In the year 2003 a dancing Shiva murthi was quietly deposited at the Indian High Commission in London! For 14 years the sculpture had become a showpiece curio at the High commission.  The powers to be had quietly buried the truth! Today we can reveal why!

The Background:

“If you want the Taj Mahal, I’ll send it to you, I’ll take it down piece by piece.” – Vaman Ghiya – Source: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/05/07/the-idol-thief

In 1998 Peter Watson told the story of his five year investigation into Sotheby’s and his discovery of a score of illegal practices that include the facilitation of smuggling, the sale of antiquities known to have been stolen from tombs, fake bidding, and the rigging of the Art Market Index.

Source: http://peterwatsonauthor.com/books/sothebys-the-inside-story/

Though the book covered the rampant smuggling of artefacts majorly within Europe – chapter 17 covered India – titled – The Men from Bombay!

Extract:

Hodges explained that Ghiya was “a kind of Indian Medici,” whose relationship with Sotheby’s was so close that he would stop at Hodges’s house in Shepherds Bush on his way into London from the airport to drop off antiques he had carried on the plane.

 

Bank documents obtained by the police reveal that Sotheby's paid Ghiya large commissions over the years, placing the money into his London NatWest and Abbey National bank accounts. Sotheby's did not use its own name but made these transactions through the names of HC Banks and Albert Yarrow.

Until 1994 it is alleged that Ghiya sponsored visits to India by representatives of Sotheby's, including the head of its London Islamic Department, Brendan Lynch. Ghiya's relationship with Sotheby's goes back to when he met Lynch in 1986. According to internal Sotheby's documents - published in a book written by former Observer journalist Peter Watson - the auction house used to send its people to India undercover so as not to alert the suspicions of the authorities.

One document dated 18 March 1986, written by former Sotheby's representative Patrick Bowring, said: 'Any visit by a Sotheby's expert will be monitored in India and justification for such a visit should be readily available. It is unconvincing to say every expert is there on holiday and even the pretext of "writing a book" is wearing pretty thin.'

Another document written by Bowring describes Sotheby's relationship with Ghiya. It states: 'Lynch has developed a very good business relationship with this dealer... We now have a clear understanding of what should be sent and have ruled out the lower end of the market. Also we propose to get Ghiya to pay for Brendan to fly out for 4-5 day visits perhaps twice a year so as to have agreed reserves prior to shipment.'

On 22 September 2000, there was a major auction of Indian art and antiques at Sotheby's in New York. One lot in the catalogue was a twelfth-century red sandstone figure that was priced at $35,000 (£21,000).

Indian police now confirm that this valuable sculpture was stolen from the Vilasgarh temple in September 1999. The theft had been recorded at the local police station.

'Ghiya purchased these idols for one million rupees (£13,000) and smuggled them out of India,' said Srivastava.

According to the Hindustan Times, during the investigation the police identified four more idols listed in Sotheby's catalogues in 1997 and 1999 as having been stolen from the Taneshwar temple in Udaipur in the 1960s, although these were not connected to Ghiya.

Sandipan Sharma, the journalist who has been covering the story in India, said the arrest of Ghiya is a major breakthrough in the fight against the illegal looting of the country's heritage.

He said: 'Ghiya is super-rich and has powerful friends. But his arrest is a major success and will hopefully allow the Indian authorities to recover the stolen antiquities which belong in India.'

In a statement to The Observer, Sotheby's admitted to dealing with Ghiya or companies connected to him in the past but said they have had no dealings with him in recent years. A spokeswoman said she was 'unaware' of paying commission to him.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jul/06/arts.artsnews

In June 2003 police raided the home of Vaman Ghiya in Jaipur (Rajasthan, India), seizing hundreds of photographs of sculptures that appeared to have been forcibly removed from Hindu temple architecture. Over the following few days the police raided a further six of his properties in Jaipur as well as storage facilities in Mathura and Delhi, altogether seizing approximately 900 antiques and antiquities. Ghiya was charged with possessing and trafficking stolen cultural property.

Ghiya was proprietor of a large handicrafts saleroom in Jaipur, but the police placed him at the centre of a smuggling network that extended from rural India to the antiquities salerooms of London and New York. After a year-long investigation into his activities, the police claimed to have established that Ghiya had been purchasing stolen or looted objects from a network of intermediaries. These intermediaries were in turn obtaining material from thieves who removed it from temples or other cultural sites and institutions. Ghiya would then store material in Jaipur, Mathura or Delhi while arranging shipment abroad of objects, describing them on export documentation as handicrafts.

Ghiya began selling antiquities in the late 1970s and by the early 1980s he was consigning material to Sotheby’s London. Under police questioning, Ghiya confessed to shipping material to Geneva where it was known he maintained three front companies (Cape Lion Logging, Megavena and Artistic Imports Corporation). SOURCE/LINK? These companies would transact/ sell material amongst themselves to hide any trail of illicit trade, before selling objects on to other dealers and customers, including Sotheby’s. Between 1984 and 1986, Cape Lion Logging and Megavena between them consigned 93 lots to Sotheby’s, with a combined value in the region of £58,000. To return his money to India, Ghiya had access to British bank accounts opened by a Sotheby’s employee in the invented names of “A. Yarrow” and “H.C. Banks” for use by foreign customers.  and He also used the international Hawala remittance system, which allows the paperless transfer of money. 

After Watson’s exposed the link between Ghiya and Sotheby’s, Lynch left the company “by Mutual agreement” and Sotheby’s transferred their South Asian sales from London to New York, claiming to have stopped accepting consignments from Ghiya. Nevertheless, Indian  police alleged that lot 135 sold on 22 September 2000 at Sotheby’s New York, described in  the catalogue as a red sandstone figure of a Jina, circa twelfth century, had been stolen from  Vilasgarh temple in 1999 and passed through the hands of Ghiya. Sotheby’s denied that the piece had been consigned by Ghiya. Ghiya himself claimed to have continued selling material through Christie’s auction house after 1997.

Ghiya was arrested in 2002 and formally charged in Indian courts in 2003 on charges of committing theft and illegally exporting the monuments and statues from various temples and other protected placed of archaeological importance.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/372832/

The judgement was passed on 20.11.2008  whereby Vaman was convicted and sentenced him among other charges to multiple convictions – including two three year rigorous imprisonment and one life imprisonment – for the most serious offence under Sec 413 of the Indian Penal code - Section 413 in The Indian Penal Code which is for “ Habitually dealing in stolen property.—Whoever habitually receives or deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with 1[imprison­ment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

However, in January 2014, the conviction was quashed by an appeals court (the Rajasthan High court) because of procedural irregularities during the police prosecution. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89956655/

The two notable points in the judgement are

1. “Firstly, this case dealt with the alleged receiving of stolen property, possession, transportation, attempt to export of antique sculptures and art objects. While investigating this case, the police was dealing with a specialized area of human knowledge in art and antiquities. Yet, from the very beginning of the investigation, the police did not associate those who were experts or knowledgeable about the area of art and antiquities. Despite the fact that the CBI has a special cell dealing with theft, possession, and smuggling of art and antiquities, despite the fact that according to the police the case had inter-state and international reach, still the police never sought the help of the CBI cell on antiquities in investigating the present case. Such help should have been sought by the police. In future, the police should seek such help from the other investigating agencies.”
2. Secondly, we do need to pass an order with regard to the trial property. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish its case. But the probability does exist that perhaps the art objects recovered during the investigation are antiques.

The 2 point refers to seizure during the raids by police of nine hundred antiques in Ghiya’s various godowns around India, and trucked them back to Jaipur. Today, they inhabit a storage space at Jaipur’s Vidhyadhar Nagar police station!

https://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/priceless-artifacts-kept-in-dismal-condition-at-jaipur-police-station/story-76BWtOFpVk5H2OrUjyi1AJ.html

Though the Archaeological survey of India had constituted two expert panels and ruled that over four hundred of the seized items were antiques, the ambiguities in expert opinion as evidence or advisory etc. came along with lack of clear convictions on authentic tests on say stone sculptures to arrive at the age and spot fakes. It is however, pertinent to note that the case of the London Nataraja – India had convincingly argued on stylistic basis of dating India art (in the case of the Bronze Pathur Nataraja)

Further the interesting fact is that In fact, in his cross-examination the Rajasthan Police admitted that they neither investigated the case in London, nor in New York nor against the said auction houses (Christies & Sotheby’s even in Mumbai – which were closed down immediately following the arrests).  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89956655/

The appeals court also ruled, however, that the seized material should not be returned to Ghiya. It should either be restored where possible to the dispossessed temples, or failing that, the Archaeological Survey of India should arrange for authentic material to go on display in a public museum.

Incidentally a crucial aspect of The Idol Thief is that the investigations into the Kapoor case had a chain reaction which lead to the unravelling of another suspect dealer and subsequent seizures have provided the hitherto missing inputs on the Vaman Ghiiya case as well.

New Evidence submitted by Home Land Security in a US court:

On 12th December 2016, special agent Brenton Easter of Home Land Security America filed a detailed charge sheet on Nancy Wiener, a prominent Art dealer in New York – Ms. Nancy Wierner which has that exposed with detailed proof evidence that her now deceased mother and business partner Ms Doris Wierner extensively bought Indian Antiquities from Vaman Ghiya. It and also has traced the document trail of a Kushan Buddha sold by Wiener Galleries to the Asian Civilisations Museum Singapore.

Indian Law enforcement and Archaeological survey of India must ensure that they seek the evidences and reopen Operation Black hole which was done conducted by Rajasthan Police personal DIG Anand Srivatsava and Inspector Ram Singh. The least they can do is to appeal the acquittal of Vaman Ghiya in the Supreme Court. Further the CBI and Enforcement directorate should take up and prosecute Ghiya’s alleged the money laundering via Switzerland bogus companies.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/05/07/the-idol-thief

http://traffickingculture.org/encyclopedia/case-studies/vaman-ghiya/

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/notorious-antique-thief-vaman-narayan-ghiya-arrested-by-jaipur-police/1/206064.html

http://lawfinderlive.com/Judgement.aspx?q=107030&p=1&pos=9&qType=6

Now to our Shiva. The returned London Shiva – was none other than the Gateshwara Shiva stolen from Barouli in 1998.

Following the intense reporting on the arrest of Vaman Ghiya and the media coverage, the London dealer quietly handed over the Shiva to the Indian High Commission. However, the red tape and bureaucratic nonchalance of the system meant that it was never reported and never came back to Indian shores to stand as the crucial evidence to convict Ghiya.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/05/07/the-idol-thief

This despite the above NYT report in 2007 – the Barauli Shiva was not reported!

The Shiva was a well-documented antiquity being photographed when it was still in the niche of the temple.

The robbers used the classic ruse of trying to make a replica and switch it.

However, a simple match shows up the fake and yet nothing happened! The bureaucracy had wiped out the memory of the stolen murthi and no one knew as to how it ended up in India House London!

Did this cause Vaman Ghiya to be acquitted for want of clear evidence?

All this changed in 2014. A slew of successful restitutions and idol theft criminal cases ushered in a new sense of purpose to the cause – Yes, the same machinery under the new leadership.

For sure, the effort was aided by changes in the global perception towards illicit antiquities and colonial looting.

The wheels are now set in motion and the various departments now know that someone is taking notice!

And in London – this happened - the case of the Nalanda Buddha - https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/MitejLdBdImh1v8DIM3VWN/How-the-mystery-of-the-Missing-Buddha-statue-was-solved.html

Incidentally the Shiva is still in the background of this ceremony – a mute testimony as to what aids, abets and ails our efforts to recover India’s plundered past – clear leadership and direction to not just rest of photo ops but go after and prosecute heritage thieves and dismantle the looting network that is destroying our great heritage – one artefact at a time.