India’s unprotected cultural heritage is vast and diverse, requiring active public participation for its preservation. Community engagement ensures the relevance and sustainability of these cultural assets

India, being a vast country with diverse populations, topography, and climate, and consequently, a rich cultural heritage, requires the active participation of its people to safeguard this heritage in various ways. Firstly, as genuine stakeholders, people should take ownership of it. Secondly, with public involvement, cultural heritage gains relevance in people’s lives and becomes integrated into their everyday use and socio-economic activities. Thirdly, community participation ensures cost-effective and sustainable conservation. Lastly, it encourages local and authentic craftsmanship in its preservation, enriching the process with diverse knowledge resources based on geographical, cultural, linguistic, and religious variations.

Considering the immense diversity and long, disparate historical timeline that has shaped India’s cultural imprints, its natural and human heritage cannot be confined to what is protected by the Central and State governments under the AMASR Act of 1958 (amended in 2010). The act provides for the protection and preservation of structures and sites of monumental value that are over 100 years old. These structures are primarily owned by the government and are preserved as abandoned monuments. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) oversees the care and conservation of monuments, sites, and remains of national importance, while State Departments of Archaeology and Museums manage monuments of state (regional) significance. Other structures are regulated under the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972 (Rules 1973).

However, the scope of these acts is limited and costly. As a result, much of India’s vast cultural heritage, which is under threat from pressures other than natural decay, remains unprotected. Since the UNESCO 1972 World Heritage Convention, the understanding of cultural heritage has evolved significantly. It now includes a broader, people-centred approach, recognising that cultural heritage is not only about grand monuments but also encompasses everyday structures, such as common houses, shops, and other ordinary buildings, as well as the living traditions and environments that shape communities.

These cultural legacies, which form ‘cultural landscapes’ in the streets, markets, and avenues of old townships, are as valuable as monumental heritage but remain unprotected by any legal provisions and are under constant threat from insensitive urbanisation, modernisation, and development policies. Several initiatives have been introduced to safeguard this unprotected cultural heritage. These include the listing of sites, buildings, objects, and intangible systems for record, research, and conservation purposes; heritage walks to raise awareness and connect people to their own and others’ cultural heritage; and heritage regulations by state governments and local bodies to create some legal provisions for safeguarding unprotected heritage.

Listings serve as inventories for the identification, advocacy, and preservation of unprotected cultural heritage. These inventories can together form a National Register of Historic Properties for research and conservation action. Listed buildings may be graded and classified as Grade A, B, or C in descending order of importance, guiding decisions about conservation. Additionally, in modern cities, old townships displaying their existing architecture can be designated as ‘Cultural Landscapes’ or ‘Heritage Zones,’ requiring sensitive planning within routine or comprehensive development initiatives. These landscapes can also be listed in the Master Plans of cities.

To regulate development in such zones, state and local governments can pass heritage regulations that control interventions involving the modification of unprotected historical or old buildings and sites. To engage people with their cultural heritage, heritage walks can offer a meaningful path forward. These walks could be made more popular by improving civic amenities and enhancing the visual appeal of heritage areas by reducing the clutter of advertising boards, electric and internet cables, and satellite dish wiring.

Heritage walks and conservation projects would also boost the local economy by generating employment in crafts, local shops, and the service sector. This concept of ‘living heritage’ holds a symbiotic relationship with its architectural and natural surroundings. While protected monuments and archaeological sites must be conserved with minimal intervention as pure and true testaments to the past, other significant architectural structures and sites can be preserved with more flexible interventions, reclaiming their meaning, relevance, and role as markers of the past within the present. In this way, the ‘past’ and ‘present’ are not seen as separate entities but as part of a continuous, evolving timeline.

This approach supports ‘living heritage’ models in the form of heritage lanes, heritage trails, or zones of individual heritage structures. Separating cultural heritage from nature is impractical and artificial, as human culture depends on nature—not only using its elements, such as sand, soil, metals, and plants, but also incorporating natural systems, designs, and processes, like altering materials, colouring them, and varying patterns. This understanding of cultural heritage recognises its continuity and relevance through systemic arrangements.

Established in 1984, the Indian National Trust for Art & Cultural Heritage (INTACH) has developed into a think tank and practical resource for the protection of unprotected cultural heritage. INTACH is tasked with engaging the people of India in this effort by enrolling citizens as members while also engaging skilled human resources. INTACH has been cataloguing buildings over 50 years old that have architectural, historical, archaeological, or aesthetic value, organising heritage walks, and advocating for heritage regulations. It works in partnership with other organisations and individuals, complementing rather than competing with them.

The writer is Professor (Retd) Sukhdev Singh, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Vice-Chairman, Indian National Trust for Art & Cultural Heritage, New Delhi