Ms. Tanisha Upadhyay
Introduction
In early 2024, India gave a call to transform the country into a developed nation with a USD 30 trillion economy by the time it complete 100th year of Independence. NITI Aayog created a blueprint for India’s development in the next 25 years, officially named Vision India@2047 plan. One of the objectives of Vision India @2047 plan is to achieve per-capita income of USD 18,00020,000 with strong public finances and a robust financial sector. Along with building world-class infrastructure and facilities in both rural and urban areas.
In the light of this vision Government of India has set an ambitious target to raise the contribution of tourism to 10% of GDP by 2047. In 2023, the country’s heritage tourism market generated US$ 30.3147 billion suggest that this will grow to US$ 47.4512 billion by 2030. This surge in heritage tourism has been driven by significant revival in travel activity in the post-pandemic era. The country’s recognition as home to 43 UNESCO World Heritage Sites – 35 cultural, seven natural and one mixed property.
Revitalizing Spiritual Tourism: A Focus on Heritage and Pilgrimage
With an ambitious target to raise the contribution of tourism by 2047. Government decides to prioritize the development of sites associated with pilgrimage and heritage. Special emphasis will be placed on destinations linked to the life and teachings of Lord Buddha, aligning with India’s vision to become a key center for Buddhist tourism. The Government of India has played a crucial role in supporting the growth of heritage tourism. Initiatives like the Swadesh Darshan and PRASHAD schemes fund the development of infrastructure at spiritual and cultural sites across the country. Over 100 such projects have been sanctioned in various states, while local engagement is encouraged through Dekho Apna Desh campaign.
Governance Conflicts between Custodian and Promoters
According to current structure the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), under Ministry of Culture is responsible for protection, conservation, maintenance and enforcement of legal restrictions for about 3,600 centrally protected monuments. On the other hand States manage thousands of protected monuments that are not under ASI’s control. Along with the Centre and State, Local Governments control local heritage. While Communities are custodians of intangible heritage (crafts, rituals, festivals). This overlapping of jurisdiction between Centre, State and Local government has resulted in loop holes in administration of heritage sites.
For example Taj Mahal in Uttar Pradesh is managed by ASI that has imposed strict bans on industrial activity nearby to reduce air pollution. On the other hand UP Tourism promotes Taj as part of the “Heritage Arc” (Agra–Varanasi–Lucknow circuit). Focus on night-time viewing, light-and-sound shows, and cultural festivals.
While local communities argue they don’t benefit enough; vendors often face eviction drives. Another example of the clash between the objective of conservation and livelihood comes from Hampi, Karnataka that is a UNESCO World Heritage Site this is a heritage buffer zone by ASI that restricts new construction to protect monuments. On the other hand villagers around Virupaksha temple depend on homestays, small eateries, handicrafts threatened by strict conservation policies of ASI.
Another debate is regarding the revenue share that is generated at Heritage sites. At Amer Fort, Rajasthan there is debate over ticket revenues from Amer Fort — locals demand a share for upkeep of nearby villages. Bhitarkanika Mangroves and Konark Sun Temple, Odisha, locals claim that revenue from temple tourism is not proportional return them. While excessive interference of Central sometimes slows touristoriented initiatives.
This shows that ASI strong regulation on conservation, weakens tourism and livelihood integration. And creates a policy gap in implementation of conservation initiatives. State that plays important role in promotion of these heritage sites often override heritage concerns and ASI guidelines. On the other hand Local Communities that are custodian and beneficiary have limited role in decision-making.
Solution
Heritage sites have overlapping interest of the central government, state government and local communities. For effective implementation of policies there should be formation of a committee at State level with representatives from ASI and a representative of each heritage site in a particular state. This will bring diversity in policy discussions with the common objective of conservation and promotion of heritage sites for inclusivity and safety in heritage tourism in India.
References
• India Heritage Tourism Market Size | Industry Report, 2033. (n.d.).
https://share.google/laLxdFpSdYG8YmzjB
• India’s heritage tourism forecast to reach $47 billion by 2030 – BW Hotelier. (n.d.-a). BW Hotelier. https://share.google/OaMn3x6Vb9E9VsUty
• Talukdar, M., & Talukdar, M. (2025, July 28). India boosts heritage tourism blending innovation, technology, and Public-Private partnerships for sustainable cultural growth – travel and tour World. Travel and Tour World. https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/india-boosts-heritage-tourism-blendinginnovation-technology-and-public-private-partnerships-for-sustainable-cultural-growth
• Tourism as a key driver for employment and growth Budget 2025-26 focuses on infrastructure, medical tourism, and heritage conservation. (n.d.). https://share.google/XImyNzxC1zDwqNzHo
About the Contributor: Ms. Tanisha Upadhyay is a researcher affiliated with the Impact and Policy Research Institute, specializing in Public Policy Qualitative Participatory Action Research Fieldwork Fellowship. With extensive experience in policy analysis and research, Tanisha Upadhyay played a key role in the conducting action research fieldwork on Care economy in India . Her contributions focused on providing in-depth research, data analysis, and policy recommendations aimed at addressing challenges in India Heritage tourism. Her work in this cohort has provided critical insights that contribute to the ongoing discourse on participatory action research.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Acknowledgement: This article was posted by Aashvee Prisha, a research intern at IMPRI.
Read more at IMPRI:
India-Vietnam–Naval Capacity Building: Anchoring Stability in the Indo-Pacific
Department of Biotechnology (DBT) Outreach Programme: Promoting Excellence since 2010
