Lies, easy to see, easily ignored. And aggressively peddled.
Even without bringing anything else apart from what is generally well-known about about Jauhar and Taj Mahal to the discussion, it is not hard to see why Jauhar was not a real choice and could not be, for that reason, a symbol of love or love epitomized, as Muntashir would have us believe, because if the brave Rajput women were self-immolating to prevent from falling victim to the marauding army of a victorious enemy, they were not dying for love but for want of the choice to exist with dignity. And Taj Mahal was indeed built over several years by a grieving husband in the memory of his dead wife, who was first buried and remained buried in Burhanpur (now in Madhya Pradesh) for the first 22 years (from 1631 to 1653) after her death while Taj Mahal was under construction as her final resting place. She had accompanied Shah Jahan to Burhanpur on his military campaign in the Deccan Plateau, where she died giving birth to their 14th child.
On the completion of Taj Mahal in 1653, her remains were disinterred, brought to Agra and reinterred in a simple grave in Taj Mahal. Shah Jahan, on his death in 1666, was buried by her side in Taj Mahal in accordance with his wishes. One may or may not believe in “love” or the idea of it but if the world has seen anything closest to the idea or the ideal, Taj Mahal is, hands down, its most enduring physical monument. It was built by Shah Jahan from start to finish for one and only reason — to serve as a monument to the memory of his beloved wife. So even if Muntashir’s Padmavati had not been imaginary and had in fact committed jauhar, fearing a lifetime of enslavement, the Chittorgarh would still not be a monument of love at all, let alone on any footing with the Taj Mahal. As a matter of fact, Taj Mahal, built by an Indian emperor, is singular in that respect. So why is it so hard to just be happy about it for the likes of Muntashir? Let’s assume for a moment that there existed a Padmavati and died pining for her beloved husband, why is there a need to disparage Taj Mahal to extol Padmavati (assuming she were real)? There is sufficient space in the world for more than one “love story” to coexist peacefully, and we, as Indians, have absolutely no reason to demean and discredit Taj Mahal as a “symbol of love”, especially when there is nothing in history to support such an attack that can only be made by a propagandist distortion of the truth.
Also, when I ran a search regarding Taj Mahal on the internet, I came across a post on Quora that attacked Taj Mahal and Shah Jahan with the same hateful vitriol as Muntashir, but instead of Padmavati, Chittorgarh and Rattan Singh (Ratnasimha), the fellow invoked Lord Ram with Ram Setu as the “symbol of love”. And that comparison was way weirder at so many levels.
The debate surrounding the historical accuracy of Ram Setu’s origin story as well as about its human origin (anthropogenicity) aside, Lord Ram, the maryadapurushottam incarnation of Lord Vishnu, had the bridge constructed to rescue his abducted wife. The maryadapurushottam rescued his wife and justly punished Ravana and others, including his son and brother, for the act of holding Goddess Sita captive. And for that he did not have to be led by his love for his wife. Would a just king — god incarnate, no less — let the abductor and captors of a woman go unpunished, his wife or not, anybody’s wife or not? If Ram Setu is a symbol or anything, it is the enforcement of Dharma, call it righteousness or rule of law, and not of any personal feelings — however high, noble or celebrated — of a king or god incarnate. Even if Lord Ram did not love his wife, he would do exactly the same things, exactly the same way, for the Dharma demanded it of all kings and Kshatriyas, and maryada purushottam Lord Ram did not stray from the righteous path of his day and time. There are principles in the world way higher than “love”, and such duties that need to be performed no matter what the cost.
Such asinine comparisons like the one between Taj Mahal and Ram Setu are an insult to both, and perhaps a much greater insult to the latter than the former. And coming from a self-touted devotee of Lord Ram and Lord Shiva, it only demonstrates the blinding impact of communal hate because Taj Mahal cannot be dislodged from its status as a “symbol of love”, and while I would much prefer — if I had a say in the matter — a king a little less (a lot less, in fact) besotted with his wife, Shah Jahan’s overwrought and unremitting love for his wife did give us the equally enduring magnificence of Taj. And that soggy attack is the strongest one can possibly mount on Shah Jahan for building the monument that is not just our national heritage but also a duly designated UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1983. Say “thank you” to the dead, lovestruck emperor, maybe?
This is just one of the many false and hate-mongering discourses that continue to fester around us, threatening communal harmony. To peddle lies to feel good about oneself as a person or people is pathological self-conceit; to do it to promote hate for others is downright criminal.
Concluded
