“The Kohinoor is a part of our Muslim heritage which rightly belongs to the people of Pakistan.”
With these words in the mid-1970s, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto urged Britain to return the famous Kohinoor diamond. The diamond, originally mined in Telangana, had passed through the hands of rulers including Maharaja Ranjit Singh before being taken by the British in 1849 and placed in the Crown Jewels in London.
For Bhutto, who was still consolidating his rule after the traumatic loss of Bangladesh in 1971, the demand was not just about a gemstone. It was about pride, legitimacy, and identity for Pakistan.
Recently rediscovered Cabinet papers in the UK’s National Archives show how Bhutto’s demand added a new chapter to the long battle over the Kohinoor — a dispute usually seen only between India and Britain.
These documents, filed under reference PREM 16/1037, reveal a series of letters from Bhutto to three different British prime ministers — Harold Wilson, Edward Heath and James Callaghan. The letters, now stored in Kew, south London, show that Bhutto repeatedly argued that the Kohinoor was taken from Lahore, Pakistan’s cultural heart, and that its presence in London was a reminder of Muslim humiliation at the hands of colonial rule.
He framed Pakistan, not India, as the rightful heir. He stressed that giving the diamond back would be an “act of goodwill” reflecting the close ties between Britain and Pakistan. By linking the claim to Muslim history rather than to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Bhutto tried to weaken India’s case and position Pakistan as the true owner.
But Britain saw danger. Officials worried that agreeing to Bhutto’s demand could trigger endless requests from countries once under colonial rule. One internal memo bluntly warned it would “open a Pandora’s box.” Ministers were advised to respond politely to Bhutto, but to quickly move on without making any promises.
The contrast was clear: Pakistan’s emotional appeal versus Britain’s fear of setting a precedent. Publicly, Britain spoke of friendship; privately, it was anxious about restitution demands from not just India and Pakistan, but also Iran, Afghanistan and beyond.
The files also reveal small details of the era. For example, Margaret Thatcher, then Opposition Leader, visited Pakistan and was shown large dam projects — symbols of modernisation that, like the Kohinoor claim, were meant to project Pakistan’s strength and legitimacy to Britain.
Bhutto’s push ended with his downfall. By 1979, he had been executed by General Zia-ul-Haq, and Britain’s focus shifted to Cold War politics after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Kohinoor debate faded away.
Today, the diamond, weighing 105 carats, still rests in the Tower of London as part of the British Crown Jewels. India continues to demand its return, calling it stolen treasure. Britain maintains it was “legally acquired” under the Treaty of Lahore.
The Bhutto papers, however, remind us that Pakistan too once fought for it at the highest level, claiming it as part of Muslim heritage. For Bhutto, it was never a side issue — it was a symbol of Pakistan’s pride and sovereignty, and a way to challenge India’s historical narrative.
This rediscovery comes at a time when the debate around colonial loot is once again active. Britain has already returned treasures to Ghana and Nigeria. Lawmakers are pressing for a broader approach. What Whitehall once feared — a Pandora’s box — has already been opened.
Nearly 50 years later, the Kohinoor remains more than just a jewel. It embodies the legacies of empire, the rivalry between India and Pakistan, and Britain’s ongoing struggle with its colonial past.
Even today, in India, the diamond sparks fierce debate, as seen after Queen Elizabeth II’s death and King Charles III’s coronation. The rediscovered Bhutto files add another layer to this story: Pakistan too once pressed its claim, only to be quietly brushed aside.
The Kohinoor is not just a diamond. It is a mirror reflecting unresolved questions of history, identity, and justice across South Asia and Britain.
