Over the years, India has been subjected to mockery by the British for various reasons, often targeting Hindu religious practices, social customs, and rituals. They frequently offer unsolicited advice on how to govern the country, delving into current political and social tensions in India while questioning the commitment of Indians to liberalism, secularism, and democracy. However, they rarely scrutinise their societies or reflect upon the traditions that embody superstition and remain entirely disconnected from the modern world.
The recent crowning ceremony of Charles on May 6, 2023, was one such spectacle. It featured a 74-year-old British man formally assuming the role of king, a position that had been assured to him since birth. This extraordinary and uncontested transfer of power from mother to son was legitimised by the feudal tradition of primogeniture, which grants one family the hereditary right to be the heads of state of the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations.
The ceremony provoked controversy not only due to its symbolic significance but also its execution. No opera house or festival can rival the House of Windsor’s grandeur when it comes to a display before the eyes of the world. All of this happened without any constitutional necessity for the coronation, let alone the elaborate affair that took place at the Abbey.
Moreover, the symbolic ceremony reinforces the monarch’s divine right to rule, which contradicts the principles of liberal democracy that the British often boasts about. The existence of a hereditary constitutional monarchy within a liberal democracy presents an inherent paradox. The British identity can find stronger foundations than an unelected king. In fact, the coronation serves as a reminder of the archaic and peculiar nature of the British system.
The ceremony itself was an irrelevant event, replete with religious symbolism. During the ceremony, the king took an oath to uphold the law and the Church of England, was anointed with holy oil, and presented with various ornate items symbolising grandeur and ostentation.
The crown, known as the “Crown of St. Edward,” was placed upon Charles III’s head by Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the religious leader of the Church of England. Meanwhile, the subjects across the UK and abroad were invited to recite the words, “I swear that I will pay true allegiance to your majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So, help me, God.” This practice is as absurd as it can be – a mere tokenism of receiving objects from representatives of other religions, which reflects more of a colonial mindset than modernism.
It suggests the subservience of all other religions to the one that anointed the king. Rather than reflecting the transient state reality, the coronation merely underscores the rituals of Christianity, the king’s own faith. The introduction of the sacred into public life is jarring in a country whose undeclared national ideology is secular liberalism. Religion and governance are sensitive topics that require careful and respectful handling. Mixing religion and governance can be controversial and potentially lead to divisiveness and intolerance.
It is indeed perplexing that in a country plagued by record levels of underemployment and a severe cost-of-living crisis, the taxpayers funded the coronation of one of the world’s wealthiest men, with estimates reaching over $100 million. The amount of public money being spent on an unelected, hereditary Head of State is nearly unimaginable.
Meanwhile, in the UK, over 14 million people cannot afford to eat every day, the number of children living in food deprivation has doubled in just one year to over 4 million, and there are over 2,500 food banks and 13,000 fuel banks for those unable to afford to heat their homes. With three incompetent governments resigning and being replaced in less than a year, England has broken the record for the highest inflation rate in Western Europe. Each month, teachers, doctors, and nurses in England go on strike, leaving students and patients stranded. Britain needs to address urgent challenges of the present and future rather than lavishly re-enacting its medieval past.
The popularity of the royal family is waning with each passing day. Its contemporary power lies in its razzmatazz, pageantry, and performance. However, the issue with such theatrics is that even modern audiences, who are willing to suspend disbelief, know that it is all a show. They begin to express disapproval when the magician fails to utter ‘abracadabra’ in the right place. The same sentiment was witnessed on the streets of London, with protestors chanting, “Not my king.”
The dystopian spectacle of peaceful protesters being forcibly removed from the streets of London for simply expressing a contrary view and using new public order laws to suppress their peaceful protest was deeply disturbing. Thus, pomp and ceremony replaced humanity, and the authority of a class that should be rendered obsolete in a modern world was there for all to see. The UK often criticises other countries for their propagandistic and totalitarian approaches but fails to examine their own backyard. The saying “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” is fittingly applicable to the elite Britons.
Despite its colonial rule over India, Britain can learn a lot from India’s rich culture, democratic setup, and the absence of a monarchy, rather than ridiculing them. India’s cultural heritage, democratic principles, and republican form of government offer valuable lessons that Britain can embrace. Indian democracy distinguishes itself from Western-style democracies in terms of structure and practice, encompassing additional dimensions within its constitutional setup.
The concept of elected leaders was a common feature in ancient India, predating its adoption by the rest of the world. In contrast to the UK, where Windsor act as hereditary heads of state, India embodies a complete democracy that guarantees liberty, equality, and fraternity. It takes decisive action against any form of discrimination (as stated in Article 15) and upholds values such as republicanism, equality before the law, and a clear separation of religion and the state.
These principles are deeply ingrained in the Indian Constitution and form the very foundation of the Indian state. On the contrary, the UK lacks several fundamental elements essential to democracy. India maintains a clear-cut separation of religion and the state, as emphasised by the Indian Constitution’s declaration that “No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds” (Article 28). Additionally, while the Indian president takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,” the British monarch takes an oath to “defend the faith.” India’s republican form of government, with an elected head of state, highlights the importance of meritocracy and democratic accountability. Britain, with its constitutional monarchy, can reflect on the benefits of a republican system that emphasises equality and merit-based leadership.
Democracy is not merely a structure; it is also a spirit. It is based on the belief that the needs and aspirations of every human being are equally important. The awareness of one’s rights, a sense of equality, and a desire to create a world free from exploitation gave rise to a democratic form of government.
Throughout various epochs in Indian history, these profound concepts of civil society were explicitly evident, making India the cradle of democracy, despite once being a British colony. The notion of royalty further reinforces the concept of hierarchy, which is deeply ingrained in the structure of British society. It is high time for them to embrace change and pave the way for the establishment of a democratic republic in the UK.
Overall, India’s democratic experience offers valuable insights for Britain to enhance inclusivity, strengthen constitutional guarantees, promote grassroots democracy, and foster active citizen engagement. By learning from India’s democratic principles and practices, Britain can further enrich its own democratic system. Rather than ridiculing India, Britain has an opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue and exchange of ideas, fostering mutual understanding and progress.
(The author is Professor at Kirori Mal College, Delhi)
Comments