In a series of events following the snapping of the Taj Mahal from the list of tourist places to be visited in Uttar Pradesh by the tourism department, the erstwhile wonder, and a UN Heritage Site, has seen done the rounds of controversy.
The controversy was stirred further when the firebrand BJP MLA from Sardhana, Mr Sangeet Som, who has forever been catching the limelight for his outspoken oratory, branded all the Slave and the Mughal rulers as ‘marauders, murderers and rapists’. he further alleged that these rulers did not deserve to be eulogized for whatever they did because they tried to paint the demographics of those days green by mass forced conversions and also desecrated several Vedic places of worship.
The MLA also accused these rulers for committing cultural genocide by doling out excessive measures accompanied with force. Mr. Som further stated that the BJP governments at the State and the Centre are trying their best to make the masses aware of their atrocious conduct towards the Vedic Barahminists (Hindu) community, and also strive to ‘wipe out their (rulers’) names from the history of India’.
The leader based is remarks on the profound understanding that the Taj was built by a ruler, Shah Jahan who jailed his own father and was a philanderer. He said that if we tend to cherish such ideals how will the conscious of the community evolve.
The UP Chief Minister, Baba Yogi Adtyanath gave a statement which was very carefully crafted. He said that it is a monument that became a reality due to the sweat and blood of the sons of the Indian soil, and thus it is a mater of pride. He further said that the Taj Mahal has been removed from the list because it deserves to be maintained, and the state will dutifully repair and renovate it.
The CM did not come out with anything that could have given a hint of communalist agenda over the Taj Mahal.
The Shia Waqf Board Chief also on declared that barring a few Mughals all others were “Ayyash”. this is a derogatory term implying al ungodly acts that money may put before to satisfy the lower nature of man. Central Government that he perceives a threat of desecration or harm to the Taj Mahal.
The fact that is a popular belief in India and backed by Indologists, affirms that prior to the construction of the mausoleum, the land had a famous Shiv Lingam established there. The location was chosen by the Mughal architect and the Shiv Lingam was demolished. The entire masonry, craftsmen, artisans, architects etc, had to give their hands or lives in return for the handsome reward for the beautiful construction.
These beliefs give a dubious character to the symbol of love but the deplorable state of the marble of the monument says a lot about the love of the past governments for the monuments and the love for the monument portrayed by the Waqf Boards.
The issue must not be politicised as the mausoleum is not a place where anyone offers worship, rather it is a symbol of love.
It was for the action of the Supreme Court that the polluting factories in the vicinity of the Taj Mahal were relocated, but the mechanical repairs needed have not been given a go ahead.
We may recall former French President Nicolas Sarkozy kissed his wife Carla Bruni publicly at the Taj Mahal, so a mere removal of the same will never amount to lowering the status of the same.
Rather in addition to just the monument, the state has come out with new places that might gain some traction with the tourists.
The removal is though unfortunate but may be rectified, and the issue must not be politicised. Mr Som must hold his bizarre opinions of the past to himself because they do not find mention with the historians, and art, literature, music, culture, beauty and crafts are beyond religion.
The author also personally feels that rather than caring about what happened 50 years ago, Mr. Som would have looked better by talking about Skill India, Make in India and Start up India.