The Aura and Mystique of the KOH-I-NOOR
Tariq Aqil June 3, 2000
#15 Posted by mannyd on June 7, 2000 10:45:33 am
Ref. Sameer # 1:
Sameer Sahib,
Your knowledge of Punjabi and Indian History never ceases to amaze me. If Pakistani educational system is as flawed as it it has been made out to be in some articles recently, how did you acquire all this information? In USA or in Pakistani libraries? I can not remember if Ranjit Singh had any other living sons beside Dileep Singh, but he was the last Desi( Child prince) ruler of Punjab with Maharani Jindan` as his guardian, before the empire took over. You are right about Jindan being not a very respectable character. She was paranoid and insecure about the Khalsa Army`s loyalty to her son and probably did instigate the war with the British to withdraw attention from internal chaos. Whatever her crimes, she paid a very heavy price in defeat. She never saw her son again. Her several petitions to Queen Victoria read..``You, who are a woman and a mother must be able to understand the anguish of a poor mother, who just wants her son back and nothing else...``. Under the terms of the peace treaty, she was supposed to keep her palace in Lahore, servants and jewellery.
Her jewellery taken in for safe-keeping mysteriously disappeared and she died in Benaras, as befits a Hindu widow, practically under house arrest.
Dileep (Tulip) was raised as a christian and his marriage to the egyptian princess was arranged by Queen Victoria. The princess was also the beneficiary of the empire`s largesse under almost identical conditions. Tulip reconverted to Sikhism as an adult later on and spent years to conspire with the Russians and pleading with the Khalsa sirdars to rise up against the British.
How does Beant Singh enter into this sad picture? Perhaps Mr. Aquil can shed some more light on his claim.
Sameer Sahib,
Your knowledge of Punjabi and Indian History never ceases to amaze me. If Pakistani educational system is as flawed as it it has been made out to be in some articles recently, how did you acquire all this information? In USA or in Pakistani libraries? I can not remember if Ranjit Singh had any other living sons beside Dileep Singh, but he was the last Desi( Child prince) ruler of Punjab with Maharani Jindan` as his guardian, before the empire took over. You are right about Jindan being not a very respectable character. She was paranoid and insecure about the Khalsa Army`s loyalty to her son and probably did instigate the war with the British to withdraw attention from internal chaos. Whatever her crimes, she paid a very heavy price in defeat. She never saw her son again. Her several petitions to Queen Victoria read..``You, who are a woman and a mother must be able to understand the anguish of a poor mother, who just wants her son back and nothing else...``. Under the terms of the peace treaty, she was supposed to keep her palace in Lahore, servants and jewellery.
Her jewellery taken in for safe-keeping mysteriously disappeared and she died in Benaras, as befits a Hindu widow, practically under house arrest.
Dileep (Tulip) was raised as a christian and his marriage to the egyptian princess was arranged by Queen Victoria. The princess was also the beneficiary of the empire`s largesse under almost identical conditions. Tulip reconverted to Sikhism as an adult later on and spent years to conspire with the Russians and pleading with the Khalsa sirdars to rise up against the British.
How does Beant Singh enter into this sad picture? Perhaps Mr. Aquil can shed some more light on his claim.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#14 Posted by mannyd on June 7, 2000 10:45:33 am
Ref. Sameer # 1:
Sameer Sahib,
Your knowledge of Punjabi and Indian History never ceases to amaze me. If Pakistani educational system is as flawed as it it has been made out to be in some articles recently, how did you acquire all this information? In USA or in Pakistani libraries? I can not remember if Ranjit Singh had any other living sons beside Dileep Singh, but he was the last Desi( Child prince) ruler of Punjab with Maharani Jindan` as his guardian, before the empire took over. You are right about Jindan being not a very respectable character. She was paranoid and insecure about the Khalsa Army`s loyalty to her son and probably did instigate the war with the British to withdraw attention from internal chaos. Whatever her crimes, she paid a very heavy price in defeat. She never saw her son again. Her several petitions to Queen Victoria read..``You, who are a woman and a mother must be able to understand the anguish of a poor mother, who just wants her son back and nothing else...``. Under the terms of the peace treaty, she was supposed to keep her palace in Lahore, servants and jewellery.
Her jewellery taken in for safe-keeping mysteriously disappeared and she died in Benaras, as befits a Hindu widow, practically under house arrest.
Dileep (Tulip) was raised as a christian and his marriage to the egyptian princess was arranged by Queen Victoria. The princess was also the beneficiary of the empire`s largesse under almost identical conditions. Tulip reconverted to Sikhism as an adult later on and spent years to conspire with the Russians and pleading with the Khalsa sirdars to rise up against the British.
How does Beant Singh enter into this sad picture? Perhaps Mr. Aquil can shed some more light on his claim.
Sameer Sahib,
Your knowledge of Punjabi and Indian History never ceases to amaze me. If Pakistani educational system is as flawed as it it has been made out to be in some articles recently, how did you acquire all this information? In USA or in Pakistani libraries? I can not remember if Ranjit Singh had any other living sons beside Dileep Singh, but he was the last Desi( Child prince) ruler of Punjab with Maharani Jindan` as his guardian, before the empire took over. You are right about Jindan being not a very respectable character. She was paranoid and insecure about the Khalsa Army`s loyalty to her son and probably did instigate the war with the British to withdraw attention from internal chaos. Whatever her crimes, she paid a very heavy price in defeat. She never saw her son again. Her several petitions to Queen Victoria read..``You, who are a woman and a mother must be able to understand the anguish of a poor mother, who just wants her son back and nothing else...``. Under the terms of the peace treaty, she was supposed to keep her palace in Lahore, servants and jewellery.
Her jewellery taken in for safe-keeping mysteriously disappeared and she died in Benaras, as befits a Hindu widow, practically under house arrest.
Dileep (Tulip) was raised as a christian and his marriage to the egyptian princess was arranged by Queen Victoria. The princess was also the beneficiary of the empire`s largesse under almost identical conditions. Tulip reconverted to Sikhism as an adult later on and spent years to conspire with the Russians and pleading with the Khalsa sirdars to rise up against the British.
How does Beant Singh enter into this sad picture? Perhaps Mr. Aquil can shed some more light on his claim.
#12 Posted by SameerJB on June 6, 2000 11:03:59 pm
In response to AI (#9)
It should be a piece of cake for our legendary urban warfare specialist 111 brigade out of Westrigde to bring back Koh-i-Noor. Moving swiftly through the street of London around 5 PM, first capturing BBC and ITN, and then moving on to Buckingham palace. If I were to laed this operation, I will stop at ITN, because the gem at ITN, DD, is much more precious than Koh-i-Noor.
temporal, did you get it?
It should be a piece of cake for our legendary urban warfare specialist 111 brigade out of Westrigde to bring back Koh-i-Noor. Moving swiftly through the street of London around 5 PM, first capturing BBC and ITN, and then moving on to Buckingham palace. If I were to laed this operation, I will stop at ITN, because the gem at ITN, DD, is much more precious than Koh-i-Noor.
temporal, did you get it?
#11 Posted by ai on June 6, 2000 11:03:59 pm
Urstruly/post
RE: AI Reply#9
``The fundamental limitation of AI (Artificial Intelligence) is that, it spews back exactly what it is fed``.
You might want to get a movie called ``king of Hearts`` tonight to watch. Make sure that is has English subtitles or else you will need Lt.Gen
Sahibzada Yaqub Khan to translate the french to english. And Sahibzada is no longer in his senses - all he says is that ``mein yeh tha - mein wo tha``....and he will ruin your movie.
RE: AI Reply#9
``The fundamental limitation of AI (Artificial Intelligence) is that, it spews back exactly what it is fed``.
You might want to get a movie called ``king of Hearts`` tonight to watch. Make sure that is has English subtitles or else you will need Lt.Gen
Sahibzada Yaqub Khan to translate the french to english. And Sahibzada is no longer in his senses - all he says is that ``mein yeh tha - mein wo tha``....and he will ruin your movie.
#10 Posted by Urstruly on June 6, 2000 2:10:40 pm
RE: AI Reply#9
The fundamental limitation of AI (Artificial Intelligence) is that, it spews back exactly what it is fed.
The fundamental limitation of AI (Artificial Intelligence) is that, it spews back exactly what it is fed.
#9 Posted by macgupta on June 6, 2000 2:10:40 pm
I found the following :
News: International: India demands Koh-i-Noor
Summary: India has written to the British Government asking for the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond, part of the Crown Jewels in the Tower of London, after about 50 Indian MPs demanded the restoration of the 105.6 carat diamond to its ``rightful owners``. ``If the British can consider returning the Elgin marbles to Greece, why not send back the Koh-i-Noor to India?`` said Kuldip Nayar, an MP and former Indian high commissioner to London, who is behind the campaign for the return of the diamond, mined in the 12th century in southern India.
Source: The Daily Telegraph London
Date: 05/17/2000
Also, Kevin Rushby, author of Chasing the Mountain of Light: Across India on the Trail of the Koh-I-Noor Diamond (St. Martin`s Press).
at
http://www.pathfinder.com/travel/TL/chat/rushby.html
The name itself, Koh-I-Noor, is Persian and comes from 1739 when the Persian army invaded India and reached Delhi. What they were after was treasure. At that point, it wasn`t called the Koh-I-Noor diamond.
The Persian invader Nadir Shah particularly wanted this diamond and so he arranged a big ceremony with the Moghul Emperor of India where he agreed that the Emperor could control India as a kind of vassal state. He had received word from his spies that the diamond was hidden in the Moghul Emperor`s turban so, as a part of this agreement, he suggested that they swap turbans. You can imagine the Moghul Emperor`s face when he realized that he was caught in this trap, because he knew what was inside his turban. They exchanged turbans and then as soon as the ceremony was over, Nadir Shah rushed away and unwrapped his turban and out rolled this magnificent diamond, and he was said to exclaim, ``Koh-i-Noor`` which means ``mountain of light.``
and
What happened was that the diamond was in the hands of the Sikh king, Ranjit Singh. During the Anglo-Sikh war, the British managed to get their hands on the diamond. Some of the British officers decided it would make a nice gift for Queen Victoria. The British officer who had had the diamond had completely forgotten where the diamond was! He remembered putting it in his waistcoat pocket but after that he didn`t have a clear recollection as to what had happened to it. So when he was asked to hand the diamond over, he was panic-stricken and ran back to his house and couldn`t find it. He asked his servant if he`d seen it and the servant said ``Oh, that piece of glass that was in your pocket? It`s here, master, I kept it safe for you`` and he handed it back to him. Apparently, he`d left it in the bathroom! So then the diamond was passed through various hands and eventually came back to London and was presented to Queen Victoria. At that time, the Koh-i-Noor was a rough-cut stone, not the perfect, geometrical gem that we think of diamonds now. Queen Victoria ordered that it should be recut and cut as a perfect gemstone, geometrically, so it lost almost half of its weight. And, of course, that was a terrible act of vandalism. This stone was an heirloom of the Indian empire, going back centuries and centuries. But that`s the stone we have now. It looks like any other big diamond.
-arun gupta
News: International: India demands Koh-i-Noor
Summary: India has written to the British Government asking for the return of the Koh-i-Noor diamond, part of the Crown Jewels in the Tower of London, after about 50 Indian MPs demanded the restoration of the 105.6 carat diamond to its ``rightful owners``. ``If the British can consider returning the Elgin marbles to Greece, why not send back the Koh-i-Noor to India?`` said Kuldip Nayar, an MP and former Indian high commissioner to London, who is behind the campaign for the return of the diamond, mined in the 12th century in southern India.
Source: The Daily Telegraph London
Date: 05/17/2000
Also, Kevin Rushby, author of Chasing the Mountain of Light: Across India on the Trail of the Koh-I-Noor Diamond (St. Martin`s Press).
at
http://www.pathfinder.com/travel/TL/chat/rushby.html
The name itself, Koh-I-Noor, is Persian and comes from 1739 when the Persian army invaded India and reached Delhi. What they were after was treasure. At that point, it wasn`t called the Koh-I-Noor diamond.
The Persian invader Nadir Shah particularly wanted this diamond and so he arranged a big ceremony with the Moghul Emperor of India where he agreed that the Emperor could control India as a kind of vassal state. He had received word from his spies that the diamond was hidden in the Moghul Emperor`s turban so, as a part of this agreement, he suggested that they swap turbans. You can imagine the Moghul Emperor`s face when he realized that he was caught in this trap, because he knew what was inside his turban. They exchanged turbans and then as soon as the ceremony was over, Nadir Shah rushed away and unwrapped his turban and out rolled this magnificent diamond, and he was said to exclaim, ``Koh-i-Noor`` which means ``mountain of light.``
and
What happened was that the diamond was in the hands of the Sikh king, Ranjit Singh. During the Anglo-Sikh war, the British managed to get their hands on the diamond. Some of the British officers decided it would make a nice gift for Queen Victoria. The British officer who had had the diamond had completely forgotten where the diamond was! He remembered putting it in his waistcoat pocket but after that he didn`t have a clear recollection as to what had happened to it. So when he was asked to hand the diamond over, he was panic-stricken and ran back to his house and couldn`t find it. He asked his servant if he`d seen it and the servant said ``Oh, that piece of glass that was in your pocket? It`s here, master, I kept it safe for you`` and he handed it back to him. Apparently, he`d left it in the bathroom! So then the diamond was passed through various hands and eventually came back to London and was presented to Queen Victoria. At that time, the Koh-i-Noor was a rough-cut stone, not the perfect, geometrical gem that we think of diamonds now. Queen Victoria ordered that it should be recut and cut as a perfect gemstone, geometrically, so it lost almost half of its weight. And, of course, that was a terrible act of vandalism. This stone was an heirloom of the Indian empire, going back centuries and centuries. But that`s the stone we have now. It looks like any other big diamond.
-arun gupta
#8 Posted by ai on June 5, 2000 10:07:58 pm
STRATEGY GET KOHINOOR BACK:
Gen Sir Charles Musharraf should be asked to seek the instructions of the general staff and the corps commanders in making a strategy, as part of the overall strategy of punishing the british, to get the Kohinoor finally back. Ofcourse in planning the strategy the expeditionary force should take into consideration that the artifact in the Tower of London may be a fake. So storming the Buckingham Palace is good idea as it would lead to the liberation of a lot of branded alcohol besides the gem itself.
The other core issue of what to do with the gem after its extraction: Place it in a new one time medal called Sitara-i-Kargil to be pinned on Sir Charles himself on 23rd March. That would be a site to behold....
Gen Sir Charles Musharraf should be asked to seek the instructions of the general staff and the corps commanders in making a strategy, as part of the overall strategy of punishing the british, to get the Kohinoor finally back. Ofcourse in planning the strategy the expeditionary force should take into consideration that the artifact in the Tower of London may be a fake. So storming the Buckingham Palace is good idea as it would lead to the liberation of a lot of branded alcohol besides the gem itself.
The other core issue of what to do with the gem after its extraction: Place it in a new one time medal called Sitara-i-Kargil to be pinned on Sir Charles himself on 23rd March. That would be a site to behold....
#7 Posted by ai on June 5, 2000 4:33:44 pm
- I recall reading somewhere that the Kohinoor
was presented to Babur by Ibrahim Lodhi`s mother. The British Government`s reply to Mr. Bhutto`s letter probably represents the authentic history of its transfer to British ownership under a treaty with the Sikhs. Mr. Bhutto had apparently cited the return of the Burmese royal regalia as a precedent for the return of the kohinoor.
- While we mourn long lost objects do note that the IMF is about to extract quite a cart load of Kohinoors from the present day princes who are equally bankrupt. We do not see British infantrymen roaming around the country side but we see a lot of sepoys in banks dismantling Pakistani industries. Globalisation appears is be the new term to describe what was declared to be the white man`s burden - Mr. Bhutto called it the usurper temper of a by gone age in the same letter that I mentioned above...
was presented to Babur by Ibrahim Lodhi`s mother. The British Government`s reply to Mr. Bhutto`s letter probably represents the authentic history of its transfer to British ownership under a treaty with the Sikhs. Mr. Bhutto had apparently cited the return of the Burmese royal regalia as a precedent for the return of the kohinoor.
- While we mourn long lost objects do note that the IMF is about to extract quite a cart load of Kohinoors from the present day princes who are equally bankrupt. We do not see British infantrymen roaming around the country side but we see a lot of sepoys in banks dismantling Pakistani industries. Globalisation appears is be the new term to describe what was declared to be the white man`s burden - Mr. Bhutto called it the usurper temper of a by gone age in the same letter that I mentioned above...
#6 Posted by Naqshbandi on June 5, 2000 6:41:50 am
Interesting. (BTW, the UK has refused to hand over the diamond).
I have read that when Humayoun lost to Sher Shah Suri and fled to Iran he had the koh-i-noor on his person and it was with this that he repaid the Shah of Iran for his hospitality, help, soldiers etc during his exile in Iran before returning to India to reclaim the Delhi throne...?
I have read that when Humayoun lost to Sher Shah Suri and fled to Iran he had the koh-i-noor on his person and it was with this that he repaid the Shah of Iran for his hospitality, help, soldiers etc during his exile in Iran before returning to India to reclaim the Delhi throne...?
#5 Posted by scout on June 4, 2000 2:44:06 pm
interesting piece...
i`m very naive as to the history of the subcontinent. could someone recommend a couple of good books that i could read to gain some knowledge?
i`m very naive as to the history of the subcontinent. could someone recommend a couple of good books that i could read to gain some knowledge?
#4 Posted by taimurmalik on June 4, 2000 6:21:03 am
a very informative piece..but you didn`t mention as to how did Pakistan claim ownership of the said jewel..and the chances of the penniless Beanat Singh striking it big...
regards,
TM.
regards,
TM.
#3 Posted by dullabhatti on June 4, 2000 6:21:03 am
Off topic.
FYI, National Geographic has a special on Indus civilization. I thought some of you might be interested in it.
Now go on with the show.....
FYI, National Geographic has a special on Indus civilization. I thought some of you might be interested in it.
Now go on with the show.....
#2 Posted by dullabhatti on June 4, 2000 6:21:03 am
Very interesting article about Koh-e-Noor heera.
Few additions. There is a superstition about the Koh-e-Noor that it brings ill-luck to anyone who owns it. Every kingdom who owned it eventually disappeared, Mughals, Durranis, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh and even now Royals of Britain are at its last breaths as their influence is non-existent at best.
Author says``No matter what the Sikh leaders claim today the Koh-I-Noor was actually presented by the descendents of Ranjeet Singh to the British in return for political favors. The Sikh leaders also wanted to prove their respect, loyalty and devotion to the British masters by the gift of this priceless diamond.``
Maharaja Daleep Singh, the youngest son of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh was only 8 years old at the time Koh-e-Noor was allegdly handed over to the British. I won`t blame Daleep Singh if he handed it over ``for political favors`` which for him meant staying alive. What other choice did he has?
Sikhs lost to British in war and lost their kingdom. I am not sure if defeated people handing over the precious possessions to the victors can be called `gifts`. The fate of the Koh-e-Noor is to go from kingdom to kingdom. May be some American billionaire should buy it now:-)(since it won`t be politically correct to win/snatch it from British:-)) just a thought!
DullaBhatti
Few additions. There is a superstition about the Koh-e-Noor that it brings ill-luck to anyone who owns it. Every kingdom who owned it eventually disappeared, Mughals, Durranis, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh and even now Royals of Britain are at its last breaths as their influence is non-existent at best.
Author says``No matter what the Sikh leaders claim today the Koh-I-Noor was actually presented by the descendents of Ranjeet Singh to the British in return for political favors. The Sikh leaders also wanted to prove their respect, loyalty and devotion to the British masters by the gift of this priceless diamond.``
Maharaja Daleep Singh, the youngest son of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh was only 8 years old at the time Koh-e-Noor was allegdly handed over to the British. I won`t blame Daleep Singh if he handed it over ``for political favors`` which for him meant staying alive. What other choice did he has?
Sikhs lost to British in war and lost their kingdom. I am not sure if defeated people handing over the precious possessions to the victors can be called `gifts`. The fate of the Koh-e-Noor is to go from kingdom to kingdom. May be some American billionaire should buy it now:-)(since it won`t be politically correct to win/snatch it from British:-)) just a thought!
DullaBhatti
#1 Posted by SameerJB on June 4, 2000 6:21:03 am
Most probably Koh-i-Noor did not exist during Mahmud Ghaznavi time or he did not know about it.
Beant Singh must be claiming to be a descendent of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, tough not through Prince Dileep Singh. It was actually Dileep Singh`s mother Chand Kaur( JindaN) and his 10-12 years old son who handed over the diamond to British Governor General during a darbar at Lahore on March 29, 1849, because he asked for it. In return Dileep Singh and his family was granted a stipend of 500,000 rupees. There were no political favors.
Dileep Singh and his mother ended up in Britain, converted to Christianity and married an Egyptian coptic lady. Beant Singh could not be his descendent, though he may be a descendent through Ranjeet Singh`s other children.
Chand Kaur is not a respected character in Sikh or Punjabi history. She was one of several wives of Ranjeet Singh. After Ranjeet Singh death, she conspired against his other children, to make his infant son heir to the throne. Her treacheries did win the throne for her son but destroyed the empire in the process and British finally took over.
Actually no single person or family can claim to be the rightful owner of the diamond.
Beant Singh must be claiming to be a descendent of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, tough not through Prince Dileep Singh. It was actually Dileep Singh`s mother Chand Kaur( JindaN) and his 10-12 years old son who handed over the diamond to British Governor General during a darbar at Lahore on March 29, 1849, because he asked for it. In return Dileep Singh and his family was granted a stipend of 500,000 rupees. There were no political favors.
Dileep Singh and his mother ended up in Britain, converted to Christianity and married an Egyptian coptic lady. Beant Singh could not be his descendent, though he may be a descendent through Ranjeet Singh`s other children.
Chand Kaur is not a respected character in Sikh or Punjabi history. She was one of several wives of Ranjeet Singh. After Ranjeet Singh death, she conspired against his other children, to make his infant son heir to the throne. Her treacheries did win the throne for her son but destroyed the empire in the process and British finally took over.
Actually no single person or family can claim to be the rightful owner of the diamond.
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- Roshni Aditya Mukherjee
- Freud and Jung and Their Secret Affairs Khalid Sohail
- Pakistan's Nuclear Test - Ten Years Later Pervez Hoodbhoy
- Were Buddhists and Jains Persecuted in Ancient India? Murad A Baig
- Akbar and Alexander Murad A Baig
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- akcheema: Re: # 58; parthaab... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- stuka: And yes, I do... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- stuka: Zeejah yaar, tu tau... Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak:
- BJ2: Re: # 313 Pinku, I... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: #312 Posted by tahmed32... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: pinku #304 "You can... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: pinku #303 er...well..ok.
... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal - tahmed32: masadi #308 thanks for... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
