RED FORT AND POLICY OF PRIVATIZATION

A research project submitted in partial fulfilment of the course ECONOMICS-I,

3rd semester during the Academic year 2019-2020

SUBMITTED BY

Abhishek kumar

Roll no. 1906 B.A.LL.B

(Hons.)

SUBMITTED TO

Dr. Shivani Mohan

Assistant Professor, Economics- I

SEPTEMBER, 2019

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR MITHAPUR,

PATNA-800001

1|Page
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A.LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled “Red

Fort and Policy of Privatization” submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is

an authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of Dr. Shivani Mohan. I have

not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the

contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

ABHISHEK KUMAR

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

06/09/2019

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A project is a joint endeavour which is to be accomplished with utmost compassion,

diligence and with support of all. Gratitude is a noble response of one’s soul to kindness or
help generously rendered by another and its acknowledgement is the duty and joyance. I
am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge from the bottom of
my heart to all those who have helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of
simplicity and into something concrete effectively and moreover on time.

This project would not have been completed without combined effort of my revered
Economics- I teacher Prof. Dr. Shivani Mohan whose support and guidance was the
driving force to successfully complete this project. I express my heartfelt gratitude to her.
Thanks are also due to my parents, family, siblings, my dear friends and all those who
helped me in this project in any way. Last but not the least, I would like to express my
sincere gratitude to our teacher of Economics-I for providing us with such a golden
opportunity to showcase our talents. Also this project was instrumental in making me
understand more about the innovation and economic growth and the factors affecting it

Moreover, thanks to all those who helped me in any way be it words, presence,
encouragement or blessings…..

- Abhishek
- kumar

3rd Semester

- B.A LL.B (Hons.)

3
Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5
ADOPT HERITAGE SCHEME ..................................................................................................................... 7
PRIVATIZATION OF RED FORT ................................................................................................................. 9
MERITS AND DEMERITS OF POLICY OF PRIVATIZATION ....................................................................... 12
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................15

4
INTRODUCTION
The transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector is
called privatization. The government is no longer an entity or company owner.
The process by which listed companies are acquired by some people is also called
privatization. The company's shares are no longer traded on the stock market and the general
public cannot hold the company's shares. The company abandoned the name “Limited” and
started using “Private Limited” as the last name1.
The OECD, in its 2009 Report on good practices concerning privatisation in the 21st century,
offers the following definition: As privatisation may be considered any material transaction
by which the state’s ultimate ownership of corporate entities is reduced. » (2009:5). This
definition encompasses direct divestment by the state, divestment of corporate assets by
government-controlled investment vehicles and the dilution of state positions in State Owned
Enterprises (SOEs) by secondary share offerings to the non-state shareholders. Overall, “the
word privatisation is used to refer to a transfer of assets to the private sector rather than a
transfer of activities. (OECD, 2009).The methods of privatisation can be first divided into
two groups, depending on whether the privatisation is undertaken by the SOE itself or by the
state. Another distinction among privatisation methods is between a direct transfer of the
SOE to private ownership (an individual, a company or a closely held structure) and a listing
of the SOE on the stock markets. Four methods can be identified (OECD, 2009): The first
one is trade sales, which can be undertaken by private placement or by trade sale auctions.
Negotiated sales of entire SOEs to a preferred bidder are relatively uncommon in the OECD,
while it is more frequent to offer tranches of shares in already listed SOEs privately to groups
of preferred investors (Block Trades). SOEs can also be auctioned off en bloc to highest
bidder, generally private companies. A second method is share offerings, either initial public
offering of all or a tranche of the enterprise’s shares on a stock exchange, secondary public
offering, or offering via accelerated book building when the government charges a number of
financial intermediaries (investment banks) with placing tranches of shares of already listed
SOEs with institutional investors. A third method is management or employee buy-out. In
this case, SOEs can be sold to legal entities controlled by the incumbent staff and/or
management. Finally, the privatisation can be led by the SOE. This can be done through
capital increases, by issuing additional stock, thus diluting the government’s ownership share,
or through indirect privatisation. Another method is indirect privatisation, by the sale of

1
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/privatization

5
material assets by the SOE. In particular, privatisation occurs when wholly state-owned
enterprises under government instructions sell off their corporate assets, subsidiaries or
commercial activities. The method of privatisation will also depend on the local context. For
instance, initial public offering are more difficult to conduct in countries were capital markets
are underdeveloped. In such context, trade sales to foreign firms in similar industry may be a
better method.
In the early to mid-20th centuries the role of the government often became central in
infrastructure, with the emergence of national networks and the recognition of economies of
scale. By the 1950s, communication and energy networks were run by state enterprises in
most Western European countries. However, movements of liberalization and privatisation
started at the end of the 1970s. In developing countries these policies were promoted by the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
The central argument for privatisation was the belief that private sector ownership would
bring about efficiency gains by addressing the principal-agent problems of state ownership
via replacing state by private owners. It was also hoped to increase competition or
contestability in formerly monopolistic market structures. The overall results of this process
have however been mixed, both in terms of competition -as often the original incumbent has
retained a dominant position- and in terms of network expansion and access (Roland, 2008).
With regards to developing and transition countries, the tone of the privatisation debate has
shifted among the international financial institutions, acknowledging the difficulties of
implementation and some privatisation failures in the 1980s and 1990s. More emphasis is
now placed on creating the preconditions for successful privatisation. In particular, it is
suggested that governments first provide better regulatory and institutional framework, and
then that reforms should be tailor-made, with strategies for privatisation being adapted to
local conditions. As such, greater emphasis is now put on correct sequencing of reform and
establishing the preconditions for privatisation before actually starting the process. This
includes creating a strong prior legal development, ensuring a well-functioning capital market
is in place, as well as protection of consumer employee rights.
As Bognetti and Obermann note, recent debates around privatisation have taken two
directions. The first is based on the assumption that public enterprises are intrinsically
inefficient. Therefore while significant assets are in state hands, the overall allocation of
resources is inefficient, and marginal costs are too high. At an empirical level, several studies
have been conducted to establish whether private enterprise is more efficient than public, but,

6
as will be developed in section, no unambiguous conclusion has yet been reached, as the
outcomes are very context-specific. Theoretical research has focused on the organizational
features of the firm, using transaction costs, property rights and principal-agent theory as
analytical tools to compare the performance of private and public firms, and to assess the
differences in incentive structures and in managerial behaviour. The second debate is centred
on the issue of the benefits of a liberalization of the public utilities sector. This requires an
element of competition to guarantee lower costs and higher quality. One extreme position in
this debate is to opt for complete deregulation. That said, as Bognetti and Obermann write,
given the nature of the utilities industry, based upon networks and economies of scale, there
are unavoidable elements of natural monopoly which makes full deregulation/competition
impossible.

ADOPT HERITAGE SCHEME

India has always been recognized for its rich cultural heritage. India's glorious and cultural
past diversity forms a powerful mixture that attracts millions of tourists every year.
The rich heritage of destination India is abundantly reflected in the form of many temples,
Palaces, monuments, forts, etc. This has increased tourism in India, especially in
Heritage Site Tourism in India has registered considerable growth in recent years, since then
Government of India took additional initiative to enhance the image of India
destination for tourism. It also comes in the form of promoting the tourism sector as a brand.
Wonderful name India. Heritage sites face common construction-related challenges and
Operation and maintenance of assets of various infrastructure and services. there is one
There is a need to develop a robust mechanism for the provision of basic services
Basic and Advanced Long Term Services.The project plans to align with other infrastructure
development plans. Cooperation with Ministry of Culture and other ministries with the idea
of status tourism with the arrival of foreign tourists as a driving force to target domestic
tourists coherence in the development of services in arrivals, identified heritage sites,
Improvement of the overall tourist experience and economic development of the region.
Ministry of Tourism in close collaboration with Ministry of Culture and Archeological
Survey of India (ASI) envisages developing the heritage sites, monuments and any other

7
tourist sites by making them tourist-friendly to enhance the tourism potential and their
cultural importance, in a planned and phased manner2.
Objectives of the project are to:
 Develop basic tourism infrastructure in and around heritage monuments and any
other tourist sites.
 Inclusive tourist experience for heritage site / monument or tourist site.
 Promote cultural and heritage value of the country to generate livelihoods of local
communities of respective heritage site / monument/ tourist site.
 Enhance the tourist attractiveness in a sustainable manner by developing world class
infrastructure at heritage site / monument or tourist site.
 Create employment through active involvement of local communities.
 Harness tourism potential for its multiplier effects in employment generation and
economic development.
 Develop sustainable tourism infrastructure and ensuring proper Operations and
Maintenance therein.
Ministry of Tourism in close collaboration with Ministry of Tourism Culture and Archeology
Survey India (ASI) plans to provide world class tourist facilities in various heritage sites /.
Memorial or any other tourist place. Across the country. Apart from providing an inclusive
tourist will help to give due recognition to the experience and also to preserve the rich and
diverse Heritage throughout the country. ASI protects 3,686 ancient monuments per day and
Archaeological sites, including 36 World Heritage Sites, taking a look at net wealth,
Diversity and diversity in India. These monuments are an integral part of promoting tourism.
Attracting domestic and international tourists to the country. To exploit the real potential of
these monuments, we should provide basic and advanced services, lighting, night vision
Friendly use of structures, heritage sites with security and protection is allowed for tourists
ASI guidelines and overall better tourist experience resulting in growth
National and foreign tourist traffic. Heritage site / monument or any other tourist place is
selected on the basis of tourist tread and visibility. The project involves delivery of historical
sites and monuments adoption of public and private sector companies and individuals (known
as "Memorial Friend" for provision of basic services and complete operation and
maintenance) (O&M) Initially for 5 years at any time, subject to regular monitoring and
review of feedback mechanism of all interested parties including tourists.

2
https://www.adoptaheritage.in/pdf/Adopt-a-Heritage_Guidelines.pdf

8
The needs for heritage sites and the lack of existing service levels will be assessed.
Monuments and any other tourist sites that will be a joint practice of "proposed"
Smarak Mitra "With Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Culture and ASI. Proposal."
Memorial friends expressed their interest through the expression of "they will be"
Interest "For the selection of a site / monument of heritage or tourist destination. In the
indicative list of sites, the heritage sites/monuments are categorized as green, blue and orange
on the basis of tourist footfall and visibility. Requirement of basic amenities would be
calculated based on the asset wise service level benchmarking. The Monument Mitras are
supposed to present vision for development of all necessary/mandatory basic amenities and
advanced amenities for each of the heritage site that they take up as a package (combination
of Green-Blue-Orange) enlisted and any other heritage sites, monuments and tourist site. The
most competitive and innovative vision would be considered as the successful bidding entity.
The interested parties selecting more numbers of monuments from orange and blue category
shall be given higher weightage. Bids would be primarily evaluated on the basis of capacity
of bidders, their success stories in delivering similar projects, value addition to the selected
heritage sites. This concept of innovative bidding is defined as ‘Vision Bidding’.

PRIVATIZATION OF RED FORT

Red Fort, also called Lal Qalʿah, also spelled Lal Kila or Lal Qila, Mughal fort in Old Delhi,
India. It was built by Shah Jahān in the mid-17th century and remains a major tourist
attraction. The fort was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2007. The fort’s
massive red sandstone walls, which stand 75 feet (23 metres) high, enclose a complex of
palaces and entertainment halls, projecting balconies, baths and indoor canals, and
geometrical gardens, as well as an ornate mosque. Among the most famous structures of the
complex are the Hall of Public Audience (Diwan-i-Am), which has 60 red sandstone pillars
supporting a flat roof, and the Hall of Private Audience (Diwan-i-Khas), which is smaller,
with a pavilion of white marble.
Will corporate finance accelerate the restoration of historical monuments in India? Or will it
not change the places where these structures are? The desire to protect the country's historical
monuments is a formidable challenge: the ability for companies to weaken heritage structures
while claiming to be the savior of these sites.

9
The adoption of the historic Red Fort in the Indian capital was started as an attempt by a
cement manufacturing company that has turned into a series of "adoption" advertisements in
various parts of the country. Together, they challenged the people of India to question the
power of local governments to preserve various heritage sites.
In September 2017, the "Adopt a Heritage" program was announced to allow private and
public sector businesses to adopt most major Indian heritage sites, giving them responsibility
for construction, operation and maintenance. Tourist structure of 105 monuments and natural
heritage sites located across the country. Country. Infrastructure includes facilities such as
toilets, drinking water, accessibility for the handicapped, signage, audio guides, lighting,
canteens, tickets and maintenance of hygiene and safety. The system promises companies
visibility on sites. The Dalmia Bharat Group is empowered to adopt the historic Fort Rouge
through a $ 3.7 million contract for a period of five years. A group of Indian historians
opposed the initiative, fearing that it would lead to the promotion of "inaccurate or
disproportionate interpretations of particular structures of the complex" designed to attract
tourists.
The Red Fort, built in the late 1600s, was at the center of the Mughal Empire in an undivided
Indian subcontinent. The Red Fort complex was used by the British to build a military court
in 1946 before several officers of the Indian National Army charged with war against the
British Empire. On August 15, 1947, the first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru gave a
speech in front of the Red Fort. On that day, power was transferred from the British. The
ritual, where the Prime Minister gives a speech on the Red Fort Independence day, continues
to this day.
However, an article written after this article claimed the existence of a nationalist association
behind the branding goal: Vishnu Dalmia, the company's patron, was one of the key leaders
of one of the most important events of the Muslim, 1990s. Hindu nationalist. In addition, the
group has no experience in preserving monuments. Opposition parties have used their
common means to condemn this government decision, suggesting that the effectiveness of
their obligation to maintain the national monument has been questioned so that society can
benefit from it. In addition to the Red Fort, Kaziranga National Park - home to one-horned
rhinoceros - and three other historical monuments built by the Kingdom of Ahom in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were also adopted. The Rang Ghar, one of the oldest
amphitheaters in Asia, is one of these structures. The students' unions of various communities
in Assam, which have a fair influence on the policy of Assam, opposed this decision; The

10
leader of a popular peasant movement threatened to pull out private companies upon entering
the national park3.
While the proponents of this system compare with the restoration of monuments by private
companies in Italy, general skepticism arises out of fear of inept practices in relation to
restoration without the possibility that a tree might possibly be shot.
For a country whose history is superimposed due to the heritage and origins of its leaders and
which is currently clouded by Hindu jingoist fervor, any attempt to fundamentally change
these sites without original process and modification is cultural and historical. To understand
the nuances can only generate more interest. Compared to regular eyebrow.
At the same time, for areas such as Assam, which had long felt a sense of isolation from
mainland India, these were perhaps thoughtful attempts to refer to historical monuments to
culture and culture. Local shores only increase dissatisfaction. a scheme that has most
recently seen the historic Red Fort in Delhi being adopted by the Dalmia Bharat group.

This represents breaking new ground as it aims to substantially increase the role and
involvement of the private domain in realizing, among others, the following objectives:
 Increase tourist footfall
 Improve overall tourism sector perception
 Increase in employment generation
 Enhance awareness and development of skills and capacity to augment heritage
tourism with value added services
 Increase private sector and public sector participation at the identified monument
sites
some of these are quite vague and ambiguous and can be interpreted to suit the vested
interests, leading to interference in managing a National Monument.
This is all the more objectionable as the Asset Service Level Guidelines for the “Adopt a
Heritage” scheme(Guidelines and MOU) contains trivial topics such as toilet facility,
drinking water facility, auto guides, WiFi /Net based facilities, information signage,
directional signage, ticketing and the like.
Surely the activities of the kind listed above could be executed through an agreement with an
appropriate contractor appointed to build facilities like toilets, directional signs, drinking
water equipment etc. Did it really need a private body to holistically adopt a nationally

3
https://www.thedailystar.net/world/asia/india-privatise-heritage-sites-1569769

11
important monument. There is also an indemnity clause in the MOU meant to indemnify the
private body adopting the monument. The fact that these guidelines are prepared by the
Ministry of Tourism (even if in ‘close collaboration’ with the Ministry of Culture and
Archeological Survey of India) gives away who’s in the driver’s seat. It is not surprising
therefore that issues that should be of primary concern from a cultural and archeological
viewpoint, don’t seem to have much visibility in the document. For handling issues in the
public realm, the primary focus needs to be on public good and welfare of the maximum
number of citizens, rather than on increasing profits and income by all means possible. The
crucial issue, therefore, is not just the capacity of the organisation to carry out conservation
related work but whether the organisation has the capacity to go beyond the bottom line of
profit and loss. Equally, if not more important is the role of the regulatory body that will
oversee the activity of the appointed agency and ensure that it is proceeding along the right
path in a transparent and democratic manner. The Monuments Authority of India, as it stands
today, has severe constraints and limitations. This was brought out clearly when sometime
last year, the Government at the centre planned to modify the key condition of the “no
development” zone of 100 metres around all national monuments. By recommending that the
area of 100 meters could be relaxed for Government projects of “public importance” the
Government was in effect allowing the no development zone to be further shrunk.
Although some experts and NGOs filed their written objections against the proposal, the
National Monuments Authority itself as a body did nothing to lodge a strong protest against
the Government’s proposal. Now when the issue of privatisation of monuments is on the
table, it may be a good time to take a relook at how our monuments can best be looked after,
so they become a part of the public realm. These monuments should stay relevant to all
sections of society rather than become yet another feather in the cap of corporations, who will
only use them as a branding vehicle. But for this, the role and maturity of the Government
will be severely tested. Presently they don’t seem to be seriously concerned about the value
of our country’s heritage and may perhaps be content to let the corporate houses decide the
fate of our national monuments.

MERITS AND DEMERITS OF POLICY OF PRIVATIZATION

Privatisation in South Asia, and in particular India, has traditionally been low, despite the
notable inefficiency of SOEs (Gupta, 2008). Why a reluctance to privatize?

12
  Reluctance to privatize can be explained by historical reasons, with the government’s
involvement in developing an industrial base in the postcolonial era (Gupta, 2008).
 Particular sectors were reserved exclusively for government-owned firms, such as the
infrastructure sector but also capital goods and raw materials industries such as steel,
petroleum and heavy machinery.
 In addition, the government nationalized many loss-making private companies in
order to prevent closure and state ownership expanded. However, more than half of
the firms owned by the Indian federal government were loss-making in the 1990s.
Following the balance of payment crisis of 1991, the Indian government implemented a series
of reforms under the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1991 to encourage private enterprise and
initiated privatisation, mainly through two approaches: partial privatisation and strategic
sales. However, privatisation has remained limited, with the government selling only
minority equity stakes until 2000, without transferring management control. Political
uncertainty over the period prevented a coherent policy on privatisation to emerge. Majority
stakes sales and the transfer of management control were conducted after the elections of
1999, but until 2004, the government retained an ownership of an average of 82% of equity in
all SOEs (Gupta, 2008).
The lack of progress in privatisation in the next decade was also related to political factors,
with successive governments being reluctant to privatize because of a potential electoral
backlash, and the coalition government in power after 2004 requiring the support of anti-
privatisation political parties to maintain a parliamentary majority.
The OECD Privatisation Report (2009) lists the key elements of the regulatory framework
that should be in place prior to privatization. In particular, an appropriate regulatory
framework should:– • promote transparency and efficient markets • clearly articulate the
division of responsibilities among different supervisor, regulatory and enforcement
authorities. • highlight the importance of competition, and the inclusion of anti-trust
regulation and specialised regulation to oversee activities where an element of monopoly is
likely to persist. (see Chapter I of the Principles). Individual guidelines also recommend a
clear separation between these regulatory functions and the state’s ownership role. For
instance, most OECD governments have chosen to transfer the ownership and financial
responsibility for an SOE to a central ownership function or an economics ministry, and to
retain the regulatory functions in the relevant sectorial ministry or agency. In practice, and
especially for developing countries, regulatory and political problems abound during the

13
privatisation process, given the difficulty of de-politicizing certain sectors and setting up a
truly independent regulator. The other issue is the degree to which an SOE’s value chain
should be exposed to competition. This relates to the question of “structural separation”, with
some parts of an SOE remaining a monopoly and other parts being opened to competition.
This section will first review the UK experience and approach with regulating utilities, which
has constituted a blueprint for other developed/developing countries, and then examine the
regulation experience in developing countries in the utilities sector. The U.K. model of
utilities regulation has its origin in the Littlechild Report on telecom regulation, published in
1983. A landmark document, it set out the basis of the regulatory framework for Oftel, the
new telecom regulatory established in 1984 after the privatisation of British Telecom. Since
then, independent economic regulators have also been established in Britain for other sectors.
Ofwat, which regulates water in England and Wales, was established in 1986, in the spirit of
the Littlechild Report. Regulators have also been created for electricity and natural gas as
well as in transport (airports and railways).

14
CONCLUSION
After the Dalmia Bharat Group’s adoption of Red Fort and Gandikota Fort (Andhra Pradesh),
the doors might have been opened for ‘privatisation’ of more heritage structures.
Conservation experts in the city say that more private-public partnerships should be invited to
increase revenue and to give a facelift to the neglected heritage buildings in city and its
surroundings.
“The government should conduct a survey of more heritage places that have a potential of
turning into attractions, which have been lying in neglect. Inviting private stakeholders in
keeping heritage places is not a bad idea, given that the government should generate revenue
from them in right way and a strict monitoring should be done to ensure that the heritage
character of the place is not compromised. It should employ professionals or conservationists
for that,” says Prof Balvinder Singh, conservation expert in the city.
He also feels that such a method could work for Jallianwala Bagh and places like Bara Dari,
Pul Kanjri near Wagah border that still suffer due to government apathy. “Jallianwala Bagh’s
façade has completely changed over the years due to imposed face-lifting exercise. With its
heritage structure compromised, it has become a recreation park instead of what its historical
significance should be.” Jallianwala Bagh has been crying for attention for long with lack of
basic amenities like toilets and garbage disposal yet to be taken care of. The Rs 10 crore grant
for initiating conservation project of the historical memorial is yet to be handed over.
Considering that Jallianwala Bagh Memorial Trust has Prime Minister as its chairman,
Sukhdev Singh, Punjab state convener, Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage
(INTACH), feels that it’s a shame that it took so long for the government agencies to do
something for its development.
“It should not have happened like this. The memorial attracts regular tourists and has a great
potential in terms of heritage tourism,” he says. He also feels that bringing in private players
might just have some positive impact. “If the private players agree to run the place without
any intention of making profits or commercialising the heritage aspect, then the private-
public partnerships can be useful in maintaining and conserving the historical landmarks.”
Putting aside the argument that such a move would encourage ‘branding’ of public heritage
spaces, he says, “‘I feel these places are of national significance and they are a property of
even the poorest of poor citizens. So, one cannot brand these buildings. But since the
government has failed to upkeep them and retain their heritage structure, outsourcing their
maintenance could at least save them from neglect.”

15
Meanwhile, SK Mukherjee, the caretaker of the Jallianwala Bagh, is hopeful that the latest
development project will help restore the memorial to its former glory. “The government has
already begun work and since the memorial will be celebrating its 100th year, we hope for
better things.
A fine example of turning neglected heritage building into a successful museum is the
Partition Museum inside the walled city. The once dilapidated and heritage building of town
hall, the former office space of MC Amritsar, now houses two international museums —
Town Hall Museum and Indo-Pak Partition Museum.
The project was developed in association with World Bank and the Punjab government. A
team of experts, including noted economist Lord Meghnad Desai, Kishwar Desai, Malika
Ahluwalia, Gitanjali Chaturvedi and Bindu Manchanda, were involved in overseeing the
conservation and restoration of the building.

16
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

 Privatization: An International Review Of Performance

BY: Graeme A. Hodge

WEBSITES

 http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2018/may/07/history-or-bizstory-
1811130.html
 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/no-profit-making-or-touching-of-
monument-govt/articleshow/63957340.cms
 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/bharat-dalmia-group-adopts-red-fort-
congress-objects/articleshow/63951406.cms
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Red_Fort

17