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.
- 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. - 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. - 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