Posted on: Jun 9 2004

God Save the Queen!

Well, democracy is a great concept. A concept many nations claims as part of their own heritage: Greeks, Indians (that includes Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis), and even said to have been practised by many tribal groups.

Yet rediscovered or invented in Britain, and perhaps experimented by them in their colonies even before fully being brought inside the home nation. (I believe that women’s franchise was introduced in India even before it came into force in England-needs checking).

The creator of democracy, yet also a rare area of still upholding monarchical institutions. Actually, does British monarchy represent feudalism? I had seen one particular function, (was it the swearing in ceremony of the Prime minister Blair?), where I could really identify absolute feudal, and seemingly ridiculous postures being acted out by the subjects.

Yet, many other nations are democratic, and yet do they feel the mental liberation that the British citizen has? For example, India is democratic, yet how many citizens do have a feeling of being equal to the others in the society? There is a well know physical feature of the English speaking race, and that includes the British; that is, there is an unbending stance in the neck region.

Isn’t there a contradiction here? Nations which are democratic formally, do have citizens with obsequious mental and physical features, yet, English citizens are yet to achieve such a mental attribute.

Is democracy a safe political machinery? I was once asked, if one is so disillusioned with the present political systems in Asian nations, could anyone name something which had been better than what is now available, namely democracy?

What was better? Well, from my historical knowledge, it was the British rule. It requires a lot of personal insight to understand this. And this fact has nothing to do with the skin colour.

Now, Britain is a very small nation. If it not superior, it is nothing. In fact, if it is down, it is going to be very, very down.

For, then the superiors are not nations with ideas of fair play, and dignified interaction, but those with the very negation of these ideas.

Do not make yourselves a group of orphans; let there be a monarch, with some level of power. It is good, for otherwise decision making may be done as per the pressures of organised minority vote banks.

The superiority of Britain is really a total of so many minor social, mental and political features, which stand in connection to each other in a very special bond, which cannot be replicated in many other nations. Actually, it does not exist in numbers or arms; if it was so, how could Robert Clive defeat a force which was ten times his own on the battlefields of Plassey?

A king cannot be elected. For, if it is so, then he is just another politician. The monarch needs to exist as a focus of emotional inspiration. And this comes from conceding a limited amount of halo to a family/blood/lineage. And let it be assured that your king wont turn out to be a replica of any oriental king, for your present day language structure wont allow it.

One of the main reasons that there is a feeling of disdain for the monarchy is that there is a feeling that the nation is not under any threat. If any terrible disaster looms large, then the inspiration that a dedicated monarchy can bring in, would be seen as really godsend.

And when thinking of the past historical incidences, doesn’t there seem to be a feeling that there is something of the supernatural in the words:

God save the Queen!

Posted on: Jun 10 2004

Tony: I am sorry. I know that there are some defects with my writings, and for one thing they are too opinionated, and at times more like articles. In future, I will stick to rules.

Wilf: I do not have any particular affection for your royalty. Yet, I do believe that a society does not run on pure logic, and when at times, a society loses it reasonableness, then it could show very weird social programs. I think one can find immense examples of this phenomena in many nations.

There are and were problems in all nations, including UK. But then in almost all nations, the problems they have are mostly what they were having for a long time, in one form or other. In the case of UK, I really do believe that this nation is on the threshold of experiencing very exotic types of problems, which till date have remained as mere subjects for philosophical debates.

As for the banishing of monarchy, I would suggest that for a change, let there be a constructive debate on what the citizen/subject requires from a monarch. Let there be a demand to modify monarchy on lines of what is logical, and in sync with people’s desire. Seek out feudal items, in its structure, and demand for their deletion. For, I know that there does exist very feudal mental elements in UK monarchy, which are not only disturbing the people, but also poisoning the very life of the persons in the royal family.

Continued

Wilf: I do not have any particular affection for your royalty. Yet, I do believe that a society does not run on pure logic, and when at times, a society loses it reasonableness, then it could show very weird social programs. I think one can find immense examples of this phenomena in many nations.

There are and were problems in all nations, including UK. But then in almost all nations, the problems they have are mostly what they were having for a long time. In the case of UK, I really do believe that this nation is on the threshold of experiencing very exotic types of problems, with till date have remained as mere subjects for philosophical debates.

As for the banishing of monarchy, I would suggest that for a change, let there be a constructive debate on what the citizen/subject requires from a monarch. Let there be a demand to modify monarchy on lines of what is logical, and in sync with people’s desire. Seek out feudal items, in its structure, and demand for their deletion. For, I know that there does exist very feudal mental elements in UK monarchy, which are not only disturbing the people, but also poisoning the very life of the persons in the royal family.

Posted on: Jun 14 2004

Quoting myself:

QUOTE

Seek out feudal items, in its structure, and demand for their deletion. For, I know that there does exist very feudal mental elements in UK monarchy, which are not only disturbing the people, but also poisoning the very life of the persons in the royal family.

One of the most conspicuous items, that bear feudal content in British monarchy is the presence of feudal, studded terms reserved for use to or about persons who can claim royal blood.

If one sees this from the view point of many nations, including Asian, one would not notice anything amiss. For, royalty is the symbol of feudal power and prestige. Yet, when one sees the situation from present day English, as spoken in UK, USA and other English nations, the communication structure surrounding the monarchy needs urgent repair. Otherwise, they may themselves suffer from strange mental complexes, as the people that they are trying to evade, or insulate themselves are not persons of negligent personality, but citizens of a nation that gave the world much in terms of civilisation.

Actually this understanding of mine comes from my own study on what happens to persons and societies when they live in the ambience of feudal languages.

Yet, it must be admitted that the language structure is not as bad as seen in many other nations like India. That much consolation is there.

In the case of the British monarchy, I feel that too many persons are allowed to live in the enclosure of studded feudal language terms, than is good for the nation.

I would contend that language is a very vital factor that can structure society and its mentality, and hence this factor has much more importance than can ordinarily be imagined.