Petition in London court asking British Museum to return Sarasvati pratima to Bhojshala, Dhar: Dr. Subramanian Swamy. Movement against museums of the world to return Hindu temple artifacts.
S. Kalyanaraman
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2011
Petition in London court asking British Museum to return Sarasvati pratima to Bhojshala, Dhar: Dr. Subramanian Swamy. Movement against museums of the world to return Hindu temple artifacts
Petition in London court asking British Museum to return Sarasvati pratima to Bhojshala, Dhar: Dr. Subramanian Swamy.
- Start of a movement to ask museums of the world to return Hindu temple artifacts
Dr. Swamy's petition in the court should result in the return of Sarasvati pratimaa to the Dhar Hindu temple. The court decision should also result in the return of ALL temple artifacts from museums all over the world to the Hindu temples where they should be reinstalled and worshipped with daily puja according to the sampradaya-s and pujavidhanam. The court decision should result in all Governments all over the world instructing the museums in their countries to return Hin temple artifacts to the Hindu temples. Else, there should be a world-wide cultural movement to make this happen in celebration of the contributions made by ancestors like Bhoja Raja to promote and sustain Hindu temple traditions.
Swamy visits Bhojshala
PTI | 11:09 PM,Sep 25,2011
Dhar(MP), Sep 25 (PTI) Reviving the controversial Bhojshala issue, Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy today claimed the Shlokas in Sanskrit language were engraved at a place where idol of Waghdevi (Goddess Saraswati) was earlier installed in the sanctum-sanctorum."After visiting the Bhojshala and personally inspecting the place where the idol of Waghdevi was established by the Raja Bhoj, I found that shlokas in Sanskrit language were engraved at that place," he told a press conference.Swamy arrived here to visit the disputed Bhojshala where Hindus offer puja every Tuesday and Muslims offer Namaz every Friday as part of an arrangement made by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Rest of the days it is opened for all.He said he would file a petition in a London court where the idol is kept in a museum to bring it back to India like the idol of Natraj which he had claimed in a similar fashion.PTI CORR MAS RKC
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/swamy-visits-bhojshala/835825.html
http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/sarasvati-videos
Judge rules about Victorious Youth statue. Will the British Museum return Bhoja Raja’s Sarasvati?
Will the British return the pratima of Sarasvati to Bhojashala in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh? People are performing puja to the empty niche, every day, waiting for the return of Sarasvati.
http://www.britishmuseum.org/images/ps185355_m.jpg Sarasvati pratima in British Museum.
http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl2009/images/20030509003103702.jpg Hindu devotees proceeding to offer Tuesday prayers at Bhojshala, after restrictions on their entry into the monument was lifted by the Archaeological Survey of India.
“Prabandha Chintamani, a Jain scripture records, that the famous Raja Bhoj of Parmaar dynasty got constructed the Bhojshala temple at Dhaar, Madhya Pradesh, in 1034 AD for worshipping Goddesses Saraswati. The temple served as a center of Hindu philosophy and Sanskrit language, and a great residential university. About 1400 great scholars, poets and theologians like Maagh, Vaanabhatta, Kalidas, Bhavabhooti, Maanatunga, Bhaskarabhatta and Dhanapal got patronage at Bhojshala where many famous scriptures like the Avani Koormashatam, Saraswati Kanthaabharana, Raajamaartanda, and Tithisaaranika were written. As mentioned in the Dhar District Gazetteer, the Bhojashala was a great center of learning of almost all prevalent Indian religions and disciplines. Raja Bhoj himself was well versed in 72 types of arts and 36 models of military sciences. He wrote 84 books on various subjects like Astronomy, Ayurveda, Grammar, Politics, Sculpture, Philosophy, Chemistry Vaastu, etc…In the year 1961, Padamshri Dr. Vishnu Shridhar Vakankar, the internationally acclaimed archaeologist, historian and litterateur went to London to study the sculpture of the Saraswati statue. There he initiated the requirement of retrieving the statue. He met Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru and was assured to get back the statue. In 1977 he met Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and requested her to retrieve the statue.” http://www.hvk.org/articles/0303/177.html
http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/19011/ The murthi of Sarasvati Devi is still on display in the British Museum at London
FEBRUARY 11, 2010, 1:54 PM
Getty Bronze Must Be Returned to Italy, Judge Rules
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/01/16/arts/16bronze_CA0/articleInline.jpg J. Paul Getty Trust “Victorious Youth,” a statue that was retrieved from the Adriatic by Italian fishermen in 1964.
An Italian judge ruled on Thursday that the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles must hand over a rare bronze statue, “Victorious Youth,” that has been at the heart of a four-decade-long dispute.
Judge Lorena Mussoni decreed that the statue — found by Italian fishermen in the Adriatic in 1964 and bought by the Getty in 1977 for just under $4 million — must be “confiscated from the museum” and transferred immediately to the Italian government, which the ruling identified as its rightful owner.
Maurizio Fiorilli, a lawyer for the government, praised the decision, which he said was a confirmation that the Getty “had not acted in good faith when they bought the statue.” The Italian justice ministry must now make a formal request to American authorities to execute the court order.
The second- or third-century B.C. sculpture of an athlete, best known as the Getty Bronze, was excluded from a 2007 agreement between Italy and the Getty for the return of 40 artifacts that Italy said had been looted, pending the court decision. The Italian culture ministry said on Thursday that it hoped the Getty would now review that accord and that it would return the statue “in light of this ruling.”
In a statement the Getty expressed its disappointment in the ruling, and said the court order was “flawed both procedurally and substantively.” The museum said it would appeal the order to the Court of Cassation in Rome and “vigorously defend its legal ownership of the statue.”
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/getty-bronze-must-be-returned-to-italy-judge-rules/
The Bhojshala Temple in Dhar - built in the 11th century - and now used as a mosque and temple.
Bhoja Shala Colonade, [Dhar]
Photograph taken in 1902. Photograph of a Mosque, at Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, taken by an unknown photographer in c.1902. Raja Bhoja was a famous 11th-century king of the Hindu Paramara dynasty which ruled Dhar between the 9th and 13th centuries. The Paramaras were known for their support for literature and during this period many Hindu and Jain scholars flourished at the Paramara court and Dhar became a famous centre of learning. Legend states that King Bhoja founded a school which is referred to as the Bhojashala (or Bhoja's school). Dhar fell to the Delhi Sultanate under Alauddin Khalji in 1305 and later became part of the province of the independent Sultans of Malwa. A mosque was built here in the 14th century using fragments of Hindu and Jain structures. This is a view of the internal court. The colonnade consists of carved pillars which appear to have Hindu origins.
Inner structure of Bhoja Shala, Dhar.
Entrance to Bhoja Shala, Dhar. See History of Dhar according to a Government website.
The Bhojshala and the Raja
Prafull GoradiaPosted: Feb 25, 2003 at 0000 hrs IST
In March 2001, on my way to Mandu, I stopped at Dhar to visit the Bhojshala, the temple-cum-school complex founded by Raja Bhoj in the 11th century. Although a former MP, I was prevented from entering the building by the Reserve Police. Since I spoke in Urdu to the officer in charge, he told me that I could come back at prayer time any Friday. When I revealed that I was not a Muslim, he regretfully stated that Hindus would have to wait until Basant Panchami to pray there. He explained that he was helpless—he was only enforcing the order issued by the Digvijay Singh government in 1997.
The Department of Archaeology, Gwalior, 1952, has in a special book dealt with the cultural heritage of Madhya Bharat which, in 1956, amalgamated with the Central Provinces and came to be known as Madhya Pradesh. Another book, Dhar and Mandu, published by Bisham Nath Bhargava (Allahabad), reiterates what Major C.E. Luard, the official gazetteer of Dhar, had said in 1912. The carved pillars used all over the building and the delicately carved ceilings of the prayer hall seem to have belonged to the original Bhojshala.
On the pavement of the prayer hall are numerous slabs of black slate stone, the lettering on which were also scraped off. A few slabs recovered from another part of the building and exhibited there, contain the texts of the poetic works of Parijatamanjari and Kurmastotra. It appears then that the old college was adorned with numerous Sanskrit and Maharashtri Prakrit texts, beautifully engraved on such slabs.
In 1935 some local residents of Dhar, which was then a princely state, insisted that the Bhojshala was a Hindu institution — the temple of Goddess Saraswati, on the one hand, and a school, on the other. The idol is still on display in the British Museum at London.
The District Gazetteer says that the Raja Bhoj school is a mosque, a part of which was converted from a Hindu institution. According to the publication, this shrine of Saraswati, the Hindu goddess of learning, is described in the Sanskrit play of Arjunavarma Paramara (1210-16) as the ornament of the 84 squares of Dharanagari. Two slabs were discovered behind the mehrab, one bearing the Prakrit odes of the 11th century (supposed to have been composed by Raja Bhoj himself) and the other, the Sanskrit play cited above.
On the strength of their conviction, the local residents demanded that the Bhojshalaa masjid be reconverted into a mandir. Although the Maharaja of Dhar was a Hindu, he was under the influence of the British resident, who was reported to have advised him to ban public entry into the edifice for a while. The maharaja did as advised, except for allowing Hindus to enter on Basant Panchami day, which is the day of Saraswati puja. Similarly, the Muslims were allowed entry on one day in the year.
This was twisted by the Digvijay Singh government into a discriminatory order mentioned earlier. Such are the wages of secularism in India.
http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/19011/
Sarasvati pratima in British Museum.
Fragments of an iron pillar can be seen in front of the Dhar temple. It should have been a dhwajastambham like the Delhi iron pillar which was set up in Sanchi (and now moved to Delhi).
The pillar should have shown Garuda-Vishnu on top like the Heliodorus Garuda-Vishnu pillar, Vidisha (Besnagar, Sanchi) (c. 120-100 BCE).
A Sanskrit and Prakrit inscription from the time of Arjunavarman was found in the walls of the building in 1903 by K. K. Lele, Superintendent of Education in the Princely State of Dhār. King Arjunavarman (circa 1210-15), successor of Bhoja Raja claimed that he was a reincarnation of Bhoja himself. The inscription, which is engraved with exceptional beauty, is displayed inside the entrance. The text includes part of a drama called Vijayaśrīnāṭikā composed by Madana, the king's preceptor who also bore the title 'Bālasarasvatī'. [S. K. Dikshit, ed., Pārijātamañjarī alias Vijayaśrī by Rāja-Guru Madana alias Bāla-Sarasvatī (Bhopal, 1968)]. The other inscribed tablets recovered by Lele, among them a serpentine inscription giving grammatical rules of the Sanskrit language. The finds, particularly of the grammatical inscription, prompted Lele to describe the building as the Bhoj Shala or 'Hall of Bhoja', because King Bhoja (circa 1000-55) was the author of a number of works on poetics and grammar, among them the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa or 'Necklace of Sarasvatī'. [R. Birwé, ‘Nārāyaṇa Daṇḍanātha's Commentary on Rules III.2, 106-121 of Bhoja's Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 84 (1964): 150-62.] The term Bhojaśālā was taken up by C. E. Luard and published in his Gazetteer of 1908 although Luard noted that it was a misnomer. [C. E. Luard, Western States (Mālwā). Gazetteer, 2 parts. The Central India State Gazetteer Series, vol. 5 (Bombay, 1908): part A, pp. 494-500.]
Serpentine inscription giving grammatical rulesof grammar of the Sanskrit language, found at Bhojashala, Dhar. Ballāla’s Bhojaprabandha, composed at Benares in the 17th century extolled Bhoja's greatness. In the words of K. K. Munshi, '... during Bhoja’s rule civilization in Mālwā had risen to a magnificent pitch. Our appreciation of Bhoja for having portrayed a faithful picture of the most glorious period of medieval Indian History [in the Śṛṅgāramañjarīkathā] is heightened when we take into consideration that he worked and stood for all that was glorious in Hindu Culture’. [K. K. Munshi, ed. Śṛṅgāramañjarīkathā, Siṅghī Jaina granthamālā, no. 30 (Bombay, 1959): 90.]
Bhoja Raja was the author of Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa or 'Necklace of Sarasvatī'.
O. C. Gangoly, a celebrated art historian and K. N. Dikshit, Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India published an inscribed sculpture in the British Museum, announcing that it was Raja Bhoja's Sarasvatī from Dhār. [O. C. Gangoly and K. N. Dikshit, ‘An Image of Saraswati in the British Museum’, Rūpam 17 (January, 1924): 1-2.] The British Museum sculpture was repeatedly identified as Bhoja's Sarasvatī in the years that followed, most notably by C. Sivaramamurti, one-time Director General of the National Museum of India. [C. Sivaramamurti, Indian Sculpture (New Delhi, 1961): 106.] The inscription on the sculpture is damaged, but it is clear that it mentions king Bhoja and Vāgdevī, another name for Sarasvatī. A careful study of the inscription was undertaken by H. C. Bhayani, a well-known Sanskrit and Prakrit scholar. This was published in 1981 in an article co-authored with Kirit Mankodi. [ Kirit Mankodi, ‘A Paramāra Sculpture in the British Museum: Vāgdevī or Yakshī Ambikā?’, Sambodhi 9 (1980-81): 96-103.] This showed that inscription records the making of a sculpture of Ambikā after the making of three Jinas and Vāgdevī. In other words, although Vāgdevī is indeed mentioned, the inscription's main purpose is to record the making of an image of Ambikā. [M. N. P. Tiwari, Ambikā in Jaina Art and Literature (New Delhi, 1989).]
The text of the inscription reads:
(1) auṃ | srīmadbhojanāreṃdracaṃdranagarīvidyādharī[*dha] rmmadhīḥ yo ----- [damaged portion] khalu sukhaprasthāpanā- (2) y=āp(sa)rāḥ [*|] vāgdevī[*ṃ] prathama[*ṃ] vidhāya jananī[m] pas[c] āj jinānāṃtrayīm ambā[ṃ] nityaphalā(d)ikāṃ vararuciḥ (m)ūrttim subhā[ṃ] ni- (3) rmmame [||] iti subhaṃ || sūtradhāra sahirasutamaṇathaleṇa ghaṭitaṃ || vi[jñā]nika sivadevena likhitam iti || (4) saṃvat 100 91 [||*]
Auṃ. Vararuci, King Bhoja's religious superintendant (Dharmmadhī) of the Candranagarī and Vidyādharī [branches of the Jain religion], the apsaras [as it were] for the easy removal [of ignorance? by...?], that Vararuci, having first fashioned Vāgdevī the mother [and] afterwards a triad of Jinas, made this beautiful image of Ambā, ever abundant in fruit. Blessings! It was executed by Maṇathala, son of the sūtradhāra Sahira. It was written by Śivadeva the proficient. Year 1091. [Michael Willis, ‘New Discoveries from Old Finds: A Jain Sculpture in the British Museum’, CoJS Newsletter (SOAS) 6 (2011): 34-6. Visible online at http://www.soas.ac.uk/jainastudies/newsletter/]. See page 29 of the Newsletter.
<font size="2"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/96536302/Centre-of-Jaina-Studies-Newsletter-(2011)">Centre of Jaina Studies Newsletter (2011)</a></font><br/><object id="_ds_96536302" name="_ds_96536302" width="630" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=96536302&mem_id=435182&doc_type=pdf&fullscreen=0&allowdownload=1" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object><br /><script type="text/javascript">var docstoc_docid="96536302";var docstoc_title="Centre of Jaina Studies Newsletter (2011)";var docstoc_urltitle="Centre of Jaina Studies Newsletter (2011)";</script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://i.docstoccdn.com/js/check-flash.js"></script>
Bhojashala was a Hindu temple of learning. Restoring daily puja in the temple which should be restored in Dhar should be a reiteration of the Fundamental Right to Education now enshrined in the Constitution of India. Bhojaśālā or 'Hall of Bhoja' is a term used to describe the centre for Sanskrit studies and temple of Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning associated with king Bhoja, the most celebrated ruler of the Paramāra dynasty in central India. As a consequence, any site or object connected with Bhoja has great cultural potency and is intimately connected with modern Hindu identity.
http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/08/restoring-puja-in-all-temples.html
Ganesh pratimaa outside the National Museum in Phnom Penh
Durga pratimaa in Dallas Museum, USA
Durga Killing the Buffalo Demon (Mahishasura Mardini). Pratimaa kept in MetMuseum, New York
Nataraja in Freer Gallery of Art, Smithonian, Washington DC, USA
All such pratimaa which are unmistakably Hindu temple properties should be returned to the Hindu temples.
For, a Hindu temple is a temple is a temple, a temple forever. This principle of eternal presence of divinity in a Hindu temple is well established in law.
THE ‘LONDON NATARAJA’
R.Smalley, January 2010. Copyright.
Introduction
In August or September 1976 an Indian labourer who lived near the site of a ruined Hindu temple at Pathur (Arul Thiru Viswanatha Swamy Temple), in the state of Tamil Nadu, uncovered a metal object (the ‘Pathur Nataraja’) while excavating foundations for a new cow shed. This object was known locally as a Siva Nataraja and was shown to belong to a family of bronze Hindu idols called the Pathur Bronzes. It was subsequently dated to the Chola period (9th to 13th Century) and was probably buried to prevent discovery by invading Muslims. The farmer sold the idol to a dealer in religious artefacts and eventually it ended up with a Bombay dealer (who was untraceable at the time of court proceedings).
State officials in Tamil Nadu had learnt of the various sales associated with the idol and had begun their own investigations but by 1982 the whereabouts of the object was still unknown. In June of that year Robert Borden, of the Bumper Corporation of Canada, bought a Nataraja in good faith from a London dealer called Sherrier (who later produced what was found to be false provenance documents for the object). Bumper obtained a permit to export the bronze from England but did not do so as they were advised it required conservation. The ‘London Nataraja’ was taken to the British Museum for assessment and conservation but later seized by the Metropolitan Police as part of an operation to return stolen religious objects to their rightful owners. Bumper then brought a claim against the Police for the return of the object and damages.
The Trial
There were five claimants in the case: 1. Union of India 2. State of Tamil Nadu 3. Thiru R. Sadagopan, claiming as the fit representative of the Temple 4. Arul Thiru Viswanatha Swamy Temple 5. Sivalingam. This was another surviving object of religious worship from the Temple. It is a sculptured stone phallus and in a temple of its period would have been positioned in the sanctum to be the focus of worship. It was restored as an object of worship at the Temple after its rediscovery
There were two main issues: 1. Identity – that the ‘London Nataraja’ was the one and the same as the ‘Pathur Nataraja’ 2. Title – If they were the same, who of the claimants had the superior title to the object
Identity
The case stating that they were the same object was supported by expert evidence on stylistic grounds of similarity between the ‘London Nataraja’ and the Pathur Bronzes and expert evidence of a metallurgical, geological and entomological nature.
Bumper’s case was supported by Dr. Presencer (considered an honest witness) who stated that he’d seen the antique object (note that it was agreed that the item was antique and showed signs of having been buried for many centuries) in London in May 1976, before the other was unearthed, and therefore they could not be the same. Metallurgical evidence was also produced to show dissimilarities between the ‘London Nataraja’ and the Pathur Bronzes.
The English trial judge, Mr Ian Kennedy, found that the ‘London Nataraja’ was the same as the one uncovered in India in 1976. He believed Dr. Presencer to have been mistaken to the date on which he’d seen the antique Nataraja.
Title
The Judge concluded that the institution comprising the Temple (the 4th claimant) had title to the Nataraja. If it had not been the 4th than the 5th, then the 3rd had good claims for title and the 2nd would have also had title under provisions of the Treasure Trove Act and/or Tamil Nadu law (H.R. and C.E. Act).
The precedent for this was in a case from India in 1925 – Mallick v Mallick. The legal principle says “A Hindu idol is according to the long established authority founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus and the recognition thereof by the courts of law in India and the Privy Council, a juristic entity. It has judicial status with the power of suing and being sued.” This had been an English decision – that a Hindu deity is a personality of its own and can sue or be sued in a court of law. They applied the principle that once a deity always a deity and so the principle continued to be relevant in the 1980s.
The Judge concluded “the pious intention of the 12th century notable.. who built the temple…remains in being and is personified by the Temple itself, a juristic entity which had title to the Nataraja superior to that of the defendant.”
The Appeal
Bumper appealed against both findings and wanted the Court of Appeal to consider if Mr Justice Kennedy was entitled to make the assessments that he made. The Court of Appeal stated that the Judge “was fully entitled to come to the conclusion which he reached on each aspect of… the case.”
Identity
Further evidence was admitted by Bumper which had not been previously available. An American dealer, Robert Ellsworth, testified that an antique Nataraja was being offered for sale in London in Easter of 1974. He had examined it briefly and he identified it as the disputed object bought by Bumper. They also included evidence of soil analysis showing that the size and colour of soil particles on the object differed from samples taken at the excavation pit at the Temple. The Court upheld Kennedy’s findings on the issue of identification.
Title
The Court held that the Temple was acceptable as a party to proceedings and as such entitled to sue for the recovery of the Nataraja in the English courts through the 3rd claimant, although he himself was not a competent party.
It considered whether a foreign legal person who would not be recognised as a legal person by our own law, could sue in the English courts? Here we had what was essentially little more than a ‘pile of stones’ wishing to sue. The Courts used Salmond in Jurisprudence (12th ed, 1966) as a reference, where it was considered possible that a foreign Roman Catholic Cathedral could have a legal personality in its own country and maybe given the ability to sue for the protection and recovery of its contents. “The touchstone for determining whether access should be given or refused is the comity of nations… - the courteous and friendly understanding by which each nation respects the laws and usages of every other, so far as may be without prejudice to its own rights and interest”. It would only enhance public policy to allow a Hindu Temple to sue here for recovery of its property to which it was entitled to recover by the law of its own country.
Note that the Court accepted that the Sivalingam would be recognised in Tamil Nadu as a juristic entity which could also sue through its representative at the Temple. However as the Court had decided in favour of the Temple it was not necessary to decide if the Sivalingam would be considered a juristic entity in the eyes of English law.
It was considered that the public policy of promoting the return of stolen artefacts, and those exported in breach of regulations, at least where the country is a friendly state and a member of the Commonwealth, was to be applauded and helps ensure the courts make a contribution to the international protection of cultural property.
Note that the Court found that the Treasure Trove Act did not apply – contrary to Kennedy’s decision – because it could only apply to items that were ‘ownerless’. As the Temple was determined to have remained in existence and that the bronzes had been hidden to prevent removal by invaders, it followed that the bronzes had never left the possession of the Temple and therefore had never been ownerless.
Post Appeal
The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords awarded the Temple damages of £1000 and awarded the plaintiffs, jointly, costs totalling £303,489.67. The Nataraja was entrusted to the Indian High Commission in London and later returned to India.
Bumper then appealed to the Canadian courts. Bumper resisted enforcement saying that the judgement was contrary to the public policy of Canada, as reflected by its accession to the UNESCO Convention. Bumper counterclaimed for compensation from India for the loss of the bronze and for the English costs.
Bumper had five defences to the registration of the English judgements in Alberta: 1. that the judgements of the English courts were obtained by fraud on the English courts 2. that India could not, as a co-signatory of the UNESCO Convention, pursue its claim for costs and damages 3. that the English judgements were contrary to public policy 4. that one of the named Indian plaintiffs (the Temple) had no status in Alberta 5. that the Indians are not entitled to interest on the English judgement debts
Fraud
The Alberta court felt there was no newly discovered facts which were not before the foreign court and from which it could be deduced that the foreign judgement has been obtained by fraud
Equity
The Alberta court rejected Bumper’s claims
Public Policy
This point is of interest to cultural property lawyers due to Canada’s status as a signatory to the UNESCO Convention. Although the UK was not a signatory the courts were able to justify the return of the object under common law principles – although at the cost of the innocent purchaser being left without the right to claim for compensation (it could have if the UK had been a signatory and had implemented the Convention).
Bumper argued that by bringing proceedings in England the Indian claimants should not be able to enforce their award in Alberta. The Court rejected this on the basis that there was good reason for the claimant to go to the English courts – not least the location of the item. The provisions of the UNESCO Convention don’t allow for a situation where property is returned by one state when its innocent purchaser resides in another.
Standing
Bumper argued that the Temple had no legal status in Alberta. The Court stated it was likely they would have dealt with the issue in the same way as the English courts did.
Interest
The Court dismissed this argument too. So long as the foreign judgement stipulated payment of interest, then interest was payable.
Conclusion
The UK Courts decisions caused apprehension in the antiquities market because if a religious artefact found in the UK could be traced to a ‘living temple’ then that Temple could pursue a claim to ownership.
The novel question was whether a foreign legal person who would not be recognised as a legal person by our own law could sue in the English courts. This was a first in the UK – where a Hindu Temple could sue for stolen property in England.
Also of interest is that the Sivalingam (a phallic stone idol) was ruled as having greater title than the Bumper Corporation.
The results show that the English courts will do what they can to ensure the return of cultural property to its rightful owner. The arguments themselves, the principle of comity and the criterion of public policy will ensure a wider application of the decision. It was therefore a welcome development in the arena of the international protection of cultural property.
'Sources'
BENNETT, W. 1990 Statue of Siva in landmark case for religious artefacts. The Independent, 5 July
CASEBY, J. 1991 Hindu temple wins back stolen God. Press Association, 14 February
GHANDI, S. & JAMES, J. 1992 The God That Won. International Journal of Cultural Property, Vol.1, Issue 2, pp.369-382
HERBERT, S. 1991 Law report: Hindu temple can sue for return of stolen property. The Guardian, 5 March
HUTCHESSON, P.(ed.) 1991 The all England law reports 1991. Volume 4. London: Butterworths
PATERSON, R.K. ? The 'curse of the London Nataraja'. Case notes from unknown publication - International Journal of Cultural Property?
RAKESH, M. 1991 British courts free Siva icon. Press release from unknown publication
Justice Ian Kennaedy, Trial Judge of the London High Court in his judgement noted:
Dr. Nagaswamy, who I am satisfied, is an unequalled expert in his subject.1-4-7
Dr.Nagaswamy is an acknowledged expert in the field of Chola bronzes 1-4-7
I have already stated my conclusion that I prefer Dr.Nagaswamy's methodology to that
of Dr.Schwindler. 1-4-7(IV)
Now considering the matter of style, again I prefer the evidence of
Dr.Nagaswamy to that of Dr. Schwindler . As to the methodology I have no
doubt whatsoever and as to their conclusion I am satisfied that Nagaswamy
is right in his summary taking the broader feel and treatment of the main
points I feel they all form a group. I am satisfied that stylistic
judgements in relation to Medieval Chola bronzes can not be more precisely
determined than when Nagaswamy expressed his conclusions in his
evidence.1-8-5".
Mr. Adrian Hamilton, Queen's Counsel, London in his written submission to the London High Court.
"Dr.Nagaswamy has brought to bear unequalled learning and experience in the
historical, Cultural, and religious aspects of the Chola Empire and the
Hindu religion which flourished and which still flourish in Tamilnad and
on the understanding of the Inscriptons in the temples and on statues".
6.June.90 INDIAN HIGH COMMISSION, LONDON, London Nataraja case in the Court
of appeal, telex- urgent- sent to Sri Varadarajan, Secretary, Government of
India, Cultural affairs, New Delhi.
Could you kindly authorise "Dr.Nagaswamy 's visit and stay in London in order
to assist Counsel in preparation for the Government resistance to
Bumper Development Corporation's appeal in the Court of Appeal.
Dr. Nagaswamy is an extremely important person for our case and
Mr. Hamilton (Queens Counsel appearing on behalf of India) feels that without
his presence and assistance in preparation for the appeal , it would be very
difficult for us and counsel to prepare the plaintiff's case fully and
properly to the Court of appeal."
(Ref.Jurist . 667433 1/D HC 47050 Date 6th jun. 1990)
The court of Appeal upheld the judgement of the Trial court and ordered the Return of the
bronze. The matter was taken to the Privy council which also gave the verdict in favour
of Government of India.
1990
Lord Justice Purchas
Lord Justice Nourse and
Lord Justice Leggat in their Judgement in the Court of Appeals
"There was a considerable body of evidence to establish stylistic
similarities led from Dr.Nagaswamy an acknowledged Expert Archaeologist
and a devout Hindu. Justice Ian Kennedy not only analysed and considered
this evidence in great detail but also supplimented it with a meticulous
personal examination of the London Nataraja and Pathur Bronzes. In the
final result he preferred the opinion of Nagaswamy to that of Schwindler. A
finding of this sort is almost unappealable. (P.57)"
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com
pravesh vyas
indias property -
http://post.jagran.com/us-company-finds-silver-treasure-on-1941-ship-from-kolkata-1317124232
On Sep 25, 8:04 pm, "S. Kalyanaraman" <kalya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/09/petition-in-london-court-a...
> SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2011
> Petition in London court asking British Museum to return Sarasvati pratima
> to Bhojshala, Dhar: Dr. Subramanian Swamy. Movement against museums of the
> world to return Hindu temple artifacts
>
> Petition in London court asking British Museum to return Sarasvati pratima
> to Bhojshala, Dhar: Dr. Subramanian Swamy.
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/sarasvati-videos
>
> Judge rules about Victorious Youth statue. Will the British Museum return
> Bhoja Raja’s Sarasvati?
>
> Will the British return the pratima of Sarasvati to Bhojashala in Dhar,
> Madhya Pradesh? People are performing puja to the empty niche, every day,
> waiting for the return of Sarasvati.
>
> http://www.britishmuseum.org/images/ps185355_m.jpgSarasvati pratima in
> British Museum.
>
> restrictions on their entry into the monument was lifted by the
> Archaeological Survey of India.
>
> “Prabandha Chintamani, a Jain scripture records, that the famous Raja Bhoj
> of Parmaar dynasty got constructed the Bhojshala temple at Dhaar, Madhya
> Pradesh, in 1034 AD for worshipping Goddesses Saraswati. The temple served
> as a center of Hindu philosophy and Sanskrit language, and a great
> residential university. About 1400 great scholars, poets and theologians
> like Maagh, Vaanabhatta, Kalidas, Bhavabhooti, Maanatunga, Bhaskarabhatta
> and Dhanapal got patronage at Bhojshala where many famous scriptures like
> the Avani Koormashatam, Saraswati Kanthaabharana, Raajamaartanda, and
> Tithisaaranika were written. As mentioned in the Dhar District Gazetteer,
> the Bhojashala was a great center of learning of almost all prevalent Indian
> religions and disciplines. Raja Bhoj himself was well versed in 72 types of
> arts and 36 models of military sciences. He wrote 84 books on various
> subjects like Astronomy, Ayurveda, Grammar, Politics, Sculpture, Philosophy,
> Chemistry Vaastu, etc…In the year 1961, Padamshri Dr. Vishnu Shridhar
> Vakankar, the internationally acclaimed archaeologist, historian and
> litterateur went to London to study the sculpture of the Saraswati statue.
> There he initiated the requirement of retrieving the statue. He met Prime
> Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru and was assured to get back the statue. In 1977
> he met Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and requested her to retrieve the
> statue.”http://www.hvk.org/articles/0303/177.html
>
>
> FEBRUARY 11, 2010, 1:54 PM
>
> Getty Bronze Must Be Returned to Italy, Judge Rules
>
> *
>
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/01/16/arts/16bronze_CA0/arti...
> Paul Getty Trust “Victorious Youth,” a statue that was retrieved from the
> Adriatic by Italian fishermen in 1964.
>
> An Italian judge ruled on Thursday that the J. Paul Getty
> Los Angeles must hand over a rare bronze statue, “Victorious
>
> Judge Lorena Mussoni decreed that the statue — found by Italian fishermen in
> the Adriatic in 1964 and bought by the Getty in 1977 for just under $4
> million — must be “confiscated from the museum” and transferred immediately
> to the Italian government, which the ruling identified as its rightful
> owner.
>
> Maurizio Fiorilli, a lawyer for the government, praised the decision, which
> he said was a confirmation that the Getty “had not acted in good faith when
> they bought the statue.” The Italian justice ministry must now make a formal
> request to American authorities to execute the court order.
>
> The second- or third-century B.C. sculpture of an athlete, best known as the
> Getty Bronze, was excluded from a 2007 agreement between Italy and the Getty
> for the return of 40 artifacts that Italy said had been looted, pending the
> court decision. The Italian culture ministry said on Thursday that it hoped
> the Getty would now review that accord and that it would return the statue
> “in light of this ruling.”
>
> In a statement the Getty expressed its disappointment in the ruling, and
> said the court order was “flawed both procedurally and substantively.” The
> museum said it would appeal the order to the Court of Cassation in Rome and
> “vigorously defend its legal ownership of the statue.”
>
> The Bhojshala Temple in Dhar - built in the 11th century - and now used as a
> mosque and temple.
>
> ruled between 1000 and 1055. Famed for his learning and love of Sanskrit,
> Bhoja was dedicated to Sarasvati, the goddess of knowledge. The city of Dhar
> was sacked by the Chalukyas and Solankis in the 12th century and the statue
> of Sarasvati was taken away to Gujarat where a temple was built for the
> goddess in 1271. The library of Dhar was also looted and manuscripts
> preserved in the Bhandars of western India.
> The mosque known as Raja Bhoj's school or the Bhoj Shala was built out of
> Hindu and Jain remains in the 14th or 15th centuries: its name is derived
> from one of the slabs, covered with inscriptions giving rules of Sanskrit
> grammar, once used as a paving stone in the
>
> <http://ogimages.bl.uk/images/019/019PHO000430S32U00012000%5BSVC2%5D.jpg>
>
> <http://ogimages.bl.uk/images/019/019PHO000430S32U00012000%5BSVC2%5D.jpg>
> Bhoja
> Shala Colonade,
> [Dhar]<http://ogimages.bl.uk/images/019/019PHO000430S32U00012000%5BSVC2%5D.jpg>
> of a Mosque, at Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, taken by an unknown photographer in
> c.1902. Raja Bhoja was a famous 11th-century king of the Hindu Paramara
> dynasty which ruled Dhar between the 9th and 13th centuries. The Paramaras
> were known for their support for literature and during this period many
> Hindu and Jain scholars flourished at the Paramara court and Dhar became a
> famous centre of learning. Legend states that King Bhoja founded a school
> which is referred to as the Bhojashala (or Bhoja's school). Dhar fell to the
> Delhi Sultanate under Alauddin Khalji in 1305 and later became part of the
> province of the independent Sultans of Malwa. A mosque was built here in the
> 14th century using fragments of Hindu and Jain structures. This is a view of
> the internal court. The colonnade consists of carved pillars which appear to
> have Hindu origins.
>
>
> to a Government website.
>
> The Bhojshala and the Raja
>
> should have been a dhwajastambham like the Delhi iron pillar which was set
> up in Sanchi (and now moved to Delhi).
>
> The pillar should have shown Garuda-Vishnu on top like the Heliodorus
>
> in the walls of the building in 1903 by K. K. Lele, Superintendent of
> Education in the Princely State of Dhār. King Arjunavarman (circa 1210-15),
> successor of Bhoja Raja claimed that he was a reincarnation of Bhoja
> himself. The inscription, which is engraved with exceptional beauty, is
> displayed inside the entrance. The text includes part of a drama called
> Vijayaśrīnāṭikā composed by Madana, the king's preceptor who also bore the
> title 'Bālasarasvatī'. [S. K. Dikshit, ed., Pārijātamañjarī alias Vijayaśrī
> by Rāja-Guru Madana alias Bāla-Sarasvatī (Bhopal, 1968)]. The other
> inscribed tablets recovered by Lele, among them a serpentine inscription
> giving grammatical rules of the Sanskrit language. The finds, particularly
> of the grammatical inscription, prompted Lele to describe the building as
> the Bhoj Shala or 'Hall of Bhoja', because King Bhoja (circa 1000-55) was
> the author of a number of works on poetics and grammar, among them the
> Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa or 'Necklace of Sarasvatī'. [R. Birwé,
> ‘Nārāyaṇa Daṇḍanātha's
> Commentary on Rules III.2, 106-121 of Bhoja's Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa’,
> Journal of the American Oriental Society 84 (1964): 150-62.] The term
> Bhojaśālā was taken up by C. E. Luard and published in his Gazetteer of 1908
> although Luard noted that it was a misnomer. [C. E. Luard, Western States
> (Mālwā). Gazetteer, 2 parts. The Central India State Gazetteer Series, vol.
> 5 (Bombay, 1908): part A, pp. 494-500.]
>
>
> Auṃ. Vararuci, King Bhoja's religious superintendant (Dharmmadhī) of the
> Candranagarī and Vidyādharī [branches of the Jain religion], the apsaras [as
> it were] for the easy removal [of ignorance? by...?], that Vararuci, having
> first fashioned Vāgdevī the mother [and] afterwards a triad of Jinas, made
> this beautiful image of Ambā, ever abundant in fruit. Blessings! It was
> executed by Maṇathala, son of the sūtradhāra Sahira. It was written by
> Śivadeva the proficient. Year 1091. [Michael Willis, ‘New Discoveries from
> Old Finds: A Jain Sculpture in the British Museum’, CoJS Newsletter (SOAS) 6
> Newsletter.
>
> <font size="2"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/96536302/Centre-of-Jaina-Studies-Newslett...)">Centre
> name="_ds_96536302" width="630" height="550"
> type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param
> name="FlashVars"
> name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen"
> value="true" /></object><br /><script type="text/javascript">var
> docstoc_docid="96536302";var docstoc_title="Centre of Jaina Studies
> Newsletter (2011)";var docstoc_urltitle="Centre of Jaina Studies Newsletter
> (2011)";</script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://i.docstoccdn.com/js/check-flash.js"></script>
>
> Bhojashala was a Hindu temple of learning. Restoring daily puja in the
> temple which should be restored in Dhar should be a reiteration of the
> Fundamental Right to Education now enshrined in the Constitution of India.
> Bhojaśālā or 'Hall of Bhoja' is a term used to describe the centre for
> Sanskrit studies and temple of Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning associated
> with king Bhoja, the most celebrated ruler of the Paramāra dynasty in
> central India. As a consequence, any site or object connected with Bhoja
> has great cultural potency and is intimately connected with modern Hindu
> identity.
>
> For example, Guimet Museum, France should return Vishnu pratimaa to Angkor
> Wat where Vishnu worship should be promoted in accordance with Pancaratra
> Agama and Parameshwara
> *
> *
> Ganesh pratimaa outside the National Museum in Phnom Penh
>
>
> MetMuseum, New York
>
>
> returned to the Hindu temples.
>
> For, a Hindu temple is a temple is a temple, a temple forever. This
> principle of eternal presence of divinity in a Hindu temple is well
> established in law.
>
> R.Smalley, January 2010. Copyright.
> [image: Siva Nataraja.
> <http://webster-smalley.co.uk/ArchyWiki/Image:Siva_1.jpg>
> Siva Nataraja. Source:http://dustysojourner.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/siva-nataraja-one-leg-...
>
> *Introduction*
> In August or September 1976 an Indian labourer who lived near the site of a
> ruined Hindu temple at Pathur (Arul Thiru Viswanatha Swamy Temple), in the
> state of Tamil Nadu, uncovered a metal object (the ‘Pathur Nataraja’) while
> excavating foundations for a new cow shed. This object was known locally as
> a Siva Nataraja and was shown to belong to a family of bronze Hindu idols
> called the Pathur Bronzes. It was subsequently dated to the Chola period
> (9th to 13th Century) and was probably buried to prevent discovery by
> invading Muslims. The farmer sold the idol to a dealer in religious
> artefacts and eventually it ended up with a Bombay dealer (who was
> untraceable at the time of court proceedings).
>
> State officials in Tamil Nadu had learnt of the various sales associated
> with the idol and had begun their own investigations but by 1982 the
> whereabouts of the object was still unknown. In June of that year Robert
> Borden, of the Bumper Corporation of Canada, bought a Nataraja in good faith
> from a London dealer called Sherrier (who later produced what was found to
> be false provenance documents for the object). Bumper obtained a permit to
> export the bronze from England but did not do so as they were advised it
> required conservation. The ‘London Nataraja’ was taken to the British Museum
> for assessment and conservation but later seized by the Metropolitan Police
> as part of an operation to return stolen religious objects to their rightful
> owners. Bumper then brought a claim against the Police for the return of the
> object and damages.
>
> There were five claimants in the case: 1. Union of India 2. State of Tamil
> Nadu 3. Thiru R. Sadagopan, claiming as the fit representative of the Temple
> 4. Arul Thiru Viswanatha Swamy Temple 5. Sivalingam. This was another
> surviving object of religious worship from the Temple. It is a sculptured
> stone phallus and in a temple of its period would have been positioned in
> the sanctum to be the focus of worship. It was restored as an object of
> worship at the Temple after its rediscovery
>
> There were two main issues: 1. Identity – that the ‘London Nataraja’ was the
> one and the same as the ‘Pathur Nataraja’ 2. Title – If they were the same,
> who of the claimants had the superior title to the object
>
> The case stating that they were the same object was supported by expert
> evidence on stylistic grounds of similarity between the ‘London Nataraja’
> and the Pathur Bronzes and expert evidence of a metallurgical, geological
> and entomological nature.
>
> Bumper’s case was supported by Dr. Presencer (considered an honest witness)
> who stated that he’d seen the antique object (note that it was agreed that
> the item was antique and showed signs of having been buried for many
> centuries) in London in May 1976, before the other was unearthed, and
> therefore they could not be the same. Metallurgical evidence was also
> produced to show dissimilarities between the ‘London Nataraja’ and the
> Pathur Bronzes.
>
> The English trial judge, Mr Ian Kennedy, found that the ‘London Nataraja’
> was the same as the one uncovered in India in 1976. He believed Dr.
> Presencer to have been mistaken to the date on which he’d seen the antique
> Nataraja.
>
> The Judge concluded that the institution comprising the Temple (the 4th
> claimant) had title to the Nataraja. If it had not been the 4th than the
> 5th, then the 3rd had good claims for title and the 2nd would have also had
> title under provisions of the Treasure Trove Act and/or Tamil Nadu law (H.R.
> and C.E. Act).
>
> The precedent for this was in a case from India in 1925 – Mallick v Mallick.
> The legal principle says “A Hindu idol is according to the long established
> authority founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus and the
> recognition thereof by the courts of law in India and the Privy Council, a
> juristic entity. It has judicial status with the power of suing and being
> sued.” This had been an English decision – that a Hindu deity is a
> personality of its own and can sue or be sued in a court of law. They
> applied the principle that once a deity always a deity and so the principle
> continued to be relevant in the 1980s.
>
> The Judge concluded “the pious intention of the 12th century notable.. who
> built the temple…remains in being and is personified by the Temple itself, a
> juristic entity which had title to the Nataraja superior to that of the
> defendant.”
> [image: The 'London' Nataraja. Source: Ghandhi & James,
> <http://webster-smalley.co.uk/ArchyWiki/Image:Siva_2.jpg>
>
> Bumper appealed against both findings and wanted the Court of Appeal to
> consider if Mr Justice Kennedy was entitled to make the assessments that he
> made. The Court of Appeal stated that the Judge “was fully entitled to come
> to the conclusion which he reached on each aspect of… the case.”
>
> Further evidence was admitted by Bumper which had not been previously
> available. An American dealer, Robert Ellsworth, testified that an antique
> Nataraja was being offered for sale in London in Easter of 1974. He had
> examined it briefly and he identified it as the disputed object bought by
> Bumper. They also included evidence of soil analysis showing that the size
> and colour of soil particles on the object differed from samples taken at
> the excavation pit at the Temple. The Court upheld Kennedy’s findings on the
> issue of identification.
>
> The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords awarded the Temple damages of
> £1000 and awarded the plaintiffs, jointly, costs totalling £303,489.67. The
> Nataraja was entrusted to the Indian High Commission in London and later
> returned to India.
>
> Bumper then appealed to the Canadian courts. Bumper resisted enforcement
> saying that the judgement was contrary to the public policy of Canada, as
> reflected by its accession to the UNESCO Convention. Bumper counterclaimed
> for compensation from India for the loss of the bronze and for the English
> costs.
>
> Bumper had five defences to the registration of the English judgements in
> Alberta: 1. that the judgements of the English courts were obtained by fraud
> on the English courts 2. that India could not, as a co-signatory of the
> UNESCO Convention, pursue its claim for costs and damages 3. that the
> English judgements were contrary to public policy 4. that one of the named
> Indian plaintiffs (the Temple) had no status in Alberta 5. that the Indians
> are not entitled to interest on the English judgement debts
>
> The Alberta court felt there was no newly discovered facts which were not
> before the foreign court and from which it could be deduced that the foreign
> judgement has been obtained by fraud
>
> The Alberta court rejected Bumper’s claims
>
> This point is of interest to cultural property lawyers due to Canada’s
> status as a signatory to the UNESCO Convention. Although the UK was not a
> signatory the courts were able to justify the return of the object under
> common law principles – although at the cost of the innocent purchaser being
> left without the right to claim for compensation (it could have if the UK
> had been a signatory and had implemented the Convention).
>
> Bumper argued that by bringing proceedings in England the Indian claimants
> should not be able to enforce their award in Alberta. The Court rejected
> this on the basis that there was good reason for the claimant to go to the
> English courts – not least the location of the item. The provisions of the
> UNESCO Convention don’t allow for a situation where property is returned by
> one state when its innocent purchaser resides in another.
>
> Bumper argued that the Temple had no legal status in Alberta. The Court
> stated it was likely they would have dealt with the issue in the same way as
> the English courts did.
>
> The Court dismissed this argument too. So long as the foreign judgement
> stipulated payment of interest, then interest was payable.
> [image: Siva Nataraja. Source:
> <http://webster-smalley.co.uk/ArchyWiki/Image:Siva_3.jpg>
> Siva Nataraja. Source: Wikipedia
>
> *Conclusion*
> The UK Courts decisions caused apprehension in the antiquities market
> because if a religious artefact found in the UK could be traced to a ‘living
> temple’ then that Temple could pursue a claim to ownership.
>
> The novel question was whether a foreign legal person who would not be
> recognised as a legal person by our own law could sue in the English courts.
> This was a first in the UK – where a Hindu Temple could sue for stolen
> property in England.
>
> Also of interest is that the Sivalingam (a phallic stone idol) was ruled as
> having greater title than the Bumper Corporation.
>
> The results show that the English courts will do what they can to ensure the
> return of cultural property to its rightful owner. The arguments themselves,
> the principle of comity and the criterion of public policy will ensure a
> wider application of the decision. It was therefore a welcome development in
> the arena of the international protection of cultural property.
>
V Subrahmanian
Regards,
subrahmanian.v
iragavarapu narasimhacharya
country I request you to ponder over our India House Library at London also.
--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
BVP Misra
Respected scholars,
Seeing the smuggling and vandalism committed and patronised by the Governments in India, where even the Nobel prize of Rabindra Nath Tagore could be pilfered, I feel the Hindu artifacts are safer where they are.
Yours truly,
D D Misra
At 30 Sep 2011 15:58:13 +0200 (CEST) from iragavarapu narasimhacharya <insac...@gmail.com>:
ivnacharya.
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/09/petition-in-london-court-asking-british.htmlSUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2011
Introduction
In August or September 1976 an Indian labourer who lived near the site of a ruined Hindu temple at Pathur (Arul Thiru Viswanatha Swamy Temple), in the state of Tamil Nadu, uncovered a metal object (the ‘Pathur Nataraja’) while excavating foundations for a new cow shed. This object was known locally as a Siva Nataraja and was shown to belong to a family of bronze Hindu idols called the Pathur Bronzes. It was subsequently dated to the Chola period (9th to 13th Century) and was probably buried to prevent discovery by invading Muslims. The farmer sold the idol to a dealer in religious artefacts and eventually it ended up with a Bombay dealer (who was untraceable at the time of court proceedings).
State officials in Tamil Nadu had learnt of the various sales associated with the idol and had begun their own investigations but by 1982 the whereabouts of the object was still unknown. In June of that year Robert Borden, of the Bumper Corporation of Canada, bought a Nataraja in good faith from a London dealer called Sherrier (who later produced what was found to be false provenance documents for the object). Bumper obtained a permit to export the bronze from England but did not do so as they were advised it required conservation. The ‘London Nataraja’ was taken to the British Museum for assessment and conservation but later seized by the Metropolitan Police as part of an operation to return stolen religious objects to their rightful owners. Bumper then brought a claim against the Police for the return of the object and damages.
The Trial
There were five claimants in the case: 1. Union of India 2. State of Tamil Nadu 3. Thiru R. Sadagopan, claiming as the fit representative of the Temple 4. Arul Thiru Viswanatha Swamy Temple 5. Sivalingam. This was another surviving object of religious worship from the Temple. It is a sculptured stone phallus and in a temple of its period would have been positioned in the sanctum to be the focus of worship. It was restored as an object of worship at the Temple after its rediscovery
There were two main issues: 1. Identity – that the ‘London Nataraja’ was the one and the same as the ‘Pathur Nataraja’ 2. Title – If they were the same, who of the claimants had the superior title to the object
Identity
The case stating that they were the same object was supported by expert evidence on stylistic grounds of similarity between the ‘London Nataraja’ and the Pathur Bronzes and expert evidence of a metallurgical, geological and entomological nature.
Bumper’s case was supported by Dr. Presencer (considered an honest witness) who stated that he’d seen the antique object (note that it was agreed that the item was antique and showed signs of having been buried for many centuries) in London in May 1976, before the other was unearthed, and therefore they could not be the same. Metallurgical evidence was also produced to show dissimilarities between the ‘London Nataraja’ and the Pathur Bronzes.
The English trial judge, Mr Ian Kennedy, found that the ‘London Nataraja’ was the same as the one uncovered in India in 1976. He believed Dr. Presencer to have been mistaken to the date on which he’d seen the antique Nataraja.
Title
The Judge concluded that the institution comprising the Temple (the 4th claimant) had title to the Nataraja. If it had not been the 4th than the 5th, then the 3rd had good claims for title and the 2nd would have also had title under provisions of the Treasure Trove Act and/or Tamil Nadu law (H.R. and C.E. Act).
The precedent for this was in a case from India in 1925 – Mallick v Mallick. The legal principle says “A Hindu idol is according to the long established authority founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus and the recognition thereof by the courts of law in India and the Privy Council, a juristic entity. It has judicial status with the power of suing and being sued.” This had been an English decision – that a Hindu deity is a personality of its own and can sue or be sued in a court of law. They applied the principle that once a deity always a deity and so the principle continued to be relevant in the 1980s.
The Judge concluded “the pious intention of the 12th century notable.. who built the temple…remains in being and is personified by the Temple itself, a juristic entity which had title to the Nataraja superior to that of the defendant.”