Taj Mahal, the True Story: The Tale of a Temple Vandalized

Front Cover
A. Ghosh, 1989 - Taj Mahal (Agra, India) - 314 pages
10 Reviews

From inside the book

What people are saying - Write a review

User ratings

5 stars
6
4 stars
1
3 stars
0
2 stars
0
1 star
0

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Here is the list of the books written by Mr. Purushottam Nagesh Oak
you can verify the list from books.google.com. On many blogs and sites
people have referred to him as professor, he was never a
professor, he did
his own brand of research and often times is called a mythistorian or simply
a crackpot.
The Taj Mahal is a Temple Plalace Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 1974
Delhi's Red Fort is Hindu lalkot Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 1976
Taj Mahal was a rajput Plalace Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 1965
Lucknow's Imambaras are Hindu Palaces Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 1976
Christinity is Chrisn-nity Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 1978
Who says Akbar was great Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 1968
Some missing chapters of world history Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 2003
The Taj Mahal is Tejo-Mahalay: A shiv Temple Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 1981
Some blunders of Indian Historical research Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 1966
Taj Mahal, the true Story: The tale of Temple Vandalized. Purushottam Nagesh Oak - 1989
Just going through the titles of the books the writer reveals his brand and agenda.
Oaks theories have been rejected in academic circle, but he has found
popular following among members of India's right wing Hindu groups, who play the
anti Muslim politics to mobilise the innocent, illiterate and hungry masses.
Narasimhan Ram, editor of The Hindu newspaper, called him a Sangh historian.
The Indian Government has banned a number of books on the ground of spreading
hatred against Indian Muslims and causing disruption in the society. Although there
is no historical base in his writings certain sections of Hindu hard liner group are
ready and eager to embrace his theories and spread them through their blogs
and literature to promote their own anti Muslim agenda.
Nowhere in the history departments his books are referred, only people who want to
live in make believe world would want to refer to him. Besides this, Indian history is
studied in other very advance centres of the world too, where historical facts are respected
as facts for the subject. They do not change it for politics or convenience or for maligning
a particular community. Because of the people like Mr. Oak, for studying Indian history,
students have to the University of Chicago, MI, Library. Such pseudo historians defame India for tampering history. Indian Supreme Court has dismissed Oaks's petition to declare "Taj Mahal is a hindu Temple" and he was admonished for wasting precious time of the court.
Lets make some progress together, lets not find the faults in history, find the faults
in present and try and correct them, we all will benefit from this. Lets not pursue
our already corrupt government to investigate historical facts. Let them make, roads,
schools and hospitals. Stop killing and raping of our women. Today Not Mahmood of
Ghazni but your own people are plundering, today not British Colonizers but your own
political leader and sucking the country dry. They want us to dwell in past flaws and not see any problems with the present system.
 

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

I had the opportunity to read this book long back and had not only found this an interesting viewpoint, but also quire reasoned at that. Unfortunately, the administration and a large number of zealots have made this work look like some discourse on religion which it has nothing to do per se. As such, the government of India should have verified the facts in this book and come out with the facts. Any theory needs to be verified. All those who brush away something without verification are doing disservice to truth. Those who term as idol-worshippers as 'kafirs' do not mind when a Mogul king is attributed to have constructed a whole building for a dead person...leave alone a deity. This is the internal contradiction which is not being resolved.
If Oak claims carbon dating as well as Babarnama both clearly indicate that Taj Mahal is older than Shah Jehan, in fact older than Babar, why not verify it? Unfortunately again, the government which has over the sixty years being dominated by a vote-bank political party did not want to lose the votes of Muslims by opening up what they thought was Pandora's box.
Those who attach unnecessary emotion to archaeology, are actually responsible for tensions and major let downs. Babri Masjid was proved to be a later structure, but the mindless made it an emotional issue and brought things to a dangerous state. It was a token first step towards dealing with Taj Mahal, but the method was wrong and to whip up religious sentiment for political gain. BJP did a major disservice to archaeology. Oaks book is welcome, but must be read with a lot of maturity. If you suppress such a viewpoint and further inquiry, you're are accepting that Indians are fools and are incapable of scholarship.
 

All 10 reviews »

Contents

I
xi
II
1
III
5
Copyright

26 other sections not shown

Common terms and phrases

References to this book

Bibliographic information