If there has been a major buzzword in the 19th and 20th Centuries, it has been “self-determination”. Roughly, it means that if you are a group of people, then you have the right to figure out and do what is right by your book, on and with everything that you own. Or claim to. This has traditionally been pitted against the old monarchical state systems which did not allow for democratic self-determination. But nowadays, it is far more, shall we say fashionable (?), to talk of self-determination against colonial actions and historic injustices. And here, it’s not enough to get back the country your ancestors gave up (or some of them did anyway), it means you have to take back everything the colonizers took from them too.
This is in many ways, the logical next step after independence has been won. As long as there were countries actively fighting for decolonization of their countries, very few gave a rat’s ass about their artefacts. Their lands, their resources and their rights were more important. But that stage is largely over. Barring some groups on the extreme right (and even then, the old fashioned imperialist and not the newer neo-fascist right), very few in the formerly imperialist countries make any claims to the countries they once held. France may send some troops to its former colony of Mali and be willing to have special relationships with others, but that’s about as far as any country goes.
Instead, you find them increasingly leaning to the opposite pole – actively demanding that everything be decolonized. The European willingness to bend over backwards where once they possessed iron spines can partially be explained by the presence of large and vocal minorities. These minorities have traditionally come from the countries which the Europeans had colonized. The development of a diasporic identity rested to a large extent on the development of their respective nationalist movements in their home countries, and as such, was closely linked to them.
At the same time, these diasporic groups also wanted to find a larger voice, which would give them a space within the country and society in which they lived. Imperial European societies – just like the colonized minority diasporas – could and did copy and paste the same set of prejudices that their colonial counterparts did to the natives of the colonized countries. For instance, an Indian living in late 19th Century London could expect to face the same set of prejudices that an Indian would face in Calcutta. They may be even more extreme since the Englishman in India would always temper his expressions in view of the small minority status of the British in India in social terms. In England on the other hand, there was no such need to hold back one’s feelings. Racism and imperial arrogance lost their nuance when they no longer had to live within the pragmatism of colonialism itself.
One may even say that the transmission and amplification of prejudices fueled the growth of a search for an identity within and against the metropolitan societies of Europe among the native diasporas originating in Asia and Africa. This was very much within the interests of the nationalist leaders of these countries, since this allowed them to have a vocal group permanently resident in the colonizing country, that would speak for the colonized, even when say, the leaders themselves were sitting in shackles in some hot Bareilly jail.
With the coming of decolonization however, this logic no longer worked and was no longer necessary. Very few, if any, of the diaspora, wanted to go back to their countries simply because it had become independent. Rather, more and more people from these countries came to the European shores, giving rise to the pithy expression – “The British left India, only to find India at her doorstep.”
These, along with earlier groups of immigrants, could be transient in that they came for a good education or skills and went back when these had been acquired. They usually took up cushy positions in their home countries, and bolstered them using the contacts and clout they had acquired while living in a London or Paris. Very many, however, came to these countries as poor and middle class labour, who may possess some skills but had not come to hone them. They had come for jobs, and had come to stay.
As their numbers grew, the nationalist leaders – now ensconced in power – sought to use them to further their national causes. These could be appeals for further aid, or against some group within the former colonial countries themselves, or against foreign aggression (the Palestinians are well known for raising a hue and cry whenever they find Israel up to something, the Jews reciprocate in the same coin and lately, have been finding themselves more successful than their Arab counterparts in European capitals.)
Yet not every national cause could fire up the diaspora like the old nationalist struggle could. Sure, a cry of la patrie en danger stirred up sufficient emotions to bring out a sizable crowd, but not everything could be a call to defense of the mother/fatherland. Furthermore, with the decline of the actual political conflicts (or at least the colonial element in these conflicts), focus shifted to “soft power” i.e. the ability of the diaspora to influence the culture, society and labour markets of the metropolitan capitals.
It is to this point that we may trace the question of the repatriation of artefacts looted by the former colonial masters. Heritage of a country forms an important part of the cultural toolset of the nationalist’s call to action, and when part of that heritage is sitting in colonial capitals, far away from the eyes and the hearts of the formerly colonized, it makes sense to end these vestiges of colonial policy and bring the artefacts back to the people who actually produced them. And to whom they belong. Because if the Africans and Asians cannot self-determine where their artefacts and national treasures would go, their sovereignty cannot be called complete. Or so the argument goes.
Even as the former colonies and their diaspora began to campaign for recognition of the fact that the artefacts sitting in European and American museums were in many cases looted or gifted under duress, the Europeans and Americans themselves were becoming increasingly aware of their duties to their former colonies. This was both a result of the campaigning itself, and of intellectual currents within the European society that acknowledged their use of force in the past and sought to make amends. This dovetailed with the need to appear “woke” to countries that may be vital allies and useful markets/factories for their own societies. Hence, where on one side flowed profuse apologies by European and American leaders of wrongs long rendered irrelevant except in memory, there were active demands for repatriation of artefacts on the other.
It should be noted here that while an element of force was always involved in colonialism, it did not mean that every colonial artefact brought by some European from some non-European nation was taken at gunpoint. In many cases – including in the case of the famous Koh-i-Noor diamond, the artefacts in question were actually gifted by royals and others who owned them. Many of these royals now live in Europe itself, and even if they don’t, they aren’t particularly interested in getting these treasures back because they are acutely aware of the fact that whatever the context, a gift is a gift.
In other cases, looting did take place but the ones who were looted – such as the various extinct lineages of Africa or India – can no longer get back what they lost because they no longer exist. Demands for repatriation are made by the respective nations on grounds of national heritage, but it is far from clear what rights a modern nation has on things which can be of a very personal nature.
But, for the sake of simplicity, let us take cases where there was actual looting of items which had symbolic and ritual significance and were very much public and important. Let’s talk, for instance, of the Benin Bronzes. Without going into the complex history of the scramble for Africa, suffice it to say that during the late 19th Century, a punitive expedition of British soldiers and colonialists went to Benin and stripped its royal palace of anything of value. These items included bronze figurines called the Benin Bronzes, which today can be found in numerous European and American museums of repute. It has been argued that the bronzes were of great ritual significance and would never have been given up except under extreme pressure. Hence, it may well be called a despoliation of the country and the bronzes need to be returned.
Scholars and curators who concur with this – and there are a great many who do – have a major problem, however. To whom must the bronzes go ? The Royal Palace of Benin and the Nigerian government are separate entities, and whose claim is to be respected for something that was taken in completely different circumstances ?
But my argument here would be somewhat more fundamental. I would argue that as long as there is someone who is wiling to take up the task of harping on about cultural heritage and colonial despoliation, s/he would manage to persuade some or the other museum or historical society to return such artefacts to that someone or someone else. But should they be returned at all?
Here, let’s get the question of emptying of colonial museums out of the way. When arguments are being made on grounds of national heritage and shared memory of former injustice, empty museum shelves would scarcely put up a major defense of the status quo. This especially when a new, “woke” generation considers all things colonial to be anathema.
But more fundamentally, can we ask whether the countries demanding repatriation have any strong grounds for such demands ? Cultural heritage might sound ferocious on paper, but it is a paper tiger. Each country has numerous tangible and intangible artefacts, buildings and memories which can and are mobilized by the leaders as per convenience. Hence, while one group might eulogize Tipu Sultan for being the last fighting bastion against the British in all except parts of Central and North West India, others might ignore or openly attack him and artefacts related to him because he was a Muslim ruler whose father had usurped power from a Hindu ruler and who was supposedly not fair in his attitude towards the Hindus.
No better example of this can be seen than the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. While the Masjid itself had never been the epitome of Mughal architecture, it was historically important and worthy of conservation. Instead, it was demolished under the pretext of there being a Ram temple underneath. Under such circumstances, what is the guarantee that a Koh I Noor or a tiger figurine belonging to Tipu won’t be similarly destroyed or at least defaced by those who find something objectionable in the legacy involved ?
Move outside India and the damage done to archaeological sites such as Palmyra by ISIS or Bamian by the Taliban clearly shows that third-world countries are oftentimes not equipped or do not give enough importance to their heritage to save it from motivated groups of iconoclasts. Heritage itself is charged with social meaning – as it was in the earlier periods when it was linked to the religion to which it belonged, and not considered part of the common heritage of all. As such, every change of government and every crisis runs the risk of another Bamian or Palmyra.
But let’s say the legacy in question is not disputed and will probably not be disputed such as in case of the Benin bronzes. Even then, countries demanding their return aren’t exactly the best equipped to house and maintain their treasures. It is true that disasters such as the fire in the Brazilian museum and that at Notre Dame show that nature does not discriminate. Yet it is very much true that museums across the poorer parts of the world are badly financed and in worse shape as each year goes by. In many cases, the visitors themselves amuse themselves by damaging the artefacts, as was seen in Hampi earlier this year. Given that Nigeria is no better than India in its record of conservation, what guarantee is there that a repatriated Benin Bronze will not be lying on its size, cracked and rusting, with some lovers’ initials painted on them for sake of a few selfies?
But there are even more fundamental reasons for not repatriating these cultural treasures. Firstly, treasures aren’t meant to be hoarded in the way the kings of yore did in their palaces. It is not for the enjoyment of a few, but the education of all. Having cultural treasures of a civilization spread all over the world allows young minds access to different civilizations. Even in the age of digital media and 1:1 modeling, the sense of historical gravity felt when viewing the real thing cannot be replicated. Hence, a country should actively try to ensure that its treasures are on display in as many responsible and historically sensible countries as possible, so its citizens may know what the country’s culture looked like.
Demanding that the treasures be returned flies in the face of this logic. Not many would want to hop across Africa to view the individual museums where they would be housed. Hence, the increase in revenue arising out of such repatriation would not make up for the loss in viewership and study in the countries where the treasures now reside, and which are infinitely easier to reach even if you are not a EU or American citizen.
Now it has to be submitted that ideally, the countries from whom the artefacts were taken would discuss their retention or repatriation as equal partners. What would be retained would be retained only with the express consent of the original owners. But we have seen the complications that arise when original owners are sought out. Further, the sense of partisan nationalism prevailing in many third world countries would probably lead politicians to demand repatriation regardless of historical justification simply so they can earn brownie points in their respective countries. If such are the facts of the case, it makes sense to consider the actual question of who and how much access the people of the world would have to a certain artefact when discussing the question of repatriation.
Secondly, it is not as if the proverbial Newcastle-upon-Tyne of Nigeria or India no longer have coal. Much that was excavated by the British in India, in Greece or in Nigeria, remains there to this day. In the Indian case, the British pretty much set up archaeology and told us how to take care of our heritage. We – and other countries – can always add to our collections by funding archaeological efforts and encouraging people to take up archaeology and museology as professions if we want additional eyeballs and additional tourist revenue.
Countries can pump this revenue into museums and archaeological efforts so they don’t suffer a repeat of the accidental Brazilian brainwash of history in fire. Emptying out the shelves of a museum in London to fill one in Delhi or Kolkata simply doesn’t serve any purpose except to swell the chests of nationalists. And nationalistic jingoism of tomorrow can easily destory what the jingoism of today brought back from Britain or America.
We can conclude on the note that if colonialism is a historical wrong, then repatriation of artefacts isn’t the means of correcting it. Not only would it lead to endless controversies over what, when and who should receive the greatest attention and ownership, it will also deprive the people of Europe, America and even Asia and Africa from seeing artefacts collected from the world over in a single place. Let such viewers be told what the true provenance of these artefacts are, and how and why they cannot be returned. Let them understand the complex reasons why artefacts need to be preserved for their historical value, and not because they serve the purpose of bringing in additional revenue or add laurels to some nationalist’s hat. Let them understand that heritage of humans – and we mean all humans – is shared and the more dispersed it is, the more we can fight the prejudices and particularities that divide the world up into imaginary compartments. In sum then, let artefacts educate all so that all can take better care of all artefacts and the common heritage of humankind.