Art historian Naman Ahuja on the repatriation of the Piprahwa Buddha relics
In the spring of 1897, a real estate manager William Claxton Peppé, a Stupa In Piprahwa, a village in today’s Uttar Pradesh. Piprahwa is believed to be the place of the ancient Kapilavastu, the historical seat of Buddha’s family clan Shakyas.
Peppé’s team revealed bone pieces, soap stone and crystal coffins, a sandstone bag and gold ornaments and precious stones. In one of the coffins in the Brahmi scenario, an inscription confirmed that they were the ruins of Buddha. The bone ruins were allocated to the King of Siam (RAMA V) and some sections were allocated to the temples in Sri Lanka, while the rest was divided between the Indian Museum and the Peppé family in Calcutta.
When William’s great grandson Chris Peppé decided to auction the remains of his family in Sotheby’s Hong Kong on May 7 this year, he had a furore. Buddhist academics, monastery leaders and Naman Ahuja, including historians condemned the movement. The auction was postponed after the Indian government Sotheby has issued a legal notification to Hong Kong.
Following the diplomatic intervention and pressure of the government and Buddhist organizations, the auction house returned the ruins to India on July 30th.
In this interview, the editor of Ahuja, curator, art magazine MargAnd he talks about the importance of the return of the remains, one of the most important archaeological discoveries in Buddhist history, a professor of Indian Art and Architecture at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Quotes organized:
Art historian Naman Ahuja
Q: Why are these special ruins important?
A: For thousands of years, traditional belief believes that Buddha has allowed his remnants to worship, albeit reluctantly. The ruins were the focus of theistic worship in Buddhism. The scientific consensus is that the remains from Piprahwa are every reason to be part of the original share of the burned ruins of Buddha’s Buddha’s father’s family. Archaeological dating and context follow this and an old Brahmi inscription. Stupa Piprahwa supports this view. In addition, the stones in which Shakyas mixed with burned remains are cut using only vehicles known to be used in ancient times. There may be little disagreement about ancient times or their importance.
Q: Now that the ruins are sent back, what ways should they be dealt with? And India has the necessary resources, manpower and the will to do it?
A: Yeah, we’re doing it. Even in ancient times, their safety was carefully transferred and all monastery administrative machines were present to look at these issues. The ashes of a human being, or the charred ruins, physical ruins, were treated with deep respect in ancient times in ancient times – by Megalite builders or in Vedic or Buddhist cultures. They form the core stupas pilgrimage. Detailed rituals were kept around them.
Buddha’s national museum is part of the remains in the New Delhi. | Photo Loan: VV Krishnan
However, in addition to the religious importance of these ruins, we must also recognize the importance of history. They are important for Shakyas, who devoted them to the public interest and built a monastery around them. In the original Buddhist Holy Land, they come from Piprahwa, a region where many emperors protect. This region now deserves our attention again.
Modern India has fulfilled administrative functions for museums, research, archeology and Buddhist affairs, which should catalyze the functioning of these departments. These remains mobilized extraordinary research in modern times. This function is equally important function.
Q: In a speech, you said that return should not be motivated by national chauvinism only.
A: No, the desire to have an object is only a manifestation of materialism. However, as tools of history or spiritual, they must inspire various public stakeholders. Indeed, we should take care to remember that the ruins of Buddha have deep spiritual importance for millions of Buddhists in East Asia, Southeast Asia or anywhere in the world. India and existing owners have the opportunity to serve them.
Q: Do you think that India’s attitude should be its position for all religious ruins?
A: When it comes to those who are the remains, the land, the site or the people they are taken, and that they can be established reasonable when they have a tremendous spiritual importance, they must be sent back.
Buddha, the new Delhi from the 5th century AD in the National Museum.
However, as a man of museums, I know how great it can be difficult, specialized and expensive to deal with objects, pictures and buildings. It will be much more difficult to deal with the remnants that combine the needs of dedicated historians, scientists, geologists and others. It is better to take these responsibilities to the extent that they can be fulfilled properly. Otherwise, the insecurity and perceived deprivation come as an insatiable child who allows him to ask for more without any idea about looking at these things. It would be terrible to convert these remnants into a flavor of the moon, just with another ‘object’ would quickly change their place quickly.
Q: After flying from Hong Kong, the ruins were taken to the national museum in Delhi. Residues are not objects. Is the museum the best place for them?
A: Great question! And a hard one. I’ve had to force this question for the last few months and I can handle it from two perspectives. The old ruins were once a passage ceremony was held and the rock crystal was placed in the transparent coffins of the rock crystal. History indicates that their aura is perceived in different ways: Stupa mud, brick and stone; At the same time, when the memory or memory of a life respected by many was transmitted, cognition through culture and suggestion came into play; And then, of course, they were visually seen. Museums can perform all three functions.
This brings me to the second part of the answer, which includes the functions of museums in society. These are the institutions that exhibit our highest civilization achievements. This exhibition is now informed by deeply knowledgeable communication. Again, I believe that the existence of the ruins offers India the opportunity to build their capacity on these fronts.
Novice monks offer prayers at the Temple of Mahabodhi, Bodh Gaya and the world heritage in Bihar. | Photo Loan: PTI
Q: In defending the return of these ruins back, you continued the stance that “everything taken from India did not need to be sent back”. When do you think it is necessary or even important to be sent back, and when do you think they are better not to be sent back?
A: I want to clarify your question here. I don’t believe that the situation in India is so desperate that objects are better abroad. I’m not here to keep sides on behalf of countries. My commitment is the safety and communication capacity of objects. Works and works of art are an invaluable proof of history. And yes, it is necessary to talk if this evidence is neglected, if it cannot be made public or can no longer strengthen cultural connections, or rejected to reinterpret history to academics. India can fulfill these roles. He looked at the sacred remains from Buddhist sites, but now he had the opportunity to greatly improve research and exhibition.
In addition, I would like to note that the collections of Indian works inspire museums around the world to examine the language and culture of India to the academicians of many universities and shape the perception and policy against India. They looked at the preserved and invaluable heritage. Most of the time, this is ignored on social media and is presented as ‘booty’ when everything abroad does not always have to be like this. After examining the history behind the removal of something from India, a calibrated position in any case must be taken. Secondly, before sending something back, we should ask if we already have many similar parts in India, and will this return fill a big gap? When our museums and India archaeological research suffer from very cash problems, it does not understand very little to add to our expenses with objects that we cannot take action for the benefit of researchers or people.
Q: In his visit to Thailand earlier this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that India would borrow the sacred remains of Buddha once again to Thailand. What do you think about the remains used as a diplomatic tool?
A: I think this is a very good idea. Such residues and objects should be shared as extensively as possible. After all, they were initially equipped to the public in a stup. However, calling them a diplomatic “tool, is actually a bit cynical and even hard. Indeed, many diplomats and administrators have to use their tools to communicate with religion, memory and history, auras and aesthetic narratives. These are not normally the tools of a diplomat.
Q: Has the attempt to open the ruins of Buddha maintain its colonial violence? What does this special case say about a wider policy after the colonial?
A: I believe that the British government does not find it necessary to take any moral or ethical action to help the sale of India’s physical remains of Buddha. States, despolate stupas And the private ownership of the ruins of Buddha was given to the colonial officials. Nevertheless, without any official explanation on the subject, colonialism, Sotheby’s and Peppé’s family protect the money from the remains.
I was told that without any support, there was no choice but to fulfill the action that India wanted to take a step from a philanthropist. The definition of textbook of colonialism continues. You get something free from the colony and sell it back to the colony at a price you foresee.
Radhika.s@thehindu.co.in
