Return of the Gods

The repatriation of a centuries-old Kartikeya idol from Australia underscores the importance of ‘civilisational diplomacy’ on India’s part.

 India and Australia have spent the past two decades discovering that they have more in common than cricket, the Commonwealth and a shared affection for the Indian Ocean. What began as a cautious strategic courtship has matured into one of the Indo-Pacific's most consequential partnerships, spanning defence, critical minerals, education, technology and trade. Yet the most intriguing development during Narendra Modi’s visit to Australia this month was not an agreement on security or commerce. It was the return of a centuries-old stone sculpture of Lord Kartikeya.

Innovative Diplomacy

Three Indian antiquities—a bronze Bhadrakali, a granite Nandi and a rare six-headed Kartikeya—were repatriated by Australia as part of a broader agreement that also saw India return the ancestral remains of Australian First Nations people. In an era when cultural identity has become an increasingly important currency in international affairs, the restitution of heritage is no longer merely about correcting historical wrongs. It has become a form of diplomacy.

The return of Kartikeya carries symbolism that resonates well beyond archaeology. Known as Skanda or Murugan across much of India, Kartikeya is traditionally associated with courage, wisdom and the triumph of knowledge over ignorance. His six faces signify mastery over the senses and the mind, while his spear—the Vel—represents the piercing power of knowledge. His peacock mount symbolises the conquest of vanity, and the rooster associated with him represents vigilance.

Whether one interprets these images religiously or culturally is beside the point. Nations rely upon symbols to narrate their past and imagine their future. For India, recovering stolen antiquities has become part of a broader effort to reclaim a fragmented civilisational inheritance. Since 2014, hundreds of artefacts have been returned from museums, collectors and governments around the world. Australia has emerged as one of the more willing partners in that effort, having already returned 29 Indian artefacts in 2022 before this latest handover.

The symbolism complements a relationship that is becoming increasingly substantive. Modi’s visit produced agreements across defence, maritime security, cyber cooperation, critical minerals, education, tourism and investment.

Defence cooperation has advanced particularly rapidly. Shared concerns over an increasingly contested maritime environment have encouraged greater military interoperability, intelligence sharing and joint exercises. Both countries have embraced the vision of a free, open and rules-based Indo-Pacific without framing it as an explicitly anti-China alliance. That ambiguity is deliberate. Canberra and New Delhi understand that strategic partnerships are strengthened less by rhetorical confrontation than by practical cooperation.

Security Ties

Economic considerations reinforce the security logic. Australia possesses abundant reserves of critical minerals essential for electric vehicles, batteries and advanced manufacturing. India, meanwhile, seeks secure supply chains as it expands domestic manufacturing and clean-energy infrastructure. Collaboration on lithium, rare earths and uranium serves both countries' interests while reducing dependence on concentrated global suppliers.

Australia’s uranium exports support India’s expanding civilian nuclear programme, itself an essential component of India's long-term strategy to balance energy security with decarbonisation.

Education provides another area where strategic interests and people-to-people ties converge. Indian students now constitute one of Australia's largest international student communities, contributing economically while strengthening long-term social links.

Perhaps the greatest strength of the bilateral relationship, however, lies outside official communiqués. Australia’s large Indian diaspora has become an enduring bridge between the two democracies. Cultural festivals, sporting exchanges, research collaborations and business networks have woven together societies that once viewed each other largely through the prism of migration or cricket.

This is where the return of Kartikeya acquires its broader diplomatic significance. The restitution of cultural heritage allows governments to build trust and acknowledge histories that conventional diplomacy frequently overlooks.

There is, of course, a temptation to imbue such gestures with excessive political or spiritual significance. No returned idol, however ancient or sacred, can substitute for sustained policy. Yet symbols matter precisely because they reinforce interests already moving in the same direction. The return of Kartikeya reflected the confidence of two countries increasingly comfortable viewing each other as long-term collaborators rather than distant acquaintances.

The sculpture’s journey home therefore represents something larger than cultural restitution. It illustrates how diplomacy in the twenty-first century increasingly blends hard power with heritage, economics with identity, and strategy with symbolism. In an Indo-Pacific defined by shifting balances of power, that combination may prove more durable than either sentiment or security alone.

(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)