Tipu Sultan’s legacy continues to fund the ambitions of the descendants of the second Earl of Cornwallis. Tipu Sultan was the ruler of the Mysore kingdom spanning a large part of what is now Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. And as the world is occupied with more weighty matters, his looted possessions, another symbol of colonial brutality, briefly slipped into public view in London. Lots 100 and 101, went on auction on October 26 and 27 at Christie’s, as part of the Islamic and Indian Art Week. Beautiful but mute spectators to a continuing injustice.
Two of the items, one valued at between 1.5 and 2 million pounds and the other 80-100,000 pounds, were swords from the personal armoury of Tipu Sultan. The higher value sword said to have been worn by the Sultan and containing the tiger emblem of the king known as the Tiger of Mysore failed to make its list price though the second sword sold for higher than expected. The presumption was that the expected buyers from West Asia were discouraged from bidding due to the current international political and economic climate. The swords, part of a group of objects from Tipu’s palace on auction, were presented to Cornwallis after Tipu’s killing.
The description accompanying these antiques talked accurately enough of Tipu Sultan being fiercely opposed to the East India Company’s campaigns to establish British imperial control in India and his being regarded as the greatest enemy of the British in India. But then went on to paint a slightly more romantic picture of Charles Cornwallis who “was appointed Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of British India in 1786 and played a substantial role in the conflict between Tipu Sultan and the East India Company”.
Cornwallis had made his reputation in North America and continued to have a stellar career as an imperial emissary in India. Cornwallis and his alliance succeeded in defeating Tipu in the third Anglo-Mysore war. But Tipu was defeated and killed in Srirangapatna in 1799 in the fourth Anglo-Mysore war.
Of course, the exhibit did not mention the barbarity of the soldiers and the East India Company and the indiscriminate looting and destroying of the palace following Tipu’s death, to the extent that the sword at his bedside was said to have been looted and presented to the general who oversaw this fourth Anglo-Mysore war, Major General David Baird. This sword, which was defaced by the troops with an inscription to their leader, was auctioned by the auction house Bonhams, also in the United Kingdom (UK), for 15 million pounds earlier this year, setting a record for such an object and determining the list price of the sword sought to be auctioned by Christie’s.
In an even greater irony, the sale of the two swords will fund the refurbishment of the residence of Cornwallis as the swords have been in the possession of his descendants since their gifting. The residence of Cornwallis, Port Elliot in Cornwall, is supposed to be the oldest continually inhabited dwelling in the UK with mentions going as far back as the 9th century.
While efforts to start a systematic dialogue to repatriate and reclaim heritage objects looted during the colonial period have recently picked up steam, repatriation and restitution rights have not been aggressively enforced, especially with regard to private collections. The law in India, as it currently stands, does not go far enough in this regard. The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 does not specifically deal with the bringing back to India of art and cultural objects looted prior to Independence. In this regard, it is very different from the well-evolved principles of repatriation and restitution that developed in Europe after the world wars.
Despite India being a signatory to the UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP), which the UK signed only after 2001, there has also not been a concentrated push from India to ensure the seizure of goods known to be in private collections or up for sale/auctions around the world.
The Convention itself suggests ways to bring about a change in the status of stolen, looted objects. India has taken certain steps such as the creation of certifications and some measures to fight trafficking but has not yet effectively raised awareness through media campaigns, or a widely available database. Another effective means to bring about wider discourse and citizen as well as diaspora participation would be to support private buyers who might wish to buy back objects legitimately taken and coming on sale, at various times, in the international art market.
A very useful institution to create both to support seizure and buyback efforts may be a mediation and conciliation committee to quickly resolve disputes in this specialised arena. India was a part of the inter-governmental committee formed for this Convention which is due to expire this year. The Convention is also in line with the Sustainable Development Goals defined in the United Nations 2030 Agenda.
The push to bring back culturally significant objects needs to come from the owner countries. Seizure is a recognised first step of restitution and repatriation and should be used at least in relation to those items known to be in the hands of oppressive agents of the erstwhile colonial power. Hopefully, the juggernaut will gather steam and in the next few years, Tipu’s possessions, including his wooden tiger waiting in the Victoria and Albert Museum, will return to his home country.
Lavanya Regunathan Fischer is a lawyer. The views expressed are personal
