In July 2025, during the 47th session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in Paris, Nepal’s bid to inscribe Tilaurakot, identified as the ancient capital of the Shakya kingdom and the childhood home of Gautama Buddha, on the UNESCO World Heritage List ended in disappointment. Despite decades of archaeological research, diplomatic efforts, and a renewed push since 2023, the nomination was deferred based on a recommendation from the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), UNESCO’s advisory body for cultural heritage. This article explores the reasons behind this setback, highlighting archaeological, diplomatic, geopolitical, and administrative factors that contributed to the failure, while critically examining the broader implications for Nepal’s heritage aspirations.
Evidence and concerns
Tilaurakot, located in Nepal’s Kapilvastu district, has been the subject of extensive archaeological work since the 1970s, with significant excavations led by K.M. Srivastava and, more recently, by Professor Robin Coningham of Durham University since 2014. These efforts, supported by the UNESCO Japanese Funds-in-Trust, uncovered a well-planned city with a grid layout, ramparts, moats, and a monumental 100×100-meter administrative complex, dating back to the 6th century BCE—aligned with the lifetime of the Buddha. Notable finds include 494 “punch mark” coins from 2015, remnants of houses, roads, wells, and pottery from the 11th to 8th centuries BCE, providing evidence of early urbanization. These discoveries bolstered Nepal’s claim that Tilaurakot is the ancient Kapilvastu, as described by Chinese pilgrims Faxian and Xuanzang.
However, ICOMOS recommended deferral, citing concerns about the site’s authenticity and the sufficiency of evidence linking Tilaurakot definitively to Kapilvastu. The nearly 1,000-page nomination dossier, prepared by Australian heritage expert Duncan Marshall and supported by experts like Coningham and Kai Weise, failed to fully address ICOMOS’s rigorous criteria for Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Specifically, ICOMOS questioned whether the archaeological evidence was conclusive enough to distinguish Tilaurakot from competing claims, notably India’s Piprahawa site. Himal Upreti, chief archaeology officer of the Lumbini Development Trust, noted that ICOMOS’s scrutiny of “minute details” exposed gaps in the dossier’s ability to counter these doubts, suggesting that Nepal may have underestimated the level of documentation required.
India’s competing claim
A significant obstacle to Tilaurakot’s nomination was India’s competing claim that Piprahawa, in Uttar Pradesh, is the true Kapilvastu. India, a powerful member of the 21-nation World Heritage Committee (which includes Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Morocco, Qatar, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Tajikistan, Türkiye, and United Arab Emirates), reportedly expressed reservations during the Paris session. These concerns, amplified by India’s own nomination of Piprahawa on UNESCO’s tentative list, likely influenced ICOMOS’s recommendation and the Committee’s decision to defer Tilaurakot’s inscription.
The India-Nepal rivalry over Kapilvastu reflects broader geopolitical dynamics. India’s significant voting influence within UNESCO and its strategic interest in promoting its Buddhist tourism circuit, including sites like Sarnath and Bodh Gaya, may have overshadowed Nepal’s bid. The absence of a joint India-Nepal nomination for Tilaurakot and Piprahawa as a transboundary site, as suggested by some experts, further weakened Nepal’s case, as such collaborations have precedent in UNESCO’s history (e.g., the Silk Roads sites).
Diplomatic shortcomings
Nepal’s diplomatic efforts were inadequate to navigate the complex politics of UNESCO nominations. The nomination dossier, submitted on January 31, 2025, by Nepal’s permanent representative to UNESCO was prepared under time pressure, limiting its ability to address ICOMOS’s earlier concerns from a 2021 deferral. Experts emphasized that Nepal failed to engage in proactive diplomacy, such as securing endorsements from other Committee members or addressing India’s reservations in advance. The Lumbini Development Trust’s efforts to lobby Asian Committee members (Japan, South Korea, India, Qatar, and Kazakhstan) were last-minute and insufficient to counter India’s influence.
The absence of a coordinated state-level strategy was a critical flaw. The nomination required “coordinated state-level engagement,” beyond the efforts of the Lumbini Development Trust and the Department of Archaeology. Nepal’s failure to build a coalition of support or propose a joint nomination with India missed an opportunity to strengthen its case, as transboundary nominations can mitigate competing claims and enhance regional cooperation.
India’s significant voting influence within UNESCO and its strategic interest in promoting its Buddhist tourism circuit, including sites like Sarnath and Bodh Gaya, may have overshadowed Nepal’s bid.
Domestic administrative issues further undermined Nepal’s bid. The preparation of the nomination dossier was rushed, with inadequate coordination between the Lumbini Development Trust, the Department of Archaeology, and international experts. Despite significant investments in site beautification—such as demolishing a concrete liaison office, compensating 37 households in Shivagadh village, and constructing a wooden walkway—the dossier failed to address key ICOMOS recommendations, such as clarifying site boundaries and improving the management plan. The Kathmandu Post reported frustration among experts and locals, who felt that three years of effort and resources were wasted due to poor planning.
Broader implications
The UNESCO World Heritage selection process, while designed to be rigorous, can be subjective and influenced by political dynamics. ICOMOS’s emphasis on “undisputed” evidence and authenticity may disadvantage sites like Tilaurakot, where archaeological data is substantial but contested due to cross-border claims. The reliance on Western-dominated advisory bodies like ICOMOS may also introduce biases, as their standards often prioritize written records over oral traditions prevalent in South Asia. The deferral of Tilaurakot, despite its significance as a potential site of the Buddha’s childhood, underscores the challenges of securing recognition for sites with complex historical narratives.
What should Nepal do?
Despite the setback, experts remain optimistic about Tilaurakot’s future. Senior archaeologist Basanta Bidari noted that Lumbini itself faced two failed nominations before its inscription in 1997, emphasizing the importance of persistence. To succeed, Nepal must:
- Strengthen Archaeological Evidence: Address ICOMOS’s concerns by providing more robust documentation and countering competing claims through comparative analysis.
- Enhance Diplomacy: Engage in proactive lobbying, secure endorsements from Committee members, and explore a joint nomination with India to resolve the Kapilvastu dispute.
- Improve Coordination: Streamline efforts between the Lumbini Development Trust, the Department of Archaeology, and international experts to produce a comprehensive dossier.
- Refine the Management Plan: Clarify site boundaries, enhance conservation strategies, and ensure sustainable tourism practices to meet UNESCO’s requirements.
The deferral of Tilaurakot’s UNESCO World Heritage nomination in July 2025 reflects a confluence of archaeological ambiguities, geopolitical tensions, diplomatic failures, and administrative shortcomings. India’s competing claim to Piprahawa, Nepal’s weak diplomacy, and an insufficiently robust dossier were pivotal in ICOMOS’s recommendation to defer. The setback underscores the challenges smaller nations face in UNESCO’s politicized and resource-intensive process. Yet, with its rich archaeological record and global cultural significance, Tilaurakot remains a strong candidate for future inscription. By addressing these challenges strategically, Nepal can strengthen its bid and affirm its place in the global narrative of Buddhist heritage.
Comment