Why don't you use this flag for the Order of the Star of India and the other Indian orders? I do not think that the Union of India ever made use of those orders of chivalry.
I'm a staunch Monarchist and i don't think this date to be very sad. The British treated lots of the natives badly and this is why they wanted a republic. Sure things could've been better debatebly if they remained dominion, but to respect the will of the people is the right thing to do. Of course here in Australia we got treated very well so this is why we are still a CM, which is why I can't understand the need for a republic.
At it again Mr Baltzersen!! I agree wholly with Anonymous above.
Your belief that India willingly becoming a republic is a sad occasion, only belies your antediluvian arrogance, that the will of citizens was irrelevant to the future of the British Empire
As an Indian living in a 'white' Commonwealth country, I can tell you that you have utterly failed to appreciate the different perceptions and legacies the British Crown and Empire has left in different countries.
Yes, the British Empire and Crown are central to the identities and histories of Canada, Australia, NZ and British Southern Africa, but they are merely painful reminders of enslavement and colonialism to other non-white peoples.
I wish you were able to appreciate that. I do enjoy reading your other posts, but you display a lamentable eurocentricity and ignorance of the views of non-white races when you discuss the legacy of the British Empire amongst other races.
You may think that is harmless, but in fact you alienate 'ethnic minority' monarchists like me who support the monarchy in largely British societies but are also aware of its perverse legacy in the lands of our ancestors.
Nonetheless, you should be pleased to note that the Star of India, emblazoned in that flag of conquest above, granted as an honour to native sycophants of the Viceroy, is still the emblem of the Indian cricket team, and the ascendant Board of Control of Cricket in India. I find that disgraceful, you can probably revel in it.
Sachin Tendulkar bats wearing a helmet that has the Star of India under the flag of the Indian republic. It wouldn't have been very different had India remained a dominion- except he would probably have been awarded a star of India!!
If I may offer some friendly advice Mr Baltzersen, next Republic Day, why don't you write up an objective piece illustrating how much better off ordinary Indians would have been had India remained a dominion after independence.
E.g. the suspension of democracy by Indira Gandhi could never have happened in a constitutional monarchy, there may have been less corruption in a public service working for an apolitical crown etc.
I understand how you feel, and I agree that British rule in India had problems, even severe ones.
That being said, I still believe that the present rule -- in many respects -- is worse than it was.
I also believe there could have been several good alternatives to the republican solution. Continuing as a dominion, which indeed this post is about, save the British Raj flag, and a monarchical system based on the maharajahs, princes, etc. of India are the two that come to mind.
You may have problems finding someone appreciating British rule in India, but my educated guess for my own former resident country of Kenya is that you will not have such problems there. See, e.g. a comment at this post.
Your suggestion for a future post is duly noted and appreciated. I assume from the context that you are talking about a particular kind of constitutional monarchy.
I suppose you are right in that the current administration is far more corrupt and probably more inefficient than the British Raj.
But you only have to remember the barbarous military rule in the Punjab and remember the General Dyers of the Raj to know that while there may be problems today, at least the government is not using its police/army force to perpetrate atrocities on its own civilian population.
In any case, short of a Gaddafi/Saddam-like regime, no people would prefer a more efficient but foreign administration. I very much doubt you would have wanted Japanese rule for instance, even during the darkest days of incompetent British administrations.
The cultural and religious difference of India and Britain ruled out a continuation of the British monarch being the head of state/sovereign of an independent India. Dominion status, which admittedly would have been more efficient, was thus not a long term option.
Ironically, Indian independence leaders (including Gandhi) were only ever demanding dominion status up until 1931, but were denied even that simple demand because the British didn't believe brown-skinned savages (even Oxford-educated ones) were capable of governance. I think the British promised to look into the possibility of dominion status in return for Indian support in WW1, but reneged. I've always felt racism was the single biggest contributor to the decline of the British empire.
I completely agree with you that there were better solutions to the republican one. Indeed I view the Indian republic as unworthy of being the modern successor to the greatest human civilisation. But the republican one would have been easiest to implement:
A constitutional monarchial system based on the maharajahs and princes of India would have been an interesting option. But their princely status was really only underwritten by the British Crown. They were mere princelings of the British monarch in reality, and none had any right to the whole of India. It would be thus have been difficult to pluck a maharajah from a crowd of rajas, who would have been acceptable to an extremely diverse subcontinent!
Personally, I have thought an ideal situation for India may be to adopt the current constitutional monarchy that Malaysia has, based on various kingdoms with different simultaneously reigning kings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Malaysia
It appears the Malaysian 'supreme ruler' is chosen from amongst the kings of the different Malaysian states, previously based on seniority. That would probably be the best monarchial system for India.
The only problems would be the practical difficulty of collecting the collection of hundreds of royal rulers, some having kingdoms bigger than France and others being merely decorated landlords.
Besides, Malaysia gained its independence about a decade after India, and republicanism was all rage in 1947, with the republican US and Soviet Union ascendant and the imperial powers in terminal decline.
Even so, it is certainly theoretically possible, and would definitely improve Indian governance and restore some pride in their culture, as monarchies invariably do.
Alas this is wishful thinking between two monarchists! As we know, it is just short of impossible to restore or start a monarchy in these days of individualism and egalitarianism, not to mention class envy.
The countries that have monarchies surviving into the 21st century as constitutional monarchies are extremely blessed, more than they realise. They get an elegant division of power while preserving their ancient cultures and retain a continuity that provides stability and a sense of belonging.
Thank you for maintaining this wonderful blog keeping an earlier, more self-aware age alive!
I hope you feel sad. For in the sadness of monarchists like you lies the real joy of celebrating the Republic of India. Brace for more sorrow in the years to come. History will bury the British under India's boot. And that white thing with the red cross will be used to shine India's shoes.
Don't you dare to claim to speak for Indians everywhere we are proud to be a REPUBLIC and please do remember that the first Emperor of India was Bahadur Shah Zafar and not some fattened cow from Schleswig-Holstein which was kicked out of the home country
Why don't you use this flag for the Order of the Star of India and the other Indian orders? I do not think that the Union of India ever made use of those orders of chivalry.
ReplyDeleteI'm a staunch Monarchist and i don't think this date to be very sad. The British treated lots of the natives badly and this is why they wanted a republic. Sure things could've been better debatebly if they remained dominion, but to respect the will of the people is the right thing to do. Of course here in Australia we got treated very well so this is why we are still a CM, which is why I can't understand the need for a republic.
ReplyDeleteAt it again Mr Baltzersen!! I agree wholly with Anonymous above.
ReplyDeleteYour belief that India willingly becoming a republic is a sad occasion, only belies your antediluvian arrogance, that the will of citizens was irrelevant to the future of the British Empire
As an Indian living in a 'white' Commonwealth country, I can tell you that you have utterly failed to appreciate the different perceptions and legacies the British Crown and Empire has left in different countries.
Yes, the British Empire and Crown are central to the identities and histories of Canada, Australia, NZ and British Southern Africa, but they are merely painful reminders of enslavement and colonialism to other non-white peoples.
I wish you were able to appreciate that. I do enjoy reading your other posts, but you display a lamentable eurocentricity and ignorance of the views of non-white races when you discuss the legacy of the British Empire amongst other races.
You may think that is harmless, but in fact you alienate 'ethnic minority' monarchists like me who support the monarchy in largely British societies but are also aware of its perverse legacy in the lands of our ancestors.
Nonetheless, you should be pleased to note that the Star of India, emblazoned in that flag of conquest above, granted as an honour to native sycophants of the Viceroy, is still the emblem of the Indian cricket team, and the ascendant Board of Control of Cricket in India. I find that disgraceful, you can probably revel in it.
Sachin Tendulkar bats wearing a helmet that has the Star of India under the flag of the Indian republic. It wouldn't have been very different had India remained a dominion- except he would probably have been awarded a star of India!!
If I may offer some friendly advice Mr Baltzersen, next Republic Day, why don't you write up an objective piece illustrating how much better off ordinary Indians would have been had India remained a dominion after independence.
ReplyDeleteE.g. the suspension of democracy by Indira Gandhi could never have happened in a constitutional monarchy, there may have been less corruption in a public service working for an apolitical crown etc.
Few would be able to argue against that.
Yes, I'm at it again, sir. Welcome back! :-)
ReplyDeleteI understand how you feel, and I agree that British rule in India had problems, even severe ones.
That being said, I still believe that the present rule -- in many respects -- is worse than it was.
I also believe there could have been several good alternatives to the republican solution. Continuing as a dominion, which indeed this post is about, save the British Raj flag, and a monarchical system based on the maharajahs, princes, etc. of India are the two that come to mind.
You may have problems finding someone appreciating British rule in India, but my educated guess for my own former resident country of Kenya is that you will not have such problems there. See, e.g. a comment at this post.
Your suggestion for a future post is duly noted and appreciated. I assume from the context that you are talking about a particular kind of constitutional monarchy.
Thank you for your feedback, sir.
I suppose you are right in that the current administration is far more corrupt and probably more inefficient than the British Raj.
ReplyDeleteBut you only have to remember the barbarous military rule in the Punjab and remember the General Dyers of the Raj to know that while there may be problems today, at least the government is not using its police/army force to perpetrate atrocities on its own civilian population.
In any case, short of a Gaddafi/Saddam-like regime, no people would prefer a more efficient but foreign administration. I very much doubt you would have wanted Japanese rule for instance, even during the darkest days of incompetent British administrations.
The cultural and religious difference of India and Britain ruled out a continuation of the British monarch being the head of state/sovereign of an independent India. Dominion status, which admittedly would have been more efficient, was thus not a long term option.
Ironically, Indian independence leaders (including Gandhi) were only ever demanding dominion status up until 1931, but were denied even that simple demand because the British didn't believe brown-skinned savages (even Oxford-educated ones) were capable of governance. I think the British promised to look into the possibility of dominion status in return for Indian support in WW1, but reneged. I've always felt racism was the single biggest contributor to the decline of the British empire.
I completely agree with you that there were better solutions to the republican one. Indeed I view the Indian republic as unworthy of being the modern successor to the greatest human civilisation. But the republican one would have been easiest to implement:
A constitutional monarchial system based on the maharajahs and princes of India would have been an interesting option. But their princely status was really only underwritten by the British Crown. They were mere princelings of the British monarch in reality, and none had any right to the whole of India. It would be thus have been difficult to pluck a maharajah from a crowd of rajas, who would have been acceptable to an extremely diverse subcontinent!
Personally, I have thought an ideal situation for India may be to adopt the current constitutional monarchy that Malaysia has, based on various kingdoms with different simultaneously reigning kings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Malaysia
It appears the Malaysian 'supreme ruler' is chosen from amongst the kings of the different Malaysian states, previously based on seniority. That would probably be the best monarchial system for India.
The only problems would be the practical difficulty of collecting the collection of hundreds of royal rulers, some having kingdoms bigger than France and others being merely decorated landlords.
Besides, Malaysia gained its independence about a decade after India, and republicanism was all rage in 1947, with the republican US and Soviet Union ascendant and the imperial powers in terminal decline.
Even so, it is certainly theoretically possible, and would definitely improve Indian governance and restore some pride in their culture, as monarchies invariably do.
Alas this is wishful thinking between two monarchists! As we know, it is just short of impossible to restore or start a monarchy in these days of individualism and egalitarianism, not to mention class envy.
The countries that have monarchies surviving into the 21st century as constitutional monarchies are extremely blessed, more than they realise. They get an elegant division of power while preserving their ancient cultures and retain a continuity that provides stability and a sense of belonging.
Thank you for maintaining this wonderful blog keeping an earlier, more self-aware age alive!
Thank you for your further, interesting thoughts, sir.
ReplyDeleteI will keep them in mind.
I hope you feel sad. For in the sadness of monarchists like you lies the real joy of celebrating the Republic of India. Brace for more sorrow in the years to come. History will bury the British under India's boot. And that white thing with the red cross will be used to shine India's shoes.
ReplyDeleteWelcome, Mr. Anonymous of late!
ReplyDeleteI am glad. Please feel free to celebrate, for we know that those who have the need to shine their shoes with the defeat of others are not truly great.
Don't you dare to claim to speak for Indians everywhere we are proud to be a REPUBLIC and please do remember that the first Emperor of India was Bahadur Shah Zafar and not some fattened cow from Schleswig-Holstein which was kicked out of the home country
ReplyDeleteSo proud is Mr. Anonymous that he needs to use foul language.
ReplyDelete