Heritage and Culture in Public Policy: A Comparative Reading of the Union Budget 2026–27 and Odisha Budget 2026–27 in a Global Cultural Policy Context

Public budgets rarely speak directly about culture. Fiscal documents are primarily instruments of economic governance; they allocate funds for infrastructure, agriculture, welfare, defence, and employment generation. Culture, by contrast, tends to manifest in a scattered, indirect manner—through tourism schemes, museum construction, preservation grants, or educational initiatives. Yet these references, however brief, are deeply revealing. They indicate how a government perceives its past, how it seeks to frame collective identity, and how cultural memory is positioned within national and regional development strategies.

The Union Budget 2026–27 and the Odisha Budget 2026–27 provide a particularly instructive case for examining this dynamic. Both documents contain explicit references to heritage and culture, yet they frame these domains in distinct ways. At the national level, the Union Budget situates culture within the framework of civilisational identity and heritage tourism, proposing the transformation of archaeological landscapes into curated public destinations. At the state level, the Odisha Budget approaches culture through sacred geography, regional identity, and institutional heritage infrastructure such as museums, academies, and heritage schools. Despite these differences, both budgets share a common policy logic: cultural heritage is increasingly recognized as an economic and developmental asset, yet it remains insufficiently integrated into knowledge systems, including research, documentation, and interdisciplinary scholarship.

This tension between heritage as infrastructure and heritage as knowledge lies at the heart of contemporary cultural policy debates worldwide. As governments attempt to leverage heritage for tourism, regional development, and international visibility, they must also confront the challenge of sustaining the intellectual and cultural ecosystems that give heritage its meaning. Without documentation, interpretation, and scholarly engagement, cultural heritage risks being reduced to a visual spectacle—valuable for attracting visitors but disconnected from the deeper historical narratives and knowledge traditions that shaped it.

The Union Budget and the Odisha Budget, therefore, offer an opportunity to examine how cultural policy is evolving in India. By comparing these budgets with international models of cultural governance, it becomes possible to assess both their achievements and their limitations.

Cultural Heritage and Development: The Global Context

Over the last three decades, cultural heritage has increasingly been recognised as a significant driver of economic development and social cohesion. International organisations such as UNESCO and the OECD have played a crucial role in promoting this perspective. The 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage established a global framework for identifying and preserving sites of outstanding universal value. Since then, the concept of heritage has expanded considerably to include cultural landscapes, intangible traditions, and community knowledge systems.

The economic dimension of heritage has become particularly prominent in policy discourse. Cultural tourism now represents one of the fastest-growing sectors of the global tourism industry. Studies by UNESCO and tourism research organisations consistently estimate that roughly forty percent of international tourism activity is motivated by cultural experiences. These include visits to historic monuments, museums, archaeological sites, festivals, and traditional communities. The global heritage tourism market has grown rapidly in recent years, reaching hundreds of billions of dollars in annual economic activity and supporting millions of jobs worldwide.

Governments have responded to these trends by integrating heritage preservation with tourism planning and regional development strategies. Cultural districts, heritage corridors, and museum networks have become common policy tools. In many countries, heritage investments are justified not only in terms of cultural preservation but also as mechanisms for economic revitalisation, particularly in regions facing industrial decline or demographic change.

Yet this approach has also generated significant policy challenges. Scholars of cultural heritage management have warned that excessive emphasis on tourism can threaten the very cultural assets it seeks to promote. Overcrowding, environmental degradation, and the commodification of cultural practices are now widely recognised as risks associated with unmanaged tourism growth. Sustainable heritage management therefore requires a delicate balance between economic development, conservation, and community participation.

International cultural policy models illustrate how different countries have attempted to navigate this balance. France, for example, has long treated culture as a central function of the state. The French Ministry of Culture supports not only museums and monuments but also research institutions, archival networks, and artistic production. Archaeological excavations are systematically documented and integrated into national heritage databases, ensuring that heritage preservation is accompanied by rigorous scholarship.

The United Kingdom offers another influential model. Organisations such as Historic England and the National Trust combine heritage conservation with extensive public engagement programmes, digital archives, and community participation initiatives. Funding mechanisms like the Heritage Lottery Fund support local heritage projects, enabling communities to document and interpret their own histories.

Japan’s cultural policy places particular emphasis on intangible heritage. The government recognises master artisans and performers as “Living National Treasures,” providing financial support to ensure that traditional crafts and performing arts are transmitted to future generations. South Korea, meanwhile, has pioneered digital heritage initiatives, including large-scale 3D documentation of historic monuments and open-access cultural databases.

These international examples highlight a crucial principle: effective cultural policy must integrate infrastructure, knowledge systems, and community participation. Heritage sites, museums, and cultural institutions form the visible layer of cultural governance, but they depend on deeper networks of research, documentation, and education.

Heritage in the Union Budget 2026–27

The Union Budget 2026–27 represents a significant moment in India’s evolving cultural policy. The government announced an ambitious initiative to transform fifteen archaeological sites across the country into experiential cultural destinations. These sites include important locations associated with ancient civilisations and historical traditions, such as Lothal, Dholavira, Rakhigarhi, Sarnath, Hastinapur, and Leh Palace. The policy proposal envisions the development of curated walkways, interpretation centres, conservation laboratories, and immersive storytelling technologies designed to make archaeological landscapes more accessible and engaging for visitors.

This initiative reflects a broader shift in the way heritage is being conceptualised within national policy. For many decades, archaeological sites in India were managed primarily as conservation zones under the Archaeological Survey of India. Visitor access was limited, and interpretive infrastructure was minimal. The new policy framework attempts to move beyond this model by integrating conservation with interpretation and tourism development.

One of the most notable aspects of the proposal is its emphasis on storytelling and visitor engagement. Modern heritage management increasingly recognises that historical sites require interpretive frameworks that help visitors understand their significance. Interpretation centres, guided tours, and digital media are now widely used around the world to translate archaeological research into public knowledge. By incorporating these elements into site development, the Union Budget acknowledges the importance of narrative mediation in heritage presentation.

At the same time, the initiative situates heritage within a broader economic strategy. Cultural tourism has been identified as a key sector for job creation and regional development. By transforming archaeological sites into experiential destinations, the government aims to attract both domestic and international visitors, thereby stimulating local economies.

However, the initiative also reveals certain limitations. While interpretation centres and conservation laboratories are proposed, there is relatively little discussion of large-scale research funding, digital heritage databases, or interdisciplinary scholarship. In other words, heritage is experienced but not fully institutionalised as a knowledge ecosystem.

Cultural Policy in the Odisha Budget 2026–27

The Odisha Budget 2026–27 approaches cultural policy from a regional perspective shaped by the state’s unique historical and religious landscape. While the Union Budget focuses on archaeological heritage, Odisha’s cultural initiatives are anchored in sacred geography, performing arts traditions, and linguistic identity.

One of the most significant announcements in the Budget is the proposal to establish a world-class Shree Jagannath Interpretation Centre in Puri. The project is accompanied by restoration efforts at Gundicha Temple, Emar Math, Pramod Udyan, and the historic Raghunandan Library. These initiatives highlight the central role of the Jagannath tradition in Odisha’s cultural identity.

The Jagannath Temple in Puri is not only a major pilgrimage destination but also a cultural institution that has shaped the state’s literature, music, ritual practices, and social traditions for centuries. By introducing an interpretation centre, the government aims to provide visitors with a structured understanding of this complex cultural ecosystem.

The Budget also proposes the creation of a world-class museum in Bhubaneswar and the establishment of the Mayurbhanj Chhau Academy. Chhau, a martial dance form from northern Odisha, represents an important component of the state’s intangible heritage. Institutional support for this art form reflects recognition of the need to preserve living traditions alongside historical monuments.

Another noteworthy initiative is the Aitihya Vidyalaya programme, which seeks to revitalise heritage Odia-medium schools as centres of excellence. The explicit objective of this programme is to strengthen “Odia Asmita,” or regional cultural identity.

Taken together, these initiatives reveal a cultural policy built around three interrelated themes: sacred heritage, performing arts traditions, and linguistic identity.

Yet, similar to the Union Budget, the Odisha Budget emphasises physical infrastructure rather than knowledge systems. Museums and academies are announced, but there is little mention of research programmes, archival digitisation, or anthropological documentation.

Comparative Insights

When the Union Budget and Odisha Budget are examined together, an interesting pattern emerges. Both recognise the importance of cultural heritage as a developmental resource, yet both remain primarily focused on infrastructure and tourism.

The Union Budget adopts a national civilisational narrative centred on archaeological sites and ancient history. The Odisha Budget emphasises regional identity and sacred geography. Despite these differences, both frameworks share a common limitation: they treat heritage primarily as a cultural asset rather than as a knowledge system requiring sustained research and documentation.

Heritage as Knowledge Infrastructure

The comparison with international models suggests that the next stage of cultural policy in India must involve a shift from heritage infrastructure to heritage knowledge systems. Museums, interpretation centres, and tourism projects are important, but they must be supported by research institutions, digital archives, and academic scholarship. Anthropologists, historians, linguists, and community scholars play a crucial role in documenting cultural traditions and interpreting historical evidence. Without these knowledge networks, heritage sites risk becoming static displays rather than sources of intellectual engagement.

The Union Budget 2026–27 and the Odisha Budget 2026–27 both demonstrate a growing recognition of culture as an important component of public policy. Heritage sites, museums, and cultural institutions are increasingly integrated into tourism and development strategies.

However, the deeper challenge remains unresolved. Cultural heritage cannot be sustained through infrastructure alone.

Sustainable cultural ecosystems require research, documentation, language preservation, and community participation. Until budgets begin to invest systematically in these knowledge systems, cultural policy will continue to operate primarily at the level of monuments rather than meanings.