Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 327 posts

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#21

Post by armchairhacker »

alephnerd wrote: post #3

Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire c…

Ideally it should be “bought” from the 3 countries and they should receive a sort of donation.

AFAIK they need money a lot more than Britain, and tangible food and resources are a lot more useful than a pretty diamond.

Though I kind of doubt this will happen…

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#23

Post by Apocryphon »

alephnerd wrote: post #17
soperj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a conundrum and an complicated legal question that honestly isn't worth it for any of the countries, all of whom have bigger issues to deal with. Sure, but the crown shouldn't keep it. Give it to a neutral 3rd party until an agreement is in place.

Who would the neutral 3rd party be? It would still cause the same argument as above. The United States (Afghanistan would say no), China (India would say no), the Commonwealth (Afghanistan isn't a member), the UN (which Afghan government?), etc.

Sri Lanka, they could use the help right now.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#24

Post by [deleted] »

alephnerd wrote: post #3

Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire c…

[deleted]

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#25

Post by bubblematrix »

pacetherace wrote: post #12

[flagged]

Except the British didn't genocide during the partition of India - the internal clash of Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims going to war was it's own doing... You're framing it like British soldiers went in there and massacred India during that time. Wrong.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#26

Post by rr888 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #6
exolymph wrote: post #2

Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an endorsement.) > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin says. Indeed.

Also, any efforts by the powerless to redress the balance are generally labeled terrorism.

Would be helpful if you had a solid example.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#28

Post by alephnerd »

Apocryphon wrote: post #23
alephnerd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who would the neutral 3rd party be? It would still cause the same argument as above. The United States (Afghanistan would say no), China (India would say no), the Commonwealth (Afghanistan isn't a member), the UN (which Afghan government?), etc.

Sri Lanka, they could use the help right now.

Sri Lanka hasn't recognized the Taliban government and India would also say no due to the China factor.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#29

Post by JumpCrisscross »

armchairhacker wrote: post #21
alephnerd wrote: post #3

Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation) but who should they return the diamond to - Afghanistan (it was the Durranis that looted it from Nader Shah after he looted it from the Mughals), India (Maharaja Ranjit Singh took it as tribute from Shah Shuja after conquering Kashmir from the Durranis), or Pakistan (the Sikh Empire capital was Lahore and the Durrani Empire c…

Ideally it should be “bought” from the 3 countries and they should receive a sort of donation. AFAIK they need money a lot more than Britain, and tangible food and resources are a lot more useful than a pretty diamond. Though I kind of doubt this will happen…

> they need money a lot more than Britain, and tangible food and resources are a lot more useful than a pretty diamond

This is the comment’s point. The benefits of a trade deal might measure up to the worth of this diamond in minutes.

Re: The Koh-i-Noor diamond, and why the British won’t give it back (2017)

#30

Post by karencarits »

kaesar14 wrote: post #19
10u152 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I’m sure there were never genocides and famines before the British got there…

Not on the scale as afterwards, no.

Are you sure? I couldn't find any good sources on British genocide, but Wikipedia has a list of massacres in India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India In sum, the number of casualties from Colonial India is orders of magnitude lower than both pre-colonial and independent India
Post reply on HN