Skip to content
Tickets for the 2027 OCCA Summer School are selling fast!
Early-bird ticket (save £100)

The Museum and the Soul

I came across a fascinating article this week by the Indian historian and writer Anirudh Kanisetti, whose work I have followed for some time. I am particularly drawn to his writing on Indian history because of the nuance he brings to difficult subjects. He does not flatten the past into slogans. He allows beauty and brutality, achievement and contradiction to sit beside one another. That is not always easy in our age, when history is often used either as a weapon or as a comfort blanket. 

The article reflected on The Netherlands’ decision to return a set of Chola-period copper plates to India. The Cholas were one of South India’s great imperial dynasties, especially powerful between the ninth and thirteenth centuries, ruling from Tamil country and extending their influence across parts of South India and Southeast Asia. At one level, the return of these plates may seem like a simple act of restitution. Something was taken. Something is now being returned. But beneath that simple moral frame lies a deeper question. Why should old copper matter? Why should inscriptions from a vanished kingdom stir modern emotion? Why should a nation feel that a piece of metal, lying for years in a European collection, somehow belongs not merely in a museum, but within the story of its own people? 

Fragments of Identity

Perhaps because artefacts are never merely artefacts. They are fragments of identity. They help a civilisation remember itself. They tell a people something about where they have come from, what they once cherished, how they governed, worshipped, traded, conquered, remembered, and forgot. 

That question becomes more complicated when we turn to the British presence in India. The public conversation today often focuses, understandably, on objects removed from colonised lands and now held in European museums. I remember the endless conversations as a monk, both in India and in Britain, about the Kohinoor diamond. For many Indians, it was never merely a jewel. It was a symbol of humiliation, conquest, memory, and national pride.

Such conversations matter. Yet they are not the whole story. 

In India, the British also helped create many of the institutions through which India’s ancient material past came to be studied, catalogued, and displayed. The Indian Museum in Kolkata, formerly Calcutta, traces its origins to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. A museum was formally established there in 1814 under the guidance of the Danish botanist Nathaniel Wallich, making it one of the earliest and most significant museums in Asia. The Government Museum in Madras, now Chennai, was established in 1851 and became another major centre for art, archaeology, anthropology, numismatics, and natural history. Later, site museums at places such as Sarnath, Sanchi, and Nalanda helped preserve objects close to the sacred landscapes from which they emerged. 

Sarnath is especially striking. The museum there, associated with Sir John Marshall’s archaeological work, was built to house antiquities from the site, including the Lion Capital of Ashoka, which would later become the national emblem of independent India. There is a quiet irony here. Many of the objects that now help modern India tell the story of its own national identity were excavated, protected, and displayed through institutions shaped under British rule. Even the National Museum in New Delhi, opened after Independence in 1949, had its blueprint prepared by the Maurice Gwyer Committee in 1946. 

None of this makes every British intention pure. Museums can preserve and possess at the same time. Curiosity, admiration, scholarship, power, classification, and empire were often intertwined. But it would be historically careless to say only that Britain took. It also preserved, classified, funded, housed, and made visible many fragments of India’s civilisational memory. 

And that raises a deeper question. Why did this particular way of preserving the past emerge so strongly through British institutions? And why, in much of Indian civilisation, had memory so often been carried in other forms, through story, ritual, pilgrimage, temple, and sacred geography, rather than through museums, catalogues, and glass cases?  

Ideas of Remembrance

India, of course, did not lack memory. That would be a foolish thing to say of a civilisation that gave the world the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, the Puranas, temple inscriptions, royal grants, genealogies, pilgrimage routes, philosophical commentaries, and sacred calendars.

India remembered deeply. But it often remembered differently. 

The past was carried through story, recitation, ritual, shrine, festival, teacher, family, and place. A river could remember. A mountain could remember. A temple could hold within its walls the presence of a deity, the patronage of a king, the labour of artisans, the footsteps of pilgrims, and the prayers of generations. Sacred geography often carried history in a way no catalogue could. A journey to Kashi, a bath in the Ganga, a moment before a murti, or the sound of the Ramayana sung in a village square could draw a person into a living stream of memory. I remember this vividly when my culturally Hindu relatives in Britain travelled to India to scatter the ashes of my cousin into the River Ganga after he passed away. It was not simply the disposal of remains. It felt like the final part of his earthly story being placed into a sacred river that had carried the stories of countless others before him. 

Of course, the West has its own forms of living memory. When a monarch is crowned, or when Parliament opens with ancient words and gestures, something more than ceremony is taking place. A people is being reminded, however faintly, of continuity, duty, law, and inheritance. Even the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race is more than a race. Such traditions carry memory, belonging, continuity, and identity. Human beings do not live by information alone. We need repeated gestures, inherited words, familiar places, and public rituals that tell us who we are. In India, memory was often carried in precisely this way.

It lived in songs heard from childhood, in pilgrimages made with family, in temple worship, and in sacred rivers that gathered grief, devotion, and hope into one place. 

But the modern Western museum carries memory in another way. It preserves by separating, naming, dating, arranging, and explaining. There is real beauty in this, even if it is a quieter kind of beauty. It allows fragile things to survive beyond the village, shrine, dynasty, or ritual world in which they first belonged. Something may be lost when an object is removed from the life that once surrounded it, but something is also saved. Time wears away stone and manuscript alike. Sculptures are broken, inscriptions neglected, and politics can make a people forget what it once knew how to see. The museum, at its best, steps into that vulnerability. It says that the fragment matters too. 

Perhaps that is why museums can move us in ways we do not expect. They do not simply teach us about the past. They place us before what remains of it. And sometimes, in the presence of a broken sculpture, an old coin, a copper plate, or a faded manuscript, a people begins to recognise something of itself again. 

Ideas of Detatchment

This difference may have something to do with the way identity itself is understood. In many Hindu traditions, the deepest self is not finally the body, the family name, the nation, or even the visible story of one’s life. The deepest self is Atma, the soul or self, which is eternal. Bodies age, families change, kingdoms rise and fall, and civilisations themselves move within vast cycles of time. What seems permanent to one generation may, in the larger sweep of kala – cyclical time, appear fragile and passing. 

I remember this not as an abstract idea, but as something once addressed to me personally. I was only sixteen, not yet a monk, sitting in a large gathering in the USA while my guru spoke to thousands. Then, suddenly, he turned towards me and said, “You are the Atma. You are not Rahil. England is not your home. You must forget all these things.” He told me to imagine my old childhood name, my friends, my family, and my attachment to England as though they had been burned away. Fire is a familiar image in Hindu texts. It can purify. It can consume illusion and attachment. It can leave behind what is thought to be essential. 

I often think of that moment when I hear modern conversations about identity. On one level, it carried a serious spiritual lesson. I was being taught that the Atma must not cling to name, nationality, memory, or possession. In the world I inhabited, this teaching was meant to loosen the grip of vanity and worldly belonging. Such teaching can produce humility. But it can also produce a detachment that leaves one desensitised to suffering and pain. 

And detachment has consequences. If the body is not my deepest identity, if history is one turn within a much larger cycle, and if liberation lies beyond the material world, then the urgency to preserve material traces of the past may not arise in the same way. Over time, even the most sacred things can become fragile. A statue breaks, an inscription fades, a monastery falls into ruin. An old copper plate can lie forgotten for generations until someone, somewhere, decides that it still matters. It may still be honoured, even revered, but perhaps not always studied with the same historical vigour. 

This is not because India lacked memory. It is because memory was often ordered towards spiritual continuity rather than material preservation. The object mattered, but it did not always matter in quite the same way. 

A different way of seeing

Christianity offers a different way of seeing the material world. It knows that life is fragile.

Scripture does not flatter human permanence. We are dust, and our days are like grass.

Yet the Christian story never treats the material world as spiritually disposable. Creation is not an accident to be escaped, but a gift declared as good. Human beings are not simply selves passing through matter in order to work through karma. We are embodied creatures made in the image of God, and that means that body, place, memory, work, language, family, and history all carry weight. 

This is where the Christian imagination begins to differ from many Indic ways of seeing. Hindu traditions also speak of divine descent. Rama and Krishna enter the world, act within kingdoms and families, and are remembered through rich narrative, poetry, place, and devotion. But the incarnation of Christ moves in a different direction. In Jesus, God does not merely appear within the world to restore cosmic order for an age. He takes human flesh, enters death, and rises bodily. The resurrection matters here. Christian hope is not the soul finally leaving the body behind, nor the self-awakening to its eternal nature beyond the flux of the world. It is the promise that God will redeem the whole person, and ultimately the whole creation. 

That belief changes the way we look at what remains from the past. A broken sculpture, an old manuscript, a weathered inscription, or a copper plate is not simply an object of curiosity. It bears witness to embodied lives. People carved, wrote, prayed, traded, ruled, suffered, remembered, and hoped within the world God made. The fragment matters because the lives behind it mattered. It does not have to be worshipped. It does not have to be turned into a political idol. But neither should it be treated as disposable. 

And this is where memory becomes moral. If bodies matter, then suffering matters too, and suffering cannot be explained away too quickly as just the working out of karma.

If history matters, then injustice cannot be brushed aside as merely the way of the world. Preservation and repentance belong together, though repentance must be understood carefully. In the West today, it is easy for public institutions to confuse repentance with a ritual performance of inherited guilt. But Christian repentance is more concrete than that. We do not repent for sins we did not personally commit. We repent where we have lied, benefited knowingly from injustice, concealed truth, or continued what is wrong. 

A moment of self-examination

Perhaps this is why Anirudh Kanisetti’s question is so important. When he asks why India cannot have a more honest conversation about its own past, he is asking something more than a political question. He is asking whether a civilisation can face its own history truthfully, not only when it has been wounded, but also when it has wounded others. In that sense, the question becomes a deeply Christian one. Christianity gives us a way to remember without worshipping the past, and to judge the past without pretending that we stand above it. 

That is why the return of the Chola plates should not only produce celebration in India. It should also invite self-examination. It is right to ask what European powers carried away from India. But the movement of objects across history is rarely simple. Artefacts have travelled through conquest, diplomacy, purchase, excavation, pressure, gift, plunder, devotion, and imperial authority.

Some movements trouble the modern conscience more than they troubled the conscience of the age in which they happened. That does not mean we ignore them. It means we should handle them with historical care. 

This is the uncomfortable question Kanisetti raises. If the Netherlands must ask what it holds from India, can India also ask what it holds from others? The National Museum in New Delhi contains thousands of objects from Xinjiang, removed in the early twentieth century by Aurel Stein under the auspices of the British Indian Government. Manuscripts, murals, paintings, and Buddhist fragments from the Silk Road now sit in an Indian national institution. To whom do they belong? To India? To China? To the communities whose ancestors shaped them? To the wider Buddhist world? These are not simple questions. 

And the question goes deeper than museums. Before Europeans arrived, Indian kingdoms fought, conquered, taxed, plundered, patronised, enslaved, and absorbed. So did most civilisations. The moral questions we now ask of the past are not as obvious as we sometimes imagine. A world in which the strong took from the weak did not always have the language to name that as oppression. That language, at least in its modern moral force, owes far more to the Christian imagination than we often acknowledge. 

An historical cycle

This is why the question becomes so important. It allows India to remember not only as a wounded civilisation, but as a civilisation also capable of wounding. That is not an insult to India. It is the beginning of moral seriousness. What did we suffer? What did we preserve? What did we inherit? What did we ignore? And where, even now, are we tempted to turn memory into pride rather than honest remembrance? 

Perhaps this is where the museum finally points beyond itself. It reminds us that history is not merely something to possess, display, or avenge. It is something to bring into the light. The modern Indian desire to ask moral questions of the past is not wrong. In many ways, it is profoundly important. But those questions are not born simply from the old logic of conquest, karma, dynasty, or cosmic time. They belong to a moral imagination in which the weak matter, suffering matters, bodies matter, and history itself can be judged.  

That is why the Christian story still has something to say. It teaches us to preserve beauty without worshipping it, to confess sin without performing guilt, and to seek honest remembrance without losing gratitude. If we are only Atma, untouched by body, place, and history, then the broken statue may matter less. But if we are embodied creatures made in the image of God, living in a world God called good, then even broken stones can become witnesses. 

A civilisation that knows who it is need not fear such witnesses. 

 Going Deeper

 

Resource by
Topics:

Hear from us

Subscribe
Support Us