An article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago was no ordinary article about India’s plans for restitution. More unbelievable than ordinary.

It claimed that India is preparing to launch a diplomatic campaign to recover thousands of colonial treasures now in UK collections. One source described the campaign as a reckoning with the past and suggested it will be larger in scale than Greece’s efforts to recover the Marbles.

We find it hard to make sense of this claim and we’re not surprised that official government sources in India are busy denying the story, insisting its message is “unfortunately misleading”. But it does raise the question whether India is really serious about recovering hundreds of years of looted heritage.

As far as we can gauge, the Indian state has shown precious little interest lobbying for the return of high profile and treasured Indian artefacts, lost under British rule and now held in UK public collections. That’s not to say they've been entirely passive. India's Government continues to lend official support to the determined efforts of citizen groups who set out to recover stolen objects they discover on exhibition in western collections. However, credit for these successes belongs not to official delegations from government, but instead to the extensive research and commitment of activist groups such as India Pride Project. Drawing on the support of enthusiastic nationals and Indian diaspora, IPP has spent a decade researching and chasing the whereabouts of looted objects, communicating via social media, and presenting western museums with the irrefutable evidence that makes formal repatriation to India inevitable.

However, proving an object was stolen within the last fifty years or so is one thing, chasing the thousands of objects removed while India was under British rule is a lot more challenging - both for the state and for citizen activists. 

We know that India’s government is familiar with the legal obstacles than confront any restitution strategy and, in particular, the near impossible legal dilemma of overcoming UK legislation designed specifically to prevent the repatriation of Britain’s imperial plunder. But whatever inchoate restitution plans Prime Minister Narendra Modi may have in mind, there’s a steep hill ahead for India to climb. Recovering any Indian artefacts from London's V&A Museum or the British Museum is only possible if current legislation is amended. From our perspective, we don’t see any chance of this happening under the present government, worn down by other more pressing priorities. 

Instead, India might care to watch for future developments at Powis Castle in Wales. Now under the stewardship of the National Trust, the Clive Museum at Powis Castle contains one of the largest private collection of trophies collected during British rule in India and was amassed by two generations of the Clive family. Robert Clive, ‘Clive of India’, is the man responsible for establishing British rule in India, amassing a huge fortune in the process. His son Edward was just as successful harvesting the wealth of southern India for personal gain. He is best known for defeating the legendary Tipu Sultan, the ‘Tiger of Mysore’, at his stronghold of Seringapatam in 1799.

Try to find perfection in Indian craftsmanship and you will find yourself in the court of Tipu Sultan (1750-99). His cultural legacy is enormous with Indian craftsmanship reaching new heights of creativity and sophistication. So, it’s not surprising that the weapons and royal regalia garnered by Edward Clive after Tipu’s defeat are the most prized of all in the Trust's collection. 

We asked the National Trust whether India has ever asked for the return of these treasures, but were told India has never made such a request. Would the National Trust agree if they were to request repatriation? It's possible that India might take some confidence from a remark made by Rene Olivieri, chairman of the National Trust, at this year’s Hay Literary Festival. Asked whether the National Trust would consider returning stolen objects to India, Olivieri confirmed the Trust is already working on devising such a policy. So, there might be something positive here for India to build on.

Then there’s the question of whether India could do more to recover objects that appear for sale in the open market. Without committing to a major financial investment, rising demand and escalating values for fine Indian jewellery, arms and metalwork suggests this route is bound to prove just as challenging.

Unfortunately, unlike the Chinese for whom recovering their cultural heritage is a constitutional obligation, wealthy Indians have shown little enthusiasm to purchase important artefacts for the benefit of the state. It’s a shame because they’ve had plenty of opportunities. 

The Clive family didn’t have it all its own way. Objects from Tipu’s palace were widely disseminated after the looting and several of his personal treasures have appeared for sale in recent years.

Last June, we wrote about an important tiger head gold finial, one of eight plundered from Tipu's octagonal-shaped throne by British troops following his defeat. It was granted an export licence only after no UK buyer stepped forward to match the funds needed to keep it in the UK. 

India had its first chance to acquire the finial in April 2009 when it sold to a private collector at auction for £389,600. It came up again for sale in 2019, but this time was withdrawn from the auction. Two years later (May 2021), an application to allow its export was made to Britain’s Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. The Committee recommended it should remain in the UK because of its outstanding aesthetic importance and because it was so closely connected with our history and national life. Apparently, the circumstances of its collection and the permanent damage inflicted on Tipu’s throne were both conveniently overlooked. Now valued at £1.5m, no UK institution could afford to come forward with an offer, which meant the vendor was free to export this important Tipu artefact to a collector overseas. 

We understand neither the state nor any Indian citizen has made an offer to purchase the finial on behalf of the nation. As a result, not one of these magnificent eight finials or any other part of Tipu’s throne is represented in a museum in India.

In the meantime, just in the last few weeks two further personal artefacts of Tipu Sultan have come to light. The Reviewing Committee announced another export bar, this time on a flintlock sporting gun, dated 1793-94. It's been described as the finest and most elaborately decorated of all the personal firearms made for Tipu. Following his death, many of these firearms were given to leading military figures. This particular gun was given to General the Earl Cornwallis. After passing through several hands, it was acquired by the present owner at a Bonhams auction in April 2015 and is now valued at £2m. If a UK institution fails to match this figure, like Tipu’s gold finial, the gun will be granted an export licence. Will India grab this unexpected opportunity to secure it?

It’s a steep price, but if India is unwilling to make this level of financial commitment, then it’s understandable why there was never a chance of recovering another of Tipu’s personal weapons that appeared at a Bonhams auction last May.

The object was a one-metre-long sword with an ornate hilt, inlaid with gold calligraphy, which sold for the staggering record price of £14.1m. Known as the Bedchamber Sword, it was presented by the army to Major General David Baird, “as a token of their high esteem of his courage and conduct in the assault which he commanded and in which Tipu Sultan was slain”. 

India’s previous opportunity to acquire this sword was in 2003 when the Baird family sold it at auction for just £150,000. 

The Clive Museum at Powis Castle holds three comparable swords bearing Tipu’s distinctive tiger head decoration. These are three more reasons, we suggest, why India should be closely monitoring policy developments at the National Trust. The chance to secure at least one of these swords would add enormously to India’s depleted collection of Tipu artefacts.

In the meantime, the onus continues to fall on private Indian citizens to move the restitution dial. Such as the noteworthy campaign to recover Sikh rebellion leader Diwan Mulraj Chopra’s sword (‘talwar’) from the collection of the Royal Artillery Museum, a campaign launched after years of research by descendants of Chopra’s own family. In the absence of a credible and serious restitution strategy, the Indian state could do worse than encourage and lend support to exactly this kind of private initiative. The alternative is yet more lost opportunities.

Photo: The Bedchamber Sword of Tipu Sultan

Courtesy of Bonhams