Monuments don’t speak, but they must be heard and protected
What does it take to protect history? For Capt. Pran Ranjan Prasad, a decorated veteran of the Indian Army and the former Chief Security Officer (CSO) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the answer lies in vigilance, planning, and a deep sense of national pride. Tasked with safeguarding some of the country’s most iconic monuments and museums, Capt. Prasad was part of a pioneering initiative where the ASI inducted Indian Army officers to design and implement security frameworks for Centrally Protected Monuments (CPMs) and museums.
In this exclusive interview with BW Security World, Capt. Prasad reflects on the challenges of securing irreplaceable heritage, the lessons that shaped his approach, and what future custodians must keep in mind when protecting the silent legacy of India’s glorious past.
Looking back at your tenure as CSO of ASI, what was the most defining moment in your career, one that truly tested your values or principles?
Serving as the CSO of ASI was both fulfilling and deeply meaningful. For the first time, ASI undertook the task of formalising a security framework for its vast network of Centrally Protected Monuments and Museums (CPMs). Around 30 officers from the Indian Army were posted across various zones to assess and implement security protocols for these priceless sites.
For me, the defining challenge was creating a uniform yet flexible approach to securing each heritage site, each with unique threats and vulnerabilities. Step one was to assess and categorise the threat perception of every monument or museum, be it from natural disasters, theft, vandalism, or sheer negligence. From there, I developed mitigation plans tailored to the character and layout of each site.
Security isn’t just about guarding property, it’s about protecting the essence of a civilization. That realisation shaped every strategy we implemented.
Unlike typical security roles, your work involved safeguarding sites that are thousands of years old. How does securing a 2,000-year-old monument differ from securing a modern government building?
The difference lies in what you’re protecting. A modern building might house people or documents, but a heritage site carries the weight of history, culture, and national identity.
Each monument is a silent storyteller, and any damage, whether structural, cosmetic, or symbolic, diminishes its archaeological value. Replacing a lost cultural artefact with a replica may solve an aesthetic issue, but it erodes authenticity.
Securing a heritage site is far more complex due to constant visitor inflow, the fragility of structures, and the impossibility of full surveillance in open or sprawling spaces. Preventive action must be relentless. Unlike modern security setups with controlled access, heritage sites demand 24/7 vigilance because an intruder needs only a moment to cause irreversible damage.
How did you approach threat assessments for sites that attract thousands of tourists, and where even a minor incident can have national or diplomatic consequences?
It began with choosing the right personnel. Guards needed not just training, but the right temperament. Many sites attract foreign dignitaries and international tourists, so the conduct of security personnel directly impacts the country’s image.
I always emphasised one golden rule: “Be polite, but firm.”
Detailed threat mapping was crucial, understanding not just physical vulnerabilities but visitor patterns, emergency access points, and local sensitivities. Properly trained guards who could handle pressure and act swiftly were our best defence.
What were the biggest physical security challenges you faced at remote or politically sensitive monuments?
Several challenges stood out, especially in remote regions with scarce resources, poor infrastructure, and limited availability of trained staff. Many sites, due to their political or cultural sensitivity, demanded both strong presence and subtlety.
We tackled the shortage of trained security personnel by identifying site-specific requirements and deploying private security agencies where needed. In especially complex zones, we looked into a mix of human intelligence and tech-enabled surveillance.
Is there a monument or site that became particularly close to your heart during your service, perhaps because of its complexity or symbolism?
For me, every monument is equally valuable. Each site tells a unique story, from dynasties and architectural brilliance to cultural milestones. They belong to the nation, and we are mere custodians safeguarding them for future generations.
It’s this universality, the collective heritage of a civilisation that made each monument special to me, regardless of its popularity or grandeur.
If you had one piece of advice for your successor, or the next generation of heritage security professionals, what would it be?
Treat every monument or museum as you would a place of worship, with reverence, dedication, and discipline. The loss of even a single artefact is not just a security failure, it is the erasure of history.
Use technology where necessary, but never forget that human vigilance is irreplaceable. Invest in training, planning, and a mindset that views this duty not as a job, but as a national responsibility.
And yes—address the shortage of trained security personnel without delay. The first line of defence is always the people.
About the Interviewee:
Capt. Pran Ranjan Prasad is a distinguished veteran of the Indian Army’s Regiment of Artillery and a pioneer in heritage security in India. As the former Chief Security Officer of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), he led efforts to design and implement protection systems for India’s Centrally Protected Monuments and Museums (CPMs). A respected author, Capt. Prasad has written two insightful books, “Safeguarding Heritage: A Monumental Glory” and “Museum Security (Challenges & Remedy)”—that continue to serve as references for security professionals and cultural custodians alike. He has also contributed to the establishment of the Museum of the Punjab Regimental Center and played a key role in the early digitalisation efforts of ASI in 1997. Capt. Prasad remains actively associated with the Institute of Archaeology, carrying forward his mission to protect and preserve India’s irreplaceable cultural heritage.
