The Jewish Question: Part Two

Some people wrongly think Israel was created as a Jew homeland because of the holocaust in the Second World War. As part of Hitler’s strategy brutally named the ‘final solution’ to the Jewish question, 6 million out of 9 million European Jews were killed; many of them ghettoed, starved, tortured and gassed. It is natural to imagine the creation of Israel as a goodwill gesture to Jews who survived the holocaust. However, as we saw earlier, the Jew homeland was announced through the Balfour declaration in 1917, much before the rise of Hitler. Jews had been persecuted everywhere, for nearly 2000 years.

This is curious. I can understand the big religions wholeheartedly and militarily hating one another. But Jews are and have always been too small a number. Today Christianity has more than 2 billion followers, Islam more than 1.5 billion; there are more than 1 billion Hindus, but only 14 million Jews worldwide. At its peak, before the holocaust, Judaism had 17 million adherents, minuscule in comparison to the three big religions. Why, then, such strong feelings towards a minor community - so much so as to profile, persecute and annihilate it? Why create a special word, Anti-Semitism, to articulate Jew hatred. In my reading, I found four key reasons.

Responsible for the death of Jesus

For centuries, provoked by their religious zealots, Christians have believed that the Jewish people were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. The crucifixion story talks about Pontius Pilate who could have stopped the execution, but instead washed his hands – literally and metaphorically – to let Jesus be killed.

Saint Hippolytus (170-236 AD) in his Expository Treatise against the Jews has this to say:

“Now then, incline thine ear to me and hear my words, and give heed, thou Jew. Many a time does thou boast thyself, in that thou didst condemn Jesus of Nazareth to death, and didst give him vinegar and gall to drink; and thou dost vaunt thyself because of this. Come, therefore, and let us consider together whether perchance thou dost boast unrighteously, O, Israel, and whether thou small portion of vinegar and all has not brought down this fearful threatening upon thee and whether this is not the cause of thy present condition involved in these myriad of troubles.”

The king of Jews was crucified, and the religion formed in his name declared Jews to be responsible for the crucifixion.

Blood libel

The blood libel superstition insists that Jews kidnap and kill pre-pubertal Christian boys to bake special bread (Matzoth). This is a religious ritual during the Jewish holidays. An American historian Walter Laqueur says there have been 150 such cases (not to talk about thousands of rumours) reported in the Middle Ages. In those cases, Jews were arrested and usually killed by a mob.

My favourite author Fyodor Dostoevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov, has this passage. The girl is asking Alexie Karamazov (Alyosha), the priest:

“Alyosha, is it true that at Easter the Jews steal a child and kill it?”

“I don’t know.”

“There’s a book here in which I read about the trial of a Jew, who took a child of four years old and cut off the fingers from both hands, and then crucified him on the wall, hammered nails into him and crucified him, and afterwards, when he was tried, he said that the child died soon, within four hours. That was ‘soon’! He said the child moaned, kept on moaning and he stood admiring it...”

Conspiracy theories, when propagated by a Church, can influence masses for generations. Parents pass on these beliefs to their children. The beliefs are reinforced by what you read and trust. If you are told that a community executed the founder of your religion, you get a lifelong licence to hate that community.

Racial prejudice

Just by looking at a person, we can’t pinpoint his religion or language, because both are man-made phenomena. However, we can tell the gender and broadly speaking the race of a person. Sometimes, race and religion can be visibly distinct, e.g. the Bangladeshi Muslims and the Arab Muslims or the European Christians and the African Christians. Christianity and Islam, the two biggest religions, have expanded through large-scale conversions. Judaism is a small religion, and in most cases Jews were identified as belonging to another race.

Somerset Maugham, another favourite writer of mine, in his celebrated story Mr Know-all, describes the main character Mr Kelada as having a “hooked nose”. In the 17^th century, English theatre often presented Jews as hideous caricatures with hooked noses and bright red wigs. In 17^th century Venice, Jews were required to wear a red hat at all times in public. The punishment for not wearing a red hat was the death penalty. As we know, the Nazis required them to wear armbands. In short, the haters made sure Jews could always be identified so as to persecute them.

Moneylenders and usury

Christianity and Islam traditionally prohibited money lending for profit. Charging interest was a sin, if not a crime. Money lending for profit was the exclusive territory of Jews. Here again we can quote from literature, a well known example in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice.  The character of Shylock is capable of creating hatred towards Jewish moneylenders for ever.

The profiteering by the Jewish moneylenders seems like a realistic reason for the money-borrowers to hate them. (Even today, most of us distrust bankers).

Money and commerce are a part of the Jewish blood. When I lived in Poland, I took friends and relatives who visited me to the Auschwitz concentration camp. Feeling miserable and gloomy, we would then return to Krakow and visit the Jewish Kazimierz- the historical district of Krakow. (Spielberg’s Schindler’s list was shot here). In the synagogues, I was shocked by the crass commercialism shown by the Rabbi - pay for entry, pay for viewing of documentaries, pay exorbitant prices for the DVDs. Commerce rather than religion was the raison d'être of that synagogue, and its custodians didn’t hide it. 

Settler colonialism

Hated, ostracised and persecuted for 2000 years, later facing the threat of extinction in concentration camps, the Jews naturally fought for their own home. Zionism succeeded in getting that home in Palestine, and the settlements started.

Colonialism is of two types. When the British Empire ruled over India, it was only to plunder India’s wealth and exploit its labour, rather than for the British people to settle there by kicking the Indians off. This type of colonialism generally ends, as it ended in the case of India in 1947.

The settler colonialism, on the other hand, is to capture the land so as to settle there by throwing or destroying the original residents off that land. The United States of America and Australia are two well-known examples of settler colonialism.

The settlers go to the new place, depopulate the locals, start living there, and give the place names borrowed from their home country. Today’s New York was first captured by the Dutch in the 17^th century. They named today’s Manhattan ‘New Amsterdam’ and the larger area ‘New Netherland’. At the end of the second Anglo-Dutch war of 1665-1667, the English captured it. They renamed New Amsterdam as ‘New York’ to honour the then Duke of York (who later became King James II). (Any place that has new in its name smells of settler colonialism). Over the next couple of centuries, Christian Europeans of all kinds emigrated and settled in America. Today, except a few historians and Wikipedia, nobody knows who the original people in that land were. It was as if a new (or additional) national home was declared for Europeans, and they all flocked to the new land called America.

The story of Israel is similar – the only difference being that it happened in the 20^th century. Next week, in the third part, I will argue why this issue is important in predicting the Israel-Palestine future.

(Continued next week)

Ravi    

The Jewish Question: Part One

This week I went to see a special screening of a Palestinian-Israeli documentary called 5 broken cameras. Shot over seven years by a filming-passionate Palestinian farmer, it tells the story of a West Bank village trying to resist, through non-violent protests, attempts by armed Israeli forces to grab their land. This grabbing exercise is known to the world as Israeli settlements.

Two days ago, on Thursday 30 March, Benjamin Netanyahu announced the first officially sanctioned settlements in the West Bank in more than 20 years.

5 Broken Cameras

Emad Burnat, a Palestinian farmer in a West Bank village Bil’in, got his first video camera in 2005, to film his just-born son. Bil’in happens to be located on the West bank border. Well armed Israeli forces, wearing masks and helmets, backed by the Israeli state, are on a mission to keep expanding Israeli boundaries by encroaching on the Bil’in land, bulldozing olive trees, building fences and new housing for Jewish settlers on a continuous basis. The villagers follow a Gandhian path of peaceful protests every week. The Israeli forces regularly shoot at the demonstrators with tear gas canisters and rubber bullets. It looks like a sci-fi scene between people from earth and aliens, a battle as asymmetric as it can be.

Since 2005, Burnat has been courageously filming the events. His brothers are arrested; he gets wounded, on one occasion a bullet that hits his camera saves his life. Every time a camera is destroyed by the Israelis, he desperately tries to get another camera. Over seven years (2005-2011), he shot more than 700 hours of footage. 5 broken cameras is a 94 minute edited version, directed and financed by an Israeli named Guy Davidi. The film was nominated for Oscars in 2013. This real first-hand and first-class documentation of the Israel-Palestine conflict didn’t win the Oscar. (Some people say it should be obvious why).

The film’s narrative has several human threads. Burnat’s son Gibreel is born in 2005, at the beginning of the filming. In the documentary, we watch him grow and celebrate his birthdays. The first words he utters are “wall” and “cartridge”. Adeeb and Phil are Burnat’s friends. They are at the forefront of the resistance. Adeeb goes to jail, and Phil is killed. This is a surreal experience for viewers. At the back of your mind, you usually know that the characters dying on screen are alive in real life. Here we see the gentle, laughing Phil, a man hugely popular with kids, appealing to Israeli soldiers without losing his smile, and later succumbing to a bullet. We see his death captured live by the camera.

The film is a chronicle of endurance, an emotional consequence of living under occupation. There are surprises for the uninitiated viewer. Strangely enough, Burnat, seriously injured, is carried to a hospital in Tel Aviv. He says if not for the Israeli hospital and doctors, he would have lost his life. The Supreme Court of Israel orders removal of the encroaching wire fence. Albeit with a four year delay, the fence is removed by the Israeli forces. It’s a small moral victory for the suffering villagers.

After watching the film, one wonders if Gibreel, the filmmaker’s son, when he grows up, would follow in his father’s non-violent footsteps or join some group like Hamas. It’s unlikely any of us would go to West Bank as tourists. I would unhesitatingly recommend watching this film to get an idea of what goes on there.

The screening was followed by a discussion. A man who looked like a Palestinian, but was an Israeli, came on the stage. He appealed to the audience: “What you saw was true, but it’s only a very small part of the story. Please, please you can’t judge Israel based on this one-sided viewpoint.”

Jews in my life

Fifty years ago, one of my neighbours in Bombay was a Jewish man named Abraham Mazel. A dark, moustachioed man, he owned a large black Doberman. I remember his grown-up sons getting into a brawl with the ground-floor neighbours. They threw soda-water bottles at the neighbours from above. The following morning, a police van took the sons away for a brief period. The Mazel family left our building in my childhood; it was rumoured they migrated to Israel.

Once I started living in Russia, suddenly I was surrounded by Jews, Jew stories and Jew jokes.

My ex-wife was Russian. A few years before we met, she was planning to marry a Jewish guy. Her family was fine with that, but the Jew boy’s family refused a non-Jewish bride.

When I worked for a tobacco company, the company’s Russian customers were mostly Jews. Judaism is not only a religion, but a race. I began to notice their facial features were different from Slavic people. The company’s first importer, Vladimir Ainbinder, told me disturbing stories about how he was ill-treated in his school and career.

In Moscow, we worked in an open office. Once I was speaking to Mr Ainbinder over the phone, and he asked me who Mr Dreitsen (another customer) was. I said, “He is a Jew, just like you.” I meant that as a single-word-compliment to their community’s business acumen. But the Russians in the office, who overheard the phone conversation, were stunned. Later, they would quote that as an example of my outspokenness or insensitivity. If I told a Buddhist that another man was also a Buddhist, I don’t think that would be considered insensitive. But in Russia, Jews have a special place – not a dignified one.

Mr Ainbinder told me horror stories about discrimination at school. Later, as a programmer, he was denied promotions in the company. The appointment of a Jew boss lifted his spirits. But his Jew boss refused to promote him. I can’t be seen favouring another Jew, that’ll ruin my career, he said.

Soviet Passports had the infamous ‘fifth line’ called ‘nationality’. Here Russians wrote “Russian”, Ukrainians “Ukrainian”, but Jews had to write “Jew”. Regardless of geography, Jews were outcasts. In the Soviet Union, this fifth line ensured that Jews could be identified irrespective of their features and accents.  Only in 1997, ‘nationality’ was deleted from Russian passports.

During Soviet times, the United States offered ‘Refugee Passports” to Soviet Jews. Mr Ainbinder, a successful businessman (he made a fortune by trading in cigarettes), along with his family emigrated to the USA on “Refugee Passports.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, America stopped this scheme. Jews were no longer expected to be persecuted.

Judaism vs Zionism  

Zion is the hill of Jerusalem. Jews lived there 3000 years ago, and were periodically defeated and driven away from it. We learn about that period from the Hebrew bible and history books. But when you talk about events 3000 years old, it is difficult to distinguish between history and mythology. The return to Zion is a biblical story that talks about the return of Jews from Babylonian exile to the land of Israel. Inspired by this story, Jews have aspired to return to their homeland for centuries.

Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian Jew, is considered to be the founder of Zionism. In 1896, in his book Der Judenstaat (the Jews’ State) he wrote:  The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable number. Wherever it doesn’t exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places, where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, so long as the Jewish question is not solved on a political level.... The Jews who wish for a State will have it. We shall live at last as free men, and die peacefully in our own homes.

Herzl was opposed to the infiltration of Palestine by Jews migrating there sneakily. He wanted a dignified homeland. In the early 1900s, the ambitious Herzl identified Uganda (modern day Kenya) as one of the options. The British, the colonial masters of Uganda then, offered him 13000 sq kms surrounded by virgin forest. Though suitable in terms of weather, the area was found to be full of dangerous lions and unwelcoming natives. The Uganda plan was abandoned. Herzl died in 1904, without knowing the Uganda proposal was cancelled.

Balfour declaration, 1917

In the First World War the British defeated the Ottoman Turkish forces and occupied Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. Baron Walter Rothschild, of the well-known Rothschild family, was a leader of the British Jewish community, a banker, politician and a Zionist. He had financially helped Britain in their war efforts. He, along with other Zionists, actively lobbied for a Jewish homeland.  As a result of the activism, Britain’s foreign secretary Arthur Balfour finally sent him a letter to confirm the British government favoured the creation of a “national home” for Jews in Palestine. After much debating over political correctness and nuances, the final draft of the declaration proclaimed:

“His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

The British had their geopolitical reasons for initiating the move. The main reason was control over the Suez Canal. The opening of the Suez Canal had miraculously reduced the distance between England and India, the empire’s jewel crown, by 7000 kms. This was important for trade and management. A Jewish national home in Palestine was thought to be a safeguard to secure control over the Suez Canal.  

In 1920, the British Empire sent Herbert Samuel, a Zionist, as the first High Commissioner of Palestine. He was the first Jew to govern the historic land of Israel in 2000 years.

A British census of 1918 counted 700,000 Arabs (93%) and 56,000 Jews (7%) in Palestine. (Compare that to 6.4 million Jews in Israel today).

This action was mind-boggling. A European power (Britain) offered a non-European territory (Palestine) completely ignoring the presence or wishes of 93% of its natives (Arab population) as home to a third religion (Judaism) and to its foreign followers (worldwide Jews).

It was like a man enslaving a woman, and then offering her to strangers to rape.

Balfour declaration, 1917, by the British Empire is considered to be the trigger for the formation of a Jewish state on Arab territory thirty-one years later.

*****

(To be continued next week)

Ravi 

India’s Lord Spiritual

                                

Last Sunday, on 19 March 2017, a man in orange robes and shaven head, the head priest of a famous Indian temple became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest state with a population of 224 million. Outside of India, only China, USA and Indonesia have more residents. Uttar Pradesh boasts of the picturesque Taj Mahal. Lord Vishnu’s two well-known incarnations, Rama and Krishna were born in this state. Many Indians, including me, were uncomfortable at the sight of a monk assuming a high political office. This article is a rambling to figure out why we feel this discomfort.

Double hatted minister

Funnily enough, this choice should not come as a shock if we look at the original meaning of the word minister: a member of the clergy, a priest. In ancient times, superstition - and not science - ruled the world. Priests were often the most educated lot. They usually achieved that by keeping others away from education. Kings represented God. When Christianity was formalised, politics and religion fought for supremacy. Kings wanted Popes to report to them, but Popes controlled civil matters. In the 16^th century, Henry VIII asked the Pope’s permission to annul his marriage. When the Pope refused, King Henry VIII along with his kingdom abandoned Catholicism by forming the Church of England. In England, till today, the Monarch is the supreme governor of that Church.  

The House of Lords, English parliament’s upper house, has 26 bishops appointed as Spiritual Lords. They take part in debates and vote just like their peers. One of them reads the prayer aloud to commence the day of the Legislature.

The ecclesiastical attire

Those 26 Bishops wear a prescribed sacred uniform. Dress is an important part of our identity. Where attire is concerned, all religious institutions maximise their efforts to minimise sexuality. Cassocks and long shapeless skirts are imposed to hide curves and contours, heads are shaven or covered, Christian clergy wear collars, Indian monks usually smear their foreheads. Materials and styles signify a church hierarchy. Colour is very important. Even secular people are particular about a mourning dress. Possibly for contrast, white people wear black, and Asians (Indians, Japanese) wear white at funerals.

I asked myself whether a Chief Minister in orange robes and shaven head had made me feel uneasy. Muslim men with long beards, women in black Burqas, Jews wearing Kippot (skull caps), Jain nuns in white sarees make me wonder why they need such a visual display of their group identity. Is it insecurity of some sort, or excessive loyalty to their religious beliefs, or a minority symbol? Well, Yogi Adityanath, the monk politician, doesn’t belong to any minority community. Though heading the state, he continues to wear the uniform of a Hindu monk.

That could be one source of discomfort. Then I remembered India’s previous Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, wore a turban and a beard, a uniform for Sikh males, throughout his ten-year tenure. That had never bothered me, so why this reaction now?

The American secretaries

Have you ever wondered about the weird titles in the American cabinet? Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State (an Indian friend of mine thought she was given that job because she was a woman), a title difficult to understand for non-Americans. As a matter of fact, Secretary of State is the Minister of Foreign affairs and Secretary of the Treasury is simply the Minister of Finance. The USA has no ministers and no ministries; they have secretaries and departments instead. 

The probable reason is the desire of America’s founders to keep throne and altar separate at any cost. They couldn’t even tolerate words common to religion and politics. The American Bill of Rights (15 Dec 1791) proudly proclaimed that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  

Separation of State and Religion

Why should the State and Religion be separated? I can offer three main reasons.

First, political governance is a geographic concept. A President or a Chief Minister is elected to govern an area defined by boundaries. Religion transcends such boundaries. The Catholic Pope goes around the world addressing his religious followers, and recommending conversions. Muslims anywhere in the world must face Mecca in Saudi Arabia while saying Namaz. These are clearly examples where State and Religion are in conflict. Even when a Parish Priest has his geographical boundaries defined, he serves only those believers in his parish who belong to his religion, not the entire parish. 

Second, a democratic state aspires to improve the material conditions of its citizens. This is achieved through scientific progress, business, commerce, by applying economic laws. Science is based on reason, religion is based on faith. Scientific method requires questioning and evidence. Religion is allergic to scientific method. We are expected to believe in and communicate with a variety of Gods (or a single God) without having seen or met one.

It’s known that as science advances, religion declines. So, it’s a strategic imperative for all religions to thwart the progress of science. Catholic priests oppose abortion and contraception, Imams insist on enforcing 14-centuries-old Sharia, and Hindu priests term beef-eating as the biggest disaster facing mankind. (Many Hindus are secretly happy to eat Big Macs abroad). This known desire of all religions to keep their followers primitive, directly contradicts the desire of political governance to make progress.

Third, the difference between the material and spiritual world. State and political governance are expected to deal with the material world, build bridges and roads, collect taxes; provide security, housing, water, electricity, issue identity documents.

Most priests are asked to renounce the material world. Instead of wearing t-shirts and Jeans, they wear freak uniforms. They are required to suppress their natural urges and devote themselves to God. By claiming this hardship as a sacrifice, they become God’s middlemen. God’s agency is their source of religious power. Religious power is historical, acquired in medieval times by making fool of gullible, superstitious masses. Progressive governments in the 21^st century can’t allow religious power to interfere in political governance. 

How to keep them separate

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. [The Bible (Matthew 22:21), (Mark 12:17)]

The eligibility to contest elections in democratic societies generally requires two conditions: a minimum age and length of residence in the candidate’s constituency. A secular state cannot prevent anyone satisfying those two conditions from contesting an election. No reasonable grounds to stop a priest from becoming a political candidate.

Catholicism, probably the world’s most organised religion, prohibits its priests from taking up a political office. No Pope can become a President. [(Canon 285.3” Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power. (Code of Canon law)]

Hinduism is, like most things in India, disorganised. Hinduism has no founder, no single divine book, no pope, no congregations and no code of conduct. It’s too much to expect that Hinduism will ever prohibit temple priests from assuming political offices.

The danger called Theocracy

We saw above that a Temple Head Priest becoming a Chief Minister presents a case of conflict of interest. Normally, such conflict is resolved by the Chief Minister giving up his regular job while he occupies the political office. A businessman or a lawyer can do it, but a priest? On becoming the Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath should wear shirts and trousers, grow hair, and resign as the head priest. But God’s men can’t do it. Neither can they leave their religious beliefs behind. (You may notice I haven’t discussed Yogi Adityanath as a person. His biography suggests he is not a Hatha-yogi, but a Hate-yogi. But even if he was a good or civil man, in principle it is wrong to appoint him.)

Some people are worried about the 20% Muslims in Uttar Pradesh under the rule of a firebrand Hindu monk. But it’s not only the Muslims. What about the atheists and agnostics? What about the progressive Hindus, who love to eat beef and hate moral policing?

A theocratic state is one where a priest rules in the name of God. The fatwa-fan Ayatollah Khomeini and his equally worthy successor Ali Khamenei have blessed Iran with their supreme leadership. Iran is the logical conclusion of any place where religious and political power is united in the same person.

That is the gravest danger posed by the appointment of a temple priest. God save Uttar Pradesh.

Ravi 

The Royal Assent: A Short Story

On the morning of Thursday, 16 March 2017, Prince Charles looked anxious when he spoke to a half-awake Camilla. “Get ready,” he said, “we have been summoned to Buckingham Palace.”

“Is something wrong?” asked Camilla, more with hope than anxiety. For years, she had waited for an emergency departure to the palace on receiving sudden news.

“Don’t know. Mama wants to see us urgently. I understand Will is also going. It’s a busy day. I hope it’s nothing major.” Charles was scheduled to meet representatives of the world’s largest cocoa and chocolate companies today. His speechwriter hadn’t yet sent his speech.

Camilla’s make-up team began working on her. She and Charles left Clarence house half an hour later. At the palace, they rushed straight to the Queen’s private apartments. 

The Queen welcomed them. She threw a glance at Camilla. God knows when Charles was going to mature, the Queen wondered. She had asked her private secretary to invite Charles. Why couldn’t he ever come alone? On matters of importance, the presence of outsiders was distracting. The Queen was at a loss when it came to addressing Camilla. Her reflex was to call her Mrs Parker Bowles, but that would be inappropriate now. In public she referred to her as the Duchess of Cornwall, and in private preferred not to address her at all. 

Charles was relieved to see his parents. Mummy looked a bit haggard. She wasn’t wearing her pearl necklace. Seeing the Queen’s neck without a necklace is a privilege granted only to the close family. They were soon joined by William, Kate and Harry, all of whom had hurried here from Kensington Palace.

The Queen was happy to see her grandsons. Without them and Kate, this room would look like a geriatric ward. It was good William had shown the sense to leave his children home. The Queen wished to have a crucial talk - the presence of her great-grandchildren would rob the meeting of any seriousness.

With the usual uniformed staff hovering over them, nobody said anything of importance during the light breakfast.  The Queen imperceptibly nodded at the Head-Coffee-Room-maid. The staff silently disappeared, leaving the family on its own.

“I was restless during the night.” The Queen began. Kate thought the Queen looked as bad as a Queen can look. “I need to make an important decision today. That’s the reason I’ve called you here.”

Camilla couldn’t believe what she was hearing. Had the moment finally arrived? This ancient, power-obsessed woman had deprived poor Charles of his due. He had been the heir apparent for sixty-eight years. That was the only record Charles was likely to have against his name. Queen Camilla, Queen Camilla... she had said these words so many times, in front of the mirror, in her dreams. Queen sounded so much better than Duchess. Camilla was absolutely determined to become the king’s wife one day. But for that to happen, it was important Charles should out-survive his mother. That didn’t look easy. This old fool of a lady looked strong for another ten, maybe fifteen, years. Was she finally abdicating the throne today?

“You may know that I’m expected to sign the Brexit bill today. I had my weekly meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday.” That meeting had not gone well. Mrs May was like a voice message machine. No matter what you asked, she uttered pre-rehearsed phrases aggressively. That other woman, Maggie Thatcher (may God bless her soul), used to make the Queen equally uncomfortable. But the Queen had somehow managed her for eleven years. Mrs May, humourless and mannish, was far worse; she had a mean streak in her. It was frightening to see she was in charge of the kingdom. “What I’ve heard from her so far doesn’t inspire confidence at all. I’ve talked to a couple of lords. They’re equally nervous.”

“Mummy, the bill is passed by the commons. The lords can’t do anything now.” Charles said. Camilla nodded as a matter of protocol. She had lost all interest in the conversation.

“Maybe the lords can’t.” The Queen said and took a deliberate pause. She then looked at Charles. “Things, I understand, are not good. Charles, you said last summer that pound sterling would bounce back. Well, nine months are gone and one lord described it as one of the worst performing currencies.” Not surprisingly, the Queen had always felt an emotional bond with the English currency. After the referendum, she had developed a nagging feeling that she had become personally devalued.

“Scotland has threatened to run another referendum. I’m afraid they may succeed this time. I couldn’t sleep last night at the thought of losing Balmoral Castle.”

“Granny, we’ll not lose Balmoral, whether Scotland is in or out. Balmoral belongs to our family.” William said what he thought should be obvious to everyone, including the Monarch.

“Northern Ireland may leave as well.” The Queen, being the Queen, ignored any interruptions. “One lord said our kingdom may finally be left with the Midlands and Yorkshire. Midlands and Yorkshire, that’s all.”

‘You’re meeting the wrong lords.” Said Charles, not realising that the Queen was more comfortable talking to lords her own age. Those lords specialised in making the darkest forecasts. “What can we do anyway? We’re expected to be neutral.”

“Not neutral, my dear son, we have been neutered. They talk of the Royal prerogative, (the humourless woman does), the Royal assent, at Her Majesty’s pleasure... well, I’m considering withholding my assent.”

“Granny, you mean you will refuse to sign the Brexit bill? And if you don’t sign it, Brexit doesn’t happen?” Harry said excitedly.

“Yes. If I don’t sign it, the Prime Minister can’t invoke article 50. The process will come to a halt.” During the night, the Queen had scripted a speech in her mind for television. She would tell her subjects how ruinous the whole Brexit plan was. Two years was too short a time to negotiate with an infuriated group of twenty seven countries. It was clear the divorce would end with no deal for the UK. The kingdom, or whatever was left of it, would be isolated from Europe, new borders would appear, all foreign goods would become costlier, English exports would decline; Brexit would be a disaster for science and universities in the UK. The voters didn’t know all that in June.

“I’m not sure it’s the right thing to stop Europeans from coming here.” The Queen continued. The House of Windsor was originally German – called the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but that didn’t bother the Queen too much. She was worried about the loss of the low-priced labour coming in from Eastern Europe. If one million Poles are asked to leave, who will wait at restaurant tables? Can this country run without carpenters, plumbers, construction workers, shop assistants? Even Buckingham palace now had forty people employed from Eastern Europe. They were refreshingly cheap and worked hard. Those one million Poles was a godsend. They took care of the lowly jobs that the English weren’t going to do anyway. “England has always been inclusive, multi-cultural, welcoming to all foreigners.”

“When I signed the bill to allow sending of troops to Iraq, I suspected it was a mistake. I wouldn’t like to make another. I can’t sign a death sentence for my own kingdom.” Iraq was a blunder, the Queen knew, but it affected few British people. The loss of lives was mainly in foreign lands. But Brexit promised a ruin for her own people.

“Granny, I completely agree with you.” Harry said. “You shouldn’t sign the bill.” Life was getting boring. Granny’s plan would bring real excitement in their life. A Royal Revolt, wow! Harry imagined the headlines. In the last three hundred years, no King or Queen had dared to do what his grandmother was proposing. Harry himself had little to lose either way. The rate at which Will and Kate were producing kids, Harry was never going to come anywhere near the throne. The world needed to feel the power of monarchy once again. Granny’s refusal to sign would do the trick.  

“Mummy, listen,” said Charles. “I appreciate your emotions and commitment to our people. The information we currently have is speculative. We need to give the govt a chance. Britain has always come out of every crisis. It’ll overcome this as well. I think we should keep faith.” What has got into Mama’s head, he wondered. Did she become senile overnight? What an outrageous thought, to not sign a bill. And to listen to this ludicrous idea, Camilla and he had had to hurry in the morning.

“You mean you don’t support vetoing the bill.” The Queen said softly.

She moved closer to Prince Philip. “You haven’t said anything.”

Prince Philip looked startled. He didn’t have an ounce of English blood, was he even qualified to take part in this discussion? “As the Duke of Edinburgh, I would certainly feel sad if the kingdom were to lose Scotland.” He smiled and blinked his eyes. At 95, he didn’t need any complications in his life. Why did Lillbet have such a crazy idea? All the people in this room were part of a monumental farce; they were the highest paid actors in the world, with castles and palaces included in their pay-packages. They simply needed to stay loyal to the script. Why change the lines and turn it into a melodrama? “I agree with Charles. We should not take a pessimistic view. Things can improve, I’m sure they will.” Philip said. He knew Lillbet valued his opinion, though the rest of the world looked at him as a mere consort.

“Granny, let’s look at the brighter side. We’ll be independent, a truly sovereign kingdom. It may come at a cost, but it will be short term. Our country is very important to Europeans, they will give us good terms, I’m certain. And we’ll take immigrants in a systematic way; we’ll take the best people from Poland, not any people from Poland. You are the Queen of the Commonwealth, the House of Windsor still rules over Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas...”

Kate looked proudly at William. Yes, she loved the Bahamas. And she wouldn’t mind shifting the Royal residence to New Zealand. London air was so polluted. Maybe George, when he becomes king, can live in a castle in New Zealand. Of course, he had his father, grandfather, and great-grandmother before him. As matters stood now, it may take another three hundred years before George’s turn came. But as William was saying, we must remain optimistic. Kate’s situation was not as grim as Camilla’s, not yet.

“The danger”, William was saying, “is the media twisting your intention, granny. They are saying Brexit is what the people want. They called the judges ‘the enemy of the people.’ If you don’t sign the bill, they may put you in the same category.” If the House of Windsor was called the enemy of the people, that would be the end. Granny’s dangerous idea could cause abolition of monarchy, before Britain goes out of EU. Their first allegiance must be to the House of Windsor.  The notion of this nation living without a monarch was abhorrent. British Monarchy, over centuries, had successfully guided the country and must guide it always.

“It appears that nobody in this room supports the idea.” The Queen looked at Philip, Charles and William in quick succession. She had forgotten that Harry overwhelmingly supported her thinking, but Harry didn’t matter, he was rather low in the line of succession.

“I agree with what Will said. His argument was valid. We don’t want to be seen as the enemy of the people’’. Charles said.

“Well, I must say I was not too sure of the idea myself. I’m glad I called all of you here to take your views. It’s a busy day. We are scheduled to re-open the National Army Museum this morning. The Brexit bill signing is at eleven. But that shouldn’t take more than a few seconds.”

Once everyone was dismissed, the Queen’s ‘personal dresser’ and make-up team began their work. An hour later, making the most of the spring weather, the Queen donned a light weight powder blue tweed coat and matching hat for the occasion.

Ravi