Take the 2-minute tour ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

From an article in Pakistan's Dawn:

Renowned researcher and historian, Dr Mubarak Ali writes in his book, Gumshuda Taareekh (Lost History):

[snip]

The British even gave renaming Taj Mahal to something of their choice a try. They were more interested in proving that the people of the sub-continent were not as skilled a people to have managed the construction of such a beautiful architectural wonder.”

Did the British ever attempt to rename the Taj Mahal? If so, what did they want to rename it to?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

It just might be that the renowned researcher and historian is confused.

According to Wikipedia, there is a second Taj Mahal that was renamed from Raj Mahal at the suggestion of the British Resident at Bhopal.

That doesn't prove anything—it might even point to a British habit of suggesting other names for things that already have a name—, but still...


However, here we find

The Taj Mahal, one of the seven wonders of the world, is a symbol of love. It is greatly admired as one of the most magnificent monument ever created by an individual in memory of his beloved. The Taj Mahal was built by Shah Jahan in memory of his beautiful queen, Mumtaz Mahal.

A township was built for the workers near the monument and named Mumtazabad. The actual name of the Taj Mahal was Ruazaye-Mumtaz Mahal during the 17th century. However the British, during the 19th century, renamed this monument and called it the Taj Mahal, because Mumtaz Mahal's alias name was Taj Bibi.

So, this seems to corroborate the renaming of the famous Taj Mahal, but it also claims that the English renaming stuck (contrary to the claim). Also the name "Ruazaye-Mumtaz Mahal" isn't to be found anywhere else on the internet. :(


And there also this, which might be related:

enter image description here

This P. N. Oak we also find in a comment on History SE. Is he/she supposed to be (or represent) '[t]he British' from the claim? He's not British (and also, less relevant, characterised, by some, as a "crackpot"). Someone familiar with the context might explain whether this is possibly what the claim is referring to.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you. PN Oak's theory make an (inevitable) appearance in the comments section of the Dawn article. –  serendip.in Feb 5 at 9:50
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.