The Biggest Ever "Return" of Cultural Objects!!

This week the art and cultural world celebrated two significant events, no I am not referring to the inclusion of Dholavira and the Kakatiya Rudreshwara (Ramappa) Temple in the UNESCO World Heritage list, but the repatriation of art and cultural objects in two distinct instances. 17000 cultural objects were repatriated to Iraq, the biggest ever! (click here to read more) and the 14 objects that will be repatriated to India. Why is this significant, no matter that 14 seems inconsequential number compared to the 17000? Repatriation of objects garners heated discussions and debates in the art world, but with little or no action. Take for instance the announcement made by the French President Emmanuel Macron in 2017 that it would return 26 ceremonial objects of Benin, this news was celebrated as it was the first that a country had taken such a decision, however after a year, the objects still continued to remain the French Museum (click here to read more) there followed yet another announcement in 2018; till date the actual return of the objects has yet to take place. This highlights that repatriation is deeply embedded in the polity and complexity of legal procedures.

Bu first let me define the terms associated with the act of “returning”.

Repatriation is the process by which cultural objects are returned to a nation or state at the request of a government. There is yet another term that come along with repatriation; Restitution is the process by which cultural objects are returned to an individual or a community. Goes without saying, it must be demanded for.

Repatriation or restitution is an act of returning that which does not belong to you and was taken wrongfully, or under duress. But more often these objects are in powerful institutions, museums and collections who are protected by layers of procedures and use the national and international laws to make the return difficult. ?This is further complicated by the layering of historic, political, religious, and cultural values attached with the object. Apart from legal and administrative processes, there are those who believe that, “cultural objects belong to a universal legacy of humankind”, (click here to red more on this) but what is universal? And culture is a result of the interventions of people of a particular region and has values that are intrinsically related to that place and time, then how can it be universal? The very concept of universal is problematic.

It is not that restitution and repatriation have not occurred, and when they transpire they are governed by something that is far removed from any academic, legal, or philosophical debate – it is who wields power. How else can you explain the restitution of 17000 cultural objects from the USA to Iraq, and while this is the biggest repatriation till date, the past few years saw a series of “return” of objects to Iraq; 2020 UK announced it would be returning 4000 objects, Jordan has returned 1300 and countries like Japan, the Netherlands amongst others too have returned several hundreds of objects. The icing on the cake was when the Iraqi Prime Minister flew back from the USA with crates of the objects from the last week, and the media lapped up the images of crates stacked ! Now contrast this with the low key announcement by the National Gallery of Australia of its decision to return 14 objects back to India, 13 of which were acquired from Subhash Chandra the art dealer who is imprisoned for illegal trafficking of Indian antiquities. The controversy has been raging for over a decade and many Museums across the globe have had dealings with Subhash Chandra, yet this is the first of the “returnees” and highlights the laborious process involved, “The decision to return the works is the culmination of years of research, due diligence, and an evolving framework for decision-making that includes both legal principles and ethical considerations,” the National Gallery of Australia said in a media release. The decision is welcomed by all, however these objects represent a miniscule number of the many that have been removed illegally from India. ?

Of course, no conversation on repatriation can be complete without the mention of the Parthenon Marbles also called the Elgin Marbles, (click here to read more) which are the collection of frieze sculptures and metopes that were removed from the Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis by Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin in 1801. Greece at that time was occupied by the Ottoman government who had granted Elgin the right to remove the sculptures. Soon after the British government purchased the sculptures from Elgin and housed it in the British Museum since then. Greece secured its independence in 1832, and since then they have called for the return of the sculptures, with no resolution in sight.

The National Museum of Australia sets a fantastic precedent and hopefully we will see a difference in dealing of restitution, repatriation and return of objects.