We have a habit of mistaking earthmovers for policy. That is why the Capital Development Authority’s clarification on the World War I memorial matters beyond the immediate outrage cycle: it forces a simple question onto a city that is constantly “developing” and rarely governing. Do we preserve history by freezing it in place, or by protecting it from neglect, vandalism, and the very development that keeps swallowing landmarks whole?
The CDA’s core claim is straightforward. The memorial commemorating Subedar Ghulam Ali-cited by the authority as a WWI gallantry recipient of the Military Cross-has not been demolished. It has been treated under conservation protocol, with original bricks and materials preserved for accurate reconstruction at a new, more secure and publicly visible site near the Northern Bypass roundabout, close to Rehara village.
The authority says the monument had deteriorated, and relocation is being undertaken to ensure dignified upkeep and long-term maintenance. It also says the monument is not on the Department of Archaeology’s notified heritage inventory, but the department was consulted and due process was followed; it further claims legal heir consent was obtained through an affidavit/NOC by the great-grandson.
The counter-story, however, is not imaginary.
A report described the memorial as “demolished/dismantled” after the mound was flattened and blocks were seen lying in levelled earth, while also noting that the Department of Archaeology and Museums had rejected relocation and had sought documentation since 2020 to add the memorial (and nearby sites) to protected lists.
This is exactly why the CDA’s aggressive framing–warning media against “sensational and misleading reporting” and threatening to treat it as “misinformation/fake news”– needs to be handled carefully.
Yes, journalism that runs on viral anger without verification is a real disease. But bureaucracies that respond to scrutiny by criminalising embarrassment are not defending heritage; they are defending discretion. If CDA wants this to be read as preservation rather than demolition, it should behave like a conservation authority, not a wounded developer.
The memorial commemorating Subedar Ghulam Ali-cited by the authority as a WWI gallantry recipient of the Military Cross-has not been demolished. It has been treated under conservation protocol, with original bricks and materials preserved for accurate reconstruction.
Start with documentation. If the monument was dismantled “under conservation protocol,” publish the protocol: method statements, photographic condition surveys before removal, an inventory of recovered original materials, chain-of-custody logs, and the reconstruction plan with timelines. Publish the heir’s consent with the sensitive personal details redacted, but the legal basis intact. Publish the correspondence with the archaeology department-what was requested, what was provided, what objections were raised, and how they were addressed.
The global examples-Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Marble Arch, and London Bridge-are a standard Pakistan rarely meets. Those relocations were backed by engineering studies, conservation planning, and extensive public documentation. The comparison only helps CDA if it also imports the governance discipline that made those moves credible.
And that is the deeper issue here. The memorial is not only a stone object; it is a test case for whether Islamabad can stop treating history as negotiable. The city has expanded by turning green belts into plots, nullahs into parking, and public space into gated “opportunity.” When citizens see a memorial “dismantled” beside a development site, they do not parse the language; they draw on experience. Their suspicion is not anti-state. It is evidence-based.
So yes, the media should verify before declaring “demolition.” The media frames the dispute around observed site changes, departmental objections, and the status of official correspondence, which is a legitimate basis for hard questioning. But CDA also needs to understand that credibility is earned by disclosure, not demanded by press releases. If it is truly reconstructing the memorial “brick-for-brick,” the easiest win is radical transparency: let independent conservation experts inspect the salvaged materials, let the archaeology department certify the reconstruction method, and publish progress milestones.
Finally, do not lose the human meaning in institutional noise. Subedar Ghulam Ali’s remembrance-whatever one thinks of the colonial context of WWI commemorations-has local value because it records a village’s relationship to sacrifice and service.
If the memorial is being moved to enhance public access and respect, then make that access real: proper signage in Urdu and English, a short historical brief that names the man and explains the Military Cross claim with sourcing, a protected pedestrian area, and a maintenance budget that cannot be quietly “re-appropriated” next year.
The writer is a freelance columnist.