Harbinger of hope on the ecological front

AT a time when the monarchy has been reduced to doing the usual duty of gracefully smiling, ribbon-cutting and waving to the crowds, the accession of King Charles III to the British throne throws up an immense possibility of providing the world with a ‘Green King’ — a sensitive person, with a mind of his own, and a passion to save the planet.

“In his early twenties, he gave prescient speeches on pollution. In his middle age, he founded high-profile sustainability initiatives. And in January, at age 73, he issued his most stark call for radical climate action by business and government,” wrote the Time magazine, aptly summarising his journey over the decades as the King-in-Waiting. Soon after inheriting the throne, and while addressing British parliament, the King said he feels the ‘weight of history’ and in an earlier statement he had acknowledged: “It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply.”

But knowing his credentials, and the deep commitment he has towards protecting the environment, I don’t think history can keep him confined to the role of a ceremonial monarch. Most of the royal attendees at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral — and that include lesser-known Kings and Queens from a number of European countries, besides the Emperor and the Empress from Japan — have one thing in common: None of them have had their lives so meticulously scrutinised, and written about. Nothing unusual; after all, they kept their opinion to themselves and therefore had little to be talked about. That was an easy option they exercised.

But King Charles — even during his long wait as the Prince — was cast in a different mould. Never hesitating to speak his mind, even if it ended up ruffling a few feathers, he had the courage to stand up and be counted. We haven’t seen any member of the royal family anywhere stepping out of the normal ceremonial ‘duties’ to question, for instance, “the insane agro-chemical approaches to farming, which are a disaster in many ways, cause huge damage and contribute enormously to emissions”, or when he said that “if small farms disappear it will rip the heart of the British countryside.” He not only often talks of destructive agriculture and fisheries’ subsidies, the need to encourage non-chemical farming, but has also set up a charity for regenerative agriculture.

As a Prince, he walked the talk. Often calculating and presenting his ecological take, he had also restricted the consumption of non-vegetarian food, ostensibly to play his part in reducing emissions from livestock farming. He had reduced the intake of dairy products too. And as The Guardian (October 11, 2021) reported, before COP26, Prince Charles had divulged that the Aston Martin car he drove was running on a bio-ethanol mix that uses “surplus English white wine and whey from the cheese process.” Simply put, he was clearly trying to convey a larger message to the public — to try and reduce their ecological footprint and thereby play a role in saving the environment.

From climate change to genetic engineering, from air pollution to plastic menace, and from organic farming to private space exploration, he has created a space to discuss and deliberate on the contentious issues the world is faced with. Call him eccentric or even a romanticist, the fact remains that he is very well read. It’s not easy to challenge the dominant narrative, that too when it is backed by big money, unless of course one has a deep understanding of the subject itself. Therefore, I feel how he handles his reign will depend on how he perceives his new role — and more importantly how he decides he should be remembered as.

This reminds me of another monarch who is very fondly remembered. Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej reigned for 70 years after he ascended the throne in 1946. As a student, I was enthralled by his humane approach of spending time with the people to understand their development needs. As a King, he didn’t have to do it. But his interest in people’s welfare and economic prosperity eventually led him to develop the ‘sufficiency economy’ philosophy. At the time of the Asian financial crisis in 1997, in a televised address he had said: “People are crazy about becoming a tiger. Being a tiger is not important. The important thing for us is to have a sufficient economy. A sufficient economy means to have enough to support ourselves.” These words have relevance for India.

Nevertheless, the ‘sufficiency economy’ philosophy, which means putting sustainability at the centre of the development pathway, is now being practised in 23,000 villages across the country. Instead of focusing on exports, the concept relies on building self-sufficiency whereby the effort should be to first have enough for the people. More interestingly, following up the numerous royal projects that he began, including his work on soil regeneration and germplasm collections, won him the first UN Human Development Award in 2006. The UN had also appreciated the ‘sufficiency economy’ philosophy that King Bhumibol had come up with.

Branding him as the world’s first and only “Development King”, the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had said: “Your Majesty has reached out to the poorest and the most vulnerable people of Thailand, regardless of their status, ethnicity or religion, listened to their problems, and empowered them to take their lives in their own hands.”

In many ways, King Charles too shares a legacy that can catapult him to the centre stage. The world is in need of some sane voices that can shift the focus to sustainability. Besides environment, surely he needs to focus on the economic downturn that has led to worsening inequality. Not getting into any political conflict, I am sure the new King can easily carve out a new role for the monarchy — to provide hope in the times of growing disenchantment.