The coronation of King Charles III, watched by millions across the globe, was a grand spectacle. Pomp and pageantry have always been central to British statecraft, particularly its celebration of the monarchy, ever since Queen Victoria assumed the grand title of Empress of India in 1877. The British Empire, in full bloom until the independence of India in 1947 began the process of decolonisation, may no longer be there to pay the bills, but Britain hasn’t entirely forgotten the ‘ornamentalism’ that marked its imperial heyday. “Gold fillings in a mouth of decay” was how a left-wing writer once chose to describe the institution that was celebrated last Saturday.

Understandably, there were sharply divergent views of the coronation, including those who saw it as a non-event and, at best, equal in importance to the opening and the closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games. Within Britain and some parts of the Anglophone world, the formal anointment of Charles III was a semi-mystical event. Moreover, since this was the only coronation in living memory — the previous one happened in 1953, a long time ago — they wallowed in the television coverage, although the ratings were less than those of the funeral of Queen Elizabeth a year ago.

Seven decades ago, at the dawn of the long Elizabethan era, the televised coverage was elementary and lacked the glitz and technological sophistication of today. At the same time, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II had a greater global importance because despite the weariness of a painful victory over Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan, Britain was an important player in international affairs, third only to the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Despite all its pretensions of restoring its status as a player of consequence — the proverbial Singapore of the West — the grim reality is that Britain is increasingly being seen as a declining power with oodles of heritage. Some of that heritage, including all the Cullinan diamonds extracted from Africa under circumstances that can at best be called controversial, was on display at the coronation. Some of the other treasures, such as the iconic Kohinoor diamond, were wisely kept away from the coronation.

In many ways, the British monarchy has tried to modify its image and keep up with the times. Although its constitutional role is very limited and the scope of the royal prerogative nominal, the monarch plays an important role as a symbol of British nationhood. Keeping his/her head above controversy and steadfastly treading a sensible middle ground have been the expectations from the monarch since Queen Victoria. Queen Elizabeth II was a model queen and in all her 70 years as head of State, she did not get into any controversy. The same cannot be said for the outspoken Duke of Edinburgh who, to be fair, was merely reflecting values and a sense of humour that just cannot pass the test of political correctness and hyper-sensitivity to issues of gender and race.

All this is fine as far as the role of the mo­narchy in the United Kingdom is con­cerned. How is India, politically ind­e­pendent since August 1947 and a full-fled­ged republic since January 1950, sup­posed to react to a Britain fulfilling its constitutional obligations and a little more?

Judged from today’s international perspective, Jawaharlal Nehru went a bit over the top to personally attend the previous coronation in 1953. However, judged from the situation seven decades ago, he wasn’t being slavish.

First, India had played a leading role in securing the refashioning of the British Commonwealth to the Commonwealth of Nations with the queen as the head. The unstated role of the body was that its membership would be limited to countries that were or once were a part of the grand British Empire. It was the nearest thing to Cecil Rhodes’ dream of an English-speaking Union, a gentlemanly club of different countries with a set of common social assumptions. Although the reality turned out to be different, the Commonwealth was a factor of some consequence in 1953. The anointment of its titular head warranted a personal attendance by a prime minister of India.

Secondly, Nehru was a familiar figure to the British Establishment of the 1950s. Having attended Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge, he is often described as the last Englishman to rule India. The description may well be excessively harsh but it does indicate that the Indian prime minister had a personal network that he could and did use. Whether the networking was confined to convivial social visits to country houses or town houses in Mayfair and Hampstead is best left to Nehru’s non-hagiographical biographers to assess. On paper at least, the networking had a potential diplomatic importance.

The situation that prevails in 2023 is markedly different. As a country, Britain is much reduced in circumstances. Its importance is there as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and as an independent, non-European Union force which, at the same time, has a ‘special relationship’ with the US. But the Commonwealth is a relic, awaiting rejuvenation or a natural death. Moreover, the very integrity of the UK is now uncertain, given the real possibility of Scottish independence.

However, Britain does enjoy a pre-eminent soft power status in the English-speaking world and has, of late, made a mark as a centre of precision technology and pharmaceutical research. It has also shown a readiness to engage very closely with India, including negotiating a free trade agreement. In short, the relationship has become very business-like and this is reflected in the dealings of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with that country. Consequently, the decision to lower the level of representation to the coronation was neither over-the-top nor churlish. It was correct and aimed at informing Britain that its relationship with India must move to a different plane. There is an awkward hangover that the imperial experience has generated in both countries and this must be got over.

The coronation of King Charles was an important event for the UK. Its significance for India was purely academic. India-UK relations have to move beyond pomp and pageantry, important as they are for TV.