India’s Heritage Diplomacy: The Case of Archaeology and Conservation

From the Maldives to Myanmar and Vietnam to Indonesia, India’s claim to civilisational power is driving efforts to conserve heritage sites abroad.

In 2020, news of the discovery of a 1,100-year-old Shiva lingam in Vietnam swept India: the symbol, a representation of the Hindu God, Shiva, was popularly hailed as proving the extent of India’s global influence. As the news broke on social media, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar referred to the discovery as “reaffirming a civilisational connect” between India and Southeast Asia. As evidence of India as a civilisational state, the minister further qualified the finding as “a great cultural example of India’s development partnership.” The discovery came during post-2017 restoration work of the surrounding temple complex by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), a division of India’s Ministry of Culture (MoC).

The ASI project in Vietnam is part of a growing effort by the Indian government to engage in heritage conservation projects abroad. Besides the ASI, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) also allocates grant and other economic assistance for similar initiatives through other implementing partners. In 2020, the MEA created a separate division within its Development Partnership Administration (DPA) exclusively tasked with “conservation and restoration of temples in Southeast Asia, mural preservations, museology related works, iconographic survey, excavations and digital documentation of heritage sites.” In a recent example, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Indonesia’s president Prabowo Subianto made a joint announcement that India will soon support the conservation of the Prambanan Temple complex in southern Java.

This article presents a new survey of India’s recent heritage diplomacy initiatives in the archaeological and conservation domain. We first contextualise the importance of such activities in India against the background of other countries’ efforts to use heritage conservation as a soft power instrument. Based on open-source evidence, we then map Indian initiatives since 2014, whether led by the ASI or the MEA in different countries and sectors. We conclude with a discussion of trends and policy challenges for India’s growing investment in heritage diplomacy.

Restoring a sense of self abroad

India has engaged in this type of archaeology and conservation diplomacy for decades, most famously at Angkor Wat in the 1980s. So far, the projects have primarily focused on Southeast Asian countries with which – Indian officials frequently emphasise – India has a long history of shared religions, languages, and cultures since 200 BCE. Over decades, other projects have targeted other countries with which India has close cultural connections, such as Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bangladesh, Mauritius, and Bahrain. In some cases, Indian support has gone as far as Egypt and Angola.

As a rising power, with the world’s largest population and a growing economy, India is expanding its foreign policy interests and finding new ways to project power – from maritime to cyber and space security, as well as the protection of its overseas citizens or attempts to reform the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. Building a historical and cultural narrative of India as a civilisational state is one way by which its government officials have articulated the country’s quest for a more prominent, influential, and visible role in the world order.

Building a historical and cultural narrative of India as a civilisational state is one way by which its government officials have articulated the country’s quest for a more prominent, influential and visible role in the world order.

This is not just an attempt to popularise foreign policy for domestic consumption, feeding into the Indian perception that “our time has come” on the world stage, the euphoria about India’s G20 presidency or the International Yoga Day. Nor is it a mere ideological reflection of what has been termed a “Hindu nationalist” or “muscular” foreign policy. India’s sense of historical, religious and civilisational self has long shaped its foreign policy narratives, from the pre-independence period right up to the choice of national emblems and symbolic language used by its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

Within the last ten years, archaeology and conservation efforts have played an increasingly prominent role in India’s foreign policy strategy.

However, within the last ten years, archaeology and conservation efforts have played an increasingly prominent role in India’s foreign policy strategy. For External Affairs Minister Jaishankar, these initiatives are driven by the country’s growing “sense of historical and civilisational responsibility.” Politically, the recurring idea of “civilisational linkages” with India’s neighbourhood has been useful for domestic audiences whose national pride and interest in foreign policy was higher than ever in the 2024 election cycle.

Cultural and civilisational linkages, Sanskriti evam Sabhyata, has been one of five pillars of the Modi government’s Panchamrit foreign policy since 2015. Target countries for archaeological diplomacy are also important to India’s Act East and Neighbourhood First policies. Indian officials thus refer regularly to shared history as a distinctive mark of India’s partnership with Southeast Asian countries. In the words of former foreign minister Sushma Swaraj, “ASEAN and India are natural partners that share geographical, historical, and civilisational ties.”

Heritage diplomacy may be another positive and promising element in the Indian toolkit.  According to one study, heritage conservation has already strengthened India’s relations with Southeast Asia by reaffirming shared cultural identities, building stronger diplomatic relationships, and even boosting bilateral trade and investment. These initiatives are intended to help India articulate its civilisational identity while also enriching regional linkages and rising as a global power. The resulting linkages could offer India benefits relating to all five Panchamrit principles: cultural recognition, economic prosperity, added security, dignity and pride in India, and greater engagement abroad.

Surveying Indian projects across three continents

Archaeology and conservation projects are one relatively small type of Indian foreign assistance, which is a program that has grown in importance in recent years. There are two main channels of engagement abroad. First, for projects implemented by the ASI and its local, regional and international partners, the MEA selects each site and allocates funding based on the foreign government’s requests. But the ASI remains the lead organisation for implementation, whether by deputing officials abroad or working in collaboration with its foreign counterpart.

Since 2014, the MEA and ASI have invested resources, time and expertise at fourteen sites across eight countries.

In a second channel, the MEA offers grant assistance directly to host governments or through implementing partners in the host country. This can sometimes also involve local, non-governmental organisations. The following data is drawn from official MEA and MoC sources, with an emphasis on annual reports, as well as online reporting. Given the inconsistency of public information, the survey is thorough but the data is not exhaustive. In the last decade, since 2014, the MEA and ASI have invested resources, time and expertise at fourteen sites across eight countries.

Table 1: Site-specific ASI initiatives for heritage conservation abroad (since 2014)

Table 1 presents the projects of the first channel with ASI involvement. ASI expert teams have implemented conservation and restoration work at ten of the above sites. In Cambodia, ASI teams have been restoring the Ta Prohm temple complex since January 2004, the Ashram Maha Russei at Sambor Prei Kuk since April 2022, the Preah Vihear temple since August 2022 and the Wat Raja Bo pagoda since November 2023. In Myanmar, the ASI completed a conservation project at Ananda temple between May 2012 and 2018 and has been working on the conservation of the pagodas in Bagan since January 2020.

In Lao PDR, the ASI has been working on conservation of the Vat Phou temple complex since June 2009. In Vietnam, ASI has been working at the My Son temple complex since February 2017. The status of other projects is less clear. In Sri Lanka, ASI launched a conservation project at the Thiruketeeshwaram temple in August 2012. It was announced as being close to completion in 2016-2017 but does not appear to have be inaugurated. In the Maldives, ASI began conserving the Friday mosque in March 2021, with work reportedly ongoing as of March 2022.

Since 2014, the ASI has also begun surveys and promised conservation projects at four other sites. In 2015-2016, an ASI technical team visited Pashupatinath temple in Nepal and prepared a detailed conservation plan.  In 2022-2023, the MEA organised an ASI feasibility tour to Uzbekistan for possible excavation and conservation of the Fayaztepa and Karatepa temple complexes in the ancient Termiz heritage site. The ASI also conducted surveys in Vietnam at the Dong Duong monastery in April 2023 and the Nhan tower in January 2024 for potential new conservation projects.

 Table 2: Site-specific MEA Investments in Heritage Conservation (since 2014)

Table 2, for the second channel, lists MEA grant assistance related to heritage conservation in five countries, either as government-to-government aid or through Indian or international implementing partners. For all seven initiatives, the MEA allocated the posted grant amount either to the foreign governments or to implementing partners. Most of these have been in India’s immediate neighbourhood. In Afghanistan, India contributed $4 million in grant assistance, and later an additional $1.7 million, to restore the Stor palace between January 2009 and July 2016. In the Maldives, India contributed MVR 5.24 million (about $340,000) in April 2022 to develop a museum of pre-Islamic heritage at the Maabadhige archaeological site and to the conservation of the Dhiyamigili Ganduvaru palace. Both projects appear to be ongoing.

In Nepal, India contributed NPR 220 million (about $2 million) for the construction of the Nepal-Bharat Maitri Pashupati Dharmashala at Pashupatinath temple from September 2016 to August 2018. The dharmashala, a building related to religious or charitable purposes, houses pilgrims visiting the temple area. India agreed to give an additional NPR 37.23 million (about $300,000) in June 2020 for the construction of sanitary facilities at the site, which appears ongoing. After the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, India allocated $50 million in grant assistance to the reconstruction of 28 cultural heritage sites. For 12 of the 28 projects, MEA appointed the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) to provide design and project management consultancy services. For the remaining 16, MEA has funded Nepali government organisations directly. It is unclear whether ASI was consulted in any of the projects under the second channel.

There have also been a few instances of assistance further away, in South America and Africa. In Bolivia, India contributed $31,000 in development assistance for illuminating the Tiwanaku archaeological site, which was completed in June 2017. In Mali, India made a one-time cash donation of $500,000 to the government for the revival of the World Heritage Site at Timbuktu, delivered in March 2017.

Four modes of engagement

Based on our analysis, India’s projects are implemented through four modalities after signing government-to-government agreements. In the first modality, as in the cases listed in Table 1, the MEA deputes the ASI to implement projects, usually in partnership with local governmental organisations. Projects such as the conservation of Ta Prohm temple, where ASI partners with the Authority for the Protection and Management of Angkor and the Region of Siem Reap (APSARA), are funded by India and implemented under the supervision of both governments.

In a second modality, the MEA merely offers economic assistance for conservation projects which are implemented by the host government. For example, the MEA is funding the projects at the Maabadhige archaeological site and the Dhiyamigili Ganduvaru palace through the National Center for Cultural Heritage (NCCH), a department of the Maldivian government.

A third modality includes MEA-funded projects abroad that are managed jointly by the host government and an Indian non-governmental organisation. This may indicate a trend towards growing involvement of Indian NGOs and civil society expertise in MEA-led development cooperation partnerships abroad. For example, the reconstruction of 12 earthquake-damaged cultural heritage sites in Nepal is managed by INTACH, based in New Delhi.

Fourth, there are also MEA-funded archaeology and conservation projects implemented by international NGOs. In Afghanistan, for example, the Indian government funded the restoration of Stor palace with implementation by the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC), based in Switzerland.

There may be instances of a fifth modality where the MEA funds projects abroad that are implemented by local NGOs based in the host country. From our survey it is unclear to what extent local implementing agencies work alongside local NGOs.

The future of India’s heritage diplomacy

Our survey maps India’s growing footprint in archaeology and conservation efforts across three continents. There are new modalities of engagement, including a growing role for non-governmental organisations and new tie ups between the Indian government and international institutions. The creation of dedicated institutional and financial resources attests to the MEA’s growing interest and investment in being more active in this increasingly competitive dimension of foreign policy. In 2021, the MEA began quoting “aid for cultural and heritage projects” as a separate form of development assistance in its annual budget.

But more will be required to sustain India’s archaeology and conservation efforts abroad in the future. For example, India may face growing demand for such initiatives. On the one hand, within India, citizens are keen to see their country involved in more archaeology and conservation efforts abroad to support the increasingly popular idea of India as a civilisational power. The success of recent books such as William Dalrymple’s The Golden Road (2024) and Sanjeev Sanyal’s The Ocean of Churn (2016) indicate a growing interest in India’s civilisational ties and attempts to study and revive them. On the other hand, there will also be growing demand from abroad; especially in Southeast Asia and across the Global South, countries will likely seek more expertise and financial support from India for their own archaeological and conservation efforts.

To deliver, India will require greater capacity to plan and implement projects in accordance with international standards. India will also have to be able to sustain these projects under difficult political or security conditions in the host country. In the past, India had to pull funds from Afghanistan’s Bala Hissar citadel after the Taliban returned to power and there were significant delays in approval for the ASI to conserve Nepal’s Pashupatinath temple.

The MEA and ASI may also benefit from closer cooperation with Indian NGOs and the private sector. Besides INTACH, organisations like the Tata Trusts Art Conservation Initiative and the Mehrangarh Museum Trust are also active in the conservation of built heritage in India and may be interested in engagements abroad.

India’s archaeology and heritage diplomacy would also benefit from more scholarship. Universities which study this area, including Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University, Banaras Hindu University, South Asian University and Nalanda University, can be further supported and encouraged to develop research partnerships abroad.

The policy discourse remains thin, although recent work by the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) has begun analysing India’s record of heritage conservation projects abroad. More research and policy engagement will be necessary to understand the relevance of India’s civilisational identity as it continues to uncover its ancient history and leverage it for international influence and interests.

As India’s technical, economic and diplomatic capabilities increase, the memory of its civilisational and trading past will add character and influence to its modern linkages with the rest of the world

As India’s heritage diplomacy expands, New Delhi should also beware of possible backlash. Based on the experience of other countries, foreign-funded archaeology and conservation initiatives can often be politicised in a negative way. For example, the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Organisation has conserved heritage sites in the Balkans and Africa related to the Ottoman Empire which have been criticised as a revival of “Neo-Ottoman” ambitions. Similarly, Chinese heritage projects along the Silk Roads have come under scrutiny for their political and strategic objectives as part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Despite the importance of heritage conservation for India’s civilisational identity, we find that investments in this area remain small and there are many opportunities to grow and enrich India’s heritage diplomacy in the future. As India’s technical, economic and diplomatic capabilities increase, the memory of its civilisational and trading past will add character and influence to its modern linkages with the rest of the world. India stands to benefit by deepening and accelerating its efforts to preserve the sites where that memory lies today.