[CarNerd]

Among those who are upset at positive things about the Queen are some who get upset at negative things about one particular person, aka World Teacher! I have a question to those who say the Queen never apologized for Jallianwala Bagh - Has Rishi Sunak apologized? Did his party apologize? Did he ever speak about returning the Kohinoor Diamond? But many wanted him to be the PM just because of his Indian origin.

Going by this logic, India should have cut off all ties with the British after independence until they apologized for their attrocities. We should even boycott English language as a colonial one. Since many are fond of digging old things to correct the alleged wrongs of history, shouldn't we start with the British and go backwards in time? Isn't that the proper sequence?

During the colonial period, many Indian Kings were loyal to the British and enjoyed privileges. Some continue to do so even today. Many Indians collaborated with the British for trade and established companies that exist till date. We don't have any problem with them.

Even in ancient India, Kings waged wars, expanded their kingdoms and made colonies - Nobody was elected democratically. There are many examples of their brutalities in History but we don't see all of them through the same lens as we see the British. Everything in History is not Black & White. There are positives & negatives of every person, every place, every period.

Let's appreciate good things and learn from the bad ones.

[fhdowntheline]

I would be really happy to stand corrected on this query: When was the last time the United Kingdom officially announced mourning and Flags at half-mast in that country for any unfortunate event or (demise of an important figure ) that befell India since we became a republic ? I cant ever recall.

[dailydriver]

Nine minutes.

Had I been quicker by nine minutes or had the OP been late by the same duration, the whole vitriol being spewed at him for starting this thread would have been directed at me.

Even now, i am the rightful recipient of a fair share of the opprobrium: the title of the thread is mine.

Seeing two threads on the same topic, the mods merged them, retaining the title of one while maintaining the timeline of both.

x x x

Some Q&As now.

1. Should there be obituary threads on the forum?
   There are a few already; if allowed, there will be many more in the future too. If there's a mushrooming of such threads, the mods may decide to merge all such past posts into a single Obituary thread and instruct us to use the same for all further tributes, eulogies or memento write-ups.
2. Should we pay tributes to only such people who have done something beneficial for us?
   How many people do we interact with or get directly influenced by, in the course of our lives? We remember individuals and institutions for a variety of reasons, some good, a few bad, others neutral. What is essentially good for a goose may not necessarily be amenable to a gander. Be and let be is the only recourse at such times.
3. By recalling the life and times of a deceased person, specifically one who represents an "enemy" (as an esteemed member chose to characterise England), are we crossing over to the wrong side of patriotism?
   Should the sins of the fathers keep on revisiting their sons?
   
   We live in a world where no country is a friend or a foe forever. Economics, geopolitics and (of late) climate dictate who shall be our partner in that precise moment. By designating as an enemy a country with which we have very cordial relations, we are disrespecting the wisdom of our founding fathers, the current rulers and the think tank that shapes our foreign policy.

In the instant case, I could copy quotes upon quotes of tributes rightfully attributed to the constitutional functionaries of our country and ask: If they don't have a problem, why should you? But that would be skirting my responsibility.

The queen was a constant, recognisable point of reference in an ever changing world. That in the seventy years of her titular rule, she has seen all of India's Prime Ministers and Presidents is enough reason for me to make a mention of her name on the forum.

For reasons good or bad, we are still part of the Commonwealth of Nations. The departed soul just happened to be the head of the conglomerate.

Hence, RIP!

From the naked fakir to the most powerful PM, the queen treated all our national representatives with equal respect, grace and decorum. She gave everyone their due. Snobbish - she wasn't, racist - she never was, manipulative - far from it.

Hence, RIP!

Apology is a two sided, serrated knife that lacks a safe handle. Not many can use it with tact, precision and swiftness required to assuage feelings hurt over pogroms perpetuated over centuries. When the most powerful of religious, political and military leaders are wary of opening that Pandora's box, it isn't a surprise that a mere titular head couldn't muster up the courage to say sorry to India.

I would have liked the queen and many more living, ruling others to have said sorry; but the mere fact that she/he/they didn't, doesn't really make her/him/them a persona non grata for me.

She was human; she is dead.

Hence, RIP!

x x x

Do I not like the spoils of colonialism that are still decorating the thrones, crowns and halls of England to be brought back to India?

I very much do.

Do I believe that the spoils of colonialism that are still decorating the thrones, crowns and halls of England will be brought back to India?

I very much doubt it.

Neither the dark coloured wealth stacked in the mountainous treasuries of Switzerland nor the blood soaked diamonds adorning the headpieces of monarchs are going to come back to India; and anyone promising that they would, is just peddling fools gold.

The post world war world is no longer an imperial playground. The rules of the game have changed, goalposts have shifted and the gaming arena is transmogrifying each passing second. No nation can therefore keep harping on the past to score points in the present to ensure a victory for the future.

x x x

On the numerous posts vilifying the OP and other Bhpians for bidding goodbye to the queen, I can only say that while I respectfully disagree with the import of the words used therein, I will fight with my blood to defend the posters' right to say what they deem right.

For, for what it is worth, we still live in a democracy.

x x x

On the minor issue of the title, I recall reading somewhere that Headlines should not just tell the story but help SELL it too. While looking for a proper one for this thread, I was trying to frame something that is attractive, pithy, and layered with meanings. The Queen of Hearts came in handy as it symbolised two things - the love of her subjects for the queen as well as her actual status - that of an unit in a stack of cards with no control over her own acts: a paper queen if you will!

x x x

To conclude, allow me to recall the broadest, noblest and most liberal of the concepts of humanism enshrined in our scriptures:

वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम

[searacer932]

It's a bit of a shame that we are asked to look up to some imperialists when there are outstanding role models in our own country.

There are millions of Indians who are honest tax payers and who do their day today job effectively irrespective of their age & gender!

[anjan_c2007]

We were reading about the service of Queen Elizabeth II (then Princess) in the British Army. She served as a truck mechanic over objections raised by her royal parents and was enlisted in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. She served from February 1945 till after Victory over Japan (VJ) Day which marks the initial announcement of Japan's surrender on 15 August 1945.

While other publications will do a much better job chronicling that service, did you know that HRH was also a truck mechanic during the war?

With the Battle of Britain and a constant campaign of German bombing going on all around her, and with fellow Britons all pitching in to help the war effort, the young, then-Princess Elizabeth yearned to do her part. But her parents, King George VI and Elizabeth the Queen Mother, were highly protective of their two daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret, and pointed out that no female member of the royal family had ever joined the military.

It took a year of debate before the family relented and gave their 19-year-old eldest daughter permission to join up. In February of 1945 the future monarch joined the women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service and was registered as inductee No. 230873 under the name Elizabeth Windsor, according to biography.com. Members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service served as everything from anti-aircraft gunners to drivers to mechanics.

From the link:-

https://www.autoweek.com/news/people...wwii-mechanic/

[deetee]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

I would be really happy to stand corrected on this query: When was the last time the United Kingdom officially announced mourning and Flags at half-mast in that country for any unfortunate event or (demise of an important figure ) that befell India since we became a republic ? I cant ever recall.

Even if they show so much ego, we need not stoop to their level. Ego doesn't elevate anyone, its empathy that elevates personality.
Every now and then we have shown India has larger and warmer heart than anyone else.

[fhdowntheline]

My point on this issue is not whether she should be paid respects to-although my query on whether the UK has ever reciprocated condolences to India in equal measure in the past still stands. I feel she was not that significant a historical figure in overall scale of things other than her long tenure. Someone like the Japanese Emperor Hirohito had a really long tenure and saw Japan rising, getting destroyed and again rising back like the proverbial Phoenix through much of the 20th century. But no one talks about him that much because it's just not a favorite story for the Western media.
That apart, I also agree that there are plenty of tall figures in recent history (not just from India) who are the epitome of grace, dignity, honour, perseverance, courage and sacrifice without having any sort of "royal" moorings.

[jraj]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

My point on this issue is not whether she should be paid respects to-although my query on whether the UK has ever reciprocated condolences to India in equal measure in the past still stands. I feel she was not that significant a historical figure in overall scale of things other than her long tenure.

What have we come to? Why are we so concerned about reciprocity ? India observed a day of national mourning when the UAE President passed away earlier this year. It's a mark of support paid by one sovereign nation to another stating we join you in your grievance. This is not a case of " you scratch my back, I scratch yours"

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by dailydriver

Nine minutes.

Thank you for the most sensible, mature and balanced post on this thread. A post written with grace and compassion in a world of social media where 'getting offended' or getting hit by a 'persecution complex' is carried like a badge of honour. Thank you @Daily Driver.

Had I been quicker by nine minutes or had the OP been late by the same duration, the whole vitriol being spewed at him for starting this thread would have been directed at me.

Seeing two threads on the same topic, the mods merged them, retaining the title of one while maintaining the timeline of both.

Oh Damn. I got dunked while you got up to get another morning coffee!

Even now, i am the rightful recipient of a fair share of the opprobrium: the title of the thread is mine.

Mate half the manure is yours. You can take all of it too. I'm feeling generous.

To conclude, allow me to recall the broadest, noblest and most liberal of the concepts of humanism enshrined in our scriptures:

वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम

Beautiful, beautiful. Beautiful. God Bless You. For those readers not familiar this Sanskrit phrase means "The whole world is one family". A most needed concept in today's world where leaders in several countries are dividing people on trumped up grounds of hate and difference to further their agenda.

Originally Posted by jraj

What have we come to? Why are we so concerned about reciprocity ? India observed a day of national mourning when the UAE President passed away earlier this year. It's a mark of support paid by one sovereign nation to another stating we join you in your grievance. This is not a case of " you scratch my back, I scratch yours"

Thank you @jraj

[Pequod]

Originally Posted by dailydriver

while I respectfully disagree with the import of the words used therein, I will fight with my blood to defend the posters' right to say what they deem right[/i]. [/center]

All good to quote EB Hall, but the original post kind of pre-empted differing views with the euphemism of “undue criticism”.

[shancz]

Originally Posted by dailydriver

By recalling the life and times of a deceased person, specifically one who represents an "enemy" (as an esteemed member chose to characterise England), are we crossing over to the wrong side of patriotism?

Well written and much better thought out than a lot of us(me included)

While I(hopefully the only one) have also used the word "enemy" in a sentence but the context was more of a worst case and not this particular one. Honestly the incident I was thinking of was of Cpt. Karnal Sher Khan who was given a written citation and the Pakistani soldiers we buried with due honours befitting a soldier for they performed their duty as best as they could even if it was directed against us.
Didn't want to mention it to avoid elongating the discussion but could've chosen better wording or explained the context. So apologies if that was what you were talking about

Brilliant conclusion and the most apt example of the two words which we speak often but rarely realize the application, kudos.

[nickatnite]

Watching the British politicians stand up and shout 'God Save the king' was enough validation for me to understand why the British public at large support the monarch at any cost. And the reason is that this is the only reason that the politicians are kept in their place. There is a system of checks and balances.

This is unlike the situation in our country and other so-called political democracies where the people are at the mercy of the whims and fancies of political persons. This will never happen in a monarchy.

This will never happen in the fourteen countries where Charles the Third is Monarch , this will never happen in Japan, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Saudi Arabia,Oman, UAE , Lichtenstein and Monaco.

All the citizens of the above countries enjoy security, good roads, social services and even if there is a cost then the cost is worth paying and the people get what they pay for.

[kiku007]

Wow, things get feisty even in RIP threads! Let's be respectful. That's not asking for much.

Since this is an automotive forum I thought of sharing an article from London Transport Museum about Queen Elizabeth II and London’s public transport network.

https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collectio...nsport-network

District line, 15 May 1939
A few months before the onset of the Second World War, the then Princess Elizabeth rode on the Underground for the first time at the age of 13.


Victoria line, 7 March 1969

After a 30-year absence, the Queen took her next Tube journey to mark the opening of the Victoria line.
After experiencing the new Green Park station, including its ticket barriers, she rode in the cab of the first train, operating the buttons to set the train on its short journey to Oxford Circus. While it could therefore be claimed the Queen ‘drove’ the train, the Victoria line was the first Tube line to use automatic operation.

Piccadilly line, 16 December 1977
In the year of her Silver Jubilee, the Queen unveiled the Piccadilly line extension that connected central London to Heathrow – the first line of its kind in the world to link a capital city to its major airport. As with her trip on the Victoria line, the Queen rode in the driver’s cab. Whether deliberate or not, her outfit naturally accompanied the blue moquette fabric of the train, created by designer Marianne Straub.

Docklands Light Railway, 30 July 1987
Ten years later, the next major addition to London’s public transport network was the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) – an automated light metro system serving the redeveloped Docklands area, which later extended further across eastern parts of the city. The Queen led the ceremonial opening of the DLR, riding at the front of the first car.

Willesden Green bus garage, 6 June 2002
In 2002, the Queen went on a Golden Jubilee tour to mark 50 years on the throne. This included a trip to Willesden Green bus garage to see bus operations in the TfL era – she is shown here shaking hands with Peter Hendy, TfL’s Managing Director for Surface Transport (and later TfL Commissioner).

Bond Street station, 23 February 2016
The Queen made her first visit to the Crossrail project, creating a new east-west railway that in 2016 was named in her honour. She attended the unveiling of the Elizabeth line at Bond Street, where she was presented with a roundel of the new line.

Paddington station, 17 May 2022
Ahead of the public opening of the Elizabeth line on 24 May 2022, the Queen again visited the line that bears her name, along with her youngest son Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. Also in attendance were TfL Commissioner Andy Byford, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by kiku007

Wow, things get feisty even in RIP threads! Let's be respectful. That's not asking for much.

Thank you kiku007. That does seem like asking too much from some on social media, even after I had especially requested it in the opening post! Rather a pity. We saw this even on the remembrance thread of Late PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee! If you want to know a man's true self, give him a mask.

[GTO]

Mod Note: Discussed enough, thread closed. Thank you.