The past millennia or so of Indian history is largely a painful story of invasions by Mughals and Britishers. The Mughals (and other Muslim invaders) left no stone unturned in destroying our sacred monuments, universities and libraries. And the British had a more devastating effect by directly tampering with our education system which led to a severe erosion of our culture and social fabric. Of course, one could argue that the British also brought in many things modern, without which Indians would have been left behind by several centuries. However, when we look at the Mughal period, there is nothing much that they did which could have contributed to India's advancement, perhaps except for the Taj Mahal! It is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful monuments not only in India but over the whole world. But what does the Taj Mahal stand for? Some would say it stands for our slavish past. Others would say that it stand as a sign of the deepest love that a man can have for a woman. Yet others would say that it stands for the exquisite skill of Indian artisans of those times. But is there another perspective we could have on this that perhaps connects the Taj Mahal to the deeper dimensions of Indian history and culture?
In order to understand the perspective being presented here, it is imperative to have some background of Vrindavan and Mathura, which are located very close to Agra. It is more helpful to have visited these places at least once and experienced the natural love the common folk have there. There are many places in India where people treat each other well, but very few where people speak so sweetly! No wonder Krishna got so much love and adoration during his lifetime from the cowherds of this region. There is something special about this place which naturally leads to the expression of love from deep within. It is very natural for someone who lives in the vicinity of such a region to feel strong bonds of love with their beloved ones. And Shahjahan is perhaps the result of such a transformative process.
But why did it have to be a Mughal? Why didn't a native Indian king feel like building such a monument for his beloved? In Indian culture, not only is the highest place given to God, but our idea of God permeates every single relationship that a human can have with another. In Hinduism, one could think of God as a friend, a Guru, a parent or even a beloved. The whole Indian society is inclined to express its highest emotions towards various forms of God. And so, our kings did built great temples of various kinds that express these varied emotions. Hence, it needed someone outside the fold of Hinduism to express such a high intensity of human emotion towards another human being. It could have been a Christian or someone from another faith, but there is perhaps something unique about Islam which made Vivekananda once say, "I see in my mind's eye the future perfect India rising out of this chaos and strife, glorious and invincible, with Vedanta brain and Islam body".
There are of course several perspectives that one could have about the Taj Mahal, but the above suggests that this monument is perhaps a realisation of what Vivekananda said. It is a reminder of the magic that can be created when people of these two faiths come together to work for a common cause. The Taj Mahal is pure beauty and it is almost impossible not to simply melt away admiring it from close quarters. Hope we can come together in the near future to build something that will be more magnificent this teardrop on the cheeks of time!
1. The lady was one of that dude's several wives.
ReplyDelete2.
(a) If a singer sings especially well about his wife, or a painter paints his wife very well, wouldn't it be ridiculous to say that the singer is necessarily extraordinary in his love for his wife?
(b) If Ambani constructs a very aesthetic monument and names it after his wife, would you praise him for extraordinary wife-love?
(c) If a company finds great success in making artsy valentine's day cards, does that mean those people know romantic love very well?
3. How ethical is it to show love for one's wife by using tax payer money, in a society where those taxes came from dirt-poor peasants?
4. Perhaps Shah Jahan was just lucky to get talented architects and craftsmen, high quality marbles etc.?
Unfortunately artists have set the narrative, that is why the world is full of confused and superstitious ideas about what love means etc. Artistic superstition is far worse than romantic superstition.
I didn't know moderation mechanism, so I typed the same thing twice. Also, I meant "religious superstition" instead of "romantic superstition".
ReplyDeleteThanks to Kushal and Sandeep for raising some pertinent questions. There is no way history can be undone, but it can be interpreted as per our convenience (by ignorance or design !). So the future generations hardly get the right picture.
ReplyDeleteLeaving aside the historical perspective (anyway I don't know much about it !), the moot question is how it is helping the present society to evolve and grow. If it is related to culture, it should help us to connect with our past better and show the way forward. But now, the maximum emphasis from all quarters (incl. Government) seems to be to get more tourists to the place with pride, show the greatness of India (or Moghuls) and then carve out business of the whole thing. This is true of most historical/ religious places in India. Probably the impact of what we physically build outside, on our minds (including all not just the initiator !) and ecology is an important aspect to dwell upon. Is this going to lead to a better harmonious society and happy individuals ?
Thanks Sandeep and Sanjeev for your comments! Here is my response:
ReplyDelete> 1. The lady was one of that dude's several wives.
That was common even among Hindu kings since ancient times. Doesn't say anything about a person's character.
> 2. (a) If a singer sings especially well about his wife,
> or a painter paints his wife very well, wouldn't it be
> ridiculous to say that the singer is necessarily extraordinary
> in his love for his wife?
> (b) If Ambani constructs a very aesthetic monument and
> names it after his wife, would you praise him for extraordinary wife-love?
> (c) If a company finds great success in making artsy valentine's
> day cards, does that mean those people know romantic love very well?
As they say, there can't be smoke without fire. But yes, we have no objective way of judging these things anyways. Its a perspective. Feel free to have yours.
> 3. How ethical is it to show love for one's wife by using tax payer money,
> in a society where those taxes came from dirt-poor peasants?
Monuments like the Taj are a major revenue earner. And too much austerity doesn't lead to prosperity. There has to be a balance between capitalism and socialism.
> 4. Perhaps Shah Jahan was just lucky to get talented architects
> and craftsmen, high quality marbles etc.?
When I do something, its my hard work and perseverance. When my neighbour does it, its just luck.
> Unfortunately artists have set the narrative, that is why the
> world is full of confused and superstitious ideas about what
> love means etc. Artistic superstition is far worse than romantic superstition.
Its always artists who set the narrative and rightly so. Romance is also an art form, but its hard for logicians to appreciate it.
> There is no way history can be undone, but it can be interpreted
> as per our convenience (by ignorance or design !).
> So the future generations hardly get the right picture.
What is the right picture? And how does one objectively know its the right picture? Not everything in this world is amenable to logical analysis.
> Leaving aside the historical perspective (anyway I don't know much about it !),
> the moot question is how it is helping the present society to evolve and grow.
> If it is related to culture, it should help us to connect with our past better
> and show the way forward. But now, the maximum emphasis from
> all quarters (incl. Government) seems to be to get more tourists to
> the place with pride, show the greatness of India (or Moghuls) and
> then carve out business of the whole thing. This is true of most
> historical/ religious places in India. Probably the impact of what
> we physically build outside, on our minds (including all not just
> the initiator !) and ecology is an important aspect to dwell upon.
> Is this going to lead to a better harmonious society and happy individuals?
Thats an interesting question, but perhaps a bit complex. It is also not clear if a harmonious society necessarily needs to have happy individuals. I think 'happiness' is much more difficult to define and achieve than 'harmony'. Perhaps such monuments and tourism don't really promote happiness in individuals, but they do promote a harmonious society. If we can appreciate the great things done by people of other faiths and thought processes, we automatically tend to be more accommodative of different views, which directly leads to harmony. So, in my opinion, we should strongly encourage Muslims and Christians to visit our ancient grand temples and appreciate their architectural beauty.
"That was common even among Hindu kings since ancient times. Doesn't say anything about a person's character."
ReplyDeleteThat would have been a good point if it weren't actually beside the point: with that point I questioned not his character, but your thesis concerning the extra-ordinariness of his love for his wife. The other points too, you have answered points that are pretty different from the ones that were in contention in the first place; that somehow the aesthetics of the monument was proof enough of his extra-ordinary love (and the burden of proof is on you).
It is important in any discussion to remember what the central point at hand is, and not respond to imaginary issues that you might find it tempting to attribute to the other.
In the meanwhile, you may enjoy this article from a Pakistani newspaper:
http://nation.com.pk/columns/02-Nov-2013/it-was-never-love
In particular, he murdered Mumtaz' ex-husband so as to make her his wife, and impregnated her 14 times, with her body succumbing to the repeated stress by the fourteenth. A husband with an extraordinarily loving mind will do all this?
And alas I need to mention it separately here, since you are implicitly accusing me - this is not about Hindus vs Muslims. I am sure there exist Hindus who have done all this and worse, so no need of "Hindu kings did it too" sort of whataboutery.
Artists and poets have adharmically deluded the society and twisted our sense of values. Time to wake up.
> that somehow the aesthetics of the monument was proof enough
Delete> of his extra-ordinary love (and the burden of proof is on you).
Neither am I trying to prove anything, nor do I believe that a proof in this regard is even possible. As I said earlier, its just a perspective. You are free to have yours.
> Artists and poets have adharmically deluded the society and
> twisted our sense of values. Time to wake up.
Thats just your perspective and not a statement of fact. Others can disagree.
http://www.harekrsna.de/taj-mahal/tejo-mahalaya.html
ReplyDeletePlease check the link above.