Problem
I. In the podcast about "Tipu's Tiger," the Indian politician Shashi Tharoor says he regards Tipu Sultan as a national hero because of his resistance to colonialism. How is the tiger a representation of this resistance? Would the tiger mean something different if it were to remain in London or if it were to be returned to Mysore? Marc Fennell complicates this interpretation by pointing out that not all of the people who lived in Mysore would have found Tipu Sultan to be a good leader. Does learning more about Sultan change the meaning of the tiger?
II. In "Tipu's Tiger," the historian Zareer Masani says he's fine with the tiger living in the Victoria and Albert Museum because the British were the ones who preserved the piece. He says that had the tiger been left in India it likely wouldn't have survived the death of Sultan. This argument, that British museums that hold collections like this should have them because they've done the work of preservation and are the ones capable of taking care of great old works of art. What is the Greek and Nigerian response to this argument? What do you think?