Content uploaded by Dilip R Ahuja
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dilip R Ahuja on Apr 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
GENERAL ARTICLES
CURRENT SCIEN CE, VOL. 110, NO. 6 , 25 MARCH 2016 996
The authors are in the National Institute of Advanced Studies, II Sc
Campus, Bengaluru 560 012, I ndia.
*For correspondence. (e-mail: drahuja@gmail.com)
On the symmetry of the central dome of the
Taj Mahal
Dilip R. Ahuja* and M. B. Rajani
The Taj Mahal attracts millions of visitors annually. It is renowned for its perfection, symmetry and
attention to detail; its beauty and magnificence appeal to almost all viewers. It does, however, pos-
sess some slight imperfections that escape most observers. Revisiting both, the appreciations and
criticisms, this study analyses possible flaws in the symmetry of the external central dome and dis-
cusses likely reasons for the flaws.
Keywords: Mughal monuments, symmetry in architecture, Taj Mahal.
AMONG the millions who see the Taj Mahal, praise is
almost universal. Rabindranath Tagore said that the Taj
Mahal rises above the banks of the river like a solitary
tear suspended on the cheek of time. Even art historians
have been effusive in their praise. Percy Brown1
described it as ‘the “perfect moment” in the evolution of
architecture during the Mughal period’. Ebba Koch2
writes: ‘I felt overwhelmed by its perfection, splendour,
and sheer size. Eventually I realized that as a scholar I
was not alone in my awe of the famous building.’ She
goes on to analyse the building according to the eight
principles of Shahjahani architecture among which she
includes geometric planning, symmetry and attention to
detail. She claims that ‘there is perfect symmetrical plan-
ning with emphasis on bilateral symmetry (qarina) along
a central axis on which are placed the main features’2.
In comparison, written criticisms are few. We found
only four. In chronological order, the critics are Hermann
Keyserling3, Aldous Huxley4, Sarat Chandra5 and Wayne
Begley6. Mostly criticisms are not of the building but
they dispute the standard explanation of Shah Jahan’s
motives for having the monument built.
Count Keyserling, a German philosopher, was unable
to fathom the building’s meaning. ‘As far as the ordinary
architectural possibilities go, it lacks all expr essive va l-
ue.... The Taj Mahal is not even necessarily a funeral mo-
nument: it might just as well, or just as badly, be a
pleasure resort.... The dead queen is by no means the soul
of the Taj Mahal. It has no soul, no meaning which could
be deduced from anywhere’3. Yet he is clearly in awe: ‘A
massive marble structure without weight, as if composed
of ether; perfectly rational and yet purely decorative;
without ascertainable content, and yet full of significance
in the highest degree: the Taj Mahal is not only one of th e
greatest works of art, it is perhaps the greatest of all
pieces of artifice which the creative spirit of man has ever
achieved.’3
Aldous Huxley was unique in pointing out the build-
ing’s architectural flaws. ‘Architecturally, the worst fea-
tures of the Taj are its minarets. . . There was no n eed to
make them feebly taper, there was no need to pick out the
component blocks of which they are built with edgings of
black, and above all there was no need to surround the
shaft of the minarets with thick clumsy balconies placed,
moreover, at just the wrong intervals of distance from one
another and from the ground.’ He also criticised the pie-
tra dura decorations and the bas reliefs of the flowers
which adorn the gateway4. Begley6 dismissed Huxley’s
views as frivolous.
Sarat Chandra Chattopadh yay’s5 heroine in Shesh
Prashna expresses doubts about popular explanations of
the Taj. ‘After pointing out some of the flaws in th e myth
of Shah Jahan’s marital devotion, [she] concludes that the
Emperor would probably have built a monument like the
Taj even if Mumtaz Mahal had not died, that he would
have found some other excuse to build it, perhaps “in the
name of religion” or perhaps as a “memorial to conquest”.’6
Wayne Begley provided a novel, and so far the only
symbolic interpretation of the Taj – less as a monument
to marital love and more as an imagined ‘Throne of God’.
Both Keyserling and Huxley were unaware of this sym-
bolism. Even Begley admits that ‘the Taj possesses the
charismatic power to awe almost all its viewers (a few
cynics excepted), to instil a sense of greatness, a sense of
transcendent majesty’6.
We count ourselves among Taj’s admirers and neither
the reasons for its construction, n or its symbolism con-
cern us. We think it is a building that looks far better dur-
ing an actual visit than in any depiction. Even repeated
visits do not lessen the feeling of gladness that it induces
in viewers.
GENERAL ARTICLES
CURRENT SCIEN CE, VOL. 110, NO. 6 , 25 MARCH 2016 997
Figure 1. Photograph of the c entra l dom e of the T aj Mahal showing th e supporting dru m.
Figure 2 . Measur ements of the central dome of t he T aj. The radius of
outer dome (m) is plotted against various height (m) from the top of
drum.
The Taj is renowned for its bilateral symmetry. The
central structure, however, seems to us to have two
imperfections. The first is relatively minor: in some of
the photographs, the finial over the central dome is tilted
from the vertical axis by about 3 (angle as measured at
the bottom of the dome; smaller if measured at ground
level). The finial is not original7. The tilt could have
occurred when the bronze replica was installed in the
early 19th century, or during a subsequent restoration.
Table 1. Offs et (m) as a percent of the local outer diameter (m) of the
centra l dom e
Height (m) Diameter Offset % Offset
29.75 0.48 0 0
27.70 4.64 0.08 1.66
26.16 8.45 0.32 3.83
24.41 12.97 0.72 5.52
22.96 16.79 0.67 3.99
21.31 21.40 0.82 3.85
19.67 24.95 0.92 3.67
18.05 27.69 0.71 2.56
16.57 29.74 0.62 2.07
15.07 31.35 0.65 2.06
13.70 32.41 0.62 1.92
12.28 33.12 0.58 1.74
10.88 33.53 0.47 1.40
9.24 33.62 0 .42 1.26
7.72 33.60 0 .40 1.19
5.93 33.18 0 .38 1.14
3.66 32.13 0 .16 0.50
1.79 31.91 0 0
0 31.91 0 0
The other anomaly is that the central dome of th e
monument is not perfectly symmetrical. There are at least
three ways to corroborate this fact: low-tech, mid-tech
and high-tech.
(1) The easiest way to establish this fact is to print a
photograph of the Taj, preferably one that shows part or
all of the drum (as in Figure 1) and carefully cut along
the boundary. When one folds the picture along the cen-
tral axis one will find that th e two edges do not coincide.
Therefor e, the central dome is asymmetric.
(2) The second way to establish this fact quantitatively
is to take several horizontal slices of the dome and meas-
ure the two sides across the central axis. Figure 2 plots
the radii of the two sides of the outer dome (shown in
GENERAL ARTICLES
CURRENT SCIEN CE, VOL. 110, NO. 6 , 25 MARCH 2016 998
Figure 1) for various heights measured from the top of
the drum. The non-coincidence of the two edges becomes
clearly apparent. Table 1 shows the offset as a function of
local diameter of the dome at different heights from the
drum. The dome at its widest is 33.62 m, 9.24 m above
the top of the drum. The offset here is 0.42 m or 1.26%.
The maximum horizontal offset is seen at 24.4 m above
the drum, where it is close to 5.5%.
(3) The third and most precise way to establish this fact
would be to undertake pr ecise measurements using
LiDAR scanning. LiDAR is a technology that measures
distance by illuminating the target with a laser and ana-
lysing the reflected light. The sensor can be calibrated to
a high degree of precision; therefore it would be possible
to create an accurate three-dimensional (3D) model of the
Taj dome. LiDAR sensors can be mounted on aerial or
terrestrial platforms8 but the size, shape, position and
architecture of the Taj dome can pose challenges for mea-
surements. In order to scan the whole dome, sensors will
have to image the dome from multiple locations to cover
360. The position and height of the platform to place the
scanner will have to be carefully chosen in order to cap-
ture data from multiple locations that then will have to be
merged seamlessly.
While we have chosen one particular photograph to
illustrate the pronounced asymmetry, this was also dis-
cernible to us in photographs taken from many different
angles.
Being the first to report an observation comes with the
obligation to discuss conjectures. Three possible conjec-
tures present themselves. One, that it was an intentional
error. Second, the deformation did not exist at beginning
but became accentuated over time, and third, it was a
construction error that has existed from the beginning:
(1) Islam holds that only Allah is perfect. We have
heard stories that for this reason, Islamic master carpet
weavers deliberately introduce a slight error in their car-
pets that is detectable only by a trained eye. This is
unlikely to be the case for the Taj’s central dome. There
are other small imperfections in the building (not visible
from ground level), that seem intentional. For example,
Figure 1 shows that the base of th e chatris is left in red
sandstone and not covered with marble.
(2) It is also becoming apparent that the northern and
the southern ends of the platform on which the Taj sits
are differentially sinking over time, with the northern end
towards the river having sunk 35 mm more than th e
southern end9. It seems highly unlikely to us that this
slight sinking would have caused the rigid dome to
become more asymmetric over time.
(3) Th e third conjecture, and to us the most plausible
one, is that it was imperfect from the beginning. It is an
outer dome constructed after the inner dome was finished
and therefore perhaps the builders did not have the bene-
fit of a central plumb line. Error could also have crept in
as Koch informs us that the Shahjahani linear gaz had a
range of 80–82 cm. Field studies conducted with her col-
leagues have shown that ‘it was not an exact unit, but a
relative, proportionally used one, the length of which
could vary slightly, even within one and the same build-
ing complex. For the Taj complex, the average gaz is
80.55 cm’2.
Would Shah Jahan have been awar e of this imperfec-
tion? In the absence of direct written evidence, we can
only speculate on the basis of counterfactuals. We can
find factoids which will support either theory – that he
must have known and that he did n ot kn ow. Let us first
consider those facts which might lend support to the did-
not-know theory. It is recorded that his eyesight had dete-
riorated. Muhammad Amin Qazwini, the court historian
mentions that Shah Jahan even wore spectacles as con-
stant weeping had deteriorated his eyesight10. Given the
propensity of Mughal Emperors to order the re-construction
of buildings they did not like (cf. the first structure at
Sikandra was demolished upon Jahangir’s orders), we
think his first instinct would have been to have the dome
re-built. Numerous references in the Persian histories
attest to Shah Jahan’s direct involvement in his architec-
tural projects, approving the plans and ordering altera-
tions on the spot11. The last argument in favour of the
did-not-know theory is that he agreed to be buried in the
building, ruining the monument’s symmetr y.
What factoids support the theory that he might have
known? First, there are accounts that after moving his
capital to Delhi, he rarely came to visit the Taj. Second,
there is the widespread myth that one or a few of th e key
architects had their hands or fingers chopped. If there is
any truth to this myth and punishments were meted out,
they were more likely to be for an error than for prevent-
ing the construction of a similar monument. However,
this is contraindicated by the fact that the same architects
helped him build later his capital in Delhi.
It seems incredibly unlikely to us that for someone
with his aesthetic sense, he would not have known. More
likely, he chose to over look it. It is quite possible that the
artisans may have convinced him that there was no way
to guarantee that a second attempt would lead to an
improvement given the ‘tools’ available to them and the
complexity of the dome’s shape. The Jama Masjid in
Delhi, possibly designed by the same architect/s, also has
a central bulbous dome (where the widest part of the
dome is larger in diameter than the drum it sits on and
tapers smoothly into a point thereby creating a more
complex curve). Our measurements on the photograph of
the Jama Masjid dome reveal similar asymmetry. In the
dome of Humayun’s tomb, however, the diameter of wid-
est part is same as the drum and thereafter curves inward
and tapers to a point. This dome shows more perfect
symmetr y.
Historians are divided as to whether Shah Jahan wanted
to be buried alongside Mumtaz Mahal. His funeral was
arranged by his daughter Jahanara. Times had changed.
GENERAL ARTICLES
CURRENT SCIEN CE, VOL. 110, NO. 6 , 25 MARCH 2016 999
He had lost control. He was under house arrest for 8 years
before his death. Moreover, there was already a precedent
for asymmetric placement of a couple’s graves in Itmad-ud-
daulah’s tomb.
Lest we be accused of looking a gift horse in the
mouth, is it more beautiful because it has this imperfec-
tion? Let us recall what the Count said: ‘Let us transpose
ever so slightly the proportions, or change its dimensions
by an iota, or place the Taj Mahal, as it is, into another
region which is subject to different conditions of air,
damp and light: it would be the Taj Mahal no longer.’3
Many other modern buildings appear geometrically per-
fect but do not have the same effect on the viewer as the
Taj. Let us ask the question in another way: Would it
have been less beautiful had the dome been more sym-
metric? We doubt it. It is imperative to determine
whether the asymmetry poses any risk to the structural in-
tegrity of the monument.
1. Brown, P., Indian Architecture (Islamic period), D B T ara porevala
Sons & Co., Bombay, 1942.
2. Koch, E., Taj Mahal: architecture, symbolism and urba n signifi-
cance. In Muqa rnas , 2005 , vol. 22 , 128–149.
3. Keyserling Count, H., The Trave l Diary of a Philosopher, Vol. 1 ,
L. H olroyd Reece ( Tra ns.) Harcou rt, Brace & Company, New
York , 1925.
4. Hu xley, A., 1894–1963, Jesting Pila te: An Intellectual Holiday,
George H. Doran Company, New York, 1926 .
5. Cha ttopa dhyay, S., Sh esh Prashna, a nov el, Dey’s Publishers,
September 2 008 (first published May 1931).
6. Begl ey, W. E ., The myth o f the Taj Mahal a nd a new the ory of its
symbol ic meaning, Art Bull., 1979 , 61, 7–37.
7. http://ww w.tajmaha l.gov. in/ext erior_decoration.html
8. Mene ely, J. D., Smith, B. J., Curra n, J. and Ruffell, A., Develop-
ing a ‘non-destru ctive scientific toolkit ’ to monitor monuments
and sites, Cha nging World, Changing Views of Heritage ICOMOS
Scientific Sympo sium – Malta , 2009 .
9. Sharma, R. K., Grover, A. C. and Gupta, H. O., Investigation of
crack s developed in the ven eering marble slabs of the Taj Maha l.
In Conserva tion, Preserva tion and Restoration: Traditions,
Trends and Techniques (eds Kamlakar, G. and Rao V. Pandit),
Birla Archaeological and Cultur al Research Insti tute, Hyderaba d,
1995 , vols 229–236.
10. www.taj.ind.i n (a ccessed on 13 July 2015).
11. Saksena , B. P., History of Shahjahan of Dihli, Allahabad , Central
Book Depot, Alla haba d, 1958, pp. 261–263; quoted in Begley,
1979 , p. 30.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank Dr John Mar r, Dr Shoibal
Chak ravarty and Mr Akshay Ahuja for encou raging us to write this
article. We also tha nk an anonymous reviewer of C urr ent Science for
useful comments.
Receiv ed 13 Ju ly 201 5; r evised accepted 21 N ovember 20 15
doi: 10.18 520/ cs/v110/i6 /996-999
