logo
'Hidden treasure': Rare Gandhi portrait up for UK sale

'Hidden treasure': Rare Gandhi portrait up for UK sale

The Star9 hours ago

LONDON (AFP): A rare oil painting of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, which is believed to have been damaged by a Hindu nationalist activist, is to be auctioned in London in July.
Gandhi, one of the most influential figures in India's history, led a non-violent movement against British rule and inspired similar resistance campaigns across the world.
He is the subject of tens of thousands of artworks, books and films.
But a 1931 painting by British-American artist Clare Leighton is believed to be the only oil portrait he sat for, according to the painter's family and Bonhams, where it will be auctioned online from July 7 to 15.
"Not only is this a rare work by Clare Leighton, who is mainly known for her wood engravings, it is also thought to be the only oil painting of Mahatma Gandhi which he sat for," said Rhyanon Demery, Bonhams Head of Sale for Travel and Exploration.
The painting is a "likely hidden treasure", Caspar Leighton, the artist's great-nephew, told AFP.
Going under the hammer for the first time next month, the painting is estimated to sell for between £50,000 and £70,000 ($68,000 and $95,000).
Clare Leighton met Gandhi in 1931, when he was in London for talks with the British government on India's political future.
She was part of London's left-wing artistic circles and was introduced to Gandhi by her partner, journalist Henry Noel Brailsford.
"I think there was clearly a bit of artistic intellectual courtship that went on," said Caspar, pointing out that his great-aunt and Gandhi shared a "sense of social justice".
- Painting attacked -
The portrait, painted at a crucial time for India's independence struggle, "shows Gandhi at the height of his power", added Caspar.
It was exhibited in London in November 1931, following which Gandhi's personal secretary, Mahadev Desai, wrote to Clare: "It was such a pleasure to have had you here for many mornings doing Mr Gandhi's portrait."
"Many of my friends who saw it in the Albany Gallery said to me that it was a good likeness," reads a copy of the letter attached to the painting's backing board.
The painting intimately captures Gandhi's likeness but it also bears reminders of his violent death.
Gandhi was shot at point-blank range in 1948 by disgruntled Hindu nationalist activist Nathuram Godse, once closely associated with the right-wing paramilitary organisation RSS.
Godse and some other Hindu nationalist figures accused Gandhi of betraying Hindus by agreeing to the partition of India and the creation of Muslim-majority Pakistan.
According to Leighton's family, the painting was attacked with a knife by a "Hindu extremist" believed to be an RSS activist, in the early 1970s.
Although there is no documentation of the attack, a label on the back of the painting confirms that it was restored in the United States in 1974.
Under UV light, Demery pointed out the shadow of a deep gash running across Gandhi's face where the now-restored painting was damaged.
"It feels very deliberate," she said.
- 'Real home' -
The repairs "add to the value of the picture in a sense... to its place in history, that Gandhi was again attacked figuratively many decades after his death", said Caspar.
The only other recorded public display of the painting was in 1978 at a Boston Public Library exhibition of Clare Leighton's work.
After Clare's death, the artwork passed down to Caspar's father and then to him.
"There's my family's story but the story in this portrait is so much greater," he said.
"It's a story for millions of people across the world," he added.
"I think it'd be great if it got seen by more people. Maybe it should go back to India -- maybe that's its real home."
Unlike countless depictions of the man known in India as the "father of the nation" -- in stamps, busts, paraphernalia and recreated artwork -- "this is actually from the time", said Caspar. - AFP

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US trade war enters precarious 'Slow Grind' phase
US trade war enters precarious 'Slow Grind' phase

New Straits Times

time2 hours ago

  • New Straits Times

US trade war enters precarious 'Slow Grind' phase

US trade negotiations have transitioned from their opening act, with its many twists and turns, into a new, protracted chapter: the Slow Grind. It may be less turbulent than this past spring's drama, but no less worrying for investors. Now that the US and China have the framework for a trade agreement, attention may start to turn to the European Union, which appears next in line to strike a deal with the Trump administration. But the prospect of a swift resolution seems remote. Finding significant common ground to meaningfully reduce the EU's substantial goods surplus with the US, roughly US$200 billion annually, presents a formidable challenge, as major avenues appear blocked. The EU is highly unlikely to concede on agricultural market access given the region's strong and comprehensive policy for protecting local agriculture. Large-scale aircraft deals also seem improbable given the Airbus-Boeing rivalry. The contentious issue of pharmaceutical pricing will complicate any healthcare deals. While Europe could theoretically increase purchases of US defence equipment or relax "Buy European" policies in defence procurement, the political palatability of such moves is low. Consequently, the focus may inevitably shift towards the services sector, where the EU runs an approximately US$100 billion annual deficit with the US, driven largely by the operations of American technology giants. Here, a potential landing zone exists: the EU could conceivably ease some of its more burdensome technology regulations with limited immediate downside, offering a tangible, albeit partial, lever to address the overall trade imbalance. In fact, Section 899 in the Trump administration's proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — which threatens to increase taxes on entities from countries with "unfair foreign taxes" — appears to be aimed directly at digital taxes levied by EU countries on US technology companies. This suggests that this area could be a focal point in US-EU negotiations. US negotiations with the EU are also occurring against a markedly different backdrop than the one that prevailed in May during the earlier round of trade talks with China. Back then, the US was just emerging from a significant bout of financial market volatility and facing the risk of "empty shelves" if onerous tariffs on China remained in place, so both investors and business leaders were demanding urgent action. Importantly, EU exports to the US are predominantly industrial and luxury goods, not the daily consumables that directly impact the average American's pocketbook. Adding to this calmer backdrop, capital markets have shown signs of adapting to the current administration's seemingly unpredictable trade tactics. The S&P 500 index has rebounded 20 per cent since its post-Liberation Day low and is only around 2.0 per cent below its all-time high. One major risk, however, is that the US starts taking a harder line with Europe for fear of looking weak. Central to the US negotiation strategy is the perceived credibility of threats. Given the Trump administration's emphasis on the president's deal-making prowess, the US fundamentally cannot afford to be seen as backing down consistently, a scenario some critics have labelled "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO). Being perceived as unreliable with ultimatums would critically undermine the administration's negotiating power, not just with the EU, but globally. This need to maintain a credible hard line could add friction to the process, making concessions harder to make and progress slower to achieve. On the currency front, the euro may continue to appreciate against the US dollar — ending a more than decade-long trend of greenback strength — if wary European investors bring more capital back home. This could give the European Central Bank greater leeway to implement interest rate cuts, with less immediate concern about imported inflation. However, such euro strength has historically been negatively correlated with the performance of risk assets more broadly, adding another layer of complexity to the investment landscape. Further complicating the picture is the risk that the tentative deal just reached with China could unravel, reflecting the ongoing tug-of-war within the US administration between China hawks and pragmatists. The frenetic pace of the trade war's opening chapter has given way to a more arduous phase. This "Slow Grind" promises to generate more uncertainty, testing the patience of markets and policymakers alike, with progress likely measured in inches rather than miles.

The US is dooming the UN
The US is dooming the UN

The Star

time2 hours ago

  • The Star

The US is dooming the UN

SAY you are president of the United States and you've been clear that you put America First and that you disdain 'globalists' and all their organs of international multilateralism, chief among them the United Nations. How do you go about discrediting those institutions? One option is to withdraw the US formally. For example, Donald Trump began his second term by announcing that he'll pull the country out of parts of the UN system, including its Human Rights Council, the World Health Organisation and the Paris Agreement on climate change. That just about hobbles these conventions, since fighting, say, pandemics or global warming without American participation seems futile. But the attack doesn't need to be so blunt. You could also nominally remain a member of an institution while ignoring, undermining or sabotaging it. The US still belongs to the World Trade Organisation, for example, even though Trump has inverted its foundational idea by launching a trade war on the world. America also remains, for now, the backbone of Nato, although Trump has undermined its credibility by casting doubt on the US commitment to Article 5, the alliance's mutual-defence clause and thus its reason for being. Something similar is happening at the UN. In 2015 all its members, including the US, adopted an updated mission statement in the form of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These were meant to be answers to humanity's biggest problems, from ending hunger and poverty to improving health and education and reducing inequality. Even though progress on most of these efforts is running behind schedule, it's hard to fault the intention. And yet the US now does. In March, it formally rejected the SDGs. It was a bizarre spectacle. The task fell to a mid-level diplomat named Edward Heartney, and the occasion was a vote in the General Assembly to adopt an 'International Day of Peaceful Coexistence'. An anodyne ritual, you might think, but you'd be wrong. Heartney got up and delivered a philippic against the 'soft global governance that is inconsistent with US sovereignty'. Such 'globalist endeavours... lost at the ballot box', Heartney went on – referring to the US election in 2024 – which is why America 'rejects and denounces' the SDGs. The audience, more used to hearing such outbursts from rogue states, was stunned. Mark Leon Goldberg, a veteran UN watcher, told me that even Heartney, a career foreign service officer, looked as though he had a gun to his head and was recording a hostage video. And yet, the speech set the tone for what was to come. The US now regularly gums up every proceeding it can. In June, it cast the only no vote (compared with 169 in favour) against a Mongolian resolution to introduce a World Horse Day. Why? To protest against those SDGs, of course, and everything that 'impinges upon state sovereignty as a soft form of global governance'. America's opposition to the SDGs is more than symbolic. This past week, almost all member states are gathering in France for the UN Ocean Conference to make progress on SDG No 14, on saving the world's oceans and seas (which are in at least as much trouble as our atmosphere). The Trump administration is boycotting that meeting. Instead, Trump recently ordered a push to mine international seabeds for minerals, one of the things the conference is most urgently trying to regulate. He and the Republican Congress are also planning to defund the UN system and other international organisations. Since the US has been the largest contributor to UN coffers since the organisation's founding in 1945 (its share of the regular budget was 22 % in 2024), the cutbacks will force the UN to shrink or close programmes (even if it becomes more efficient, as it should). Reform of the UN's Security Council – an aspiration of the Biden administration – is also off the table. The US, like Russia and China, instead exacerbates its dysfunction: In June, 14 of the council's 15 members voted for a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza; the US vetoed it. Goldberg hopes that the nomination of Michael Waltz as the US ambassador to the UN might provide some relief: Waltz was Trump's national security adviser until May and with his high profile might be 'able to explain the value the UN gives to American security interests'. I doubt it. Waltz's move to the UN was meant as a demotion. If anything, it confirms that Trump views the institution as a dead end. Cumulatively, this trend away from multilateralism, which Trump didn't start but is turbo-boosting, is already changing the world, and for the worse. 'There hasn't been a binding international agreement on any matter – any transnational issue of importance' for years, laments Shivshankar Menon, a former national security adviser of India; 'we're a world adrift'. The historical echoes are ominous. The UN's forerunner was the League of Nations. Conceived by leaders such as then US President Woodrow Wilson at the end of World War I, it was meant to prevent a second. But Wilson's own country then failed to ratify the treaty after Republicans in the Senate turned isolationist. Without American support, the League was powerless to stop the aggression of fascist Italy, Japan and Germany, and gradually became irrelevant as the world went up in flames. Even so, it was formally dissolved only in 1946, when the new UN – finally backed by the US – took its place. Say you're that American president again and, like Trump, you want to be remembered as a 'peacemaker'. Wouldn't you start by broadening your understanding of the UN's reason for existing, and of the bleak scenarios if the UN went the way of the League? If Waltz wants to redeem his career and legacy – a long shot – he should muster the courage to educate the White House that the United Nations isn't America's enemy, but potentially its best friend, if not its last best hope. — Bloomberg Opinion/TNS Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics.

Trump: US involvement in Iran-Israel war 'possible'
Trump: US involvement in Iran-Israel war 'possible'

New Straits Times

time2 hours ago

  • New Straits Times

Trump: US involvement in Iran-Israel war 'possible'

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump told a news network Sunday the United States could become involved in the Iran-Israel conflict, and that he would be "open" to his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin being a mediator. The Republican president, according to ABC News, also said talks over Iran's nuclear programme were continuing and that Tehran would "like to make a deal," perhaps more quickly now that the Islamic republic is trading massive strikes with Israel. "It's possible we could get involved" in the ongoing battle between the Middle East arch-foes, Trump said in an off-camera interview with ABC News senior political correspondent Rachel Scott that was not previously publicised. He stressed that the United States is "not at this moment" involved in the military action. As for Putin being a potential mediator in the conflict, "he is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it," Trump said. Israel and Iran traded heavy aerial assaults for a third straight day Sunday, with casualties mounting following Israel's large-scale attacks aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure, sparking retaliation. Oman, which has acted as a mediator on the nuclear issue, has said a sixth round of talks between Iran and the United States planned for this weekend had been cancelled. But Trump said the two sides were continuing discussions. "No, there's no deadline" on negotiations, he told ABC when asked whether there was a time limit for Tehran to come to the table. "But they are talking. They'd like to make a deal. They're talking. They continue to talk," Trump said, according to Scott. Trump suggested that something like the clash between Israel and Iran "had" to happen to spur talks on a nuclear agreement. It "may have forced a deal to go quicker, actually," Trump said.--AFP

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store