back

by alephnerd·3y ago·view on hn ↗
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.

25 comments
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.

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

https://www.419eater.com/

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.

> It is currently being admired publicly by thousands of people, sitting on the coffin of Queen Elisabeth. [sic]

I think you mistook that photograph in the article or misread the caption - that was Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's coffin; not Elizabeth II's.

The crown 'currently being admired publicly [...]' does not contain the Kohinoor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_State_Crown

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

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.
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

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.

> (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.)

What about revenue generated from Waitrose Duchy Organic and other Crown owned but Private enterprises[0]? Not combative but actually curious, but I'd prefer an actual legal opinion on this, not some online commentator to be honest.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitrose_Duchy_Organic

The claim of income from tourism is wrong: https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism

(At least if you believe the figures from Visit Britain, the government organization for tourism.)

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.)

But which Afghanistan - the Taliban or the basically nonexistent Government in Exile?
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).
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.

Why not Pakistan? Why not Afghanistan?
If it needs to be given away, maybe to a museum belonging to the United Nations? I'm not sure if there are truly extraterritorial museums, though.
What made you pick India, and not Pakistan or Afghanistan?
Does it have to go to any country? Duleep Singh was the owner, when the British took it. Who is his legal heir?
He had eight children (in exile in England), but none of them had heirs.
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.
The Crown pays taxes: https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0?ch=5#bio-section-4
There's confusion between Queen, Royal family, and the Crown.

The Crown is effectively the state. It's different from the private income and possessions of the Monarch and Royal family.

Queen did which is good! I'm curious whether King Charles will though as he seems to own a fair number of private enterprises, as well as the other royals (I think Prince Harry and Megan Markle announced raising a Series B for their company earlier today for example)
Technically speaking, we don't really know who owns it. But what we do know is that the British definitely doesn't own it.

If somebody stole this from the British today, they have no right to complain!

Britain definitely has the best claim. They were given it in a treaty almost 200 years ago, and are currently in possession of it.
The question of "what exactly is ownership?" is an interesting one... every single patch of land has a long and bloody history, and if land ownership includes mining rights? Then this carries over to all objects.
It's like the argument that California should be given back to Mexico, when Mexico itself was a Spanish colonial construct.
Not a fan of the British crown (why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation)

The rest of your comment scans, but this bit seems weird to me.

What does the rate of inflation have to do, with taxation?

Some points:

- we are no where near record inflation, at least not in the US and Canada, and I presume the UK too. I recall 18% being thrown around in the 80s.

- changing tax policy due to inflation seems a weird idea to me. Inflation causes cost of living changes, but also, as a result, wage increases are fought for and won.

If anything, inflation needs to see taxation brackets moving upward to be fair! Not more taxation...

- look at all consumption tax. Inflation goes up, pricing goes up, so sales tax, gas tax, etc collected increases as a result.

I guess I don't get the inflation angle.

>why are they exempt from taxes during record high inflation

Because they literally own all (or at least most) of the tourist attractions in the UK. It looks funny how the royal family is paid bunch of money for just existing until you realize they own the land and they have deal with the government where government handles the properties and whatever and pays the royal family for it, but the amount revenue is much much larger

Powder it. Problem solved.
It is not very hard, it can go to a museum and can go around the country. After all in a democracy the people are the kings.

Personally I would not want it back, because it is just the tip of the iceberg. The church of England (now csi and cni) hold on to 1000s of acres of colonial land across the country.

The kohinoor is just a drop in the ocean.

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.

This is why I'm not a fan of "correcting" history. What happened, happened. You cannot really correct it without breaking something elsewhere.

Returning this diamond isn't going to magically erase 200 years of colonial rule.

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…

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.
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

I think the rule should be: if the entity claiming the item obtained it through conquest originally, they don't get it back. If the item was created or purchased by the entity, they should get it back.
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.

I guess that means if somebody stole the diamond from the crown today, they would get to keep it?
Who would they pay taxes to? Themselves?
Nice excuses to not return it back to the last known owners.
> 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.