INDIA WILL SEEK RETURN OF HUGE DIAMOND FROM BRITAIN

[For many Indians, the Koh-i-Noor — or Mountain of Light — is a symbol of colonial subjugation and three centuries of exploitation that began with the East India Company in the early 17th century, culminated in the absorption of India as a colony after a major uprising in 1857 and ended with the independence, and partition, of India in 1947.]

 

By Nida Najar

The Koh-i-noor is set in a crown, crafted in 1937, that was 

most recently used by the Queen Mother, who died in 

2002 at age 101. CreditTim Graham/Getty Images 

NEW DELHI — The Indian government has begun a campaign for the return of a historic 105.6-carat diamond that was either a gift to Queen Victoria from the maharajah of Punjab in 1849 or stolen by the British, depending on some widely divergent perspectives.

After some indecision, the Indian Culture Ministry said on Tuesday evening that it would make “all possible efforts” to arrange the return of the diamond, the Koh-i-Noor, now residing in the Tower of London, where it is a centerpiece of the British royal family’s crown jewels.

As with the Elgin marbles, the Parthenon sculptures and other artifacts that Greece has long tried to reclaim from Britain, the ownership of the diamond has been a contentious issue for decades.

For many Indians, the Koh-i-Noor — or Mountain of Light — is a symbol of colonial subjugation and three centuries of exploitation that began with the East India Company in the early 17th century, culminated in the absorption of India as a colony after a major uprising in 1857 and ended with the independence, and partition, of India in 1947.

Whether it was a gift or not, Britain says the diamond came into its possession after the defeat of Punjab in the Anglo-Sikh wars of the 1840s and was moved to Britain in 1850. As recently as 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron said the diamond would “stay put.”

But critics in India say the British version of the story has been sanitized.

The diamond originated in the Golconda mines, in what is now the state of Andhra Pradesh. It passed through the hands of Mughal, Persian and Afghan rulers before landing with Maharajah Ranjit Singh, the ruler of the Sikh kingdom in Punjab, who died in 1839.

His death led to a struggle and, in 1843, the installation of his 5-year-old son. In the power vacuum, the East India Company rapidly extended its control over the once-powerful kingdom, annexing it in 1849, after its victory in the Second Anglo-Sikh War, said Anita Anand, a journalist and a co-author of a forthcoming book on the diamond. The jewel was then surrendered, she said, as part of an agreement ending the war and signed by the boy king.

“It was a cynical exploitation, at a time of flux in the Sikh kingdom,” Ms. Anand said by telephone.

The controversy may even extend beyond India. In Pakistan, a lawyer filed a petition in the Lahore High Court in February arguing that the diamond belonged to territory that is now part of Pakistan, and that the Pakistani government should seek its return.

The issue was raised this week by a private group that was seeking a court order requiring the Indian government to request the diamond’s return. The Indian solicitor general, Ranjit Kumar, at first argued against the suit, saying that the gem was a gift and that the government had no reason to seek its return. This ignited a firestorm on social media, and did not appear to sit well with some of the judges.

“We have not colonized any other country and taken out their artifacts,” Chief Justice T. S. Thakur said, according to the Kolkata newspaper The Telegraph. “What are you worried about?” After that, the government seems to have had a change of heart.

Some Indian commentators said the issue was a political distraction. “Let it remain where it is, a shining example of our selflessness,” Pritish Nandy, a politician and writer, wrote on Twitter on Monday, calling the claim “not worth pursuing.”

Shekhar Gupta, a columnist for the newspaper The Business Standard,wrote on Twitter that the case was “a reminder to higher courts to be selective with what deserves attention.”

Most analysts say there is little chance that Britain will part with the Koh-i-Noor, which is embedded in a crown, crafted in 1937, that was most recently used by the Queen Mother, who died in 2002 at 101. Mr. Cameron said during a 2010 visit to India that if one request was yielded to, “you suddenly find the British Museum would be empty.”

Nevertheless, the Indian Culture Ministry said it hoped for an “amicable outcome whereby India gets back a valued piece of art.”

@ The New York Times