It is often the law itself that turns the natural and the inevitable into an offence. Something of this sort has been happening in the sphere of antiquities and art treasures in India. In many cases, by outlawing the ‘export’ of antiques and artefacts deemed to be Indian by the government, what has been created, in effect, is the art of smuggling. And to say this does not amount to condoning the theft or faking of art and heritage objects. There is, perhaps, a way of opening out the market for Indian artefacts and antiquities to the world without ending up abetting the plunder of national treasures. But the Centre is now planning to tighten its hold on the movement and valuation of national artefacts. The minister for culture — in itself a questionable office, some might argue — has now informed the Lok Sabha that the existing Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, will be tightened further. Certain offences under this act, which renders illegal the removal of such objects outside India unless the exporting is done by the government or its authorized agencies, are now going to become non-bailable. The law will be made even more restrictive, forbidding, for instance, the replication of certain antiques and demanding repatriation of some artefacts scattered all over the world.

When it comes to lawful buying and selling, art objects and antiques should be treated like any other commodity in a free and globalized market. In fact, it is only when this is allowed to happen, that art acquires its true ‘value’ — in the world, according to global standards and criteria — and becomes unshackled from the regulations of a protectionist State. Art, including manuscripts and antiques, has acquired such a mobility in the West, becoming part of a vigorous transatlantic and intra-European trade, but without resulting in uncontrollable theft, fraud and vandalism. Besides, it may be argued that making this kind of ‘offence’ a non-bailable one is rather excessive and infringes on fundamental human rights, especially the right to habeas corpus, quite unwarrantedly. The plundering of national treasures is not really the result of legal laxity, but of a general callousness and ineptitude regarding matters aesthetic, archival, museological and archaeological. This is a question of attitude, skills and technology, which is unlikely to be sorted out by simply tightening the existing laws.