The Taj Story Controversy Explained: How Paresh Rawal's Film Has Stirred A Historical Storm

 

 

The Taj Story, an upcoming Hindi courtroom drama directed by Tushar Amrish Goel and produced by Suresh Jha, stars veteran actor Paresh Rawal alongside Zakir Hussain, Amruta Khanvilkar, Namit Das, and Sneha Wagh. Billed as a "historical legal thriller," the film is presented by Swarnim Global Service Pvt Ltd and is slated for release on October 31, 2025.

 

According to the makers, The Taj Story delves into "questions and secrets buried behind the 22 sealed doors of the Taj Mahal." While marketed as an exploration of historical mysteries, its promotional materials have stirred one of India's most sensitive heritage debates: whether the Taj Mahal was originally a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva.

 

However, the film has ignited fresh controversy after BJP spokesperson Rajneesh Singh from Ayodhya filed a complaint with the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), alleging that The Taj Story is based on the subject of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) he had filed in 2022.

Singh's petition before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had sought the opening of 22 locked rooms inside the Taj Mahal to verify claims that the monument was once a Hindu temple. In his complaint, Singh stated, "I filed a PIL for opening the 22 closed rooms in the Taj Mahal. My objective was solely to ensure transparency and verification of historical facts. I have come to know that the movie The Taj Story is based on the subject of my petition." He also claimed that the film's promotional materials and storyline misleadingly reference his judicial plea without his permission, calling it "a violation of my intellectual and legal rights."

 

Controversy erupted right after Paresh Rawal unveiled the film's first-look poster on social media. The caption read: "What if everything you've been taught is a lie? The truth isn't just hidden; it's being judged. Unveil the facts with #TheTajStory on October 31." The image immediately went viral, with many social media users accusing the film of promoting the "Tejo Mahalaya" theory, which is the claim that the Taj Mahal was once a Hindu temple named Tejo Mahalaya. Critics labeled it "propaganda," while others dismissed it as a publicity stunt aimed at sparking controversy before release.

 

Following the backlash, the filmmakers issued a statement clarifying that the movie does not deal with religion or mythology. The statement, shared by Rawal on X (formerly Twitter), read: "The makers of The Taj Story clarify that the movie does not deal with any religious matters, nor does it claim that a Shiv temple resides within the Taj Mahal. It focuses solely on historical facts. We kindly request viewers to watch the film and form their own opinion." Despite this clarification, debates continued across social media, with several historians and cultural experts criticising the filmmakers for "irresponsibly invoking discredited theories" to generate attention.

 

The Tejo Mahalaya theory dates back decades. It was popularised by self-styled historian P.N. Oak. He asserted in his 1989 book Taj Mahal: The True Story, that the Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple-palace called Tejo Mahalaya, and it was allegedly transformed into a tomb for Shah Jahan's wife, Mumtaz Mahal, after he captured it. Historians along with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) have consistently disputed Oak's theory, due to extensive evidence demonstrating that Shah Jahan commissioned the Taj Mahal in the 17th century and it was created by architect Ustad Ahmad Lahori. In a statement made to the Agra court in 2018, the ASI reiterated that "the Taj Mahal is the tomb of Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal." There is "no evidence to support the petitioner's claim about it ever being a temple."

 

The Taj Mahal's origins were placed back into public commentary until 2022, when an Ayodhya-based BJP spokesperson, Rajneesh Singh, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Allahabad High Court, that requested opening 22 rooms inside the Taj Mahal that purportedly contained "Hindu idols and inscriptions."

The High Court dismissed the plea, stating that "public interest litigation is not meant for historical research." However, the case reignited debate online and politically, leading to renewed interest from sections that continue to claim Hindu origins of the monument.

 

Earlier, other political figures including BJP MP Diya Kumari and leaders Vinay Katiyar and Kapil Mishra had made similar assertions, arguing that the Taj Mahal stands on land once belonging to the Jaipur royal family or that it was a repurposed temple.

 

With The Taj Story's poster echoing visuals of a Shiva idol inside the Taj Mahal, the old controversy found new life. Several right-wing groups praised the film for "addressing hidden truths," while others accused the filmmakers of stoking religious sentiments for publicity. Protests and online campaigns calling for a ban on the film began trending, leading to official complaints to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting.

Historians have strongly criticised the film's portrayal and the revival of the 'Tejo Mahalaya' theory. Noted historian William Dalrymple called the claim "a ridiculous distortion of history," stating: "We know the details of the land that the Taj Mahal was built on and there is no record of it ever containing a Shiva temple. The theory by P.N. Oak is a complete fabrication, unsupported by evidence."Historian Ruchika Sharma also weighed in on social media, writing, "Sad that they've made a movie on the bogus myth of Tejo Mahalaya, which has zero historical evidence." She added that Oak's book was debunked decades ago for lacking any credible proof or archaeological basis.

 

Despite the criticism, the makers maintain that The Taj Story is a fictional courtroom drama inspired by public debates and not by any specific petition or political viewpoint. The story centers around a main character (played by Rawal) who takes a stand against historical accounts in the courtroom - a premise intended to provoke discussion, not provide conclusions.