Why has the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty survived into the the 21st century? One answer is that it represents 'English' values to people who make great play of their superior skill at speaking English, or their Academic qualifications from England, but who are wholly ignorant of England and, withal, as stupid as shit.
Consider the case of Mani Shankar Aiyar who thinks the late Queen attended Eton- a boy's school! He writes in the Indian Express-
If the British monarchy has survived into the 21st century, that has a lot to do with the manner in which Queen Elizabeth II carried the crown.
This is foolish. An exemplary monarch whose heir is a mischievous cretin won't be able to save primogeniture based succession. The cretin will be barred from the Succession.
Aiyar was a shite diplomat before becoming a brown-nosing politician lifted up by Rajiv and then his widow Sonia. But Sonia is a genuine 'pativrata' and thus a worthy Regent of the Dynasty Aiyar mindlessly serves. But, she can't preserve it. Had Rahul agreed to replace Manmohan with Montek, Congress would still be a potential ruling party. But cretins like Aiyar- but also the less reptilian Jairam Ramesh- have harmed it beyond any hope of repair. Why? They would neither accept a technocratic CEO nor cease to pretend to be the mischievous and malicious voice-boxes of the Roi Faineant.
It was a manner singularly free of the turbulence that surrounded the late Queen’s seven decades on the throne.
This is meaningless. The Queen carried the Crown because the legitimacy of the 'Crown in Parliament' was free of turbulence.
Aiyar is as stupid as shit. To be fair, he immediately ensures that everybody understands this-
The basic reason is that from her tutor at Eton who groomed her to become the symbol of her nation,
How the fuck did Princess Elizabeth attend Eton? Did she disguise herself- like Barbara Striesand in 'Yentl'? What Aiyar means is that she received instruction at home from the provost of Eton.
she learned well the distinction that the 19th century British political scientist, Walter Bagehot, had drawn between a British monarch’s “dignified” and “efficient” duties.
Indians living in India may think this Aiyar- who has a degree from Cambridge- is making some abstruse legal point. Curry & Chips Cockneys- like wot I iz- know different. Bagehot was balderdash. The distinction he made was already otiose or wrong-headed. The Crown in Parliament is supreme. It can create or extinguish distinctions even between Common and Canon Law or that of King's Equity.
Aiyar plumes himself on his 'posh' English accent. But he went down in flames when, on British TV, he tried to square up to Andrew Roberts. Shashi Tharoor, on the other hand, could mop the floor with any Righty-Tighty-Whitey.
Had she deviated from that distinction
Mani was an IFS officer when the Queen sent a signal- at variance with that of Mrs. Thatcher's Parliament- with regard to South Africa (which had left the Commonwealth more than two decades previously)- in perfect and absolute conformity with her independent role as Head of the Commonwealth.
I believe that the Queen also did much at a very personal level to undo suspicion of American subversion in Australia It is foolish to pretend that she did not fulfil her Constitutional role to promote proper outcomes without, so to speak, leaving a footprint. But this did not involve 'dignity' or the sort of 'magic' upon which daylight can't be let in ; rather, the thing was transparent. Aiyar must remember the Queen and the Archbishop signaling opposition to the Thatcher Reagan combine on South Africa. Indeed, Rajiv's foreign policy was obsessive on this issue. But, Reagan and Thatcher triumphed. The Soviets did a deal. The Cubans went home. Apartheid could fall.
The prestige of 'the Crown in Parliament' gained because the Crown had sent a different signal but, in the end, that dissonance was merely tactical and was not considered unconstitutional in England.
and allowed the crown to get caught in a swirl of controversy, it is doubtful that King Charles III would so smoothly be stepping into the succession.
Sadly, the last quarter of the Queen's reign was scarcely smooth sailing. The Queen showed courage in tackling the bull by the horns with her frank 'Annus horribilis' speech- but this did not really assuage popular grief at Diana's death and anger at 'the firm' (as Prince Phillip referred to the Palace authorities) It may be that the Queen headed off damaging political fallout by getting both John Major and Tony Blair on side. We don't know whether the Queen took steps to defend primogeniture- she probably did- but it is clear that the Palace took gradual steps to ingratiate Camilla with the public thus rehabilitating Charles. No doubt, the Queen's long reign was helpful in this respect as was the good conduct of William and Kate. But the Meghan controversy must have made her last years harder more especially after the death of her husband.
It may be that less will be expected of Charles and William will take a bigger role. But he is likely to have a more sedate and uncontroversial approach than Charles who belonged to a more outspoken generation.
Queen Elizabeth was not destined to be Queen or Empress. If her uncle, Edward VIII, had not so detested the duties of being King (while reveling in the great comforts of the flesh which the throne conferred) he might have hesitated before marrying an American divorcee, thus bringing on his abdication.
Apparently, he had proposed to the Queen's mother so, one way or another, the throne would have been occupied by the child of that formidable, but diminutive figure.
It was only this that brought his brother, Albert, to the throne as George VI, a role he played with grim determination despite the handicap of never having been prepared for it, not wanting it, and suffering from a speech defect that rendered every public statement an agony for his tormented soul.
It has been suggested that the strain cut short his life. However, in Churchill, the Queen found a chivalrous knight errant. Lord Mountbatten- Phillip's Uncle- too could be quite helpful.
Also, her parents had failed to give the family a son, and thus, at 25, Elizabeth, his eldest daughter, had to fill in when George VI died in 1952. It was symbolic of the times that she was on holiday in Kenya, a distant corner of the Empire with her husband Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, when she learned that her father had passed away and she was required to succeed him. It was an Empire that was marked by history to fade away before she had quite completed a decade on the throne.
The story is that she was staying in the famous 'Tree-top' hotel near Mt. Kenya. Seldom has a girl gone up a tree only to descend as a Queen.
Indeed, the jewel in the crown had been forced out a few weeks before she was married in November 1947. She was never, therefore, Empress of India.
Because India had become a Republic. But the Queen continued to reign over Pakistan till 1956 and Ceylon into the Seventies.
Notwithstanding that, her reign extended at the start over a vast swathe of the world, encircling the globe from the West Indies on the far side of the Atlantic Ocean to numerous colonies in west, east and southern Africa to a host of islands in the Pacific, besides the White Commonwealth where the inhabitants fought against the 20th century by remaining monarchies even after attaining full Dominion status.
The Old Commonwealth countries fought valiantly in two world wars. In the case of Canada, dishing the monarchy would have brought the Quebec issue to the boil. Australia has legitimate defense concerns and will need a nuclear deterrent of its own if wants to take the Republican path.
Her most doleful duty was to preside over the independence ceremonies of virtually every one of these distant outposts of the Empire.
The Queen normally did not attend such ceremonies. That task was farmed out to lesser royals.
She did so with dignity, never letting nostalgia for the past lend a touch of gloom to the change of guard. In this, she was greatly assisted by the pageantry with which her husband, Philip, and her uncle, Prince Louis Mountbatten, were obsessed: Medals, uniforms, brass bands, orders of precedence and other baubles.
Naval officers understand the value of such ceremonies which build esprit de corps. After all, it is part of their professional duty to show valor in the face of death. Prince Phillip was considered very good at raising the morale of British officials and civilians in distant parts of the world. Anthony Burgess has commented on this.
The Empire, therefore, slid with dignity from her young shoulders while, thanks in large measure to Jawaharlal Nehru, she remained the Head of the Commonwealth.
India chose to remain within the British Commonwealth. It had no say in who would be its head. The fact is, India continued to neglect its Navy- there was a British Admiral till 1958- and has only now fully indigenized its Naval flag.
In that capacity, she brought continuity to historical change and greatly helped the transition from a colonial relationship fraught with bitter memories to a new, modern relationship between friendly sovereign countries.
That had already been accomplished. Mountbatten deserves a lot of credit for charming Nehru. Indeed, till Nehru's death, Mountbatten had more influence on Indian defense arrangements than anybody else. After that, he lost influence and Harold Wilson got rid of him.
In all this, she was greatly assisted by her strict training to not say anything controversial, remain politically neutral and to be guided by the elected government of the day in her home country. She stuck to the dull but dignified line they put out. She was also thus able to survive the many gaffes that her irrepressible husband tended to make on many of these solemn occasions — as, for instance, remarking in the hearing of the press that the son of General Dyer, the Butcher of Jallianwallah Bagh, had told him that the number of deaths in 1919 had been hugely exaggerated.
That was true enough. But Nehru and Rajendra Prasad had already written of the Mahatma's insistence that bogus testimony be stricken from the record.
It wrecked the goodwill that the Queen and her government were hoping to rake in from ceremonially touring India on the 50th anniversary of Independence.
Nonsense! Robin Cook, the new Foreign Secretary, told the Pakistani press (which was the Queen's first destination) that Britain would take up the Kashmir issue with India. This was the British version of 'vote-bank' politics. Prime Minister Gujral responded by calling Britain a 'third rate power'. Cook then denied saying anything about Kashmir and Gujral followed suit. The visit got off to a bad start with Sikhs demonstrating against the British Army's ban on turbans. Phillip's remarks added to the tension. It was a disastrous visit. Indian diplomats felt that Gujral, himself an ex-diplomat, had handled things poorly. The Brits tended to blame Robin Cook who had a reputation as a Leftist and a Republican.
By then, the Crown had suffered far greater embarrassment back in the UK. It began with the rumpus over her sister, Princess Margaret, wanting to marry a divorced commoner,
Margaret needed the Queen's permission to marry because she was under 25. Later she decided not to give up her right to the succession. This was in the mid Fifties. She then did marry a commoner- but not a divorcee. Later, in the seventies, there were some sex scandals featuring her but sexual mores had changed greatly. In any case, the succession was assured.
but gathered steam in the social (and sexual) revolution associated with the rise of the Beatles generation, which, along with contraceptives for women, ushered strait-laced Britain into the Swinging Sixties.
The Queen remained popular during the Sixties because she was an attractive woman with an attractive brood of children. Even in the Seventies, the Sex Pistols 'God save the Queen/the fascist regime', was dismissed as play acting. The nation fell in love with Diana and initially welcomed her sister-in-law 'Fergie'. It is said that the appearance of the Royals on a TV program 'It's a knockout' was the beginning of the end of deference to what was seen as a family of inbred nitwits.
That promoted so much irreverence that it could not but touch Buckingham Palace. So, when Diana, the People’s Princess, married and then divorced the heir to the throne, there was a huge wave of public sympathy for her, accompanied by an equal measure of distaste for her married alternative.
It was Fergie's separation from Andrew, in 1992, and some subsequent sex scandal which alerted the public to the fact that all was not well in the House of Windsor. Diana's separation from Charles in 1996 was a bigger problem because, unlike Fergie, Diana had been a virgin while Charles appeared to have been continually unfaithful to an older woman who looked like a horse.
When Diana died in a car crash in Paris in 1997, it seemed the throne might be shaken.
Charles, like Andrew, tried to get the Media on his side but the attempt backfired- though not as horrendously as Andrew's car-crash interview where he claimed to be unable to sweat.
There has since been no lack of scandal swirling around Elizabeth II’s other children and grandchildren.
But William and Kate are in the clear. The Succession is assured. We can put the things which went wrong in the House of Windsor down to the 'spirit of the times'. William represents a more sober generation which has a clear understanding of the pitfalls associated with promiscuous sex and dirty money.
If Elizabeth II survived this social tumult, it was because
Charles could be excluded from the succession. There is a lesson here for dynastic parties like Congress.
British democracy and the monarchy knew how to change with the times. By remaining a steady symbol of stability in a churning ocean of change, the Queen upheld the torch of monarchy by keeping her counsel to herself and continuing to reign as a non-political and non-controversial Queen.
It appears that the Queen did quietly influence legislation to protect her own interests.
This required the greatest restraint and adherence to what she had been taught as a young woman about the role and duties of the British sovereign.
In which case, much credit must go to her mother who passed away 20 years ago. Her role in the creation of the modern monarchy is second to none.
While her own family were plagued with personal issues and her country underwent the most profound changes in its adjustment to the new world order, including pleading its way into Europe and then petulantly walking out, the Palace was never part of any argument and steadily maintained the course of continuity.
But Mountbatten was killed by the IRA. Not everybody thought kindly of the Royals family.
When she first became Elizabeth II, with Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay conquering Everest on the eve of her coronation, it was fondly believed by most of her subjects that even as Britain under Elizabeth I had started her quest for greatness, so under Elizabeth II, would Britain be restored to world dominance.
The Elizabethan era was not one of conquest but did feature literary excellence and an increased role for oceanic trade. The second Elizabethan era was supposed to be about the Arts and the Sciences and maybe Wilson's 'white heat of the technological revolution' and Blair's 'Cool Brittania'.
Instead, the Empire of her predecessors was dismantled brick by brick and, as Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State remarked cruelly but truly in 1962, Britain had “lost her Empire and failed to find a role”.
Sadly, Nehru didn't get the memo. He continued to do whatever Mountbatten asked him to.
It is to the credit of Elizabeth II that even while retracting from the world dominance that Elizabeth I had initiated in the 15th century,
The Sixteenth Century. Aiyar must be getting senile. But then he also thinks the Queen studied at a boy's school.
half a millennium later, she held her own in a period of national retreat.
I'm not sure what this means. The Queen did her duty and secured the succession. But misbehavior or incompetence can get one barred from the Succession. Congress should take note.
That surely will remain the lasting monument to her reign. Britain remains — for now at least — a monarchy, while kings and queens around the world lose their crowns and oftentimes their heads too.
Britain is similar to the Benelux and Scandinavian 'bicycling monarchies'. Going forward, it will have a slimmed down Royal Family which is content to appear dutiful but dull. Netflix will look elsewhere for material. British youth has changed for the better. It is now much more thoughtful and content with a sedate pace of life. There was a moment when the House of Windsor fell prey to the cult of celebrity. But today's icon of glamour is tomorrow's fodder for tabloid jackals. If we must have Queens- let them be Beyonce or Kardashian. Similarly, if Congress must have Gandhis- let them be Mahatmas plying the chakra in remote Ashrams. Primogeniture is all very well but cretins must be barred from the succession.
No comments:
Post a Comment