What are Maratha Military Landscapes of India? All about the sites getting inscribed on UNESCO World Heritage List
Among the 12 components of 'Maratha Military Landscapes' include – Salher Fort, Shivneri Fort, Lohgad, Khanderi Fort, Raigad, Rajgad, Pratapgad, Suvarnadurg, Panhala Fort, Vijay Durg, and Sindhudurg in Maharashtra, and Gingee Fort in Tamil Nadu.
These components, distributed across diverse geographical and physiographic regions, showcase the strategic military powers of the Maratha rule, Indian officials had earlier said.
Following the inscription, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Culture Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat along with Chief Minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis lauded the historic milestone.
Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis says, "I congratulate the followers of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj on the recognition of his 12 forts as UNESCO World Heritage sites. I thank PM Modi for nominating these forts...I am confident that these forts will now attract more tourists, and our rich cultural heritage and history will be known across the world."
The 12 forts of the 'Maratha Military Landscapes' demonstrates the strategic military vision and architectural ingenuity of the Maratha Empire. They span from the 17th to 19th centuries CE.
Spread across the states of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, the selected sites, include Salher, Shivneri, Lohgad, Khanderi, Raigad, Rajgad, Pratapgad, Suvarnadurg, Panhala, Vijaydurg, and Sindhudurg in Maharashtra, along with Gingee Fort in Tamil Nadu.
The Shivneri fort, Lohgad, Raigad, Suvarnadurg, Panhala fort, Vijaydurg, Sindhudurg and Gingee fort are protected under the Archaeological Survey of India.
While Salher fort, Rajgad, Khanderi fort and Pratapgarh are protected by the Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Maharashtra.
These forts reflect a sophisticated understanding of geography and strategic defence planning.
According to the details, the Salher, Shivneri, Lohgad, Raigad, Rajgad, and Gingee are situated in hilly terrains and are therefore known as hill forts. On the contrary, Pratapgad, nestled within dense woods, is classified as a hill-forest fort.
Located on a plateaued hill, Panhala is a hill-plateau fort. Vijaydurg, positioned along the shoreline, is a notable coastal fort, while Khanderi, Suvarnadurg, and Sindhudurg, surrounded by the sea, are recognized as island forts.
The Indian government in a statement said that India ranks 6th globally and 2nd in Asia Pacific Region for the most number of World Heritage Sites. India also has 62 sites in the Tentative List of the World Heritage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
23 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Donald Trump claims ‘five jets shot down' during India-Pakistan conflict
United States President Donald Trump on Friday claimed that five jets were shot down during the conflict between India and Pakistan in May, reported ANI. He also repeated his claim that Washington had helped settle the tensions between the two countries. New Delhi has in the past rejected Trump's assertions about the role of the US in halting the firings. 'In fact, planes were being shot out of the air,' the US president was quoted as saying at a White House dinner with Republican lawmakers. 'Five, five, four or five, but I think five jets were shot down actually.' He did not specify which countries the aircraft belonged to. #WATCH | Washington, D.C.: US President Donald Trump says, "We stopped a lot of wars. And these were serious, India and Pakistan, that was going on. Planes were being shot out of there. I think five jets were shot down, actually. These are two serious nuclear countries, and they… — ANI (@ANI) July 18, 2025 Tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad had escalated on May 7 when the Indian military carried out strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on what it claimed were terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The strikes were in response to the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which killed 26 persons on April 22. The Pakistan Army retaliated to Indian strikes by repeatedly shelling Indian villages along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. At least 22 Indian civilians and seven defence personnel were killed. On May 10, India and Pakistan reached an 'understanding' to halt firing following a four-day conflict. India has acknowledged suffering losses during the initial phase of the conflict, but has not disclosed the number of aircraft lost. On May 31, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan made remarks that some interpreted as an indirect acknowledgement of aircraft losses by the Indian Air Force during the conflict, when he said that what was important was 'not the jet being down, but why they were being down'. 'Why they were down, what mistakes were made – that are important,' Chauhan told Bloomberg. ' Numbers are not important.' He had also said that Pakistan's claims of having shot down six Indian Air Force fighter jets were 'absolutely incorrect'. On June 10, Captain Shiv Kumar, India's defence attaché to Indonesia, said that the Indian Air Force had lost fighter jets to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor on May 7 because of the ' constraint given by the political leadership'. 'Suppression of enemy air defences and destruction of enemy air defences is very very important…' Kumar said. 'I may not agree…that India lost so many aircraft, but I do agree we did lose some aircraft.' He added: 'And that happened only because of the constraint given by the political leadership to not attack the military establishment or [Pakistani] air defences'. Kumar had said that the tactics were changed after the loss and 'we went for their military installations'. He made the statement in response to Pakistan's claim of having downed six aircraft, including three Rafales. The claims made by Islamabad have not been independently verified. On July 7, Defence Secretary RK Singh said that it was incorrect to say that multiple Rafale jets of the Indian Air Force were shot down by Pakistan. 'You have used the term Rafales in the plural, I can assure you that is absolutely not correct,' Singh told CNBC-TV18. 'Pakistan suffered losses many times over India in both human and material terms and more than 100 terrorists.' On its part, Pakistan has publicly claimed it shot down Indian fighter jets during air-to-air combat, Al Jazeera reported. While Islamabad denied losing any of its aircraft, it acknowledged that several of its airbases were struck during the hostilities. New Delhi had announced its decision to stop military action with Islamabad minutes after Trump claimed on social media that India and Pakistan had agreed to the ceasefire. The US president has repeatedly claimed credit for brokering the ceasefire between the two countries. However, India has said that the decision to stop firing was taken bilaterally and that there was no intervention by the US. Congress demands Modi's statement On Saturday, the Congress demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi make a statement in Parliament after Trump's claim of five jets having been shot down. Party leader Jairam Ramesh stated that Trump has repeated claims about brokering peace between the two countries for the 24th time now. 'The sensational new revelation by President Trump this time around is that five jets may have been downed,' Ramesh said. 'The prime minister, who has had years of friendship and huglomacy with President Trump going back to 'Howdy Modi' in September 2019 and 'Namaste Trump' in February 2020, has to now himself make a clear and categorical statement in Parliament on what President Trump has been claiming over the past 70 days," the Congress leader added. Just two days before the Monsoon Session of Parliament begins, the Trump missile gets fired for the 24th time with the same two messages: 1. The US stopped the war between India and Pakistan, two countries that have nuclear weapons 2. No trade deal if the war continued. So if… — Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) July 19, 2025
Scroll.in
23 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Readers' comments: Kerala HC's recognition of trans family is progressive but precarious
The piece thoughtfully captured the Kerala High Court's progressive judgement recognising the right of a transgender couple to be recorded as 'parents' instead of 'mother' or 'father' on their child's birth certificate (' How a landmark Kerala High Court judgment recognised the existence of transgender families '). The judgement not only reaffirmed the right of transgender persons to self-identify, but also takes it beyond: into the intimate and deeply social realm of parenthood and partnership. By allowing the transgender partners to be designated with a gender-neutral parental identity, the judgment simultaneously upheld the dignity of transgender lives while resisting the bureaucratic violence embedded in documentation procedures. Nonetheless, a critical dimension that remained underexplored was how the construct of 'parenthood' itself is essentially binary. The court providing for a gender-neutral term like 'parent' marks a significant rupture. However, it still operates within a context where the very idea of parenting is saturated with heteronormative, cis-gendered expectations that are culturally disseminated along a male/female axis. Even the need to petition for neutral recognition reflects how deeply entrenched the binary structure of parenthood is. While the ruling opens new possibilities, it also reveals the urgent need to rethink how the law and society continue to articulate childcare, family, and partnership through a gender-essentialist lens. A need for an intersectional analysis of transgender rights also emerges, one that would engage with how caste, class, disability, or religion may intersect with trans parenthood to create compounded vulnerabilities. The ruling also exposes the uneven terrain of legal reform in India, where constitutional jurisprudence outpaces policy implementation. The judgement heavily relies on judicial interpretation in the absence of adequate legislative reform. Clearly, birth registration forms and state procedures still do not accommodate gender-neutral or non-binary categories systemically. As such, while the judgment is progressive, it is also precarious: it remains dependent on the discretion of sympathetic judges and the political will of administrative actors. This indicates that without structural changes to registration norms, policy frameworks and civil service training, transgender parents and their children will continue to face systemic apathy. The judgement's full potential will only be realised through generating a broader jurisprudence that looks at childcare, partnership and family through the lens of lived, complex, and queer realities. – Swarupa Deb *** The Kerala High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on the rights of the transgender community and respectable living in Indian society. It is also significant that the couple's interfaith marriage did not spark false allegations 'jihad' of any sort. The judge's acumen in understanding the difficulties faced by trans individuals and delivering a thoughtful ruling deserves praise. This was a perceptive story by Vineet Bhalla. Thank you, Scroll for such in depth stories. – Naresh Dev Anti-India article on Indus Water Treaty India has given away three major Rivers with 80% of the water in India's river system to Pakistan while retaining only one major river – Sutlej (' How the river flows: There is another way the Indus Water Treaty could help defeat terror '). Pakistan, as a lower riparian state, gets most of the water. China contributes little to the Brahmaputra water, most of which comes from India, Nepal and Bhutan. Always publishing anti-Indian articles doesn't make you fair. Scroll is being unfair by making irrelevant comparisons. It is no wonder you need help from people. – N Kanakasabhai
Hans India
23 minutes ago
- Hans India
India will enter trade deals only if they're in country's interest: Piyush Goyal
Mumbai: Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal on Saturday said that India will enter international trade agreements only if they serve the country's interests. Addressing the media during an event organised by leading industry chamber Assocham here, the minister said if India gets a good trade deal, it will go ahead with it. Goyal said that negotiations with the US are ongoing, adding that trade deals would materialise only if these are in the country's larger interests. "If it doesn't happen, we will not do it. India always puts the country's interest first," the minister asserted. India and the US teams have concluded the fifth round of talks for the proposed bilateral trade agreement (BTA) in Washington this week. The negotiations were held for four days in Washington, DC. India's chief negotiator and special secretary in the Department of Commerce, Rajesh Agrawal, lead the team for negotiations. He further stated that India has huge domestic demand. "We have imports coming into the country which can be replaced by developing domestic industry to scale for high-quality production," said the minister. Addressing a gathering of industry leaders and entrepreneurs during the event, the minister emphasised the importance of mindset change in the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) sector. He called for a shift towards collective growth and mutual cooperation between small and large companies. 'We need a change in goals, guidance and mindset. Big or small, companies have to grow together. We have to support each other and be vocal for local interests," he highlighted. He also emphasised the need for focus on research, innovation, quality and expansion by MSMEs to compete globally. The minister urged MSME stakeholders to proactively inform the government about non-tariff barriers that are impacting their businesses. 'Only when you inform us, we can take up these issues during bilateral discussions and work towards their resolution," Goyal told the industry leaders. Dwelling on the macroeconomic framework, the minister compared the current banking system with the tenure of the previous UPA government. He said the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government has successfully restructured the banking sector. 'During the UPA regime, the banking sector was in shambles due to rising non-performing assets (NPAs). We have restructured it in a transparent manner. Today, the banking system is strong and performing well,' said the minister.
