CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

CYIL 15 ȍ2024Ȏ BRINGING “TARA” HOME: SRI LANKA’S DISCONTENT WITH CULTURAL RESTITUTION… the identity of Britain in contrast to the barbaric nations from the Orient or Africa. Secondly such an aggrandizement compelled the British public to regard their country as the climax of the human civilization, which became interwoven with the minds of the ebb of the empire in the 20 th century. Even after the Britain’s imperial glory declined, British museums did little to admit the darker past of their museum galleries. On the contrary, the new solace vociferated by the apologists for the empire and its grandeur in the past suggested that custody of the looted cultural objects in British hands is inevitable for their protections as the art belongs to the whole humanity, in which Britain still plays a caretaker’s role. Jaris Darvin states “The British Museum informed a particular kind of British identity, tied to colonialism and imperialism, that positioned Britain as the final destination in humanity’s so called advance in civilization. Through it vast collection of pieces taken from throughout the British Empire, museum bolstered the ideas of British power and superiority”. 20 Riddles in tracing Tara It has been more than two centuries since Tara Devi’s statue was taken away from her rightful home and she stands as a piece causing curiosity, artistic interest in the London museum. Despite the grey area behind the circumstances that led to Sir Robert Brownrigg’s entanglement with this statue, it is beyond conjuncture that Britain has been enjoying the position of Tara Devi exclusively. Tara Devi’s tantrum differs from the legal dispute that India undergoes with Britain regarding the Kohinoor diamond in the custody of British monarch. In post-colonial India, Koh-i-Noor constantly evoked the sentiments of Indians in a nostalgic manner, which persuaded many successive governments to initiate process to bring Koh-i Noor back to India. In 2016 a PIL petitioned submitted to the Supreme Court in India by an NGO in New Delhi highlighted India’s legitimate claim for the return of Kohinoor, but to no avail as the cultural ministry of Modi’s government reveled the historical saga of the removal of the diamond from the Indian soil. 21 The statement issued by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs indicated that the diamond was indeed a gift to the East India Company by Duleep Singh then ruler of Punjab. In the aftermath of Anglo-Sikh war in 1849, the ruler of Lahore was compelled to enter into a treaty with the East Company marking the end of autonomy and the Article III of the treaty states “The gem called the Koh-i-Noor, which was taken from Shah Sooja-ool-moolk by Maharajah Ranjeet Singh, shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England” 22 Therefore, the agitating remarks surrounding the whole Koh-i-Noor saga have become null and void due to a lack of legitimacy. In a way, the treaty’s conditions between the ruler of Punjab and the East India Company were not grounded equally. Still, such unequal treaties have always been part and parcel realities in the colonial history of international law. The issue related to Tara Devi is much subtle to interpret from a legal point of view based on the 20 DARWIN, J., Its Mine. My own. My precious: The Interweaving of Imperialism, Colonialism in the British Museum , London: PHP Dialogues, 2017. 21 ZHANG, Y., The Right of Restitution of Cultural Property Removed as Spoils of War during the 19 th Century International Warfare, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law , Vol 42, No. 1, 2021. 22 KINSEY, D., Koh-i-Noor: Empire, Diamonds and the Performance of British Material Culture, Journal of British Studies , Vol. 5, No. 2, 2012.

71