Death of a queen
How should we think about the death of a monarch of an empire that ruled us?
The queen of Britain passed away recently. The immediate reaction was interesting.
The people who liked the romantic idea of a monarchy were quick to express their grief trying to highlight positive things about the queen. Some believed Britain gave India the railways and grandest buildings, like a railway station in Mumbai. Others believed Britain left an entire “civilization”, educating the brown folks etc. etc.
The people who hated the idea of the monarchy, on the other hand, were abusive toward the queen. She was the head of an extractive empire that left poverty, disease and death in its wake. The queen, as per them, ruled a country whose divisive legacy created partitions across the world that resulted in the death of millions, and they continue to this day.
Some others hate the queen just because Diana told them so. Others blame her for the Megan Markle fiasco. Some watch the TV shows like The Crown and draw conclusions.
So how should we think about the death of the queen of Britain?
Some facts first
The British monarchy was gradually reduced to a figurehead since the Magna Carta was signed. The East India Company and colonial empire before the 1850s were more directly associated with the crown than the British Parliament. But somewhere around the 1850s, the British Parliament wrested control of most of the governance issues from the crown. The crown retained certain control over the colonies (a little more than England itself). So the blame for the loot of India and colonies lies as much, if not more, with the British people as the crown.
British came to an India weakened by 600-700 years of war against Islamic attacks. We defeated most of them but for a period of about 170 years. European colonisers arrived in an India weakened by 600-700 years of war, lack of investment in industry, destroyed 2000-year-old universities, no full-scale research and development since 1200 and constant cultural attacks. The British essentially stole from the wounded. The British innovation that allowed them world domination was bureaucratic efficiency - a series of control systems that allowed the ruler (British government) to exercise control in the most efficient manner. Using this innovation, the British destroyed a superior native systems across the world and particularly in India. Here we may blame the monarchy, but the inaction of the later governments is equally appalling.
No matter what is claimed, India could have really won its freedom during the first world war had it not been for Gandhi and the untimely death of Tilak. We did not “win” freedom in 1947. British could not maintain control over India without substantial costs (and post WWII, they did not have money), and India had already been bled dry. In modern corporate-speak, Britain gave up non-profitable businesses. Here we may blame the people of Britain rather than the crown.
Dharma of the queen
It is in this context we must look at the queen. What was her duty in the context of her position? Did she do her duty well? Did she deviate from her duty? Did she do some evil things? Did she think evil things? So should we denounce her? Should we praise her?
Frankly, I do not know. It appears she did what she had to to keep the monarchy relevant in modern times. She did it with dignity and secrecy. She did some good things and some bad. It is not for me to decide.
For India, Queen Elizabeth II did not matter. She was crowned in 1953 after India became independent. In the list of foreigners who affected India, she ranked quite low. The Sultan of Oman was more connected to India than the Queen.
Despite the 150 years of extractive British Rule over India, the UK is now a friendly country. So its queen gets the same respect as the formal head of a friendly country. That is why India announced one-day mourning, the same courtesy we extended to the head of State of Abu Dhabi or Oman.