Based on the number of reviews it has received (this is the 86th!!), Rohtas would appear to be a remarkable place. However, almost all of them are from locals or the Pakistani diaspora, and phrases like “one of the most beautiful places I have ever seen” lead one to wonder about either the judgement or the objectivity of the reviewer! It would have been nice to have made a full visit to the fort to test such statements based on a wider knowledge of WHS around the World. Unfortunately, because of security concerns, the Pakistani Police only allowed us a truncated visit so our assessment must be somewhat limited!

Rohtas is situated a few kms off the modern Grand Trunk Road (though right next to the original one) around 100kms from Rawlapindi/Islamabad and 200kms from Lahore. It is thus well situated for tourism from these major population centres and the nearby city of Jehlum appeared to be something of a boom town for economic development – in Pakistani terms anyway. As we approached it, the large numbers of people and vehicles going our way suggested that something “special” was occurring and even before we reached the gate we had to argue our way past the police. It turned out that an Ashura procession was going to take place in the village within the fort. Shiites mark the day with processions of mourning in which they re-enact the battle of Karbala (in Iraq) in which Hussein, considered by them to be Mohammed’s legitimate successor, was killed. This is a time of heightened religious fervour and indeed we saw pilgrims at Rohtas with bloodied shirts covering their self inflicted flagellation wounds (see this for more). It also becomes a period of heightened tension between some Shia and some Sunni – later that day, in nearby Rawalpindi, 9 people were killed and others injured in Shia/Sunni riots suggesting that the authorities’ concern wasn’t totally without justification.

So, at the gate itself, the officer in charge said he couldn’t let us in to the village area as security couldn’t be guaranteed – not because we were foreigners but because we might get caught up in something unrelated to us and the authorities were not prepared to take that risk. This was probably an over-reaction but the guy had his job to do so we generally accepted the situation and concentrated on negotiating our way through the gate and onto the ramparts on either side with promises that we wouldn’t go any further into the village! Thus, we were able to climb the double entry gate and walk several hundred metres in each direction. Afterwards we parked away from the fort and walked into the fields to get external views from other sides. In this way we got a pretty good feeling for the nature of the fort’s situation from both inside and out.

So - how special is it? When originally nominated in 1991, Rohtas was referred for a “comparative evaluation of Military Architecture of the region”. The exact reasoning isn’t available – presumably there was concern about the large number of potentially inscribable forts in Pakistan/India. The AB at the time of inscription in 1997 refers to 2 reviews – unfortunately neither seems to be available on the Web. These were enough to convince the AB and WHC that Rohtas did indeed exhibit unique aspects by representing “a new form of fortification, based essentially on the Turkish military architecture developed in reaction to the introduction of gunpowder and cannon, but transformed into a distinct style of its own. It served not as a simple defensive work but also provided shelter and refuge for the surrounding population….. It also had a profound influence on the development of architectural styles in the Mughal Empire (and hence on the European colonial architecture that made abundant use of that tradition).”

It continues - “There are no surviving examples of military architecture of this period on the same scale in the sub-continent which survive to the same degree of completeness and conservation. Fatehpur Sikri (India), which is already on the World Heritage List, represents the full Mughal realisation of a form and style that owes everything to its precursor, Rohtas Fort.” Now, Fatehur Sikri (1569) is described as follows in Wiki “a planned walled city ….. (containing) a series of royal palaces, harem, courts, a mosque, private quarters and other utility buildings”. Yes, it was a “fortress” in that it had a surrounding wall but was, in no real way “military architecture”. And its architectural style isn’t particularly relevant - “Akbar planned the complex on Persian principles. But the influences of his adopted land came through in the typically Indian embellishments” and “a synthesis of various regional schools of architectural craftsmanship such as Gujarat and Bengal…Influences from Hindu and Jain architecture are seen hand in hand with Islamic elements.” The 2 complexes are chalk and cheese and their linkage seems more than “strained” - it smacks of trying to “talk up” Rohtas!

Rohtas, constructed in 1541-3 is an example of a “fort” built by the Muslim invaders of N India before the Mughals fully established themselves and developed their own “style” (There are others even earlier – e.g Tukhlukabad dates to 1321 and Daulatabad to 1327). It was constructed during an early downturn in the Mughal fortunes when Hamayun lost control of the empire created around 1526 by his father Babur. He had only ruled for 10 years when he was defeated by one of his subject rulers from Bihar, Sher Shah Suri, in 1540 and it took him until 1555 to regain control with Persian help. In this interim, Rohtas was built by the victor to control local tribes and defend against a possible Mughal return – although, when the time came, it surrendered without a fight. It is important when considering so-called “forts” in S Asia to differentiate the wide range of types of “military architecture” they represent in terms of geographical location, period, style and purpose – the Rajput “Hill Forts of Rajastan” inscription justified its serial approach on this basis (but, with criticism from ICOMOS, failed to use Rohtas as a comparator even though it did use E.g. Kernave in Lithuania!). Taking the “purpose” aspect, although the word “Fort” is used for all of them, one can identify at least 3 categories which could alternatively be named using more precise English words - true “Forts”, “Fortresses” and “Castles”. Thus a “Fort” is a military structure, relatively limited in area, housing a number of soldiers. A “Fortress” on the other hand is a much larger enclosed area, possibly encompassing a town, whilst a “Castle” implies a residence, albeit fortified – either strongly or later even to some extent “for show” and, in reality more of a “palace”.

In these terms Rohtas is very much a “hill fortress”. It is primarily a large defensive wall (c 5kms long) using the hill geography as the basis for defending an enclosed area (c 51ha) within which a force of some 30000 men could be held. There is an inner wall in one corner to create a further “Citadel” but, the only original permanent building appears to have been the mosque built into the wall. The other 2 historic buildings which are present today both post-date the Fort – The Haveli (= Mansion) Man Singh and the Rani Mahal (= Queens Palace). The most important structures within the walls were 3 Baolis (or Tanks/wells) to supply the troops with water. Subsequently, a number of tombs of “Saints”, have also been constructed. Unfortunately we were not able to approach any of these.

I mention these aspects because they are important in understanding why it is that the area within the walls contains a large and rather ugly village – there never were historic buildings there and the interior always was an open living, even farming, area. The village has been categorised as “buffer zone” making the inscribed site a sort of “donut” with a hole in the centre!

A significant aspect of the “walls”, are the 12 gates which penetrate them at regular intervals – these are of interest for their military design, architectural features and decorations. We were only allowed to see the Khwas Khani gate which is the entrance to the fort from the GT road. It is a double gate and demonstrates some decorative aspects such as carved sunflowers – but not unfortunately the tiles. Essentially however this was primarily a working fort and decorations were relatively minor. More noteworthy were the defensive/offensive aspects of the design with crenellations and holes for pouring hot liquids onto attackers! I understand hat the Sohail gate on the far side has had a Tourist Info centre and museum installed in it. Rohtas has been the beneficiary of money from Norway and the US Ambassador’s fund channelled through an organisation surprisingly titled “Himalayan Wildlife Foundation” - see this news report.

So, it was a shame that we were unable fully to explore the fort and extract full value from our visit, but the experience of being shut out had its own interest, and, from what we saw in the distance during our walk along the walls, and from what I have since read, I don’t feel that we missed out too much on what the site had to offer. As to its value relative to other forts in the region – well, even if the AB evaluation (and some of the reviews on this site!) has gone a bit OTT, it is quite impressive. I personally found Kot Diji and Derawar (neither on the T List) more so but the T List site of Rani Kot less so. The former 2 were both 18th Century structures and it may be true that none of them display the military history significance of Rohtas. In any case the site should not be missed if you are in the area.