Daily Times

Although invaders voyaged from different parts of the world, for distinct self-serving reasons, there always remained one underlying similarity among their methods: taking away a community’s cultural icons. The British were no aberration.

British rule was the archetype of what colonists used to do: exclusionary policies, virulent taxation, inducing famines and degenerating resources was the reality of the British Raj in Indo-Pak. But the subjugation does not even end there.

Remnants of the imperialist British Empire still remain in various British Museums. For many at home (England), these artefacts and antiques hold no special importance. In juxtaposition, for most abroad (elsewhere in the World), they are a testament to the horrors of the Raj and allude to the incendiary notion that perhaps those who like to style themselves as leaders of the free world still have a chip on their shoulder.

Perhaps, it would not be entirely speculative to say that the British leaving behind their colonies never stemmed from their own remorse or newfound love for self-determination of the indigenous peoples- maybe, it was the work of the Second Great War all along. This could be precisely why they have time and again rejected any opportunity of discourse towards returning what wasn’t theirs to take and isn’t to have, thus validating their gaudy colonial past while being completely impervious to its grisly details.

The world’s memory hasn’t fallen short remembering the remarkable historical gesture of the German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, in the Warsaw Ghetto on his knees opening the way to reconciliation.

The British loot amounts to almost $45 trillion. On the peripheries, they shipped the Koh-I-Noor, the Wine Cup of Shah Jahan, the Ring and Sword of Tipu Sultan among many other such artefacts; representing the Indian cultural heritage back to England, in order to vend their expeditions abroad. There have been many potent efforts on part of countries, in their own bilateral contacts, that believe responsibility is owed by Britain to return what was taken unlawfully but to nothing. And if such a scenario is set, one might ponder, does Britain have anything substantial to counter such narratives?

For the longest time, one of their principal arguments has been that the countries in question do not have the resources required for proper placement and care. These profound colonial apologists are forgetful of the reason why they make this argument – possibly based on their knowledge of the state they left all these countries in. However, ever since Independence, many previously colonised countries have ascended into an era of economic stability and have museums running and open to the public. Therefore, such a stance would not hold. But simultaneously, even if it did, the British do not have a greater moral responsibility to preserve what remains of what they took. This should be an active choice for the affected country and its people. And it cannot even be said that the British themselves have been able to do an excellent job at preserving these artefacts – for instance, the Amaravati Sculptures remained in the basement of a British museum for over 30 years.

In continuity, another argument presented is of ownership. They assert that returning these artefacts would lead to far greater hostility and chaos than peace within regions. For example, Pakistan, India, Iran and Afghanistan have all claimed ownership of Koh-I-Noor, who do they really return it to? While on the surface, this argument might feel rooted in

reality, there is only one thing that can be said with assurity: ownership is complicated, but it certainly does not rest with the British. Question of ownership is one that is irrelevant up until the doorway to this discussion is opened – which can only be done once the British acknowledge that they have a responsibility to return what they stole. Only then can the various stakeholding countries argue their cases up.

These are some of the emboldened arguments entrenched in the minds of those who still have a hang of Colonial Era Britain. But more importantly, in essence, it really isn’t a question of whom to return, what to return and would proper care be taken if returned. Rather, the real question addressing a far bigger problem is: is Modern British thought still entwined in cultural kleptocracy? The return of these artefacts in no way would alchemise any country’s GDP but would serve perhaps as an acknowledgement of all the wrongs that were committed during that British Era – which the British to this day commemorate, a prime example of historical amnesia. To say the British would be the first ones to do, if they did, would be wrong. The world’s memory hasn’t fallen short remembering the remarkable historical gesture of the German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, in the Warsaw Ghetto on his knees opening the way to reconciliation. If the British call for a day of reckoning, it is certain, they would find themselves incidents that demand an apology.

In the early nineteenth century, the British added the word “loot” into their dictionaries, perhaps it is time to add another one: “Chor Bazaar.”

The writer is a Law Student at the London School of Economics and Political Science.