स्वतंत्रता या स्वराज (Swatantrata ya Swaraj)

A suggestion was made by a friend recently that we should no longer celebrate India's Independence Day. The argument goes as follows, the term Independence suggests that we were dependent on someone, or that we were गुलाम. The point is that though the administration of the subcontinent was in the hands of the British, Indians were never dependent on them and therefore how can we gain Independence? (There is a second point in the argument that if we never teach our children that we were under someone else's rule then they will grow up to be prouder more confident adults, but that is a whole separate discussion.)

An interesting point nonetheless, that should we therefore celebrate Independence Day, or should we instead call it स्वराज दिवस (Self Governance Day), because after all, August 15 is the day that Indians started to govern modern India. Of course we can take it one step further and eliminate the day all together and celebrate just January 26, when the Indian republic was formed. That is unacceptable in my mind because we simply cannot forget the sacrifices made by the thousands if not millions in making that day and all the following days possible. August 15 must continue to be celebrated if for no other reason than their memory. But surely we can call it something else. Which really is the point behind this post. To be sure, I am intrigued by my friend's suggestion, but have not quite made up my mind.

The biggest question is, were we dependent on the British and were we their servants? In many ways yes. We may not like to hear it or think it now, but the truth of the matter is, Indians were unable to prevent a foreign power to take control over the administration, judiciary, and the military of India. Now you may say that that is no different from the umpteen other foreign powers that did the same but I would argue that unlike the British, all others made India their base and became Indians. Britain continued to rule from London. There is that word again, rule. So did they rule, or did they simply govern? It can be argued that they simply governed for the sake of increasing their profits from India, the business venture. They recognized early on the great Indian trait of apathy and it has been documented that the British administration made the observation that if the Indian way of life and daily ongoings are not affected, they will not care who is in the administration. And that is what they did, and did very successfully. Moving through the palaces of rajahs and nawabs, they divided and conquered, all while leaving the lives of the average citizen untouched. So in that sense, we were not dependent or their servants. It mattered little who was doing the administering.

Still, the future of the country depends on its citizens taking control over their future. If Indians were not dependent they were surely stagnating. Yes, the British brought the railways, but they did not bring Industrilization like Europe. Yes Indians continued to farm, but farming was stuck in the Middle Ages. Yes, many wonderful architectural gems were created (just see Lutyen's Delhi or Calcutta), but they did nothing for Indian architecture. India had a military, but it did nothing for building a culture of strategic military brilliance. Similarly nothing was done to develop a culture of Indian statesmanship. And the list can continue. So while we were not dependent on them, we were also not growing as a nation and as a people. Many years from now, we will look back at the period from 1858-1947, those 90 years (the only years that the British actually governed India) as India's lost years. And we lost those years because we lost the administration. We may not have been their servants, but we definitely served their interests.

It is because we did not have self governance, we were dependent. We got स्वतंत्रता because we got स्वराज and there is no shame in admitting that we are today Independent, and that we shall celebrate August 15 forever as a reminder of that. जय हिंद।