CSR-funded partnerships routed through the National Culture Fund offer a scalable model for heritage conservation in India. Critically examine.

The Ministry of Culture set up the National Culture Fund (NCF) to bring government and corporate money together for heritage. NCF now anchors the HAL–NCF–ASI Memorandum of Agreement, under which HAL gives ₹23.60 crore of CSR funds for Hampi, the Taj Mahal and Bekal Fort over FY 2026-27 to 2028-29 [1]. The model is well designed, but whether it can scale depends on NCF's record of delivery.

Strengths of the model

• Fills a funding gap: In ASI's Uttar Pradesh circles, 21% of approved annual conservation plans were not carried out, mainly because of a fund shortage [4].
• Clear roles: HAL funds, NCF facilitates and ASI supervises under prescribed norms. Corporate money comes in without corporate control over protected monuments [1].
• Can be copied: One package covers Hampi's Vijayanagara bazaars (~270 m and ~250 m), a Mughal monument and a Kerala coastal fort. Other PSUs could follow the same template [1].
• Tourism link: Better visitor amenities promote sustainable heritage tourism [1].

Limits to scalability

• Weak execution: Only 2 of 19 NCF projects at protected monuments were finished by November 2012, even though funds were available [2].
• Unspent money: NCF's funds grew from ₹19.50 crore to about ₹76 crore by March 2021, but less than 14% was used. The CAG cited no roadmap and no technical capacity [3].
• Donor gaps: NCF found no donors for the Red Fort or Agra Fort, and chose monuments outside its approved lists without recording reasons [2].
• No conservation standard: ASI still has no approved Conservation Policy [3], and it did not test stone quality in its lab [4].
• Problems money cannot fix: ASI had no legal title for 456 monuments in its UP circles, and 96 monuments were encroached [4].
• Incomplete planning: By 2023, India had not reported the status of Hampi's Integrated Management Plan to UNESCO, while road widening put pressure on the site [5].

Way forward

• NCF should publish a site-wise roadmap with costs, deadlines and yearly progress reports.
• The Ministry should notify a National Conservation Policy, and lab testing should be a condition for each fund release.
• ASI and NCF should coordinate more closely, as the PAC recommended [3].

NCF-routed CSR therefore brings new money and a sound structure, but its delivery capacity is not yet proven. The model should be scaled up only after transparent outcome audits of this MoA. Done well, it can make Article 49 and the duty under Article 51A(f) a shared national effort.