It is evident that Indian art is here to stay. And despite the fact that many of our contemporary artists look exclusively to the West, and primarily to Picasso or Matisse, I wonder whether they realise that these two, more than most other artists of their time in Europe, looked to the art of Africa and Asia for inspiration? In fact, the popularity of Picasso with many of our modern artists reflects his being influenced not only by African sculpture, but also by Chitpur prints--the style that influenced our most creative Bengal artists of today.

It is fascinating how Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase uses the same principle of depicting movementthrough multiple images, just as the Nataraja image with its many arms reflects the movement of the Bharatanatyam. In the same way, both Matisse and Chugtai were impressed by Persian miniatures. Obviously, this is a dialectical process here that our westward-looking artists fail to appreciate. So they keep looking West.But what of Bonhams? They seem to tread the market line carefully, integrating ``Indoo'' kitsch with the best of contemporary art. Of course, Ravi Varma is there representing the first brand, while Rabindranath and Gaganendranath are there to represent the second. Also, lot no. 55 is stated to be Satish Gujral's work, but despite the disadvantage of only having a catalogue to go by, the work, its date of execution and signature, all show it to be a painting of Satish Panchal shown at the Jehangir Art Gallery in 1965. Panchal is now in Paris, still painting and exhibiting. What worries me is that the catalogue states: ``Purchased directly from the artist by the present owner circa 1964 inMumbai.'' Obviously, we are paying the price of the failure of Indian collectors to document their works properly and having to rely on memory alone to say whose work it is.

I saw the havoc this plays at NGMA's presentation of the Nicholson collection, where an obvious sculpture by A M Davierwala was unlabelled and an enquiry drew the comment that it may be Piloo Pochkhanawala. But the catalogue of the Nicholson collection clearly mentioned it was a work of Davierwalla. It is obvious from things like this that a buyer has to be absolutely certain of the genuineness of a work. Otherwise, someone else's bargain might turn out to be your money down the drain.

This brings us to where Bonhams see our money. Discounting the fact that some of the ``greats'' are represented by only a work or two, the main body of the auction is represented by George Keyt (8 works), Jamini Roy, Ganesh Pyne, F N Souza and K K Hebbar (7 each), followed by M F Husain and Manishi Dey (5 each), Ram Kinkar Baij (4 works), while BadriNarayan, Lalu Prasad Shaw, Manjit Bawa, Laxmi Goud and Ahmed Parvez bring up the rear with only three works each.

Clearly, with these artists representing over half the lots up for sale, we know they represent what Bonhams think is saleable. In fact, Ganesh Pyne with a work at £18,000-24,000 as the expected price, heads the list, while Husain makes it to £8,000-12,000, along with Hebbar who has one more work up for sale than he. Evidently, we have at the top of the Bonhams' list the two most successful living artists, Pyne and Husain, as the cantilever by which the auction hangs. This is what we bank on as well. But then, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have therefore to analyse the figures of the sale to come up with the real picture that is true in every detail.

So far, however, we can say that in the sale of Indian contemporary art, Indian tastes prevail. Despite many of our contemporary artists swearing by European gods, the English auction house seems definitely looking to the East forthis sale at least.