The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has seldom found itself in the gleam of the public eye. Its work does not necessarily contain the stuff of high drama. The ASI is seen as a bespectacled, burrowing outlier amongst the larger governmental bodies that line the avenues of central Delhi.
However, this has changed since famed art dealer Subhash Kapoor’s arrest in Tamil Nadu, and the subsequent unearthing of a multi-million dollar antiques smuggling racket. Kapoor was at the centre of that racket. ‘Operation Hidden Idol’, initiated by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, eventually culminated in the seizure of several hundred historically significant artefacts. Over 200 of these were returned to India in June 2016, but many still remain on American soil.
In May, the ASI released a statement that two of its officials had visited New York and identified close to 100 antique objects in a tranche seized by the U.S. investigative authorities from Kapoor’s storage units. This statement was purportedly given to a news agency, without any press release being made available either through the ASI or the Ministry of Culture. A post on the ASI’s Facebook page made things clearer: out of more than 230 items in the possession of the Indian Consulate in New York, close to 100 had been identified and declared to be antiques. The post trailed off stating that the Consulate would be advised to transport the antiques back to India. While there is some confusion in the media about how many objects are currently with the Indian Consulate, it is clear that the return of these objects to India is likely to take significant time.
Asking all the wrong questions
There is little point in discussing how delayed the ASI’s or the Indian government’s response in general has been compared to foreign agencies engaged in the work of repatriation of cultural property. The Homeland Security Investigations’s International Operations Division, which deals with tracking illegally smuggled antiquities, has 64 attaché offices in 46 countries. India’s Idol Wing can barely manage Tamil Nadu. We have not prioritised the conservation of our heritage enough, and it is a concern that has remained alive for decades. However, what is of more immediate relevance is the discourse surrounding the identification of stolen cultural property.
Instead of seeking answers to questions germane to the identification of the artefacts, such as why it took so long or how many objects still remain to be identified/returned, popular TV news bulletins turned the conversation towards base, communal sentiment. Tickers were populated with questions such as “Does no one care about Hindu heritage?” Or, “Why is Hindu Heritage loot not a poll issue?” They referred to the fact that the antiquities identified included idols from Hindu temples. These are not the ways in which the public ought to be informed about the ASI’s work, and it is irresponsible for the news media to controversialise a dialogue that has barely been understood.
Not another photo op, please
S. Vijay Kumar, co-founder of the India Pride Project, had written with uncanny foresight that the absence of a robust idol theft investigation apparatus “threatens to turn the present identification into just another photo opportunity”. It is therefore not altogether unsound to picture election rallies where crowds are riled up on the plank of a new-found zest for lost idols. Indeed, in the recent past, efforts have been made by the current political dispensation to present itself as a stalwart of India’s heritage, albeit not activated by the purest motivations. Whatever the posturing might be about, the agencies in charge of securing the return of stolen antiques have little to show, or have shown very little so far.
Awareness about laws to protect India’s ancient heritage is negligible. Working under unreasonable resource constraints, India’s bureaucratic and investigative agencies are doing far less than they can. In a climate that is already so apathetic, it is no one’s real gain to politicise and cheapen the issue of safeguarding our past. Some may remember the kind of scathing criticism that the ASI came under from the academic community when it released its report on the purported remains of a temple under the Babri Masjid. Allegations had been made that it had misplaced its scientific temper, handling the survey with a predetermined goal in mind. The loss in credibility was palpable and lasting. That cannot be allowed to happen once again, especially not when so many of our public institutions are falling into decay.
Rohan P. Kothari is a Bengaluru-based advocate
