Features
Britain’s Colonial Loot
In my column last Sunday I wrote admiringly of the three leaders of Britain, Scotland and Ireland – all of Indian and Pakistani descent. 
Granted we lost our freedom and ruling ourselves, but why do some still say when Sri Lanka is in a bad way, “the British should still be ruling us.” Also didn’t colonialism mature us, sophisticate us and make us one of the global family? A very different case from India which was so rich in every way and was plundered. However, if not for the British and the administration and language they left and used widely, the subcontinent would have fractured to principalities under maharajahs and states.
Shashi Tharoor, formerly undersecretary at the United Nations, currently MP in India, and very sharp critic of colonialism and the British colonisers said: “We have finally entered an era where colonial loot and pillage is being recognised for what it really was, rather than being dressed up as the incidental spoils of some noble ‘civilising mission.’” I blushed as guilty of thinking well of British rule, but then felt exonerated as not much spoils were taken from Ceylon. Its land was exploited by growing coffee and then tea, reaping huge benefits, but land was opened particularly in inaccessible hill country. They left it all behind when they had to leave our shores.
The loot from India was mostly gems, jewels and jewellery; now emerging in prominence with the coronation of Charles III taking place next month. Some of the crown jewels will be taken out of the Tower of London and worn and displayed. Some have proved still controversial. An article by David Pegg and Manisha Ganguly in The Guardian of April 6, 2023, titled India archive reveals extent of colonial loot in Royal jewellery collection contained this information. “Buckingham Palace is plainly aware of the sensitivities surrounding looted artefacts. After the government let it be known that for Camilla, Queen Consort, to wear the Koh-i-noor at the coronation would elicit ‘painful memories of the colonial past’, the palace announced she would swap it for a less contentious diamond.”
The Koh-i-noor
This famous diamond has been the most talked about precious gem that was extracted from an Indian Maharaja. Its cost now is estimated to be between Euros 140 to 400 m. Much is documented about it. Briefly narrated: its weight is 186 carats (38.2 gm). now 109 carats after recutting. Various stories abound but what seems most authentic is that the gem was on the Mughal Peacock Throne and was looted from Delhi. It changed hands between various empires in South and West Asia and ended with the first Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. It was in the possession of 11-year old Maharaja of the Sikh Empire – Duleep Singh – when the Punjab was annexed by the British East India Co in 1849. It was presented at Buckingham Palace to Queen Victoria by the Deputy Chief of the East India Company on its 250th anniversary on July 3, 1850.
Victoria wore it in a brooch. After her death in 1901, it was set in the Crown of Queen Alexandra and then transferred to the Crown of Queen Mary in 1911 and finally to the Crown of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, Charles’ grandmother, in 1937 for her coronation. It was worn only by royal women. The governments of India, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, even the Taliban, have demanded its return, The British government insists the gem was obtained legally under the terms of the Last Treaty of Lahore, and rejected claims. However, it has become “an emblem of Britain’s tortured relationship with its imperial history.”
The Guardian
article quotes Anita Anand, journalist and historian who co-wrote the book Koh-i-noor: “a beautiful and cold reminder of British supremacy during the Raj (1858 – 1947). Its facets reflect the fate of a boy king who was separated from his mother. The stone too was taken far away from his home, recut and diminished. That is not how India sees itself today.”
Pegg and Ganguly’s article starts thus: “Five years ago, Buckingham Palace marked its summer opening with an exhibition celebrating the then Prince Charles’ 70th birthday with a display of his favourite pieces from the royal collection. Among the sculptures, paintings and other exhibits was a long gold girdle inlaid with 19 large emeralds used by a Maharajah to decorate his horse…. The Guardian uncovered a remarkable 46 page file in the archives of the India Office, the department responsible for Britain’s rule over the Indian subcontinent. It details an investigation, apparently commissioned by Queen Mary, the grandmother of Elizabeth II, into the imperial origins of her jewels. The 1912 report explains how priceless pieces were extracted from India as trophies of conquest and later given to Queen Victoria.” Documented also was a short necklace of very large spinel rubies, the biggest 325 carats, later identified as the Timur ruby. Also itemised is a two row pearl necklace of 222 pearls with a clasp of two magnificent rubies. These may have been worn by the Queen and are believed to have been Ranjit Singh’s,
Other country ‘pilferages’
The taking away of Greek sculpture is equally notorious and the Brits blamed squarely. Named Elgin’s Marbles the term means a collection of Ancient Greek sculptures from the Acropolis of Athens, removed in 1801 to 1812 from the Ottoman Greek Empire to Britain by agents of Thomas Bruce, Seventh Early of Elgin. They – frieze, metops and pediments taken from the Parthenon are kept on display in the British Museum. The Parthenon and other buildings in the Acropolis were created in the Fifth century BC by sculptor and architect Phidias.
The possession of these treasures by the British Museum has been of longstanding, international controversy. While some say they have been preserved better than if they were in Athens, others contend they were stolen and should be returned to Greece. A UK parliamentary inquiry in 1816 concluded that Elgin acquired them legally. Discussion of this issue between UK and Greek officials is ongoing.
From Ceylon
What was taken away, short of looting, by the British from Ceylon was negligible compared to the treasures carried away from India. The bronze statue of Tara (Circa. 800 A.D.) found near Trincomalee Sri Lanka, is currently housed in the British Museum, London. It is regarded as one of the world’s most important artifacts of human history. When the British took over the Kandyan Kingdom and deported the king and family to South India and then sacked his palace, the statue was handed over to the then British Governor, Sir Robert Brownrigg, who handed it over to the British Museum in 1830.
The Statue of Tara is a gilt bronze sculpture that dates from the 7th to 8th century AD. It is proof that Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism existed alongside in Ceylon during the medieval period, since Tara is a deity honoured by Mahayana Buddhists. In the British Museum it was first housed in a room called the Secretum which was a place for ‘obscene artifacts’ created during Queen Victoria’s time. The reason must have been the voluptuousness of the figure, which now any and everyone admires for its perfection, with no erotic titillation.
Again controversy exists. Was it stolen and then given over to the Governor? The BM says it was found in Trinco and handed over to the ruling British over there and brought to England. A copy stands proud in our Colombo National Museum.
The throne and crown used by the later Kandyan Kingdom kings was given as a gift by the Dutch administration about 1692. With the annexation of Kandy by the British these two treasures plus the king’s sword were taken to England. In 1934, with the accord of King George V, they were returned to Ceylon during a royal tour by the Duke of Gloucester, King George’s brother. It is now displayed excellently after the Colombo Museum was redone in collaboration with HSBC a couple of years back.
Nan