Yes, for your hypothetical object, all of those parties would have a more legitimate claim than the British, and so I'd argue that any of them would be a step in the right direction (though more specifically, I'd say the tribes' descendants have the most legitimate claim).

By the way, there are many examples of colonizing European countries refusing to return things they took during colonization where that "we don't know who we should give it to" argument is much weaker or non-existent.

For example, Egypt has many items that are on display in European (mostly British and French) museums that it has tried to regain where ownership is not that complicated because the item was taken from Egypt by a European without complicated chains that might affect who owns what.

Maybe the most famous is the Rosetta Stone, which was found and taken by French troops from Egypt, then given to the British via some treaty, and the British refuse to give it back despite many calls from Egypt. You could say something like "oh well it's unclear whether the British should give it back to the French or the Egyptians"... but I hope you can see how that would be a stretch.

But the Khedivate of Egypt has a direct successor state - the Arab Republic of Egypt. The Sikh Empire, Durrani Empire, and Princely state of Kashimr and Jammu do not - this is why tensions are always high between India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

Right. But the point I'm making is that even in the case of Egypt, where succession is clear, the items often aren't returned. Which makes the "unclear who to give it to" sound more like an excuse than a legitimate reason in the other cases.

And it's a fair point, but not exactly apples to oranges. It was "just" Zahi Hawass who made the formal request back in 2003. What if it was Sisi or Morsi or Mubarak who requested this at the nation state level. A request from a minister is not exactly equal to that of a head of state. I know this feels pedantic, but welcome to the world of policy, IR, and jurisprudence. The Kohinoor question is different from the Rosetta Stone as there is an additional Inter-Nation and Intra-National gray area that expands the complexity, which also expands the cost of litigation, which in turn is of questionable value when all the countries have higher priorities between each other, internally, and UK relations.

From an Egyptian viewpoint - a good example might be as follows:

What if an artifact was found in the Gaza Strip in 1955 and taken to the UK, who should the UK return it to? The Gaza Strip government, the West Bank government, the Israeli government, or the Egyptian government?

Edit: cannot reply below -

1. I'm pointing out a specific requirement in IR

2. The Gaza example above is an analogy for the Kohinoor example. I honestly don't care about the Egyptian case because I have no connection with that part of the world and I assume there are different considerations.

So the argument now is that because the head of state of Egypt did not request that, then British shouldn't return this back and refuse the request that came from a minister who was responsible for all Egypt's antiquities affairs?. It does not feel pedantic, it is.

Also the Gaza strip example is just unnecessary hypothetical scenario. The British and french stole a lot of things from all over Egypt. There is no need to imagine hypothetical scenarios.

> Yes, for your hypothetical object, all of those parties would have a more legitimate claim than the British

“We stole it earlier” is not a more legitimate claim.

Recursively, it could be.

Not really, it's not nearly as complicated as all that. The Governments of India and Pakistan formally inherited the relevant obligations and ownership rights from the British Raj, which itself assumed control over the same from the East India Company. The chain of ownership is clear and the only issue in dispute is whether it should be India or Pakistan who is more entitled to it, an issue which both nations are perfectly equipped to sort out amongst themselves.

But which state inherited Jammu Kashmir? That becomes the key question when the Kohinoor comes up, because Gulab Singh was the Wazir/PM of the Sikh Empire at the time, and Afghanistan doesn't recognize the Durrand Line, so arguably half of Afghanistan can be argued as still in play.

India did. It was acceded by the Maharaja. Afghanistan’s opinions on the Durand line are, likewise, irrelevant.

And in any case, these countries are perfectly capable of sorting these disputes out amongst themselves, the same way they had to sort out much else after independence, like who inherits the armed forces and the treasury.