Today we look at a serious issue with regard to the conduct of our Indian museums as custodians of our valuable heritage. We show how a museum in Kolkata is indulging in a cover-up of theft of a valuable artefact in its collection despite the overwhelming evidence provided—even though the current custodians are willing to restitute the bronze.
First, let us look at the role of museums as discussed in a very important case—the theft of Rabindranath Tagore’s Nobel Prize from Kolkata—that was argued and sadly disposed of after 15 years with no proper closure. The petition in the Supreme Court covered the 2004 theft of historical artefacts of Tagore, kept in the museum of Visva-Bharati University in West Bengal’s Santiniketan, of which the PM is the chancellor. It also refers to the stealing of golden coins from the Asiatic Society in Kolkata in 1990 and a 1984 theft from the Nandan Art Gallery of Visva-Bharati.
The PIL by Subhas Datta was “on the issue of protection of historical objects preserved at different places in the country, particularly in various museums”. The petition called for “a direction for adequate security arrangements and for proper investigation into the incidents of theft and damage to several historical objects and also for making an inventory of available articles for future”. The case gained wide publicity and due to its impact, was enlarged to include various institutions apart from the initial respondent in the petition—the HRD ministry. The heads of institutions such as the New Delhi National Museum, Archaeological Survey of India, National Gallery of Modern Art and Kolkata’s Indian Museum were impleaded as parties by an order of the court.
The arguments commenced with a brief that emphasised the seriousness of the role of these custodians. Article 49 of the Constitution says that “it shall be the obligation of the state to protect every monument … or object of artistic or historic interests, declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, from … destruction, removal, disposal or export …”. Article 51A(f) notes there is a fundamental duty to “value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture”. So, as pointed out, “there should be a proper inventory of all historical objects preserved at different centres and such inventory should be kept at a central place under the Government of India” along with periodic stocktaking by an independent agency. The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, requires proper preservation of objects of historical or artistic interest. The judgment notes that a reference was also made to Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 “to state that any damage to public property is national loss”.
The apex court noted that “the preservation of the rich heritage and culture of the country is a constitutional mandate”. It also pointed out that India had ratified the UNESCO Convention on the means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. “The International Council of Museums (ICOM) has issued guidelines for disaster preparedness in museums, which are well known to those concerned with the management of museums. The UNESCO in its quarterly journal ‘Museum’ has suggested measures for security of museum objects in the light of studies undertaken by it,” the judgment added.
The custodians of our heritage, in their response, blamed space constraints, manpower shortage and lack of other resources. The court said these need to be looked into by the Ministry of Culture and other authorities and that an appropriate monitoring mechanism needs to be put in place. To ensure safekeeping of our valuable heritage, it said requisite funds need to be allocated.
“In view of assurance of learned additional solicitor general and other counsel for the respondents, it may not be necessary to give any specific direction at this stage. There is no reason to doubt the stand of the Central government and the other respondents that all necessary steps will be taken and reviewed from time to time. This court expects that the Secretary, Ministry of Culture will review the matter and take such necessary steps … within one month … . Thereafter, review meetings may be held at least once in every six months to consider further course of action. If any grievance survives, it will be open to any aggrieved person to take legal remedies in accordance with law,” the SC verdict said.
With the above observations, the 2004 petition was disposed of in 2015. Till now, neither have all the stolen artefacts been recovered nor adequate security measures fully adopted. The updating of inventory and its cross-checking never happened and in this article, we expose this with a startling instance where a documented bronze from Kolkata’s Asutosh Museum has found its way into the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The UK museum is willing to return the bronze but the Indian museum management refuses to accept the theft!
The 10th century CE Standing Shiva with attendants (Chandrasekhara, Bengal bronze) was till the 1980s in Asutosh Museum as can be seen from a photo of the idol in the book Eastern Indian Bronzes published by the Lalit Kala Akademi in 1986. It has currently been traced to the Ashmolean Museum. We understand that researchers with the Ashmolean had initiated the process of restitution based on the evidence at hand. But the process has now hit a roadblock as Asutosh Museum does not want to acknowledge that the idol has been stolen. It is pertinent to note that the Kolkata museum has been without a curator since 2002. The last curator was embroiled in a police case and no one has been appointed as a replacement for the past two decades. Doesn’t the government have a duty to act as per the Constitution and bring the Shiva idol back home?
Co-founder, India Pride Project and author of The Idol Thief