• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.

History : the Taj mahal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Sri VV Ji,

As I said, the same information is repeated and circulated in the hope that it becomes true. The Badshanama is available to anyone and reputed historians do not say it was a magnificent palace! It only says that Jai Singh was compensated for an ancestral property.

The BBC info is about PN Oak controversy.

So again, I ask - what is it - was it a palace or 'Tejo Mahalaya?'. Even if it was a palace, obviously it did not look the same. It definitely has the persian architecture and Islamic features. So what is the issue?

Regards,
KRS

a snippet on wht the bbc had to say abt this ...

http://psenthilraja.wordpress.com/2006/08/04/the-controversial-truth-of-tajmahal/

http://palaceoftruth.blogspot.com/2009/06/re-visiting-taj-mahal.html

and why does the badshahnama seem to say that the building was usurped?
 
there are definite doubts about the persianess of the architecture and abt the way it was taken from the jaipur king and i guess , no doubt even by islamic records as to whether it was a magificient structure that was usurped .....
 
Dear Sri VV Ji,

The architecture of TM has been classified DEFINITELY as that of the Persian Safavid class for Mausoleums.

Can you tell me why you say there are 'definite doubts' about this? Who has created these 'definite doubts' and on the basis of what?

Regards,
KRS


there are definite doubts about the persianess of the architecture and abt the way it was taken from the jaipur king and i guess , no doubt even by islamic records as to whether it was a magificient structure that was usurped .....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top