It was "given" to her because the Sikhs lost a war to the British forces, and the Maharajah had to sign a treaty in which he gave up any claim to sovereignty of the Punjab or any sovereign power at all, all of the State's property and assets were confiscated to the East India Company, and the Koh-i-Noor was expressly surrendered to Victoria. Hardly a gift. I wish the Indian solicitor general had not expressed it the way he did. This attitude smacks of not wanting to offend the former colonial rulers. If the treaty was a legitimate one, he should have admitted it. In my opinion. I think too many people will read that newspaper article and think that the diamond was a gift in the usual sense.
is that a bit like getting African Tribe Kings to sign over their land to Rhodes or Native American Indians' Chiefs 'giving' their land in return for a blanket? yeah. it sounds so like that. Tokenistic and colonialsitc. So out of date now