Kohinoor Diamond Belongs To Britain, Says Government In Supreme Court

[ifesvr]

Afghan King? The Kohinoor belonged to Mughals.
Its funny how Indians distort the Muslim history to suit their propaganda.

The Mughals lost it to the Persians, Nader Shah. Persians to Durrani to Sikhs and so on. Just go on and read some 'actual' history.

 

[Armstrong]

i thought you were kashmiri

I am...I'm a Kashmiri from Punjab !

 

[ifesvr]

It belongs to every one (Mughals, Persians, Afghans, British etc), but not to Sikhs. One-eyed raven Ranjeet Sikh took possession of it by deceit, breaking his promise with Shah Shuja.

Funny how you mention all the people who held it except the original owners under whose kingdom it was extracted - The Kakatiya dynasty.

 

[fitpOsitive]

God saved India from Kohinoor. This diamond is cursed. Why India is so keen to get cursed as soon as possible?

 

[jaunty]

Close your eyes and imagine if it were BJP that was in the opposition and it was Congress that made such a statement that "Koh-i-Noor" was a gift to the UK........ you'd see blood of Muslims spilled all over India!

Not blood of Muslims but they would have made a huge deal of it.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

At this point in time, India needs to focus on its larger geo-political ambitions..and it cannot afford silly spats over a diamond with a friendly nation. We have bigger fish to fry (no pun intended).
Besides, the British took a lot more than the kohinoor (read peace away from the subcontinent), and the diamond is nothing more than symbolic..
Let's make our position stronger and then talk about retrieving lost glory..

We are anyway NEVER going to get it back.

But saying that we don't DESERVE it is disgusting. At least public appearances MUST be maintained. Nobody in the UK cares whether we actually want it or not. But we accepting that we don't is despicable.

Totally disagree

1 From the time of Mahabharat till say the Nanda ; Guptas ; Mauryas it was always
about FAMILY rule

One family died ; another came up

2 Culturally we were similar but that did not prevent us from fighting each other on the
most silly pretext

What the Rajputs did ; when faced with barbarians ;
Did they unite - NO

3 The Hindu Muslim divide was real when the British came

But the Hindu -- Hindu divide was much more damaging

Why did not ALL Hindu princes unite after Aurangzeb and the Mughal empire
had been destroyed by the Marathas

What the Heck ; even the Marathas started fighting with Rajputs AND amongst themselves

The Panipat debacle for the Marathas was because The Hindu kings could Not come under one flag

The whole sub continent was One BLOODY mess ; A GIANT Afghanistan
And it would have remained so had the British NOT come ; with 300 kingdoms

PS : I might have been Ruling one given that My ancestors had a small Kingdom
in the 18 th century which was taken over by the Brits

Unlikely. Most major countries had armed reunifications.

Germany and Italy are the finest examples. We would have fought each other, but eventually one would have dominated. The Marathas did not fight among themselves. The only real fight you refer to was against the puppet that the British supported, but was destroyed quickly. The fight against the Rajputs was legit, it was after all the cowardly and skilled Rajput Rajas who led the Mughal Armies against Hindu Marathas in the previous century.

Eventually, the Confederacy would have united all of India. They had pacts with the Sikhs in the North and given a hundred years of stability - could have ushered in an era of national unification cutting across ethnicities. In fact it did in most of India, since it was not an autocracy. There were serious problems, but it was more participatory than any of the European Continental Powers of the time.

Not blood of Muslims but they would have made a huge deal of it.

This is a huge blunder. Make no mistake. But then I have given up expecting anything big from this Govt.

The decent economy and lack of corruption are the only silver linings left. Basically what a good Congress Govt. should have done.

I am...I'm a Kashmiri from Punjab !

Hey. I am a Martian from Earth.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Unlikely. Most major countries had armed reunifications.

Germany and Italy are the finest examples. We would have fought each other, but eventually one would have dominated. The Marathas did not fight among themselves. The only real fight you refer to was against the puppet that the British supported, but was destroyed quickly. The fight against the Rajputs was legit, it was after all the cowardly and skilled Rajput Rajas who led the Mughal Armies against Hindu Marathas in the previous century.

Eventually, the Confederacy would have united all of India. They had pacts with the Sikhs in the North and given a hundred years of stability - could have ushered in an era of national unification cutting across ethnicities. In fact it did in most of India, since it was not an autocracy. There were serious problems, but it was more participatory than any of the European Continental Powers of the time.

You are just being TOO theoretical ; infact what you have written is just your Imagination

Nothing of this sort would have happened

Without the British rule ; This sub continent would have been a Giant Afghanistan

 

[Azadkashmir]

material goods lead to divide when knowledge can unite. yet subcontinent does not invest in education i mean real education not imperial type left over by british. then they wonder why the cant mobilize to build themselves into true super power on full stomach.

The day these people stop chasing women, wealth, land and start to chase unity and displine etc that the day you will have power nothing on this earth will able to do anything to you. cleanse your heart.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Nothing of this sort would have happened

Without the British rule ; This sub continent would have been a Giant Afghanistan

Imagination as well.

I am speaking about trends.

Afghanistan was and is a land of warlords with no culture. India was very very different. We are talking about possibilities.

How many countries were fragmented? How many united? China, Germany, Italy - all were unified. By force.

Why not us?

 

[Peshwa]

We are anyway NEVER going to get it back.

But saying that we don't DESERVE it is disgusting. At least public appearances MUST be maintained. Nobody in the UK cares whether we actually want it or not. But we accepting that we don't is despicable.
.

Well my contention is that if you have a strong position politically and economically, you can dictate terms..
India is neither in a position to demand or protest at this point...zero leverage.
BUT i agree with you that it doesnt mean we should give up claim..just means we gotta have patience and make such claims once we are stronger..in fact i would go as far to say that the british themselves might be inclined to hand it back over if and when India reaches such a point.
Nevertheless this is a government claim..and a new govt. can easily change its stance.
I would speculate that the current Government is making this waiver based on current situation where India stands to gain a lot (much more than the worth or symbolism of the kohinoor) from the west...so this stance makes sense so as not to stir up unnecessary shit.

You are just being TOO theoretical ; infact what you have written is just your Imagination

Nothing of this sort would have happened

Without the British rule ; This sub continent would have been a Giant Afghanistan

I actually have to disagree with you on the point that nationalism did not exist before the british...
The term "swaraj" was first used by the marathas and was in essence the modern meaning of it..ie. nationalism before ethnic and religious divide.
Marathas had united most of India and had panipat not failed (for many reasons), India would have seen a united rule after many centuries and the british would have had a much harder time gaining foothold in India..
Nevertheless, there are a lot of could've, should've, would'ves in this line of argument...BUT def no 300 little afghanistans....no way!!

 

[Stephen Cohen]

How many countries were fragmented? How many united? China, Germany, Italy - all were unified. By force.

Why not us?

Fine ; but what about the Circumstances of the Reunification

Germany and Italy were in Europe and those were the times of British and French Ascendancy

The whole programme of colonialism and imperialism had begun

And for Germany and Italy ; to become a United powerful country was the only way to survive

Otherwise Britain France and Russia would have eaten it up

Now coming to China

China suffered exactly like India ; even worse during colonialism

A small Japan made life impossible for them ; why ; because they were Fragmented

How and when did we Indians learnt the importance of Unity

When The British established a Government and the Wars stopped then
the intellectuals sat down and studied the History of India

The only common thread was DISUNITY

That is why after Independence there was as STRONG desire to make a BIG united India

And with Time it has only got better and stronger

Just see how violently we NOW react when a Rat called Kanhaiya calls
for Bharat ke Tukde

Well my contention is that if you have a strong position politically and economically, you can dictate terms..
India is neither in a position to demand or protest at this point...zero leverage.
BUT i agree with you that it doesnt mean we should give up claim..just means we gotta have patience and make such claims once we are stronger..in fact i would go as far to say that the british themselves might be inclined to hand it back over if and when India reaches such a point.
Nevertheless this is a government claim..and a new govt. can easily change its stance.
I would speculate that the current Government is making this waiver based on current situation where India stands to gain a lot (much more than the worth or symbolism of the kohinoor) from the west...so this stance makes sense so as not to stir up unnecessary shit.



I actually have to disagree with you on the point that nationalism did not exist before the british...
The term "swaraj" was first used by the marathas and was in essence the modern meaning of it..ie. nationalism before ethnic and religious divide.
Marathas had united most of India and had panipat not failed (for many reasons), India would have seen a united rule after many centuries and the british would have had a much harder time gaining foothold in India..
Nevertheless, there are a lot of could've, should've, would'ves in this line of argument...BUT def no 300 little afghanistans....no way!!

Even if the Marathas had won the Panipat battle what would have happened next
The Huge Maratha empire would have split in Fifty years

Already the Five principalities namely Peshwa ; Gaikwad ; Bhosle ; Scindia and Holkar
had emerged

Then Marathas would have got into fights with Sikhs ; Rajputs ; Pathans and Jats

Why would the fiercely independent Sikhs Rajputs and jats ever accept a Maratha
LED India

The Battle for the Throne of Delhi would have gone on and on

In time another Abdali or Nadir Shah would have emerged

Secondly what about the Deccan and East India

They were outside Delhi's influence anyway

This game of thrones would have continued with AK 47 and RPG s

Look at so many African countries ; Poverty and Civil war and Militias

In our case it was also about Caste ; Language and religion

We could have NEVER united on our Own

 

[Peshwa]

Even if the Marathas had won the Panipat battle what would have happened next
The Huge Maratha empire would have split in Fifty years

Already the Five principalities namely Peshwa ; Gaikwad ; Bhosle ; Scindia and Holkar
had emerged

Then Marathas would have got into fights with Sikhs ; Rajputs ; Pathans and Jats

Why would the fiercely independent Sikhs Rajputs and jats ever accept a Maratha
LED India

The Battle for the Throne of Delhi would have gone on and on

In time another Abdali or Nadir Shah would have emerged

Secondly what about the Deccan and East India

They were outside Delhi's influence anyway

This game of thrones would have continued with AK 47 and RPG s

Look at so many African countries ; Poverty and Civil war and Militias

In our case it was also about Caste ; Language and religion

We could have NEVER united on our Own

I beg to differ.
Panipat was in fact the spark that lead to the rise of the five confederates that you mentioned. with a power vaccum, the generals decided to carve themselves fiefdoms.
The position of Peshwa had weakened post the loss at Panipat.
Had the loss not happened, all signs pointed to a united command of India under the Peshwa. most historians believe this to be true.

With a win at Panipat, the Marathas were the strongest in north India (delhi was already paying chauth to them) and most other powers would have had to ally or face the marathas...
Mind you, even before Panipat, the marathas were a havoc in Punjab and Rajputana...probably one of the reasons for their demise given the enemies they racked up due to their cruelty (who would not come to the aid of marathas in panipat)..

Even if we can't agree on the fate of the Marathas post panipat, one thing we can agree on is that divide and rule policy would not have worked as successfully for the british had India a united front.
And the only option available at that point for a united india was under the Marathas.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

And the only option available at that point for a united india was UNDER the Marathas.

That word MY dear Sir --- " UNDER the Marathas " is what would not have happened
in any circumstance

All we would have seen is constant fighting

And what if The Mysore and Nizam of Hyderabad had United along with say French Help
and attacked Satara ; the capital of Maratha confederacy ;
while Marathas were Busy in North India

And we have No clue about East India and Bengal accepting Maratha supremacy

The Many years of Maratha Attacks in Bengal could only yield One province of Orissa
and lots of wealth

But Marathas could not consolidate themselves in Bengal

Maratha ACHIEVEMENTS are an immensely proud thing for Hindus ;

Marathas saved Hinduism from total destruction

Please dont get me wrong

My contention is that No Indian Power or Ruler or Family or Community
could FORGE a United India in the 18 th and 19 th century

( In the absence of The British which we are simply pre supposing in this discussion )

 

[Samandri]

Funny how you mention all the people who held it except the original owners under whose kingdom it was extracted - The Kakatiya dynasty.

An Indian claim with no historical proof. It was Mir Jumla of Golconda who dug it out of mines.

 

[waz]

Interesting thread.