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

291–300 of 327 posts

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

#291

Post by la64710 »

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…

It’s origin was in India so it should go back to India. Which authority or organization within India takes care of it is their business.

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

#292

Post by davemp »

cafed00d wrote: post #169
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. Britai…

Land is land. People are people. Nation states are neither. Just because gemstones were mined in a geographic area doesn't mean that they morally belong to whoever currently resides/rules in that area.

Once the *people* involved in a specific historical event are long gone it's tenuous to imply that the descendants of those parties have a moral obligation to each other. Inheritance is going to be inequitable regardless--it's questionable to assume that anyone deserves to inherit even justly acquired property. So trying to unravel history and decide who deserves what inheritance is ridiculous, even more so when nation states are involved.

We have statutes of limitations for good reasons.

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

#293

Post by poulpy123 »

morbidious wrote: post #243
kohinooridea wrote: post #76

Quoted post unavailable.

India has a higher GDP than UK, and a larger military power than UK, so I wouldn't say UK is as capable of adequately protecting it as India.

yeah but nobody wants to invade UK because of the british food so it's safer ther

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

#294

Post by poulpy123 »

kaesar14 wrote: post #147
rr888 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quoted post unavailable.

the india famine of the end of the 19e century (also british caused) and of course all the indian famines before the british put a foot there

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

#295

Post by ashwagary »

rayiner wrote: post #283
osrec wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess then in your opinion what the Nazis did was fair game, and they should not have had to pay reparations either? What, in your opinion, is the cutoff point in time, where sins are universally absolved? Edit: It's clearly a subjective topic, but there are significant impacts felt the world over due to the British empire. I'm not sure you can say the same of Alexander the Great. People are directly and significan…

The nazis paid reparations in the lifetime of the people affected.

The US and British strategy is to wait out the plundered to avoid repayment. For this reason, Germans deserve a lot more respect. Reparations has been a serious topic of discussion since the late 1800s in the case of the American enslaved populations and it still hasn't been done.

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

#296

Post by ashwagary »

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 all an act.

Time to return stolen goods and the Brits all of a sudden have a learning disability surrounding the topic of who custodies assets on behalf of independent states like India.

Hilarious.

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

#297

Post by amriksohata »

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…

Lol a typical british divide and rule statement, who is going to take it? Forget that, just give it back to someone neutral then?

Punjab is part of India, so India will do. It was taken from a Maharaja whos citizens and their descendants wanted to be part of India

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

#298

Post by amriksohata »

ashwagary wrote: post #296
rajeshp1986 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 all an act. Time to return stolen goods and the Brits all of a sudden have a learning disability surrounding the topic of who custodies assets on behalf of independent states like India. Hilarious.

spot on

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

#299

Post by [deleted] »

ceejayoz wrote: post #286
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>war zones Were we at war with Yemen when this happened?

We weren’t at war with the Japanese on December 7, 1941. Still wasn’t a terrorist attack. We can, and should, make a significant distinction between attacks on civilians and attacks on military targets.

[deleted]

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

#300

Post by SnowHill9902 »

archduck wrote: post #166
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).

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 pa…

Right. It was a game of chicken. With a diamond, the actual owner would never say “don’t split it just give it to him”. He’d settle for a half.
Post reply on HN