5 ms·
> 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,
by soperj 4y ago
> 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 4y agoWho 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 4y agoSri Lanka, they could use the help right now.
- alephnerd 4y agoSri Lanka hasn't recognized the Taliban government and India would also say no due to the China factor.
- Apocryphon 4y agoNo one has yet recognized the Taliban government. Give it to Bangladesh then.
- alephnerd 4y agoPakistan would say no due to strained relations, and state level Indian governments would pressure the federal government to say no due to anti-Bangladeshi sentiment in India (sort of similar to anti-Central American sentiment in the US with an added Islamophobic element or Ethnic element depending on the region) - appearing to vacillate to Bangladesh over what is basically a dumb symbolic issue would piss off voters in very narrow Indian elections.
- Apocryphon 4y agoI see that the Iranian government has also demanded the diamond in the past. Forestalling the diplomatic difficulty of giving it to Tehran, give it to the current Pahlavi claimant in exile, satisfying no one in power and thus the truly neutral solution.
- selimthegrim 4y agoThere are pending water issues with Bangladesh like Teesta river, this could be a way to buy them off.
- alephnerd 4y agoNo 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 microcosm of the larger issues in North India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan that all those central goverment politicians exacerbated or directly caused during Partition, the 1980s Punjab Militancy, the Kashmir exodus, the KPK insurgency, the Afghan Civil War, the ongoing issues in Kashmir, the various Indo-Pak wars, etc.
- Apocryphon 4y agoRelease Kashmir as a buffer state and give them the diamond, resolving two international dilemmas with one stone.
- alephnerd 4y agoNeither will do it as the other nation would try to make it a client country, and it would anyhow fall back into an ethnoreligious civil war like back in the 1990s. Also, it's not just Kashmir - it's Kashmir AND Jammu AND Ladakh AND Gilgit AND Baltistan. There are dividing lines across religion (Sunni vs Shia vs Hindu/Sikh), ethnicity (Pahari vs Koshur vs Migrant vs Balti vs Ladakhi), and caste (Dogra vs Gaddi vs Bakkarwal). If I was negotiating, the only solution would be a full normalization of India-Pakistan relations with cross-border travel restarted like back before the 1971 war, and potentially a SAARC based free trade corridor (free transfer of goods and people from Mazar-i-Sharif to Moreh, from Gilgit to Galle, from Chittagong to Colombo, from Kathmandu to Karachi), but that ain't happening in my lifetime.
- soperj 4y agoUN?
- tarakat 4y agoWhy not? Almost everyone that had it before won it through conquest, but only Britain is being held to a standard where that is forbidden.
- krapp 4y agoHow about because it is the Year of our Lord 2022, the last monarch of the British Empire is dead, and humanity generally agrees now that theft through conquest is a bad idea, and Britain realizes that decolonization has to cost it something to mean something, and giving back a shiny rock on the Queen's hat which literally serves no purpose besides being a gaudy symbol of a shameful, spiteful legacy, really isn't much to ask, all things considered? And also the other jewels stolen from South Africa. Or at the very least, don't keep them on the regalia.
- tarakat 4y ago> decolonization has to cost it something to mean something Didn't they, you know, give up their empire? And invite their former colonies to colonize them, to the point that they are now a minority in their own capital? If anything this should have taught them that, not only will it never be enough, but every act of atonement will count for nothing and be immediately forgotten and discredited.
- ekam 4y agoThe idea that the British left their colonies because they just gave them up is hilariously naive
- tarakat 4y agoAnything bad they did they did with full malicious desire and intent, and anything good they did is either ignored or, as I said, discredited ("they only did it because they were forced!") If they give up the Koh-I-Noor to whomever plundered it before them, ten years later someone like you will be claiming that it is hilariously naive to believe they just gave it up.