Why the Benin Bronzes saga has important lessons for India

One of the least known aspects of World War II is a letter sent by the then Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D Eisenhower in 1943 to his forces in Italy ordering them to tell Italians to “remove all movable works of art from cities and localities subject to damage by military operations” and telling them to “avoid destruction of immovable works of art”. An area-wise list of historic monuments whose destruction was to be avoided was also distributed in 1944. This helped the Monuments Men — about whom a movie was made in 2014 — to step in to document local treasures as Allied troops surged into countries occupied by or helping Nazi forces. The Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives (MFAA) programme of the Allies — known as the Monuments Men but women were in the team too — were primarily tasked with helping to restore treasures looted by Nazis to original owners, but they also minimised any second looting. Not only could Allied soldiers not commandeer war booty from antiquity and art-rich Italy, that order helped Monuments Men to identify and flag the return of the objects looted by Nazis. This marked a watershed in the history of a genre of ‘collateral damage’ in wars — the destruction of heritage and looting by victors. But a new twist in the tangled case of the return of Nigeria’s Benin Bronzes indicates doublespeak prevails in the “concerned” West on the count. A surprise ordinance by the outgoing Nigerian president has decreed that the Oba — the descendant of the last ruler of the Benin Kingdom, now a part of Nigeria’s Edo state — is the actual owner of the artefacts looted by the British after destroying Benin City in 1897 which eventually found their way into museums and collections in the west. This has now created uncertainty over where the treasures would be kept and displayed — and thus halted repatriation. Notably, the 1943 Eisenhower order not only led to the repatriation of an impressive number of treasures looted by the Nazis, there were no demands to know what the recipients would do with the objects afterwards. Clearly it was thought that the Monuments Men — and later, the government departments of nations involved in the repatriation, like the US State Department — had no locus to put caveats or conditions on the return of those stolen artefacts. Yet several institutions in the west have decided to halt the repatriation of their cache of Benin Bronzes—despite many acknowledging the artefacts were looted and therefore illegal acquisitions—because they are unsure of which Nigerian entity would be in charge of them. There are indeed three claimants: Nigeria’s National Commission for Museums and Monuments (that has led the repatriation talks), the Edo province’s government, and now, the Oba of Benin. And the history of their rival claims has echoes of something that Indians called Britain’s ‘divide and rule’ policy. The NCMM led the talks to bring back the bronzes but the foreign museums were collaborating with the Legacy Restoration Trust (LRT) backed by the Edo State Governor to set up an Edo Museum of Western African Art to house the bronzes, which was opposed by the present Oba who has mooted a Benin Royal Museum within his palace grounds. For quite a while it seemed the LRT was the designated recipient and hence several western museums signed deals with it for projects in Benin City. But the Nigerian president’s surprise move in favour of the Oba has put a spanner in the works. No wonder the German authorities’ decision to go ahead with the return of their stash of Benin Bronzes — regardless of which Nigerian entity was the final “owner” of the artefacts — has elicited criticism from other nations. This halt indicates the possible future hurdles that India — and other looted nations — will face as they build pressure for the return of treasures. Doubts will be cast on the preservation and protection of the objects, and the ‘discovery’ of alternate owners cannot also be discounted. In India’s case, counter claims of ownership by Pakistan are very possible, especially for items that once belonged to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, as the capital of his kingdom was Lahore. Thus India has to set (and keep) its house in order to pre-empt any such arguments in the coming years. That includes upgrading the facilities in its major museums and repositories to world standards, if not better. The National Museum in New Delhi will definitely be improved drastically in terms of space, display and ambience when it eventually moves from its old building to North and South Blocks on Raisina Hill, but others elsewhere need to follow suit. The grand Indian Museum in Kolkata — the oldest in India, built in 1814 — as well as the equally imposing Government Museum in Chennai’s Egmore–the second oldest, having opened in 1851 — need comprehensive overhauls, particularly when it comes to displays. Both have priceless antiquities, including parts of the Bharhut and Amaravati friezes whose other remnants are in museums abroad and should be displayed together once the latter are returned to India. Of course, the delays in the talks for the return of the Elgin Marbles (parts of the Athens’ Parthenon) and Egypt’s Rosetta Stone — both of which now repose in the British Museum that categorically refuses to “return” anything but is now willing to “loan” some things! — are proof that  just upgrading facilities will not guarantee repatriation will be smooth. That several other steles are already safely preserved and displayed by Egypt has not helped the return of the Rosetta! Although the Amaravati friezes have a dedicated display area at the Egmore Museum, it is not a patch on how the rest of the ancient stupa’s segments are preserved and exhibited at the British Museum. So, if Britain decides to use the imminent precedent of the Benin Bronzes, unless Egmore’s facilities improve, any negotiations for the repatriation of the Amaravati remnants may become as difficult — and perhaps as fruitless — as getting back the Kohinoor. Nigeria is one of nine nations invited as “guest countries” for the G20 under India’s presidency. As with many multilateral bodies, India’s G20 intention is to strike a balance between the western countries’ agenda and that of the Global South. Culture is one issue on which it is hoped that the Global South will rally round — at India’s behest — and the return of antiquities is crucial for that. Perhaps the Benin Bronzes case could (should?) be the first — test — issue. Among Eisenhower’s pre-presidential papers is a once-restricted document dated September 1945 that outlined how the objects looted by the Nazis and housed in Germany would be returned. It categorically stated that the objects would be returned to the governments of the countries they had been looted from, and then individual owners — if any — would have to take up their cases with the state authorities. That is an eminently sensible precedent for today too. With that in mind, the bottom line is that all three ‘claimants’ of the Benin Bronzes are Nigerian, and regardless of the west’s opinion of the Global South’s integrity or intention, they have no right to set caveats on repatriation, unless the countries are warzones prone to looting. It should be left to Nigerian authorities to decide, and the west has to be compelled to ditch its double standards. India should also gear up for divide-and-don’t-repatriate gambits from the West. The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed are personal.​ Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.