The Capital Development Authority (CDA) has clarified that the relocation of the World War I memorial was carried out as a preservation measure and not a demolition, rejecting claims suggesting otherwise.
In a statement, the CDA said the memorial was moved to a more suitable, secure and publicly accessible location to ensure its long-term protection and dignified upkeep. The authority stressed that the structure had deteriorated over time and that relocation was necessary to safeguard it and enable proper maintenance.
According to the CDA, the monument was carefully dismantled in line with conservation protocols, with original bricks and materials preserved to allow for accurate reconstruction.
While the memorial does not fall under the Archaeology Department’s officially notified heritage inventory, the department was consulted and all due process was followed.
The CDA added that formal consent was obtained from the legal heir before any work began, with the great-grandson of Sub Ghulam Ali providing an affidavit and no-objection certificate for the handling and relocation of the monument.
Under CDA supervision, the memorial will be re-erected at a safer and more visible site along the Northern Bypass roundabout near Rehara village, a move aimed at improving public access and ensuring greater respect for the historic tribute.
The authority noted that relocating heritage structures due to development requirements is a recognised international practice, citing examples such as the relocation of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in the United States, the Marble Arch in London, and the reconstruction of London Bridge abroad.
The CDA emphasised that the memorial’s historical significance remains fully intact and continues to honour the gallantry of Sub Ghulam Ali in World War I and his Military Cross. It said allegations of “demolition” were factually incorrect and that the action represented responsible conservation and heritage protection.
The authority also urged media organisations to verify facts before publication, warning that sensational or misleading reporting without due diligence amounted to irresponsible journalism and would be treated as the spread of misinformation.