Some people are using King Charles’ coronation to further their narrative on the return of the crown jewels. This includes left wing social justice activists, right wing Hindutva fascists, and the likes of Dr. Shashi Tharoor. Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan have also exerted their claims.
The case for repatriating these jewels needs to be critically examined.
Let us consider the Indian claim first. The far-right Indian government is expunging Mughal history - and it was the Mughal emperors who owned the jewels. So how can Hindutvists claim the jewels when they hold seething hatred towards them? To assert their claim, they fall back to a legend that the Koh-i-Noor diamond was first mined in some obscure Indian location before the Mughals. But that's like the claim that every mosque in India was built on a Shiva temple or that every invention was originally Indian.
Meanwhile, Pakistan is undergoing a severe economic, political, and climate crisis along with a resurgence of terrorism. The Pakistani claim claim would rest on the fact that the young Sikh Maharaja gave the diamond to Empress Victoria under duress. And since the Sikhs ruled the part that is now Pakistan, the diamond should return to Pakistan. But what claim does a Muslim majority Pakistan have on a Sikh empire when they marginalized their own non-Muslim minorities?
The claims by Iran or Afghanistan are flimsier, as warlords from these places invaded India to take the jewels back to their respective empires. The point is everyone’s history has an imperial past that rests on empires and subjugation of other people.
In any case, returning to the loudest claimants, i.e. those in India: let us remember that the people who clamour for the return of the jewels are pejoratively labelled as SJWs, who the far-right Hindutvists hate anyway. Additionally, India is exerting its muscle after newly becoming the fifth-largest economy – a “might is right” attitude which would not be unfamiliar to the British empire.
This is a government that has turned a blind eye to mob lynchings over suspected harm to cows, and is actively instituting discriminatory laws against its Muslim minorities. It relies on propaganda IT cells to make its narrative seem stronger than it actually is. Just observe the titles of the short media clips from India that rest on one-upmanship.
Most recently in the context of the SCO meeting in Goa, these include titles like “Jaishankar schools,” “gives a perfect reply,” “extraordinary takedown,” “Jaishankar loses cool,” and so on.
All of this gives the impression that these social-media elements are trying too hard to aggrandise their narrative. But such tactics simply conceal a deep-rooted inferiority complex that is nursed through exaggerated claims. It is based on a nouveau riche mentality where those who newly acquire their higher economic status go overboard with their demeanour.
Such tactics also project one as a bully that is obsessed with picking on a smaller state – in this case Pakistan – especially when it is undergoing a severe economic, political, and climate crisis. This is like kicking someone when one is already down. This would be akin to the US jeering and sneering at Mexico by asserting its technological, economic, and military prowess at every instance. Such an approach overtly projects hubris but is ultimately based on a deep-rooted inferiority complex where no matter how strong one becomes one remains obsessed with a party multiple times weaker than oneself.
Additionally, like the US that is rife with structural racism that is glossed over by a black President or black celebrities in entertainment, India’s structural racism against Muslims is glossed over by a ceremonial Muslim President and the Muslim Khans in Bollywood. Moreover, the right-wing Hindutvist narrative goes further to lament that “we ceded our entertainment to Muslims, and education to Christians.”
Given such racism, right wing Hindutvists could not tolerate an Italian born Indian as a Prime Minister. Similarly, Pakistan does not even allow a non-Muslim to become a PM.
In stark contrast, Britain has an Indian origin Prime Minister and Scotland has a Pakistani origin First Minister today.
So, why should the crown jewels return to places where minorities are pummelled, where the strong sneer at the weak, and where the original claimants of the jewels are long dead and increasingly expunged from history textbooks.
In short, there is probably a stronger argument to be made that this circus should just end, and the crown jewels should remain in Britain.