On examination, this policy of devolution was and driven more by the ASI’s financial difficulties, than by a commitment to federalism. Unable to look after more than 3,000 MNIs, the ASI undertook to transfer the more ‘minor’ ones to states, often without any coordination. States were not informed in advance of the transfer, limited financial assistance was provided, no information about the monuments were provided, and sometimes monuments were transferred even before the state had passed the required legislation! The assessment on whether a monument should remain of ‘national importance’ or be transferred to states followed the same procedure as detailed above. The main criterion was again their archaeological or artistic importance. And while monuments, as symbols of the past, play a sizeable role in the formation of territorial identity, be it local, regional, national, or global, never was this criterion mentioned in the correspondence of ASI officers.