Art has always mirrored the politics and trends of the culture it has been a part of. Kathak: a classical dance form in South Asia was once performed in hindu temples to depict stories of gods and goddesses. Soon it transformed into a charming form of entertainment with modern gharanas (distinctive dance styles) after the Mughals conquered the Indian states (Pant, 2025). Art pieces as souvenirs and state gifts, exhibitions to hold cultural diplomacy high, and culture as national identity have always made their presence in global geopolitics. But what happens when art must evolve through change in political structure? What happens when art rather than souvenirs acts as a symbol of colonialism? What happens when art theft makes headlines and the global citizens celebrate?
The recent art theft at the Louvre on 19th October 2025, left the world stunned. Michel Guerrin, a communist from Le Monde, declared this jewelry theft or art theft as a cultural matter since he claimed that it wasn’t the jewels that were stolen, but rather a French soul. The article claims that the French were robbed of a collective memory of the nation’s past. While many people were disheartened, some over social media posted about anti-colonialism, anti-elites or capitalism (Guerrin, 2025). An article by Belén Fernández on Al Jazeera discusses how people across the globe celebrated the loot as a “symbolic middle finger” to obscene inequality and misplaced priorities. The loot was a classic example of security mismanagement by the museum itself and treasures, as well as artefacts, acquired by such museums were nothing but wealth earned by royals who “built it on the backs of working classes” (Fernandez, 2025). The aforementioned article about stolen relics from colonial possession- talks about the exclamation made by Shimrit Lee (curator and scholar) and explains how the term “loot” is derived from the Hindi word “Lut”, meaning stolen property. She explains the word was appropriated by the East India Company during British control of India (Fernandez, 2025).
This brings me to the Met Gala of 2025 when Diljit Dosanjh, a Punjabi Indian singer, who wanted to pay tribute to Sir Bhupinder Singh (Maharaja of Patiala, a city from India) was denied permission to wear a Royal Patiala necklace. The necklace was made in 1928 as per the Maharajas order. The fact that Emma Chamberlain was allowed to wear the same necklace in 2022 triggered outrage about how a white Youtuber was allowed access to a piece of significant cultural history while people of the Maharaja’s own culture were denied it. Netizens remarked over the curator’s ownership of a colonised jewel since the jewelry had mysteriously disappeared in April 1948 and was seen again in 1982 (amidst the Indian Independence Movement in Britain) at the Sotheby’s Patiala Royal Family auction in Geneva (Yeates, 2023; Times of India, 2025).
A similar incident followed in 2026 when famous actress Margot Robbie wore a heart shaped diamond necklace to a premiere event of Wuthering heights and described it as an “Elizabeth Taylor’s necklace given to her by Cartier for the event” (Shrivastava, 2026). While she is partly correct, her complete ignorance about its history in India had people fuming. The necklace’s origins trace back to the Mughal Empire in India where Mughal Empress Nur Jahan donned the necklace given by her husband Emperor Jehangir. It was later passed down to her son, Shah Jahan, who gifted it to his beloved wife Mumtaz, whose remembrance led him to build the Taj Mahal. This feign of ignorance by Margot Robbie led to people tracing back its colonial history and accusing Robbie of wearing a stolen necklace (Daily Mail, 2026). The ignorance of not knowing the royal history behind the necklace was termed outrageous and arrogant (Hindustan Times, 2026).
During recent times, however, artifacts have also acted as a form of reconciliation in global geopolitics. Sonia Awale’s article from Nepali Times stated that artifacts such as statues and necklaces that had been looted from Nepal mostly during the 1980s were found for sale at different galleries and museums. However, 198 sacred objects have been returned to Nepal. A 400 year old Matrika Necklace was being auctioned in Belgium in June 2025. However, after protests from participants at a conference in Kathmandu, the auction was halted by the auctioneer over ethical concerns with the background and origin of the artifact (Awale, 2025).
Nations worldwide are returning and tracing the history of artifacts while addressing historical injustice and colonial legacy. This transparency and repatriation has been serving as a diplomatic bridge between countries. A similar trend was observed in France, Germany, the United States and the Netherlands as well. Based on the reparations agreement signed in 2022, the Dutch government returned artifacts seized by colonial authorities and returned them to Indonesia. This action was heavily influenced by the Netherlands’ efforts towards restitution and repatriation (Associated Press, 2025). Similarly, in January 2026 the French Senate approved a draft bill to return colonial era artifacts. President Macron has not only taken accountability in admitting the past abuses done by France against Africa, but has taken restitution of the looted artifacts as a significant turn to establish a new relationship with the African continent (France 24, 2026).
While art is known for its aesthetic and material value, it has also established itself in modern times as a medium for reconciliation and as a peaceful diplomatic relationship tool.
References
Awale, S. (2025, June 18). Repatriation for reconciliation. Nepali Times.
Fernandez, B. (2025, October 23). Why the louvre heist feels like Justice – but isn’t. Al Jazeera.
Leave a Reply