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

121–130 of 327 posts

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

#121

Post by SnowHill9902 »

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.)

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).

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

#122

Post by onetimeusename »

karencarits wrote: post #99

A related question I sometimes wonder: wouldn't it be fair to return the cathedrals and the property of monasteries that were "stolen" during the reformation back to the Catholic church?

I think it's a interesting question and I suspect the answer is that this isn't about repatriation of artifacts, it's more about politics.

There was a lot of art taken during the Napoleonic Wars from the Catholic Church too. Napoleon took art from other European countries too but the Italian states were the least able to repatriate anything at the time. A lot of art that was looted still sits in the Louvre. I kind of wonder if repatriation only matters when the artifact came from non western countries to western ones.

What happens, when, for example, a church in Italy is the beneficiary let alone a European country? Does that make it less urgent? I haven't seen any calls for repatriations in this sense that make headlines.

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

#123

Post by alephnerd »

Ozzie_osman wrote: post #110
alephnerd wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the Khedivate of Egypt has a direct successor state - the Arab Republic of Egypt. The Sikh Empire, Durrani Empire, and Princely state of Kashimr and Jammu do not - this is why tensions are always high between India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Right. But the point I'm making is that even in the case of Egypt, where succession is clear, the items often aren't returned. Which makes the "unclear who to give it to" sound more like an excuse than a legitimate reason in the other cases.

And it's a fair point, but not exactly apples to oranges. It was "just" Zahi Hawass who made the formal request back in 2003. What if it was Sisi or Morsi or Mubarak who requested this at the nation state level. A request from a minister is not exactly equal to that of a head of state. I know this feels pedantic, but welcome to the world of policy, IR, and jurisprudence. The Kohinoor question is different from the Rosetta Stone as there is an additional Inter-Nation and Intra-National gray area that expands the complexity, which also expands the cost of litigation, which in turn is of questionable value when all the countries have higher priorities between each other, internally, and UK relations.

From an Egyptian viewpoint - a good example might be as follows:

What if an artifact was found in the Gaza Strip in 1955 and taken to the UK, who should the UK return it to? The Gaza Strip government, the West Bank government, the Israeli government, or the Egyptian government?

Edit: cannot reply below -

1. I'm pointing out a specific requirement in IR

2. The Gaza example above is an analogy for the Kohinoor example. I honestly don't care about the Egyptian case because I have no connection with that part of the world and I assume there are different considerations.

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

#124

Post by baryphonic »

> “If you ask anybody what should happen to Jewish art stolen by the Nazis, everyone would say of course they’ve got to be given back to their owners,” Dalrymple says. “And yet we’ve come to not say the same thing about Indian loot taken hundreds of years earlier, also at the point of a gun. What is the moral distinction between stuff taken by force in colonial times?”

I'm not sure a state conquering another state and seizing the conquered artifacts is comparable to a state systematically imprisoning & murdering millions of civilians and seizing their valuable possessions.

After all, as others have pointed out, which state should it return to: Pakistan, Afghanistan or India? If the British "looted" it, should we also consider Afghanistan or Pakistan to have "looted" it first?

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

#125

Post by NotYourLawyer »

ceejayoz wrote: post #59
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[citation needed]

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

#126

Post by alephnerd »

naravara wrote: post #103
Victerius wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a legitimate argument. If the British had taken possession of an object from an Indian tribe in California in 1800, who would be entitled to it? The U.S. government? The government of Mexico? The State of California? The Tribes' descendants? Possession is 9/10 of the law.

Not really, it's not nearly as complicated as all that. The Governments of India and Pakistan formally inherited the relevant obligations and ownership rights from the British Raj, which itself assumed control over the same from the East India Company. The chain of ownership is clear and the only issue in dispute is whether it should be India or Pakistan who is more entitled to it, an issue which both nations are per…

But which state inherited Jammu Kashmir? That becomes the key question when the Kohinoor comes up, because Gulab Singh was the Wazir/PM of the Sikh Empire at the time, and Afghanistan doesn't recognize the Durrand Line, so arguably half of Afghanistan can be argued as still in play.

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

#127

Post by throwawaylinux »

sfg wrote: post #85
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…

Does it have to go to any country? Duleep Singh was the owner, when the British took it. Who is his legal heir?

The British crown is the legal owner now, so bringing the law into it doesn't help you. It's not a legal matter it's a moral one, and OP made a very good point about why that's more difficult than you might think.

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

#128

Post by kortilla »

Ozzie_osman wrote: post #89
Victerius wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a legitimate argument. If the British had taken possession of an object from an Indian tribe in California in 1800, who would be entitled to it? The U.S. government? The government of Mexico? The State of California? The Tribes' descendants? Possession is 9/10 of the law.

Yes, for your hypothetical object, all of those parties would have a more legitimate claim than the British, and so I'd argue that any of them would be a step in the right direction (though more specifically, I'd say the tribes' descendants have the most legitimate claim). By the way, there are many examples of colonizing European countries refusing to return things they took during colonization where that "we don't…

> Yes, for your hypothetical object, all of those parties would have a more legitimate claim than the British

“We stole it earlier” is not a more legitimate claim.

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

#129

Post by nikolay »

I am so tired of people romanticizing the monarchy, especially one of the bloodiest colonizers on this planet - the British monarchy! The year is 2022! Can't we finally grow up and stop telling girls stories about princes on white horses and stop talking about monarchs like they are some kinds of saviors!? Instead of wasting billions less than 20 years from now to wipe our Charles' face and name, end this now and turn them into a British Disneyland!

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

#130

Post by elashri »

alephnerd wrote: post #123
Ozzie_osman wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. But the point I'm making is that even in the case of Egypt, where succession is clear, the items often aren't returned. Which makes the "unclear who to give it to" sound more like an excuse than a legitimate reason in the other cases.

And it's a fair point, but not exactly apples to oranges. It was "just" Zahi Hawass who made the formal request back in 2003. What if it was Sisi or Morsi or Mubarak who requested this at the nation state level. A request from a minister is not exactly equal to that of a head of state. I know this feels pedantic, but welcome to the world of policy, IR, and jurisprudence. The Kohinoor question is different from the Ro…

So the argument now is that because the head of state of Egypt did not request that, then British shouldn't return this back and refuse the request that came from a minister who was responsible for all Egypt's antiquities affairs?. It does not feel pedantic, it is.

Also the Gaza strip example is just unnecessary hypothetical scenario. The British and french stole a lot of things from all over Egypt. There is no need to imagine hypothetical scenarios.

Post reply on HN