The ghost of the issue, who owns the Kohinoor, has again come to haunt us. There are different schools of thought, one school says that it is astonishing that NDA Govt which takes pride in its brand of nationalism chose to officially abondon its claim to Kohinoor diamond that remained an irritant in Indo-UK Diplomacy for decades, is not acceptable. While another school is of the opinion that it is an undeniably graceless act to Demand its return after so much time has passed and also it is opined that bringing back the diamond will not alter our status as an emerging economy.
 But after listening to many group discussions on TV, and reading news items, I personally feel, it would have been more graceful act on the part of UK to return it to the rightful owner as any property that has been taken away does normally belong to rightful owner.
"It was neither stolen nor forcibly take away" this was what our Solicitor General Mukul Rohatgi, told the Supreme Court, echoing British argument. During his visit India in 2010, the then British Prime Minister Cameron said that the diamond would stay in London. "What tends to happen with these questions is that if you say yes to one, then you would suddenly find British Museum empty" he said. This shows how they would look at issues.
Now that the stand taken by India certainly amusing Pakistan ,which is now saying that KOHINOOR since belonged to Ranjit Singh whose capital was Lahore and his empire was predominantly in the area that is now in Pakistan. They also claim that Ranjit Singh was born in Pakistan's city of Gujranwala and that his last surviving grand daughter died in Pakistan. British Govt also questioned the ownership of Kohinoor as it says that after the birth of Pakistan the ownership vests not only with India, but also with Pakistan and Bangladesh.
   Kohinoor, is a precious diamond and it is natural that country would like to have it back which was take away when it was being exploited under the British rule. It is ridiculous to call it a gift. All such gifts by subordinates to Rulers are made under duress. Is it not surprising that Govt is not even willing to stake a claim to Kohinoor, as unfolded in SC? The solicitor General's submission is that if we claim our treasures like the Kohinoor from other countries every other nation will start claiming their items from us and then nothing will be left in our museums. This gives the impression, that our museums are full of valuables brought away from foreign countries.
There are few questions that agitate my mind --- should it not be known to the people as what made the Govt to take such a step in disowning it's right over the much talked about diamond? In case it was gifted to Britain, why was the history fabricated with the statements that it would be brought back to our soil? Thus the entire issue is somewhat fishy which needs clarification for knowledge of the people of this country. The Pakistan's entry by filing a petition, in the court, is more perturbing while the most surprising thing is that, even the British-Indian MP Keith Vaz had called for the return of Kohinoor diamond to India.

 

"The Turbulent Years : 1980 to 1996"

Few days ago I have completed reading the book "The Turbulent Years : 1980 to 1996" an autobiography written by our President of India Pranab Mukherjee. This book deals with major issues that confronted him during his tenure as senior Cabinet Minister. Mukherjee, touched upon many contemporary socio-political and economic issues including that of RajivGandhi's Shah Bano Judgement and demolition of Babri Masjid and the crisis of Balance of Payments. Rajiv's decision to bring in legislation to nullify the court verdict in Shah Bano case drew criticism and eroded his modern image" Further in his view " opening of Ramjanmabhoomi site on 1/2/86 was perhaps another error of judgement. He had clearly mentioned that people felt that these actions could have been avoided. In this book, the author was clear that if Rajiv Ghandhi had not taken these initiatives there could never had been such a political buildup leading to demolition of the structure. Over the last two decades, the Congress party with the connivance of obliging sections of media, and academics tried to coverup Rajiv's key role in Ayodhya controversy and put the blame entirely on PV. As a Congress veteran, the president has sought to put the record straight. Ofcourse, in the book, he acknowledged that Rao's inability to prevent the demolition was his biggest mistake, but he doesn't blame Rao for not imposing President Rule in UP on the assumption that the State Govt wouldn't live up to its word. Mukhe

rjee, says, " there are many who blame PV for the destruction of the mosque. I was not in the cabinet at that time and therefore not part of the decision making regarding Babri Masjid issue. However Govt of India was confronted with a Hobson's choice. It didn't have many options. The Central Govt couldn't dismiss an elected state Govt simply because it was apprehensive that latter might not fulfil its obligations to maintain the safety of the Babri Masjid. People argue in hindsight that central Govt should have dismissed the state Govt under art 356 .But this is wisdom in hindsight. How could President's rule be approved by Parliament? The Congress didn't have majority in the Rajyasabha ""
Mukherjee also tried to clear the air on PV perpetrated by Congress in the last two decades -- that is to deny the credit for spectacular economic turn around that he achieved during 1991- 1996. Moreover he has full praise for PV in this book on many counts. Infact before reading this book, I was under the impression that both Mukherjee and Narasimha Rao would not see eye to eye, on many issues, but with this all such apprehensions / assumptions are proved wrong beyond doubt.
Mukherjee says, " these reforms put the country on high growth trajectory and helped towards achieving our true economic potential." " He further says thar Rao with great foresight chose Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister and gave Singh full freedom to navigate the financial crisis and introduce far reaching changes that have made India the economic powerhouse it is today.
The other major spectacular achievement of PV was the manner in which he addressed the militancy problem in Punjab. He says Rao completed full five year term because of his " political deftness." All those who believe that PV one of the India's greatest Prime Ministers, has been denied his rightful place in Indian Parlance, must be grateful to the President for making it very clear on many subjects of intricate nature that the nation was confronted with.
It is certainly an interesting book to read. After this now I have stated reading another book title  'India from Curzon to Nehru and After" by Durga Das.