India to ask Britain to return of treasures priceless Koh-i-Noor diamond used in Crown Jewels

The reclamation of historical artifacts is a primary goal of Prime Minister Modi. Have heard rumblings but don't know enough about this. It seems fair but not sure of all the ramifications and how realistic it is either. Makes me wonder about all the artifacts that have been collected over the years, from various countries, governments,, and religious entities. Heard the Koh-i-Noor diamond used in Crown Jewels was conspicuously absent from King Charles' coronation.

Wasn't much of the wealth of the monarchy tied to these jewels and artifacts at one time?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

India will ask Britain to return legendary treasures that were taken from the country during the colonial era.

The primary objective of officials in New Delhi is to secure the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond - one of the crown jewels currently held in trust for the king - alongside thousands of other artefacts taken to Britain hundreds of years ago by imperial explorers.

India's foreign diplomats will be undertaking the mission - which they call a 'reckoning' with the past - understood to be the largest repatriation claim faced by the UK, according to The Telegraph.

www.smithsonianmag.com...

For the British, that symbol of prestige and power was irresistible. If they could own the jewel of India as well as the country itself, it would symbolize their power and colonial superiority. It was a diamond worth fighting and killing for, now more than ever. When the British learned of Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, and his plan to give the diamond and other jewels to a sect of Hindu priests, the British press exploded in outrage. “The richest, the most costly gem in the known world, has been committed to the trust of a profane, idolatrous and mercenary priesthood,” wrote one anonymous editorial. Its author urged the British East India Company to do whatever they could to keep track of the Koh-i-Noor, so that it might ultimately be theirs.

But the colonists were first forced to wait out a chaotic period of changing rulers. After Ranjit Singh’s death in 1839, the Punjabi throne passed between four different rulers over four years. At the end of the violent period, the only people left in line for the throne were a young boy, Duleep Singh, and his mother, Rani Jindan. And in 1849, after imprisoning Jindan, the British forced Duleep to sign a legal document amending the Treaty of Lahore, that required Duleep to give away the Koh-i-Noor and all claim to sovereignty. The boy was only 10 years old.

From there, the diamond became a special possession of Queen Victoria. It was displayed at the 1851 Great Exposition in London, only for the British public to be dismayed at how simple it was. “Many people find a difficulty in bringing themselves to believe, from its external appearance, that it is anything but a piece of common glass,” wrote The Times in June 1851.

The True Story of the Koh-i-Noor Diamond—and Why the British Won't Give It Back
Queen Victoria wears the Koh-i-Noor diamond as a brooch in 1887. Wikimedia Commons/Alexander Bassano
Given its disappointing reception, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband, had the stone recut and polished—a process that reduced its size by half but made the light refract more brilliantly from its surface.

While Victoria wore the diamond as a brooch, it eventually became part of the Crown Jewels, first in the crown of Queen Alexandra (the wife of Edward VII, Victoria’s oldest son) and then in the crown of Queen Mary (the wife of George V, grandson of Victoria). The diamond came to its current place of honor in 1937, at the front of the crown worn by the Queen Mother, wife of George VI and mother of Elizabeth II. The crown made its last public appearance in 2002, resting atop of the coffin of the Queen Mother for her funeral.

Yeah, right! It does not belong to India, nor ever did. Besides, it was obtained legally.

a reply to: putnam6

I think there is some merit as to the request if we are honest.

The thing is if Britain were to actually honor the return of the diamond.

It may open up avenues where they may need to return other ""souvenirs"" picked up on our imperial travels.

So there goes the better part of the British museums by my guess.

Britain does not need to return anything.

The Windsor family needs to return the precious stones etc that they gained over the years.

originally posted by: paraphi
Yeah, right! It does not belong to India, nor ever did. Besides, it was obtained legally.

www.smithsonianmag.com...

And while Kurin says uncovering the line of ownership of a gemstone like the Koh-i-Noor is best practice when it comes to history, it doesn’t necessarily lead to a legal obligation (though other scholars and lawyers disagree). He and Dalrymple both point out that the rulers who once owned these gemstones headed nations that no longer exist.

That’s one of the biggest differences between objects taken during colonial conquest and art and treasure looted by Nazis—the difficulty in ascertaining who has the first and most legitimate claim to anything.

“Post-colonial collections is a big topic everywhere,” says Jane Milosch, the director of Smithsonian’s Provenance Research Initiative. “There can be a reassessment for certain objects of, ‘we may have legal ownership, but does it make sense to keep this material?’” She cites a 2014 case in which the British Museum returned two bronze statues from Benin to Nigeria (they were taken during an attack in 1897 after British officers were killed during a trade mission).

The Koh-i-Noor isn’t the only contested treasure currently residing in the UK. Perhaps equally controversial are the Elgin Marbles, statues carved 2,500 years ago and taken from the Parthenon in Athens by British Lord Elgin in the early 1800s. So far, the UK has retained ownership of the statues and the diamond, regardless of calls for their return.

Anand thinks one solution that doesn’t require removing the Koh-i-Noor from the UK is to make the history of the diamond clearer. “What I would dearly love is for there to be a really clear sign by the exhibit. People are taught this was a gift from India to Britain. I would like the correct history to be put by the diamond.”

Dalrymple agrees that disseminating the true history is half the battle. “Whenever we lecture, we find people who are horrified by the history. But they’re not resistant—they just weren’t aware of it.”

The diamond isn’t likely to leave the Crown Jewels anytime soon. Anand and Dalrymple only hope that their work will do some good by clarifying the true path the infamous gemstone followed—and helping leaders come to their own conclusions about what to do with it next.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Britain does not need to return anything.

The Windsor family needs to return the precious stones etc that they gained over the years.

So you are arguing the semantics of the Daily Mail headline...

originally posted by: paraphi
Yeah, right! It does not belong to India, nor ever did. Besides, it was obtained legally.

It would seem that South Africa has entered the chat. Are we about to see the limits the Progressive movement in the UK

edition.cnn.com...

Reuters

Some South Africans are calling for Britain to return the world’s largest diamond, known as the Star of Africa, which is set in the royal scepter that King Charles III will hold at his coronation on Saturday.

The diamond, which weighs 530 carats, was discovered in South Africa in 1905 and presented to the British monarchy by the colonial government in the country, which was then under British rule.

Now amid a global conversation about returning artwork and artifacts that were pillaged during colonial times, some South Africans are calling for the diamond to be brought back.

“The diamond needs to come to South Africa. It needs to be a sign of our pride, our heritage and our culture,” said Mothusi Kamanga, a lawyer and activist in Johannesburg who has promoted an online petition, which has gathered about 8,000 signatures, for the diamond to be returned.

theweek.com...

However, the history behind this diamond and many others in the Crown Jewels is not that simple. The Cullinan I, or the Great Star of Africa, was cut from the Cullinan Diamond, and is mounted on the top of the Sovereign's Scepter, which was seen on Queen Elizabeth's coffin. Because the diamond was given to Edward VII by colonial authorities, many South Africans think the jewel should be returned and put on display in the country. Speaking to local media, activist Thanduxolo Sabelo said the "minerals of our country and other countries continue to benefit Britain at the expense of our people," while Vuyolwethu Zungula, a member of parliament, encouraged his fellow South Africans to "demand reparations for all the harm done by Britain" and "demand the return of all the gold, diamonds stolen by Britain."

It doesn't matter that the Transvaal government purchased the Cullinan, because "colonial transactions are illegitimate and immoral," University of South Africa Prof. Everisto Benyera told CNN. "Our narrative is that the whole Transvaal and Union of South Africa government and the concomitant mining syndicates were illegal. Receiving a stolen diamond does not exonerate the receiver. The Great Star is a blood diamond."

I do not have a dog in this fight
and I hate when other countries put their noses
in our countries business..

That said..

There is no reason to give it back..

I do not like the king and queen thing..

Pussy footing to these things and demands
is a slippery slope..
Next thing you know your being taxed for reparations
back to them. For something you have nothing to do with.

They are tearing down George Washington statues
and old honest Abe Lincoln statues
the man who helped free the slaves (although I know some us historians dispute the reasonings)

Do not give them back screw them..

How many nations demanded tribute and had tribute paid to them? Should that be repaid too?

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Britain does not need to return anything.

The Windsor family needs to return the precious stones etc that they gained over the years.

The Windsor family don't have any precious stones to return.

Crown jewels belong to the Crown - ie the State.

Britain, however is simply an island - so you are correct in that Britain does not need to return anything!

a reply to: WhatItIs

Exactly, where would it end?

For a start think what the likes of the Vatican or even the Smithsonian, never mind all the rest of the museums and art galleries around the world would be obligated to consider returning to the previous owners.

It might sound like the correct thing to do from some angles but it's not exactly a tangible thing to implement or in any way going to be considered viable by TPTB for the most part.

A few token gestures have indeed been made over the years but TPTB are not going to play that game, coz its just not how they roll.

In a perfect world maybe but certainly not in this one by my guess.

Yep India does not and never really owned the diamond, good luck with that.

It will stay where its at, in the UK.

a reply to: putnam6

The Diamond was given to Queen Victoria under the terms of " The Treaty Of Lahore " which was signed by The East India Company and The Sikh Empire in 1846.

As 80% of the old Sikh Empire is now part of Pakistan, India had better argue it out with them first.

a reply to: andy06shake

I read up on the history of the diamond. It has a long history of being plundered, used as a tribute payment, used for payment for favor.

The original dynasty that owned it is long gone, and seems like it was taken by force.

I don’t like things taken by “force”. But the acquisition of the diamond by the UK is just one step in the diamond’s long bloody history of being plundered, stolen, or used as tribute.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: putnam6

The Diamond was given to Queen Victoria under the terms of " The Treaty Of Lahore " which was signed by The East India Company and The Sikh Empire in 1846.

As 80% of the old Sikh Empire is now part of Pakistan, India had better argue it out with them first.

Thus the limits of the Progressive movement in Britain...


theweek.com...

However, the history behind this diamond and many others in the Crown Jewels is not that simple. The Cullinan I, or the Great Star of Africa, was cut from the Cullinan Diamond, and is mounted on the top of the Sovereign's Scepter, which was seen on Queen Elizabeth's coffin. Because the diamond was given to Edward VII by colonial authorities, many South Africans think the jewel should be returned and put on display in the country. Speaking to local media, activist Thanduxolo Sabelo said the "minerals of our country and other countries continue to benefit Britain at the expense of our people," while Vuyolwethu Zungula, a member of parliament, encouraged his fellow South Africans to "demand reparations for all the harm done by Britain" and "demand the return of all the gold, diamonds stolen by Britain."

It doesn't matter that the Transvaal government purchased the Cullinan, because "colonial transactions are illegitimate and immoral," University of South Africa Prof. Everisto Benyera told CNN. "Our narrative is that the whole Transvaal and Union of South Africa government and the concomitant mining syndicates were illegal. Receiving a stolen diamond does not exonerate the receiver. The Great Star is a blood diamond."

originally posted by: WhatItIs
a reply to: andy06shake

I read up on the history of the diamond. It has a long history of being plundered, used as a tribute payment, used for payment for favor.

The original dynasty that owned it is long gone, and seems like it was taken by force.

I don’t like things taken by “force”. But the acquisition of the diamond by the UK is just one step in the diamond’s long bloody history of being plundered, stolen, or used as tribute.

That's the conundrum, the sticky wicket.

Simply, where were the jewels geographically found?

If it isn't Britain... then why are the Jewels there?

or so goes the argument, and yes this touches on reparations in a number of areas.

the value of the jewels and artifacts is undeniable, is it fair Britain gets to keep them?

FWIW it's not too different than this...

a reply to: WhatItIs

The thing about diamonds(maybe not that one given the size) is they are not even that rare.

And the value attributed to such down to the fact that the few companies responsible for mining them horde and stockpile the things so as to control the market.

On some occasions even rumored to burn them so as to ensure their scarcity and demand.

As to the jewel in question, yes it does indeed seem to have somewhat of a checkered history to say the least.

End of the day though it's still nothing more than a chunk of shiny carbon which people choose to place value upon.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Britain does not need to return anything.

The Windsor family needs to return the precious stones etc that they gained over the years.

So you are arguing the semantics of the Daily Mail headline...

Too right I am.

Britain can be liable for stuff like this when I as an average Briton can call up the palace and book some of the jewels out for a weekend.
Until then, its all their problem.

a reply to: putnam6

Is it fair Britain gets to keep them?

Britain keeps the jewels,India, South Africa can keep the infrastructure that Britain put in.

Fair swap.

i got no problem with countries wanting something back that was stolen.
but when they start whining about wanting something that they agreed to give up, sold, or offer as a gift in my mind is just tough sh@@.

that's like mexicans wanting the southwest back, they signed it over, and even got some money out of the deal in the Mexican American War treaty for the war debt. 16 million in 1848 was a big ol pile of money.