Recent remarks by Zohran Mamdani, suggesting that King Charles III should return the Koh-i-Noor diamond to India, have reignited longstanding debates over the ownership of cultural artefacts acquired during the colonial period.

The diamond, currently part of the British crown jewels housed in the Tower of London, remains one of the most contested symbols of empire.The Koh-i-Noor, though not the largest diamond in the British collection, carries a significant historical and political legacy.

Historian William Dalrymple described it as a “pocket-sized symbol of colonial loot and plunder,” emphasising its continued capacity to generate political and cultural tensions. He noted that the diamond’s symbolic weight persists across generations, often intersecting with contemporary diplomatic and political discourse.

Historical accounts referenced by Dalrymple and co-author Anita Anand indicate that much of the narrative surrounding the diamond’s prominence was shaped during British colonial rule. Contrary to popular perception, the Koh-i-Noor was neither the largest nor the most significant gem in the treasury of the Mughal Empire.

It was one among many jewels embedded in the Peacock Throne commissioned by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan.The diamond’s trajectory changed in the 18th century when Nader Shah seized the Peacock Throne during his invasion of Delhi.

He later named the diamond “Koh-i-Noor,” meaning “Mountain of Light,” and displayed it publicly. Following his assassination, the diamond moved through various hands, eventually reaching the Indian subcontinent again under Ranjit Singh, who incorporated it into his royal regalia.After Ranjit Singh’s death, the diamond passed to his young heir Duleep Singh.

In 1849, following the annexation of Punjab by the East India Company, the 10-year-old ruler was compelled to sign the Treaty of Lahore. The agreement included provisions transferring the Koh-i-Noor to Queen Victoria, a move critics have long argued occurred under coercive circumstances.

Once in British possession, the diamond was exhibited publicly and later recut to suit European preferences before being incorporated into the crown jewels. Over time, it became associated primarily with British queens, including its use in the crown worn by Queen Elizabeth, later known as the Queen Mother, during the 1937 coronation of King George VI.

Following India’s independence in 1947, the Government of India initiated multiple formal requests for the diamond’s return. These claims framed the Koh-i-Noor as a cultural artefact removed during colonial rule. The British government has consistently rejected such requests, maintaining that the diamond was transferred legally under the terms of the Treaty of Lahore.

In 2010, then Prime Minister David Cameron stated that returning the diamond could set a precedent that would “empty” British museum collections.The Koh-i-Noor has since become emblematic of broader debates on restitution, often compared with other contested artefacts such as the Parthenon marbles and the Benin bronzes.

Public sentiment in India continues to reflect strong interest in its return, with visitors to the Tower of London frequently expressing dissatisfaction at its continued display in the United Kingdom.The issue is further complicated by competing claims from multiple countries. Pakistan formally requested the diamond in the 1970s, citing its historical association with Lahore, now within its borders.

Bangladesh and Afghanistan have also asserted claims, referencing different phases of the diamond’s historical movement. In addition, exiled Taliban figures reportedly expressed interest in the diamond after 2001.Historian Audrey Truschke highlighted the complexity of determining rightful ownership, noting that the overlapping claims reflect the broader challenges of addressing historical injustices linked to colonialism.

She observed that while there is widespread recognition of the harms associated with colonial-era acquisitions, practical solutions remain difficult to implement.Recent developments suggest a degree of sensitivity around the diamond’s status.

In a departure from precedent, the Koh-i-Noor was not included in the regalia used during the coronation of King Charles III. While no formal explanation was provided, the decision was widely interpreted as an acknowledgment of the ongoing controversy.

Dalrymple noted that the diamond could assume renewed significance in future diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and India. He indicated that shifting geopolitical dynamics, including the growing importance of India in global affairs, may influence how such cultural issues are addressed.

The Koh-i-Noor, he suggested, could become a point of negotiation in bilateral discussions.The renewed attention generated by Mamdani’s remarks underscores the enduring relevance of historical artefacts in contemporary political discourse.

The Koh-i-Noor’s journey from Mughal India to the British crown jewels continues to serve as a focal point for debates over heritage, sovereignty, and the legacy of empire.

We should not glorify historical figures blindly. Instead, we must assess them critically, using wisdom and justice.

History is often told in a way that glorifies certain figures while ignoring their flaws. One such figure is Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, who is sometimes passionately defended by sections of the Muslim community.

However, even Muslim scholars and historians have criticized him for his harsh policies, which played a significant role in the decline of the Mughal Empire.

Aurangzeb’s Path to Power: A Brutal Struggle

Aurangzeb’s rise to the throne was marked by bloodshed. He killed his own brother, Dara Shikoh, and imprisoned his father, Shah Jahan, to take power.

This kind of ruthless behavior wasn’t unique to Aurangzeb—many Mughal and Ottoman rulers followed the “Takht Ya Taboot” (Throne or Coffin) philosophy, where they eliminated even their own family members to secure their rule.

However, from an Islamic perspective, this raises serious ethical concerns, as justice and righteousness are central to Islamic teachings.

The Sharifs of Mecca Rejected Aurangzeb’s Rule

After overthrowing Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb sought religious legitimacy from the Sharifs of Mecca, who were descendants of the Prophet Muhammad and custodians of Islam’s holiest sites.

However, they refused to endorse him, citing Islamic principles that prohibit unjustly overthrowing a rightful ruler. This rejection suggests that even in his time, Aurangzeb’s rule was seen as problematic by respected Islamic authorities.

Muslim Scholars Criticized Aurangzeb’s Policies

Many well-known Muslim scholars and historians have pointed out that Aurangzeb’s rigid and intolerant approach weakened the Mughal Empire rather than strengthening Islam.

Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (1703–1762), a prominent Islamic scholar admired Aurangzeb for his piety and commitment to Islamic governance but criticized his excessive military campaigns, neglect of administration, and failure to train his successors. He also pointed out that Aurangzeb’s rigid policies, including alienation of Hindus and Rajputs, weakened the empire. Shah Waliullah believed that while Aurangzeb upheld religious values, his lack of political flexibility and strategic governance contributed to the Mughal Empire’s decline after his death.

Syed Murtaza Husain (Student of Shibli Nomani) In Tarikh-e-Aurangzeb, he argued that Aurangzeb’s oppressive policies did more harm than good. His intolerance created divisions, leading to unrest and weakening the empire.

Ghulam Husain Khan (1727–1792) In Siyar-ul-Mutakhkhirin, Ghulam Husain Khan noted that Aurangzeb’s extreme religious policies alienated both Hindus and many Muslims. He linked this intolerance to instability and rebellion.

Maulana Shibli Nomani (1857–1914) A scholar who generally supported Islamic governance, Shibli Nomani still criticized Aurangzeb’s excessive conservatism. He argued that the emperor’s strict policies backfired, speeding up the empire’s decline.

Sufi Scholars Opposed Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies

Aurangzeb considered himself a devout follower of Sufism, but many respected Sufi scholars opposed his harsh and rigid rule.

Shaykh Muhammad Masum Sirhindi (d. 1668, Naqshbandi Sufi) Initially, he supported Aurangzeb but later criticized his authoritarian approach. He advised Aurangzeb to rule with justice instead of religious extremism, but his warnings were ignored.

Hazrat Shah Kalimullah Jahanabadi (1650–1729, Chishti Sufi) A key figure in the Chishti Sufi tradition, he emphasized love and tolerance over rigid religious laws. He openly disagreed with Aurangzeb’s extreme policies and promoted coexistence instead.

Lessons for Today’s Muslims and Hindus

We should not glorify historical figures blindly. Instead, we must assess them critically, using wisdom and justice.

Aurangzeb’s legacy is not a model of Islamic strength but a reminder of how intolerance and authoritarianism can lead to the downfall of even the most powerful empires.

For Muslims, true strength lies in justice, wisdom, and coexistence—not in defending rulers whose legacy is marked by division and controversy. It is more important to uphold Islamic values of patience, knowledge, and tolerance.

For Hindus, the rich history of Indian civilization should be a source of pride. India has endured and thrived for thousands of years because of its resilience, inclusivity, and wisdom. However, it is crucial not to let history be used to divide society further.

By taking a balanced view of the past, both Muslims and Hindus can work toward unity and mutual respect. Instead of clinging to divisive narratives, we should focus on building a future of understanding and harmony.