THE demise of Queen Elizabeth II has occasioned an outpouring of international grief and compassion. This was manifested in the way the queen was collectively remembered in the post-colonial space. This excessive display of grief indicates that colonial tendencies remain well-entrenched in post-colonial space and continue to feed adulation for previous colonial masters.

The grief evoked by the demise of the queen, who spearheaded the institution of the British monarchy and was revered across the world due to his regal stature, was warranted. Nonetheless, the sudden profusion of grief is quite incongruent, especially in the post-colonial space, where the effects of prolonged colonialism are manifest in the form of perpetual deprivation, chronic poverty, systemic uncertainty, and organisational incapacity.

The colonial venture, as administered by the monarchy, had deprived the colonies of their resources and debilitated these countries to the extent that the deleterious effects of colonialism have become irrevocable. The plundering of the resources of the colonies to consolidate the monarchy remains the archetype of the colonial depredations that transpired in embellishing the British monarch.

In this context, lamenting the demise of the queen, who represented the torchbearer of the monarchy’s lingering clout across the world, is a travesty for the post-colonial countries.

The demise of the queen had ensued a pompous display of the funeral, which had drawn representatives from the post-colonial states under the banner of the commonwealth countries, an institution that had been crafted to perpetuate the monarchy’s influence across the world.

This reveals a striking contradiction, as the event of the queen’s funeral had been morphed into an international event, redolent of the halcyon days of the monarchy. The monarchy had been given international legitimacy, notwithstanding its inglorious history of prolonged subjugation of the colonial people.

The glorification of the queen’s demise, as if it constituted an irrevocable loss for people across the world, and the unwarranted ennoblement of the queen through the sentimental media portrayal, only serve to legitimise the monarchy’s grievous history. A trend of ‘forgetting’ is evident, whereby the detrimental effects of the monarchy have been conveniently effaced by camouflaging the funeral ceremony as an event to cement the influence of the monarchy.

The British monarchy is emblematic of paternalistic influence, in which the rest of the world was constituted as subjects in the monarchy’s colonial gaze. The ceremonial funeral and the outpouring of international grief only validate the paternalistic influence of the monarchy. Far from losing influence, the monarchy and the remnants of the regal institutions have gathered renewed force after the demise of the queen. In this context, the pomp and publicity of the funeral event reinforced the legitimacy of the monarchical institution worldwide.

What is perhaps striking is the reverence demonstrated by the ex-colonies towards the British monarchy, where the British monarchy still resonates in the form of lingering political and economic difficulties. An array of post-colonial African countries touted the role of the queen in the emancipation of their countries from the colonial yoke.

However, this is only ludicrous as Britain did not cede its colonies guided by benevolence but was compelled to relinquish them only grudgingly due to financial constraints and the hardening of anti-colonial sentiments movements across the world. In this context, lauding the queen for bestowing independence on these post-colonial countries would be a grave disservice to the people who had advocated and fought for the emancipation of Africa, even to the displeasure of the crown.

The displeasure of the queen had been exhibited in instances where the independence movements had been squashed in colonies. The most blatant acts of violence were unleashed against the anti-colonial movements in Cyprus, Kenya, and Yemen, where people were sanctioned to detention camps and subjected to unconscionable torture during the reign of the queen. Later, the British monarchy could not appease the grievances of the Africans and was compelled to cede its colonial possessions.

Thus, the people who have championed the anti-colonial movement need to reminisce. Besides, the role of the queen had been questionable in terms of assisting the post-colonial countries, as Britain invariably turned its back on these countries after putting the post-colonial countries into disarray by the arbitrary and haphazard implementation of the withdrawal, which had been deliberately orchestrated to perpetuate the strife and conflict in a manner to ensure the perpetual subservience of these countries, which means that a ‘neo-colonial’ structure had emerged from this impetuous withdrawal. The queen must bear a proportionate share of the blame for her role in jeopardising the lives of several generations in these countries.

Moreover, the queen herself personified the institution of monarchy, where beyond the veils of purported paternalism, lay unconscionable brutality, subjugation, dispossession, and plundering. Hence, the glorification of the death of the queen, who had been the figurehead of the monarchy in the post-colonial period, is a sheer disservice to the people who had been subjected to the monarchy’s worst excesses.

ARM Mutasim Billah is a columnist.