Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1970, 1992 and 2003 in and around the disputed site have indicated a large Hindu complex existed on the site.

I am sure ASI IS NOT a fundamentalist

http://www.krishnapath.org/photographic-evidence-taj-mahal-a-vedic-temple/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Masjid

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Masjid#Archaeological_Survey_of_India_report

Definition of fundamentalism- A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true. Note: Fundamentalists often argue against the theory of evolution. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

So if the fundamentalists think Tajmahal is Hindu property, maybe they are right. As Christians are always true and realistic in their thinking.

As far Hindus' belief it was their property, there are documentary proofs in their favor but no one insists to take it over or bring Shahejan to appear in a court. We should avoid discussions that will bring nothing but controversies.

suni51 wrote:

Definition of fundamentalism- A conservative movement in theology among nineteenth- and twentieth-century Christians. Fundamentalists believe that the statements in the Bible are literally true. Note: Fundamentalists often argue against the theory of evolution. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

So if the fundamentalists think Tajmahal is Hindu property, maybe they are right. As Christians are always true and realistic in their thinking.

As far Hindus' belief it was their property, there are documentary proofs in their favor but no one insists to take it over or bring Shahejan to appear in a court. We should avoid discussions that will bring nothing but controversies.

Very true. Such discussions will never end with a definite conclusion. Additionally , I observed are taking ugly turns too, which will defeat the very purpose of discussions.

If any one has enough time to read this he will see the post is written by a true fundamentalist 

http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Taj-Mahal-a-Shiv-Temple-1.aspx

suni51 wrote:

If any one has enough time to read this he will see the post is written by a true fundamentalist 

http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Taj-Mahal-a-Shiv-Temple-1.aspx

The link says ,Well known archetectctural experts  from westen countries too say that there is evidence of temple in the controversial site. Any how as you said earlier, there won't be any end to these discussions. I reiterate such controversial posts should be avoided .

Bharat also known as India was a land of which belonged to Hindu..but after invasions by numerous Muslim kings and emperors, nothing solely remained for Hindus. So it may not be completely false that the area in which Taj Mahal was built may have evidence of temples, there should not be any controversy regarding this now. One reason being we will not go ahead and demolish a beautiful monument, considered as one of the 8 wonders of the world. Two, Taj Mahal is visited by Indians and by people all of the world which paves way for Indian tourism and in turn generated revenues. So, why such thing needs to be highlighted at this point in time is the question.

This is an old issue, not new about Taj. Thought there are several evidences that underneath the Taj, there was a templel. No less than ASI says, there was a temple underneath the Taj. Despite all this this is a controversial theme which should be avoided in these forums. After all such subjects may lead to controversial opinions ultimately leading to heated exchanges. This should be avoided.

In fact, nothing is permanent on this earth.  so many civilizations were born, flourished and ended on this very Earth.  Naturally, many buildings would have replaced earlier construction at that site. Many buildings are built and vanish in course of time and sometime their remains are seen. Sometimes you may dig and find something below. This is not significant. The fact as we know that Taj Mahal was got built by Shah Jehan in memory of his wife Mumtaj. whatever you find by digging below that site will not demolish this fact.  There is no site on which numerous constructions would not have been made from time to time. 

Incidentally, the links given by Hon'ble members relate to finding by some Oak, who is favorite historian of the saffron camp. I am not in this controversy. What I wish to point out is that the saffron group is attempting to pollute the peace of nation by such outrageous claims and movements. 

Any issue aimed at disrupting the peace of the nation is undesirable. In the past, it's not only saffron groups, many historians and architectural groups raised this issue with a view to explore the historical facts.

That's what I thought, it's the same old story saffron vs Green/white. Let's face it, it will go on as long people do not see the truth.