Kohinoor controversy

 The controversy over the Kohinoor started after a Supreme Court bench presided over by Chief Justice T S Thakur sought the government’s stand on the retrieval of the 105-carat Kohinoor diamond. In response, Government of India told the court that the Kohinoor diamond was neither “forcibly taken nor stolen”, but was rather given as a “gift” to the East India Company by the rulers of Punjab, This again erupts the new controversy regarding claim on Kohinoor diamond.

Historical backgrounds
The Kohinoor originated from India in Golconda at the Kollur mine and was specifically mined from the Rayalaseema diamond mine during the rule of the Kakatiya dynasty. The Kohinoor was then passed from one ruling dynasty to the next. After the fall of Kakatiya dynasty the kohinoor was taken by Mohammed bin Tuglak who became Sultan of Delhi between 1325-1351. Till 1526 it remains under Mughal dynasty then kohinoor was placed in Peacock throne of Mughal king Shah jahan. In 1739 the Persian king Nadir Shah invaded Mughal emperor and stole kohinoor diamond , after his assassination the diamond passes to his successors. In 1800 king Ranjeet singh took the empire and kohinoor came under his possession. Kohinoor was part of war reparations demanded by the East India Company after the defeat of the state of Punjab — then ruled by Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s child heir, Duleep Singh.

Kohinoor was gift or not
Treaty of Lahore in 1849 was presented to the Maharaja to sign after the Second Anglo-Sikh War . British told Duleep Singh and his courtiers that they were to sign away the kingdom without hesitation, or face much harsher consequences. The treaty presented by British to the Duleep singh included clauses for the takeover of the Punjab and all its state property by the Company, as well making provisions for a life pension for Duleep Singh and his family. It also featured a distinct clause about the Kohinoor, which read thus: “The gem called the Koh-i-Noor, which was taken from Shah Shuja-ul-mulk by Maharajah Ranjeet Singh, shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England.”
So, word "surrender" is used in the treaty which means it was not a gift but forceful occupation.

Legal angle of this demand

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, was adopted by UNESCO in 1970. The Convention is seen as a key instrument to protect and safeguard world cultural properties, as well as provide a mechanism to repatriate cultural properties to their countries of origin. The Convention, which has been ratified by more than 120 countries, provided a framework for cooperation to clarify the procedure for the removal of archaeological and ethnological material from one country to another. So , India has a right to ask for return of the diamond which was shipped out when it was a colony of the British Empire. To say there is no legal framework under which India can ask for the Kohinoor may not, therefore, be correct.
However, there are two issues concerning the applicability of the 1970 Convention. One, the draft of the Convention does not make it explicit that it can be applied retrospectively; two, the definition of ‘cultural heritage’. For India, this would be the first occasion to decide whether to invoke the UNESCO Convention to seek the diamond’s return. But if India invokes the UNESCO convention then it has to fight with other countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan on the question of source of origin.

Conclusion
A treaty is always signed between a victor and a vanquished, so all ‘gifts’ given under a treaty have that context. But in law, a treaty is legal and binding. So the nomenclature of a ‘gift’ is not important here. Moreover, it is everyone right to ask for their historical and cultural monuments, especially when it was occupied by suppression. But, this dispute has very little legal validity and clarity which might lead to chaos. Such kind of disputes can also be resolved the way Canadian Prime Minister apologized for "kamagata Maru" case. So, Government of India should pursue this dispute amicably with British government instead of unwarranted rhetoric.

By: Vishal