Authored By: Meenali Yadav
Lucknow Law College
Abstract
India has a long history, from the Indus Valley civilization to British colonial rule, which has given the country a special civilizational value for its cultural property.This cultural property includes artifacts, monuments and archaeological finds.However, this diversity and special civilizational value also attracted other powers, which led to the loss of centuries‑old history.Today, when you visit many European and American museums, they are filled with Indian artifacts—but why?Because of war, colonialism and insatiable greed.
During the British colonial era, the British drained India and flooded the international market with Indian artifacts.Tragically, these stolen idols are not mere statues of stone or bronze but sacred representations of gods and goddesses, intertwined with spiritual and cultural identity.This looting continued even after India’s independence in 1947.Cultural property for India is more than just art; it represents the tangible connection of Indians to their past.To return these cultural treasures to their rightful places, international agreements like the U.S.–India Cultural Property Agreement are crucial.
Background of the US–India Cultural Property Agreement
The background of the US–India Cultural Property Agreement (CPA) is rooted in India’s centuries-old cultural property, which had been systematically looted and illicitly trafficked abroad.After independence, India became an early signatory of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.However, real repatriation efforts gained momentum only after 2014 under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. India has repatriated 378 antiquities since 1976, of which 345 have been retrieved since 2014, mostly from the US.
Sculptures like the “Parrot Lady”, a 12th‑century sandstone sculpture originally part of a temple in Khajuraho, India, was illegally removed from India and surfaced in 2011. It was detained by Canadian authorities due to inadequate documentation. In 2015, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper ceremonially returned the sculpture to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In 2016, after a 15‑year investigation, the United States revealed art dealer Subhash Kapoor’s connection with many repatriated artefacts. His smuggling network had pilfered thousands of objects from Indian temples and archaeological sites.These events highlighted the crucial need for diplomatic intervention in the international art market.
This bilateral agreement under Section 9 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention in 2020 became the direct pathway for the 2024 Cultural Property Agreement between India and the United States. This commitment was solidified after Prime Minister Modi repatriated 262 antiquities in June 2023 from the USA during his visit.
The negotiations included experts from both sides such as the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and the U.S. Embassy in India, alongside the Indian Ministry of Culture and Archaeological Survey of India. The agreement not only represented India’s proactive diplomacy towards the retrieval of cultural properties but also the two years of dedicated negotiations between both countries.
The Agreement
On July 26, 2024, India and the United States signed their first‑ever Cultural Property Agreement (CPA) at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi, during the 46th World Heritage Committee meeting.The agreement aims to prevent and curb the illicit trafficking of Indian antiquities to the US and to facilitate the repatriation of cultural property to India.
The agreement was signed by Shri Govind Mohan, Secretary, Ministry of Culture, and H.E. Eric Garcetti, U.S. Ambassador to India, in the presence of the Union Minister of Culture and Tourism, Shri Gajendra Singh Shekhawat.
Explaining the spirit of the agreement, Ambassador Garcetti said: “This cultural property agreement is about two things. First and foremost, it’s about justice – returning to India and to Indians what is rightfully theirs. Secondly, it’s about connecting India with the world. Every American and every global citizen deserves to know, see and experience the culture that we celebrate here today. To know Indian culture is to know human culture.”
Main Provisions of the Agreement
Article 1: Import Restrictions and Designated List
Under Article 1 of this agreement, the United States restricts the import of specific Indian archaeological and ethnological materials.
The restricted categories include architectural material, religious or ceremonial objects, and manuscripts.
To allow the import of these materials, it should be only allowed if there is a verified Indian export licence proving legal export.
The United States will have to publish a designated list of these categories in the Federal Register to enforce the ban.
The United States also must offer to return any item on this list that is forfeited to its authority.
Article 2: Cooperation and Implementation Duties
According to Article 2 of this agreement, both countries have to publish the agreement.
India must use its best efforts:To share information on theft, illegal excavations, and trafficking.To protect its cultural patrimony per the 1970 UNESCO Convention.To engage with other art-importing countries to deter pillage.
The U.S. must use its best efforts to facilitate technical assistance to India.
Both sides have to encourage cultural exchange, including long-term loans for educational and scientific purposes. Both parties also must keep each other informed on the implementation measures.
Articles 3–5: Governance and Validity
Under Article 3 of this agreement, implementation of this agreement is subject to domestic laws and available funds in each country.
Under Article 4 of this agreement, disputes must be resolved through mutual discussions between both sides.
Under Article 5 of this agreement, either party can terminate the agreement with six months’ written notice.
Legal Framework
The legal foundation of this agreement lies in the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, under which both countries are part of it as State Parties. The Cultural Property Agreement is exclusively enacted in pursuit of Article 9 of this treaty, which is an authorised international mechanism for one State Party to request import restrictions from another to protect its cultural property.
On the U.S. side, the domestic implementation is enabled by the Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983. This U.S. law provides the authority to the President to enter into such bilateral agreements and enforce the import restrictions. The agreement therefore operates within the legal confines and procedures verified by the Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983.
The core legal obligations of the agreement are explained in its articles, as I explained above in the provision section. These sections include the restriction on the U.S. side of India’s cultural property that is not accompanied by an Indian export licence, and it further obligates the U.S. to return the U.S.-India designated items mentioned in the list. These restrictions will gain legal force by the publication of a designated list in the U.S. Federal Register.
Its second section outlines its mutual cooperative duties, like publishing the agreement, sharing information on theft and trafficking, and using best efforts to protect cultural property and encourage lawful cultural exchange. The section also includes the agreement terms and mechanism for resolving disputes through discussion, as explained in Article 4 of the agreement. This entire framework is subject to the domestic clauses and regulations of each country, including the availability of funds.
Challenges
The primary challenge for this agreement will be the operational hurdle of documentation and verification on both sides for the agreement’s import restriction and repatriation procedures to operate smoothly. Careful preservation research is required to establish an artifact’s legitimate export from India. This procedure can be complex, resource-intensive, and may lead to disputes over ownership and legal title, especially for items that have been in the market for decades with poor documentation. Both nations have to develop streamlined cooperative protocols for verifying claims and evidence to prevent bureaucratic delays.
A threat can be the evolving illicit trade of cultural property in the international market. Traffickers have continuously changed their methods, utilising the online marketplace, digital reproduction, and advanced trafficking and smuggling networks. The agreement must be enforced dynamically to counter new strategies by smugglers and update the intelligence sharing between the United States and India.
The success of the Cultural Property Agreement will hinge on political will and resource allotment. The agreement mandates both sides of the governments to use best efforts in the various cooperative activities, from publishing the agreement to facilitating technical assistance.
These commitments require dedicated funding, institutional capacities, and continuous high-level engagement over the agreement’s five-year term and beyond.
While the Cultural Property Agreement establishes a state-to-state framework, it is practically effective only with the support of civil society and grassroots activism, for example, by the Indian Pride Project. However, the cooperation between formal government channels and their public-source intelligence will be a challenge itself. Finally, the agreement’s long-term impact depends on how the United States’ market reduces its illicit Indian artefact exchanges. Making sure the designated list of restricted items is enforced is also an ongoing challenge.
Thus, beyond the signing ceremony, the Cultural Property Agreement’s true test lies in navigating these interlinked challenges of law enforcement, resources, and multilevel cooperation to transform its legal provisions into real, tangible, and sustained cultural restitution.
Conclusion
The US and India Cultural Property Protection Agreement is a representation of the global effort to protect the cultural heritage of source countries that has been wronged for years. This landmark agreement is not just a legal formality; it’s a commitment to provide justice for historical injustices by restoring to India what is rightfully its own. By establishing this kind of legal framework for the imposition of import and export restrictions and streamlined repatriation, this agreement directly addresses the systemic issue of illicit trafficking of Indian cultural properties that has been going on for centuries.
The significance of the Cultural Property Agreement between the US and India is multifold. This agreement creates a legally enforceable mechanism to deter the US market from accepting looted Indian artifacts. Diplomatically, it strengthens cultural heritage preservation as a core pillar of the US–India partnership, fostering mutual respect and deeper bilateral ties. Culturally, it acknowledges the importance of returning, caring for, and preserving historical objects that are essential for restoring community identity, preserving integrity, and enabling rightful ownership.
However, the success of this agreement is not guaranteed by signing alone. It must be followed up with strong enforcement, implementation, proper resource allocation, and close cooperation to overcome challenges in verification and enforcement against evolving trafficking methods. Public awareness and the role of civil society in this agreement serve as examples of how, at the grassroots level, it is often the civil society that supports formal mechanisms beyond government action.
Ultimately, this agreement sets a powerful precedent for international cooperation. It demonstrates how collaborative action grounded in a shared legal framework can effectively combat the illegal pillage of cultural heritage. The return of treasures and the promotion of lawful cultural exchange not only enrich the cultural narratives of both nations but also serve as a testimony to the growing global consciousness that protecting cultural heritage is a collective responsibility. It is essential to preserve the diverse legacies that define humanity for future generations.
Reference(S):
- Press Information Bureau, Press Release, India and United States of America Sign the First Ever “Cultural Property Agreement” (July 25, 2024), https://share.google/caBtPjrlt5tO1b69M.
- Reclaiming the Past: An Overview of the U.S.–India Cultural Property Agreement, CTR. FOR ART LAW (Sept. 24, 2024), https://share.google/9XGWEprogO5g7xaEm.
- U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, Cultural Exchanges, Property, and Diplomacy (GOVPUB-S-PURL-gpo233514, n.d.), https://share.google/LfWOGForTfzlx4kj2.
- India, US Sign Cultural Property Agreement, ASPIRANT IAS ACAD. (July 30, 2024), https://www.aspirantiasacademy.in/2024/07/30/india-us-sign-cultural-property-agreement/.
- GOV’T OF INDIA, India’s Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Civilisational Legacy to the World (2015), https://share.google/j1GKtc4nn7JXGs4lu. No
