Clueless in Agra

The Taj provides a good view of the Mughal Empire. But the effort diminishes the building

The taj mahal needs no introduction. It is well-entrenched in the popular imagination as a symbol of love, the monument built by Emperor Shahjehan for his wife, Mumtaz Mahal. Its image, as a symbol for India, is easily recognizable, and it has given its name to possibly the largest number of restaurants in the world purveying what is supposed to be Indian cuisine.

The origins of the Taj are the stuff out of which legendary movies are made. The emperor8217;s wife dies in childbirth and, in grief, he builds a monument to her. His son decides that he wants to be emperor, kills his brothers and shuts up the ex-emperor across the river from his wife8217;s tomb, where he lives out his days. The script is true, but the story is a little more complex.

Historians Diana and Michael Preston have given their book the subtitle The Story Of The Taj Mahal. Presumably, we will learn how the Taj was conceived, designed, and built. We will see what it symbolically represents, the ways in which its builders managed to create a building so unique in style, that we can call it only Indian. We learn about this, all right 8212; in a single chapter.

A book ostensibly about the Taj is actually nothing but a history of the Mughal Empire, from Babur8217;s invasion to the diminution of the empire to the environs of Delhi. Why, then, say that it is a book about the Taj alone? The story of Shahjehan8217;s predecessors and descendants should have taken up only a couple of pages. That they take up 90 per cent of the book displays a rather skewered perspective on the part of the Prestons. While the Taj should be stage front, it is actually just below the stage lights.

What about the one chapter that does concern itself with the Taj? The Prestons have effectively marshalled all the available information about the Taj and have presented a preacute;cis of it, but which you could have found in any good guide to the Taj. They pull out all the familiar details and stories, but shed no new light or perspective on anything at all. And it is a little tiresome to read trained historians, who are supposed to focus on facts, assert that Shahjehan was the sole architect of the Taj, on the bizarre ground that there is no other suitable person. Absence of evidence does not culminate in a fact. It8217;s a pity, because the Prestons8217; vivid and fluid style could have really done justice to the stupendous nature of the Taj.

So, why is the Taj a sideshow in a book supposedly about it? The answer to this strange state of affairs becomes clear when you look at the books that the Prestons have written previously. They are about the English pirate William Dampier, the last attempt of the Scots to drive out the English, the 1900 Boxer uprising in China, and a conspiracy theory casebook that alleges the Lusitania was deliberately allowed to be sunk by the Germans in order to draw the US into World War I. The Prestons are clearly comfortable with tales of derring-do. So much easier and fun to write the soap opera story of the Mughals, than about a sole marble building. Isn8217;t it?