Of kings and vultures

When speaking of kings, the mind goes back to a film based on a Rudyard Kipling novella titled The Man Who Would Be King. The story line involves two rogue ex-soldiers from 19th-century British India who set off on an adventure, winding up in distant Kafiristan. Since no white man had set foot there before and by a quirk of circumstance, one of them is taken for a god and installed as a king. What follows is the ‘king’ beginning to enjoy the adulation of the locals, settling their disputes and even cultivating the fanciful dream of meeting the then-reigning queen, Victoria, as her equal. Needless to say, there has to be a reckoning, and it does come, with the film ending in quite a macabre fashion, with the so-called king’s skull finally discovered with a crown.

The film brings back memories of present times when many of the world’s democratically elected leaders seem to have kingly notions about themselves. The dictionary term for a king is mentioned as a male monarch of a territory, whose position is hereditary and who enjoys the right to rule for life.

Clearly, the people of the United States of America had something in mind when they organised the “No Kings” protests after Donald Trump’s second term. The first round of protests was held on June 14, 2025, to coincide with Trump’s birthday and the commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the US Army.

The second of the “No Kings” protests took place in October 2025, and the most recent and hugely attended one occurred on March 28, 2026, as a response to the administration’s immigration enforcement tactics and the war in Iran. More than 3,000 events were planned nationwide, with some more on the cards, including in Mexico and Canada. On their website, the organisers explain, “The president thinks his rule is absolute. But in America, we don’t have kings – and we won’t back down against chaos, corruption, and cruelty.”

At home, where lip service is regularly paid to democracy and the Constitution by the prime minister and his ministers, one can see a glaring gap between what is spoken and what is practised.

In February, the Opposition and transparency activists expressed their unhappiness over the Union government denying information to Parliament on the PM CARES Fund, and the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. An Indian Express report had cited anonymous sources that had said that the PMO had asked the Lok Sabha Secretariat to not permit questions from MPs on these funds as they were “constituted entirely with voluntary public contribution and not from any allocation out of the Consolidated Fund of India.” Most people may be suffering from memory lapses, as during Covid times, a day’s salary was compulsorily deducted from central and state government employees, while the erstwhile PM’s Relief Fund, which worked on voluntary contributions, quietly exited from the scene.

The Opposition accused the government of turning these funds into “private fiefdoms” with the possibility of being able to slowly convert them into Electoral Bonds Scheme 2.0. The questioning on these schemes was duly silenced. Oddly, the Opposition did not get called derogatory names by the members of the ruling party at the Centre over the querying on a blocking that was more king-like than democratic in its application.

In present times, the leading Opposition party, the Congress has been called “political vultures” by the PM, for their questioning of the gas crisis in the country, accusing them of instigating people by spreading fears and rumours. Even before the Opposition had started their questioning, the smart public of India had realised about the gas shortages, when bookings refused to go through, and hotels went public about their inability to procure commercial cylinders.

While a vulture has its own valuable role to play in the food chain, the term has largely become a derogatory one, to describe someone who capitalises on a situation, for personal gain, or evil intent.

By this yardstick, the one who would rightly be eligible for this epithet would be the present president of the United States, who first swooped down on Venezuela and has now attacked Iran, defying all the sovereign rights of a nation to live in peace and harmony.

It is surprising, however, that there has not been condemnation about his actions by the Prime Minister of India. If anybody deserves to be called “vulture” it is certainly the POTUS, who has spread turmoil across the world, by his overarching actions. If one must call a spade a spade; a king a king, or in this case, a vulture a vulture, it is suggested that one dig into the syntax and apply it in the right context.

(The author is an independent writer and a keen observer of world politics)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.