Deceptive dispute: On the Taj Mahal

In 2015, a civil suit sought to declare the Taj Mahal a Hindu temple. This April, after an Agra trial court refused the petitioners’ request to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to survey the monument, the Allahabad High Court — hearing the petitioners’ challenge — has sought responses from the Centre and the ASI before deciding whether the lower court’s refusal should stand. The legal position aside, the matter is both frivolous and vexatious. The idea today that the Taj Mahal was ‘originally’ a Hindu temple is associated with the late 20th century writings of Purushottam Nagesh Oak. Professional historians and archaeologists have repeatedly rejected his claims because they bank on speculative linguistic arguments and unsupported historical assertions. On the other hand, evidence that Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal is rooted in contemporary chronicles, administrative records, European travellers’ accounts, architectural histories, and archaeology. No archaeological study has produced evidence of a medieval Hindu temple beneath the Taj. Even though the ASI has previously submitted in affidavits that some rooms are locked because they are structurally vulnerable, supporters of the temple idea have alleged that they conceal Hindu idols. A Bharatiya Janata Party leader also unsuccessfully filed a PIL in 2022 and activists tried to offer ‘gangajal’ in 2024. Given the right historical, political, economic, and social conditions, an idea can persist long after its origins from pseudohistory.

The ongoing case resembles aspects of the Gyanvapi and Mathura disputes, where requests for ostensibly objective surveys were also platforms to advance revisionist political narratives. Courts are empowered to reject pleadings that disclose no sustainable cause of action — even as they are not commissions of historical inquiry and should not treat every speculative historical hypothesis as sufficient grounds for a supervised investigation. Equally, civil procedure should not tolerate re-litigating claims lacking any real evidentiary foundation. All major monuments accumulate materials of additions and alterations over time but heritage scholars draw a line between studying a monument’s evolution and redefining its identity outright. The Taj Mahal became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1983. Repeated attempts to redefine its identity can also muddle international perceptions of India’s stewardship of the monument and disrupt the region’s tourism-based economy. The High Court may ultimately agree with the trial court’s order after due examination, but the claim deserves not a breath of air. The petitioners have not advanced any new evidence, even as heritage institutions continue to face sustained legal pressure to manufacture controversies from figments.