MUMBAI: India’s culture minister Ma hesh Sharma has a simple solution to India’s best kept secret: In the past two decades, many thousands of artefacts have been stolen from temples in worship or centrally protected Archaeo logical Survey of India (ASI) sites and smuggled out of the country. He says: “We want this act [Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1971] to be revised. Let India have an open market. Once we allow the trade of those antiquities in India this smuggling will stop.” But this is an absurd claim and what the government is proposing will be counter-productive.
As per the Act, an object should be at least 100 years old before it gets the antiq uity tag, and it has to be reg istered as such. The owner holder of the object is given a reasonable time period to do this. While transferring a registered antiquity -that is to say, a sale, a gift or a do nation -the registering of ficer has to be notified of the transfer. Further, the govern ment may acquire such an object as public property, if it is deemed to be of such importance. If so, the owner is served a notice, and can file an objection within 30 days. Importantly, Section 19(7) of the Act ensures that this power cannot be applied to any antiquity or art treas ure used for religious observ ances. Further, it also pro vides methods for a mutually agreed price of acquisition.
If no agreement is reached, an arbitrator may be ap pointed. Finally, export of antiquities is not allowed in most cases.
Critics often claim that registering antiquities is dif ficult, that the sale or trans fer of a registered antiquity is illegal, and that the power given to the government for forcible acquisition is too onerous. As shown above, the last two objections fall flat the first is provided for in the 1972 Act, and the second is quite restricted. Let us examine some other perceived flaws.
It is often claimed that the registration process is too complex. However experience shows otherwise. The pillar from the Barhut Stupa is a case in point. This 2nd century BCE artefact is valued at $15 million -the highest for an Indian artefact. It was stolen from a private shrine in Madhya Pradesh in 2004. The owner had registered his ancestral treasure using the allegedly difficult process -a simple form that asks for basic de tails and some photographs – in 1977. There is no other record of this item. An FIR was lodged when the theft occurred in 2004. It was seized in accused art dealer Subhash Kapoor’s facility in 2012. Thanks to the farmer’s action, this item is close to restitution.
Consider the alternative scenario: Two `dwarapalas’, door guardians, with fake provenances are presently with the National Gallery of Australia – known to have been stolen. Without a source reference, India has not been able to bring them back.
There are proposals to institute a “finder’s fee” in the new act. An example cited is England where gold or silver finds older than 300 years are considered treasure and claimed for the crown. The finder is paid the market price by a government-appointed valuer.
