The Roerichs’ Heritage: Inventions and Facts

On the basis of a doubtful document sent by fax from India right after S. N. Roerich’s death, Russian bureaucrats attempted to liquidate his museum and to expropriate the collection by resolution 1121.

On August 4, 2008, the Moscow City Arbitration Court of Trial dismissed the action of the Federal Agency for Federal Property Management for the ICR – International Centre of the Roerichs – dispossession of the restored “Lopukhins’ estate” in the Volkhonka street due to expiry of the statute of limitations. The circumstances of the struggle for the Roerich family’s legacy in Russia are complicated and intricate. But the central place in it belongs to the many-year attempts to implement in life RF Resolution No. 1121 dated 4.11.93 “On Establishment of the State Museum by name of Nicholas Roerich” (by tacit agreement providing for an actual liquidation of the ICR Public Museum by name of Nicholas Roerich ).

It is this resolution that allows to settle the main problem of the State Museum of Oriental Art and the people behind it – to replace the ICR public museum, the subject itself (to establish which Svetoslav Roerich transferred to Russia his parents’ legacy) with a state museum. Including more than two hundred paintings (with the value of hundreds of millions Euro) kept today in the Oriental Museum. “Novaya Gazeta” decided to go back to this matter, speaking procedural language, “upon discovery of new facts”.

Numerous governmental and legal documents, business papers and articles signed by Svetoslav Roerich will make the basis for this investigation. The circumstances that preceded those documents clarify the interviews taken by us from direct participants of the long past events reflecting their personal positions. This is Ludmila Shaposhnikova who was the main organizer of establishment of the Soviet Roerich Foundation (subsequently transformed into the International Centre of the Roerichs). This was also Rostislav Rybakov – he used to be one of the Foundation leaders some time ago. Presently, he is the head of the Oriental Studies Institute. The information communicated to us during a telephone interview with Deputy of the Chief Commissioner of the Bangalore police (India) Abdul Rekhman Infant conducting a long investigation in Bangalore in the case of the Roerich family’s property misappropriation and documents forgery has proved to be very useful. The editors also thank for his story Alexander Kadakin who is now the Russian Federation Ambassador in Sweden, and before 2004 worked in India, first as an Envoy, and then (from 1999) as the Ambassador.

It will make sense to start with a short summary of the situation for today.

The initial position

In the autumn of 1989, in accordance with Svetoslav Roerich’s will, the Public Centre-Museum by name of Nicholas Roerich was created in Moscow as the main base of the Soviet Roerich Foundation. In 1990, to establish the Foundation, Roerich transferred to it the main part of his parent’s heritage. This included a great part of the paintings of his father and Svetoslav himself, as well as the most complete archive of the Roerichs, and other rarities – this part of the legacy now constitutes the basis of the International Centre of the Roerichs in the Volkhonka street. When doing so, Svetoslav demanded to add to this part of the collection the owned by him paintings imported by him to the USSR earlier and kept in temporary custody in the State Museum of Oriental Art.

Then, in 1992, Svetoslav Roerich founded in India the International Roerich Memorial Trust (IRMT) in his parents’ estate in the Kullu valley. Some time before, he had created an artistic gallery in the state of Karnataka, in the estate which his wife, cinema actress Devika Rani, acquired in the early 50s when getting married to Roerich. Svetoslav believed that he more or less decided the fate of the Russian part of the legacy in 1990, the RIMT, which purpose was to protect the heritage in India, was to be managed by representatives of India and Russia. Today, the Indian state representatives are trying to put aside representatives of Russia from managing the RIMT. The main value in Bangalore is a big land plot and a unique grove (plantation) of essential plants the oil of which is sold to perfume companies, mainly, in France. As to Kullu, it is a kind of resort in the foothills of the Himalayas where, in particular, Indian officers like to rest from heat.

Svetoslav Roerich died in January 1993, Devika Rani Roerich passed away soon after her husband, in March 1994. She had no rights to the part of legacy brought by Roerich to Russia. But subsequently, the Indian police and courts discovered a whole number of doubtful documents disposing of the property not only in India, but even in Moscow. Allegedly, the former famous actress signed them during the last, critical for her health year of life – 1993, at the age of about one hundred years (nobody knows a more precise figure).

Investigation of these tragic for Svetoslav’s spouse events is extremely important. Otherwise, it is not possible to understand the circumstances under which RF Government Resolution No. 1121 was born. If we look upon the destiny of all the parts of the Roerichs’ huge legacy as a whole, the first thought that occurs is some mystical fate pursuing them: scandals of quite criminal character do not subside either in Russia, or in India. But, most probably, the thing is just usual human geed including corruption, the level of which is quite high in both countries.

Public or governmental? Museum establishment

As Rybakov explains, in 1989, when the Soviet Roerich Foundation was being registered, he himself underestimated the issue that would later become the main argument in the conflict around the legacy – whether the Roerich Centre including its museum be placed under the patronage of the state or have a public status. However, in Roerich’s famous letter which, according to Rybakov, was brought by him to Russia (and published in the summer of 1989 in the “Soverskaya Cultura” newspaper), Svetoslav expressed his will unambiguously: the foundation and the museum must be created on the public basis. He especially stressed that the Centre-Museum “in no event must be subordinated to either the Ministry of Culture, or the State Museum of Oriental Art” (this is understandable taking into account the whole family’s former experience of “communication with the state”).

For Ludmila Shaposhnikova, Roerich’s request to stand at the head of the museum was unexpected, before that, she was an Indologist, taught at the Institute of Asian and African Studies, and did not deal directly with the Roerichs or with museum business. The meeting with Svetoslav Roerich in the early 60s of the last century when he introduced her into the world of the Roerich heritage, changed her whole further life. It took time for Ludmila Shaposhnikova to agree to Roerich’s offer to head the future museum.

Having agreed, Shaposhnikova was very well aware that Svetoslav’s main concern was creation of a museum: according to his concept, the Foundation was to provide everything necessary to the museum required for its work. Ludmila Shaposhnikova supplements the picture of those events with an important detail: simultaneously with the Roerich Centre concept suggested by Roerich, there existed and was promoted another one, according to which the legacy was to go to the State Museum of Oriental Art.

And in fact, the editors have a letter confirming these words. Hardly three months had passed from the date of Svetoslav Roerich’s death, as General Director of the State Museum of Oriental Art V. A. Nabatchikov sent a very open letter to First Vice Prime Minister O. I. Lobov No. 272-I/3. In this letter, the director having the rank of a Doctor of Philosophy does not even attempt to produce legal arguments to support his request: “In 1989, the former Soviet administration (the Gorbachevs. – Ed.) made an obvious mistake in assignment of the Roerichs’ … legacy – establishment of the Soviet Roerich Foundation … concentration of all the materials and the Roerichs’ creations in the same hands – the State Museum of Oriental Art – appears the only right decision… The foregoing allows to ask you, Oleg Ivanovich, to help to transfer the Roerichs’ legacy and the Lopukhins’ estate to the State Museum of Oriental Art for permanent and uncompensated use what will be a truly priceless gift of the Russian Government for the museum 75th anniversary to be celebrated this year”.

That is, long before the peak of conflict, the position of the party wishing to take everything that Roerich bequeathed to an absolutely different person “for permanent and uncompensated use” was very clearly expressed. Until today, the group of persons behind the Oriental Museum is acting in strict accordance with the plan formulated by Nabatchikov and is waiting for the “truly priceless gift”.

So, after the registration of the Centre-Museum by name of Nicholas Roerich as a public organization meeting Svetoslav’s concept, he came to Moscow together with Kadakin at the beginning of November, 1989. In the meantime, the problem with the premises had not yet been solved. And it was the second main condition for Roerich’s transfer of his parents’ legacy to Russia.

On the 4th of November, when the Roerichs were to meet Mikhail and Raisa Gorbachevs in the Kremlin, Moscow City Executive Committee Saikin called Shaposhnikova and said that he had sent a car with his assistant. She was to see a number of buildings and estimate the possibility of their use for the museum. Ludmila Shaposhnikova insisted on picking up Roerich as well and they went to see the available options together.

Roerich’s choice fell on the Lopukhins’ estate, though, at that time, it presented a poor sight. And the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR “On the Soviet Roerich Foundations and the Centre-Museum by name of Nicholas Roerich” was issued on November 4, 1989, on the day of the meeting of the Roerichs and the Gorbachevs. And the Moscow Council decision to provide the Lopukhins’ estate to the Foundation made to develop the resolution was executed within a term of record – on November 28. After the events of 1991, it became obvious that the USSR did not exist any more, and the Soviet Roerich Foundations became extremely vulnerable. The issue of relevant amendments introduction into the Foundation Charter arose. On Svetoslav Roerich’s suggestion, the Soviet Foundations of the Roerichs was reorganized into the International Centre of the Roerichs. Subsequently, the public museum ill-wishers that suggested that the legacy and the estate be given into “the same hands” conducted a long campaign with the purpose not to recognize the ICR as the SFR successor. While Svetoslav Roerich himself confirmed, including in his letter to Boris Yeltsin, that the ICR and the former Soviet Roerich Foundations were the same thing for him.

It is important, as this entity, irrespective of its name, was established for the only purpose – creation of a public museum that was to secure storage of, and scientific work with, the Roerich family’s legacy, the owner of which was Svetoslav. If the owner of the legacy and the actual SFR founder confirms before the Notary the ICR’s full rights for the legacy transferred to the SFR, then who, except Svetoslav Roerich himself, can be entitled to change his will? As known, he never changed it.

While Svetoslav was still alive, the ICR repelled all attacks referring to the person who, pursuant to the testament, preserved the right to take back during his life any object from the collection, even the whole of it. But when the last of the Roerichs died in January, 1993, the conflict – on the one side of which the ICR and Shaposhnikova at its head stood, and on the other – the State Museum of Oriental Art which united their opponents – entered its decisive phase.

And in the meantime, in India…

Here, we shall have to lease aside the Moscow conflict chronology. Its parties’ arguments cannot be correctly interpreted without understanding what was happening in the Indian state of Karnataka during the year for which Devika Rani outlived her husband. As the Roerichs had neither children, nor any relatives or direct heirs, when she was one hundred years old, Devika only had Svetoslav’s personal secretary Mary Poonacha by her side. She was in charge of all servants and controlled all acts of the former famous Indian actress, it was only through her that all the documents which Devika signed or, when she could not sign any more, certified with her finger print, passed.

The estimation of Mary Poonacha’s personality is the only item where all our witnesses’ stories coincide. Everybody says that she was, on the one hand, a crook, and on the other – had a great influence on Devika whom she “wound round her little finger”. Let us give an example of a characteristic episode vividly showing the methods to which the swindler, who is now under investigation, resorted to get what she wanted from D. Rani.

Shaposhnikova and Kadakin came to Bangalore in January 1993 to take Svetoslav’s ashes who instructed to bury him in Saint-Petersburg, next to his grandfather’s grave. Having come from Deli and meeting Mary Poonacha downtown, Kadakin asked her to tell Devika (she did not often leave the hotel any more) that she should put on warm clothes: “It’s enough for us to have one dead body on the plane”. This not very witty for a diplomat joke was passed over by Mary to Devika the following way: “He said that he would bring your dead body to Moscow”.

In the widow’s subsequent letters (or Mary’s, if you consider that it was her that prepared them) to the President of Russia, it was Sahposhnikova that threatened Devika standing over her teacher’s body, what is really impossible to believe. At the last moment, Devika, being under the impression of Poonacha’s words and under her pressure, changed her husband’s will, the plane which was for another time warming up its engines in Vnukovo was stopped, and Russia lost the grave of the last of the Roerichs.

Rostislav Rybakov told about one more visit to Devika’s, most probably in July 1993, according to him, Devika personally gave him a letter of which we shall talk below. Rybakov confirms that Mary controlled all Devika’s acts.

Since we have no other evidence, analysis of the available documents comes to the first place in our further investigation. Let us turn to selected excerpts from the Indian press (though some facts were published in Russia as well, in 1994, with a reference to personal correspondents in India).

The Times of India, June 2, 1994:

«…In the Indian Bank lockbox held by Mary Poonacha’s husband – Anil Poonacha, the police discovered golden necklaces, a casket with golden rings bejeweled with emeralds and rubies, golden ingots, and a time deposit receipt for the amount of 1 650 000 Rupees… The police decided to arrest Anil and Mary’s friend Nandakumar… People say that they brought the police to the house of Chandrashekhar, former owner of a wine shop, and Prabhakhar, the owner of a public telephone outlet, where the police confiscated gold, jewelry, weapons, and bank deposit documents. The jewelry included a golden belt and a bejeweled with diamonds amulet, a pearl necklace, a brooch, and pendants of rubies and pearls which belonged to deceased Devika Rani Roerich”.

The Indian Express, June 7, 1994:

«…The police has at its disposal six “testaments” the last of which was allegedly executed by Devika Rani in favor of Mary Poonacha on the 4th of March of this year. “We have reasons to doubt these documents authenticity”, police Commissioner Kodandaramayah said. He says that the two testaments executed by the Roerich couple in 1990 and 1992 look more convincing… The second last will clearly says that all the property must belong to the trust being established which will conduct charity activities in the sphere of art… We found out that, in the last days of her life, her state became such that she could be forced to sign empty sheets of paper. One of her testaments bears her signature and he thumb print, Kodandaramayah said”.

The Indian Express, June 19, 1997:

”The central division of the criminal police of the city of Bangalore entered a case against former personal secretary of past years cinematograph queen Devika Rani – Mary Joyce Poonacha, her husband Anil Poonacha, and her principal Nandakumar. The 200-page document contains accusations of theft, forgery, illegal appropriation, falsification of documents… Mary Poonacha managed the accounts of the Roerichs who, due to disease and old age, were not capable of doing this on their own. The accusation says that the secretary, together with her husband and with Nandakumar, the hotel manager, caused unlawful damage to the elderly spouses and, by way of their signatures falsification, withdrew an amount of more than 20 million rupees from their bank accounts… Mary and Anil Poonahca also falsified Devika Rani’s signatures and transferred to their names two passenger cars including Maruti 1000, and falsified the testament dated June 1, 1993. On January 25, 1993, when Roerich was fighting for his life and in an unconscious state in the Manipal Hospital, both the Poonachas concealed his real state of health to commit a forgery against the spouses and to obtain into ownership their 456-acreTataguni Estate. They sent telegrams on Roerich’s behalf to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, former Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao and Sonia Gandhi to make sure that there were no governmental decrees or resolutions on taking possession of the estate”.

India Today, April 1, 2001:

”…Presently eight cases are pending in courts. The main of them is the one where Mary Poonacha challenged the Government decree of 1996 (on taking under control the Roerichs’ estate in Bangalore. – The author.) and claims to be the Roerichs’ lawful heiress… A former judge of the Supreme Court of the state says that the only way to complete these proceedings is to appoint a special public prosecutor who would be able to find solutions without protractions”.

The Telegraph (India), October 6, 2004:

”In 2002, the Supreme Court of the state allowed the state government, as an interim measure, to obtain into ownership the estate, the paintings, jewelry, and objects of material culture of the Roerich couple pursuant to the Deed of Transfer Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich’s estate… Courts of trial are holding litigation proceedings against Mary, her husband Anil and their friend B. M. Nandakumar… They were arrested in 1994, but let out on bail by the city court decision. The seized property includes the original bowl of Buddha for collecting alms (Buddhist relic), several golden necklaces, golden coins, ancient statues of gods, golden bracelets, antique golden spoons, pearl necklaces, ear-rings of precious stones, animal skins, artistic canvases, and two revolvers”.

In fact, the investigation against Mary Poonacha was commenced as long ago as February 1993, following an application of some R. Devdas. The editors have this text: Devdas asserts that Mary was his sister-in-law, it was him who arranged this job at the Roerichs’ for her – first, as a typist. Then he writes that he resents Poonacha’s behavior after the death of Doctor Roerich whom he loved, that is why he has decided to apply to the police with a detailed description of all her unseemly deeds.

As Rybakov and Kadakin (who knew them both) remember, this Devdas was quite a shady trader in the state of Bangalore. One can guess what were the grounds for the quarrel with his sister-in-law “planted” in the Roerichs’ house: she was tempted by the precious stones and gold, and his purpose from the beginning was the estate with the unique grove of essential plants which was resold to him by Mary (in accordance with the facts in the criminal case) through straw parties while the Roerichs were still alive, abusing their trust.

If the police had acted prompter on the basis of Devdas’s application, those mysterious documents which were executed on behalf of Devika Rani Roerich and were related, inter alia, to the fate of the legacy transferred to Russia and the public museum, could have hardly appeared. It is hardly worth to attach any indisputable significance to them today either. But another thing is interesting: all this, even if without details, was known to everybody who was this or that way interested in the Roerichs’ legacy case as long ago as the summer of 1993.

The secret of the Indian movie star’s signature

Let us go back to the interrupted story of the Roerichs’ legacy Moscow part. The picture here is not so sad as in Bangalore, but, probably, equally cynical. Beyond any doubt, we can talk of some forgeries that were committed by somebody when the conflict was raised to the government level. Being aware of the gravity of our accusations, we shall continue to compare the documents and the interviews that, under different circumstances, could be testimony in a criminal case, in Russia this time.

In two weeks after Svetoslav Roerich’s death, the collection which was imported into the USSR in 1978 and kept, against his will, in the State Museum of Oriental Art, was transferred by the museum director from the category of “temporary custody” and “placed on permanent record”, that is, was recognized as the museum’s own property. There were absolutely no legal grounds for that.

And on November 4, 1993, without even inviting the ICR to discuss the matter, the Government passed resolution “On Establishment of “the State Museum by name of Nicholas Roerich” No. 1121. According to the resolution signed by Chernomyrdin, such museum was being created as an affiliate of the State Museum of Oriental Art, and the Oriental Museum was to get, without reference to the paintings already kept by the latter, the collection brought from India by Shaposhnikova in 1990 and owned by the ICR and the building in the Volkhonka street chosen by Svetoslav under the guarantee of the USSR administration. This way, a public museum created personally by Roerich was being in fact liquidated, and in its place, a state museum was to appear.

Resolution No.1121 starts with the words: “Taking into consideration… Mrs. D. R. Roerich’s wish”… But Devika was not her husband’s heiress in so far it related to the property transferred to the Soviet Roerich Foundation in 1990 and subsequently bequeathed to the International Centre of the Roerichs. What Devika Rani’s wish directly contradicting the will of her recently deceased husband could be referred to? What exactly was shown to Chernomyrdin who was hardly informed of Devika Rani Roerich’s situation in Bangalore at that time (see the previous chapter)?

Big shots in the Government were on the side of the Oriental Museum. But the ICR was also supported by important people: on November 11, 1993, Academician Likhachev forwarded a letter supporting the ICR to President Yeltsin. Yeltsin gave an order, soon, a detailed note of Igor Shabrasulov, who was then in charge of the matters of culture in the government structure, lay on the table of Vladimir Shumeiko, the Government Chairman First Deputy. In particular, Shabrasulov wrote the following: “In accordance with the available information, S. N. Roerich’s widow D. R. Roerich who is the only heiress of S. N. Roerich’s property believes that the conditions for the Roerichs’ legacy transfer have not been complied with and intends to demand that the legacy be returned to India. This information is confirmed by Mary Joyce’ (Poonacha. – Ed.) letter addressed to R. B. Rybakov… In D. R. Roerich’s telegram copy (highlighted. – Ed.) addressed to President B. N. Yeltsin dated October 3, 1993, delivered by R. B. Rybakov to the Government Cultural Department, S. N. Roerich’s widow applied with a request to transfer all S. N. Roerich’s legacy to the Roerichs State Museum which is being created”.

Probably, it was not Shabdrasulov’s fault, but there are a lot of half-words and confusion. There is this telegram copy, but it is dated not October, but July 1993, and on the fax by which it was transmitted, there is only Poonacha’s signature, not Roerich’s. Devika’s signature is under a more detailed letter with somewhat different contents which is not dated October, but Rybakov now asserts that Devika signed this letter in his presence in July.

The original letter has never been seen by anybody, except Rybakov. He was the first to inform our newspaper that he had personally brought the letter to Russia. Taking into account this fact, one cannot help asking the following questions:

Why, in such case, Shabdrasulov’s letter to the Government which made the basis for fatal resolution No. 1121 dated 4.11.93 mentions as the basis for the resolution the copy (in fact – the fax) of the telegram in the name of Yeltsin?

If there was an original letter, why Rybakov did not remember it for 15 years?

Why the fax with idle threats “to take the legacy back to India” addressed to the President was not notarized? This kind of paper can be sent from a neighboring room.

Why the fax in the name of the President appeared from Rybakov’s fax-machine? Why was it not sent directly to the secretariat of Yeltsin, or at least the Government?

The most “childish and the most important question: why a hundred year old widow on her death- bed should dispute the legacy of her husband’s parents bequeathed to Russia? What is her personal interest in this matter?

The signature existing only in the copy gives rise to doubts in respect of its quality (this could be attributed to her age), but also due to the fact that Devika did not sign anything any more, but put her fingerprint instead. The 100 year old actress of Indian cinema would hardly perceive the difference between state and public museums in Russia.

Rybakov states that, in July 1993, Roerich’s widow was still capable of putting her signature and even of understanding what was written in the letter. But police Commissioner Ifant who came to Moscow more than 10 years ago to take testimony in Poonacha’s case said that, at that time, D. Rani “was totally legally incapable”, that is, she did not understand anything any more. The Commissioner confirmed it once again to our editors in the telephone conversation. In July 1993, Devika Rani could not possibly personally talk with Rybakov who visited her, and hand him the letter.

And she was not the collection heiress, the threats to return it to India were just bluff in this case. And she would hardly get involved in such absurd blackmail. And all this was especially strange for those who were well informed of the situation in “Ashoka” hotel in Bangalore, and such people were present at the preparation of Government Resolution No. 1121, despite the fact that it was kept secret from the ICR.

Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies also said that he had a video record of this act of Devika’s signing the letter to Yeltsin, but it mysteriously disappeared from his safety box in the Institute. But this record copy is purportedly preserved in the Institute of Cosmonautics where it was made when the record was being viewed. Rybakov believes this record publication to be premature.

But how can be premature production before court of a single proof confirming that the letter which has decided the fate of the legacy for millions of Euro is not falsified? If such proof does exist.

Some video record on which Devika is signing a certain text (it is not legible on the screen) at an unknown time already appears in the Internet – we already know that ourselves. But the editors also have a copy of the letter itself which made the basis for resolution No. 1121. And the document which D. Rani is signing on the tape in the Internet and the letter to which Shabdrasulov refers are printed on absolutely different forms.

Those are just different documents. And under the video placed on the website as the proof that Rybakov’s letter is authentic, there is a subscription saying “Provided by the State Museum of Oriental Art”. That is how it is.

Mystical events in the High Arbitration Court

Right after resolution No. 1121 was passed, the ICR applied to General Prosecutor Alexei Kazannik, but we remember what happened to him after the Duma’s decision on amnesty for the participants of the events of October 1993 was executed, and the Prosecutor’s office never performed any investigation the results of which would have hardly surprised anyone at that time. But, under the then democracy, the complaint against those paragraphs of the Government Resolution by which it, in fact, liquidated the ICR public museum by name of Nicholas Roerich, was noted by the High Arbitration Court of the RF.

The court instances gradually saw that resolution No. 1121 has no other basis except the telegram copy without Devika’s signature, but with a strange postscript of Mary Poonacha addressed to Rybakov: “By the way, I have sent the coffee samples to S. Fyodorov (“Fydorov” in the message) from the Eye Hospital, get to this matter and specify, please, how soon we can get orders (for the export company)”. What common plans of Rybakov and Mary Pooncha are implied? If the fax was “manufactured” by Poonacha, was she really going to start a hopeless battle in court at the distance of 6000 km, or was she just asked by someone from Russia “to help” to seizure the Russian part of the legacy?

In such case, what is the role of Rybakov himself as the initiator of this story with the “letter”? Poonacha, even theoretically, could not get anything from Russia. She had absolutely no motivation to get involved in any trouble with the Russian part of the legacy, to send here letters without any prospect. And as we saw from the Indian newspapers and legal documents, she was a very practical lady. Maybe, it is in exchange of market transactions like orders for coffee that the swindler sent this fake telegram?

Let us add here the following manifest episode. Sahposhnikova parted with one of the SFR leaders, Zhitnev, at the end of 1990 at the Foundation Board of Directors meeting which accused him of embezzlement of funds transferred by world chess champion Anatoly Karpov for the estate restoration (though she managed to get back those funds).

The minutes of the Foundation bureau meetings contain specific figures, the accusations were not disputed on the merit. And Rybakov comments on this episode in a much milder way: it is true, Zhitnev did some business and made the money work, but who did not do the same at that time? And we have on hands a documented fact of correspondence on purported common business between Rybakov, who made arrangements for seizure of a most precious collection from the International Centre of the Roerichs, and the woman who has falsified 6 Devika Rani’s testaments. The woman who has devastated the Roerich family’s property in India.

By that time, the Russian press already published some information on the criminal case against Poonacha. Though the court could not admit newspapers as evidence, however, considering the “legacy case” various aspects and taking into account the clearly expressed will of Svetoslav Roerich, the High Arbitration Court tribunals consistently recognized the Government Resolution invalid in those paragraphs where it demanded to transfer the Lopukhins’ estate main building which hosted the public museum by name of Nicholas Roerich to the State Roerich Museum. For example, the RF High Arbitration Court judgment dated September 30, 1994.

On November 14, 1995, a strange protest was filed with the High Arbitration Court Presidium which was, strange as it may seem, sustained. The Ministry of State Property claim to transfer the Lopukhins’ estate main building to establish a state museum (in favor of the Oriental Museum) was now considered under the same number as the number of the claim of the International Centre of the Roerichs to hold invalid Government Resolution No. 1121 examined by the court before. Having brought down the dispute to a pure property issue, rather technical, this quite artificial way, the court ruled this time that the ICR should vacate the estate.

To do so, the High Arbitration Court Presidium, which was famous at that time for its informal approach to many matters, had to specify that the ICR references to Roerich’s will are “beyond the action scope” (its own action filed by the ICR). Having picked violations at the time of re-registration (in fact, it was clear that the ICR and the former Soviet Roerich Foundation were the same organization), the Presidium delivered judgment that the estate (except the annex) be transferred to the Oriental Museum. Probably, out of respect for the memory of artist and philosopher Nicholas Roerich, the High Arbitration Court did take into consideration that “restoration and reconstruction of the Lopukhins’ estate will be performed at the expense of the state”…

It is interesting what came next. Having won in 1995 the dispute “seemingly related to the estate” in the High Arbitration Court with a certain strain and, probably, using “administrative resources”, the Ministry of Culture immediately looked to have forgotten about it. “The State Museum by name of Nicholas Roerich as the Affiliate of the Museum of Oriental Art” was never created, except on paper. Maybe, this decision organizers were satisfied with such situation.

It allowed to use resolution No. 1121 as the means of pressure on the ICR: if it continues demanding that the state return the illegally held paintings, it will always be possible to enforce it. According to the version which the ICR shares today, the new action for “dispossession” on the part of the Federal Agency for the RF Federal Property Management filed in 2007, became an asymmetric answer to the ICR claims to return the paintings from the Oriental Museum to the restored Lopukhins’ estate.

It is interesting that in 1993—1995, when the main struggle for the legacy between the International Centre of the Roerichs and the Oriental Museum developed, it was for the paintings, the archive, and other rarities from the Roerichs’ legacy which had not only artistic value. The ruins that represented the Lopukhins’ estate at that time were perceived as “encumbrance” by the group behind the Oriental Museum as it would be difficult to get hold of the collection without the estate. It was not an empty ground, not even a building “scheduled for demolishment”: restoration of the ancient estate required a lot of effort and money, and the prices for real estate were far from being as high as they are now.

In July 2007, that is 14 years after resolution No. 1121 was passed and 12 years after the judgment in favor of the Museum of Oriental Art, when the former State Property Ministry was again ready for an action, the actual situation in the Lopukhins’ estate in the Volkhonka street was already different. One of the paragraphs of resolution No. 1121 was fulfilled: the estate was restored and looked like a toy. But despite what was “taken into consideration” by the High Arbitration Court, it was not the state that did it, but the International Centre of the Roerichs for the earned and donated money. And this very fact in itself is already a “newly discovered fact” allowing to go back to the strange decision of the High Arbitration Court dated November 14, 1995.

Preferring not to go into all these complicated circumstances, the Moscow City Arbitration Court dismissed the action of the Federal Agency for the Property Management on the grounds of the statute of limitations expiry. What is the reason for their so late second thoughts? For today, this looks reasonable. Why rake over the dust and ashes of the past? Let us see, though, what will come next, the dust and ashes have been raked anyway.

The Commissioner’s story

“Novaya Gazeta” got in touch with Deputy of the Chief Commissioner of the Bangalore police Abdul Rekhman Infant who was in Moscow in 1995 and interrogated witnesses in the case of the Roerich family’s property misappropriation in India. He confirmed that the accusation against Svetoslav Roerich’s secretary Mary Poonacha is still valid and added: “Now the case is pending in court. A few hearings have taken place, testimonies of witnesses have been heard. Mary Poonacha was arrested, then let out on bail by the court, but she has no right to leave the city. As to our investigation, in my opinion, we have managed to establish that Mary Poonacha has stolen Roerich’s paintings and, using Roerich’s and his wife’s falsified signatures, has got hold of the most part of their bank deposits. She misappropriated a lot of precious stones and jewelry. The value of the stolen property is measured with millions of rupees. We have managed to return a major part of the stolen property, but about 20-25 percent were illegally exported from India. It is not my business to guess what the verdict will be, but we have produced very much convincing evidence before the court. Alas, judicial proceedings in India take very long…”.

Probably, the process lengthiness is due not only to the peculiarities of the judicial system in India multiplied by the degree of its corruption, but also to the fact that the Governments of the states where the Roerichs’ estates are located are not interested in a quick verdict on Mary Poonacha. The case completion may require that they review some decisions made by the RIMT in Kullu in the absence of the Russian party’s representatives. So far, the proceedings against Poonacha do not interfere with harvesting precious oil in the grove in Bangalore and relaxation in the valley of Kullu, “Indian Switzerland”, where the Roerich Centre established by the Russian representative has the most comfortable hotel.

P.S. In comparison with the “Novaya Gazeta” possibilities, the possibilities of the Russian state are great. The Government and the Ministry of Culture, in particular, can easily verify the facts which made the basis for our investigation. For there is no statue of limitations when the fate of your own decisions is decided. To find out the exact circumstances under which RF Government Resolution No. 1121 was born (and if the newspaper is right, it would not do any harm to correct one’s own mistakes) is quite a feasible task for the officers. They would learn many interesting things which our readers have learnt today.

Valery Shiriayev 
Elena Kostiuchenko 
Daria Pylnova 
Dmitry Shkrylev 
Leonid Nikitinsky 
”Novaya Gazeta” observer