Stolen Indian idols abroad: Why global rules on sacred antiquities must change

It is commendable that Oxford's Ashmolean Museum of its own accord decided to return a 16th century bronze idol to India 74 years after it "disappeared" from the Soundararaja Perumal Temple in Tamil Nadu's Thanjavur district. But even this supposedly altruistic gesture highlights some unresolved and uncomfortable issues when it comes to the presence of clearly venerated antique Indian deities in so many private art collections and museums abroad.

First, although the museum did not resort to legal stonewalling, it still took eight years from the time that the deity was identified from a photograph in the archives of Institut Francais de Pondichery to the Ashmolean deciding "voluntarily" to return it. Secondly, had the India Pride Project not garnered proof from an institution founded by a fellow former European colonial power, would that museum have so willingly accepted that the idol was stolen and illegally sold?

Also, why is the onus still on India to prove that these antiquities were illegally removed from India and sold to collectors and museums? Most of these 'objects of art' are Hindu, Buddhist and Jain deities whose idols in bronze, stone and other materials are still widely worshipped in India, unlike say, Greek or Roman gods and goddesses whose faiths and followers are long defunct. Indian idols could not have been removed and sold in any other way but illegally.


Much obviously hinges on detailed documentation and proper archiving. Had the IFP not had such an exhaustive collection of photographs of idols in south Indian temples dating back to the turn of the 20th century, India's case for their return would have never succeeded. It is sad that such intensive archiving had not been undertaken all over India, which makes it so much harder for India to pursue return of idols stolen from locations other than the south.

This writer has long argued that international attitudes towards Indian religious art in institutions and collections abroad must change. India now has considerable heft in many arenas where once it was largely ignored with impunity. India's newfound consequence should be brought to bear on the existing skewed system that facilitates the continuation of trafficking in sacred Indian antiquities. Burden of proof must be on sellers and possessors, not India.

Even the presence of antique idols in any place other than temples, barring only government repositories perhaps, should be probed too. Some may be the sole remnants of long disappeared temples so return to their original abodes may be impossible, of course. Official incentives could be offered to possessors or would-be collectors of Indian religious antiquities, to sponsor their protection and upkeep instead within temples to prevent future smuggling.

Public-private partnerships symbolising a national consensus to protect and maintain idols - those rescued from abroad as well as those that escaped the avaricious clutches of smugglers and dealers and remained in temples - would go a long way in telling the world that India is serious about this. Building a database of current idols and antiquities and perhaps even geo-tagging them if permissible and possible are also crucial to prevent future trafficking.

Will the altruistic Ashmolean advise other museums and collectors abroad to return antique Indian deities that clearly belong in temples not display cases? That seems unlikely though surprises would be welcome. Will those entities and individuals abroad suo motu take a cue from the Ashmolean? Even more unlikely. The only alternative is for India to change the world's protocols on this even as, in the meantime, it fights to get its heritage back one deity at a time.