Clarify whether Taj Mahal is mausoleum or temple: CIC to govt
The Central Information Commission has directed the Union culture ministry to clarify its stand on whether the Taj Mahal is a mausoleum built by Shahjahan or a Shiva temple gifted to the Mughal emperor by a Rajput king.
The question, forwarded as an alternative narrative of history by some claiming to be historians and the subject of various court cases, reached the CIC through an RTI plea and is now at the culture ministry's door.
In a recent order, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said the ministry should put to rest the controversy and clarify doubts about the history of the white marbled mausoleum, considered one of the wonders of the world.
Acharyulu recommended that the ministry give information on its stand on the cases related to the provenance of the Taj Mahal, and on the frequent claims based on historian P N Oak and advocate Yogesh Saxena's writings.
He noted that some cases in courts, including the Supreme Court, were dismissed while some were pending.
Acharyulu said the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), being a party in some cases, must be holding the counters (affidavits) filed on its behalf and by the culture ministry.
"The Commission directs the Archaeological Survey of India to share those copies with the appellant at additional fee constituting the cost of copying, before August 30, 2017," he said.
The CIC was pulled into the debate after an applicant, B K S R Ayyangar, approached the ASI through an RTI application asking whether the monument in Agra was the Taj Mahal or "Tejo Mahalaya".
"Many people stating that Taj Mahal is not Taj Mahal and it is Tejo Mahalaya: that this was not constructed by Shahjahan, but was gifted by Raja Maan Singh; hence give the facts as per ASI reports-details with evidences," he asked.
The ASI told him no such record was available with it.
Among other records, Ayyangar also demanded "construction details" of the 17th century monument, including its rooms, hidden rooms and the rooms closed to him citing security reasons.