In 1898, William Claxton Peppé, a colonial landowner, ordered the excavation of a stupa on his estate in Piprahwa, a village in present-day Uttar Pradesh. His team unearthed five reliquaries that had in them bone fragments, ash, and gemstones, one of the most significant archaeological discoveries in Buddhist history. Inscribed in early Brahmi script, an urn identified the depositors as members of the Buddha’s own Shakya clan, who had enshrined here the relics of the Buddha.
Naman Ahuja, professor of art history at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, says the find is a direct link to the bodily remains of one of history’s most revered religious figures, “someone who almost half of Asia prays to today”.
Over 1,800 items were divided and distributed: Some were gifted by Viceroy Lord Elgin, on behalf of the British Crown, to King Rama V of Siam. Portions were also allocated to temples in Burma and Ceylon. The remaining relics were split between Calcutta’s Indian Museum and Peppé himself. According to Ahuja, Buddhists consider all items interred with the Buddha’s ashes—gems, ornaments, etc.—to be sharirik dhatu, or corporeal relics: “They’re not commodities that can be sold on the market. Putting them on auction is tantamount to selling the body of the Buddha.”
Ahuja’s concerns echo those of prominent Buddhist scholars and monastic leaders, all of whom condemned the planned auction of the Piprahwa gems, placed on the block by descendants of William Peppé. The relics were scheduled to go under the hammer at Sotheby’s Hong Kong on May 7, but the auction was postponed after the Indian government issued a legal notice.
For over three decades, Ahuja has studied ancient Indian art and visual culture, with a particular focus on the material history of its religions. His interest in the Piprahwa relics is rooted in both scholarship and curatorial experience. In this interview, Ahuja explains why these relics matter. Excerpts:
William Claxton Peppé’s excavation of the Piprahwa relics in 1898 has been referred to as “one of the most astonishing archaeological finds of the modern era”. Why are these particular relics so significant?
Because a large number of ashes and bones were found during this excavation, carefully deposited about 2,400 years ago. They were accompanied by an inscription, one of the oldest known in any Indian language, written in Brahmi script. This inscription identifies the depositors as members of the Shakya family, who state that they were depositing the ashes and bones left after the cremation of their master, the Buddha. That alone makes it one of the most incredibly valuable deposits of human relics. This isn’t just any stupa. This is one of the original relic deposits of the Buddha himself, placed there by his own bloodline and paternal family.
We should consider the cumulative populations of countries in Southeast and South Asia that constitute the current Buddhist world. This is the grave of the person they follow—the Buddha. Would any auction house have been able to assign a price to the relics of Christ or Muhammad? When the stupa was first excavated, India had no legal framework to protect the sacred nature of its ancient Buddhist past. But today, India must act on behalf of all Buddhists because we now know whose grave this is.
The relics that were to go on sale at Sotheby’s included amethyst, coral, garnet, pearl, rock crystal, shell and gold. Could you explain how these precious gems came to be thought of as corporeal remains of the Buddha?
According to Buddhist theology—their legends, lore, and myths—there are clear definitions of what constitutes a relic. Buddhism recognises three main kinds of relics, the most precious of which are sharirik dhatu (bodily relics), remnants from the physical body of the Buddha himself. But what exactly constitutes the sharir (body) of the Buddha? According to Buddhist belief, the items interred along with the cremated ashes in the original caskets of the Buddha comprise sharirik dhatu. Our modern, scientific way of thinking may want to draw a distinction between bodily remains (bones and ashes) and man-made objects (jewels and precious stones). But that distinction doesn’t exist within the religious framework of what Buddhists believe to be true. Buddhist thought says that the bodies of great masters turn to crystal over time. These are said to transform into quartz, rock crystal, amethyst, and other such forms. The jewels that family members may have infused with the ashes are not considered separate; they are regarded as part of the original relics. They are not extraneous gems added for decoration: They are the relics.
Also Read | Exploring an ancient kingdom
Rather than think of these precious stones as inanimate artefacts, should we imagine them as living entities instead? Buddhist devotees, for instance, might argue they are imbued with the presence of the Buddha…
When we begin to think of certain inanimate artefacts as living entities, it comes with a massive responsibility: To uphold the rituals that keep them “alive”. The state must think of these not as lifeless museum pieces, but as the presence of the Buddha. We already apply this principle to Hindu objects. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Indian Penal Code) makes special provision for sacred temple sculptures, treating them as living entities. Thus, mortals act as trustees of Venkateswara at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Trust, for instance. In the famous case of the Chola-period Nataraja statue in the 1980s, a British court accepted Indian legal reasoning and ruled in favour of repatriating the statue, not as a piece of art, but as a sacred, living sculpture. It would be extraordinary for any judge to ignore that precedent when talking about sacred relics belonging to the most significant Buddhist stupa deposit in the world.
There’s a second precedent. In 1938, the Mahabodhi Society made a formal representation to the British Indian government, demanding the return of relics taken from the stupas of Sanchi in Madhya Pradesh. These relics were not to be treated as scientific specimens, but as sacred remains of the earliest Buddhist monks. The British Indian government was forced to acknowledge this position, and the relics were returned to India.
Now consider this: Piprahwa is even more sacred than Sanchi in terms of the significance of its relics. If the British government had already set a precedent in 1951–52, then, surely, they must be reminded of these precedents.
Relics discovered in Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, on display at National Museum in New Delhi in August 2012.
| Photo Credit:
V.V. Krishnan
Why did that repatriation not serve as a template for other Buddhist relics in Britain?
It didn’t serve as a template because none of the other relics in Britain carry the same gravity. India—and Sri Lanka as well—have not been mindlessly demanding the repatriation of every relic. We are not making some rabble-rousing, uncalibrated, or thoughtless demand. We are not denying Western museums the value of their scholarship. Far from it. This is certainly not some kind of wild, chauvinistic, or nationalistic claim. We are asking for the return of something very specific—something which Sotheby’s and the Peppé family have themselves acknowledged to be among the “most important discoveries in the history of archaeology”. If these relics do not qualify for repatriation, then what does? Why even have a concept of repatriation if it doesn’t apply here?
According to Chris Peppé, the great-grandson of William Claxton Peppé, “an auction seems the fairest and most transparent way to transfer these relics to Buddhists”. Could you tell us why this argument is flawed?
What’s troubling is this notion that an auction is the most appropriate and transparent way to “sell” the body of the Buddha. An auction house should not have the right to treat the sacred sentiments of millions as something to be commodified. To imagine that everything has a price is to ignore the very foundation of faith. And relics, we must remember, are powerful things. The Crusades were fought over relics. Relics were—and are—used to bless rulers, to sanctify vows, and to confer legitimacy. The Western legal systems and judges must be reminded of how relics once functioned in their own religious and political histories. These objects were not treated as commodities. They were treated as vessels of sacred legitimacy. You don’t put a price tag on something like that and sell it off. Not when it carries this kind of spiritual and cultural weight.
Also Read | Ambedkar’s turn to Buddhism was not just rejection. It was revolution
In the legal notice that it sent to Sotheby’s and Chris Peppé, the Indian government made several wide-ranging arguments…
India’s legal notice raises three distinct sets of arguments, as some critics in the Western media have observed. They’ve suggested that India needs to “make up its mind” about whether its arguments are ethical, moral, or legal. But I don’t see why India needs to choose just one. We’re not yet in court. This is a legal notice: An initial step that informs the other party that they could be tried under a variety of legal frameworks. That’s precisely what legal notices are for.
The Indian government says that the Piprahwa relics are protected under Indian law, namely the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Are these laws effective and adequate?
No, I don’t believe they are. I have personally written major critiques of these laws. They have outlived their purpose and they are no longer serving us. I don’t believe they can be truly implemented. The faster that the government of India pays attention to updating and reforming those laws, the better it would be for all parties concerned, both in India and internationally.
The site of the Piprahwa excavation.
| Photo Credit:
The Hindu Archives
Sotheby’s says they have “postponed” the auction of these sacred relics. Is this enough? Wouldn’t it be better if they cancelled the auction altogether?
Yes. It would have been a lot nicer if they had immediately come out with a statement saying, “We are alerted to the sensitivities of the matter. We withdraw from the sale”. It baffles me that they can still continue with their arguments. I cannot see why they’d lend themselves to such a vulnerable position. Unless they believe public perception doesn’t matter.
Over the past six years, the Piprahwa relics have been displayed in major exhibitions around the world. Is it right for us to think of them as a collection that can be loaned from one museum to another?
That’s a very important question. In some of my writing, I have asked if these relics should be seen or prayed to. Is a museum even the right place for them? The museum is used to tell histories, and we have an opportunity to deal with multiple kinds of histories in the new National Museum, including the history of religion. Today, at Delhi’s National Museum, many of the reliquaries that visitors see are gifts from Buddhist leaders in Burma, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. These beautifully crafted caskets—often gilded or made of transparent materials, serve to both protect the relics and make them visible. The museum maintains a schedule for visiting monks and laypersons: Some come to chant and pray, others to study or seek aesthetic inspiration. So, the museum must serve both functions—it can be a place of both, scholarship and reverence. The key question is: Who is best positioned to administer such relics? Surely, someone who can serve everyone—the pious, the scientists, and scholars alike.
Also Read | Buddhist Legacy
According to a recent news report, the Indian Ministry of Culture is looking to exhibit the Piprahwa relics it has in its possession at the Indian Museum in Kolkata. Should the government have displayed these relics earlier?
Absolutely. It’s a belated response, and the government should have acted sooner. That said, I’m glad this case has awakened the world to the importance of these matters. It is proving to be both catalytic and significant: Not just for India, but also globally.
A few weeks ago, India sent some relics of the Buddha to Vietnam, where they’re said to have been worshipped by 17.8 million devotees. How does “relic diplomacy” work?
These statistics make it clear how important the issue is and why it deserves serious attention. Urban, middle-class, media-consuming Indians may not fully understand why relic diplomacy matters. Your readership, for example, may not realise how crucial this role is, and how many millions of people look to India to perform it. Is it any surprise, then, that India has a dedicated government official—a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Culture—tasked specifically with maintaining Buddhist relations, along with an entire department devoted to these matters?
The lack of awareness among a certain demographic in India doesn’t make the subject any less significant. It is important to almost half the planet. That’s why it is essential for India’s foreign affairs apparatus to engage with it seriously. Our foreign service officers handling East and Southeast Asia must regularly address these concerns: And they have a long history of doing so.
Shreevatsa Nevatia is the author of How to Travel Light: My Memories of Madness and Melancholia.
Source:https://frontline.thehindu.com/society/buddha-relics-piprahwa/article69731505.ece