Archive for the 'Uncategorized' category

Koh-I-Noor : History’s Mystery

The newest entrant out television screen is ‘Koh-I-noor‘ on Sahara One which went on air on 5th September, offers its share of action and suspense. The show is about finding the real Kohinoor diamond. Is the ‘Kohinoor’ diamond with the British a fake? Is the ‘Kohinoor’ still in India? Are some of the questions been raised by Sahara One Television’s new suspense thriller.

I found the series to be quite gripping and interesting, though it is too early to say where it will lead. However, its a welcome change from the daily ’saas-bahu’ and ‘pati, patni aur woh’ saagas. The series bound to be an exaggerated version of reality inorder to gain TRP rateings, according to me won’t fail to create certain amount of curiousty over the ‘price-less diamond’.

There was a period when Indian diamonds were very famous the world over. These included the
Koh-i-noor, Orlov, the Great Moghul, Darya-i-noor also known as ‘Hope diamond’, etc. These were all part of the treasure houses of the great emperors of India. Today, they are all in the hands of outsiders.

The legendary Koh-i-noor has been in the eye of the storm ever since it left the hands of its original owners - a diamond which was never bought or sold, but changed many hands. Koh-i-noor has left a trail that speaks of greed, power, murder, mayhem and unhappiness. Many believe that the Koh-i-noor was also the Great Mogul and that Babur’s diamond was separate. Information gathered over the years shows that in fact, three diamonds existed: - the Great Mogul - was the Orlov, weighing 189.62 metric carats, in Kremlin; and Babur’s diamond - was the Darya-i-noor, weight 175 gm and 195 metric carats, the Iranian Crown Jewels; and the Koh-i-noor re-cut, Crown Jewels, England.


History behind ‘Koh-i-noor’ :

Many legends say that the Koh-i-noor was mined in India, and at least 4,000 years old. It received a mention in the 1300s, when it was named in the Baburnama. One account states that
Babur got his hands on the diamond in Gujarat; another says he got it in the Deccan. But when Babur came to Agra in May 1526, the fugitive family of Vikramaditya of Gwalior in Agra most likely gave him the great diamond. There is also evidence that his son Humayun carried a large diamond that his father had handed back to him at Agra.

When the peacock throne was handed over to Nadir Shah, the hiding place of this diamond was given away. A member of Mohammad Shah’s harem gave away the hiding place of Koh-i-noor. It is said that the Shah kept it hidden in his turban. So, Nadir Shah devised a plan - he ordered a grand feast to coincide with the restoration of Mohammed Shah to his throne. During the feast Nadir Shah suddenly proposed an exchange of turbans, a sign of brotherly ties and eternal friendship. Mohammed Shah was hardly likely to resist. After the exchange, Nadir Shah entered his private apartment only at night, where he unfolded the turban and found the diamond concealed within. When he set his eyes on it, he exclaimed “Koh-i-noor”, meaning “Mountain of Light”.

Journey to England :

The final owner was Maharaja Duleep Singh, son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, in the backdrop of the two Sikh Wars leading to the annexation of the Punjab by the British. The hoisting of British flag was on March 29th, 1849 Lahore where Punjab was formally proclaimed a part of the British Empire in India. One of the terms of the Treaty of Lahore was:- “The gem called the Koh-i-noor which was taken from Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk by Maharajah Ranjit Singh shall be surrendered by the Maharajah of Lahore to the Queen of England.” Dr Sir John Login was entrusted with two charges: to take the Koh-i-noor out of the Toshakhana (the jewel house), and also the guardsmanship of the young Duleep Singh. It was formally handed over to the Punjab government of Sir Henry Lawrence (1806-1857), his younger brother John Lawrence (afterwards Lord Lawrence, the man who in February of 1859 would break ground on the future Lahore railroad station), and C.C. Mausel.

The Koh-i-noor sailed from Bombay in
H.M.S. Medea. It was put in an iron box and kept in a dispatch box and deposited in the Government Treasury. For security reasons, this piece of news was suppressed, even among officers of the Treasury - and withheld from Commander Lockyer, the ship’s captain. HMS Medea’s voyage turned out to be a perilous one - cholera broke out on board in Mauritius and the local people demanded its departure. They asked their governor to open fire and destroy the vessel if it did not respond. After leaving Mauritius, a severe gale hit the vessel that lasted for about twelve hours. They reached Plymouth, England, where the passengers and the mail were unloaded, but not the Koh-i-noor, which was forwarded to Portsmouth. From there, the two officers took the diamond to the East India House, handing it over to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the company. The Koh-i-Noor left the shores of India on April 6, 1850, and on reaching London on July 2, 1850, it was handed over to the Board of Directors of the East India Company.

The Queen’s crown :

Prince Albert (Prince Consort) and Sebastian Garrard stated that the Koh-i-noor was badly cut, it is rose-not-brilliant-cut. It was decided to seek the advice of practical and experienced diamond cutters. A small steam engine was set up at Garrard’s shop, while two gentlemen, Messrs Coster, Mr. Voorzanger and Mr. Fedder, travelled to London to undertake the re-cutting of the diamond. The Koh-i-noor was embedded in lead, two weeks later, after examining the stone. Mitchell thought that it had lost nearly all its yellow colour and become much whiter. The re-cutting took 38 days and cost £8000 ($40,000). The final result was an oval brilliant diamond weighing 108.93 metric carats, which meant a loss of weight of just under 43 per cent. Its was now in stellar brilliant-cut, possessing the regular 33 facets, including the table, while the pavilion has eight more facets than the regular 25 bringing the total number of facets to 66.

In 1853, it was mounted on a magnificent tiara for the Queen, which contained more than two thousand diamonds. Five years later,
Queen Victoria ordered a new regal circlet for the diamond. In 1911, Garrards made a new crown that Queen Mary wore for the coronation - it contained diamonds, among them the Koh-i-noor. In 1937, this was transferred to the crown made for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, based on Queen Victoria’s regal circlet and is set in a Maltese Cross at the front of the crown.

Who’s diamond is it, anyways ?

The 20th century saw a war of words over Koh-i-noor and its rightful ownership. In 1947, the government of India asked for the return of the diamond. Also, the Congress Ministry which ruled Orissa staked claim to the stone, saying it belonged to the Lord Jagannath.
Ranjit Singh’s treasurer mentioned that it was the property of their estate. Pakistan’s claim to the diamond was disputed by India. Shortly thereafter, a major newspaper in Teheran stated that the gem should to be returned to Iran.

Sir Olaf has pointed out that the Koh-i-noor had been in Mogul possession in Delhi for 213 years, in Afghan possession in Kandahar and Kabul for 66 years and in British possession for 127 years. Historically, it maybe difficult to pass judgement on the validity of the various claims, but on the other hand, from a gemological aspect, as a paper report said, the Indian claim is the most valid because it was in that country that it was mined.

Koh-i-noor other name of a ‘deadly curse’ :

It is widely believed, British kings possessed ‘Koh-i-noor’ without knowing how to use properly, therefore it became a mixture, more of a curse than a blessing. The history of this jewel speaks itself, the British Empire which had once expanded throughout the world ever shining like the Sun, is now restricted to a fixed territory.

This jewel is slow, belongs to Saturn, a slow moving planet, and hence affects the possessor cautiously rather than quickly. Normally it takes several years to start its effect between 10 and 25 years, it gives luck only to those who know its procedure to keep it purified.

Otherwise, it forces the possessor to dispossess his or her territory and to disturb home peace. It is equally less lucky for the queens, they are to dispossess many valuables and land to ward off its evil effects, or face some tragedy.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh got this jewel in 1813 and it affected him after 25 years and he suffered from a paralyzed attack in 1839 and died in the same year. In 1849, exactly after 10 years, the British forces toppled his kingdom, which was controlled by members of his family. Further, all of Duleep Singh’s eight children died childless.

The effect of Koh-i-noor makes females or queens more possessive, self centered and self-seeking, forcing them to lose some territory, reputation and brings unhappiness at home, breaks home and ultimately may end the monarchy as per some occult reading of this Gem.

Great Briton had to struggle hard to retain possession of the
Falkland Islands also known in Spanish as the Islas Malvinas. They also had to surrender the colony of Hong Kong to China in 1997, faced the tragedy of Prince Diana in the same year, suffered reputation in Iraq attack in 2003, by facing the wrath of their people, and then new marriage of Prince Charles with Camila in 2005 and uncertainty of future King of England.

Hence Koh-i-noor has turned out to be unlucky for the Queens and the Kings as universally believed unless they observe and maintain the purity of the diamond.

( Disclaimer : the above information has been gathered from number of articles on ‘Koh-i-noor’, some of the sources are stated below.)

1.
Daily Excelsior
2.
Koh-i-Nur:2A Diamond’s Incredible Journey
3. All about Koh-i-noor
4.
Kohinoor unlucky for British Queen?

Live-in relationship Vs. Marriage

Last week, we saw the release of ‘Salaam Namaste’, starring Preity Zinta and Saif Ali Khan. Although i have yet not seen the movie but it is quite evident from the movie trailors and write-ups in newspapers and online that, the movie is promoting itself by claiming to be ‘haatke philum’ since the story is based on ‘Live-in relationship’. Well it is indeed, as far as i can think the first Bollywood movie showcasing ‘Live-in’ situation between a boy and a girl. And me thinks that Mr. Yash Chopra could’nt have found better actors then ‘Preity’ and ‘Saif’ because they both actually do follow somewhat similar pattern in real life other than reel life. (obviously not together but with different partners).

Saif since his spilt with long-time wife Amrita Singh, is currently living with his angrezi girl-friend Roza and Perity has a part-time live-in boyfriend Ness Wadia. Anyways the focus of my post is not the movie but the theme of the movie.

With the increase in number of couples opting for ‘cohabitation‘ over ‘marriage‘, be it in western countries or India, i would like to ask my fellow bloggers, what would they prefer if given the option to choose between the two ?

As for me, well i would rather stick to the old school of thoughts and choose marriage over the other.

My reason is simple -

The love that we all want from a partner is not possible without both having the commitment to try to make it last. Cooperation, compromise, that sort of thing. There’s a saying, “Happiness in marriage is not so much FINDING the right person as BEING the right person.”

If it’s easy to change one partner for another, where’s the incentive to develop staying power in a relationship? Instead people will think “I’m upset at my partner which means I’m with the wrong person. I’m going to get out so I can hook up with the right person.” It’s human nature, and and i think that this approach is creating increased numbers of people without the ability to sustain a long-term relationship.

I came across this interesting article based on a research findings published in 1991, which basically outlines ‘Eight Reasons Why Marriage Is Better than Cohabitation’. And they are :

1. Cohabitors have a different perspective on time than marrieds have. Marriage, by definition, means, “I will always be here for you.” Marrieds’ longterm contract encourages emotional investment in the relationship. In contrast, cohabitation for most seems to mean, “I will be here only as long as the relationship meets my needs.”

2. Cohabitation also affects the cohabitors’ children. In general, children’s emotional development is poorer if a parent is cohabiting than if a parent is married. This poor development is partly due to the high risk that the couple will break up. If the couple does separate, the children pay an economic price, since they have no right to child support from a partner who is not their biological parent. They also pay an emotional price when they lose a caring adult who may have taken a parental role but will do so no longer.

3. Cohabiting women are more likely than married women to suffer physical and sexual abuse. Some estimate that aggression is at least twice as common among cohabitors as it is among marrieds.

4. Although cohabitors try to protect their economic futures (with separate bank accounts, for example), married couples are better off financially.

5. Married men earn more than single men (nearly twice as much) and married women have access to more of men’s earnings than if they are single or cohabiting. This may be explained by the increased financial responsibility men feel when they marry many men have been heard to say, “Marriage made me get more serious about my career and making a good living.”

6. Cohabitors generally do not reap the physical health benefits enjoyed by married couples. Non-married people feel less healthy and have higher rates of mortality than the married. Compared to singles, married people as a group are also emotionally happier. Married couples are better connected to the larger community, including inlaws and church members who provide social and emotional support and material benefits.

7. Some people would be surprised to learn that marrieds have better sex lives than cohabitors. Although cohabitors have sex at least as often as marrieds, they are less likely to say they enjoy it. Marriage adds the essential ingredients of commitment and security to one’s sex life, making it more satisfying. In addition, marrieds are more likely than cohabitors to perceive love and sex as intrinsically connected.

8. Cohabitation may affect relationships with parents. In some families, cohabitation is no longer associated with sin, pathology, or parental disapproval. But in many families cohabitation is still considered morally wrong and embarrassing to extended family members. Cohabitors from those families risk damaging their relationships with their parents and experiencing the withdrawal of parental and extended family support for the relationship.

Another very interesting article which discusses certain facts behind Cohabitation.

UPDATE :

Here is another interesting article which states ‘few problems with cohabitation’ whether it is with or without the goal of ‘marriage’ in the future.

Many people imagine that living together before marriage resembles taking a car for a test drive. The “trial period” gives people a chance to discover whether they are compatible. This analogy seems so compelling that people are unable to interpret the mountains of data to the contrary.

Here’s the problem with the car analogy: the car doesn’t have hurt feelings if the driver dumps it back at the used car lot and decides not to buy it. The analogy works great if you picture yourself as the driver. It stinks if you picture yourself as the car.




A guide to Indian Cities

Got this as an e-mail fwd. It is funny BUT true….anyways go ahead and judge for yourself.


How to Identify Cities in India

Scenario 1: Two guys are fighting and a third guy comes along, then a fourth and they start arguing about who’s right.

You are in Kolkata

Scenario 2 : Two guys are fighting and a third guy comes along, sees the man and walks on.

That’s Mumbai-Bombay

Scenario 3 : Two guys are fighting and a third guy comes along & tries to make peace.The first two get together & beat him up.

That’s Delhi

Scenario 4 : Two guys are fighting. A crowd gathers to watch. A guy comes along and quietly opens a chai-stall

That’s Ahmedabad.

Scenario 5 : Two guys are fighting and a third guy comes he writes a software program to stop the fight. But the fight doesn’t stop b’cos of a bug in the program.

That’s Bangalore

Scenario 6 : Two guys are fighting. A crowd gathers to watch. A guy comes along and quietly says that “AMMA”doesn’t like all this nonsense. Peace comes in.

That’s Chennai.

Scenario 7 : Two guys are fighting. Both of them take time out and call their friends. Now 50 guys are fighting.

You are DEFINITELY IN BIHAR

Scenario 8 : Two guys are fighting, two more join them, next day a lightening strike by a party regarding the street fight policies, and opposition demands for CM’s resignation, Then, with no doubt, you are at God’s own country

Trivandrum
Page 1 of 212»

Campaigns

There are a lot of things that are wrong in this world. If we do not raise our voices and try to bring justice to these issues at hand, we do ourselves and our society an injustice.

Here are some campaigns that are on-going at To Each It's Own

More campaigns

Recent comments

Movie Reviews

Ads

Hire Me Direct

Lunarpages.com Web Hosting

Etcetera

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License

hit counter

Add to Technorati Favorites

topblog

ss_blog_claim=d4d7015d4d3cba2738863d157c5d3e3a

Subscribe to To Each Its Own on your cell phone

Categories

Close
E-mail It