The most controversial stone in the world: The Koh-I-Noor Diamond

The Koh-I-Noor diamond, meaning ‘mountain of light’ in Persian, is thought to be one of the largest cut diamonds to ever exist in the world. Uncut, its weight totalled a sizeable 793 carats, whilst its cut version today stands at an equally impressive 105.6 carats. Indeed, the stone has always been admired for its beauty yet in addition it has come to represent power and more recently colonialism. The esteemed historian William Dalrymple, an expert on Indian history, considers the diamond’s history to be “a perfectly scripted Game of Thrones epic”. Whilst the stone finds its origin for many in Hindu myth, the Gods saying that “only God or a woman can wear it with impunity”, the first verifiable mention of it comes in 1628. The Mughal Empire had become the dominant power in India from the mid 16th century and peaked at the death of the great Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1707. However, during the empires’ rise, the Mughal capital of Delhi was known for its sheer opulence and possession of riches seen nowhere else in the world. Nothing represented this more than the peacock throne, built for the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan. Upon the top of the throne stook the symbol of Mughal grandeur, a gemstone peacock whose head was what was to become known as the Koh-I-Noor diamond. The Mughals spared no expense on the throne, with its final price being nearly 4 times as much as the Taj Mahal.

However, when Delhi was sacked by the Persian Nader Shah in 1739, who is thought to have named the diamond, the Peacock throne was taken. The symbolism of the diamond’s power can be seen here. The decline of the Mughal Empire had begun to take place before 1739, but the loss of the diamond represented the loss of both Mughal wealth and power, a loss they were never to truly recover from with the rise of the East India Company. Having next passed through rulers in Afghanistan (mainly the Durrani dynasty), the diamond came into the hands of the Sikh Ruler Ranjit Singh in 1813. It was he who created the known legacy of the stone as something more than just something beautiful. For Singh “the gem seems to have held a far greater symbolism for him”. It represented his victory and bloody struggle to regain the lands and power taken from him by the Afghans. Yet there was another power that sought to have the now ultimate symbol of Indian power: The British. They got their way in 1849, having bullied a helpless 10year-old boy ruler of Punjab into selling away rights to ownership of the stone, it was immediately erected high in the 1851 great exposition in London. The stone was later reshaped and cut after visitors to the exposition were rather disappointed

with the seemingly glass-like object they were faced according to the Times. The diamond since the death of Victoria has lived as part of the crown jewels, rarely seeing the light of day. It wasn’t present on Elizabeth II’s coffin but is expected to be worn by Queen Consort Camilla at Charles III’s coronation.

The complicated history of the diamond throws yet more uncertainty into the debate today of where the diamond should live. In the greater debate of the repatriation of ‘loot’ (itself a word of Indian origin), the Koh-I-Noor sits alongside the Elgin marbles as the most sought after ‘loot’ the British still possess. Much like the attraction felt by the British in the mid 19th century towards the diamond, many states today lay claim to the diamond that they all say was ruthlessly stolen from them. The main claim comes from India, however Pakistan and even the Taliban have made claims in the last few decades. The mysteriousness of the diamond’s path makes any effort to decide on the repatriation of the diamond a nightmare. In the 18th century, none of the states that lay claim to the diamond exist and arguably the British have the right of the diamond’s possession as outlined in the revised treaty of Lahore, whatever the conditions of the signing were in.

The Koh-I-Noor represents so much more than opulence, it represents the balance of power. The British possession of the diamond symbolises to much of the subcontinent, a snapshot of time where Britannia indeed ruled the waves. A snapshot that is unjust and was built on the plunder and persecution of British rule. It is because of this that the diamond erupts so much controversy, not its inherent beauty. It is very interesting I think that despite the rise of the culture of being ashamed of parts of our imperial history, much of it we rightly should be, it seems highly improbable of the diamond ever being given back. Seems contradictory, doesn’t it?

By Oliver D (U6)