Colonial plunder & repatriation of relics

“The past belongs to the future, but only the present can preserve it.— His Holiness the 14th Dalai LamaIt was recently reported that Sotheby’s Hong Kong will auction the ‘Piprahwa Gems of the Historical Buddha’ (now postponed after India slammed the auction and called for the gems’ return). It’s an event that challenges more than just aesthetics and ethics — it touches the very heart of Buddhist spiritual sensibility. Discovered in 1898 in northern India, a sealed brick chamber yielded nearly 1,800 pearls, rubies, topaz, sapphires, and intricate gold sheets. These are not mere antiquities. In Tibetan Buddhism, relics are not just remains.The Dalai Lama points out that relics symbolise the Buddha’s presence. “These sacred objects help practitioners develop faith, which is the foundation of the path to enlightenment.” Known as ring bsrel in Tibetan, relics remove karmic obstacles, connect devotees to the Buddha’s enlightened mind, and awaken devotion. Tibetan medical texts even describe relics — when properly consecrated — as aids for healing specific ailments. But, for these purposes to be fulfilled, relics must be respectfully enshrined and accessible, not hidden away or treated as luxury objects. The Tibetans agree that the Buddha’s corporeal remains and valuable items are hard to discern. “Both show his transcendence.”When William Claxton Peppe excavated the stupa under British colonial rule, his intentions may have been archaeological — but the effect was spiritually jarring. Tibetan Buddhist protocols demand elaborate ceremonies before opening reliquaries.Colonial expeditions often bypassed these spiritual codes. The British even permitted Peppe to keep one-fifth of the relics — a profound misunderstanding of their sacred function. For Buddhists, relics are not possessions. As the Buddha instructed, they should be enshrined at crossroads — where countless beings may offer homage and accumulate merit.Historical accounts affirm that the Sakyas, the Buddha’s own clan, were entrusted with these relics. They intended them to be preserved and ornamented with gems — not as treasure, but to inspire veneration across generations. Stewardship, not ownership, is the Buddhist ideal.His Holiness has remarked, “International law often follows rather than leads moral understanding. We must sometimes appeal to a higher law of compassion and respect.” This wisdom is particularly relevant to cultural repatriation cases, where legal frameworks may not fully address historical contexts. The situation in Tibet illustrates the gap between legality and justice. The Chinese government claims legal authority for its actions in Tibet, including the removal of religious artefacts. Yet, as the Dalai Lama has pointed out, legality imposed by an occupying power doesn’t necessarily confer moral legitimacy. Similarly, the “legal” acquisition of Buddhist relics during colonial rule doesn’t automatically make their continued possession or sale ethically justified.In traditional Buddhist jurisprudence, relics have been recognised as having a form of legal personhood. Historical records indicate that stupas containing relics could own property, and their destruction was considered a serious offence. This religious understanding presents challenges to western legal frameworks that treat such objects primarily as property.His Holiness has spoken of the need for “legal compassion” — laws that recognise diverse cultural and religious understandings.International conventions such as the 1970 UNESCO and 1995 UNIDROIT treaties offer tools to prevent illicit trade, yet these are hamstrung by non-retroactivity. They fail to address the deep injustices of colonial-era acquisitions.This is where Buddhist ethics offer a clarifying lens. The Dalai Lama often reminds us that when formal laws fall short, we must turn to universal values — compassion, non-harm, and interdependence. Selling sacred objects may be legal, but it violates a deeper spiritual principle.Non-attachment may suggest indifference to possession, but never justifies abuse. True detachment encourages generous giving — releasing objects so they may fulfil their spiritual purpose. As Shantideva reminds us, “All the joy the world contains has come through wishing happiness for others.”Tibetan Buddhist principles can guide a more humane approach to contested sacred heritage.Dependent origination: The meaning of relics emerges from their connection to practitioners, not from their material value. Respectful repatriation could include shared access, ritual use, or even temporary returns during festivals. What matters is restoring spiritual function.Skillful means: The Buddha taught skill in means. Applied here, it urges flexibility. Where full repatriation is complex, digital sharing, rotating custody, and long-term loans could preserve access and reverence.Non-harm: Auctioning relics perpetuates colonial wounds. Sacred items must not be reduced to collectibles. Museums and collectors can commit to ethical norms: no private sales, transfers to public custodians, or respectful returns to communities of origin.The Mandala principle: The Mandala transforms ordinary space into sacred space. Museums should honour relics as spiritual objects.For Tibetan Buddhists, the Piprahwa case is a spiritual reckoning. When sacred objects are bought and sold, a rupture occurs. Healing requires reconnection — between relics and the faithful, past and present, East and West.— The writer is an author and managing trustee, Foundation for Universal Responsibility of HHH The Dalai Lama (Views are personal)

Colonial plunder & repatriation of relics

Rajiv Mehrotra

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article