Oak, who believes
that the whole world has been
duped. In his book of Taj Mahal :
The True Story, Oak says that Taj
Mahal is not Queen Mumtaz’s
tomb but an ancient Hindu
temple palace of Lord Shiva

30. (then Known as Tejo Mahalaya).
• In the course of his research Oak
discovered that the Shiva temple
palace was usurped by Shah Jahan
from then Maharaja of Jaipur, Jai
Singh. In his own court chronicle,
Badshahnama, Shah Jahan admits that
an exceptionally

31. • Beautiful grand mansion in Agra
was taken from Jai Singh for
Mumtaz’s burial.
• The ex-Maharaja of Jaipur still
retains in his secret collection two
orders from Shah Jahan for
surrendering the Taj building.
Using captured temples and
mansions,

32. as a burial place for dead courtiers
and royalty was a common practice
among Muslim rulers.
• Oak’s inquiries began with the
name Taj Mahal

33. He says the term “Mahal” has never
been used for a building in any
Muslim countries from Afghanistan
to Algeria. “The unusual explanation
that the term Taj Mahal derives from
Mumtaz Mahal was illogical in
atleast two respects.

34. • Firstly, her name was never
Mumtaz Mahal but Mumtaz-ul-
Zamani,”he writes. Secondly, one
cannot omit the first three letters
‘mum’ from a women’s name to
derive the remainder as the name
for the building.”Taj Mahal,he
claims, is a corrupt version

35. of Tejo Mahalaya, or Lord Shiva’s
palace.
• Not a single royal chronicle of Shah
Jahan’s time corroborates

36. the love story.
• Further more, Oak cites several
documents suggesting the Taj Mahal
predates Shah Jahan’s era, and was a
temple dedicated to Shiva,
worshipped by Rajputs of Agra
city……

37. • European traveler Johan Albert
Mandelslo, who visited Agra in
1638(only seven years after
Mumtaz’s death), describes the life
of the city in his

38. Memoirs, but he makes no reference
to the Taj Mahal being built.
• The writings of Peter Mundy, an
English visitor to Agra within a
year of Mumtaz’s death, also
suggested the Taj Mahal was a note
worthy building well before Shah
Jahan’s time. Prof. Oak points out

39. a number of design and architectural
inconsistencies that support that
belief of the Taj Mahal being a typical
Hindu temple rather than a
mausoleum.
• Many rooms in the Taj Mahal have
remained sealed since Shah Jahan’s
time and are still inaccessible to
the

40. public.
• Oak asserts they contain a headless
statue of Lord Shiva and other
objects commonly used for worship
rituals in Hindu temples.
• Fearing political backlash, Indira
Gandhi’s government tried to have
Prof. Oak’s book withdrawn from
the bookstores.

41. and threatened the Indian publisher
of the first edition dire
consequences……..

42. VIEWS OF PROF.
P.N.OAK BEING
CRITICISED BY
HISTORY DEPARTMENT
OF MCL SARASWATI
BAL MANDIR

43. CHAR BAGH
 Char bagh is the basic feature of Tajmahal, which is not only the
surrounding of Tajmahal but also the surrounding of Red Fort ,
Shalimar Bagh, Which shows the feature of Mughal archtecture .
• It’s a sign of mughal architecture.
• Only found in the monuments made by mughal.
 It’s a big evidence that Like
Red Fort and Shalimar Bagh ,
Taj Mahal is also made by a
muslim.

44.  Controversyon architecture of Taj
Mahal
• As far as the architecture of taj mahal is
concerned , it was made by thousands of
labours.
• Moreover all the labours were a mixture of
hindus and muslims. So we get lots of
evidence of hindu culture there.

45.  Controversy on Oak’s
Personality
• Oak was the member of British Corporation
Council . As he was a indo -christian ,a
product of Mculay’s theory ( To form a
group of people, who would be Indian in
blood and English in taste ).
• So we can say that he was very much
influenced by English culture

46. • Oak suggested on the basis of Carbon
Dating that “some doors inside the Taj
Mahal were more older than the reign of the
shahjahan “
 But here we can arise a question
That “ can’t we reuse the building
materials in any construction.”

47. TO SUM UP:-
• It can be concluded that we all must have at least
the basic knowledge of indian history as the
citizen of india.
• Incase we fail to study or understand the indian
history , that may result communal riots inside the
country like “Ayodhya Mamla”

48. • Taj mahal is the world heritage
through out the world ,as we all
know about it.
• If we have at least the basic
knowledge then only we are
able to argue on these kind of
diplomatic controversies
created by our surrounding.
The things to be remembered

49. • ON behalf of the 121crore
population of INDIA I would
like to request you that before
believing on any antisocial
element we must use our mind
and the basic knowledge of
our history
 HUMBLE REQUEST TO ALL
INDIANS

50. Presented by-
Shivank
Pulkit