For 2012,You can find it in page no. 19 in evaluation report.
Giles Tillotson along with Denyer inspected it in 2013. Giles Tillotson is an expert in Rajput architecture.He also written a book "The Rajput Palaces: the development of an
architectural style" . In that meeting he was satisfied with the nominations but just wanted adding buffer zone to Kumbhalgarh (another gate). But due to Unesco 2012 recommendation, India added Jaisalmer.

Thanks kkanekahn.
Tillotson seems an excellent choice - I see he settled in India in 2004 and is married to an Indian Architect/Architectural historian. In this case the appointment of an expert who was originally from the "West" would hardly seem to be relevant to any problems India might have had with this nomination. He could hardly be portrayed as "culturally ignorant" - indeed, could India have asked for more! The problem in this case seems to lie elsewhere within ICOMOS - we commented at the time on this Forum in May 2012 that India seemed to be being given an unnecessarily "hard time". Someone "up the chain" in ICOMOS had got a bee in his bonnet about the choice of sites and wouldn't let it go - hardly the evaluation team's fault. And also, again as we said at the time, this sort of approach wasn't limited to India, but was being meted out on Russia as well for its Kremlins!

From my knowledge of Indian WHS (I have visited 29 of its 30 inscribed and 15 of its 33 T List sites) I believe that any sugggestion that India has problems because of non-Indians doing the evaluation (let alone, as "The Hindu" has stated above, in the lack of enough "photos" in the Nomination file!!) is barking up the wrong tree and smacks of "special pleading" when it would be better spending its efforts on addressing other matters. The problems lie rather in incomplete/late nominations, poor site management, weakly organised/presented cases and even poor selection. I say this as someone who loves travelling in India, appreciates the considerable problems it faces in preserving/managing sites and takes no pleasure whatsoever in seeing sites "fail". But, having recently visited Santinikaten and Majuli and read the evaluations, one wonders how India ever expected them to succeed. Hyderabad (Golconda/Qutb Shahi and Charminar) also doesn't seem to fully appreciate what is required from what I have seen there "on the ground" and read in the Indian newspapers.

Hopefully a lot of this is in the past and recent developments as shown in the process for developing a new T LIst and the growing expertise of India-based heritage consultancies will improve matters. On the other hand the nature of Indian politics/federal tensions, its Civil Service culture (including the ASI) and the way in which its economic growth is being achieved/"managed" and the relatively low priority being given to improiving the county's infrastructure etc are going to make it very difficult to change things.

I also surprised at Santinikaten and Majuli nomination. It is clear that both are selected due to political aspiration. (Due to election in their state, Majuli is from India's PM constituency)

Hyderabad has also political aspiration (Due to protest for 29th state, which will now become reality). But it deserves in WHL as I wrote in
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=4&topic=1692&p age=8

However authenticity is an issue due to golf course.

I noticed Narcondam Island (natural) has been nominated, which partially covers Assif's initial proposal.

It is interesting that, in its recently revised T List, India still seems intent on adding a further 2 mountain railways (Matheran and Kangra) to the 3 already inscribed.

Looking at the AB evaluation for the last one added (the Kalka- Shimla) ICOMOS notes
"ICOMOS considers however that the nominated property significantly completes the two Indian railway lines of Darjeeling and Nilgiri that are already inscribed on the World Heritage List." It said this in the Comparative Evaluation section where it seemed to be having some problems identifying what the Kalka- Shimla was adding in novelty/extra OUV to the Darjeeling and Niligri already insccribed.

On this occasion it accepted the railway as an addition but one might have taken the comment as a hint that ICOMOS felt that the end of this particular series was being reached in terms of "added value"!! If that was the intention, then India doesn't seem to agree. Perhaps this is another example of the pressures India is under to spread its WHS around its states/regions.

Thanks for the information.

Look at the date of submission (15/04/2014) and content of this entry (Matheran and Kangra) on the UNESCO web site -
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5919/

In media, it was told that India would have 57 new tentative list. Even Cultural minister confirmed that Pulicat lake will be in new TL. Some of the sites like Orchha, Sanchi(extension), Kanger valley, Bedaghat, Aravali also recommended by India. I think they are rejected by UNESCO.

Have any contributors to this Forum ever come across any evidence that UNESCO has ever "rejected" any T List proposal from any "States Party"? It would be interesting to have an example. The T List seems to contain a large number of no hopers, duplicate entries etc etc. All the indications are that the T List registrations, whatever they are, are just accepted at face value. There are even a number of "politically dubious" entries.

I remember that Gol gombuz (part of Deccan monuments) was rejected in 2004 due its enroachments. Gol gombuz has 2nd largest dome in world before modern tech invented(more than Hagia sophia, St. paul cathedral, catican city) . It has also largest area under a dome.

Even the tentative dossier of Orchha, KVNP are available in web.

None of this demonstrates/proves that UNESCO was involved in the "rejection"

At most it demosntrates that, for some reason or another, India has failed to register the sites on its T List with UNESCO despite the fact that the sites tried to get registered and prepared draft documentation - a perfeclty onrmal situation in many countries where various sites are trying to get added to the T List

Okay,then due to some reasons India decided not to send these nominations.
Solivagant, can you email me your all spreadsheets containing prev TL( no matter they are which format). I just want to compare those as many countries try to update their TL.
My email id- kkanekahn@gmail.com

Solivagant Thanks, these are very useful to me.

Darjeeling's 'Toy Train' to be fully operational by year end

Nearly three years after the services of Darjeeling Himalayan Railways (DHR) was stopped, it is expected to resume services between Siliguri and Darjeeling this winter.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/darjeelings-toy-train-to-be-fully- operational-by-year-end/article6413119.ece