 "Kohinoor diamond")
The controversy over one of India’s long-cherished treasures, the 105-carat Kohinoor diamond, may finally achieve some official, if not emotional, closure with the Indian government deciding not to stake its claim to the famed rock because "it was neither stolen nor forcibly taken away".
The return of Kohinoor diamond to India has been a long-standing demand, with many claiming that the diamond was taken forcibly. The fight to get back the diamond has been ongoing since India's independence. Business Standard takes a look at the legend of the Kohinoor diamond, which has become a symbol for India's past riches, and their plunder by successive rulers.
Ownership of the diamond
After the subjugation of Punjab in 1849 by British forces, the properties of the Sikh Empire were confiscated. The Kohinoor was transferred to the treasury of the British East India Company in Lahore. The diamond was shipped to Britain and was handed to Queen Victoria in July 1850. It was cut to improve its brilliance and was mounted into Queen Victoria’s crown. The diamond now sits in the Tower of London along with the Crown Jewels.
People of India have longed for the return of Kohinoor for years. Many Indians demanded the return of the diamond when Elizabeth II made a state visit to India to mark the 50th anniversary of India's independence from Britain in 1997.
The Indian government, believing the gem was rightfully theirs, made the first demand for the return of the Kohinoor diamond soon after independence. A second request followed in 1953, the year of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Each time, the British government refuted the claims, saying that ownership was non-negotiable.
In 2000, several members of the Indian Parliament signed a letter calling for the diamond to be given back to India, claiming it was taken illegally. British officials said that a variety of claims meant it was impossible to establish the gem's original owner.
A similar demand was made during UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s visit to India, to which he responded that he doesn’t believe in "returnism".
Cameron said that it is not the right approach to return the diamond to India and said, "If you say yes to one you suddenly find the British Museum would be empty. I am afraid to say, it is going to have to stay put."
What the Indian government has to say
On April 18, 2016, the government of India said that India should not stake claim to the diamond. According to a report by India Today, Centre's counsel, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, told the apex court that the 105.602 carats diamond was handed over to the East India Company by Maharaja Ranjit Singh after he lost in the 1849 Sikh War.
Kumar cited a 43-year-old law that does not allow the government to bring back antiquities taken out of the country before independence. Under the provisions of the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) takes up the issue of retrieval of only such antiquities as have been illegally exported out of the country.
The matter finally goes to court
A petition was filed by All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front in the Supreme Court, asking the Centre to disclose its stand on bringing back the diamond. The petition had said that the government was not making efforts to bring the diamond back.
Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the government, said this was the stand of the Culture Ministry.
Chief Justice T S Thakur asked the Centre if it wants the case to be dismissed as they would face a problem in the future when putting forward any legitimate claim.
Who owns the diamond, anyway?
It is not just India that is claiming ownership of the diamond; the list includes Pakistan and Aghanistan, too.
