Amendments to the Antiquities & Art Treasures Act of 1972 are to make it stronger. But the couple of additions stating the intent — setting up a domestic trade network & doing away with any licence, which is now required for sale of antiquities — raise concerns about it. At a time when the country is grappling with large-scale smuggling of idols, the promulgation of an open market without necessary checks & balances is a cause for concern.
Prevention of smuggling is not a priority nor does it refer to the designated ministry or agency that is supposed to take action. The word "import" instead of "regulate export" from the existing act is a perceptible shift towards relaxation of the duty on importing certain antiquities or art treasures. In the existing act, the clause on exports specified that no one other than the central govt or its agencies can export an art treasure. While the existing act did not have any regulation of import, the draft bill allows anyone to import an antiquity by uploading details on a web portal.
Since the allure of owning a rare piece is strong & not many ask questions about its provenance (confirmation of authenticity through ownership history of a piece), the provision of adding details on a web portal could make India a destination for smuggled art, along with being a source country. The marquee feature of the draft bill is deregulation, removal of "Licence Raj", a free market, subject to local laws, provided the details are uploaded on the web portal. The bill, however, does not define what the portal is or what details are to be uploaded. This is in contrast with the existing act which mandates registration of an antique by an officer who is required to conduct an inquiry into the source & genuineness of the artefact.
Anyone travelling in India knows that every village has movable cultural objects literally on the wayside. In the proposed system there is little to stop someone from picking up a hero stone, uploading the image onto the uncurated web portal & then offering it for sale. It essentially moves public cultural wealth into pvt. hands. Further, by removing the licensing requirement for selling antiquities — basic for any business — the proposed amendment is going to unleash a horde of illicit diggers. They would destroy context, throw away archaeologically items like pottery shreds & reduce discoveries into showpiece curios.
From a drafting perspective too, there seems to be something wrong about including a specific technology into a law. Such details are typically included in the rules. Putting implementation details into the act makes it difficult to upgrade if the technology changes. The existing act without specifying any particular technology or mechanism, defines what registering implies — getting it authenticated before an appointed officer & obtaining a certificate. This could be on a web portal.
To ensure protection of cultural property, under Article 5 of the Unesco Convention of 1970, countries can maintain a list of public & private cultural properties. This list is what the register in the 1972 Act was intended to be. Since one of the biggest problems in getting back artefacts illegally exported is establishing ownership, an up-to-date register will make it easier to do this. Instead of ensuring it is improved, the bill ignores it.
The existing law requires obtaining a licence to trade in antiquities. This is done away with in the new bill, a long-pending demand of the art lobby. The argument: To safeguard art treasures is to let collectors collect without any restriction making it seem that without relaxation of laws, no trade is possible. But a trip to, say Mamallapuram, would show dozens of art shops selling antiquities. The trader has to be registered, but this is no bigger a burden than several other trades. The call to open up trade benefits only rich collectors, & does nothing to protect culture & heritage.
The focus appears to have moved away from conservation. The Archaeological Survey of India director general may, with the govt’s concurrence, write off any antiquity that has lost its value due to wear & tear. This is strange since "old & worn out" is the definition of an ancient artefact, & it does not lose its value. One explanation the ASI would like to give is that through no fault of the agency, some things are just not worth preserving. This provision can easily be abused. How often have we seen temple chariots allowed to rot before being disassembled & sold to pvt collectors?
In temples across the country, priceless sculptures are prised out of their niches because of some damage. The tag of "binnam" is given & a donor induced to fund a modern replica. They are then left outside, making them prime targets. A classic case is the Vriddachalam Ardhanari, removed from its niche during renovation & left under a tree in the compound because its arms were broken. It was later stolen & sold to the National Gallery of Australia for $4,00,000. This case had a happy ending because it was returned. But had this sculpture been "written off", how much more difficult would it have been to bring it back?
Looking at the language of the draft, it appears that while paying lip service to the concerns of preservation & restoration, the purpose of the new bill is to satisfy call for free trade in antiquities.
(The authors are co-founders of the India Pride Project)
Source Link
Picture Source :
