Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is responsible to maintenance of all nationally protected monuments of which there are 174 in Delhi itself. ASI is responsible for upkeep and safety of all these protected monuments. But the task is clearly gigantic for an obsolete and moribund IAS babu headed organisation. It has no drive or modern expertise of monument/heritage management. it is a truly redundant organisation which has not moved to acquire latest in the field. The modern monument/heritage management is not just replacing the broken column or missing brick, it involves lots of modern principles of management, creating a social space for the monuments, preserving it for the posterity and foster better understanding about each of them.
Just look around and you will notice that ASI has failed in all of them. It has some very nice and competent people on the roll but the some cultural czars (read powerful NGOs) and IAS head of ASI do not allow them to work scientifically. The result is unprofessional handling of the monuments and visiting public.
The bane of ASI has always been that the non technical IAS officer is the head who knows little or nothing about history or preservation. A rank outsider and a burra sahib, he is more interested in maintaining his trappings of babudom like car, peon and alibi to stay put in Delhi till he gets an office with nuisance. The person has no love for monuments, no idea of preservation and has never done public management. his idea of protection is placing of ugly poses of CISF men with automatic assault rifles at monuments like Taj and Red Fort, Delhi. One such IAS boss of ASI had hilariously identified a gold star found at Meerut as that belonging to Harappan age! more than that the IAS head stiffles growth, inhibits scientific ideas and promotes groupism. The ASI should always be headed by a technical man or may be a person with management exposure.
Now look at Delhi's Red Fort for maintenance standards. To me it looked horrendous. removing marbles they have whitewashed the monuments, there are soot every where, most part of monuments are not open for closer viewing, and you can see the gun toting CISF men all over. Is it a safe house shown so typically in Hindi films with a gun man on every inch? Do they inspire confidence?
Worst why should ASI be allowed to tarnish and abuse the monuments with fake maintenance? Why cant they just learn from some agency how to maintain an ancient monument? It is blasphemous to say the least. To a person who loves the medieval Indian history it is a matter of shame that the way it has been maintained and showed to unsuspecting people. I don't know whether it is under pressure of babus or NGOs or sheer inefficiency of the ASI but whatever be the reason it is horrendous to say the least. I have photographs of Red fort which shows the horrendous restoration work undertaken by the ASI at this World Heritage monument. what if UNESCO actually sees them? God forbid!
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
A city of Glorious History
The Delhi we live in evokes a myriad of feelings. From sickening congestion to traffic jams to ill mannered people to its hoary and glorious past. The mighty history, the majestic monuments, the misty stories and a powerful language called Urdu-Delhi has all. Not surprisingly rulers after rulers chose Delhi to be their capitals and it has now become part of Golden Triangle for tourists along with Agra and Jaipur. While change is every where, the old remains. where ever in Delhi one goes, one just can not escape the remnants of the past smiling at you. Delhi is truly a heritage city. An Islamic city with so many mosques, fortresses, palaces, Sufi Shrines and gardens that it can easily occupy the coveted position of dar-ul Islam.
Why was Delhi chosen as the capital city by the Muslim rulers in early 13th century particularly by Shamsuddin Iltutmish? What were the advantages that they saw in Delhi vis a vis other cities especially Lahore? Why rulers after him too chose to stay in Delhi and patronise it? And if Delhi was the chosen dar-ul Islam then why did the Mughals abandoned it and shifted to Agra? Even earlier Muhammad bin Tughlaq had tried to replace Delhi with Daulatabad. What then was the status of Delhi in the eyes of its patrons and residents? How much did it depend upon political patronage? Then it would be worth asking a question that if Delhi at any stage in the pre colonial period had become economically and culturally a viable town? What people thought of Delhi which was fondly referred to as 'the Shahar' by medieval writers.
To start with Delhi was not a natural capital. It had nothing that would make it the capital city. To start with it had extreme weather. While the winter was short and windy, the summer was most harsh. The rainfall was always inadequate and the river Yamuna (also called Jamuna or Jumna then) was more of a source of trouble and less of boon for the city dwellers. Historically it was hardly a favourite site for political centre. No doubt it was the site of Pandavas' Indraprastha ( modern day Inderpat at the site of Purana Quila), but then at that time Pandavas were a minor political force and the capital was some where else. It is only just before the Ghorian attck of 1192 that the Tomar ruler of Ajmer had started the construction of Vishnu temples. So when Iltutmish found it difficult to continue at Lahore due to his conflicts with his rival Aram Shah ( his brother in law and son of deceased Sultan, Aibek) he decided to shift base to another place. With Tomar constructions going on in Delhi, it may have been the reason for their association of royalty with the place. Of course they may not have been aware of Delhi's ancient history and hence could not have chosen this place for its royal connection.
Any way, Delhi was not a natural site for capital town. The weather here is extreme, the ground water situation especially in Mehrauli area where they first settled was bad, it had a river but it was flood prone, and it had no flourishing town to boast of. That means it had no natural and established market and almost no good quality construction materials.
But then the ruler had decided to set up a military cantonment (lashkar or lashkargah) and hence such negative pointers could have been ignored. In fact, state does provide for its army at all costs. So the deterrents of water scarcity, extreme weather and lack of good quality construction material did not stop them from making Delhi as their capital. More over being a military camp it was a tented settlement to start with ample supply of beast of burden and slaves to bring supplies. The beginning was made.
Delhi was on rocky land with availability of grey sand stone, and a river to boot. being on the end of Arvalli range, it had the necessary height and it was safely far from the western borders and thus safe from Mongol attacks. Certainly more secure than Lahore! And here the river Yamuna turned eastward leaving a huge land mass of L shape for construction and river provided necessary navigation too. Also it ensured available agricultural hinterland near the capital city.
But it was more of a city due to imperial whim ten any thing else. This fact will help us appreciate the various shifting of imperial city within the modern Delhi. every ruler tried to have his own Delhi with the Mehrauli area remaining the prime area as it housed the first Muslim Mosque called Quwwat-ul Islam, near the Qutb Minar.
This is how Delhi was born again in medieval times. This time as a Muslim city at Mehrauli around the auspicious area near the qutb. Earlier too rulers had to make twonships near modern day Suraj Kund and then Qutb area. But it was only with the Trurkish Muslims that Delhi became a viable city- the dar-ul Islam- the city of Islam and went on to attain prestigious position among the whole Islamdom.
Why was Delhi chosen as the capital city by the Muslim rulers in early 13th century particularly by Shamsuddin Iltutmish? What were the advantages that they saw in Delhi vis a vis other cities especially Lahore? Why rulers after him too chose to stay in Delhi and patronise it? And if Delhi was the chosen dar-ul Islam then why did the Mughals abandoned it and shifted to Agra? Even earlier Muhammad bin Tughlaq had tried to replace Delhi with Daulatabad. What then was the status of Delhi in the eyes of its patrons and residents? How much did it depend upon political patronage? Then it would be worth asking a question that if Delhi at any stage in the pre colonial period had become economically and culturally a viable town? What people thought of Delhi which was fondly referred to as 'the Shahar' by medieval writers.
To start with Delhi was not a natural capital. It had nothing that would make it the capital city. To start with it had extreme weather. While the winter was short and windy, the summer was most harsh. The rainfall was always inadequate and the river Yamuna (also called Jamuna or Jumna then) was more of a source of trouble and less of boon for the city dwellers. Historically it was hardly a favourite site for political centre. No doubt it was the site of Pandavas' Indraprastha ( modern day Inderpat at the site of Purana Quila), but then at that time Pandavas were a minor political force and the capital was some where else. It is only just before the Ghorian attck of 1192 that the Tomar ruler of Ajmer had started the construction of Vishnu temples. So when Iltutmish found it difficult to continue at Lahore due to his conflicts with his rival Aram Shah ( his brother in law and son of deceased Sultan, Aibek) he decided to shift base to another place. With Tomar constructions going on in Delhi, it may have been the reason for their association of royalty with the place. Of course they may not have been aware of Delhi's ancient history and hence could not have chosen this place for its royal connection.
Any way, Delhi was not a natural site for capital town. The weather here is extreme, the ground water situation especially in Mehrauli area where they first settled was bad, it had a river but it was flood prone, and it had no flourishing town to boast of. That means it had no natural and established market and almost no good quality construction materials.
But then the ruler had decided to set up a military cantonment (lashkar or lashkargah) and hence such negative pointers could have been ignored. In fact, state does provide for its army at all costs. So the deterrents of water scarcity, extreme weather and lack of good quality construction material did not stop them from making Delhi as their capital. More over being a military camp it was a tented settlement to start with ample supply of beast of burden and slaves to bring supplies. The beginning was made.
Delhi was on rocky land with availability of grey sand stone, and a river to boot. being on the end of Arvalli range, it had the necessary height and it was safely far from the western borders and thus safe from Mongol attacks. Certainly more secure than Lahore! And here the river Yamuna turned eastward leaving a huge land mass of L shape for construction and river provided necessary navigation too. Also it ensured available agricultural hinterland near the capital city.
But it was more of a city due to imperial whim ten any thing else. This fact will help us appreciate the various shifting of imperial city within the modern Delhi. every ruler tried to have his own Delhi with the Mehrauli area remaining the prime area as it housed the first Muslim Mosque called Quwwat-ul Islam, near the Qutb Minar.
This is how Delhi was born again in medieval times. This time as a Muslim city at Mehrauli around the auspicious area near the qutb. Earlier too rulers had to make twonships near modern day Suraj Kund and then Qutb area. But it was only with the Trurkish Muslims that Delhi became a viable city- the dar-ul Islam- the city of Islam and went on to attain prestigious position among the whole Islamdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)