Repatriation of cultural artefacts is both a legal and an ethical issue. Examine India's approach in the light of global practice.

Repatriation means returning cultural property to its country or community of origin. The UNESCO 1970 Convention made curbing illicit trade a legal duty of states [2]. But repatriation is equally an ethical question of identity and historical justice. India is moving from one-off claims to rule-based diplomacy, though gaps remain at home.

Legal dimension

• Domestic law: The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 regulates the export of antiquities and aims to prevent smuggling [1].
• Global framework: The 1970 Convention lets a state of origin seek the return of stolen property. It also expects states to keep inventories. It does not apply retroactively, so objects removed in the colonial era fall outside it [2].
• Bilateral route: In 2024 India signed its first Cultural Property Agreement with the USA, negotiated under US law implementing the 1970 Convention [3].

Ethical dimension

• Many temple idols are worshipped as living deities. Their theft is a loss to a community's faith, not just a loss of property.
• Colonial-era acquisitions, such as those in the Kohinoor debate, raise questions of consent and past injustice that treaties cannot settle.
• Museums abroad argue for "universal museums", while source nations assert their right to their own heritage.

India's approach: strengths

• Proactive diplomacy: The USA returned 297 antiquities in 2024, spanning almost 4,000 years [4].
• Standing agreements follow the global trend: the USA has a network of about 30 bilateral partners [3].

India's approach: gaps

• Weak records: CAG found that ASI had no long-term road map and that conservation in several circles was poor [5]. Without strong inventories, India's title claims abroad are weaker [2].
• Capacity: About 31% of ASI posts are vacant [6].
• Colonial-era objects still have no legal route back; India must rely on moral persuasion.

Law provides the route for repatriation, and ethics provides the reason. India should combine bilateral agreements with a digitised national inventory and a restructured ASI split into two wings, as the Standing Committee recommended [6]. It should also use cultural diplomacy for claims older than 1970. This would honour the constitutional duty under Articles 49 and 51A(f) to protect and value India's composite heritage.