The rationale for stealing jewellery
And the ir-rationale for not giving it back
Image: publicity for the 2006 Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Connelly, Djimon Hounsou movie Blood Diamond. There are very few pure diamonds that do not have a strain of blood running through them.
“As we are seeing increasingly, the return of stolen property is always a good thing. Generations to come will wonder why it took civilised nations so long to do the right thing” (Shashi Tharoor, Indian MP and former undersecretary to the United Nations, on the prospect of the return of jewellery appropriated by the UK during its colonial rule of India).
So, tell us: why is it taking so long?
It perhaps has to do with the reason it was taken in the first place. Thieves usually take valuables and fence them at the pub for a quarter their true worth, to compensate for the risk of the sale to a reputable buyer. Thieves do not take valuables in order to wallow in some imagined feeling of royalty or riches. They’re into theft for the quick buck.
So, was the UK in India a thief? No, it was not a thief. It was much worse than that. It nicked the jewels for the same reason that the Austrians invented the croissant and the Grenadier Guards wear impractical Russian battle gear on their heads: to say, “You lost. We won. We are top of the hill. And you’re not.”
When India hinted that the presence of the Koh-i-noor diamond at the coronation of King Charles, planned for May, would recall “painful memories”, Buckingham Palace said that Camilla would opt for a “less-contentious diamond.” What does that mean? Goodness, where do I start?!!
- First, she’ll be wearing diamonds, just – not yours.
- Because yours are contentious. I beg your pardon?? India says wearing them will conjure painful memories, and you call that “contentious”, like it’s some technical legal argument that you’re not going to bother with in the specious details? I’m feeling generous: would the palace like to rephrase that?
- And, before we decide to what extent the diamond is or is not contentious, perhaps Charlie would inform us what part of invading, subjecting, subjugating and nicking grants him due right and title to even hold the thing in his sweaty palm?
His Madge never was the brightest spark in the Roman candle, telling us with true enquiry that he didn’t understand what love is (on the eve of his first marriage, wouldn’t you know?) Love is the least of the King’s emotional vocabulary deficits. Perhaps between now and his crown-plonking ceremony, he can consider the meanings of words like shame, regret, outrage, contrition, and “the intent permanently to deprive.”
Your Majesty, colonialism is all about doing the wrong thing. Don’t think for a second there is anything that you could do, even if it occurred to you, that would put the slightest thing right about it.
So, wear the bloody diamond, full square on the middle of your bonce, and stick them a middle finger into the bargain: after all, that’s how your forebears calmed the contention when it was first taken; it might yet work a treat in 2023.
There is an alternative: give the sodding thing back. Either lord it, or return it: up to you.
Infants class always drains me.