Sometimes, CAG Reports make us feel despondent. One such is the 2013 report on “Preservation and Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities”. In particular, this Report flags the inefficiency of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Excavation and preservation require distinct skill-sets and expertise and since it seeks to combine them both, I have reservations about something like Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958. But let’s leave larger issues aside and focus on only one aspect.

Per the 2013 Report, “During joint physical inspections, we found that 131 antiquities were stolen from monuments/sites and 37 antiquities from Site Museums from 1981 to 2012… We observed that in similar situations, worldwide, organisations took many more effective steps including checking of catalogues of international auction house, posting news of such theft on websites, posting information about theft in the International Art Loss Registry, sending photographs of stolen objects electronically to dealers and auction houses and intimate scholars in the field. We found that the ASI had never participated or collected information on Indian antiquities put on sale at well-known international auction houses viz. Sotheby’s, Christie’s, etc. as there was no explicit provision in the AAT (Antiquities and Art Treasures) Act, 1972 for doing so…. As part of its responsibilities, the ASI was also a nodal agency to retrieve stolen or illegally exported art objects. From 1976 to 2001, 19 antiquities had been retrieved by the ASI from foreign countries either through legal means, indemnity agreement, voluntary action or through out of case settlement. But after 2001, the ASI had not been able to achieve any success.” This was compounded by discretion and abuse in granting non-antiquity certificates for exports.

India is a signatory to the 1970 Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (we ratified it in 1977). Perhaps we should also sign the 1995 UNIDROIT (International Institute for the Unification of Private Law) Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (we have not ratified that yet.) Cultural heritage can take many forms, though we tend to identify more with moveable cultural heritage like paintings, coins, and archaeological objects, and there are Interpol surveys and databases on such crimes. In the last few years, there have been several reasons to make us feel less despondent. All of us have read reports about some 200-odd idols being returned by the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia. The PM has spoken about “sabka prayas”. If there is reason for reduced despondency, that’s because some citizens have taken Article 51A(f) of the Constitution seriously. “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.” I refer to initiatives and success of India Pride Project. The credit for recent returns can largely be attributed to this.

A stolen Buddha statue has returned from Italy. Italy also suffers from such theft and several stolen antiquities have been returned to it by the US. It should not be surprising that many best practices originate in Italy, such as:

  • A specific law on protecting cultural heritage with enhanced penalties
  • Centralised management before authorisation for archaeological research
  • Specialisation in cultural heritage for public prosecutor
  • An Inter-Ministerial Committee for recovery of cultural objects
  • International MOUs and bilateral deals to prevent illegal trafficking
  • Involvement of private organisations and individuals in protection
  • A complete inventory of moveable and immoveable cultural heritage, with detailed catalogues
  • Monitoring and inspection of cultural sites
  • Centrally granting export requests

One could say the 2013 CAG Report did a bit of (8), but that was one-off and isn’t a permanent solution. This is not a binary, nor is it possible to accomplish everything overnight. However, incrementally, one can move towards most of the items on this list.

Surely, we should start with that inventory. If we are informed in Parliament that idols and artefacts have been stolen from centrally-protected temples, museums, monuments and archaeological sites, we should be aghast. While fingers can rightly be pointed at Western museums and auction-houses (this is not only about the colonial era), there is internal connivance. How do heritage man-holes turn up at Sotheby’s? Monson Mavunkal may have been arrested now, but the fact remains that he functioned in Kerala for years with impunity, although, in fairness, he seems to have sold fakes and not genuine objects. Subhash Kapoor, also arrested now, sold genuine artefacts to museums. The established modus operandi is unfortunately obvious. With non-existent security, idols are routinely stolen by local thieves. With international cartels, this moves to the big league. For two years after Sripuranthan Nataraja and Uma Maheshvari (this idol was in Singapore) were stolen, we didn’t even know they had vanished. It shouldn’t be surprising that they didn’t feature in the ALR (Art Loss Register). Poetry in Stone has a lot about Subhash Kapoor, documenting how culture was left to vultures without that inventory.

The author is Chairman, EAC to the PM