Delhi’s ‘heritage for hire’ plan: Ancient monuments as wedding venues

The Delhi government’s latest bright idea — opening up dozens of the capital’s centuries-old monuments for weddings, parties and cultural soirées — is likely to leave left conservationists, historians and ordinary citizens aghast.

That this is being sold as an effort to make these monuments “more accessible to the public” only adds insult to injury. Delhi’s monuments are hardly inaccessible — they are, in fact, among the most visited in the world. What they are not meant to be is dance floors or banquet backdrops.

The scheme, still at the 'proposal' stage, envisages allowing private bookings at nearly 80 monuments managed by the Delhi archaeology department under a public–private partnership model. Those shortlisted reportedly include the Mutiny Memorial on the Northern Ridge (built in 1863), the Dara Shikoh Library at Kashmere Gate, the Maqbara Paik near the GTK bus depot, a Lodi-period tomb in Sadhana Enclave, the Qudsia Garden pavilions, and Bara Lao ka Gumbad — a 14th-century domed structure believed to have sheltered travellers. Even the Ghalib Haveli in Chandni Chowk, home of the great Urdu poet, may not be spared.

An official told PTI that “extra security measures” would be introduced to ensure that “heritage structures are not damaged during events”. Another suggested that GST relaxations on booking fees might be offered to make the project commercially viable. That, apparently, is what counts for heritage management now — turning tombs into tax-incentivised wedding halls.

Delhi is not just another urban landscape dotted with relics; it is one of the world’s most densely layered historic cities which already hosts three UNESCO World Heritage Sites:

• Humayun’s Tomb (inscribed 1993), the prototype for the Taj Mahal and a global conservation success story

• Qutb Minar and its Monuments (inscribed 1993), among India’s most visited heritage clusters

• The Red Fort Complex (inscribed 2007), a living emblem of India’s history, identity and sovereignty

Each of these sites is subject to UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines, which require state parties — in this case, India — to protect the 'Outstanding Universal Value' of listed properties and their surroundings. This includes maintaining structural integrity, preventing unsanctioned commercial use, and safeguarding the “authenticity of setting and experience”. In short, these are not properties that can be casually monetised for “accessibility”.

The city’s other protected monuments, though not UNESCO-listed, fall under similar ethical and conservation norms administered by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and international advisory bodies like ICCROM and ICOMOS. Yet Delhi’s proposal blurs this distinction entirely, suggesting that as long as a private organiser pays for a permit and posts a security deposit, a centuries-old tomb can double as a banquet venue.

Proponents of the plan may point to “global practice” — but they conveniently leave out the fine print. In Italy, only certain municipally owned palazzos or gardens are rented out, and even then, weddings are confined to outer courtyards, not historic interiors.

In the United Kingdom, English Heritage and the National Trust do occasionally host ceremonies at select castles or manor lawns, but only after strict structural assessments, caps on guest numbers, and heritage-impact insurance running into tens of thousands of pounds.

In France, events at state-owned châteaux require ministerial permission, conservation bonds, and the presence of curators during setup. In the United States, national landmarks like Ellis Island or the Smithsonian Castle may host institutional or charitable events, never private parties.

None of these nations — not even those with far richer economies — have contemplated opening dozens of historic monuments simultaneously for routine private use. Delhi’s experiment would therefore be unprecedented in both its scale and its recklessness.

Research by ICCROM and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre is unequivocal: large gatherings pose serious risks to fragile heritage. Excessive footfall leads to mechanical stress, vibration and abrasion on floors and carved surfaces.

Event lighting and sound systems alter temperature, humidity and acoustic loads, accelerating decay. Temporary installations require drilling, wiring and anchoring; waste management becomes erratic; and visual clutter from tents and staging disrupts the very ambience that gives a monument its meaning.

Even when precautions are taken, repeated use compounds the damage. “Preventive conservation depends on limiting risk, not multiplying exposure,” warns ICCROM’s Guide to Risk Management of Cultural Heritage.

The Delhi government’s defence — that this scheme will make heritage “more accessible to the public” — should draw laughter as well as anger. Sites like Humayun’s Tomb and Qutb Minar already draw millions of visitors annually. Even lesser-known precincts like the Dara Shikoh Library or Ghalib Haveli are open to tourists, students and cultural groups. The issue has never been access; it is maintenance, funding and thoughtful reuse.

One may try to justify the move by comparing it to so-called 'adaptive reuse' projects such as Bikaner House or Haveli Dharampura. But the comparison simply doesn’t hold. Those are inhabited or functionally restored buildings — not archaeological ruins. They were never protected under the ASI or designated under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act. Their transformation into cultural venues or boutique hotels came after extensive structural reinforcement and under municipal guidelines, not heritage-protection statutes.

What Delhi proposes instead is to commercialise uninhabited, fragile, and legally protected monuments — many of them tombs or pavilions hundreds of years old — for mass gatherings. It is the difference between using a refurbished colonial bungalow and hiring out a 15th-century mosque courtyard for a cocktail party.

In effect, a public trust built over centuries is being pawned off for a few crores in booking revenue. The promise of “extra security” or “GST relaxation” does not mask what this really is: a cynical commercialisation of history.

Delhi’s heritage does not need to be “activated” with champagne and DJ booths. It needs to be protected, understood and allowed to breathe. There is a difference between keeping history alive and selling it by the hour — a distinction that those in charge of the capital’s heritage seem, tragically, to have forgotten.

With PTI inputs