Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Capacity Building
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention

2025 25 GA
2025 47 COM
2024 46 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 45 COM
2023 18 EXT.COM
2022 17 EXT.COM
2021 16 EXT.COM
2021 23 GA
2021 44 COM
2021 15 EXT.COM
2020 14 EXT.COM
2019 13 EXT.COM
2019 22 GA
2019 43 COM
2018 42 COM
2017 12 EXT.COM
2017 21 GA
2017 41 COM
2016 40 COM
2015 11 EXT.COM
2015 20 GA
2015 39 COM
2014 1 EXT.GA
2014 38 COM
2013 19 GA
2013 37 COM
2012 36 COM
2011 10 EXT.COM
2011 18 GA
2011 35 COM
2010 34 COM
2010 9 EXT.COM
2009 17 GA
2009 33 COM
2008 32 COM
2007 16 GA
2007 8 EXT.COM
2007 31 COM
2006 30 COM
2005 15 GA
2005 29 COM
2005 29 BUR
2004 7 EXT.COM
2004 7 EXT.BUR
2004 28 COM
2004 28 BUR
2003 14 GA
2003 27 COM
2003 27 BUR
2003 6 EXT.COM
2002 26 COM
2002 26 BUR
2001 25 COM
2001 25 EXT.BUR
2001 5 EXT.COM
2001 13 GA
2001 25 BUR
2000 24 COM
2000 24 EXT.BUR
2000 24 BUR(SPE)
2000 24 BUR
1999 23 COM
1999 23 EXT.BUR
1999 4 EXT.COM
1999 12 GA
1999 3 EXT.COM
1999 23 BUR
1998 22 COM
1998 22 EXT.BUR
1998 22 BUR
1997 21 COM
1997 21 EXT.BUR
1997 2 EXT.COM
1997 11 GA
1997 21 BUR
1996 20 COM
1996 20 EXT.BUR
1996 20 BUR
1995 19 COM
1995 19 EXT.BUR
1995 10 GA
1995 19 BUR
1994 18 COM
1994 18 EXT.BUR
1994 18 BUR
1993 17 COM
1993 17 EXT.BUR
1993 9 GA
1993 17 BUR
1992 16 COM
1992 16 BUR
1991 15 COM
1991 8 GA
1991 15 BUR
1990 14 COM
1990 14 BUR
1989 13 COM
1989 7 GA
1989 13 BUR
1988 12 COM
1988 12 BUR
1987 11 COM
1987 6 GA
1987 11 BUR
1986 10 COM
1986 10 BUR
1985 9 COM
1985 5 GA
1985 9 BUR
1984 8 COM
1984 8 BUR
1983 7 COM
1983 4 GA
1983 7 BUR
1982 6 COM
1982 6 BUR
1981 5 COM
1981 1 EXT.COM
1981 5 BUR
1980 3 GA
1980 4 COM
1980 4 BUR
1979 3 COM
1979 3 BUR
1979 2 BUR
1978 2 GA
1978 2 COM
1978 1 BUR
1977 1 COM
1976 1 GA

Decision 37 COM 8B.31
Hill Forts of Rajasthan (India)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Documents WHC-13/37.COM/8B.Add WHC-13/37.COM/INF.8B1.Add and WHC-13/37.COM/INF.8B4,

2.  Inscribes the Hill Forts of Rajasthan , India , on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii) ;

3.  Adopts the following Statement of Outstanding Universal Value:

Brief synthesis

Within the State of Rajasthan, six extensive and majestic hill forts together reflect the elaborate, fortified seats of power of Rajput princely states that flourished between the 8th and 18th centuries and their relative political independence.

The extensive fortifications up to 20 kilometres in circumference optimized various kinds of hill terrain, specifically the river at Gagron, the dense forests at Ranthambore, and the desert at Jaisalmer, and exhibit an important phase in the development of an architectural typology based on established “traditional Indian principles”. The vocabulary of architectural forms and of ornaments shares much common ground with other regional styles, such as Sultanate and Mughal architecture. Rajput style was not ‘unique’, but the particular manner in which Rajput architecture was eclectic (drawing inspiration from antecedents and neighbours) together with its degree of influence over later regional styles (such as Maratha architecture) do make it distinctive.

Within the defensive walls of the forts, the architecture of palaces and other buildings reflects their role as centres of courtly culture, and places of patronage for learning arts and music. As well as housing for the court and military guard, most had extensive urban settlements within their walls, some of which have persisted to the present day. And some also had mercantile centres as the forts were centres of production and of distribution and trade that formed the basis of their wealth. Most of the forts had temples or sacred buildings, some pre-dating the fortifications and outliving the Rajput kingdoms, and many of these remarkable collections of buildings still attract followers. Collectively the forts contain extensive water harvesting structures, many of which are still in use.

As a former capital of the Sisodia clan and the target of three famous historical sieges, Chittorgarh is strongly associated with Rajput history and folk lore. Furthermore the sheer number and variety of architectural remains of early date (ranging from the 8th to the 16th centuries) mark it as an exceptional fort in its scale and monumentality comparable to very few other Indian forts.  Kumbhalgarh was constructed in a single process and (apart from the palace of Fateh Singh, added later) retains its architectural coherence. Its design is attributed to an architect known by name –Mandan – who was also an author and theorist at the court of Rana Kumbha in Chittorgarh. This combination of factors is highly exceptional. Situated in the middle of forest, Ranthambore is an established example of forest hill fort and in addition, the remains of the palace of Hammir are among the oldest surviving structures of an Indian palace. Gagron is an exemplar of a river-protected fort. In addition its strategic location in a pass in the hills reflects it control of trade routes. Amber Palace is representative of a key phase (17th century) in the development of a common Rajput-Mughal court style, embodied in the buildings and gardens added to Amber by Mirza Raja Jai Singh I.  Jaisalmer is an example a hill fort in desert terrain. The extensive township contained within it from the outset, still inhabited today, and the group of Jain temples, make it an important (and in some respects even unique) example of a sacred and secular (urban) fort.

Criterion (ii): The Hill Forts of Rajasthan exhibit an important interchange of Princely Rajput ideologies in fort planning, art and architecture from the early medieval to late medieval period, within the varied physiographic and cultural zones of Rajasthan. Although Rajput architecture shared much common ground with other regional styles, such as Sultanate and Mughal architecture, it was eclectic, drawing inspiration from antecedents and neighbours, and had a degree of influence over later regional styles such as Maratha architecture.

Criterion (iii) : The series of six massive hill forts are architectural manifestations of Rajput valour, bravery, feudalism and cultural traditions, documented in several historic texts and paintings of the medieval and late medieval period in India. Their elaborate fortifications, built to protect not only garrisons for defence but also palatial buildings, temples, and urban centres, and their distinctive Rajput architecture, are an exceptional testimony to the cultural traditions of the ruling Rajput clans and to their patronage of religion, arts and literature in the region of Rajasthan over several centuries.


As a series, the six components together form a complete and coherent group that amply demonstrate the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value, without depending on future additions to the series.

When considered as individual components, Chittorgarh and Ranthambore include all relevant elements to present their local, fort-related significances. However, ICOMOS is concerned about the surrounding development and industrial activities around Chittorgarh Fort, in particular the pollution and landscape impact of the nearby quarries, cement factories and zinc smelting plants, which, if continued or even expanded, have the potential to adversely affect the property.

The wider setting of Chittorgarh is vulnerable to urban development as well as industrial and mining activities that cause notable air pollution.  At Jaisalmer the wider setting and views to and from the fort could be vulnerable to certain types of urban development in the surrounding town. While at Gagron the setting could be under threat from unregulated construction.

Within the forts, there are acknowledged development pressures derived from continued encroachment and enlargement of residential communities. The stability of the overall hill on which Jaisalmer rests is vulnerable to water seepage as a result of the lack of adequate infrastructure.


As a series, the six sites have the capacity to demonstrate all the outstanding facets of Rajput forts between the 8th and 18th centuries. Each of the sites is necessary for the series.

For the individual forts, although the structures at each of the sites adequately convey their value, some are vulnerable. The original exterior plaster at Amber Fort and Gagron Fort has been replaced, which has caused a loss of historic material and patina. At Chittorgarh and Kumbhalgarh Forts, there are structures in a state of progressive decay or collapse, which are vulnerable to losing their authenticity in material, substance, workmanship and design. At Jaisalmer within the urban area, individual buildings are in need of improved conservation approaches.

Protection and Management requirements

Chittorgarh, Kumbhalgarh, Ranthambore and Jaisalmer Forts are protected as Monuments of National Importance of India under the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act of 1951 (No. LXXI of 1951 (AMASR)) and the AMASR Amendment of 2010. They were listed in 1951 (Kumbhalgarh, Ranthambore and Jaisalmer) and in 1956 (Chittorgarh) respectively. The 1951 national legislation provides unlimited protection to the monuments designated in its framework and the 2010 amendment establishes a 200 metre protection zone around the area of the designated Monuments of National Importance.

Gagron and Amber Forts are designated as State Protected Monuments of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Antiquities Act of 1968. They were both listed in the very year the act was adopted. The 1968 Act stipulates that no person, including the owner of the property, can carry out any construction, restoration or excavation work, unless permission has been granted by the responsible state authorities. In the case of Amber Palace an additional notification for the protection of a 50 metre buffer zone around the property has been issued. All sites have buffer zones designated, but there is a need for clearer planning policies for these in order to regulate development.

The overall management of the six properties is steered by the State Level Apex Advisory Committee, which was established through Order A&C/2011/3949 on 11 of May 2011. It is chaired by the Chief Secretary of Rajasthan and comprises members of the concerned ministries, namely Environment & Forests, Urban Development and Housing, Tourism, Art, Literature & Culture, Energy and various representatives of the heritage sector including the ASI. The Apex Advisory Committee meets on a quarterly basis and is designed to constitute the overall management framework of the serial property, guide the local management of the six serial components, coordinate cross-cutting initiatives, share research and documentation, share conservation and management practices and address the requirements of common interpretative resources.

To implement the recommendations of the Apex Advisory Committee, the Amber Development and Management Authority, acts as an overarching authority for management implementation. This was legalized through notification by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan dated 14 October 2011.

There are Management Plans designed to cover the period 2011 to 2015 for five of the six sites. For Jaisalmer, the Management Plan for the property along with sub-plans including visitor management, risk preparedness, and livelihood generation for the local population, will be completed by end of 2013. There is a need for policy statements in the Plans to reference Outstanding Universal Value and for more detailed action plans to be produced for the implementation of the management policies, as well as for indicators for management quality assurance during the implementation processes. For the first revision of the Plans, it would be desirable to provide an over-arching volume for the whole series that sets out agreed approaches.

To reverse the vulnerabilities of certain individual structures within the forts, there is a need for short-term conservation actions. For Jaisalmer, there is a need to ensure the major conservation project for infrastructure and conservation of individual buildings is delivered according to the agreed timescale. Conservation of the extremely extensive fortifications and ensembles of palaces, temples and other buildings will call for extensive skills and resources. A capacity building strategy to raise awareness of the importance and value of these skills, as part of an approach to livelihood generation, could be considered.

In order to ensure a clear understanding of how each of the forts contributes to the series as a whole, there is a need for improved interpretation as part of an interpretation strategy for the overall series.

4.  Requests the State Party to submit, by 1 February 2015 , a State of Conservation Report to the World Heritage Centre, reporting on progress with the conservation project at Jaisalmer, and conservation work at Chittorgarh and Kumbhalgarh Forts, to be examined by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015.

Decision Code
37 COM 8B.31
Inscriptions on the World Heritage List, Outstanding Universal Value
States Parties 1
Decisions Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th Session (Phnom Penh, 2013)
Context of Decision