Engineering a reconstruction move Far removed from restoration

The Sangai Express is not an expert or a master in Engineering but there ought to be a difference between reconstruction and restoration of a structure or building or any standing monument. In short, reconstruction is far removed from the understanding of restoration. The very act of pulling down the Rajbari at Shillong is definitely an act of demolition and does not come anywhere near the understanding of restoration and this is precisely why the sense of anger and disillusionment can be understood. Restoration is nowhere in the mind of the State Government in the very act of pulling down the Rajbari. Or if there is a different understanding between reconstruction and restoration then the matter is best left to the experts of the Planning and Development Authority but the sense of outrage is something that just cannot be brushed aside. Or does putting it as ‘Reconstruction/Restoration’ mean that Rajbari would either be reconstructed or restored ? Perhaps PDA can give the answer. This is the age when engineering has made rapid strides and the world is talking about preservation of old structures and if preservation is not entirely possible then restoration. What happened to the Rajbari on October 8, 2025 simply does not fall in line with the huge strides that engineering has made across the world with India right up there. It is for a reason why many have taken to the social media to pose certain significant questions such as whether the State Government would have given the go ahead signal to pull down the INA structure at Moirang on the ground that it is falling apart. Would the Taj Mahal be the same if it is pulled down and in its place a fresh structure comes up as the Taj Mahal ? It should also not forgotten that restoration work revolves around the under- standing that the standing structure is given a new lease of life without compromising on its innate being. Pulling down the old structure to make way for a new structure comes close to the understanding of erasing the historical importance of the building and this is exactly what has been done with the case of Rajbari. How the Government goes about building the new structure remains to be seen, but it should not be forgotten that Manipur and her people will closely watch the work that will be taken up and this fact should not blow over the head of the agency tasked with the job of building the new structure. That Rajbari comes with it share of history is undeniable. It is the place where Maharaj Bodhcandra signed the Merger Agreement in 1949 and this is also the place where the late MK Binodini spent her days while doing her schooling at Shillong. Definitely Rajbari was something more than just a structure and it is a tragedy that this does not seem to have registered in the mind of the Government of Manipur.
Something is just not right. If at all the Government had respected the immense sentimental value that the people attach to Rajbari, then it could have consulted experts, people whose specialisation is restoring old structures without compromising on the values it stands for. And being aware of or being keen to be ‘educated’ on the history of the structure is fundamental to any understanding of restoration work. No building of yore, a place which has immense sentimental value to the people of Manipur and her merger with the Union of India, should be pulled down. This is basic. Sadly the Government overlooked this all important point and one wonders whether the Government of Manipur even gave a thought to the possibility of getting in touch with the Archaeological Survey of India before going ahead with the demolition move. This is definitely not how a place which is deemed to be central to the history of the land, especially when studying the merger of Manipur to the Union of India, should be treated. The place has been pulled down and the talk doing the round is that the material in the structure that has been pulled down would be used in the new structure. Whether this would be feasible is best left to the professionals, the structural Engineers, but if the material used in the old structure are found fit to be used in the new building, why couldn’t it have been left for restoration ? An answer to this would certainly be welcome.