Hands Off Taj

A marvel that’s practically synonymous with India can’t be litigated on the basis of a zero-evidence petition 

In 1947, Independent India inherited a rich, layered civilisation. Buddhist stupas, Chola temples, Mughal gardens, Sikh gurdwaras, colonial buildings etc. This glorious diversity is, of course, not inert. Historians certainly disagree constantly, all over the world. What caused the fall of Rome? Who was Homer? How did Indus Valley Civilisation end? But there is a difference between those who approach these debates from sentiment or ideology, and those who take an evidentiary approach. Either way, whether it is trained scholars disagreeing, or know-nothings, courts should let them be. If judiciary takes up this hobby, historical quarrels are so plentiful that there would be little time left for protecting present-day rights.

The Taj Mahal case, however, is not a common type of historical dispute. So Allahabad high court issuing notices to ASI and GOI in it, is even odder. On the world stage, this gorgeous mausoleum is practically a shorthand for India itself. Like Eiffel Tower is for France and Statue of Liberty for US. It’s put on the itinerary of virtually every major foreign dignitary. But, more importantly, Taj is on Indians’ wishlist too, whether they live in Kerala or Kashmir, Nagaland or Gujarat. Like Himalayas and Ganga, it is in school textbooks, wall calendars, family photo albums, postcards, tourism campaigns, deeply intertwined in all ideas of the nation.  

There is a Taj Mahal origin story that’s endorsed by ASI and GOI, plus supported by seventeenth-century texts, land records, inscriptions, construction methods, architectural lineage. Given all this, to claim it stands atop a demolished ancient temple is extraordinary. Goes without saying this claim has no matching archaeological, documentary and material proof. Without prima facie evidence, any petition is a waste of court’s time. But in the case of one of humanity’s best-known cultural monuments and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, reopening settled history through litigation is especially outlandish. Constitutional courts should stay out of this game.

END OF ARTICLE