Talk:Koh-i-Noor

True heirs

The rightful heirs of the Kohinoor diamond are the people of Andhra Pradesh, a province/state in south India. The diamond was found on the Krishna river bank in Guntur district. It became part of the treasury of Kakatiya empire. Subsequent to the deafeat of king Pratapa Rudra Tughlaq's army plundered Warangal and the diamond was taken to Delhi. It changed hands with changes in the fortumes of many a king and many an empire. The object should belong to the place where it was originally found i.e., the state of Andhra Pradesh.

It seems to me that to suggest that the stone ‘belonged to India’, and is unlawfully or wrongfully in the possession of the British Government is at best debatable. Granted the East India Company did take the stone as a prize in war – of course so did Ranjit Sing Maharajah of Lahore (‘king of the Sikhs’, ‘Lion of the Punjab’) Ranjit Sing took it as a spoil of war from the Emir of Afghanistan, so perhaps Afghanistan too has a claim to the diamond? The Emir in turn seems to have got the stone from the Shah of Persia – so does Iran have a claim? To further complicate the issue the dominions of the Sikh Raj (whose claim to ownership of the diamond, I must assume has somehow been transferred to that of the modern Republic of India by the author of this article) fall ambiguously between both India and Pakistan – so perhaps the Islamic Republic too has a legitimate claim? It seems to me that the British Government should keep the Koh-i-Noor, well at least until they loose it as a spoil of war, as the tradition goes. But I could be wrong….

What claim does Iran have? They just had it for a few years and for the same reasons the UK has it, because it was stolen. Iran has plenty of diamonds of its own without laching on to diamonds of other countries that they obtained for a few measly years by war and plunder.

I thought I would, for the sake of argument, continue the debate over the ownership of the Koh-i-noor. And if the author of the rebuttal who called me a moron wants to reopen his or her case, I would be delighted. You argue – with much justification I concede – that the diamond was firstly found in India, and was located there for much of its post-discovery existence. However ‘India’ as a concept in this context is rather problematical, as I mentioned above Pakistan is as much a part of the geographical conceptualisation of India, as the Republic of India is. Moreover India as a concept is really rather modern – being widely accepted only during the 18th and 19th century. Prior to this South Asia was a collection of several different polities, Marattas, Sikhs, Bengalis, etc – none of whom identified as Indians. India, as a single unified political entity really only came through the British conquest. Hence the diamond could not have been stolen from India as you claim, because India did not yet exist. Your argument for the Koh-i-noor having been traditionally Indian is therefore an anachronism. It is really also just a furthering of a western imperialist cultural and geographical ideas. Your argument too for the geographical origin of the diamond being Indian as the rational for returning it to India too is problematic. For centuries objects have been moved from country to country, such is the reality of history. To return every cultural artefact to its country of origin is so ridiculous to be farcical. Would you have the lamp that hangs over the tombs of Shah Jehan and Mumtaz Mahal in the Taj Mahal retuned to Egypt, where it was made? I doubt it. When it comes down to it, your argument seems to be based on some sort of perceived cultural or racial conviction that the diamond belongs to India. I think to counter the past evils of British imperialism with racism in the present is rather counter productive.

I agree with the "moron" as you call him above and would like to add the following opinion. India is a new and failing nation. After gaining independence from Britain we swiftly lost half our country (what was to become Pakistan) and most of the population now lives in poverty. It seems that our claims are an attempt to catch hold of a national identity that really isn't ours, but was lost along with Pakistan. I am Indian and living in England and think it is absolutely rediculuos that the Indian government expects the queen of Britian to tear a diamond (that now bears no resemblence to the original Koh-i-noor) out of her crown and simply hand it back to India. What would they do with it? Put it in a museum? Give it to the president? Hide it away? What use would it be to the people to know that the government has managed to get a pretty diamond back from another country but has made no progress to combat poverty. If you want to give back things that Britian stole, what about Thugee? or burning widows with their husbands?

If the British have any self respect (which i doubt they do) they would return the diamond to India or pay up $13 Billion to India and keep the diamond legitimately. As far as the comment about being a failed state from the Indian in Britain... looks like all the discrimination you face in the UK has made you think that its your duty to diss your own countrymen and suck up to the Brits. Shame on you.21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)65.92.157.195 mita

Come on guys, its a stupid diamond. Lots of stuff were stolen from what is now India and Pakistan. The Darya-i-Noor is a precious Indian/Pakistani jewel that is now part of the Iranian crown jewels. We Pakistanis and Indians alike arent clamoring our good diplomatic friend Iran for that? Why should we clamor for this? We have more important problems. I mean, really. Afghan Historian 00:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ranjit Singh willed the diamond to Jagannath temple in Puri, Orissa on his death bed in 1839 but the british made his 9 year old heir hand it over to them, so it belongs to the temple to which it was willed. The british are so spiteful that they will hand over the diamond to Pakistan a country they created 100 years later just becuase Lahore is now on the Pakistani side, never mind the fact that Ranjit singh's(the last owner of the diamond) clan and community was ruthlessly uprooted from Lahore, Gujaranwala etc. in 1947 with the active connivance of British administrators, during the British egineered partition of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.81.86 (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it should be returned to Golconda in Andhra near Hyderabad where it was mined.

Origins

In Hyderabad they claim the Koh-i-Noor was mined there, in the Golconda mines.

Several articles on the Internet seem to agree with that: 'Up until the 18th century, India’s Golconda mines were the only location in the world where the gems were mined' (http://nc.essortment.com/kohinoordiamond_rlps.htm)

It's possible, but tenuous I'd say. Naturenet | Talk 28 June 2005 11:25 (UTC)

Actually in india it's regarded that the Kakatiya dynasty was the one to unearth the kohinoor but no sooner was it unearthed by the last king of this dynasty than he was killed in a battle a few years later. and it was carried to new delhi. the very site golconda was known for its diamond mining until it stopped giving any more diamonds. Idleguy 07:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The diamond was not mined. A villager found it on the bank of river Krishna in Kollur village of [ [Guntur]] district of Andhra Pradesh. The diamond was given to Pratapa Rudra the Kakatiya king ruling Warangal. He was defeated by the army of Tughlaq in 1323 A.D and the diamond was taken away to Delhi along with enormous amount of the booty.

Golconda being the only diamond mine in India at the time, and its proximity to Warangal and Guntur makes it logical that it would be given to the king of Warangal.

Fixed Persian spelling

Dieresis 09:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC) I changed كوحِ to کوہ .کوۂ is the word for mountain. I don't know if the use of ہمزہ for اضافت on the letter ہ is standard in Persian, but it is in Urdu, which is more germane to the Indian context.

Dieresis 09:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC) My understanding of how to indicate اضافت for this case was incorrect. Because ہ functions here as a consonant, the correct way to write it would be كوہِ نور, but the اضافت is usually not written for this and many other common phrases and compounds. So just كوہ نور is left.

105 carats

I changed the number of carats based on the 1992 re-appraisal as give in this site. http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/koh-i-noordiamond.html

hdstubbs

Dr. Who reference

I saw that Dr. Who episode and looked up the Koh-i-noor on wikipedia - and was surprised to see a reference back to Dr. Who in the article. Is everything that happens in Dr. Who worthy of mention in an encyclopedia? Or is this the TV trivia edition? If no-one objects I will remove this. Birkett 22:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I object, think about it for second... the very reason you are here is because of Dr Who, surely that indicates to you the relevance of it. Mathmo ^Talk 03:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mathmo here - the only reason this article is on my watchlist is because of that reference. -- Chuq 03:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How did you not notice it had been gone for ages then? Hand hint, maybe time to prune down your watchlist! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Mathmo ^Talk 04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that the stone shown in "Tooth and Claw" is a Brilliant or similar cut. Pity that the episode didn't explain that part of it was vaporised, resulting in the Koh's present irregular shape! —Tamfang (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Queen of England

Is that a direct quote from the Treaty of Lahore that uses the term "Queen of England"? I know that this term was very frequently used in diplomatic dispatches and such, but I'd have thought that a formal treaty would have used the more formal "Queen of the United Kingdom" or "Her Britannic Majesty" or some such. john k 12:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a direct quote. Ref[1] Naturenet | Talk 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this unusual as well but discovered it is authentic. See "Terms granted to, and accepted by, Maharajah Dulleep Sing - 1849," A Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, ed. C.U. Aitchison. Vol. 9. (Calcutta: Office of the Superintendant of Government Printing, 1892), p. 49. Accessible via Google Books.

NZ herald article

A long article about it was in the NZ herald today, makes for quite a good read. [2] Mathmo ^Talk 03:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pencils

In 1890, the Austrian L. & C. Hardtmuth Company named its brand of pencils after the diamond, see here. I don't know where this may be linked to from this article, but it's interesting trivia nevertheless.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how, but I think there should be a "also see" section with a link to the List of famous diamonds

Trivial Talk

The matter of returning Kohinoor to India or any other country is untenable. History cannot be reversed. If one goes by the logic of returning looted wealth, then India should get enormous amounts of gold, diamonds, precious stones, jewellery etc from Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey etc., from where scores of sultans originated, raided and plundered India for 900 years. These countries will become paupers overnight if such a thing can be enforced.Kumarrao 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference in TV

Wasn't this the subject of the TV show Chuck - Season 1, Episode 4? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.96.7 (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Currency rate

From the "Crown Jewels" section: "Albert .. spent some £8,000 (£40,000 present)". That conversion rate is seriously out of date, I guess it was copied from some old reference work. I have deleted it. Maproom (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please, everybody, refrain from personal attacks. They will be removed anyway and you could be blocked. Read WP:Attack for wikipedias policy on personal attacks. --Cameron* 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Will Was Ignored

The Honorable East India company had Ignored the will of Late Maharaja Ranjit Singh's before handing the diamond to his heir, possibly to then confiscate the diamond later from him making the episode look ethical (principled). Which they did. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the following [3] BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Righteous refused to take the Stone

I've updated [4]. Here it says the monarchy run by Kṛṣṇa in the past refused to take the stone in order to preserve the Right. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk

I've also updated necessary citations from http://srimadbhagavatam.com/sb/10/56/en BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 01:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Syamantaka

Syamantaka assocaition is a WP:OR, the BBC as well as ISKCON reference says nothing about its explicit association with Kohinoor. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If that is so then it is better to delete that section. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

British Crown Jewels

I don't think the point about the Koh-in-Noor being reset in the Imperial State Crown is correct. It was still in the Queen Mother's crown when I went to the Tower a couple of weeks ago.

Anyone got a reference for it?

Raelth42 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Lahore

The full text of the Treaty of Lahore is reproduced in the Wikipedia article of that title, and the sentence quoted in this article does not appear there. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 1846 at the end of the First Anglo-Sikh War, but the chronology presented in this article appears more consistent with the events of the Second Anglo-Sikh War two years later. The history in this article needs to be reviewed, supported by reliable sources, and made consistent with the relevant related articles. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I just found the same problem. This article quotes "The gem called the Koh-i-Noor which was taken from Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk by Maharajah Ranjit Singh shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England." but the Treaty of Lahore article, which reproduces that document, does not contain that text. Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just propaganda article

The tone of the article is that of propaganda and anti-British ideas. The writer seems to think that the British were like the current day Indian politicians and bureaucrats. As to the Diamond, there are plenty of stealing done by the Indian officialdom. If Indian officials are trying to make the public forget the official misdemeanors, by claiming for the diamond, then in no time Pakistan (another equally corrupt to the core-officialdom nation) will also stake similar claims. The diamond is safe in the hands of the British Crown. If it comes to India, who knows who will steal it next? --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Koh-i-Noor

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Koh-i-Noor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

• From Kakatiya dynasty: Social and Economic Conditions in Eastern Deccan from $A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1250 By A. Vaidehi Krishnamoorthy [5]
• From Hope Diamond: Farges et al., Revue de Gemmologie, Revue de Gemmologie 165, 17-24.
• From India–Iran relations: ‘Iran and India: Age old Friendship’ by Abdul Amir Jorfi, India Quarterly, October–December 1994
• From Mughal Empire: History Modern India – S. N. Sen – Google Books. Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 2012-07-06.
• From Odisha: P. 63 Case studies on human rights and fundamental freedoms: a world survey, Volume 4 By Willem Adriaan Veenhoven
• From Ranjit Singh: The Real Ranjit Singh; by Fakir Syed Waheeduddin, published by Punjabi University, ISBN 81-7380-778-7, 1 Jan 2001, 2nd ed.
• From British Empire: Lloyd, p. 335.
• From East India: The Heroic Dance Ghumura, Edited by Sanjay Kumar, Mahabir Sanskrutika, 2002
• From Lodi dynasty: D.R. SarDesai. India The Definitive History. (Colorado: Westview Press, 2008), 146.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

what?!

This article needs to be deleted!!! It's clearly written and mostly contributed to by British-hating Indians. Wikipedia articles are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. This article does not do that!