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

161–170 of 327 posts

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

#161

Post by rascul »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #158
SnowHill9902 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

> The other woman shouted, “Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby.”

> 27 Solomon said, “Don't kill the baby.” Then he pointed to the first woman, “She is his real mother. Give the baby to her.”

Maybe it was a ploy to see who cared more.

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

#162

Post by mr_toad »

WitCanStain wrote: post #11
anigbrowl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hard disagree. Indiscriminately killing civilians is labelled terrorism, and rightly so.

> Hard disagree. Indiscriminately killing civilians is labelled terrorism, and rightly so.

For a political cause, or at least a cause. Otherwise it’s just mass murder.

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

#163

Post by Apocryphon »

alephnerd wrote: post #153
selimthegrim wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 microc…

Release Kashmir as a buffer state and give them the diamond, resolving two international dilemmas with one stone.

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

#164

Post by snarf21 »

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.

Or the money from it being on display in the museum could be split as a charitable donation to all the countries involved. Seems like a win-win-win-win-win.

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

#165

Post by alephnerd »

rajeshp1986 wrote: post #159
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…

It's not that cut and dry. First, does it belong to the Sikh Empire or Jammu Kashmir.

If it belongs to the Sikh Empire, which Punjab does it belong to? If it belonged to Jammu Kashmir does it belong to AJK or JK?

On top of that, if it belonged to JK, did it belong to Kashmir w/ Gulab Singh or Kashmir during the Durrani occupation? If the Durrani Occupation, then which successor of the Durrani state - Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The British Raj provinces in the North (Punjab[0], Sindh[1], Pakhtunkwa[2]) was treated differently than the rest of India. We voted for the Unionist Party [3][4] - not Congress or the PML.

And if I'm being honest (and much more annoyed at this point) you guys left us for slaughter during Partition - Congress, Jan Sangh, the PML, Jamaat-e-Islami, Akali Dal, etc. While Gandhi was in Bengal, where were the rest of the Indian independence leaders when my Mom's side were forced to leave Jhelum? Where were you guys when the Muslims in my dad's village were forced to leave by the sword and bullet (both Zia-ul-Haq's and Imran Khan's biradari/clan were from villages within 40-50 miles from my dad's ancestral village before they were forced to leave)? Why did we try to assasinate Nehru in the refugee camps? Why did we try to assasinate Jinnah in Karachi? Why didn't you guys arrest demagouges like Tara Singh who helped flame this shitshow? The rest of India left us to rot, and then did the same thing in the 1980s and the 1990s.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_Province_(British_India...

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sind_Province_(1936%E2%80%9319...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Frontier_Province

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_(Punjab)

[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sind_United_Party

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

#166

Post by archduck »

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).

That's how I understand it. All I was saying was, state that the diamond is to be split, and whoever refuses and bows out first gets to keep the entire thing, as they would have demonstrated genuine concern for its welfare.

The scenario is obviously not the same - that's the joke. (Which apparently did not land.) The critical difference is: It's better to get part of the diamond than nothing at all. Thus, when any party is presented with the option to take part of it, their only sensible action is to take it. Either it's going to be split anyway, and no one would want to give away their share to the other scoundrels, or all parties are going to come together and refuse to allow it to be split - which leaves us back at the beginning.

The same cannot be said for babies. Who wants part of a baby? Not me

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

#167

Post by throwawaylinux »

xuki wrote: post #150
mr_toad wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had eight children (in exile in England), but none of them had heirs.

So we do it British style, go up the family tree and find the nearest cousin or whatever.

You die without an heir, your property reverts to the state. Looks like the diamond is already with its true owner.

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

#168

Post by UncleMeat »

snarf21 wrote: post #164
UncleMeat wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or the money from it being on display in the museum could be split as a charitable donation to all the countries involved. Seems like a win-win-win-win-win.

People screech in terror and hide their wallets anytime the word "reparations" is said. I don't think colonial empires are going to be sending a considerable amount of plundered money back any time soon.

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

#169

Post by cafed00d »

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…

Those diamonds were mined in Kollur in modern day south India. It should go back to them.

And yes, before you harp on it, the land we call America should go back to the Native Americans, the aboriginals of Australia and New Zealand should also get their lands back. Or whoever else has been the subject of conquest.

Ultimately, slavery, caste, and colonization are institutions of brutality.

Reparations are owed.

Britain can never repay the damage colonization caused to India. But it can return the diamond as an admission of guilt. And sure, it’s owed to a bunch of countries. I’m pretty sure India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka can figure out a shared ownership model for the diamond. They seem to get along fine sharing cricket trophies when there’s a draw.

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

#170

Post by markdown »

irrational wrote: post #112
markdown wrote: post #31

Relevant: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/koh...

So, it legally was not taken forcibly or stolen, but we want it back anyway?

I believe the argument was that it was gifted under duress.
Post reply on HN