"King Charles III Is By Far The Most 'Woke' Monarch There Has Been." l British Author Saurav Dutt

In a decades-long spanning rule, Queen Elizabeth II left a long-lasting legacy of being a monarch who enjoyed considerable public support from the people of England. She has been the one to meet almost all Indian prime ministers, beginning from Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi.
But ever since Indian lawmakers and influencers have been talking about the process of decolonising Indian minds and asking reparations for the centuries of loot and plunder committed by the colonial rulers back in the day, there have been calls for India to pull out of the Commonwealth of Nations.
What did Elizabeth's reign mean to the people of England and India? More importantly, what will King Charles III's reign mean for India and the other former colonies?
British author and political columnist Saurav Dutt answers a range of questions to Swarajya's Sharan Setty. They further discuss Hinduphobia in the UK, Rishi Sunak's loss.
Subscribe to Swarajya on KZbin.
Get a Swarajya subscription: subscriptions....
Website: swarajyamag.com/
Twitter: / swarajyamag
Facebook: / swarajyamag
#QueenElizabeth #KingCharlesIII #RoyalFamily #Decoloniality #Reparations #Hinduphobia #Leicester #Commonwealth #KohinoorDiamond

[@harir3628]

Proud of you Saurav. Keep up your good work.

[@infidelhindu]

18:00 The accusations at the royal family of racism and the attacks on Hindus at Leicester are two very different things. The accusations came from Meghan Markle in the Oprah interview that the couple had, and there, she did everything to belittle the family that had so warmly welcomed her into their ranks. The attacks on Hindus at Leicester is not one of native Englishment hating on Hindus for being there: it's Pakistani migrants continuing their jihad against Hindus, but this time in England. Please don't mix up all the issues that are very distinct. Even if Hindus are not welcomed by the Brits, it's very different from being assaulted by their permanent enemies outside the subcontinent

[@infidelhindu]

5:30 Not sure whether Saurav Dutt supported or opposed Brexit, but it looks like it was the right move to make for Britain, given that the EU was forcing it to take in muslim migrants from just about anywhere. Now, there remains the question of whether the UK needs to trade to survive, or whether it can survive on its own. I happen to think the latter. Also, going by Farage's statements, it looks like the main partner that the UK was looking to after Brexit was the US, as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I didn't see him advocating greater trade w/ the likes of India, Zambia, South Africa, Jamaica and so on

[@infidelhindu]

24:00 The real damage that the Brits did to India wasn't the Jallianwala Bagh massacre or other killings, bad as they all were. The biggest damage the Brits did to India was interrupt the Maratha conquest and the re-Hinduization of India under the Peshwas and local satraps like the Holkars of Indore, the Scindias of Gwalior and the Gaekwads of Baroda. The Brits also did tremendous damage by destroying the Sikh Kingdom of Ranjit Singh: that was more of an enabler of today's Pakistan than their cohorting w/ Syed Ahmad Khan and Jinnah. And as long as Britain continues to treat muslims w/ kid gloves and condemns all their critics for 'islamophobia', they won't come anywhere near recognizing the historic damage they did not just to India but to humanity as a whole, even if they _did_ give back the Kohinoor diamond

[@umar7182]

Maratha empire was not that powerful to overtake all of India. Maratha Empire was no greater in terms of administration, technology and military than Mughals or rajput kingdoms. In last decades of maratha empire, the infighting within royal family was more damaging than outside threats. Like one peshwa killing other peshwa to get to throne, just like mughals did with each other. Thats why British conquered india so easily they sided with the enemy of one ruler to bring him down. Indian monarchs didn't have strong hierarchical structure like European monarchies where the most eldest child of monarch inherents the throne irrespective of anyone disagreement, The church and God gave the monarch first child authority to rule over the subjects, So disputing the new heir to the throne is like waging a war with the god. In india, monarchies ran their kingdoms by the sword. People respected or feared the ruler when he had power and when he was weak they sided with the enemy. And Secondly sikh empire had a muslim majority even at that time. There is a reason why Sikh empire onlt lasted for 50 years. The infighting between muslims and sikhs were so prevalent that punjabis preferred to side with britishers to end the khalsa raj. Religion is a unifying factor in India not ethnicity or linguistics.

[@infidelhindu]

@@umar7182 The Maratha empire did overrun India on its own, and was only interrupted by the Brits. Yeah, they had internal squabbles, but what exacerbated their situation was the Brits making alliances w/ others like the Nizam and eroding their territory. Had there been no EIC, the Marathas would have taken over all of India, and given their religious compatibility w/ most of the country, it's likely that their suzerainty would have been accepted As for the Sikhs, under Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Hari Singh Nalwa, they had overrun all of Punjab, and even captured Peshawar. Jamrud saw to it that the Afghans didn't get past the Khyber Pass, even if Nalwa got killed. But the reason the Sikh empire disintegrated was that the Brits managed to manipulate and finally break them. I have often argued on Western forums that in the Great Game b/w Britain and Russia, it was Russia that was the good power, destroying the Turkic khanates of Central Asia, whereas what the Brits did in the Punjab - ending the Sikh kingdom - was what kept Punjab as a muslim majority province and ultimately enabled it becoming Pakistan in 1947

[@ratnamssomoo1812]

Excellent interview and comments by Swaraja. TQVM 👌👍🙏

[@infidelhindu]

2:00 One day of mourning for the queen was perfectly appropriate. It's fine for Britain to declare a 10 day mourning, and somewhat inexplicable that the US chose to follow, but one day of mourning is the typical protocol for mourning foreign leaders

[@wiseowl2979]

A superb conversation. 👍

[@infidelhindu]

14:00 The biggest problem w/ King Charles III, as far as faiths go, is his fascination for islam. That is the biggest problem that Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs and every other denomination should have w/ him

[@kartikmishra3006]

Amazing interview

[@infidelhindu]

9:00 I don't agree w/ Saurav Dutt here: I don't think it's fair to blame the queen for something her husband believed. He was an independent person and not representing the British crown the way _she_ was. Her apology should be treated as genuine

[@123sudeepshiram]

We need to get all gems jewellery from them and all artifact's

[@induchopra3014]

K9hinoor is Indian no doubt of that

[@icchablisscosmicbliss9948]

Has Coke?

[@SaiyyadInnayaYassir]

💚🤲❤️👍💚