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

151–160 of 327 posts

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

#151

Post by krapp »

tarakat wrote: post #138
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.

Why not? Almost everyone that had it before won it through conquest, but only Britain is being held to a standard where that is forbidden.

How about because it is the Year of our Lord 2022, the last monarch of the British Empire is dead, and humanity generally agrees now that theft through conquest is a bad idea, and Britain realizes that decolonization has to cost it something to mean something, and giving back a shiny rock on the Queen's hat which literally serves no purpose besides being a gaudy symbol of a shameful, spiteful legacy, really isn't much to ask, all things considered?

And also the other jewels stolen from South Africa. Or at the very least, don't keep them on the regalia.

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

#152

Post by UncleMeat »

twblalock wrote: post #49
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…

David Frum's new Atlantic article shows a similar situation in Nigeria: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/benin-b... Basically the Nigerian federal government, the state government of Benin, and the descendants of the kings of Benin who originally owned the stolen Benin bronzes all think they should be the ones to whom the bronzes should be returned -- and in the case of the current king, he assert…

Okay. But that's surely not a reason why the Brits get to keep it. "This is too hard, let's give up and keep bringing in tourist money to our museums through these artifacts" feels like an awfully convenient excuse.

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

#153

Post by alephnerd »

selimthegrim wrote: post #136
alephnerd wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pakistan would say no due to strained relations, and state level Indian governments would pressure the federal government to say no due to anti-Bangladeshi sentiment in India (sort of similar to anti-Central American sentiment in the US with an added Islamophobic element or Ethnic element depending on the region) - appearing to vacillate to Bangladesh over what is basically a dumb symbolic issue would piss off voters…

There are pending water issues with Bangladesh like Teesta river, this could be a way to buy them off.

No Indian politician would want to appear to be appeasing Bangladesh would be slammed as anti-Hindu, anti-Assamese, anti-Tripuri, etc depending on the election, especially over an unneccesary symbolic issue like the Kohinoor diamond. And fundamentally, no one actually cares about the Kohinoor diamond conundrum other than a couple chattering class types like Tharoor. The Kohinoor diamond question is basically a microcosm of the larger issues in North India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan that all those central goverment politicians exacerbated or directly caused during Partition, the 1980s Punjab Militancy, the Kashmir exodus, the KPK insurgency, the Afghan Civil War, the ongoing issues in Kashmir, the various Indo-Pak wars, etc.

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

#154

Post by pclmulqdq »

SnowHill9902 wrote: post #121
archduck wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

That’s a common misconception. Salomon never intended to actually split anything. He could have said “if you don’t reach an agreement I’ll keep the baby myself” and it’d have worked alright since the mother would have cried (loudest).

According to which source? I think the people quoting the "split the baby" story are quoting a bible story which is unambiguous. Most old testament stories are parables that got written down and edited to support the religion, so I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of Judaic parable (or a parable from another culture) said that Solomon had a less violent solution.

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

#155

Post by zibby8 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #152
twblalock wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Frum's new Atlantic article shows a similar situation in Nigeria: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/benin-b... Basically the Nigerian federal government, the state government of Benin, and the descendants of the kings of Benin who originally owned the stolen Benin bronzes all think they should be the ones to whom the bronzes should be returned -- and in the case of the current king, he assert…

Okay. But that's surely not a reason why the Brits get to keep it. "This is too hard, let's give up and keep bringing in tourist money to our museums through these artifacts" feels like an awfully convenient excuse.

Possession is 9/10 of the law.

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

#156

Post by fourstar »

twblalock wrote: post #49
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…

David Frum's new Atlantic article shows a similar situation in Nigeria: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/benin-b... Basically the Nigerian federal government, the state government of Benin, and the descendants of the kings of Benin who originally owned the stolen Benin bronzes all think they should be the ones to whom the bronzes should be returned -- and in the case of the current king, he assert…

Seems like he needs to write a 419 email to retrieve it.

https://www.419eater.com/

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

#157

Post by bee_rider »

taneq wrote: post #145
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…

Who would they pay taxes to? Themselves?

The part of the government that provides services to the people.

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

#158

Post by jobs_throwaway »

SnowHill9902 wrote: post #121
archduck wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

That’s a common misconception. Salomon never intended to actually split anything. He could have said “if you don’t reach an agreement I’ll keep the baby myself” and it’d have worked alright since the mother would have cried (loudest).

Not according to the Bible's (translated) telling:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%203%3...

>They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, 23 until finally he said, “Both of you say this live baby is yours. 24 Someone bring me a sword.”

>A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, 25 “Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.”

>26 “Please don't kill my son,” the baby's mother screamed. “Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don't kill him.”

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

#159

Post by rajeshp1986 »

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…

There is an approach to decide the ownership. When India got independence and the Republic of Indian union was formed, the Indian central government got ownership of all the assets of the princely states. There are instruments of ascession signed by each Maharaja stating the transfer of rights for properties and assets. I doubt if anyone has even seen these documents in a while but it could technically be traced and the rights could be deduced.

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

#160

Post by 22SAS »

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.

Hahahaha, I am Indian and your statement is so wrong. The Brits were nowhere close to the Islamic invaders when it come to genocides in India. The latter would kill people from tens thousands to hundreds of thousands, in one go just because they didn't happen to be Muslim.
Post reply on HN