Historical objects should be brought back their country of origin. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Many people argue that historical

artefacts

and objects should be returned to their authentic owners.

Although

this

might be ethical, I strongly disagree with

this

and think that

this

may

bring

Verb problem

apply

show examples

ruin the peace and take away the pride of the conquerors. To start with, the return of

artefacts

will bring conflicts between the

countries

. As a matter of fact, during the ancient time, the world was geographically different to what it is now.

Therefore

, the

object

Fix the agreement mistake

objects

show examples

conquered from one kingdom may now be separate

countries

.

Furthermore

, it would be a challenge to find its original owner.

For example

, Kohinoor was taken by the British when India and Pakistan were one. Recently when it was demanded to get the Kohinoor diamond back, the

countries

had an argument over the original owner, as Kohinoor, was the possession of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, who ruled the Punjab kingdom which is now in India

as well as

Pakistan.

Hence

, the return of historical items can disrupt world peace.

Secondly

, these

artefacts

are the pride of the

countries

who possess them now. These items signify the sacrifices made by the Martyrs and the historic power of the nation. In historic times, war and power decided who would rule and own,

although

, the conquerors might not be the original owners. They possess these gaining strength and losing armies.

For example

, during colonisation, the British took some

artefacts

from India and it was possible only because of their power.

Therefore

, pride and historical contributions should be respected and the

countries

should not give back the

artefacts

they now possess.

To conclude

, in order to maintain world peace and devote respect to historical events, the

artefacts

should remain where they are now.