Group Discussion Contest August2 to August 15

I feel India is not really independent. To all the Indians when India got independence then it is Independent. But India should get Independence from politicians, pollution and all the crimes and bad things happening in India. If all these are been rectified and every one do their duty regualarly without any bribe then India is really Independent.

Very important topic started.

My answer to this question Is India really independent ? is NO
The exact meaning of independence is not satisfied in case of India. Though we have achieved independence from British rule there is no independence from things like corruption, terrorism, scams etc. Added to these features we are still following many things adopted by western countries including culture. Language to communicate with other countries and internally is also English which is not our mother tongue.

All these examples can give us an idea whether we achieve freedom or not.

Friends,

None other has opinion on this question.I think India is still have to be independent.

India is independent on papers only. The true Independence will come only when people can express their thoughts (without fear or favour),do their duties freely (towards their own and for country) and live in a peaceful atmosphere. Advancement of country do not be considered as independent. Independent country is that country where people can have freedom of speech, right to live and express their feelings to each other. We don't think the same in case of India truly speaking.

In every second a crime is committed, women and girls are tortured and people are under the grip of fear to speak the truth. Hope that freedom should come early with lot of development in all fields and bringing a bright future for the generations to come.

Well said by Manas!!! But i think right to express and speak are fundamental rights, which are birth rights for every indian but these rights are not utilized in a good way (for example media ) and damanges happen due to that. I agree with Manas about the other statements.


It is know that our freedom fighters struggled a lot to acheive the freedom from british rule but they never thought that so many things are still not attained with respect to independence. Even Mahatma Gandhi used to say that true independence is achieved only when "ladies can travel securely at nights" which is not seen from that age itself. And the problems and crimes on ladies are increasing further. When people can be peaceful with proper leader then only we can see independent india which is independent from all problems.

The topic for discussion is whether our independence is real or sham. At the outset let me assert that the concept of independence differs from type of government viz. democracy, autocracy, monarchy etc. This has nothing to do with good or bad governance. This has nothing to do with policies.

The sole test of 'independence' is whether we really attained independence on 15th August 1947 or the independence was only formal. The communists had then declared that the independence was sham and they began a 'revolution' in Telangana for 'real independence'. But they later realized their mistake and accepted that Independence was indeed real and the stir in Telangana was an infantile disorder.

Most of the discussion is on governance, which is a different matter. Let us restrict ourselves to the real issue of this GD.

So are we really independent? Let me tell you “yes” – we are independent according to the definition’s minimum benchmark. We have an independent army, our people think that we are independent and we have an independent political system.

A country cannot be independent till it can freely express its opinion and act based on its national and strategic interests.

India was declared independent by an act of British parliament. British had no control on India after they left. India was free to draft her own constitution and rule in the way considered appropriate.

It has been remarked in this thread that we still follow foreign culture and have adopted English, which is not our language. This is typical comment by the Hindi enthusiasts and revivalists who seek all virtue in ancient languages, knowledge and culture.

We have adopted English as our language on our own for purposes of Union government, inter state correspondence, education and business purposes out of our free choice. Today English is ours. This suits us to utilize all knowledge in medicine, engineering and technology irrespective of country of origin. It makes no sense to cast doubt on our independent status just because we use or adopt anything of foreign origin.

India has renamed many streets, buildings and places that were formerly in name of foreigners. We even adopted our constitution according to our needs under stewardship of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. We organized our states on basis of linguistic identity as a departure from British pattern that was only for administrative convenience of imperialist rulers.

We are member of United Nations as an independent sovereign state. We have diplomatic relations with other countries as an independent sovereign state. We have independent foreign policy. British crown is not even symbolically our head like Canada. We have our own head of state and government elected/ appointed in accordance with constitution of India.

The only symbol of British rule is membership of Commonwealth. This organization was formerly known as British Commonwealth of Nations. The word 'British' was dropped at the initiative of first Prime Minister, Pt Jawahar lal Nehru. The British monarch is ex officio head of this organization. India voluntarily accepted to continue in this organization keeping in view economic benefits. It will be appropriate to quit commonwealth as this is sign of British rule. As an alternative, India may also take initiative in amending the provision of ex officio head of the organization so that the members of the organization could be head by rotation. However, as we are in the commonwealth of our own choice and this organization has no right to interfere in any of our state functions, our independent status is not affected.

Let me start by saying that I am in complete agreement with Gulshan's views when he says that issues of governance should not be mixed up with this sacred fact that India's Independent. If we belittle it or call it sham, we would be not doing justice to thousands of martyrs who laid down their lives and those who suffered unimaginable misery to achieve it.

My answer to this question is no

India got independence from the British rule, fought with Britishers to get freedom, but still India is not free, India is not free from corruption, crime, and corrupt politians etc. There are many villages in India where people are uneducated and back ward. India will be free when there is no corruption, crime and all the villages are advanced like towns and cities, and no communal riots.

I agree with Chinmoy that issue of governance and fact of independence are separate. There are many who claim that British rule was better because of better crime management, honesty and law and order. But nobody can say that India was not a slavish country then. There were separate roads or streets exclusively for British. there were even insulting sentences like 'Indians and dogs not allowed'. Now whatever be the state of governance or crime position, we are a proud sovereign and independent nation. If there is anything wrong with our government or system, we are free to change.

It is good that we are democratic. But even this is not a necessary ingredient of 'independent nation'. If we accept this, we were never independent before British left. There was no democracy at any time either during Moghul rule or in ancient India. Always, the 'Khrishtya' or warrior class ruled on advice of Brahmin or intellectual class. We hold that India was independent in ancient time and during Moghul period. The form of government is not relevant to fact of independence. If our territory is not occupied by foreigners and they have no control in governance of our country, we are independent. The matter of atrocities on so called lower castes is an internal matter of Indian society and this is unrelated to independence.

We may recall that even during British rule, Social reformer like Raja Ram Mohan Roy brought revolutionary reform of ending Sati system. We cannot hold that everything in foreign rule is bad or everything in independence is good. Independent status only means that we are maters of our own destiny and foreign countries have no right to interfere with our affairs.

Friends,
So Gulshanji says "...Independent status only means that we are maters of our own destiny and foreign countries have no right to interfere with our affairs."

Is it right ????

I agree with his statement but the GD is all about true independence but not independence from British rule.

It is true that we have acheived independence from british rule but we have not acheived the true independence which includes everything not only government.
I also think that our freedom fighter and martyrs have done justice by attaining freedom from british as that was the main objective at that time. But after becoming independent (free from interference from other countries) what ever we have acheived is not satisfactory in any way.
As stated by me earilier that even Gadhiji who was also a main person for acheiving independence said that real independence is only when women can be safe.

It is a fact that India got its independence on 15th August, 1947 from the British rule but when we give a little jerk to our mind and think in deep we might come across this question arising in our mind, that is, Is India really Independent? If we go by the dictionary meaning of the term "Independent" it simply means not dependent on others. So now the question that arises in my mind is that is India self sufficient in all aspects when it comes about development and meeting its own needs? The answer to this question is simply NO of course because there lies enormous problems in the form of shortage of water, inadequate supply of electricity to cater the domestic and industrial needs, uncontrolled and unchecked level of starvation among the masses. Besides, most of the Indians are homeless and has to spend their lives in pavements and footpaths of big metropolitan cities.

Beggary has taken its toll on the poor and has become a part and parcel of their lives to win their daily bread and butter. Further, to add to the above list unemployment of the educated youth is another burning example which shows that India is not only helpless but failed by a huge margin to solve these problems.

You might go on and say that India has got her independence long back and I would certainly agree with you but then I would like to add yes India is an independent country only for those who are rich and belong to upper strata of the society and are self sufficient to cater their needs individually. But the bone chilling fact is that majority of her population lives and breeds below the poverty line and for them whether India is Independent or still under the oppression of foreign rulers doesn't make much of a difference for if you say India is really independent then this independence has bought them nothing but a life of worm and insects, just to pass their life in hell and thrown down and forgotten when life seems to be succumb under the wombs of death.

The overall Indian system is corrupted to an extent that there are bribes, illegal transplant of kidneys and other vital human organs are very much prevalent in the society. Yes, doctors are there but they also seem to settle abroad for better income and living for they consider India not congenial to suit their needs and growth. Finally, I would like to add that before India could claim herself as an Independent country in the true sense of the word it needs to get over these shortcomings which look like several strains or black spots on her beautiful mantle or wardrobe...

To my mind the same confusion is prevailing in the minds of some of our members who are still grappling with what Independence stands for!
The mass illiteracy, crushing poverty,ignorance - all these are stark facts of life today. But it has got nothing to do with the fact that we are independent. Those who fought for independence had the sole mission of freeing India from the yoke of foreign rule.

The fact that our leaders have miserably failed to rise to the occasion to address the issues that the nation has been facing is a naked truth. We have malgovernance everywhere and as a result some countries which gained independence after India were able to solve some of the basic issues of life. Some people nurture fond memories of British Rule but they forget that they were the subjects of foreign masters and this basic self-respect fired the imagination of young and old alike. If India is facing so many problems at this hour their linkages to Independence are simply non-existent.

I find that there is utter confusion about meaning of 'independent nation', with sole exception of Chinmoy Mukerjee. Let me reiterate that when we talk of independence, we mean independence of Indian Nation as one entity. The entity of Indian Nation is distinct from citizens.

There is no doubt that our ancestors and freedom fighters fought not only for independence but they also had goal for economic and social justice, emancipation of women and downtrodden, development of industry and self sufficiency. It is agreed that we have to go miles for fulfilling dreams of freedom fighters. Pt Nehru had written the words- 'There are woods dark, lovely and deep. I have miles to go before I sleep.' from poem of Robert Frost. This indicated that he believed that we have much more to accomplish.

However, gap in achievement of objectives of justice, equality, progress cannot be cited to claim that we are not an independent nation. Possibly, we are in grip of mafia, muscle power and money power. This will only indicate that our democracy is still imperfect. But as I stated in earlier post, imperfection in political and social system can not make us less independent.

In fact, no country in the world is perfect society in terms of material progress, justice, human rights, democratic rights. If this is considered as absence or deficiency in independence, there is no world that may be called independent.

Independence of nation is more a matter of international relations rather than internal affairs. System of government and governance are matter of internal policy of a nation. If any foreign power has no right to interfere, the country is fully independent. In this connection, let us recall that British were initially inclined to give a 'dominion status' to India. This would mean autonomy but we would be still under British crown. Bal Gangadhar Tilak gave a call for 'complete freedom' with the slogan- Freedom is my birth right.

The fact remains that we are a fully independent nation and have a proud place in the world community as a sovereign independent state. As long as you agree that we are sovereign independent state, we are independent irrespective of any deficiency in our social and economic system, which we the people of India have the sole right to correct.

Now coming to the issues which some members have cited to be reasons for harboring doubts about our true independent status. India's corruption record,for example, is leaving us red-faced at the moment.Should we be blaming independence for it.Was this absent in the pre-Independence years? What was the response of our foreign masters? Althouhg oldtimers still recall the kind of ruthlessness with which they used to deal with cases of administrative corruption but the whole system was based on feudalism which spawned it. Zamindari system which was founded by Lord Cornawallis was the fountain-head of it.

As Gulshan rightly points that many of freedom struggle luminaries saw in the British Rule the main causes of poverty and other social ills which even resulted in man-made famines claiming millions of lives. To them freedom or total independence from foreign rule was the only answer to all our problems.

That things have not panned out the way our great leaders of those foresaw only mirrors the criminal failures on the part of our leaders as well as that of us. Why should we should be hesitant in accept this glorious fact that we are free. We are free to make or break!!

Well i agree with chinmoy and Gulshaji that freedom and independent country is the only thing we have acheived but what exactly is called true independence is my question? At the time of freedom stuggle the aims of leaders were high other than getting independence from british rule as stated by other members also. They were facing some governacy problems and social problems which have improved after independence. But the leaders are constantly fighting for acheiving sometime or the other in our country even till now then what will we call that? the struggle for acheiving some thing can also be called as freedom struggle whatever be the purpose. Here the fight is to get independence from particular system though it is intenal. So, the change from the time of freedom struggle is at that time it was external independence struggle and now it is internal independence struggle.

I want to conclude that though we have acheived freedom from british rule and became independent country there is still may issues which need independence and the fight is still going on which is condemning the fact that true independence is acheived.

I think what applies to an individual is also true in the case of a nation. At the individual level do we feel independent? Our perceptions tend to be clouded by old baggage of supersititution, caste, creed and language. Similiarly a nation too has similar problems.

A nation and its people get the government they deserve.It might be interpreted in a negative light but its significance lies in the fact that the power of the people has to be asserted in a functioning democracy like ours. We have the power to vote and show the doors to a corrupt government or by not electing the representatives who have thoroughly disgraced themselves!