Updated: January 10, 2026

India’s heritage governance is entering a new phase. A recent policy move, reported across national outlets, indicates that “core conservation” work at centrally protected monuments—work historically executed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)—is set to open up to empanelled private heritage conservation agencies under a framework overseen by the Ministry of Culture and routed through the National Culture Fund (NCF).

Supporters call it a capacity-building breakthrough: faster restoration, better project management, and more effective use of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) funds. Critics worry about commercialisation, uneven standards, and the “branding” of public heritage. If you’re wondering whether India is “privatising monuments,” the honest answer is more nuanced: the State remains the regulator and supervisor, but it is expanding who can execute conservation—and that changes incentives, accountability, and outcomes.

Table of Contents

1) What’s new in this policy shift?

At the heart of the change is a move to allow private donors/corporates to directly engage empanelled heritage conservation professionals and agencies for conservation work at centrally protected monuments—work that has long been executed by ASI teams (or through government-linked execution) under ASI’s authority.

This shift is being operationalised through an empanelment process: the Ministry of Culture (and NCF) invites eligible heritage conservation architects/agencies to apply, get vetted, and become part of an approved pool. Donors funding conservation projects (often via CSR) can then select from this approved pool for execution—while ASI remains the supervising authority ensuring conservation norms are met.

Why is this “big”? Because India has thousands of protected monuments and sites under ASI, and conservation needs are continuous: weathering, groundwater, pollution, footfall pressure, vegetation growth, structural fatigue, and urban encroachment all intensify maintenance demands.

In plain language: the government is widening the set of hands allowed to do the work—while keeping the rulebook and final oversight with the State.

Back to Table of Contents

2) What counts as “core conservation” vs. “amenities”?

This distinction is crucial, because India has already experimented with private participation in heritage—mainly through tourism-focused improvements.

“Amenities” (already allowed under prior schemes)

Under initiatives like Adopt a Heritage (and its newer version, Adopt a Heritage 2.0), private partners—often called “Monument Mitras”—have been invited to support visitor-facing improvements such as:

• Toilets, drinking water, pathways, signage, interpretation boards
• Ticketing counters, entry/exit management, visitor helpdesks
• Basic accessibility enhancements (ramps where appropriate)
• Cleanliness, lighting in permitted areas, and minor facility management

These interventions can be beneficial, but they are not the same as conservation of the monument fabric itself.

“Core conservation” (the new opening)

“Core conservation” usually refers to work that directly affects the heritage asset’s physical and historical integrity—such as:

• Structural stabilisation and repairs using compatible materials
• Stone, lime, brick, and plaster conservation (with heritage methods)
• Water drainage correction, damp treatment, salt/efflorescence mitigation
• Conservation of murals, inscriptions, carvings, and fragile surfaces
• Archaeological-sensitive works that require strict documentation

This is where conservation ethics matter most: the wrong mortar, abrasive cleaning, aggressive repainting, or “beautification” can permanently erase authenticity.

Back to Table of Contents

3) Why is India making this change now?

Multiple forces are converging:

A) Scale and capacity

India has thousands of centrally protected monuments and sites under ASI. Even with dedicated circles and conservation teams, the workload is enormous—especially when you add climate stress, pollution, and tourism pressure.

B) CSR money exists, but execution bottlenecks remain

Corporate CSR funds have increasingly targeted “visible” public-impact areas. Heritage conservation is attractive because it offers tangible outcomes and reputational value. But donors often want timelines, project clarity, and transparent utilisation—areas where public systems can struggle due to procedural load, multi-level approvals, staffing constraints, and procurement timelines.

C) Professional ecosystem has matured

India now has more trained conservation architects, materials specialists, heritage engineers, and conservation firms than it did two decades ago. The policy implicitly recognises that the country can build a “national talent pool” beyond ASI’s in-house workforce—without abandoning ASI’s standards.

D) Tourism economics and urban pressure

Monuments sit inside living cities. Encroachments, vibrations, air pollution, and infrastructure projects raise the stakes. Faster, high-quality conservation can be a public good—if managed ethically.

Back to Table of Contents

4) How the new model is expected to work (step-by-step)

While details will evolve, the direction is clear: donor-funded conservation projects are channelled through a structured pipeline that includes empanelment, documentation, ASI-supervised norms, and time-bound execution.

1. Empanelment: The Ministry/NCF invites applications from qualified heritage conservation architects/agencies and vets them against eligibility criteria (experience, credentials, prior projects, and capacity).
2. Project selection: A list of monuments requiring work may be offered for sponsorship, and donors can choose projects (with region preference or priority needs).
3. Funding route: Donor funds (often CSR) flow through the National Culture Fund (NCF) as the financing mechanism.
4. DPR and approvals: A Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared/approved, defining the scope, conservation methods, materials, documentation plan, and timelines.
5. Execution by empanelled experts: The donor engages an empanelled conservation team, which executes the work under prescribed conservation norms.
6. ASI supervision and compliance: ASI (or the competent authority) monitors the work, checks adherence to conservation norms, and ensures the approved plan is followed.
7. Reporting and closure: Completion reports, photographic documentation, and compliance notes are finalised, ideally with public-facing transparency.

If implemented with strong safeguards, this can reduce delays while keeping scientific conservation intact. If implemented loosely, it can become “CSR makeovers” that look good in photos but harm authenticity.

Back to Table of Contents

5) What stays with the government and ASI

Even in an expanded execution model, the State’s role remains central:

• Legal protection and permissions: The monument remains protected under Indian heritage law and regulations.
• Standards and conservation framework: Conservation must align with ASI’s norms and India’s conservation policy framework.
• Supervision and monitoring: ASI/competent authorities retain oversight to prevent harmful interventions.
• Enforcement in prohibited/regulated zones: Construction controls in the monument’s regulated surroundings still apply.
• Public access principles: Monuments remain public heritage; any visitor-management changes must be regulated and justified.

So, this is not a “sale” of monuments. It’s a change in who is allowed to do conservation work—and how projects are funded and managed.

Back to Table of Contents

6) Potential benefits (if done right)

1) Faster conservation and better utilisation of funds

Empanelled private execution can reduce bottlenecks, especially for donor-funded projects with strict timelines.

2) Higher specialisation and innovation

Conservation is multidisciplinary. Private agencies may bring specialised skills in:

• Heritage materials science (lime, stone, binders)
• Non-destructive testing (NDT) and structural diagnostics
• Documentation (3D scanning, photogrammetry) when appropriate
• Environmental monitoring and preventive conservation

3) Building a national talent pool

A larger, certified ecosystem of conservation professionals can emerge—supporting long-term heritage needs across states, cities, and institutions.

4) Local livelihoods and craft revival

Scientific conservation often relies on traditional crafts: lime plastering, stone dressing, terracotta, woodwork, mural techniques. If contracts are designed to value heritage craftsmanship, conservation can revive local artisanal economies.

5) More predictable project governance

With proper procurement and audit rules, projects can become more transparent—especially when donors demand reporting.

Back to Table of Contents

7) Risks, controversies, and what critics fear

The risks aren’t imaginary. They’re predictable failure modes if incentives and oversight are weak.

1) “Beautification” replacing conservation

Conservation is not cosmetic renovation. A shiny surface can destroy patina, tool marks, inscriptions, and historical layers. Aggressive cleaning, cement-based repairs, or repainting can cause long-term damage.

2) Branding and the “sponsorship mindset”

CSR projects can push for visibility: plaques, logos, “before-after” marketing. Heritage sites are not billboards. India will need strict rules on branding and signage.

3) Uneven standards across agencies

Even if empanelled, agencies vary in quality. Conservation outcomes depend on ethics, craftsmanship, supervision, and rigorous documentation—especially at fragile, layered sites.

4) Conflict of interest and donor influence

If donors choose agencies, there must be safeguards against agency capture, under-scoping, or “fast-track shortcuts” to meet timelines.

5) Public access and equity concerns

Monuments are public heritage. Any shift that leads to “premium experiences,” restricted zones for events, or exclusionary visitor policies will spark backlash. Visitor management must prioritise protection and public access—not privilege.

6) Transparency gaps

Without public DPR summaries, independent audits, and open documentation, the public cannot judge whether work was ethical and scientifically sound.

Back to Table of Contents

8) Global parallels: what other countries do

Private involvement in heritage is not unique to India—many countries combine public oversight with foundations, trusts, donors, and professional conservation firms. The key difference lies in governance:

• Regulation stays public: laws, listing, permissions, enforcement.
• Execution can be mixed: public agencies + accredited professionals.
• Transparency is non-negotiable: documentation, standards, and audits.

For India, the lesson is clear: private participation can help, but only when the State’s conservation ethics are enforced with real teeth.

Back to Table of Contents

9) Conservation ethics: the rules that should not bend

If India opens conservation execution, it must double down on ethics. Globally accepted conservation principles include:

• Minimum intervention: do only what is necessary to stabilise and preserve.
• Reversibility (where possible): interventions should not permanently lock in harmful choices.
• Material compatibility: repairs must use compatible materials (e.g., lime-based mortars where appropriate), not cement that traps moisture and accelerates decay.
• Authenticity and integrity: do not erase historical layers to create a “new look.”
• Documentation: every intervention must be documented, photographed, and archived.
• Preventive conservation: fix drainage, vegetation, microclimate issues—don’t only treat symptoms.

These are not academic ideals; they are the difference between preservation and irreversible loss.

Back to Table of Contents

10) The guardrails India needs (practical safeguards)

Here are practical safeguards that can make or break the policy:

A) Transparent empanelment criteria and periodic re-evaluation

• Public criteria (qualifications, past work, references)
• Performance scoring after project completion
• Debarment mechanism for violations

B) Mandatory DPR summaries in the public domain

Not every technical detail must be public, but the scope, methods, and material philosophy should be accessible so researchers and citizens can scrutinise.

C) Independent technical audits

• Third-party conservation audit at mid-point and closure
• Non-destructive testing verification where relevant
• Quality checks on material compatibility

D) Strict branding rules

• No logos on heritage fabric
• Limited signage size and placement
• Donor acknowledgement without turning sites into advertisements

E) Community participation and local craft integration

Local stakeholders, historians, and craftspeople should be part of project design—not just hired late for labour.

F) Visitor pressure management tied to conservation plans

If a monument is over-visited, conservation must include visitor-flow changes, protective barriers (where appropriate), and interpretation strategies that reduce physical contact and crowd stress.

Back to Table of Contents

11) What citizens, researchers, and travellers can do

• Ask “what’s the conservation logic?” Not “how shiny is it,” but “what problem did this intervention solve?”
• Look for documentation: Are there project notes, methods explained, before-after records?
• Support ethical heritage groups: Volunteer, donate, or amplify conservation education.
• Be a responsible visitor: Don’t touch fragile surfaces, don’t litter, respect barriers, and follow site rules.
• Report vandalism and encroachment: Heritage protection is enforcement + civic vigilance.

Heritage survives when governance, expertise, and public culture align.

Key Takeaways

• India is not “selling monuments”—it is expanding who can execute conservation work under State supervision.
• “Adopt a Heritage 2.0” focused on amenities; the new shift opens up core conservation execution to empanelled private agencies.
• NCF remains the funding route for donor-supported conservation, with structured vetting and project governance.
• Big upside: faster, better-resourced conservation and a larger professional ecosystem.
• Big risk: cosmetic “makeovers,” branding, uneven standards, and transparency gaps.
• The deciding factor is oversight: clear standards, audits, and public documentation.

Back to Table of Contents

FAQs

Q1) Does this mean monuments are being privatised?

Not in the ownership sense. The monuments remain protected under law and under State authority. The change is about execution: empanelled private conservation agencies may carry out conservation work under ASI/Ministry supervision and within prescribed norms.

Q2) How is this different from “Adopt a Heritage” / Monument Mitra?

Earlier schemes largely focused on visitor amenities (toilets, signage, facilities). The new shift expands private participation into core conservation/restoration—the sensitive work on the monument fabric.

Q3) Who decides what work gets done?

Projects should be guided by an approved conservation plan/DPR and executed under ASI’s conservation framework and supervision. Donors may fund and select from an approved pool, but conservation norms must govern methods and outcomes.

Q4) Will this increase ticket prices or restrict access?

Ticketing and access policies are regulatory decisions. However, public concern is valid: any changes must prioritise conservation and equity. The safest approach is to keep access rules transparent and justified through visitor management needs.

Q5) How can the public know if conservation is ethical?

Look for: (1) transparent project summaries, (2) documented methods, (3) evidence of material compatibility, (4) independent audits, and (5) clear ASI oversight.

Q6) What should be strictly prohibited?

Aggressive “cleaning” that damages surfaces, cement-based incompatible repairs, intrusive branding, and cosmetic reconstructions that erase authentic historical layers.

References & External Links (15+)

• Indian Express report on opening conservation to private agencies (Jan 2026)
• Business Standard summary of the move (Jan 2026)
• Ministry of Culture / NCF RFP document (empanelment)
• Ministry of Culture / NCF RFP document (eligibility details)
• National Culture Fund (official website)
• NCF: About / establishment details
• PIB: National Culture Fund background and objectives (Jul 2024)
• PIB: Centrally protected monuments count and conservation process (Dec 2025)
• Ministry of Culture: Restoration & ASI oversight note (latest)
• ASI: Monuments / prohibited & regulated areas note
• National Monuments Authority: prohibited/regulated area FAQ
• Adopt a Heritage 2.0 guidelines (draft, June 2023)
• Adopt a Heritage guidelines (tourism.gov.in PDF)
• PIB: Heritage preservation note incl. Adopt a Heritage milestones (Apr 2025)
• AMASR Act (India Code PDF)
• NITI Aayog: Improving heritage management (PDF)
• UNESCO World Heritage: India profile
• ICOMOS charters & guidance (global conservation standards)
• ICCROM (training and heritage conservation resources)
• INTACH (heritage conservation work in India)