Introduction

Indian Diamonds 133
phasises the uncertainty of the “rumours” as John Herncastle’s nameless cousin
admits: “I have not only no proof that he killed the two men at the door; I cannot
even declare that he killed the third man inside – for I cannot say that my own
eyes saw the deed committed” (Collins, Moonstone 15). The events connected with
violence in the colony and the acquisition of the diamonds is shrouded in a mystery
which is perpetuated in England and transforms into rumours and slander.
The attempted silencing, which mirrors the reactions to the Mutiny, implies a
sense of guilt and its repression.
In “The Rajah’s Diamond” another context for the interpretation of the diamonds
as trophies is opened up: The hunt for treasure which also underlies the
adventure story is discredited in the character of John Vandeleur. “He sees the
colony as the legitimate hunting ground: “I have hunted most things, from men
and women down to mosquitos; I have dived for coral; I have followed both
whales and tigers; and a diamond is the tallest quarry of the lot.” (Stevenson, “Rajah’s”
127) Similarly, in the Sherlock Holmes short-story “The Adventure of the
Mazarin Stone”, the villain Count Negretto Sylvius is a big-game and diamond
hunter in Algeria, the colonial possession of France (Doyle, “Mazarin” 566).
Hunting as the trope of subjection and exploitation of a country formed an important
part in imperial self-fashioning (Siddiqi 241). Its importance grew especially
after the Mutiny when hunting stood in for the “civilising” of India and at
the same time displayed untainted British prowess (Nayar 133). The diamonds are,
in “The Rajah’s Diamond”, the reward for a successful hunt and aligned with big
game. At the same time this notion is discredited in the unscrupulous character of
the adventurer John Vandeleur who hunts men as well as beasts.
The crimes committed in India mark the diamonds’ transition into British
ownership. The acquisition of the diamonds always must be regarded before a
more comprehensive backdrop of violence and politics. The silences which mark
the accounts of the Moonstone and the Rajah’s Diamond enforce the connection
with the historical event. The Mutiny and the siege of Seringapatam serve as the
foil on which the crimes are enacted. Both events significantly determined the
relationship between Britain and India. Through this association with events that
relate to British domination over India, the diamonds acquire the status as trophies
of war and thus signify rule as prefigured in the Koh-i-Noor and its symbolic
incorporation into the crown jewels. While this status as a trophy is plausible
in the context of untroubled British victories, the diamonds which are associated
with the Mutiny are not so much trophies but mnemonic objects of insecurity and
almost-defeat. This property vies with the traditional view of the Indian diamond
as, in a synecdoche, figuring the possession of India.
India thus is not only the treasure trove of ‘Adventure Literature’ but also a
place replete with violence and crime. While the rumours about the Moonstone
captivate John Herncastle and instigate him to murder its guardians and steal the
diamond, it is Indians who, in the two later texts, seduce the English protagonists