Have you ever wondered how Indian gods came to have their distinctive physical characteristics? The British Museum in London recently delved into this question in an exhibition titled Ancient India: Living Traditions,
The nearly five-month-long exhibition, supported by Reliance Industries and Reliance Foundation, ended on October 19, and traced the evolution of sculpture in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism over a period of more than 2,000 years. It promised visitors a comprehensive journey through centuries of Indian religious art. The idea of education and efforts to explain the value of these objects were a good step towards accountability and cooperation, but the lingering irony was this: this story was being told not in Varanasi, Amaravati or Nalanda, but in Britain, a country whose colonial record includes the wholesale removal of these idols from their homes in India.
Given the celebrities present at the museum’s inaugural fundraising gala, the glamorous Pink Ball, co-chaired by businesswoman Isha Ambani, coinciding with the conclusion of the exhibition, one wonders whether there was at some point a genuine sense of dissonance as curators and art critics debated the “aesthetics of devotion.” Many of the statues on display probably came through the legally and morally dubious channels of the British Empire and its cultured cultural plunder machinery.
Such exhibitions are cultural scholarship based on cultural dispossession. They provide an opportunity to consider what happens when spiritual icons become permanent migrants; When they are taken out of their warm Indian homes to cities where their names are unknown and often mispronounced. However, like other such efforts, the exhibition has largely missed the opportunity to start a critical conversation on restitution and ways to develop constructive communication around this idea.
Devotion vs Money and Performance
An exhibit in the ‘Ancient India: Living Traditions’ exhibition at the British Museum. , Photo Credit: British Museum
The presence of Indian sculptures in Britain is not an accident. During and after colonial rule, countless artefacts reached Britain, either looted, “gifted” under duress, or smuggled. Many such artefacts were cataloged as mere curiosities by colonial administrators, who treated Indian art as anthropological data rather than as living faith. By the end of the 19th century, Indian deities were as likely to be found in Bloomsbury as in Bodhgaya.
The London exhibition, with its scholarly catalog and glossy posters, sanctified that story. This presented the sculptures as aesthetic milestones. Although the exhibition served an educational purpose, its location betrayed its intended purpose. It depicts the idols in an environment that is different from the devotion of devotees who once anointed them with sandalwood paste or garlanded them with marigolds. Acts of worship, sweat and penance were replaced by acts of display, wealth and privilege. This is the legacy of cultural plunder: not just physical displacement but also the transformation of meaning.
In this light, the long corridors of the British Museum and the recent London exhibition are less a shrine than a spectacle, a cabinet of curiosities. Statues, once the center of vibrant religious practice for crowds of devotees, are now objects of detached admiration. Seeing the idol of Lord Vishnu in a sterile glass case in the middle of an air-conditioned and humidity-controlled room with monochrome walls is a witness not to continuity but to interruption. A story broken in transit.
A view of the ‘Ancient India: Living Traditions’ exhibitions at the British Museum in London. , Photo Credit: British Museum
monetization of the sacred
An even deeper irony is that these statues are not simply being preserved; They are being monetized. Tourists in London pay for admission, buy catalogues, perhaps even taking away statue-inspired souvenirs on their way out. These statues, once objects of community offering, have been transformed into revenue streams for institutions far from their origin. While many museums in India, especially in more remote parts of the country, struggle with funding and the government finds it difficult to protect village temples from theft, the British Museum continues to transform colonial acquisitions into cultural and real capital.
This is where the exhibition revealed more than it expected. It was not just about the “growth of idols” but about the growth of ownership.
‘Gaja-Lakshmi’, circa 1780, in the British Museum. , Photo Credit: British Museum
Their withdrawal should reflect respect for the culture, imagination and foresight of the judges of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales who made the decision Bumper Development Corporation vs. Metropolitan Police Commissioner and others [1991] EWCA Civ J0213-5 Case in 1991. In this case, seeking to establish ownership of a stolen Nataraja idol, the judges ruled that the South Indian temple from which the Nataraja was stolen could have a juridical person in the UK, and also that the idol could ‘talk’ through the temple priest and express ‘a desire to go home’.
lesson for india
Ancient India: Living Traditions Undoubtedly, the exhibition has been considered a success as a cultural event. But it also serves as a sober indictment on a system that still profits from colonial acquisitions without remorse, and that Indians have incomplete knowledge of their history. Debating the “development” of statues while refusing to return them to their homes is an act of selective memory.
Ganesha made of volcanic stone in Java, 1000-1200 BC. , Photo Credit: British Museum
For India, the lesson is not just about creating a transparent framework for demanding reparations. It’s about building dialogue and real learning. Statues are more than stone and bronze; They are symbols of faith, history and identity. They should be allowed to their original contexts, so that they can get back in touch with their original environment and until then, the correct explanation can be given to them. Every exhibition abroad will bring with it the haunting and looming shadow of dispossession.
India’s generosity in participating in redundant institutions like the Commonwealth should also enable the country to balance views of the world as one family with the importance of cultural identity. There are some indications from international organizations that recognition of cultural dispossession should take priority over demonstration. In September 2025, UNESCO unveiled its virtual database of stolen objects. However, it is still very empty, consisting of only three items offered by India. To be truly effective, the database would have to reflect UNESCO’s understanding of the 1970 ‘Convention on the Means of Preventing and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property’ and create a comprehensive database of colonial-era-looted cultural objects.
At the moment, gods can travel across continents, but sensitivities have been left behind.
Sahibnoor is a lecturer at Jindal Global Law School and Lavanya is an advocate, RFKN Advocate.
published – October 24, 2025 04:09 PM IST