Archive · 7 Sep 2026
Gurugram Salon Debates Whether Koh-i-Noor Should Return
A group in Gurugram held a discussion about the famous Koh-i-Noor diamond.
They talked about where it came from and who should have it now.
Some people believe India should ask for the diamond to be returned.
A lawyer said that request would need strong evidence and a legal case.
A historian said the diamond has a tragic history and does not need to come back to remain important to Indians.
The group also discussed the Daria-i-Noor, a similar diamond kept in Iran.
One speaker argued that the British and others held the Koh-i-Noor as trustees rather than true owners.
Another speaker said returning cultural objects is now more of an institutional issue than a legal one.
About 50 art and business figures attended a Gurugram panel on the Koh-i-Noor’s history, ownership and possible repatriation.
Lawyer Ricky Chopra said any claimant must prove ownership in court, while noting no binding law compels the diamond’s return.
Historian Rana Safvi said the Koh-i-Noor carries tragedy and argued it does not need to return to remain meaningful to Indians.
The discussion highlighted the Daria-i-Noor, a larger pale-pink diamond held by Iran’s Central Bank, as a less famous but possibly prettier twin.
Culture official Lily Pandeya said returned objects rose from 13 in India’s first 65 years after Independence to 672 and counting in the past decade.
- Who
- Historians, lawyers, cultural officials, arts professionals and about 50 art and business guests, including Rana Safvi, Sanjoy K Roy, Lily Pandeya and Nick Booker.
- What
- A panel discussed the Koh-i-Noor’s history, ownership, legal status, cultural meaning and possible repatriation.
- When
- Saturday evening; the article does not provide a specific date.
- Where
- An invite-only fireside salon in Gurugram, in the Gurgaon-Delhi cultural circuit.
- Why
- To examine competing claims and stories about the diamond and consider whether it should be returned or remain where it is.
Arguments for Return
Arguments Against Immediate Return
Ownership and colonial transfer
Arguments for Return
Nick Booker argued that Maharaja Ranjit Singh had willed the diamond to the Jagannath Temple in Puri and that later holders possessed it as trustees rather than owners.
Arguments Against Immediate Return
Ricky Chopra said a country seeking restitution must establish its claim and provide evidence in court; the diamond cannot simply be brought back by an Indian court order.
Cultural meaning
Arguments for Return
Supporters of repatriation can point to the diamond’s contested history and the broader increase in institutional returns of cultural objects to India.
Arguments Against Immediate Return
Rana Safvi said the Koh-i-Noor already matters through the stories Indians tell about it and does not need to return; Sanjoy K Roy also questioned whether museums are the only way to make such objects accessible.
Law versus institutions
Arguments for Return
Pandeya said repatriation reflects institutional will and that the law has not caught up, suggesting returns can advance through institutional action.
Arguments Against Immediate Return
The legal perspective presented at the event emphasized that, without a binding law, restitution claims remain dependent on evidence and legal mechanisms.
- Event title
- “Koh-i-Noor: Legacies, Legends, Legalities”
- Location
- Gurugram
- Attendance
- About 50 guests from the art and business worlds
- Current location discussed
- The Koh-i-Noor is described as being in the Tower of London.
- Related diamond
- The Daria-i-Noor is held at Iran’s Central Bank in Tehran.
- Objects returned to India
- Lily Pandeya said 13 objects were returned in the first 65 years after Independence, compared with 672 and counting in the past decade.
- Legal position
- The discussion said there is no single binding law compelling the Koh-i-Noor’s return.