|
Royal Kohinoor:Why Pakistan should enter the debate but won’t
British Sikhs Tell India It Has No Claim to ‘Kohinoor’ Diamond
Bhutto approached UK over Kohinoor: documents
LAHORE: Kohinoor: amend in plea allowed
Koh-i-Noor: Indian Activists And Stars Sue The Queen For Return Of £100m Diamond
Royal Kohinoor:Why Pakistan should enter the debate but won’t
Haroon Khalid
The Kohinoor, or "mountain of light," diamond, set in the Maltese Cross at the front of the crown made for Britain's late Queen Mother Elizabeth. We've got it, we're keeping it. That was the essence of the British government's attitude in responding to Pakistan's request for the return of the fabled Koh-i-noor diamond 30 years ago, according to confidential papers released in Dec. 29, 2006. —AP Photo
Lying in the heart of modern Lahore, a city that became the center of colonial and post-colonial history, is the Gora Kabristan or the white graveyard. Gora here is a euphemism for Christian.
This is the largest Christian graveyard of Lahore and hints at the ethnic diversity that existed in the city since antiquity. This graveyard signifies Christian ethos in the middle of an overwhelmingly traditional Muslim city.
Angels stand guard over the graves. Some cling to the crosses as if waiting for the messiah. A few heads and some wings have fallen off somewhere during this eternal wait. It is here, in this graveyard that the granddaughter of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the sovereign of Lahore, the ruler of Punjab, is buried. She is Princess Bamba Sutherland, the eldest daughter of Maharaja Daleep Singh.
The grave of Princess Bamba Sutherland. —Photo by Alie Imran
Further down, a regal, three-storey white structure with a magnificent dome on top — the samadh of Ranjit Singh — stands majestically. Next to it, the flag of the Khalsa flutters in the wind representing the Sikh community living there.
The samadh of Ranjit Singh is surrounded by those of his 11 wives who too were burnt on his funeral pyre — a now bygone practice known as Satiwhere a woman was burnt with the body of her husband.
Within the same complex is the splendid samadh of Guru Arjun, the martyred Guru of the Sikhs. Its gold-plated dome rises from a distance to welcome tourists as they head towards the Fort and the Badshahi Masjid in the same vicinity.
The entrance to the fort faces the samadh of Guru Arjun. This is the hathi darwaza or the Elephant Gate, from whence the King used to enter.
The samadh of Ranjit Singh with the minaret of the Badshahi Masjid visible in the background. —Photo by Bilal Ejaz
Moving further down we see the original boundary wall of the fort, decorated with the elaborate frescoes of elephants, kings, princes and princesses. Erected in between the Sikh samadh and the Mughal Fort is a relatively new divider that was constructed by the British.
The neat little structure serves its purpose, rather sternly, without the aesthetics of either Mughal or Sikh architecture. The wall serves as a symbolic divide between the Mughal history and the Sikh history.
It separates the history of Lahore into the Muslim era — that of the Mughals — and the Sikh era, beginning with Ranjit Singh and ending with Daleep Singh, the last Sikh ruler of Punjab. You’ve probably heard of the British policy of ‘divide and rule’. So have I.
Whenever Indians and Pakistanis feel nostalgic, exhausted by constant bickering over the Kashmir issue, Mumbai terror attacks, insurgency in Balochistan; there is one thing that is likely to end the debate — blaming it all on the British for their ‘divide and rule’ policy.
It is a valid argument, but one that is very misunderstood.
It is not the nefarious plans of the British that led the Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs to cut each other’s throats, but rather the world view of the Raj. The colonials were obsessed with categorisation and generalisation – their modern day paradigm.
Communities, religions, history, culture, language, architecture were divided into three stacks; Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. It was the prototype of the thinking patterns we inherited and continue to possess.
Opposite the Lahore Fort and behind the samadh of Ranjit Singh is theBadshahi Masjid or the Royal Mosque, commissioned by the Mughal King Aurangzeb. Here in its museum is a copy of the Holy Quran written in gold. This copy was part of the Quran collection of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
On the other side of the road is the shrine of the patron saint of Lahore, Ali Hujwiri, popularly known as Data Darbar. During Ranjit Singh’s dominion, his wife Jind Kaur, the mother of Daleep Singh, ordered the construction of a Quran gallery, where eventually all copies of the holy book that were owned by the Maharaja, were displayed. Later, they became a part of Lahore Museum’s collections.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the sovereign of Punjab and ruler of all Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims living here. He became ruler only to the Sikhs, posthumously.
After Daleep Singh signed Punjab over to the British, its history was re-written by the new masters. According to this version, the Muslims — symbolised by the Mughals — killed the Sikh leader, Guru Arjun. The tears that Mian Meer shed on the death of his very close Sikh friend and confidante were erased from record, as it no longer suited the new framework. Ranjit Singh, a Sikh, was projected as the villain desecrating mosques, and the Quran gallery constructed by his wife was hidden under troves of modern history.
A similar situation faces us today. A group of Indians have sued Queen Elizabeth of England to return the Kohinoor diamond to India, which was taken away from Daleep Singh. This too, is another example of neat categorisation of history — a British present to us.
How does India today represent that India from where the Kohinoor was taken?
The Kohinoor belonged to Ranjit Singh whose capital was Lahore, and his empire was predominantly in the area that is now part of Pakistan. Ranjit Singh was born in the Pakistani city of Gujranwala. His last surviving granddaughter, Bamba Sutherland, died a Pakistani.
Then, how can India solely claim the legacy of Ranjit Singh and his Kohinoor? The India of today is as old as Pakistan; both are the offspring of British-India and both are inheritors of the 'Indian civilisation'.
This is not to state that the Kohinoor should come to Pakistan because of geographical connections to the diamond’s history.
Also, it is no secret that Pakistan has repudiated its multi-religious identity for its new national character. We discarded our history and cut off any pre-Islamic, pre-Pakistan ties we had with this land.
A quick glimpse around the country is enough to see the pitiful state of the gurdwaras and temples. India too can be accused of following a similar pattern. The recent renaming of Aurangzeb road in New Delhi is a clear example of the changing face of history — a trend that we Pakistanis are all too familiar with.
Another argument could be that Sikhs on both sides of the border truly represent the legacy of Ranjit Singh and hence the Kohinoor. This too is a futile attempt. Ranjit Singh was as much my ruler as he was that of the Sikhs. Muslims generals and ministers were all part of his government. He is a symbol of Punjabi nationalism. He was the first Punjabi king in a thousand years. His legacy is my legacy.
There is no simple solution to this problem. Neither Indians, nor Pakistanis have sole right to the Kohinoor just as Ranjit Singh was not only a Sikh ruler, but the Maharaja of the entire Punjab, and just as Mian Meer was not only a Muslim saint but also a spiritual leader to the Sikhs, for he had helped lay the foundation of the Golden Temple in Amritsar.
There is no doubt that Pakistan, too, needs to be included in the debate on Kohinoor’s return, but how can it champion this cause when for years it has denied its own past?
To be a part of this debate Pakistan would need to accept that its history is not just the history of Muslims in the sub-continent, but of all the people that coexisted here before and with the Muslims.
Pakistan needs to realise and argue that India is not the sole heir to the Indian heritage and should then enter the debate about the Kohinoor’s return, but perhaps, it won’t.
Haroon Khalid has an academic background in Anthropology from LUMS. He has been traveling extensively around Pakistan, documenting historical and cultural heritage.He is the author of A White Trail: A journey into the heart of Pakistan’s religious minorities and an upcoming book In Search of Shiva: A study of folk religious practices in Pakistan.
Curtsey:DAWN.COM, November 15,2015
British Sikhs Tell India It Has No Claim to ‘Kohinoor’ Diamond
By Gurjeet Singh, Sikh Federation UK -
LONDON, UK—Keith Vaz MP today called for the world-famous ‘Koh-i-Noor’ diamond to be returned to India during Narendra Modi’s UK visit in November.
Keith Vaz’s comments came in response to Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s speech in May calling on Britain to pay reparations to India. Earlier today Keith Vaz said:
I WELCOME DR THAROOR’S SPEECH AND THE ENDORSEMENT OF ITS MESSAGE BY PRIME MINISTER MODI. I SHARE THEIR VIEWS. THESE ARE GENUINE GRIEVANCES WHICH MUST BE ADDRESSED.”
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT RETURNING PRECIOUS ITEMS SUCH AS THE KOH-I-NOOR DIAMOND, A CAMPAIGN I HAVE BACKED FOR MANY YEARS. WHAT A WONDERFUL MOMENT IT WOULD BE, IF AND WHEN PRIME MINISTER MODI FINISHES HIS VISIT, WHICH IS MUCH OVERDUE, HE RETURNS TO INDIA WITH THE PROMISE OF THE DIAMOND’S RETURN.
Bhai Amrik Singh, the Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK), has said:
INDIA HAS NO CLAIM ON THE ‘KOH-I-NOOR’ DIAMOND.
IT HAS BEEN STATED IN DEBATE IN THE UK PARLIAMENT THAT IT IS A SIKH ARTIFACT. THERE WERE MANY OTHERS THAT WERE STOLEN FROM THE SIKH KINGDOM THAT NEED TO BE CATALOGUED AND PRESERVED FOR THE WORLDWIDE SIKH COMMUNITY.
THE INDIAN REGIME IS THE LAST ONE ON EARTH SIKHS CAN TRUST IN PRESERVING THE RICH SIKH HERITAGE FOLLOWING THE CONFISCATION AND DESTRUCTION OF PRICELESS DOCUMENTS AND SCRIPTURES IN THE SIKH REFERENCE LIBRARY IN JUNE 1984.
INDIAN POLITICIANS, WHETHER IT BE NARENDRA MODI, SHASHI THAROOR OR KEITH VAZ CAN DEMAND WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT THEY CAN NOT RE-WRITE THE ANGLO-SIKH HISTORY OR DENY WHAT HAPPEN IN 1984.
THE DIAMOND BELONGED TO THE SIKHS AND THE KOH-I-NOOR SHOULD REMAIN IN BRITAIN UNTIL THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SIKH HOMELAND WHEN SUCH MATTERS CAN BE DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED.
The Koh-i-Noor belonged to the Sikh ruler, Maharaja Ranjit Singh who died in 1839. This was followed by the First and Second Sikh Wars (1845 and 1848) and the annexation of the Sikh Kingdom by the British.
On 29 March 1849, the British flag was hoisted in Lahore and the Sikh Kingdom came under occupation and was annexed. One of the terms of the Treaty of Lahore, the legal agreement formalising this occupation, was as follows: ‘The gem called the Koh-i-Noor (belonging to Maharajah Ranjit Singh) shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England.” Lord Dalhousie arranged for the diamond to be presented by Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s successor, the young Maharaja Duleep Singh, under duress to Queen Victoria in the UK in 1851.
There are many countries that have tried to claim the Koh-i-Noor, including the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In 1976, Pakistan prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto asked British Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan for the Koh-i-Noor to be returned to Pakistan. The prime minister replied to Mr Bhutto with a polite “No”.
There have been repeated requests by India. When the Queen made a state visit to India to mark the 50th anniversary of India’s independence from Britain in 1997, many Indians demanded the return of the diamond. In February 2013 David Cameron on the final day of a three day visit to India said the Koh-i-Noor would stay in Britain and ruled out returning the gem to India.
Bhai Amrik Singh added:
“The UK Government should once and for all tell the likes of India, Pakistan and others the rightful ownership and future of the Koh-i-Noor is a matter for Britain and the Sikhs with whom they have a number of treaties.”
Gurjeet Singh
National Press Secretary
Sikh Federation (UK)
Curtsey:www.sikh24.com,July 30.2015
Bhutto approached UK over Kohinoor: documents
LONDON, Dec 28: Former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto called on Britain 30 years ago to correct historic wrongs by returning a precious diamond which left the subcontinent during the colonial times, newly declassified documents showed on Friday.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wrote to his then counterpart, James Callaghan, in August 1976 about the Kohinoor diamond, which was once the largest known diamond in the world and was set in a royal crown on being presented to Queen Victoria in 1852. The historic dispute over its ownership again flared up in 2002, when the crown sat on top of the coffin of Queen Elizabeth, the queen mother, as her body lay in state in London. But it remains in the Tower of London as part of the British crown jewels collection.
The 108-carat gem has also been claimed by countries including India, Iran and Afghanistan.
In his letter, Mr Bhutto told Mr Callaghan that “little is left in our land from what was bequeathed to us by the centuries of pre-colonial history” and decried the disappearance of “the unique treasures which are the flesh and blood of Pakistan’s heritage”.
The diamond's return to Pakistan “would be a convincing demonstration of the spirit that moved Britain voluntarily to shed its imperial encumbrances and lead the process of decolonisation,” Mr Bhutto added.
“Indeed, it would be symbolic of a new international equity strikingly different from the grasping, usurping temper of a former age.” When Mr Callaghan replied to him in September, he did not agree to hand the gem over, though.
The diamond had been transferred to Britain under a peace treaty signed to end the second Sikh war in 1849, he said. “In the light of the confused past history of the Kohinoor diamond, the clear British title to it and the multiplicity of claims which would undoubtedly be made to it if its future were ever thought to be in doubt, I could not advise her majesty the Queen that it should be surrendered to any other country,” Mr Callaghan said.
But a scribbled note in the margin of a briefing paper on the stone’s history betrays his concern that the issue could damage Anglo-Pakistani relations if not handled carefully.
After an official wrote that the crown in which it is set was worn by the queen mother at the coronation of her husband George VI, father of the current Queen Elizabeth II, Mr Callaghan added: “I thought it was very awkward!”
According to legend, the diamond brings misfortune or death to any man who wears or owns it but good luck to women. The documents were released by the National Archives in London, under rules which state that official papers can be made public after 30 years.—AFP
Curtsey:DAWN.COM, — PUBLISHED DEC 29, 2006
LAHORE: Kohinoor: amend in plea allowed
LAHORE, Nov 2: The Lahore High Court on Friday taking up a petition for the return of historic Kohinoor diamond allowed the petitioner to amend the petition to make the federal ministry of culture and tourism as party.
Petitioner Advocate M.D. Tahir submitted that it was the tradition of the nations that they protected and preserved their historical monuments and heritage as the same were considered their precious property and not allowed the same to remain in the custody of other nations.
He submitted that the Kohinoor, the largest and the most precious in the world, was the legacy of Muslims of the sub-continent as lastly it was with Mughal emperors of India. He said during the British occupation of the sub-continent, it was taken away to Britain by the then UK rulers, and presently the same was studded in the crown of the Queen.
“The British government has absolutely no legal right to keep this diamond with them,” he stated.
He contended that the Kohinoor belonged to the Muslims, therefore, only Pakistan had a legitimate claim on the same and not the Hindus of India. “It may be noted that no claim or effort for the custody of the Kohinoor seems to have ever been made by Pakistan,” the petitioner said.
He requested that the respondents had been urged to take up the matter with the British government and demand the return of the diamond back without any delay. In case the British government was not ready to return the same, the matter should be dealt with according to the international law and the UNO Charter and should be raised before proper international fora or institutions.
The petitioner prayed that if no efforts had yet been made, the respondents be directed to demand the Kohinoor back from the British government, and in case it did not accede to the claim, the respondents may graciously be directed to raise the matter at the proper international fora or institutions for its return.—APP
Curtsey:DAWN.COM, — PUBLISHED NOV 03,2001
Koh-i-Noor: Indian Activists And Stars Sue
The Queen For Return Of £100m Diamond
One of the world's largest and most famous diamonds, which is currently part of Britain's crown jewels, is at the centre of a row after a group of businessmen and Bollywood stars claimed its rightful home is in India.
The Koh-i-Noor diamond is under dispute from the group named "Mountain of Light", who have reportedly reached out to British lawyers over the return of the 106 carat stone.
The disputed jewel, which can be dated back to 1526, was first given to the British monarch in 1851, after the British annexe of the Punjab.
Koh-i-Noor stone in the Queen Mother's crown
The group has reached out to lawyers, who are expected to begin proceedings based on the Holocaust Act (Return of Cultural Objects) which empowers British institutions to return art alleged to be stolen.
Campaigner for its return, David de Souza, told The Independent: "[The stone] is one of the many artefacts taken from India under dubious circumstances."
Souza further claimed the British colonisation of India had stolen wealth and “destroyed the country’s psyche”.
The diamond was in the crown worn by the Queen Mother at the coronation of her husband King George VI in 1937 and again at Queen Elizabeth's coronation in 1953.
Historian Andrew Roberts fought for its right to stay in the UK, telling the Mail on Sunday: “Those involved in this ludicrous case should recognise that the British Crown Jewels is precisely the right place for the Koh-i-Noor diamond to reside.
"In grateful recognition for over three centuries of British involvement in India, which led to the modernisation, development, protection, agrarian advance, linguistic unification and ultimately the democratisation of the sub-continent.”
Curtsey: www.hiffingtonpost.co.uk,Nov 9,2015
|
