Government moves to stop Sotheby's HK auction of Buddhist relics excavated from Piprahwa Stupa
Indian government
has stepped in to halt the auction by
Sotheby's Hong Kong
of a portion of the sacred
Buddhist relics
that were excavated in the northern parts of the country in 1898 and has demanded their
repatriation
.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
In a statement Monday, ministry of culture said it issued a "legal notice to Sotheby's Hong Kong", seeking "immediate cessation of the auction" scheduled for Wednesday. The ministry has shared that Ivy Wong, associate general counsel Sotheby's, in her reply to the legal notice assured that "full attention is given to this matter".
The culture ministry, in its statement, asserted that it remains steadfast in its efforts to protect India's
cultural heritage
and ensure the repatriation of Piprahwa relics.
"We call upon Sotheby's Hong Kong to immediately withdraw the relics from auction and cooperate with Indian authorities to return these sacred artefact to their rightful place," the ministry said.
"These relics, excavated from
Piprahwa Stupa
- widely recognised as the
ancient city of Kapilavastu
, birthplace of Lord Buddha - hold immense historical and spiritual significance," it added. Piprahwa Relics, which include bone fragments, soapstone and crystal caskets, a sandstone coffer, and offerings such as gold ornaments and gemstones, were excavated by William Claxton Peppe in 1898.
An inscription in Brahmi script on one of the caskets confirms these as relics of the Buddha, deposited by the Sakya clan.
The majority of these relics were transferred to the Indian Museum, Kolkata, in 1899 and are classified as 'AA' antiquities under Indian law, prohibiting their removal or sale. While a portion of the bone relics was gifted to the King of Siam, a selection retained by Peppe's descendants has now been listed for auction.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Upon learning of the proposed auction, ministry of culture stepped in by issuing a legal notice to Sotheby's Hong Kong to stop the auction immediately.
Archaeological Survey of India
(ASI) has also requested the Consulate General of Hong Kong to take up the matter with authorities there demanding the immediate cessation of the auction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
26 minutes ago
- India.com
Cheap Russian Oil Fails To Benefit Common Indians: Oil Companies' Profits Soar 25-Fold, Govt Collects Over 40% Tax
New Delhi: India has been importing Russian crude oil at discounts ranging from 5 to 30 dollars per barrel for the past three years. According to a report by Moneylife, private companies such as Reliance and Nayara, along with state-owned firms like Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum, pocketed around 65 percent of the benefits from these discounted imports. The Indian government received the remaining 35 percent. Ordinary consumers saw little or no relief at fuel stations. Recent tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, including a 50 percent levy on India, cite India's Russian oil imports. He accused Indian refineries of processing this crude and selling refined products to Europe and other regions. India has maintained that its oil purchases are aimed at ensuring domestic energy security, regardless of the conflict in Ukraine. Petrol and diesel prices remain largely influenced by taxes. Excise duties levied by the central government in Delhi amount to Rs 21.90 per litre for petrol and Rs 17.80 per litre for diesel. State governments apply additional taxes, with Delhi charging Rs 15.40 per litre on petrol and Rs 12.83 per litre on diesel. Overall, taxes constitute over 40 percent of retail fuel prices. In April 2025, a Rs 2 hike in excise duties generated an additional Rs 32,000 crore for the central government. These funds serve as a reliable revenue source for the government, leaving consumers without any benefit from discounted Russian oil. Private refiners have also significantly profited. Reliance Industries and Nayara Energy refined substantial volumes of Russian crude, achieving refining margins of 12.5 dollars and 15.2 dollars per barrel respectively. According to data from Kepler Analytics, both companies accounted for 45 percent of India's 23.1 million barrel Russian crude imports in the first half of 2025. The crude was converted into petrol, diesel and jet fuel and exported to Europe, the United States, the UAE and Singapore, generating massive profits. India's imports from Russia began in February 2022 following Europe's sanctions. The share of Russian crude in India's imports grew from just 0.2 percent in 2021 to 35.1 percent in 2025, supplying around 1.67 million barrels per day, roughly 37 percent of the country's total requirements. Long-term contracts, such as Reliance's 10-year deal signed in December 2024 to import 500,000 barrels per day, make sudden shifts difficult. Alternative suppliers include Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United States and other nations like Nigeria, Brazil, Guyana and the UAE. These sources are costlier than Russian oil. India strongly objected to the U.S. tariffs, calling them 'unfair, unexpected and impractical'. The Ministry of External Affairs highlighted the double standards of Western nations, emphasising that the United States and the European Union continue extensive trade with Russia in energy and raw materials. It further said that its imports of Russian crude ensure domestic energy security and are conducted transparently. Even as Russia-Ukraine conflict disrupts global energy markets, India continues to rely on Russian crude to stabilise domestic fuel prices and protect the energy needs of its 1.4 billion population. (Data source: Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, NZZ, Moneylife, Reuters, New York Times)
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
HC asks Bengal migrant to appear after he returns from Bangladesh
A day after 19-year-old Bengali migrant Amir Shiekh, who was detained by the Rajasthan Police in June and later pushed into Bangladesh, returned to India on Tuesday, the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday told his family to 'bring back the son first' before it will hear the matter. Amir's father Jiyem Shiekh had moved the Calcutta High Court last week seeking judicial intervention to bring his son back. While the state government and the Centre submitted their respective reports, the High Court upon hearing that Amir was brought back, observed, 'Bring back your son first, we will hear the matter.' Amir's counsel, on Wednesday, told the Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobrata Kumar Mitra that a copy of Amir Sheikh's birth certificate was enclosed with the petition, maintaining that he is a citizen of India and was a resident of Kaliachak in Malda district. 'The grandparents of Amir Shiekh has Indian passport, he has school certificates and all documents. They have not seen anything but they had just pushed him into Bangladesh. Prior to that he was tortured in Rajasthan. Now we are being told that the Border Security Force (BSF) have brought him back.' Deputy Solicitor General (DSG) Rajdeep Majumder, appearing for the MEA and the BSF told the court that Amir had attempted to cross over to Indian territory from Bangladesh on August 12. As he could not produce appropriate documents as regards his identity, he was apprehended and handed over to the officer-in-charge, police station-Basirhat, by the BSF. But no formal case has yet been registered against Amir, he added. He submitted that if the petitioner approaches the police authorities, Amir would be handed over to the petitioner subject to production of all necessary records and upon execution of undertaking, if any. TMC MP Samirul Islam posted on X, 'This evening, Amir Sheikh was handed over to his family from the Basirhat police station. Nearly a month after being unlawfully pushed back to Bangladesh by the BSF, Amir is happy to be back on Indian soil — and his family is equally happy to have him home.' While he questioned the authorities' claims regarding Amir Sheikh's deportation, he posted, 'Amir Sheikh was deported to Bangladesh by the Rajasthan Police with the help of the BSF… we stood by his family.. helped Amir's father filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the Calcutta High Court. Under this pressure, the BSF has brought Amir back to West Bengal. The BSF has already handed him over to the Basirhat Police. Today, the court has asked the police to hand over Amir to his father. Yet strangely, they are now claiming that Amir was never deported! Then what happened? How did he end up in Bangladesh?' 'Don't worry—they have another explanation. They claim Amir 'inadvertently' went to Bangladesh on his own!…The same BJP leaders who scream that hordes of infiltrators are flooding India from Bangladesh now want us to believe that Amir willingly crossed… into that very country through illegal routes! Do they have no sense of shame? Or do they simply think the people of Bengal are fools? If it's the latter, let me tell you, anti-Bengal forces — Bengal's people will give you a fitting lesson. How much lower will you stoop?' he said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Multiple documents allowed in Bihar SIR voter friendly: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to expand the list of acceptable documents for proof of citizenship under the special intensive revision (SIR) in Bihar seemed 'voter-friendly' and gave electors more options to establish eligibility. Multiple documents allowed in Bihar SIR voter friendly: SC A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that asking for only one document could be restrictive, but allowing voters to submit any one of several options was more inclusive. 'If they ask for all 11 documents, it is anti-voter. But if any one document is asked for, then…They are expanding the number of documents…it is now 11 instead of 7 items by which you can identify yourself as a citizen,' it remarked. The bench also pointed out that the list of documents is ordinarily prepared after taking feedback from several government departments to maximise coverage. 'This is a battle between a constitutional entitlement and a constitutional right-- between ECI's power of superintendence under Article 324 and the electors' right to vote under Article 326,' said the bench. The court is seized of a bunch of petitions challenging the ECI's June 24 directive ordering an SIR ahead of the upcoming Bihar assembly polls. Petitioners, which include NGOs, political leaders and activists, have alleged that the process, if left unchecked, could disenfranchise lakhs of legitimate voters and undermine free and fair elections. The discussion in the court on Wednesday centred on whether the SIR framework advances inclusion while remaining within the bounds of the law, and whether ECI has the statutory space to tailor procedures for a special revision distinct from an ordinary summary exercise. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing TMC lawmaker Mahua Moitra and some others, argued that the list was not truly inclusive because most of the 11 documents had extremely low coverage in Bihar. 'Aadhaar is the one document with the highest coverage in the last 15 years—50–60%, maybe more. Water, electricity, gas bills are excluded. Indian passport coverage is less than 1–2%. All other documents have between 0–3% coverage. If you don't have land, three of them are out. Residence certificates don't exist in Bihar. This impressive list of 11 is nothing but a house of cards,' Singhvi said. On the non-acceptance of Aadhaar, Singhvi said its exclusion would disproportionately impact genuine voters. To this, the bench replied that those excluded would have to approach the high court, unlike in Assam where Foreigners' Tribunals exist. The court also urged not to 'project Bihar' negatively, noting the state's strong representation in national services. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), contended that the SIR enumeration form had 'no basis in law' and alleged that 65 lakh voters had been removed 'just like this' without due process. He argued that removing voters required amending the Representation of the People Act (RPA), not issuing administrative directives. Calling for a stay on the exercise, he said: 'You cannot take me off the electoral roll just by giving a cut-off date. At inception, it's dead.' The court, however, noted that voter lists 'cannot be static' and periodic revisions were necessary. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, also representing ADR, alleged that booth-level officers had filled enumeration forms themselves, sometimes for deceased persons, instead of collecting them from voters. He also questioned how such a large number of people could be served notices and have their cases decided within a month, calling it a 'fait accompli' that would arbitrarily finalise the rolls. Bhushan reiterated his claim that ECI removed the searchable draft rolls from its website after a press conference by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on 'bogus voters'. But the bench said it had 'no knowledge' of any press conference. On publication requirements, the court clarified that while online disclosure was welcome, the legal standard was defined under Rule 10 of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1961. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the SIR process itself was unlawful and unprecedented. 'The draft roll is meant for inclusion. If removal happens, then they have no recourse. These 65 lakh people being ousted is illegal,' he said. During the hearing, the court observed that Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 appeared to give ECI latitude to conduct a special revision 'in such manner as it may think fit,' especially in exceptional situations, while the default regime remains the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It agreed to explore whether this 'elbow room' allows limited additions, such as extra forms or document options, tailored to a special revision, without violating the statutory scheme. The court will continue hearing the matter on Thursday. Seeking dismissal of the petitions against SIR, ECI has defended its decision, citing demographic changes, urban migration, and the need to remove inaccuracies from rolls that have not undergone intensive revision for nearly two decades. It maintains that it has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to carry out SIR. In its latest affidavit filed on August 9, the Commission stressed that the 1950 Act and the 1960 Rules do not require it to prepare or publish a separate list of the nearly 65 lakh persons not included in the draft rolls, or to state the reasons for each non-inclusion. It clarified that exclusion from the draft does not amount to deletion from the electoral roll and assured the court that no name will be removed without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a reasoned order by the competent authority. The petitions by ADR and others challenge the ECI's June 24 notification initiating SIR under Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act. The petitioners argue that the ECI's demand for only 11 specified documents, such as birth or matriculation certificates, passport, domicile certificate, etc, as proof of citizenship lacks statutory basis. They further claim that this restrictive documentation requirement could disenfranchise a large number of legitimate voters, especially those from marginalised communities. They have also questioned whether ECI is empowered to conduct such a revision for verifying citizenship, arguing that this function rests with the Union government. SIR has become a major political flashpoint ahead of the Bihar assembly elections scheduled for later this year. Opposition parties in the INDIA bloc have staged protests in Parliament and written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking a special discussion on what they call an 'unprecedented' revision so close to state polls. Eight parties, including Congress, RJD, Samajwadi Party, DMK, Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT), have warned that the exercise could be replicated nationwide. On August 8, Union home minister Amit Shah, addressing a rally in Bihar's Sitamarhi, launched a sharp attack on Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi and the INDIA bloc, accusing them of opposing the revision because 'names of infiltrators' were being removed from the lists. 'Infiltrators have no right to vote. Names of infiltrators must be removed from the voters' lists. But the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress are opposing SIR in Bihar because the names of infiltrators are being deleted,' Shah said. While the government has accused the Opposition of politicising electoral reforms, the Opposition contends that the SIR's timing, methodology and documentation requirements threaten the fundamental right to vote of genuine electors, particularly among the poor, migrants, and minorities.
