A Labour peer has ignited fresh controversy over Britain’s colonial monuments by calling for the removal of the Robert Clive statue outside the Foreign Office, arguing it presents a “wholly inaccurate” portrayal of British imperial history and damages diplomatic relations with India.
Baroness Thangam Debbonaire made the intervention during an appearance at the Edinburgh International Book Festival over the weekend, where she condemned the Grade II listed bronze monument as an offensive reminder of colonial exploitation that greets Indian dignitaries visiting Whitehall.
The former shadow culture secretary, who lost her Bristol West seat to the Green Party in July’s general election before being elevated to the House of Lords, said the 1912 statue by sculptor John Tweed glorifies a man who systematically plundered India while ignoring the devastating impact of British colonial rule.
That statue continues to promote him in a victorious mode and as a symbol of something that had universal good,” Debbonaire told the festival audience during a session on freedom of expression. “It gives no honesty about the impact of colonial rule on India, which included economic exploitation and cultural destruction.”
The baroness, who has Indian heritage on her father’s side, argued that the statue’s prominent position in King Charles Street creates diplomatic embarrassment when Indian officials visit the Foreign Office. “I don’t think it’s helpful for any visitor to the Foreign Office, particularly those of us from Indian origins in the diaspora, but also visiting Indian people, Indian dignitaries, ambassadors, trade ministers, to walk into the Foreign Office past that statue,” she said.
‘Unstable Sociopath’ Who Plundered Bengal
Robert Clive, known as “Clive of India,” served as the first British Governor of Bengal and played a crucial role in establishing East India Company control over the subcontinent in the 18th century. His military victories, particularly at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, laid the foundations for British imperial rule that would last until 1947.
However, historians have increasingly highlighted the brutal reality of Clive’s legacy. Renowned historian William Dalrymple has described him as an “unstable sociopath” and “violent asset stripper” who systematically extracted Bengal’s wealth for personal gain. Clive’s policies are blamed for contributing to the Great Bengal Famine of 1770, which killed an estimated 10 million people.
Debbonaire emphasised that the statue provides no context about Clive’s role in extracting vast fortunes from India. His former residence, Powis Castle in Wales, houses one of Europe’s largest collections of Indian artefacts – objects the baroness described as having been “taken” during his tenure.
“What the statue doesn’t do is give any honesty about the impact of colonial rule on India,” she said. “There is still a popular view held publicly across the UK of empire as beneficial to its recipients.”
Lessons from Bristol’s Colston Statue
The call for the statue’s removal comes five years after Black Lives Matter protesters toppled the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol, throwing it into the harbour. Debbonaire, who was MP for Bristol West at the time, referenced the Colston case as a model for how Britain could better confront its colonial past.
The Colston statue was later recovered and placed in a Bristol museum with full historical context explaining both who he was and why protesters removed the monument. Debbonaire suggested a similar approach could work for the Clive statue.
“It still lives but in a different form, which gives it context,” she said of the Colston statue. “I don’t think the British are harmed by being more honest about the figures of our past. The current presentation of Clive in its current form and place do not achieve that.”
Political Backlash and Culture War Concerns
The intervention has already sparked fierce criticism from conservative commentators who view it as an attempt to reignite the “culture wars” of 2020. GB News presenter Rafe Heydel-Mankoo launched a furious attack on the proposal, calling Debbonaire “a poster child for the nihilistic, destructive, self-loathing that’s sweeping the nation.
Writing in The Telegraph, columnist Tom Harris questioned whether Prime Minister Keir Starmer would welcome his new peer’s intervention while on holiday, suggesting it represented “virtue signalling” that risks resurrecting divisive debates the government would prefer to avoid.
The controversy comes at a sensitive time for UK-India relations, with both countries recently agreeing terms for a historic trade deal. Critics of Debbonaire’s proposal argue that the statue’s presence has not prevented diplomatic progress.
Historical Context of the Monument
The bronze statue, which stands at the end of King Charles Street overlooking St James’s Park, was not erected until 1912 – more than 130 years after Clive’s death by suicide in 1774. Created by Scottish sculptor John Tweed, it depicts Clive in formal dress with one hand on his sword and the other clutching papers.
The monument was commissioned by Lord Curzon, former Viceroy of India, who formed a committee in 1907 to raise funds for statues in both London and Calcutta (now Kolkata). The London statue was initially placed outside Gwydyr House in 1912 before being moved to its current location in 1916.
Three bronze relief panels on the pedestal depict key moments from Clive’s military campaigns: the Siege of Arcot in 1751, the eve of the Battle of Plassey in 1757, and the Treaty of Allahabad in 1765, which granted the East India Company the right to collect taxes in Bengal.
Rewriting History or Confronting Truth?
Debbonaire argued that pre-colonial India was far from the backwards society often portrayed in imperial narratives. “Before colonial rule, India was a very developed country,” she said. “It understood free trade, it was trading with its neighbours – something the East India Company and the other colonising forces successfully crushed.”
She added that India possessed advanced engineering knowledge, mineral extraction capabilities, and thriving trade networks before British intervention. “Since independence, India has grown economically, scientifically, in engineering terms, in computing terms, artistic, and so on,” she noted.
The baroness explained her decision to raise the issue during a session on freedom of expression, saying: “One of the things that really matters in freedom of expression is an understanding of power and whose stories get to be told and how, and whose stories do not get to be told.”
Previous Campaigns and Institutional Response
This is not the first time Clive’s London statue has faced calls for removal. During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, a petition demanding its removal gathered 80,000 signatures. Similar campaigns have targeted a statue of Clive in Shrewsbury, his birthplace, though the local council voted 28-17 to retain it.
Several institutions have already distanced themselves from Clive’s legacy. In 2021, Merchant Taylors’ School renamed “Clive House” to “Raphael House” after consulting students and alumni. Haberdashers’ Adams school in Newport similarly renamed their Clive House to “Owen House” after the war poet Wilfred Owen.
The statue is included in Mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s review of the capital’s public monuments, launched in response to the 2020 protests. However, as a Grade II listed structure, any removal would require planning permission and likely face legal challenges.
Looking Forward
As Britain continues to grapple with how to address its imperial past, the debate over statues like Clive’s reflects broader questions about national identity, historical memory, and diplomatic relations. While some view these monuments as important historical artefacts that should remain in place, others argue they perpetuate harmful myths about empire.
Debbonaire’s intervention ensures the issue will remain in public discourse, particularly given her new platform in the House of Lords. Whether her call gains political traction remains to be seen, but it has already succeeded in reigniting a conversation many hoped had been settled.
The Foreign Office has not yet responded to requests for comment on whether the statue’s presence affects diplomatic relations or if any review of its siting is under consideration.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
Image Credit (Shortened):
Statue of Robert Clive on King Charles Street, London – by Peter Trimming, licensed under CC BY‑SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
