The legacy of colonialism is etched not just in history books but in Western museums. For centuries, European powers, particularly the British, extracted immense wealth from colonized regions like Bharat, Afrika and the Caribbean. Apart from raw resources, they looted symbols and riches of heritage, spirituality, and identity.
Looted under the guise of “civilizing missions,” these items were transported to Europe using colonial expertise in logistics, archaeology, and self-serving legal frameworks. Today, institutions like the British Museum claim superior expertise in preserving these treasures, refusing repatriation on grounds of international laws they helped shape.
Some of these artifacts are being “returned” through auctions or donations, often allowing former holders to profit financially or socially. This cycle raises questions about true restitution versus performative philanthropy.
The Colonial Heist: Looting with “Expertise”
The Crowns of Britain, Spain, Portugal and Belgium saw the extraction of jewels and artifacts worth USD trillions today. The Koh-i-Noor diamond, once part of the Sikh Empire, was “gifted” to Queen Victoria after the annexation of Punjab in 1849, symbolizing forced surrender rather than voluntary exchange.
Estimates suggest Britain looted around USD 45 trillion from India between 1765 and 1938, including gems, sculptures, and manuscripts that fueled Europe’s industrial and cultural boom.
In Afrika, expeditions like the 1897 British punitive raid on Benin City resulted in larceny of thousands of Benin Bronzes—intricate brass plaques and sculptures depicting royal histories. These were acquired through military force, auctioned in London to fund the expedition itself, and dispersed to museums worldwide.
Colonizers justified this as “safeguarding” artifacts from “uncivilized” locals, employing their technological and legal prowess—such as the Indian Treasure Trove Act of 1878—to legitimize theft.
In reality, it was dacoity and profiteering. Artifacts were sold, displayed, or used to bolster imperial prestige, turning cultural heritage into commodities.
Museums as Gatekeepers
Many of these looted items reside in institutions like the British Museum, which holds over 73,000 Afrikan artifacts alone. Museum officials argue they are best equipped to preserve and display these objects for a “universal” audience, citing advanced conservation techniques and climate-controlled environments.
Repatriation requests are often denied under laws like the British Museum Act of 1963, which prohibits deaccessioning items unless they are duplicates or unfit. This same “expertise” was built on colonial exploitation.
Reality is if these were returned to Indian or Afrikan hands today, our authorities would probably sell if off to the highest bidder. Such is the state of many post-colonial nations including India where temple gold and jewellery are routinely looted.
The British Museum, for instance, generates millions annually from visitors drawn to galleries of foreign artifacts. Western voices frame retention as cultural stewardship, while others see it as ongoing colonialism.
Auctions, Donations, and the Illusion of Generosity
The twist? Some holders are now “returning” artifacts—but not without gain. Auctions of looted items persist, often selling to buyers from origin countries or corporations, turning repatriation into a transaction. In 2020, Christie’s auctioned Nigerian statues stolen during the Biafran War, despite protests from Nigerian officials.
Wealthy collectors buy low on the black market, then sell or donate for profit. Michael Steinhardt, a billionaire collector, surrendered 180 stolen artifacts worth $70 million in 2021 after investigations, but not before benefiting from their possession.
Donations offer another avenue: U.S. tax laws allow deductions for charitable gifts of art, often at inflated appraised values. Collectors can acquire looted antiquities cheaply, donate to museums, and claim deductions that offset acquisition costs—sometimes turning a profit.
This system incentivizes the antiquities market, including illicit ones, as donors recoup via tax breaks. When “returning” to origin countries, some opt for donations to charities, gaining clout or satisfaction while the organizations handle logistics.
Charities like UNICEF, criticized for high overheads (up to 20-30 percent on administration), may receive funds from artifact sales or related galas, where most donations fund operations rather than direct aid.
Recent cases highlight this: Holland returned 119 Benin Bronzes to Nigeria in 2025, but many were from private collections seeking positive PR.
Hobby Lobby forfeited Iraqi artifacts including cuneiform tablets in 2017 after smuggling allegations, paying fines but initially intending tax benefits from donations. Such “repatriations” often come with strings—loans instead of full ownership—or serve as virtue signaling, allowing former holders to profit from goodwill.
This pattern—looting, safeguarding, then profiting from “returns”—perpetuates inequality. True justice requires acknowledging colonial harms, reforming laws, and returning artifacts unconditionally. Until then, donations and sales remain a profitable echo of Western imperialism, not redemption.
Thank you for reading, please consider a monthly subscription of Rs. 90.
Normal Comment 