Some leaders of the pro-democracy First World continue to perpetuate monarchy with the Church’s help
Indians, given to self-flagellation over flouting of the secular and democratic ideal in governance, policy-making, development and public life, need to ponder over two recent events that captured the Western media’s attention in a conspicuous way. The first was Netherlands Queen Beatrix passing the Dutch crown to her son, Willem-Alexander on April 30. He was the first Dutch king since 1890, while his mother ruled as queen for 33 years. The Guardian reported that “it all happened in a 17th century Golden Age church”, in a secular rite, with “...just enough pomp and circumstance for the entire population watching on TV or on the giant screens erected across the squares of Holland”.
Cut across to Britain, divested of the adjective ‘Great' after the loss of most colonies. There, Queen Elizabeth's completion of 60 years as monarch is being observed with pageantry and pomp. The CNN news portal reports: “Celebrations of her Diamond Jubilee, marking six decades on the throne, officially begin Monday and continue through June, when london will mark the anniversary of her coronation with festivities including up to 1,000 boats sailing up the River Thames”.
There is no sign of the queen abdicating in favour of son Charles, Prince of Wales, though she is 87 and he is 64. Instead, the celebrations reinforced the continuation of her reign as much as perpetuity of British monarchy. The elaborate, archaic ceremony itself was religious, as per Anglican Church ritual.
And therein lies the great paradox: Two leaders of the liberal, ardently pro-democracy First World perpetuate the institution of monarchy with the involvement and help of the Church. Europe has other monarchies, in Andorra, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, liechtenstein, luxembourg, Monaco, Vatican City, where the Pope has kingly status, being the Bishop of Rome. The British Queen is also the monarch of 15 ‘realms' overseas, including Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and head of the 54-member Commonwealth. India, by being a member of the Commonwealth, retains a suzerain relationship with its erstwhile ruler. Japan also has a monarch. Germany, France and Italy did away with monarchies though, ironically, the British royals are actually of German descent, and all European royal families are interrelated.
This, then, is the free world, that pushes the democracy and secularism agendas in Third World countries relentlessly. Some may be ceremonial monarchies, as in Britain. But continued adherence to a system that most people in India, accustomed to parliamentary democracy since 1947, consider archaic and retrogressive, should make us re-assess the First World's democratic credentials. Even Nepal, formerly a Hindu monarchy, succumbed to pro-democracy unrest to abolish the monarchy in 2008. It was declared a federal democratic republic on May 28 that year. And Bhutan, another Himalayan monarchy, held its first election in March 2008 in a peaceful transition towards a constitutional monarchy, combined with the features of parliamentary democracy.
Most of the monarchies cited above are members of the European Union. A fact that is routinely overlooked by the secular lobby and intelligentsia here is that post-independence, India has forsaken both monarchy and the role of priests in granting the system legitimacy. India has adopted the system of parliamentary democracy from Britain to make it truly secular and truly democratic by abolishing princely/royal privileges and titles, and encompassing representatives from all communities and castes in the edifice of governance.
Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, via the 26th Constitutional Amendment in 1971, abolished the privy purses, paid to royal families as a precondition for their consent to integrating their kingdoms/States with India, and official recognition of title. Many had been satraps of the British Raj, or collaborators and stooges, elevated to exalted rank. Privy purses' income was exempted from taxation. State largesse could be extremely munificent, as for the Mysore Maharaja, who used to get an annual amount of $78,000, that was reduced for successors to the throne. Privileges included posting of armed guards at palaces, free medical treatment for royals and their animals, free power and water supply, immunity from court-mandated action, state holidays on birthdays of rulers, and so on.
Since it would be impossible for parliamentary democracy and numerous monarchies/nawabdoms/nizamhoods to coexist, without power struggles resulting, and the parliamentary setup being threatened, titles, privy purses and privileges were done away with. This did not prevent erstwhile royals from continuing to cling to titles and lobbying for restoration of privileges and privy purses. But in the new India, there could be place only for the constitutionally recognised power cabal of politicians. So, numerous feudal lords and rulers joined politics. As recently as June 2009, the former Maharaj of Narsinggarh, once a minister in Indira Gandhi's cabinet, accused the Congress of trying to divert attention from its political dynasty via the party's directive to members to avoid using feudal titles. He argued that the 26th amendment did not apply to titles. The demand for royal reservations is drowned out by the cacophony over quotas.