Pakistani lawyer asks Elizabeth II to return Koh-i-Noor diamond

[Baerboxer]

There'll be a lot of Takeaways undergoing name change if so.

A considerable number of Indian restaurants and takeaways in the UK are run by Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

Bit like all those Irish Pubs that aren't run by Irish people.

All in the "brand".

[seedy]

Another Racist post Removed

[stevenl]

There'll be a lot of Takeaways undergoing name change if so.

A considerable number of Indian restaurants and takeaways in the UK are run by Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

Bit like all those Irish Pubs that aren't run by Irish people.

All in the "brand".

How about an Irish pub called Orange?

[Ace of Pop]

There'll be a lot of Takeaways undergoing name change if so.

A considerable number of Indian restaurants and takeaways in the UK are run by Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

Bit like all those Irish Pubs that aren't run by Irish people.

All in the "brand".

How about an Irish pub called Orange?

Run by William no doubt. Are we responsible for our Forefathers Actions.?. Yes if your bone idle, and bleat about fairness that no ones ever had, or ever will.

[tifino]

Pakistan's simply running out of resources to help fund ISIS.

It would become a blood diamond if ever it were to fall into their hands (( and I didn't say " (back) into their hands"))

[stevenl]

There'll be a lot of Takeaways undergoing name change if so.

A considerable number of Indian restaurants and takeaways in the UK are run by Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

Bit like all those Irish Pubs that aren't run by Irish people.

All in the "brand".

How about an Irish pub called Orange?

Run by William no doubt. Are we responsible for our Forefathers Actions.?. Yes if your bone idle, and bleat about fairness that no ones ever had, or ever will.

https://www.facebook.com/Orange-Irish-Pub-Restaurant-Rawai-Phuket-510086669111804/

[arjunadawn]

This is actually so... typical!

Why on earth should Pakistan have a claim? In fact, they do not. Even were it argued they were once part of India they are not now. This diamond traces no history to muslims at all except its theft. Even where amends attempted to be made by a maharajah in the 1800s and return it to its Hindu temple the British then came and once again thwarted its return to its rightful owners. Indeed, the very charges leveled against Britain are in fact equally applicable to the muslims who conquered India and subsequently stole it. The only connection to Pakistan is that it was stolen in Lahore,India as it was about to be returned to its owners. But this was not its birth, its life, nor the place it was "willed" to by the Maharaja. This was just the last place its islamic theft took it. Hardly a claim for jurisdiction. You want jurisdiction, return to the temple in SE India where it was stolen and file for the jewel.

Pakistan was formed by the muslims who conquered India and stole its wealth finally realizing a state of their own from their rape and conquest of Indians. Are they asserting a claim because they are ethnically Indian? I dare say not. They are arguing a claim because the diamond they stole was in essence stolen from them during their flight.

This is as sick as a burglar having your TV stolen from him two streets away from the theft of your home. The burglar also shows up in court with a claim to your TV arguing the TV was actually... physically stolen from him closer to his current home, therefore the TV should be returned to him. It is the same thing.

[stevenl]

This is actually so... typical!

Why on earth should Pakistan have a claim? In fact, they do not. Even were it argued they were once part of India they are not now. This diamond traces no history to muslims at all except its theft. Even where amends attempted to be made by a maharajah in the 1800s and return it to its Hindu temple the British then came and once again thwarted its return to its rightful owners. Indeed, the very charges leveled against Britain are in fact equally applicable to the muslims who conquered India and subsequently stole it. The only connection to Pakistan is that it was stolen in Lahore,India as it was about to be returned to its owners. But this was not its birth, its life, nor the place it was "willed" to by the Maharaja. This was just the last place its islamic theft took it. Hardly a claim for jurisdiction. You want jurisdiction, return to the temple in SE India where it was stolen and file for the jewel.

Pakistan was formed by the muslims who conquered India and stole its wealth finally realizing a state of their own from their rape and conquest of Indians. Are they asserting a claim because they are ethnically Indian? I dare say not. They are arguing a claim because the diamond they stole was in essence stolen from them during their flight.

This is as sick as a burglar having your TV stolen from him two streets away from the theft of your home. The burglar also shows up in court with a claim to your TV arguing the TV was actually... physically stolen from him closer to his current home, therefore the TV should be returned to him. It is the same thing.

Why bring up religion here? This is about countries.

[simple1]

Pakistan's simply running out of resources to help fund ISIS.

It would become a blood diamond if ever it were to fall into their hands (( and I didn't say " (back) into their hands"))

No doubt there are Pakistanis funding terrorism, but don't think the families of thousands of Pakistanis killed fighting Islamic fundamentalists would be too amused by your comment. Nor the families of the 132 children of military officers murdered last year in a single attack on a school by Islamic extremists.

BTW did you know that in the past 12 years an estimated 32k+ extremists have been killed by Pakistani security forces.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/casualties.htm

[arjunadawn]

This is actually so... typical!

Why on earth should Pakistan have a claim? In fact, they do not. Even were it argued they were once part of India they are not now. This diamond traces no history to muslims at all except its theft. Even where amends attempted to be made by a maharajah in the 1800s and return it to its Hindu temple the British then came and once again thwarted its return to its rightful owners. Indeed, the very charges leveled against Britain are in fact equally applicable to the muslims who conquered India and subsequently stole it. The only connection to Pakistan is that it was stolen in Lahore,India as it was about to be returned to its owners. But this was not its birth, its life, nor the place it was "willed" to by the Maharaja. This was just the last place its islamic theft took it. Hardly a claim for jurisdiction. You want jurisdiction, return to the temple in SE India where it was stolen and file for the jewel.

Pakistan was formed by the muslims who conquered India and stole its wealth finally realizing a state of their own from their rape and conquest of Indians. Are they asserting a claim because they are ethnically Indian? I dare say not. They are arguing a claim because the diamond they stole was in essence stolen from them during their flight.

This is as sick as a burglar having your TV stolen from him two streets away from the theft of your home. The burglar also shows up in court with a claim to your TV arguing the TV was actually... physically stolen from him closer to his current home, therefore the TV should be returned to him. It is the same thing.

Why bring up religion here? This is about countries.

I did not. "The Islamic State of Pakistan" defines itself as muslim even before announcing itself as "Pakistan." It is an "Islamic State," it is only secondarily the Nation State of Pakistan- its own Constitution would not permit otherwise, why should you? It was not stolen by Pakistan, it was stolen by Persians, who were Islamic. It made its way back to India and was in essence only passing through Lahore before it was waylaid once again by the British this time. You offer a claim on behalf of a secular Pakistan and you will never return home from court. Pakistan is an Islamic State. All conduct passes through this lens. It is a tenet of islam that what was ever once property of islam is always= waqf.

PM J Callaghan- "I need not remind you of the various hands through which the stone has passed over the past two centuries, nor that explicit provision for its transfer to the British Crown was made in the peace treaty with the Maharajah of Lahore which concluded the war of 1849." ------ is a bold faced lie. The British coerced this stone from India.

He both tells the truth and lies above. The journey of this diamond is a story of religious predation. It was stolen from Hindus in what is now India by muslims; but in the 1840s this stone was finally willed to return to its rightful place at the Hindu temple it had been associated with from the 1300s or so. The death Maharajah Will was conveniently never enacted... just... long... enough... for the replacement young maharajah to be forced to concede the stone to a rep of the East India of the Crown. It was again stolen by the British- from Hindu India! It comes from a temple! It was enshrined in a temple. How one excised religion from the issue is inexplicable. This was the theft of a religious icon. It is pregnant with religion. This is islamic waqf. Any muslim reading or following this knows what this is, apparently you do not so you assume its incorrect. You are mistaken.

Under sharia this item must be deemed the property of Pakistan. Once an item is ever claimed for islam it is forever considered islamic property. You can divorce this but it is intellectually deceitful. This argument will be admitted as part of the filings in Lahore or Islamabad, it must be.

An equal but different example of a power inflicting their good on other countries is found in a British historian's response to this self evident theft: “Those involved in this ludicrous case should recognise that the British Crown Jewels is precisely the right place for the Koh-i-Noor diamond to reside, in grateful recognition for over three centuries of British involvement in India, which led to the modernisation, development, protection, agrarian advance, linguistic unification and ultimately the democratisation of the sub-continent.” This, a comment upon, the oldest and most sophisticated country on planet earth before an intervening decline. The Anglos were living in tree husks while the Dravidian were erecting temples, mentally splitting atoms, offering the Gitas, and laying out cities.

How terribly... British. This is the same colonial ethnocentrism that has populated the world with graves. This is the position that makes the Pakistani lawyer's claim viscerally apparent, though he/Pakistan should not be the beneficiaries, the founding temple should. He is not incorrect in the theft, only that Pakistan should benefit.

Edited December 5, 2015 by arjunadawn

[stevenl]

This is actually so... typical!

Why on earth should Pakistan have a claim? In fact, they do not. Even were it argued they were once part of India they are not now. This diamond traces no history to muslims at all except its theft. Even where amends attempted to be made by a maharajah in the 1800s and return it to its Hindu temple the British then came and once again thwarted its return to its rightful owners. Indeed, the very charges leveled against Britain are in fact equally applicable to the muslims who conquered India and subsequently stole it. The only connection to Pakistan is that it was stolen in Lahore,India as it was about to be returned to its owners. But this was not its birth, its life, nor the place it was "willed" to by the Maharaja. This was just the last place its islamic theft took it. Hardly a claim for jurisdiction. You want jurisdiction, return to the temple in SE India where it was stolen and file for the jewel.

Pakistan was formed by the muslims who conquered India and stole its wealth finally realizing a state of their own from their rape and conquest of Indians. Are they asserting a claim because they are ethnically Indian? I dare say not. They are arguing a claim because the diamond they stole was in essence stolen from them during their flight.

This is as sick as a burglar having your TV stolen from him two streets away from the theft of your home. The burglar also shows up in court with a claim to your TV arguing the TV was actually... physically stolen from him closer to his current home, therefore the TV should be returned to him. It is the same thing.

Why bring up religion here? This is about countries.

I did not. "The Islamic State of Pakistan" defines itself as muslim even before announcing itself as "Pakistan." It is an "Islamic State," it is only secondarily the Nation State of Pakistan- its own Constitution would not permit otherwise, why should you? It was not stolen by Pakistan, it was stolen by Persians, who were Islamic. It made its way back to India and was in essence only passing through Lahore before it was waylaid once again by the British this time. You offer a claim on behalf of a secular Pakistan and you will never return home from court. Pakistan is an Islamic State. All conduct passes through this lens. It is a tenet of islam that what was ever once property of islam is always= waqf.

PM J Callaghan- "I need not remind you of the various hands through which the stone has passed over the past two centuries, nor that explicit provision for its transfer to the British Crown was made in the peace treaty with the Maharajah of Lahore which concluded the war of 1849." ------ is a bold faced lie. The British coerced this stone from India.

He both tells the truth and lies above. The journey of this diamond is a story of religious predation. It was stolen from Hindus in what is now India by muslims; but in the 1840s this stone was finally willed to return to its rightful place at the Hindu temple it had been associated with from the 1300s or so. The death Maharajah Will was conveniently never enacted... just... long... enough... for the replacement young maharajah to be forced to concede the stone to a rep of the East India of the Crown. It was again stolen by the British- from Hindu India! It comes from a temple! It was enshrined in a temple. How one excised religion from the issue is inexplicable. This was the theft of a religious icon. It is pregnant with religion. This is islamic waqf. Any muslim reading or following this knows what this is, apparently you do not so you assume its incorrect. You are mistaken.

Under sharia this item must be deemed the property of Pakistan. Once an item is ever claimed for islam it is forever considered islamic property. You can divorce this but it is intellectually deceitful. This argument will be admitted as part of the filings in Lahore or Islamabad, it must be.

An equal but different example of a power inflicting their good on other countries is found in a British historian's response to this self evident theft: “Those involved in this ludicrous case should recognise that the British Crown Jewels is precisely the right place for the Koh-i-Noor diamond to reside, in grateful recognition for over three centuries of British involvement in India, which led to the modernisation, development, protection, agrarian advance, linguistic unification and ultimately the democratisation of the sub-continent.” This, a comment upon, the oldest and most sophisticated country on planet earth before an intervening decline. The Anglos were living in tree husks while the Dravidian were erecting temples, mentally splitting atoms, offering the Gitas, and laying out cities.

How terribly... British. This is the same colonial ethnocentrism that has populated the world with graves. This is the position that makes the Pakistani lawyer's claim viscerally apparent, though he/Pakistan should not be the beneficiaries, the founding temple should. He is not incorrect in the theft, only that Pakistan should benefit.

I agree the Pakistani have no rights here, but disagree with your statement you did not try to make this about religion.

[MAJIC]

"We raise Our middle finger in your general direction, sir!"

Pretty much sums up what Britain and other European countries did all along during their glorious colonial period in Africa and Asia.

I'm sure during colonial times the Indians would have gladly given up the diamond if they could have been rid of all the Brits.

Is that why so many Indians and Pakistanis choose to live with us in England? 220,000 in london alone! and many thousands are Naturalised citizens.

[JHolmesJr]

Should get Phillip to reply to the lawyer…he'll tear him to shreds with his racist tongue.

[arjunadawn]

I did not. "The Islamic State of Pakistan" defines itself as muslim even before announcing itself as "Pakistan." It is an "Islamic State," it is only secondarily the Nation State of Pakistan- its own Constitution would not permit otherwise, why should you? It was not stolen by Pakistan, it was stolen by Persians, who were Islamic. It made its way back to India and was in essence only passing through Lahore before it was waylaid once again by the British this time. You offer a claim on behalf of a secular Pakistan and you will never return home from court. Pakistan is an Islamic State. All conduct passes through this lens. It is a tenet of islam that what was ever once property of islam is always= waqf.

PM J Callaghan- "I need not remind you of the various hands through which the stone has passed over the past two centuries, nor that explicit provision for its transfer to the British Crown was made in the peace treaty with the Maharajah of Lahore which concluded the war of 1849." ------ is a bold faced lie. The British coerced this stone from India.

He both tells the truth and lies above. The journey of this diamond is a story of religious predation. It was stolen from Hindus in what is now India by muslims; but in the 1840s this stone was finally willed to return to its rightful place at the Hindu temple it had been associated with from the 1300s or so. The death Maharajah Will was conveniently never enacted... just... long... enough... for the replacement young maharajah to be forced to concede the stone to a rep of the East India of the Crown. It was again stolen by the British- from Hindu India! It comes from a temple! It was enshrined in a temple. How one excised religion from the issue is inexplicable. This was the theft of a religious icon. It is pregnant with religion. This is islamic waqf. Any muslim reading or following this knows what this is, apparently you do not so you assume its incorrect. You are mistaken.

Under sharia this item must be deemed the property of Pakistan. Once an item is ever claimed for islam it is forever considered islamic property. You can divorce this but it is intellectually deceitful. This argument will be admitted as part of the filings in Lahore or Islamabad, it must be.

An equal but different example of a power inflicting their good on other countries is found in a British historian's response to this self evident theft: “Those involved in this ludicrous case should recognise that the British Crown Jewels is precisely the right place for the Koh-i-Noor diamond to reside, in grateful recognition for over three centuries of British involvement in India, which led to the modernisation, development, protection, agrarian advance, linguistic unification and ultimately the democratisation of the sub-continent.” This, a comment upon, the oldest and most sophisticated country on planet earth before an intervening decline. The Anglos were living in tree husks while the Dravidian were erecting temples, mentally splitting atoms, offering the Gitas, and laying out cities.

How terribly... British. This is the same colonial ethnocentrism that has populated the world with graves. This is the position that makes the Pakistani lawyer's claim viscerally apparent, though he/Pakistan should not be the beneficiaries, the founding temple should. He is not incorrect in the theft, only that Pakistan should benefit.

I agree the Pakistani have no rights here, but disagree with your statement you did not try to make this about religion.

Fair enough, and I see your point now. I assert what I say is correct, above, but I now more clearly see there exists a weak, totally unrelated claim based simply on possession over the years. It is true I approach such things with a given perspective. I do now see what you imply- this case exists independently of such connections as well. It took me some time, but you are correct.

[SgtRock]

stevenl, on 05 Dec 2015 - 16:15, said:

Baerboxer, on 05 Dec 2015 - 15:59, said:

Rykbanlor, on 05 Dec 2015 - 12:40, said:

There'll be a lot of Takeaways undergoing name change if so.

A considerable number of Indian restaurants and takeaways in the UK are run by Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

Bit like all those Irish Pubs that aren't run by Irish people.

All in the "brand".

How about an Irish pub called Orange?

Why would the Dutch have an Irish pub ?

[SgtRock]

simple1, on 05 Dec 2015 - 20:30, said:

tifino, on 05 Dec 2015 - 16:52, said:

Pakistan's simply running out of resources to help fund ISIS.

It would become a blood diamond if ever it were to fall into their hands (( and I didn't say " (back) into their hands"))

No doubt there are Pakistanis funding terrorism, but don't think the families of thousands of Pakistanis killed fighting Islamic fundamentalists would be too amused by your comment. Nor the families of the 132 children of military officers murdered last year in a single attack on a school by Islamic extremists.

BTW did you know that in the past 12 years an estimated 32k+ extremists have been killed by Pakistani security forces.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/casualties.htm

When you talk about Pakistan. That number is on the low side.

[arjunadawn]

simple1, on 05 Dec 2015 - 20:30, said:

tifino, on 05 Dec 2015 - 16:52, said:

Pakistan's simply running out of resources to help fund ISIS.

It would become a blood diamond if ever it were to fall into their hands (( and I didn't say " (back) into their hands"))

No doubt there are Pakistanis funding terrorism, but don't think the families of thousands of Pakistanis killed fighting Islamic fundamentalists would be too amused by your comment. Nor the families of the 132 children of military officers murdered last year in a single attack on a school by Islamic extremists.

BTW did you know that in the past 12 years an estimated 32k+ extremists have been killed by Pakistani security forces.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/casualties.htm

When you talk about Pakistan. That number is on the low side.

Wow, I got taken to task for sliding into a religious narrative. I get it; its hard to avoid. But this has nothing to do with terrorism or funding it. This gem is worth far more as a national treasure, a validation of an otherwise failed state. It is even more valuable as a counter weight to their arch nemesis, India- the rightful heirs. This would never find its way into the market to fund terrorism. Besides, the US does this already by its ample foreign aid to Pakistan. I could not think of the phrase before but now recall- "Original provenance." In this case its apparent that stealing a stolen item from someone who stole it from another does not make any single one of them rightful claimants. This item belongs where it was stolen from.

[Dumbastheycome]

This is actually so... typical!

Why on earth should Pakistan have a claim? In fact, they do not. Even were it argued they were once part of India they are not now. This diamond traces no history to muslims at all except its theft. Even where amends attempted to be made by a maharajah in the 1800s and return it to its Hindu temple the British then came and once again thwarted its return to its rightful owners. Indeed, the very charges leveled against Britain are in fact equally applicable to the muslims who conquered India and subsequently stole it. The only connection to Pakistan is that it was stolen in Lahore,India as it was about to be returned to its owners. But this was not its birth, its life, nor the place it was "willed" to by the Maharaja. This was just the last place its islamic theft took it. Hardly a claim for jurisdiction. You want jurisdiction, return to the temple in SE India where it was stolen and file for the jewel.

Pakistan was formed by the muslims who conquered India and stole its wealth finally realizing a state of their own from their rape and conquest of Indians. Are they asserting a claim because they are ethnically Indian? I dare say not. They are arguing a claim because the diamond they stole was in essence stolen from them during their flight.

This is as sick as a burglar having your TV stolen from him two streets away from the theft of your home. The burglar also shows up in court with a claim to your TV arguing the TV was actually... physically stolen from him closer to his current home, therefore the TV should be returned to him. It is the same thing.

Why bring up religion here? This is about countries.

I did not. "The Islamic State of Pakistan" defines itself as muslim even before announcing itself as "Pakistan." It is an "Islamic State," it is only secondarily the Nation State of Pakistan- its own Constitution would not permit otherwise, why should you? It was not stolen by Pakistan, it was stolen by Persians, who were Islamic. It made its way back to India and was in essence only passing through Lahore before it was waylaid once again by the British this time. You offer a claim on behalf of a secular Pakistan and you will never return home from court. Pakistan is an Islamic State. All conduct passes through this lens. It is a tenet of islam that what was ever once property of islam is always= waqf.

PM J Callaghan- "I need not remind you of the various hands through which the stone has passed over the past two centuries, nor that explicit provision for its transfer to the British Crown was made in the peace treaty with the Maharajah of Lahore which concluded the war of 1849." ------ is a bold faced lie. The British coerced this stone from India.

He both tells the truth and lies above. The journey of this diamond is a story of religious predation. It was stolen from Hindus in what is now India by muslims; but in the 1840s this stone was finally willed to return to its rightful place at the Hindu temple it had been associated with from the 1300s or so. The death Maharajah Will was conveniently never enacted... just... long... enough... for the replacement young maharajah to be forced to concede the stone to a rep of the East India of the Crown. It was again stolen by the British- from Hindu India! It comes from a temple! It was enshrined in a temple. How one excised religion from the issue is inexplicable. This was the theft of a religious icon. It is pregnant with religion. This is islamic waqf. Any muslim reading or following this knows what this is, apparently you do not so you assume its incorrect. You are mistaken.

Under sharia this item must be deemed the property of Pakistan. Once an item is ever claimed for islam it is forever considered islamic property. You can divorce this but it is intellectually deceitful. This argument will be admitted as part of the filings in Lahore or Islamabad, it must be.

An equal but different example of a power inflicting their good on other countries is found in a British historian's response to this self evident theft: “Those involved in this ludicrous case should recognise that the British Crown Jewels is precisely the right place for the Koh-i-Noor diamond to reside, in grateful recognition for over three centuries of British involvement in India, which led to the modernisation, development, protection, agrarian advance, linguistic unification and ultimately the democratisation of the sub-continent.” This, a comment upon, the oldest and most sophisticated country on planet earth before an intervening decline. The Anglos were living in tree husks while the Dravidian were erecting temples, mentally splitting atoms, offering the Gitas, and laying out cities.

How terribly... British. This is the same colonial ethnocentrism that has populated the world with graves. This is the position that makes the Pakistani lawyer's claim viscerally apparent, though he/Pakistan should not be the beneficiaries, the founding temple should. He is not incorrect in the theft, only that Pakistan should benefit.

Huh??? An item claimed ( legitimate or not ) is forever consisdered......??? On that basis I am tempted to declare myself God and claim existence! ( But I will let reality prevail . )

[arjunadawn]

A really interesting argument for the repatriation of the diamond is located here: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2098&context=ilj

Really interesting history and argument.

[TEFLKrabi]

"We raise Our middle finger in your general direction, sir!"

Pretty much sums up what Britain and other European countries did all along during their glorious colonial period in Africa and Asia.

I'm sure during colonial times the Indians would have gladly given up the diamond if they could have been rid of all the Brits.

I think you'll find many Indians are hugely indebted to the British. It could have been the French running the show. Imagine the chaos then and now!

[Thongkorn]

"We raise Our middle finger in your general direction, sir!"

Pretty much sums up what Britain and other European countries did all along during their glorious colonial period in Africa and Asia.

I'm sure during colonial times the Indians would have gladly given up the diamond if they could have been rid of all the Brits.

I think you'll find many Indians are hugely indebted to the British. It could have been the French running the show. Imagine the chaos then and now!

a little of topic but Thailand is indebted to Britain , and Germany, the Thais maybe would have been speaking french too. if not for Britain intervening,

[Usernames]

"We raise Our middle finger in your general direction, sir!"

Pretty much sums up what Britain and other European countries did all along during their glorious colonial period in Africa and Asia.

I'm sure during colonial times the Indians would have gladly given up the diamond if they could have been rid of all the Brits.

Is that why so many Indians and Pakistanis choose to live with us in England? 220,000 in london alone! and many thousands are Naturalised citizens.

They don't live with you. You live with them.

[stevenl]

stevenl, on 05 Dec 2015 - 16:15, said:

Baerboxer, on 05 Dec 2015 - 15:59, said:

Rykbanlor, on 05 Dec 2015 - 12:40, said:

There'll be a lot of Takeaways undergoing name change if so.

A considerable number of Indian restaurants and takeaways in the UK are run by Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

Bit like all those Irish Pubs that aren't run by Irish people.

All in the "brand".

How about an Irish pub called Orange?

Why would the Dutch have an Irish pub ?

Do try to keep up old chap. And better read up on your history as well if you're in this context (directly) connecting orange to Dutch.

And please learn how to quote properly. Just press the quote button, no need to change the quotes.

Edited December 6, 2015 by stevenl

[Ace of Pop]

One point no ones mentioned.The first wave of immigrants in most places came to work and did so..Now their offsprings have got the World owe them a living attitude,just like Western Kids.Also Malayans don't whinge he about the Brits like most,but their not lazy by nature ,just a thought.

[daiwill60]

So is it Pakistan or India? The Brits should just let the two argue their merits. They'll never agree.

It was expropriated in Lahore which, at the time, would have been part of India, but is now in Pakistan.

In 1849, after the conquest of the Punjab by the British forces, the properties of the Sikh Empire were confiscated.

The Koh-i-noor was transferred to the treasury of the British East India Company in Lahore.

http://kohinoordiamond.org/history-of-kohinoor-diamond/

Yeah , love the way it is always stated that the diamond was "presented". Right sure , under some force no doubt!