The Kohinoor diamond once belonged to Maharaja Ranjit Singh and then his son before it was seized by the British Empire after the Anglo-Sikh Wars. The ownership is controversial, especially with legal and moral debates. Danielle Kinsey’s article, published by Cambridge University Press, discussed Lord Dalhousie’s deliberate acquisition of the Kohinoor diamond as a political endeavor to regain favor, pressuring the young ruler, Maharaja Duleep Singh, who was only twelve years of age, had been separated from his mother (Kinsey, 2009, p.5-4). Was this act Moral or Legal? Amit Ranjan and his colleagues from the University of London, state that the Queen herself did not know the truth of the diamond “therefore it was a huge moral dilemma—she could not return the stone to Duleep neither consider it her own till he gifted it to her” (Ranjan et al., 2018, p.15). Even though her conscience was eased, the “gifting” was carried out by 12-year-old Duleep, who was taken alone to a foreign nation. The Kohinoor’s controversy is also present when discussing reparations requested by states such as Nigeria and Greece, for artifacts including the Benin Bronzes and the Parthenon Sculptures. The main concern in the restitution of artifacts is their representations as figures of history and identity. The objects embody heritage, and their return is a moral and political issue. This is important because although the British apologize for benefiting from colonization, they refuse returning the Kohinoor diamond, something whose acquisition occurred during their colonial rule. The contradiction between Britain’s apologies for colonialism but refusal to return the diamond suggests the symbolic value outweighs both moral and legal obligation to return it. Former U.S diplomat Collin Powell displayed the power of symbolism through his personal narrative “Of Memory and Our Democracy”, Powell emphasized the meaning behind the monuments in Washington, D.C writing, “first I took him to the Jefferson Memorial…Here I said you see the foundation of America” (Powell, 2024, pg.53). By explaining the significance of the tangible objects as the “foundation of America” Powell successfully showed the monuments’ deep importance as the nation’s foundation, the diamond has a similar significance as a symbol of power to India. Additionally, the excerpt: “in time lasting memorials will stand where… to save the lives of others and most probably the Capitol or the White House – symbols of our living democracy” (Powell, 2024, pg.55) reflected the depth of symbolism in inanimate objects. This human attachment to artifacts, despite questionable ownership, provides the question: To what extent is the British royal family morally and legally obligated to return the diamond to India? With the shared heritage and legal constraints surrounding cultural artifacts, the Kohinoor diamond should be returned to India to rectify the historical injustices.
Moral Rights
India holds a moral right to the Kohinoor diamond, as its rightful owner and a symbol of colonialism. The diamond has a symbolic significance to India, especially the Sikh community, as it was last held by the Sikh Empire. As Manjari Miller, work published by Cambridge University Press, explained “nationalists emphasized they were not only economically and politically exploited by 200 years of British colonialism but also suffered from social and cultural humiliation” (Miller, 2019, pg.9). The Kohinoor embodies India’s colonial past. Also, Sana Shabir from the University of Malysia, highlighted the Kohinoor while in the hands of the Maharaja “Singh’s unique affinity for the gem consolidated its aura of prestige and power” (Shabir, 2024, pg.6). As a symbol of both power and colonialism, the British hold reinforces India’s demand. The British refusal also displays ignorance and present-day racism. The argument of the Kohinoor remaining in British hands not needing to be seen in a negative light instead as a representation of the historic British Imperial. However, the argument is flawed due to the harm that was enacted to prove the strength of the British. Ana Vrdoljak, at Cambridge University Press, argued “objects continue to be de-contextualized and form a vital part of narratives largely dictated by former colonial powers and these communities continue to suffer ongoing cultural losses due to the legacies of colonization and a new wave of globalization” (Vrdoljak, 2006, pg.12). Cementing that such a portion of history cannot be seen as great when many cultures and people were hurt. Denial of the history results in a loss of cultural heritage. Palmer states “the British Museum and other cultural institutions have benefitted for centuries displaying stolen artifacts as forage to build an empire and profiting off the legacy of colonialism and racism the loss of these artifacts to the people of the countries where they were stolen indicates not only a loss of tangible pieces, but a loss of cultural heritage as well” (Palmer, 2023, pg.6). Therefore, denying and romanticizing that period of history, does not stand as reasoning for refusing to return the Kohinoor. Debroah Paredez from Duke University Press explained “how acts of cultural memory and collective mourning can generate and transform concepts of national, racial, and gendered identities” (Paredez, 2009, pg.42). India’s remembrance of the diamond is linked to their colonial past, reparations show steps taken to move forward. Pasricha, from the London School of Economics, acknowledged the current ties “independence was only granted in India seventy-one years ago; thus, at least three generations are alive today” (Pasricha, 2019, pg.4). With symbolism and meaning being placed on the Kohinoor diamond the British is morally obligated to return the diamond.
Legal Rights
The framework in modern international laws, on cultural property restitution, supports British owing obligations to returning the Kohinoor. It is a complicated aspect of the argument. There are loopholes that the British use as excuses as well as ignorance of cultural laws that were in place in the 19th century. Kathrin Joson, published work in International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, discussed the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and how the UK had signed in 1977, and Article 15 of the Object allowed states to seek restitution (Jososn, 2020, pg. 2). The UNESCO support states whose cultural property was removed before the convention to enter special agreements. While the convention lacks retroactivity the article allows for the legal return of the Kohinoor diamond as both states are signed to the convention. Olivia Dibb, from the Emory University School of Law, stated, “passage of UNESCO 1970 signified a shift in primary concerns from prevention to restitution within cultural heritage protection law” (Dibb, 2024, pg. 6). The framework of the UNESCO is supportive for the return of the diamond. International laws, centered around cultural artifacts, are to protect a community’s heritage. Other international laws supporting reparations, for instance, Ashlyn Milligan from Carlton University reviewed the First and Second Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and found the conventions prohibited harm or looting of any type of cultural heritage if they were not used for military purposes during war (Milligan, 2008, pg.3). The Kohinoor was not used for military purposes during the Anglo-Sikh War, making its journey to the British illegal. Dibb also mentioned the 1954-Armed Conflict Convention and its two parts that defined intangible and tangible cultural heritage and disallowing theft of cultural heritage property (Dibb, 2024, pg. 6). Both laws stated the illegality of taking cultural property from a community, cementing the British acquiring of the Kohinoor illegitimate. Yue Zhang described the CIL rule that banned wartime plunder and required restitution was established in the nineteenth century (Zhang, 2021, pg. 7). Additionally, Joson stated the case would be taken up “Article 93 of the UN Charter would accord the International Court of Justice the jurisdiction to take up such a case” (Joson, 2020, pg. 3). International law states the British’s actions illegal and their legal obligation to have reparations. The laws have the framework to support the case with legal restitution.
Solution
The British having moral obligations and legal frameworks stating they must return the diamond, but refusing, has required for a solution to be implemented. Saby Ghoshray in the Fordham International Law journal observed many international laws had been made after WW2 and had influence of colonial powers that resulted in “temporal restraint” (Ghoshray, 2007, pg. 7). Her examination of laws showed that although the frameworks of the laws supported reparations of cultural objects, only if it was taken after the law was made and even then, there is a bias to protect commercial interests of possessing states. It showed the changes needed in international law, so objects, such as the Kohinoor diamond, can be returned. Furthermore, Jackie Chen in the Harvard International Review states “British State-owned institutions on the other hand are barred from entering lotted artifacts under the British Museum Act of 1963 and the National Heritage Act of 1983 additionally the British Government has stated that it is not planning to amend those laws” (Chen, 2022, pg. 4). These laws placed by the British, prevent reparations including the Kohinoor diamond, and their refusal to change shows present day colonial mindsets. The denial of the harm done by colonialism and refusing to make reparations or changes reveals deeper issues that should be addressed. Changes made to international laws are not enough, there must be a clearer understanding of colonialism, achieved through school curriculums. For example, Owen Jonathan from The Independent discussed the frustration building up within Indian communities due to the colonial mindset they feel in the UK (Jonathan, 2015). Also, Catriona McDermid and Stuart Foster from the UCL Institute of Education stated an example from UK textbooks “an Indian child from 1900 is pictured stating ‘the British make sure that the children of Indian soldiers are given good education in schools’” (McDermid and Foster, 2024, pg. 14). These current textbooks are conveying the British as saviors and this usually fuels the argument that other states cannot take care of their own artifacts. Implementing a more honest curriculum in the UK and changing national and international laws, the Kohinoor diamond and other artifacts return is possible. Future generations will know, as mentioned by Palmer from Adler University “Europeans justified colonization by touting it as a civilizing mission” (Palmer, 2023, p. 4) and making reparations for the present effects of the “civilizing mission” can strengthen weakened relationships as mentioned by Jonathan from The Independent “the UK has gone from being one of India’s top trading partners in 1999 to 18th in 2015” (Jonathon, 2015). Changing laws and teaching honest history will not harm but instead have artifacts returned to their people and build bonds untarnished by the past.
Limitations
However, there is a large debate on if reparations should even be done for events so far in the past. Such is stated in The Guardian about David Cameron’s comment “as relatives of the victim’s expressed disappointment, the prime minister said it would be wrong to “reach back into history” and apologize for the wrongs of British colonialism” (“David Cameron Defends…, 2013). The comment was about the Massacre at Amritsar and another comment about refusing to return the diamond or any artifact was done by David Cameron, around that time. The logic and argument are flawed. There were rules and ethics in the 19th century that prevented looting of cultural artifacts from communities and nations. Yue Zhang described CIL rules in the University Of Pennsylvania Journal Of International Law with the example “Napoleon attempted to conceal his organized confiscation of cultural artifacts during his campaign of Belgium in 1794 which suggested that Napoleon knew that the right of conquest during that time did not permit a systematic looting of cultural artifacts” (Zhang, 2021, pg. 24). Additionally, Ashlyn Milligan in the Journal of Public and International Affairs “during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, Napoleon was renowned for his theft of art and antiquities in conquered lands, returning to France with his “spoils of war” (Milligan, 2008, pg. 2). Both analytics of history prove there were morals and laws that deemed stealing cultural property from a state wrong, but the British did and never returned them although France did. There are limitations to changing laws and culture, such as resistance from the UK government to agree to legal changes as well as implementing new school curriculums. For instance, the UK, as mentioned by Milligan, has objected to 1954 Hague Convention due to worries about harm done during war with nuclear weapons (Milligan, 2008, pg. 5). But it is due to these concerns that stronger laws protecting cultural artifacts are needed.
Conclusion
Admitting the moral and legal right that India has on the Kohinoor diamond and returning the Kohinoor diamond will be an act of friendship. The history of diamond being taken from a 12-year-old and cut down will no longer be represented by colonial powers and their perspective, instead by India. Indians who have felt a present-day colonial mindset from Britian will then see a new beginning. There does need to research done on why Britian feels a strong need to keep the diamond, especially if it is a new cultural tie or commercial interests. The Kohinoor’s return to India should conclude the diamonds long journey through the hands of powerful individuals to its home and community.
Works Cited
“David Cameron Defends Lack of Apology for British Massacre at Amritsar.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 Feb. 2013, www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/20/david-cameron-amritsar-massacre-india?scrlybrkr=74e4ddcc.
Chen, Jackie. “MONARCHY AND MUSEUM ETHICS: THE DARKER SIDE OF WHAT’S ON DISPLAY.” Harvard International Review, vol. 43, no. 4, 2022, pp. 32–37. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27278238.
Dibb, Olivia. “Diamonds (and War Crimes) are Forever: Creating a Time-Immune Framework for the Repatriation of Stolen Cultural Heritage Objects Applying Pillage Principles”, 38 Emory International Law Review Recent Developments 48 (2024), https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=eilr-recent-developments.
Ghoshray, Saby. “Repatriation of the Kohinoor Diamond: Expanding the Legal Paradigm for Cultural Heritage.” Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 31, no. 3, 2007. Research Gate, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dr-Saby-Ghoshray/publication/241805763_Repatriation_of_the_Kohinoor_Diamond_Expanding_the_Legal_Paradigm_for_Cultural_Heritage/links/57cfa5ec08ae83b374623d7c/Repatriation-of-the-Kohinoor-Diamond-Expanding-the-Legal-Paradigm-for-Cultural-Heritage.pdf.
Joson, Neha Kathrin. “A Legal Burial to the Futile Case Of …” IJCRT, International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 2020, ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2002248.pdf.
Kinsey, Danielle C. “Koh-i-noor: Empire, diamonds, and the performance of British Material Culture.” Journal of British Studies, vol. 48, no. 2, Apr. 2009, pp. 391–419, https://doi.org/10.1086/596104.
McDermid, Catriona, and Stuart Foster. “Comparative portrayals of the British Empire in history textbooks, 1920s-2020s: Influences, Paradigms and historical frameworks.” History Education Research Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, 5 Dec. 2024, https://doi.org/10.14324/HERJ.21.1.14.
Miller, Manjari Chatterjee. “Exploring Historical Memory and Indian Foreign Policy.” New Directions in India’s Foreign Policy: Theory and Praxis. Ed. Harsh V. Pant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. 67–84. Print.
Milligan, Ashlyn. “Targeting cultural property: The role of international law.” Journal of Public and International Affairs (2008), https://oar.princeton.edu/bitstream/88435/pr1jh3d300/1/2008-5.pdf.
Owen, Jonathan. “‘colonial Mindset’ Is Harming British Trade with India, a New Study Says.” The Independent, The Independent, 27 Oct. 2015, www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/ukindia-relations-colonial-mindset-harming-british-trade-with-india-a6709881.html.
Palmer, G. L. Looted artifacts and museums’ perpetuation of imperialism and racism: Implications for the importance of preserving cultural heritage. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–9, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.1265.
Paredez, Deborah. Selenidad: Selena, Latinos and the Performance of Memory. Duke University Press, August 2009. Reprinted in Ap Seminar Performance Task 2: Individual Research-Based Essay and Presentation-Directions and Stimulus Materials, The College Board, (2025), file:///C:/Users/604499/OneDrive%20-%20Puyallup%20School%20District/10th%20grade%202024-2025/AP%20Seminar/AP_Seminar_PerformanceTask%202_2025.pdf.
Pasricha, P (Preeti). “Identifying Colonial Harms and Reparations: A Study of Britain and India”. Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, vol. 1, no. 1, 2019, p. 24-28, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Preeti-Pasricha/publication/384108739_Identifying_Colonial_Harms_and_Reparations_A_Study_of_Britain_and_India/links/66eafb626b101f6fa4eba6ad/Identifying-Colonial-Harms-and-Reparations-A-Study-of-Britain-and-India.pdf.
Powell, Collin. “Of Memory an Our Democracy.” U.S. Department of State, May 2, 2024. Reprinted in Ap Seminar Performance Task 2: Individual Research-Based Essay and Presentation-Directions and Stimulus Materials, The College Board, (2025), file:///C:/Users/604499/OneDrive%20-%20Puyallup%20School%20District/10th%20grade%202024-2025/AP%20Seminar/AP_Seminar_PerformanceTask%202_2025.pdf.
Ranjan, Amit, Manika Dhiman Chembolu, and Suhaas Ramani. “Kohinoor and its travelogy: the dialectic of ownership and reparations of an artefact.” Coldnoon: International Journal of Travel Writing & (2018): 49-72.
shabir, sana. “The Real History of the Koh-I-Noor Diamond and British Government’s Refusal”. International Journal of Emerging Issues in Social Science, Arts and Humanities (IJEISSAH), vol. 2, no. 2, Apr. 2024, pp. 1-10, doi:10.60072/ijeissah.2024.v2i02.001.
Vrdoljak, Ana Filipa. “Preface.” INTERNATIONAL LAW, MUSEUMS AND THE RETURN OF CULTURAL OBJECTS, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 1–37.
Zhang, Yue. “The right to restitution of cultural property removed as spoils of war during the nineteenth-Century international warfare.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, vol. 42, no. 4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3781004.