[HN Gopher] The Koh-I-Noor Diamond, and Why the British Won't Gi...
___________________________________________________________________
The Koh-I-Noor Diamond, and Why the British Won't Give It Back
Author : tomcam
Score : 65 points
Date : 2022-09-15 21:00 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| [deleted]
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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 capital was Peshawar until the
| last Sikh-Afghan War, thus any claim India or Afghanistan has on
| either Empire's legacy is also owned by Pakistan, even inspite of
| Partition or the Durrand Line).
|
| On top of that, if it goes to India - should it be owned by the
| Central/Federal government, the Punjab government (the state that
| is the core of the former Sikh Empire), Jammu Kashmir's
| Government (because of Shah Shuja and Raja Gulab Singh), Delhi
| Government (the Mughal capital), or Andhra Pradesh Government
| (the mine is located there). And is it worth putting a logjam
| into the Free Trade Agreement India and the UK are currently
| negotating?
|
| If they give it to Pakistan, should it go to the Pakistan Federal
| Government, Punjab Government (the state that is the core of the
| former Sikh Empire), AJK Government (because of Shah Shuja and
| Raja Gulab Singh), or Khyber Pakhtunkwa Government (the state
| that is the core of the former Sikh Empire and former Durrani
| Empire)? Is it worth putting British Humanitarian and Military
| Aid at risk?
|
| If they give it to Afghanistan, is it to the Taliban led
| government, or the government in exile? Is it worth putting
| British Aid and potential recognition at risk?
|
| 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, also it can be argued that the Sikh Empire
| handed it to the UK fairly.
| twblalock wrote:
| 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 asserts they are his family's
| private property.
|
| On top of that, there is a long track record of art being
| stolen from modern-day Nigerian museums and sold to other
| museums or collectors, and returning the bronzes just for them
| to be re-stolen does not benefit any of the parties involved.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| It's like the argument that California should be given back to
| Mexico, when Mexico itself was a Spanish colonial construct.
| abeppu wrote:
| https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/25/california-redwood-
| fo...
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| "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.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Tribal Soverignity is a different story than nation state
| soverignity. The Federal government has supremacy over
| Tribal and State Government. Worcester v. Georgia still
| holds
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Ideally it should be "bought" from the 3 countries and they
| should receive a sort of donation.
|
| AFAIK they need money a lot more than Britain, and tangible
| food and resources are a lot more useful than a pretty diamond.
|
| Though I kind of doubt this will happen...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _they need money a lot more than Britain, and tangible food
| and resources are a lot more useful than a pretty diamond_
|
| This is the comment's point. The benefits of a trade deal
| might measure up to the worth of this diamond in minutes.
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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
| RajT88 wrote:
| There's no way it's worth that much.
|
| Articles kicking around estimate at 140 - 400 million,
| with some "over a billion".
| alephnerd wrote:
| Makes sense! Looks like google fu failed me again!
| archduck wrote:
| 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.)
| alephnerd wrote:
| But which Afghanistan - the Taliban or the basically
| nonexistent Government in Exile?
| [deleted]
| electriclove wrote:
| Put it in a museum in India.
|
| Yes, it might piss some off, but this idea of keeping the
| status quo (keeping it with the British) because it is
| complicated is ridiculous.
| Ozzie_osman wrote:
| Ah, the old "well we're not sure who should get it so we will
| just keep it for now", coupled with the old "whoever we give it
| to may not take as good care of it as we will, so we will just
| keep it for now."
|
| Timeless.
| OJFord wrote:
| > (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation)
|
| (Because we pay taxes to the crown, doesn't really make sense
| for the king to pay tax to his majesty's own revenue and
| customs, HMRC. That said, there was something in the accension
| council about continuing to volunteer tax on something or
| another, and as the Duke of Cornwall he volunteered tax on
| duchy income. My understanding is that the royal family is a
| net contributor to state coffers even without (how would you
| even begin) accounting for all the tourism income.)
| pippy wrote:
| Also would the world be a better place if they gave it back to
| some third party, so it can be sold to a private collection and
| be locked in a vault somewhere?
|
| Where it is now has a lot of historical and cultural
| significance. It is currently being admired publicly by
| thousands of people, sitting on the coffin of Queen Elisabeth.
| blibble wrote:
| the Imperial State Crown is the one sitting on HMQs coffin
| and has the Cullinan II diamond (among many others)
|
| the one in the article (containg the Koh-I-Noor) is the Queen
| Mother's Crown
| soperj wrote:
| > 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.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Who would the neutral 3rd party be? It would still cause the
| same argument as above. The United States (Afghanistan would
| say no), China (India would say no), the Commonwealth
| (Afghanistan isn't a member), the UN (which Afghan
| government?), etc.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Sri Lanka, they could use the help right now.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Sri Lanka hasn't recognized the Taliban government and
| India would also say no due to the China factor.
| gw99 wrote:
| Powder it. Problem solved.
| valarauko wrote:
| 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
| century, with the bulk of the empire's population in Eastern
| Punjab and the non-punjabi segments of present Northern India.
| As the diamond moved hands, perhaps we can also weigh how long
| it rested in each region, so a nation (i.e., its people) that
| held it for a brief while has a commensurate level of claim to
| its ownership.
|
| I think the issue of federal government vs state government -
| federal government holds it as stewards of the people.
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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).
| valarauko wrote:
| We know the boundaries of each empire, and can make
| guesstimates of each population. Weigh each claim by how
| long they held it, and the population of each historic
| state at the time, not the modern successor state. So the
| centroid of "ownership" would move across South Asia over
| time (I doubt a weighed centroid would ever leave South
| Asia). Advance the clock, and the centroid would advance
| from Southeast India to the north over time. Once the clock
| reaches the point at which the British ransomed it from
| Duleep Singh, award it the successor state of wherever the
| centroid is.
| qlm wrote:
| "And just as with ethnology, which plays at extricating itself
| from its object to better secure itself in its pure form,
| demuseumification is nothing but another spiral in artificiality.
| Witness the cloister of Saint-Michel de Cuxa, which one will
| repatriate at great cost from the Cloisters in New York to
| reinstall it in "its original site." And everyone is supposed to
| applaud this restitution (as they did "the experimental campaign
| to take back the sidewalks" on the Champs Elysees!). Well, if the
| exportation of the cornices was in effect an arbitrary act, if
| the Cloisters in New York are an artificial mosaic of all
| cultures (following a logic of the capitalist centralization of
| value), their reimportation to the original site is even more
| artificial: it is a total simulacrum that links up with "reality"
| through a complete circumvolution.
|
| The cloister should have stayed in New York in its simulated
| environment, which at least fooled no one. Repatriating it is
| nothing but a supplementary subterfuge, acting as if nothing had
| happened and indulging in retrospective hallucination."
|
| Baudrillard - Simulacra And Simulation
| abeppu wrote:
| I don't think this repatriation actually happened. Is that
| because someone actually listened to Baudrillard? In any case,
| complaining about an event which didn't happen as "indulging in
| retrospective hallucination" adds another layer.
| https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/470314
| abeppu wrote:
| James Acaster does a great job highlighting the absurdity of the
| British refusing to repatriate stuff taken from the empire.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY
| jfabre wrote:
| It's only absurd if you think that countries ought to behave
| like people in a society. All the laws and rules of societies
| serve one purpose, to keep themselves stable. The abstraction
| of Justice doesn't apply outside of society, unfortunately.
| smcl wrote:
| Brit (well Scot) here. Can only say: yes and it's insane
| markdown wrote:
| Relevant: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-
| india/koh...
| electriclove wrote:
| "gift"
| ectopod wrote:
| The Smithsonian ignoring the elephant in the room:
|
| "The United States of America, and Why the Americans Won't Give
| It Back"
| castrodd wrote:
| Says what I want to say:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY
| pacetherace wrote:
| India should focus on shaming the Brits for the genocides and
| famines they caused in India.
| bubblematrix wrote:
| 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.
| tomrod wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India
| pacetherace wrote:
| It was absolutely the fault of the British. The partition
| lines were drawn by lawyer with little to no inputs from
| experts.
| [deleted]
| rayiner wrote:
| India should focus on getting their own shit together. They can
| be content in the knowledge that Britain is a shadow of its
| former self, without the resources to pay back a fraction of
| what they took.
| pacetherace wrote:
| Oh the reparations are not happening. But world needs to be
| aware of the level of apathy the British government had
| towards its colonies (even in the 20th century)
| 10u152 wrote:
| Yes I'm sure there were never genocides and famines before the
| British got there...
| kaesar14 wrote:
| Not on the scale as afterwards, no.
| rr888 wrote:
| 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
| karencarits wrote:
| Are you sure? I couldn't find any good sources on British
| genocide, but Wikipedia has a list of massacres in India:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India In
| sum, the number of casualties from Colonial India is orders
| of magnitude lower than both pre-colonial and independent
| India
| rvz wrote:
| So not exactly the problem of the British then that was
| originally claimed. That they (India) have done this to
| themselves even before (pre-colonial) and now after
| (independent) despite the emotive screaming and yelling
| going on here.
| n4r9 wrote:
| None of the pre-colonial massacres exceed 500k; the
| Bengal famine alone killed over 2 million:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
| [deleted]
| emilsedgh wrote:
| Btw, for anyone interested, `Koh-I-Noor` means `Mountain of
| Light`.
| exolymph wrote:
| Vae victis, and to the victor go the spoils. (This is not an
| endorsement.)
|
| > "When the powerful take things from the less powerful, the
| powerless don't have much to do except curse the powerful," Kurin
| says.
|
| Indeed.
| hackeraccount wrote:
| Bobby: To the victor belongs the spoils. Tony: Why don't you
| get the fuck out of here before I shove your quotation book up
| your fat fucking ass.
| WJW wrote:
| Clearly Bobby was not much of a victor in this case. Related
| to TFA: if the Indians want their diamond back, let them come
| and get it. It's pretty clear why they don't, and who Tony
| and Bobby are in this particular version of the story.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Also, any efforts by the powerless to redress the balance are
| generally labeled terrorism.
| rr888 wrote:
| Would be helpful if you had a solid example.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| No, not really. Just those efforts that aim to terrorize.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| No; attacks on US service members and bases in war zones
| are often called terrorism. The term has absolutely become
| overly broad.
| LunaSea wrote:
| Not really
| WitCanStain wrote:
| Hard disagree. Indiscriminately killing civilians is labelled
| terrorism, and rightly so.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Yes, but so are an awful lot of other things. Animal rights
| and environmental activists have been frequently tagged
| with that term, even when engaged in nonviolent protest.
|
| https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1
| 0...
| mberning wrote:
| They stole it fair and square. If somebody is mad about it they
| should steal it back.
| zardo wrote:
| Stealing it is just theft. To make it "legitimate" you have
| to claim it by conquest.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-15 23:00 UTC)