3 ms·

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 th

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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.
  - alephnerd 4y ago
    Well, it was defacto owned by Gulab Singh at that point (who was basically his own automous and honestly pretty evil warlord - fun fact, my mom's side of the family is directly descended from his top general and my dad's side of the family emigrated to British India because in the 1800s they were mere Pahari peasants who were required to partake in forced labor for Raja Gulab Singh's family, and resettled on a portion of land that was part of a massive land tract given to a major Zamindar/Feudal Lord who supported Duleep Singh and thus lost it after the war). And the key question then is, who is the successor state? The Sikh Empire's successor state was the British Raj and the Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu's successor state is - oh wait, 4 wars, ethnic cleansing, and a 40 year insurgency occured over this question).
    - valarauko 4y ago
      > defacto owned by Gulab Singh at that point Sure, not in dispute. The point of the exercise is to recontextualize ownership of colonial spoils as the heritage of the colonized people, rather than the personal property of the monarchs involved, or the successor states of an empire. Indeed, I would broaden that to include all wealth plundered from the people, including by their own nobility. If the goal is to restore the diamond to the people who have had the greatest claim to it, it's not an impossible task to determine where their descendants currently live. If we seek to consider to simply restore the diamond to the last royal claimant (and their successor entity) before British hands entered the long relay of property ownership, I'm not sure much is accomplished.
      - alephnerd 4y ago
        The issue is colonial people in South and Central Asian history is weird because just about every South and Central Asian state (the Durranis, the Sikh Confedracy, the Sikh Empire, the Mughals, the British Raj, the Maratha Empire, the Delhi Sultanate, etc) was a federal system with castes, clans, and ethnic groups being given varying levels of self governance [0][1][2]. So when you say colonial people, does it belong the people of N state of the no longer existing country called X or M state of no longer existing country called Y. Successor States are an actual legal concept which remains a grey area to this day. On top of that, both Pakistan and India made themselves successor states of princely states in the 1970s but it's still a murky gray area from a jurisprudence standpoint as cases are still being litigated, as the associated federal-local level deliniation is still lacking. Welcome to the legal world. [0] - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/constitution-to-sc-how-the-federal-doctrine-evolved/story-JCCDW0q2rXq0BhUV6FXSYM.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/constitution-to-sc... [1] - http://14.139.211.59/bitstream/123456789/194/6/06_CHAPTER_02.pdf http://14.139.211.59/bitstream/123456789/194/6/06_CHAPTER_02... [2] - https://www.jstor.org/stable/20078850 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20078850
fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
After determining the point on the earth where the time-population-weighted center of ownership lies, let’s seize that land from whoever lives there now so an appropriate secure facility can be built to house the diamond in perpetuity.

alephnerd 4y ago

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 4y ago
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.
- alephnerd 4y ago
  Well, it was defacto owned by Gulab Singh at that point (who was basically his own automous and honestly pretty evil warlord - fun fact, my mom's side of the family is directly descended from his top general and my dad's side of the family emigrated to British India because in the 1800s they were mere Pahari peasants who were required to partake in forced labor for Raja Gulab Singh's family, and resettled on a portion of land that was part of a massive land tract given to a major Zamindar/Feudal Lord who supported Duleep Singh and thus lost it after the war). And the key question then is, who is the successor state? The Sikh Empire's successor state was the British Raj and the Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu's successor state is - oh wait, 4 wars, ethnic cleansing, and a 40 year insurgency occured over this question).
  - valarauko 4y ago
    > defacto owned by Gulab Singh at that point Sure, not in dispute. The point of the exercise is to recontextualize ownership of colonial spoils as the heritage of the colonized people, rather than the personal property of the monarchs involved, or the successor states of an empire. Indeed, I would broaden that to include all wealth plundered from the people, including by their own nobility. If the goal is to restore the diamond to the people who have had the greatest claim to it, it's not an impossible task to determine where their descendants currently live. If we seek to consider to simply restore the diamond to the last royal claimant (and their successor entity) before British hands entered the long relay of property ownership, I'm not sure much is accomplished.
    - alephnerd 4y ago
      The issue is colonial people in South and Central Asian history is weird because just about every South and Central Asian state (the Durranis, the Sikh Confedracy, the Sikh Empire, the Mughals, the British Raj, the Maratha Empire, the Delhi Sultanate, etc) was a federal system with castes, clans, and ethnic groups being given varying levels of self governance [0][1][2]. So when you say colonial people, does it belong the people of N state of the no longer existing country called X or M state of no longer existing country called Y. Successor States are an actual legal concept which remains a grey area to this day. On top of that, both Pakistan and India made themselves successor states of princely states in the 1970s but it's still a murky gray area from a jurisprudence standpoint as cases are still being litigated, as the associated federal-local level deliniation is still lacking. Welcome to the legal world. [0] - https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/constitution-to-sc-how-the-federal-doctrine-evolved/story-JCCDW0q2rXq0BhUV6FXSYM.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/constitution-to-sc... [1] - http://14.139.211.59/bitstream/123456789/194/6/06_CHAPTER_02.pdf http://14.139.211.59/bitstream/123456789/194/6/06_CHAPTER_02... [2] - https://www.jstor.org/stable/20078850 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20078850

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago

After determining the point on the earth where the time-population-weighted center of ownership lies, let’s seize that land from whoever lives there now so an appropriate secure facility can be built to house the diamond in perpetuity.