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

51–60 of 327 posts

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

#51

Post by alephnerd »

valarauko wrote: post #47
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…

Here's a solution: regard the diamond as the property and legacy of the people, with the royals holding it as mere stewards. Rather than basing the center of the nation at the location of the royal court, consider a population weighted centroid as the center of the legal holding. So for example, while the former Sikh empire was based at Lahore, much of the western Punjab was sparsely populated till the early 20th cen…

But the owner before the Sikh Empire was the Durrani Empire before which was the Afsharids before which was the Mughals. So is it India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, or Turkmenistan if using the broadest definition of a successor state. And "federal government holds it as stewards of the people" would piss off a subset of voters in both Punjabs, JK, Himachal, Haryana, Delhi, Chandigarh, and KPK - all states that have mixed feelings with their federal government. Elections tend to be very close in multi-party parliamentary systems (both for federal elections and local elections).

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

#52

Post by rr888 »

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.

The problem with ancient history as that you never really knew what happened and exactly how many people died. Europeans certainly weren't the first empire to lay claim to India. Warfare, invasions and famine are as old as human history. India is one of the oldest civilised parts of the world so has had its fair share of all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India

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

#53

Post by archduck »

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…

Decree that it be split equally among all invested parties, Judgment of Solomon style.

(Though in this case, they may end up having to follow through, i.e. cutting their baby into equal parts.)

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

#54

Post by pacetherace »

bubblematrix wrote: post #25
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.

It was absolutely the fault of the British. The partition lines were drawn by lawyer with little to no inputs from experts.

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

#55

Post by alephnerd »

RajT88 wrote: post #39
alephnerd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The diamond is worth only $10-12 billion (edit: at most), which is a decent chunk of money, but only 0.25% of the Indian Federal Government's YEARLY budget or only 10% of the Pakistani Federal Government's YEARLY budget. EDIT: apparently the diamond is worth even less - google fu has failed me yet again

There's no way it's worth that much. Articles kicking around estimate at 140 - 400 million, with some "over a billion".

Makes sense! Looks like google fu failed me again!

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

#56

Post by alephnerd »

archduck wrote: post #53
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…

Decree that it be split equally among all invested parties, Judgment of Solomon style. (Though in this case, they may end up having to follow through, i.e. cutting their baby into equal parts.)

But which Afghanistan - the Taliban or the basically nonexistent Government in Exile?

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

#58

Post by Turing_Machine »

abeppu wrote: post #35
Turing_Machine wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like the argument that California should be given back to Mexico, when Mexico itself was a Spanish colonial construct.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/25/california-redwood-fo... Update: To clarify, Turing_Machine likened the suggestion that California be given to Mexico to alephnerd's description of the complex and unclear proper ownership of the Koh-I-Noor. I claim that the situation in California is simpler, at least in some places, because there are native Californians to give stuff back to and multiple tribes are willing to…

"Give it back to local indigenous groups" is an entirely different thing from "Give it back to Mexico".

What is now California was never controlled by what is now Mexico until the Spanish colonizers showed up. The Aztecs (who were themselves brutal colonizers, as it happens) weren't running the show there or anything like that.

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

#59

Post by ceejayoz »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #9
anigbrowl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, not really. Just those efforts that aim to terrorize.

No; attacks on US service members and bases in war zones are often called terrorism. The term has absolutely become overly broad.
Post reply on HN