The Supreme Court of India has slammed the door on a few brazen attempts by Hindutva extremists, including at least one leader from the ruling BJP, to legitimise the saffronisation of the Taj Mahal.
The latest efforts include pleas seeking to rewrite history with demands for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to label the Mahal to be a modification of an earlier Hindu building, because Hindutva extremists cannot accept the fact that the most famous man-made structure in India is, in fact, a work of Islamic architecture commissioned by a Muslim king and designed by a Muslim architect.
Most such beliefs are based on the ‘scholarship’ of selfproclaimed historian PN Oak, who real historians have called a “crackpot”, “delusional”, and a “mythistorian” dealing in “pseudo-scholarship”, which also explains why he gets much respect and reverence from Hindutva groups — they fit in well with extremist efforts to erase Muslim heritage and contributions from Indian history, as this would go against the ‘Islamic invader’ narrative.
Regarding the Taj Mahal, Oak’s claims were rubbished in his lifetime.
He first claimed it was built around the 4th century, even though there were no structural buildings of the sort in India at the time, only rock cuts and monoliths.
When the claim was disproven, he changed his construction date and attributed construction to the ancestors of the person from who Shah Jehan bought the land, even though it is well-documented that the land was undeveloped and prone to flooding before the emperor acquired it.
But while India’s top court has defended the right of historians to decide on what is historical fact, let us not forget that the same court has previously legitimised the saffron terrorism that led to the razing of Babri Masjid while also giving favourable rulings to several flimsy challenges relating to less significant mosques and Islamic-origin structures.
Without a concentrated effort to stop history being replaced by radical disinformation, it is only a matter of time before someone finds an excuse to rename the Taj Mahal.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ