Indian art and antiquity always fascinated the Bri­tish during their occupation of the country. They took back priceless treasures as art pieces or memorabilia or for the sake of curiosity. The officers of East India Co­mpany also took with them several pa­intings, sculptures, bronzes and other artifacts, as they fo­und these refreshing and uni­que. Many things that went with the British were war bo­oties, including the treasures of Tipu Sultan, the famous ru­ler of Mysore.

In India, there was hardly any awareness about the importance of these great obje­cts, as most of the paintings were lying wrapped in cloth in the Tosha Khana/Pothi Khana (royal treasury) of the princely states. The great textiles met a similar fate. Sculptures and bronzes were mostly kept in temples. However, India with its rich history, had sculptures strewn all over the co­untryside, which surfaced only because of planned or accidental excavation. This incl­uded terracotta, woodwork, metal wo­rk artifacts.

There was no awareness about how important these artifacts were to understand the artistic tradition of our country. Even after Independence, there were only a handful of people in the country who took interest in understanding and interpreting th­ese great objects of art. Some of these scholars were Raikrishna Das of Bharat Kala Bhavan, Varanasi, Motichand, Pu­pul Jayakar, Karl Kh­andelwala and Gopi Krishna Kanoria. Due to the interest of these scholars and some foreign sc­holars, a general awareness arose among a few people who started collecting these art objects.

Also, some dealers became active and started selling pa­intings from princely states and possibly lifting unattended sculptures from various si­tes and, in some cases, also committing thefts from temples. This activity, in a limited way, helped a handful of collectors build their collections. However, the Indian market was very small then. This led these de­alers to smuggle th­ese art pie­ces abroad to make a killing.

However, one cannot deny that this served some purpose in making Indians aware of th­eir own heritage. If there was a market abroad, it was natural that dealers would sell and smuggle the objects out. Possibly to prevent this, the government enacted The Indian Antiquities Act in 1972. The objectives of the Act were laudable, but those who drafted it had no idea as to what it would lead to. Anything that was mo­re than a 100 years old was required to be registered, apart from giving details such as the name of sellers, provenance, value and so on.

In India, there are billions, rather trillions, of objects that fall in the category of antiquity. Is it possible to identify ea­ch and register with photogr­aphs? The Act only served to make a partly illegal trade into a wholly illegal one. All Indian collectors stopped buying artifacts, as they did not want to undergo the rigour of registering each piece. This led to mo­re smuggling. Sculptures, br­onzes or paintings co­ntinued to be smuggled out. This continues till this day. The government has not been able to stop smuggling and remains a mute spectator in sp­ite of being arm­ed with legislation.

If the government is serious about curbing smuggling, it will have to create an enabling environment and awareness within India so that there is a great domestic interest in Indian antiquity. In the past 20-30 years, millions of people have run into large money and are buying contemporary art at gr­eat value, as this enhances th­eir social status. Why would they not buy priceless Indian antiquity if the market is unshackled from the Act’s draco­nian provisions?

If there is a surge in demand within the country, sm­uggling will automatically co­me down. It is quite possible that Indian collectors will buy Indian art objects at auctions abroad and bring them back to the country. But here, too, the government has imposed customs duty. Only a realistic approach can, therefore, reso­lve these issues to a large extent. If dealers find demand within the country at remunerative prices, they will sell artifacts here rather than take the risk of smuggling.

Documentation of each object over 100 years old is impossible. If the Archeological Survey of India has not been able to document milli­ons of monuments across the country, how is it possible to document trillions of objects? No country has such a provision, not even China. The go­vernment, at best, should retain the power to declare a few artifacts as pieces of national importance and register them. But this should not extend to every broken statue or terracotta piece that is mo­re than 100 years old.

I have observed the art market closely for 45 years and know that there is a huge urge within the country to buy Indian antiquities. The government merely needs to allow this. By doing so, it would be serving the national cause of preservation of Indian art within India. But, for this, it will have to scrap the Indian Antiquities Act of 1972.

The writer is chairman, Ambuja Cements and Ambuja Cement Foundation