ChatterBank0 min ago
Should Britain Give Back The Koh-I-Noor Diamond To India?
65 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.[Spoken like a true patriot.
But of which country, I know not]
[The usual anti-British reasoning, one has come to expect from this ABer. ]
Just who do you think you are to pass judgement like this?!
You ask people's opinions and then round on them when it goes against your beliefs.
That is incredibly arrogant IMO... then again, you often do this.
But of which country, I know not]
[The usual anti-British reasoning, one has come to expect from this ABer. ]
Just who do you think you are to pass judgement like this?!
You ask people's opinions and then round on them when it goes against your beliefs.
That is incredibly arrogant IMO... then again, you often do this.
Viv41,
In Lord Dalhousie's (Governor General of India 1850) own words
// My motive was simply this: That it was more for the honour of the Queen that the Koh-i-Noor should be surrendered directly from the hand of the conquered prince (9 years old) into the hands of the sovereign who was his conqueror, than it should be presented to her as a gift. //
The diamond was confiscated by the British East India Company as compensation for the cost of the Sikh War. Part of the Treaty of Surrender (Lahore) stated the diamond was transferred to the British East India Company's Treasury as a reparation. They gifted it to Queen Victoria, not the Indians. But they made the defeated Prince, 9 years old, travel to London to hand it over.
In Lord Dalhousie's (Governor General of India 1850) own words
// My motive was simply this: That it was more for the honour of the Queen that the Koh-i-Noor should be surrendered directly from the hand of the conquered prince (9 years old) into the hands of the sovereign who was his conqueror, than it should be presented to her as a gift. //
The diamond was confiscated by the British East India Company as compensation for the cost of the Sikh War. Part of the Treaty of Surrender (Lahore) stated the diamond was transferred to the British East India Company's Treasury as a reparation. They gifted it to Queen Victoria, not the Indians. But they made the defeated Prince, 9 years old, travel to London to hand it over.
I served in The Falklands War, defending the Rights of British Citizens to remain British and living on British Oversea Territory, I lost a couple of Good Mates there. The idea of handing The Islands back can only come from someone with an extremely anti British outlook given the fact that a total of 255 British servicemen and 3 female Falkland Island civilians were killed during the Conflict.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.