THE CASE FOR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF MONUMENTS

Consider two historic forts in India - Neemrana Fort in Rajasthan and Qila Mubarak in Patiala, Punjab. Both have rich histories and architectural significance. Yet, their current condition could not be more different.

- OJASVI CHANDEL

Neemrana Fort, a 15th-century structure, was once in ruins. But after it was taken over by a private group in the 1990s, it was restored and developed into a heritage hotel. Today, it attracts thousands of tourists from around the world, offers modern amenities, and generates sustainable revenue while preserving the site.

Qila Mubarak, on the other hand, while technically open to the public, remains shut for renovation for months with no observable restoration. Even after funds were allocated for repairs, progress stalled, and parts of the structure have visibly collapsed. It receives far fewer visitors and remains largely disconnected from tourism circuits.

The sharp difference between these two forts shows why private ownership could be key to saving India's heritage.

The Archaeological Survey of India, India's primary heritage authority, is meant to protect thousands of historical sites. And yet, 92 of those sites have gone missing, and many more are deteriorating despite their "protected" status.

Preservation under government control often faces deep structural challenges. Decision-making is slow, innovation is rare, and accountability is minimal.

A Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report found that ASI was still following a conservation manual from 1923. State departments have little incentive to innovate or improve visitor experiences. There is no competitive drive to attract more tourists by adding amenities or to prevent deterioration beyond minimum standards.

Private ownership succeeds because incentives align with preservation and promotion. A business that invests in a monument has a stake in its long-term appeal - and that means keeping the site in excellent condition.