The Centre plans a global campaign to present India's cultural traditions through joint UNESCO nominations, beginning with Chhath Mahaparv alongside Mauritius, culture secretary Vivek Aggarwal told Mint in an interview published Friday.
India had not previously participated in the joint nomination process for world heritage sites, Aggarwal said. The move lets partner countries present shared heritage collectively, rather than submitting separate files.
“Joint nominations would enable participating countries to present shared heritage collectively,” Aggarwal said.
The ministry has identified other potential UNESCO nominations and is working with partner countries to advance them, according to the LiveMint report. These include built heritage, intangible practices, and diaspora-linked traditions.
For built heritage, the proposals include World Heritage status for sites associated with Mahatma Gandhi's Satyagraha movement in South Africa and India, and archaeological links between the Indus-Saraswati civilization and sites in Oman and Bahrain, the report adds.
Another track covers shared heritage linked to the migration of Indians to Mauritius, Suriname, Fiji and Guyana.
The intangible slate includes shadow puppetry traditions in India, Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries; Buddhist chanting; manuscript traditions linking India with Southeast Asia and China; and textile practices such as batik. Turban-tying traditions across Asian countries are also being considered.
The Archaeological Survey of India is carrying out conservation work in Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Mongolia. Aggarwal pointed to the prime minister's visit to temple sites in Indonesia: “We are helping, and the ASI is working there in many countries.”
Why Chhath, why Mauritius
Chhath Mahaparv is rooted in Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. It travelled with indentured labourers and later migrants to the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean. Filing it jointly with Mauritius makes the nomination a diaspora bridge, not just a cultural listing.
Mauritius is not a random partner. The island sits on Indian Ocean shipping routes and has deep linguistic and kinship ties to Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh through indenture-era migration. Chhath is one of the most visible living expressions of that history. Putting it forward with Mauritius turns a religious calendar into a shared civilisational claim.
The choice fits India's wider Indian Ocean posture. Maritime connectivity, diaspora remittances, and cultural ties run through the same geography. A heritage file may not move a naval asset, but it gives both governments a reason to keep a bilateral channel open between summit cycles.
A shared nomination requires two governments to agree on a file, which means the heritage claim must be negotiated through diplomatic channels. It turns a UNESCO dossier into a bilateral instrument.
Harsh V. Pant of the Observer Research Foundation has argued that India's cultural ties with Indian Ocean states such as Mauritius remain underutilised assets in its strategic toolkit. Amareswar Galla, a heritage expert and former UNESCO chair, has called for joint transnational nominations to make intangible heritage a diaspora link.
A slate beyond monuments
Shadow puppetry, Buddhist chanting, manuscript and batik proposals move India's heritage claim away from stone and site restoration toward living practices. That is where soft power persists after diplomatic visits end, because the practice travels with communities.
Monuments stay where they are. A manuscript tradition, a chant, or a turban-tying style travels. The ministry's intangible heritage proposals reach into Southeast Asia and China, not just the Indian Ocean.
Batik is instructive. It exists in multiple Asian countries, often with competing claims of origin. A joint nomination refuses that competition in favour of shared custodianship. That is a political argument as much as a curatorial one.
Project Mausam and Project Brihattar Bharat frame these efforts. Project Brihattar Bharat highlights cultural and spiritual connections, including the spread of Buddhist thought and Indian temple architecture across Southeast Asia. Project Mausam has India working with other countries to pursue joint nominations, the LiveMint report states.
The infrastructure behind the nomination
The ministry is building an administrative backbone: artist registries, international exhibitions and cultural events. A registry converts scattered cultural production into a searchable asset for embassies, festival programmers and trade missions.
Artist registries, international exhibitions and cultural events matter for scale. A single UNESCO file can absorb years of archival work. A registry shortens the next file. The ministry appears to be building a pipeline, not a one-off spectacle.
No separate MEA communiqué accompanied the culture secretary's interview. The file belongs to the culture ministry, which means the soft power playbook currently runs through UNESCO channels rather than through the foreign office's strategic communication machinery. Whether that remains so will shape how quickly the nominations move.
From cultural file to diplomatic instrument
India's test is conversion. A joint UNESCO nomination with Mauritius can open a template for Suriname, Fiji, Trinidad and South Africa. Each has a large Indian-origin population and a living calendar of festivals and foodways. The same file structure could be replicated with local variations.
For Indian readers, the stakes are concrete. Heritage recognition can feed tourism, airline routes, cultural visas, and trade delegations. It can make diaspora communities official carriers of India's story in their home countries. That is a form of influence that does not require a military footprint or a loan conditionality.
The question is whether the administrative machinery keeps pace with the diplomatic ambition. The artist registry has to link to programming budgets. Joint nominations have to survive changes in government in partner countries. Soft power is slow, and its returns are difficult to measure in a single financial year.
Chhath Mahaparv may or may not be inscribed in the next cycle. The larger outcome to watch is whether India treats these files as the beginning of a deliberate cultural diplomacy system, with repeatable formats and a diaspora network attached. If it does, the playbook will have earned its name. If not, it will remain a well-written announcement.
