Envy of the World

THERE IS ONE unmistakable conclusion to emerge from the series of ceremonies that followed the Queen’s death at Balmoral: no one does pageantry better than the Brit­ish. The solemnity of the occasion—the death of a much-loved monarch who enjoyed the longest reign in the kingdom’s history—was not marred by the splendour that was on display. Indeed, with the carefully chosen funeral music and the participation of the armed forces, the church and state functionaries of all ages, it was enhanced. The British demonstrated with flair and dash that a state funer­al—the first since Winston Churchill was accorded that honour after his death in 1965—means much more than a flag-draped coffin being carted on a gun carriage and a 21-gun salute. At the funeral service in Westminster Abbey and all along the journey to the departed monarch’s final resting place in Windsor, it was British his­tory and the inherited traditions of the land that were on display to an awestruck world.

Britain is said to rank second in the world’s soft power league. After the funeral—and we still await the corona­tion of King Charles III next year—it may as well be conferred the top spot.

Maybe the natural ease with which the whole thing was conducted, and without any apparent ease, had a lot to do with the fact that what is known as the United Kingdom has never been conquered since the Norman invasion of 1066. Many have tried, not least the Spanish with their formidable Armada during the reign of the earlier Elizabeth, the French under Napoleon considered the possibility and, finally, in 1940-41, Hitler attempted to bomb the country into submission. None succeeded and Britain has enjoyed a political continuity that should be the envy of the world.

Of course, the British weren’t as respectful of the national sovereignty of others. The British Empire may have been the largest ever witnessed by mankind, exceeding the earlier achievement of Imperial Rome, and included people of all races, religions and more languages than were duti­fully recorded by the officials. Till the end of World War II, upholding the Empire and oozing pride in it was a na­tional obsession. Now, Britons aren’t so sure. The Empire, it is now conceded by a country less sure of its national identity, had its pluses and minuses. It is the minuses that are often wheeled out to confront the smug, supercilious over-confidence, verging on arro­gance, that many see as the hallmark of Britain’s national character.

Predictably, this is an unwar­ranted stereotype. The attributes that were instilled in generations of students who went through the public schools went out of fashion by the mid-1960s. The advent of irrever­ence and permissiveness led to the emergence of another Briton, feared in the rest of Europe for their binge drinking and loutish behaviour during and after football matches. Indeed, anyone walking the streets of a British city on a Friday and Saturday night may legitimately wonder if this was the country that forged an Em­pire that, besides ruling with might, also governed through example.

What held the old and the new together in more ways than can be imagined was the Queen. It is remark­able that in her long reign that began in 1952 on the untimely death of her father King George VI, she was totally devoid of controversy. She was always ‘correct’—a behaviour style that implied her ability to adapt to different situations, from engaging with the House of Lords to putting a hitherto recalcitrant African political leader at ease. The indiscretions were the monopoly of her husband, the impossible Duke of Edinburgh who could be counted on to say the wrong thing on all occasions. Yet, the DoE’s boo-boos never rubbed off on her. As far as everyone was concerned, the Queen was the repository of decency and good conduct.

The Queen came to be identified with duty. When I mentioned this in an article, I was mercilessly trolled by many nationalistic Indians who won­dered how the legacy of a bloody Em­pire could be incorporated into this duty. The critics were unmindful of the social context of what was meant as duty. It meant doing the right thing, despite personal inclinations. It meant conducting oneself with the right mix of friendliness and detachment. Above all, it meant upholding what someone called “ordinary decencies”, which meant shunning extremes and finding the right middle ground.

Did that make the Queen boring? I believe it made her the most admired head of state. She was a symbol of reas­surance and good sense. The next time I travel to London, I will miss her. For just being there for as long as I can remember.

About The Author

Swapan Dasgupta

•