Discussion on India’s right to the Kohinoor were recently in the news after the Government of India told the Supreme Court that the diamond was gifted to be British and not stolen by them. This led to further debates on whether Government’s position was factually correct, whether we are the rightful owners of the diamond, and if we should strive to bring it back to India. To me, Kohinoor is not an isolated instance, but one among the numerous cases in which redress of historical wrongs have been demanded by affected parties. This is evident from the comment made by the Prime Minister of United Kingdom during his visit to India in 2010, when asked about returning the diamond to India. He said, “If you say yes to one you suddenly find the British Museum would be empty. I am afraid to say, it is going to have to stay put”. Not just the artifacts in British Museum – even the wealth of most European countries are founded on what was built during the colonial era. Before they give back the diamond to India, won’t they have to do something to make up for centuries of exploitation of countries and populations around the world?

On the question of Koh-i-Noor, my position is that while it would be great for the British to give it to India as a gesture of friendship there is no rationale in us trying forcing the British to give it back. This does not change depending on whether the diamond was gifted to the English Queen or taken by force or deceit by the East India Company, for the simple reason that the person who could have gifted it had himself snatched it from somebody else! To understand this, let’s look at the recorded history of the Koh-i-Noor.

Believed to have been mined in Andhra Pradesh, and having changed hands many times before ending up with the Mughals, it was acquired by the Shah of Persia whose death left it in the hands of his Generals who passed on to their descendants. The last one of these to keep the diamond was forced by Maharaja Ranjith Singh to hand over the jewel in return for his hospitality and protection. It is interesting to note that this happened in Lahore, which is in present day Pakistan. It is after the death of this King that East India Company annexed his Kingdom and gave the diamond to Queen Victoria.

Thus, it would be difficult to conclude that Queen Victoria or her descendants have any less right to Koh-i-Noor than had Maharaja Ranjith Singh, the Persian generals or the Shah, the Moghuls, or any of the previous owners of the diamond. Even if the British are willing to give up their claim on the diamond, Afghanistan and Pakistan have also staked claims to it. It would indeed be difficult to reach an agreement on who is the rightful owner of the Koh-i-Noor. Given that the diamond has no practical use and has only historical value, I wouldn’t mind it remaining at the British Museum where history has placed it. 

Unlike the innocuous case of the Koh-i-Noor, there are much greater atrocities that have been committed in the past. My general take on these is not much different from my views on the Koh-i-Noor debate. Wrongs from the far past are best forgotten and forgiven, as long as they don’t cause any real trouble now. This is because, in most cases, any attempt to right them will only lead to more wrongs, hurting more people, and keeping the embers of past hurt alive, possibly passing it to some other hearts.

A relevant example is the creation of Israel. It was definitely wrong to drive Jews out of their homeland and persecute them around the world. But to right that wrong, deciding to carve out a Jewish state in heart of Arab land and send thousands of Arabs out of their homes (where their forefathers had lived and they have been living) is equally cruel and wrong. Finally, to right this wrong, if we were to now dismantle Israel and disperse the Jews living there, that would be no less ridiculous.

The same applies to Kashmir issue and the Line of Control (LoC). Both countries can continue to claim that the whole of the region is an integral part of their country and endlessly fight over it. Instead, if the two states can reach an agreement to accept ground reality and make the LoC the border, that will be a practical solution that can end a long standing dispute and threat to peace. Both countries will then be able to leave mutual enmity in the past and move towards cooperation and development. If India and Pakistan were to develop a friendly relationship, people of Kashmir will be able to move more freely across the border and the effect of a divide will be much lesser than what is there now. We would have really loved to have the whole of Kashmir with us, and we should have made it happen when we had the chance in 1971. But since we did not do that then, it makes greater sense to accept a feasible less-than-the-best solution than hold on to an impossible best.

The Ram Mandir issue is no different. If Babar had destroyed a temple to build the mosque, that was surely bad. But to destroy that mosque now and build a new temple at the cost of offending lakhs of Indians is unnecessary.

In Japan, at the time of Meiji restoration, Shinsengumi (a special military police) supported the Tokugawa regime which was ousted by Imperialists. One of the celebrated leaders of Shinsengumi, Saito Hajime, supported the new regime after it is formed, worked as a police officer, and even lent his strength to the Meiji government to suppress the Satsuma rebellion that followed. Though it is not possible to know his motives for sure, I trust that his loyalty was to stability and peace, and not to any specific regime. To bring about a regime change and throw the nation into chaos again would cost many lives, and is not really worth it.

Having said so much, I should make it clear that I am not against overthrowing an evil regime that had usurped power from a good one. This would indeed be a good thing to do, but the motivation would be to correct a present evil than to right a past injustice. If this current evil regime had come to power through fair means, we would have no less reason to overthrow it.

The crux of the discussion is that if we have wronged someone in the past and have the good heart to make up for their loss, that is great; but to seek justice for wrongs from the long dead past is not in anybody’s interest. Our focus should be on leading a good life today, taking care not to hurt others or do wrongs that will have to be regretted later. Coming back to the diamond that triggered this discussion, it doesn’t matter who the Koh-i-Noor should belong to or how it reached Britain – if it is happy sitting on the British crown, let’s leave it there. The real jewel of India is its spiritual tradition which nobody can take away from us. Let us hold on to it, and all other riches will seek us out.