2026 for January 1970

In a significant policy shift, the Government of India is set to allow private sector participation in the core conservation of protected monuments, a domain hitherto monopolised by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
This move aims to address capacity constraints, improve efficiency, and mobilise CSR funding for heritage conservation, while retaining regulatory oversight with the ASI.

The Ministry of Culture is empanelling private conservation architects and agencies through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, closing on January 12.
Over 20 private heritage conservation agencies from across the country have applied.
After empanelment, corporate donors contributing via the National Culture Fund (NCF) will be allowed to directly engage conservation agencies of their choice.
The conservation work will be undertaken within ASI-prescribed frameworks and under its overall supervision.

Eligibility criteria for conservation architects:
- Experience in conservation or restoration of centrally protected monuments under ASI, State Archaeology Departments, CPWD or State PWD.
- Experience in heritage projects of PSUs, municipal corporations, and private palaces or buildings (minimum 100 years old).
Role of donors and agencies:
- Donors provide funds to the NCF under CSR provisions.
- Donors have independence to select empanelled conservation architects.
- Projects must adhere to approved Detailed Project Reports (DPRs), timeframes fixed by donors, and established conservation norms.
- Execution will be carried out by private agencies, under guidance of conservation architects, supervision of ASI or concerned government agencies.

Monopoly and capacity constraints:
- ASI is responsible for conserving around 3,700 protected monuments.
- It has been the sole agency for preparing DPRs, executing conservation works.
- This led to slow project implementation, delays in utilisation of CSR funds.
Performance of the NCF:
- Established in 1996 with an initial corpus of ₹20 crore, the fund has received ₹140 crore in donations so far.
- It has funded about 100 conservation projects - 70 completed, almost 20 ongoing.
- The corporate donors faced difficulties due to weak compliance timelines.

The earlier ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme allowed corporates to become Monument Mitras but was limited to tourist amenities (toilets, ticketing, cafes, signage).
For the first time, private donors are being allowed into core conservation work of monuments.
The Ministry has identified 250 monuments requiring conservation. Donors may choose from the list, or propose monuments based on regional or thematic preference (subject to approval).

United Kingdom: Churches Conservation Trust with strong private participation.
United States: Active involvement of private organisations and funding in heritage protection.
Germany and Netherlands: Heritage foundations supported by private funding.
These models reflect Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) under strong state regulation.

Risk of commercialisation of heritage: Transparent audits and periodic reviews of projects. Promote community and academic involvement alongside corporates.
Ensuring uniform conservation: Develop clear conservation guidelines and SOPs.
Potential conflicts: Between donor preferences and archaeological integrity.
Need for robust monitoring mechanisms: To prevent dilution of ASI’s authority. Strengthen ASI’s role as a regulator and knowledge authority.
Capacity constraints: Capacity-building and certification of conservation professionals.

Opening monument conservation to the private sector marks a paradigm shift in India’s heritage governance, moving towards a PPP-based, capacity-enhancing model.
While the ASI retains supervisory control, private participation is expected to accelerate conservation, improve fund utilisation, and create a national talent pool in heritage management.
Success, however, will depend on strong regulation, accountability, and adherence to conservation ethics.

Source: IE

Monument Conservation FAQs

Q1: What is the rationale behind allowing private sector participation in the core conservation of protected monuments?

Ans: It aims to address ASI’s capacity constraints, improve efficiency, ensure timely utilisation of CSR funds, etc.

Q2: How does the new monument conservation model balance private participation with state control?

Ans: Private agencies execute conservation through donor funding, while ASI retains regulatory oversight.

Q3: What is the difference between the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme and the new private participation framework?

Ans: ‘Adopt a Heritage’ focused on tourist amenities, whereas the new framework allows private donors to engage in core conservation work.

Q4: What challenges could arise from corporatisation of heritage conservation in India?

Ans: Risks include commercialisation of heritage, uneven conservation standards, donor influence over archaeological integrity, etc.

Q5: How do global practices support India’s move towards a PPP model in heritage conservation?

Ans: Countries like the UK, US, Germany and the Netherlands successfully use private funding and foundations for heritage management.