How a nudge from Centre forced Chandigarh to act on stolen heritage items

The communication also recalled the 2011 Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) directions issued specifically to prevent the loss of valuable heritage items being auctioned in international markets and pointed out that this concern had led to the formation of the CHCC.

Significantly, the Centre’s communication prompted the UT Administration to initiate action on June 25 to stop the articles from being auctioned in Paris and register an FIR. The letter prompted action by Chandigarh and woke the Administration to an issue about which it had been repeatedly informed: Chandigarh’s heritage articles were being put up for auction abroad.

Much before the UT ‘acted swiftly’ on June 25, the ministry in the letter on June 23 already stated that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) could not take legal action in the matter because the heritage items did not fall within the category of “Antiquity” or “Art Treasure” under the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. But while pointing out the limitation of the antiquities law, the Centre reminded the Chandigarh Administration of a February 22, 2011 Office Order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

The order, the ministry said, contained a directive to the Chandigarh Administration “to prevent the loss of valuable heritage items, which were being auctioned for high prices in international markets.”

And “it was this very concern”, the Centre pointed out, that “led to the formation of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee (CHCC).”

The ministry’s communication specifically stated, “This concern led to the formation of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee (CHCC) to manage and preserve these items and also the City’s overall heritage.”

In other words, the Centre’s reminder was that CHCC was not created merely as a heritage advisory body but its genesis lay in the problem of Chandigarh’s heritage objects being lost to international markets.

The ministry then went a step further and asked the UT Administration to act on the responsibility flowing from those earlier directions.

“In view of the above directives, you are requested to take necessary action for stopping the auction in coordination with Ministry of External Affairs and the Indian Embassy in Paris,” it said.

The intervention is significant because the ASI’s inability to invoke the 1972 Act did not, according to the ministry’s communication, mean that Chandigarh had no role to play. Rather, the Centre pointed to the separate administrative framework created specifically to safeguard Chandigarh’s heritage.

Calls for revival of heritage cell

Ajay Jagga, who received a copy of this letter by Vivek Aggarwal to Adviser Prasad, said, “The matter now requires immediate intervention at the level of the Administrator, Chandigarh, with a review of the status and functioning of the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee constituted pursuant to the Ministry of Home Affairs directions of 2011, including examining why it has not taken up the issue of Chandigarh’s movable heritage, including the stolen heritage articles.”

He called for the revival/restoration of the Heritage Item Protection Cell (HIPC) and regular meetings of the committee, besides immediate coordination with the Ministry of Culture, PDI Paris, Ministry of External Affairs and other concerned authorities to explore all possible measures to prevent the sale/auction of the stolen Chandigarh heritage articles and secure their return to Chandigarh.

He also sought a comprehensive mechanism for the identification, documentation, protection, monitoring and recovery of the city’s movable heritage so that such incidents do not recur, and demanded that the process of notifying Chandigarh’s heritage articles as ‘Art Treasure’ be commenced immediately to ensure restrictions on their export and address the ASI’s stated inability to take action under the existing legal framework.