Reconstructing History

On a clear February afternoon, I went for a walk to the Old Fort and approached the well-proportioned, octagonal Sher Mandal apparently buil...

On a clear February afternoon, I went for a walk to the Old Fort and approached the well-proportioned, octagonal Sher Mandal apparently built by Sher Shah around 1541. I found myself thinking of Humayun, who it is believed, fell and died here. One of Akbar8217;s historians suggests that as Humayun 8216;8216;was descending, the Muazzin cried aloud the summons to prayer and he reverently sat down on the second step8217;8217;. But then, 8216;8216;his foot slipped and he fell from the stairs to the ground8217;8217;. Some workmen were chiselling the sandstone at the base of the plinth A as well as its floor B. Their action and its motive puzzled me and I started a conversation with them, which went roughly as follows:

RC: What are you doing?

Workman at the base: I am removing the stone from here.

RC: Why?

W: Because its old. Then we will put new stone.

RC: Oh. What happens to the old stone?

W: We throw it away. Look there. That8217;s where the old stones are lying.

RC: What all will you do here?

W: We will remove all the damaged old stone. We8217;ve already removed some of that, gestures and that C. He pointed to the squares with their exquisitely proportioned original fluted pillars and the lumpy new ones.

RC: gesturing towards the original pillars: These look wonderful to me.

W: But they need to be changed. Pointing towards parapet We are changing the carving from there as well D.

Story continues below this ad

I could not see anything above the parapet but Monuments of Delhi, first published in 1919, assured me that the 8216;8216;parapet is ornamented with lotus flowers carved in relief8217;8217;.

These men were only following the instructions of the Archaeological Survey of India. The ASI follows methods that are decades old while elsewhere in the world, conservation has made great scientific progress, giving importance to the original creation and the time in history when it was made. Replacements are not the answer to the deterioration of various elements of a historic building.

There is no substitute for the creative imagination of the artist who first gives form to a mental concept and the perfection with which he completes it. The one who reproduces it cannot imbue the life of the original into the copy. Those who argue that the reproduced image gives the same pleasure as the original do not give value to the creative imagination. This is the reason why we have changed facades in the Red Fort or added new marble blocks in the Taj Mahal. Beautification is a by-product of replacement. The attempt is to adorn and make quick repairs. Beautification and replacement are easy. The new system of conservation is not. The policy of replacement will inevitably overtake the original.

Our bemused descendants will wonder at the great dichotomy between written accounts and photographic records that speak of marvels and the actual evidence that is both clumsy and ordinary.