Officials Start Inquiry Into Antique Smuggling Racket

Indian officials claim to have begun an inquiry into antiques looted from India and auctioned by Sotheby's in London. The inquiry with Sotheby's follows a television report and the publication of a book establishing that the auction house connived in smuggling antiques before auctioning what it knew to be smuggled objects.

Sotheby's are cooperating with us, Indian high commissioner in London LM Singhvi said. But he confirmed that inquiries began only after the TV report and the publication of the book `Sotheby's: Inside story' by arts journalist Peter Watson.

It was not clear what Sotheby's was cooperating with the Indian officials about. The auction house, usually quick to issue press statements about its auctions, declined to comment on its India operations for the whole of last week despite several requests.

 

Sotheby's announced what it called a purely internal inquiry following the evidence produced against it. The evidence first came by way of more than 4,000 documents handed over to Peter Watson by James Hodges, who was an employee with Sotheby's for 10 years. The inquiry, being conducted by Sotheby's managers under the supervision of chief Diana Brooks, will not be made public, the auction house has said.

Sotheby's suspended two employees - Roeland Kollewijn from its Milan office and George Gordon from its London office - for conspiring to smuggle an Italian painting to London.

But it has taken no action against two of its employees - Brendan Lynch and Patrick Bowring - established in the book to have connived in the smuggling of antiques from India.

By Indian law, the auction of Indian antiques in London is by definition illegal. Objects more than 100 years old cannot be taken out of India except by special permit.

The Indian antiques sold by Sotheby's in London over the years were not licensed exports. The Indian mission has, however, failed to check such sales abroad.

The Indian mission here should have known that many of these objects have been brought here illegally, said an Indian collector of paintings and antiques in London. The fact is that as these auctions happened, nobody even asked Sotheby's about the provenance of the objects.

Questions were first raised by the Archaeological Survey of India. LK Srinivasan, formerly with the ASI, wrote to Sotheby's in 1986 pointing out that of the 179 Indian objects included in one sale, the provenance had not been supplied for 156 of them. Such auctions have continued for ten years after that.

Despite repeated objections by the ASI, Indian officials in London did not question the origins of objects auctioned.

Singhvi said the 100-year rule came into being only in 1972. How do you establish when something was brought into this country? he said. The origin can be hard to find out. It is not easy to prove from where it was stolen and by whom, and who smuggled it and when, Singhvi said.

Objects brought into Britain before 1972 could not be claimed by India to have been illegally imported, he said. Unless we can say that they definitely came from India after that, we cannot stop them from auctioning these objects.

The British law differs from the Indian law. Britain has refused to sign an international convention that will require a country to honour the treasures of another.

The lack of a provenance for an object to be auctioned is not enough to act upon, Singhvi said. There has to be a complainant for a particular property. This happened in the case of the Nataraja idol that was returned to India after a court battle five years ago.

But others insist the Indian government had enough legal grounds to act on. It is well within the law for the Indian government to have said there is reason to believe that the objects being auctioned are looted goods and their origins should be investigated, the Indian collector said. This was not done.'

Singhvi denied that any antiques were brought to London through any container of an Indian diplomat. An inquiry into all the containers brought to London showed they had all been customs sealed, he said.

Esajee Sham, a supplier from Mumbai had said in the TV report that he had smuggled antiques through the diplomatic bag. Singhvi said the diplomatic bag is too small to fit in antiques.