Its like if a diamond was stolen from Iceland by UK and people from france believe they should get it lmao

@@bobvdukeofbobaria8062 I guess because Persian was an important language in the subcontinent? Honestly wish the brits would just smash it or throw it in the see and let them all seethe.

You're right and wrong at the same time. Why not we {Indians(The real Indians)}demand for Kohinoor too alongside this other things you mentioned, at the end it's ours {Indians (The real India's people)}, India is a country with the capital Delhi alongside south India part just like north _ east and west parts so you don't have to think about British should give the diamond back to Delhi or southern part of India. You sound like ' technically I'm (you) a man from middle east originally and now I'm (you) a Pakistani so kohinoor isn't ours (Pakistanis) so we can't take it so then even India shouldn't have the kohinoor'. Britishers took power of India once from Indians - they stole two hundred years from India and Indians (in your opinion which I agreed on) which Indians can't have it back- same as mughals (muslims)_ came from middle east and took power of India from Indians and stole so many years from Indians which India can't have it back too, even mughals (muslims) robbed soil of India from Indians and created new country which divided even further later on in history and still till date trying to robb part of India. Kohinoor have to bring back to home ( the original home).

Because Koh-i-nur is a Farsi word, probably, it might have indian name but no, that's maybe why

@@karaqakkzl it is a persian word but i mean we only had it for about 20 years i donno .

He spread false history lol

@@naisa9705 Baseless accusation or care to back it up with facts and sources? See this as a chance to correct a historic misrepresentation or falsehood.

@@PetrolMuzungu loll.. the way we muslims wrote history is not like you (western ppl). Tbh, the channel called "Kings and General" (it's western channel not islamic channel) is far far better than this shit channel when it comes to islamic history- This channel should rename his channel name cuz it has nothing to do with islam

I don't think he is a historian, It's good to see people promoting subcontinental history on public platforms, but doing that alone does not make one a historian. Of course, if he does have professional education in history and was trained in the field he would be a historian, but I don't know of his qualifications.

@Iam ELIAS that's just the name, though

The Egyptians were subject to many Empires. Yet why is the cope always so big over the Ottomans?

@@bratwurststattsucuk4517 because it is the most recent, and came after a period of independence, development and regional leadership. Most importantly, the Ottomans, unlike all other occupiers, literally isolated Egypt and drained it from all of its talents eventually resulting in a stagnation and prevention of development.

@@abdelra7man87 So what about the British that literally are the most recent Oppressors and Occupiers ?

It is such a shame that a nation such as Egypt was so powerful during the time of the Pharaohs, and since then it has become an embarrassing sand box with dirty cities and a poor society. Some empires remain at least in part, like the Romans, Italy is still a wealthy nation, and Britain, which is still a very rich nation, but Egypt is just embarrassing in 2022, such a shame.

@@jetpigeon8758 agree with you my friend, it's a shame. But it is also cycles. Egypt has not been only poor since the Pharoahs there were areas when it was powerful and rich like the ptolomeics, fatimids, ayubids and memluks. It's just cycles.

Robust comment

I'd expect nothing less from siawish Make of that what you will

That is true. Camilla would not be Queen Mom if she out lives Charles because she wouldn't be the mother of the king, She would be the queen widow. However not all the mothers of a king can be Queen Mothers, for example Lady Margaret Beaufort was Henry'VII mother but she wouldn't be styled as Queen Mother today because King Henry VII's dad was not king.

​@@nuotatorre8741 The title is Dowager Queen, not queen widow.

I personally doubt she’ll choose to wear it at all given the context of it. Honestly, it might just be retired indefinitely and only seen one display rather than on the head of any of Britain’s future queens.

Or the Silmarlis ):

@@muhammadsuhairi7510 or the One Ring

literally the gem of discord (I hope UK holds on to it and falls)

Well having a empire where the sun never sets definately categorizes a empire as great

The diamond was gifted to the British

Wasn't the diamond transferred from one warlord to the other after defeat? You call it stolen but the diamond was given to the British with a contract.

The People's Caliphate of Al Muqaddimah recognizes your claim.

Yeah, it should be returned to ME🗿

No, it truly belongs to me. You are a fake, a fraud just to get the Kohinoor for you only.

No me 🗿

I’ll take the Peacock Throne then.

Exactly. Those artifacts were produced by us and show our growth as a civilization. Kohinoor was made by nature and has no real historical value.

Ur so correct

@@AlMuqaddimahYT that (what I'm replying to) is absolutely trash I could start an entire debate on this

@@vardekpetrovic9716 well, the mona lisa is only a moneymaking machine due to how famous it is, but mostly a minor painting for art history, and France having it instead of Italy is hardly comparable to a colonial power having the treasures of their ex--colonies. I do think that one countries should get back what was stolen from them, but I wonder what Al Muqaddimah has to say about pre-islamic sites and historical objects being destroyed in Islamic countries. Appart from ISIS, that I know purposefully aimed at destroying these, what is the case in Pakistan and other islamic countries regarding this issue? What examples do you present to sustain that argument? I recently visited the National Museum in Beirut and found them proudly and zealously taking care of their pre-islamic cultural heritage, even during the violent conflicts the country has gone through. I'm honestly curious to hear a non-western and probably better informed source on this topic.

@@vardekpetrovic9716 well said

Khalistani found 🥴

The proper term would be queen dowager which she would be. Usually the widow of one monarch is the mother of the next just not in this case. When George VI died there were two dowagers. The term Queen mother came into use because to differentiate Elizabeth the consort from Elizabeth regnant.

yep the term was started by Henry VII who wanted a title for his mother that was never a queen and thus couldn't be a Dowager queen

We should be fighting to get rid of Western Supremacy in the Region yet we infight over worthless stones.

Eh. Still not as big as the GREAT Bengal Famine

Famines happen globally each year, to blame the British every time is simply wrong, people need to learn how to grow crops and live.

@@jetpigeon8758 Exactly. And blaming just the British solely on the WW2 Bengal famine neglects the fact it was a web of failures that was exacerbated by the Japanese capture of Burma.

@@jetpigeon8758 Ohh really....You wanna know how It happened? The Japanese were gaining upperhand in Burma..The Brits were terrified and used scorching earth tactics in the presidency of Bengal...They looted the crops for themselves and whatever they couldn't take they burned.The burned the grain silos,burned harvested crops and burned thousands of acres of rice fields and left the population of Bengal Presidency with nothing.. Absolutely nothing...As the Presidency Of Bengal was vastly agrarian It used to produce one of the most grains and crops in the Indian Subcontinent.This reckless and evil act wiped out almost 4 million...Close to the Nazis innit? They took 6 years to take out 6 million Jews whereas in the semi man made famine 4 million were starved to death almost in the span of 1-1.5 years...Heck Brits even officially never wanted to admit their guilt...There also very very horrible histories of the Brits in the Bengal Presidency...The famine of 1770,the Indigo Merchents/plantation owners were a true horror..They would force the farmers to harvest Indigo on their lands...The Brits would pay very less for their harvest so It became very hard for them to feed their family and many would strave to death..Also cultivating indigo would decrease fertility of the land resulting in poor harvest of food crops..The Brits would take away lands,burn houses,kill family members, rape wives and daughters If someone rejected to harvest Indigo for them..Beating of the farmers were very common practice..There are countless cases where they simply whipped farmers to death.

I think he mentioned that he will make a video on Sikh - Mughal relationship.

@@Ishpreetb264 Maharaja Duleep Singh's story in not part of Mughal- Sikh relations , it's a different story।

@@storiesofoldpanjab107 I know but it seems probable that at least the Sikh empire will be talked about. This channel is focused on Islamic history so I don't think Duleep Singh's story will ever be told on this channel.

@@Ishpreetb264 let’s see!

Duleep Singh’s ashes should be kept in Ranjeet Singh’s samadhi at Lahore.

He was one the best warriors in history even in the top 10 but most people don’t know him😅

He was a brutal, ruthless mass murderer, which of course doesn't mean people shouldn't know and learn about him. After all, Genghis Khan, Timur, Stalin, and Mao, among so many others in history, have been guilty of similar atrocities, yet it is still important to study them and their legacies.

@@barrymoore4470 tell me one ruler who wasn't a mass murderer?

@@barrymoore4470 well Winston Churchill was also a tyrant who caused artificial famines in Bengal but we still learn about him!

Nader shah. A ruler without a cause.

Hmm.. Its quite different as every princely state had a different equation with the British. People often think British controlled India entire which is absolutely wrong. About 60% of the land and population was still under the princes. Of them the Nizam of Hyderabad who was the richest man of the world from 1920 - 1930 had full autonomy. He was not part of the empire as he had his own government and coins and army. The guy even refused to join India after Independence and had to step down only after a revolution. The Maratha princes were the ones who rebelled in 1857 so they were brutally put down, their armies seized, tax rights dissolved and reduced to titular figures like the British crown. I am talking of the Peshwa of Pune, Scindias of Rajasthan, Holkars of Gwalior and the others of Awadh, Jhansi etc. The Sikh Kingdom was absorbed into the British Raj. The Kingdom of Travancore maintained its independence by pitting the Portuguese and British against each other. So they both decided to just leave it be as it was a useful ally. The Thanjavur and the Baroda Princes paid tribute to the British i exchange for survival. The Kashmir King was fully independent and not part of the Raj just like the Nizam There were then the many petty Rajput kings. They were mostly a non-issue

@@caniblmolstr4503 the britishers controlled the royalty thats how they invaded india

@@caniblmolstr4503 then why in every map I see its shows that British conquered entire India and why no holes in it?

@@mrcool2107 coz it's hard to show. It was really random. Also other than the Nizam the others were free basically coz the British found it not worthwhile to invade them, just have them pay tribute

@@mrcool2107 I’m from Malaysia which comprises of many states too. Some of the states were crown colonies (direct rule) while others were protectorates and protected states of British empire. Overall we didn’t really feel oppressed as how our neighbour Indonesians felt under the Netherlands though. Our Sultans reigned still then and now. But we all regard the whole Malaysia to be part of British Commonwealth of Nations and celebrate one independence day despite of various experiences/histories with the British empire. I think similar situation can be applied in British India/Raj which was also our headquarter up to 1867.

They should return it to the one who pay for it.

@@Contractor48But it was surrendered, never paid for.

100% agree with you but not only is it kinda fucked up that we're hoarding other people's history, not only is it fucked up that we're doing so *instead* of displaying, preserving and funding further research of the history of our own isles which go back at least as far as 800,000 years (check out the Happisburgh footprints if you wanna learn more) but on top of everything else, it'll remain as a permanent sour note in our relationship with former colonies, keeping that wound wide open as we (and future generations) can hardly pass off colonialism as the actions of our long-dead ancestors if we continue to hold onto the trophies of their conquest. There are so many people around the world that have a festering hatred of western civilisation (Britain in particular) that is only growing as time passes and the balance of power shifts away from Europe, there's gonna be a lot of people out for revenge; they may well repeat our ancestor's mistakes and bring yet more suffering into the world simply because the assholes we put in power were stubborn. All this is to say, it's not just a dick move to not return the artifacts, it's also stupid and short-sighted.

Castism way less in Hindu areas Then Terrorism in yours

@@anhilatorofignorance2584 don't know how you quantify it but good for you. You'd have still burnt your wives as well and not educated girls. If all the people who were civilised by the white people it was definitely you

Hell the idea that India would ever become a nation is implausible, before the British arrived there were at 5 separate kingdoms in just what's Pakistan right now

Can you say South Asian muslim community is free of caste and social divisions? Caste is a social construct and a evil in our society. It should be less associated with religion in a modern context even its roots lie in one religion itself

@@aakarshmaurya2265 depends on the specific ethnic group, Pashtuns, Baloch don't have caste distinctions, Sindhis practice it quite a lot and Punjabis are sort of in between

Chup be

@@zhuzhu9599 bro is jealous

Correct

The diamond 💎 does not belong to the British and it should be returned.

Nice seeing you here!

@@hectorlunaluna38 Nice seeing you here too!

Inglorious empire is a good read its crazy that all people of the subcontinent don't know the extent of what came with British rule and how much it set India back. People think India is now in a better place because of colonisation when it couldn't be futher from the truth.

@@darklight8338 And that’s precisely what Colonial DISINFORMATION / PROPAGANDA is all about. Decolonization is a lifelong process; decolonization of the mind is one’s starting point. What a fulfilling exercise it is!

@@darklight8338 _Inglorious Empire_ is a good read, but not always good history- Tharoor let his politics influence his writing

@@marksnow7569 Yes that's true it was very much emotionally lead but the details of the devastation are all basically facts so it depends on how you read the book

Yeah the thing is the UK hasn't given a dime in reparations since 1948. Between 1947-1948, they left some military infrastructure (which anyways was largely engineered by Indians) and that's it. The UK has given 0$ in reparations to India while the UK has still been paying off debt to United States for World War 2 i.e. the Anglo-American Loan of 1946.

There are 27,000 scam calls every hour in india today. There are a number of uk charities supporting indias homeless children. Just saying

@@VedJoshi.. now India growing because of our people hardship... Not from colonial empire...

@@VedJoshi.. What about the 40 million foreign aid to India

After all,the Fascist rhetorics about slavs and jews really were just the old colonial rhetorics of dominance and supremacy carried to its full conclusion. WW2 is Europe's ultimate atonement for colonialism

your suggestion could be true but his can be japan managed industrialisations and a industrialised india won't have major powers near them like the ottomans who had persians and russians and the holy roman empire while india had only afghan invasions to contend with

False, the Sikh Empire was the among the most prospering states at that time.

@@milansemberac9995 So was the Ottoman empire but they completely failed at adapting past the industrial revolution. We have no indication that the Sikh Empire would have done any better, if anything their further distance from Europe suggests it would have been even harder for them. Japan is a unique case in which right after opening up to trade they started sending envoys to Europe and hired experts from Europe to copy every aspect of their industrial process and military. We simply can't assume any other state would have been as effective as they were in this effort.

@@jenostheascended7818 Not true, the Sikh Empire actually hired many foreign experts, commanders, and advisors in their military which was crucial in their modernization, one of the most famous examples being Alexander Gardner. The main reason for their collapse was mainly due to the government being hijacked by the hindu dogras, who assassinated almost all of Ranjit Singh’s sons and left the throne to his last 15 year old son, as well as treacherous commanders who with the dogras intentionally instigated conflict with the British due to their fear of the Khalsa Army becoming too powerful and potentially taking power. Not only that but they purposely made rather idiotic moves during many battles in which the British could’ve been defeated easily. The whole story is complex in itself but I do agree with you regarding how the Sikh Empire could’ve likely turned out. Their great emperor died rather young due to his excessive hedonist habits and their greatest commander was killed in battle due to most of the army being foolishly deployed in the capital for the emperor’s son’s wedding. Apologies for the late reply btw

Exactly. He was abducted but then he stayed there under the patronage of the queen and died due to heavy drinking.

Yeah think same. But isn't he respectfully given place in Burma?

@@kamilshah8966 He is, but he wanted to be buried in Delhi in a place he had chosen. Being denied his chosen burial place was one of the things he lamented about at the end of his life.

I heard in the Empire podcast recently that he went away from Britain and tried hard to come back to Punjab and resist the British. He outgrew his kidnapping and brainwashing and was staunchly opppsed to Queen Victoria in the later part of his life!

@Shibin George Listen to it again. He turned against Victoria because she refused to support his spendthrift lifestyle. He was drunk for most of his "rebellion" and put his family through hell.

Exactly, lmao still baffles me people think it should not be returned to India.

Islamist lovers are trying to whitewash the history because they don't want to be held accountable like British.

They willed it to the Crown in a treaty. Why would they give it to a nanga panga temple controlled by the British?

History? There is no value in paper or rocks, but old notes and idols/sculptures have value for how long something has survived.

indians 🥛

@James Furey when did I say I don’t

@James Furey he didn’t say that conquering is okay today, this was a long time ago, regardless these are two different wars.

it wouldnt probably he just believes it because it makes him feel good and thats all the reasons he needs

Qing dynasty wasn't as dynamic as the competing kingdoms of the Indian subcontinent

It was generally due to the Qing officials being pretty corrupt and a modernization attempt during the 1890s was shut down by the Empress Dowager Cixi herself

China believed itself to be superior and thus rejected western ideas, some Indian governments might have held this belief but they'd have been crushed by the ones that didn't

Funnily enough india was more developed in some ways than china was at the time of independence.

I've read through quite a few comments and this is my favourite idea. Brilliant

it will only become source of conflict, india and pakistan will once again wasting more time to claim the prize of that fvking rock

Well "spending" is s generous term. I doubt their governments would want to use these money for himaitarian aid.

@@cgt3704 Ok. So maybe the Royal Family could donate the money directly to charities working in those countries. Something like that.

@@christopherflux6254 cmon. Charities is an easy way for people to steal money from naive people. I mean Save the Kids showed how foolish the world can be

Curses, especially the type you mention, aren't real. Every Dynasty eventually ends... no need to attribute that to a curse. The only "curse" that maybe real is one where someone prays to God for someone else's destruction.

Well Liz Truss has just become UK Prime Minister, so maybe that’s a result of the curse!

@@daddy_1453 which is why I didn't stop just at dynasty but kingdom / country @curse It starts with the Kakatiyas followed by the Qutb Shahis then the Mughals, the Afsharids, the Durranis, the Khalsa Darbar & then finally Victoria & the UK. Neither those dynasties nor their kingdoms nor in some cases those countries exist . Diamonds do carry a curse. It's not that anyone can wear a diamond. Check out for the Hope Diamond & the curse associated with it.

@@ic5442 I don't think diamonds carry a curse, rather the blood spilled in the name of wealth and pure adulterated greed that they represent carry the curse. Its the same with oil today. There is a name for this curse, its called dragon sickness, the term comes from Lord of the Rings series.

@@help123research4 I certainly wouldn't, England has been of great help to North African muslims.

Love from PAKISTAN

No real Indian will agree to this trashy piece. Yes loads of Muslims whose hearts lie in pakistan but who stay in India will agree

@@manh9105 so you want a minor concessions in the form of diamonds for years of colonialism? You realize taking o e concessions excuses them from anymore as they feel they’ve done enough? Be a realist you idiot, denying the return of the kohinoor opens the way for better concessions

There's no such thing as "united India". Keep in mind that India is a sub-continent and is rather like a continent itself, not unlike Europe. Without the British, all these different states would exist, most likely independently. They wouldn't be divided on the basis of religion like they are now.

@@AlMuqaddimahYT they would absolutely be divided by religion. It's utopian secular ignorance to think otherwise

@@Deepak_Dhakad Like so many countries India and Pakistan would be living in a 1910 existence if the British had not provided law and order and the justice system. and don't forget the transport network.

​@@jetpigeon8758 ​ Pre British India wasn't a primitive place of cave men hunter and gatherers 😂 Watch this piece again. It indicates the sub continent was highly civilised and quite rich (some parts classed as being the richest in world at the time if you care to read more of the history). It had law and order, just not the British one. And it's also mentioned the sub continent being rich and well connected enough suggesting it could have imported tech and knowledge to be able to build it's own transport networks eventually. Had they been allowed to that is. It's all in the past now. I guess, as no monarch or gov will apologise - and the current ones are not accountable for their ancestors. However what would be good is some acknowledgement of what really happened and how instead of painting a lovely pic of how the British Empire civilised and developed such countries.

@@anneeq008 Oh they would, but what I think Al Muqaddimah meant is that it wouldn't be a continental division of "this country is the Muslim's, this is the Hindu's, the Sikhs can go play with that rock" The continent would be divided in many countries, some Hindu, some Sikh, some Muslim, etc, but its division wouldn't be solely on a religious basis like the partition of India was.

Hmm, very short history lesson. Afghanistan or the region what now call Afghanistan existed millennia and millennia before Sikhs came into history. Sikhism ORIGINATED in the 1600s, and the conquered empire began in 1799. I do not want to spend more of my time on the rest of the 'claim', it will be a waste of my time. Thank you and have a nice day

@@thetruthseeker5448 no I was just saying the Sikhs ruled over Afghanistan

@@thetruthseeker5448 Good comment!

Hahaha, yes so true. Yup they cant still get over the "victim syndrome". Oh course there are no medicine for that. Even the Brits are blamed for their c* s te system, how hilarious is that

The best part is when they blame all the problems on the Brits leaving. Well which is it? Was the problem them being there or that they left ?

@@andrewlindsay4773 I do not think none of them have any courage to answer that question. Blaming others for their own evil is a big business in the subcontinent, even after more than 75 years of giving up the colonies to the natives, financially funding as GRANTS to feed and educate masses there. It is in other words "be gg ar's syndrome"

Hilarious how the Mughals get a complete pass for doing all that same shit (albeit with double the murder and barbarism) for 4 times as long

@@thetruthseeker5448 people have clearly answered these questions before

In terms of the Mughals, they came to India, they conquered it and then ruled it from India. They gave it a lot of things and were an actual Indian empire that made policies that helped their people. Iranian invasion (like that of Nader Shah) was closer to the British where they came and looted and then left. The British extracted India's wealth and took it back home. That's the difference. Also, it being recent is indeed a factor and India still suffering from the impact of their colonization is one as well.

@@AlMuqaddimahYT Yet the miseries are the miseries that were caused by the Mughal and British empires. In both the regimes Indians had to lose their lives and cultural values.

@@AlMuqaddimahYT It's been quite a while since the British left, I find it hard to believe it's reasonable to blame them for what might still be bad, it does however suggest the people afterwards didn't deal with issues. Several countries in the world had half their population in their productive primes cut down and put in massgraves during WW2 and their cities turned to rubble, their farmland minefields and massgraves and bombcraters. Infrastructure and production capabilities annihilated, but most still recovered decently and some became the some of the richest countries of the world in the time since the 40's. India also got democracy and journalistic traditions from the British even if they didn't encourage it during their imperial rule, I would still say it was a valuable contribution to India's future. It's also lead to some modernization even if India is quite cautious of changes and developing. On the otherhand there are those that do far worse I would think. India has managed to find some level of stability in a somewhat chaotic region. While I'm far from and expert what little I've gather I'm somewhat concerend with Indias watersupply and degradation of agricutrure and the increasing polution levels. I guess it's only natural polution levels would increase with a quickly expanding population.. It might cause problems in the future though. And everyone everywhere has their own problems small or big, it's part of life, you just have to deal with it... That or the alternative that's to ignore it and .. yeah, some people tries that aswell. Anyway, good luck India.

Was about to comment the same. Thanks for highlighting 👍

@MsMissy cry genuine blood

best option is give it to India and then display it for 4 months a year in Amritsar temple, 4 months in Delhi Red Fort or Jama Masjid and 4 months in Bhadrakali Temple in South India where it was originally mined and placed.

How was the diamond stolen again? Many sources say it was gifted. Why should I be taken out of the UK?

You’re ignorant asf

Fair enough but doesn't sound that feasible

There is a difference between conquest and colonization. When the Mughals came from outside India, they embraced it. They taxed people but that money remained in their territory, it helped the economy. The British took Indian resources to England. They were primarily concerned with short-term gains as they knew all of it was temporary. This put significant strain on India's future.

England plundered India , others like Mughuls assimilated with India that's why we eat Biryani and not much bread butter .

​@@AlMuqaddimahYT this is completely untrue . The studies clearly show that the vast majority taxable income even by the EIC was reinvested in infrastructure and the miltary which all states do. which The drain theory has been discredited by numerous historians such as T Roy and Dewey and is in fact a Marxist theory by Dutt with very little foundation. The whole lost time agruement is completely counterfactual as well as it supposes that somehow India would have industrialised , this is logically unsound as the only countries that industrialised in the 19th century were those culturally simular to Britian and had capital from Britain. Neither of which india would have had. The only other nation that was able to was Japan which only managed it after as it compeltely embraced westernisation ,had brutal civil war and the near totally empowered centralised and authoritarian goverment pushed through industrialisation. The only semicomparble civilisation to India in the 19th century was China which was also exposed to western industry by trade and then fell into war with the western powers, followed by civil war, famines , a warlord period and the communist rule. Only industialising in the 1970s. And this was a county centralised and far more homogneous. India doesn't even have these advantages. India in GDP in fact quadrupled over the the colonial span in India and retained itself at 11% of world gdp until WW1 where it was reduced alongside Britain as Russia , Japan and the US industrialised completely. Also there was no short term view of India, this is objectively false . The British empire never viewed itself as temporary and right up into the 30s the most pushed for by even Gandhi was reform and dominion status not independence.

becuse they are white and look different, so it is easy to create hate narratives of stuff they never did. don't mind mass migrating to thier country though.

I’m neutral 😂 Basically the world is best off forgetting the diamond Instead a far more entertaining bit would be for the claimants to try and marry a girl to the future kings, as only women wear it. And it’d really annoy the BNP to have an Indian queen Additionally it is also far too important to leave Britain in case there’s another werewolf up in Scotland