Behind the Modi government's red face over the Centre’s stand in the Supreme Court on getting back Kohinoor, was the casual approach in the Culture Ministry and lack of inter-ministerial coordination on a complex issue.
In its clarification on Tuesday, the Culture Ministry did a turnaround following criticism over Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar’s submission before a bench of Chief Justice of India T S Thakur that Kohinoor was “gifted” and not stolen or forcibly taken away by Britishers in the 19th century. Arguing that it would be futile to stake claim over it, Kumar had stated that it was a compensation given to Britishers by Maharaja Ranjit Singh for their support in Anglo-Sikh war.
The Culture Ministry, however, stated in Tuesday evening statement that the government has not conveyed its views yet to the Supreme Court while insisting that they were hopeful of getting back the precious jewel.
On an instruction that a factual report had to be prepared because the case was coming up in the Supreme Court on Monday, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) sources said a note was mailed to a top bureaucrat in the ministry and to the SG’s office so that the government’s legal team was equipped with the facts available with archaeologists.
Subsequently no discussions took place on such a historically and diplomatically sensitive issue in the ministry despite ASI’s reference material, as accepted in the clarification, reflected deviation from the previous positions.
Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma, who was not kept in the loop, is believed to have been informed of his ministry’s stand only after the news broke out following hearing in the SC on Monday. Government sources said that Sharma was livid and instructed his office to get into the bottom of the matter which was embarrassing for the government.
Ideally there should have been inter-ministerial consultations, especially with the external affairs ministry, to put a comprehensive view before the SC, commented a government officer. Even the culture ministry’s statement acknowledges that the SG informed the court “about the history of the diamond and gave an oral statement on the basis of the existing references made available by the ASI”.