ShareThis Page

India to Britain: Guess you didn't steal our diamond after all

| Monday, April 18, 2016, 11:00 p.m.

The Indian government appeared to concede Monday that a spectacular diamond made its way to Britain fair and square — as a gift.

As part of a public interest filing seeking the gem's return, India's solicitor general, Ranjit Kumar, told the country's supreme court Monday that the coveted jewel was not stolen or forcibly taken away, as many in India have long argued.

The stone called Koh-i-Noor, or Mountain of Light, was believed to have been mined in what is the present day Indian state of Andhra Pradesh centuries ago. The diamond is now part of the glittering purple-velvet Queen Mother's Crown in the Tower of London. Visitors partial to India have been known to hiss at it when they walk by.

It passed through the hands of various sultans, warlords and Mughal emperors before ending up the possession of Maharajah Ranjit Singh, a Sikh warrior of Punjab. He had wanted it to go to a Hindu temple upon his death, but the British secured it in the Treaty of Lahore and his heir presented it to Queen Victoria in 1850, historians say.

“It was given voluntarily by Ranjit Singh to the British as compensation for help in the Sikh Wars. The Koh-i-Noor is not a stolen object,” Kumar argued before the court.

Various politicians and interest groups from India, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan have tried to lay claim on the diamond over the years, but the British have said they will not return it. Prime Minister David Cameron has said he does not believe in “returnism,” and if they started down that road, well, then the British Museum would be empty.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me