Should India have never fought for freedom? | Thought Bites #14

The world’s largest “democracy” was once colonised by the British like many other regions of the world. Its been more than 70 years now since India gained its freedom; but should it have ever fought for the freedom it so proudly calls on? You only fight for freedom – be it any country in the world in history – when you don’t have freedom, obviously that’s the only way that you can call it a “fight for freedom.” Now if we take out the points on the standing of which India wanted independence, it includes; freedom of speech, freedom from British Domination of their (India’s) land, freedom from foreign rule (homeland strikes an especially deep chord), to not be treated unfairly, to not suffer. These are also the most common of reasons in any country’s fight for its independence. Henceforth, it also means that there can’t be an exception to any one of these because it will contradict and weaken the reasons behind the struggle making it an ideological fallacy of a movement. Which thus also accords to even regions bounded by legalities, which if desires freedom from the rule can use one or many in their reasoning and it’ll be justified. Objective truth is free from from subjective “reality” which means it can apply anywhere and be rightly justified, because those reasons of freedom are recognised as human rights, which if violated are bound to be broken.

Local children greet Britain’s Prime Minister [Tony Blair] in the village of Vattem, Andhra Pradesh, part of the second leg of their three nation tour of South Asia January 6, 2002. [British Prime Minister Tony Blair began talks late on Sunday with his Indian counterpart Atal Behari Vajpayee aimed at defusing a tense military standoff between India and Pakistan.] – RTXKZFA

In being the Devil’s Advocate one could bring up a few points in favour of British rule and thus against the Indian freedom movement; to go against the one’s providing for the roads, for the schools, for the infrastructure, for the healthcare, for the “development” (which Tharoor asked reparations for), for the legalities that guide the country – being against those rulers is stupidity and hypocrisy of the “freedom fighters” and the separatists. There’d be no cricket that India dominates now, no English language, no railways, no tea, no Indian Union and most importantly it was no better or worse than the earlier rulers. Now I hope you can understand the problem with these statements and reasons, because it will now fortunately or unfortunately (for you) open your eyes to something you’ve missed out on. For one, all that was provided to India from the Britishers was because first that it was its colony and had to develop India just enough to serve their own needs and secondly that the money came from the taxes of the oppressed (Indians). And also because if you still look into the British education system not many know about the oppressive nature of the British rulers and it gives a blurry lens to look at the reason behind the freedom struggle.

If we were to hypothesise a region in “modern” era which was asking/fighting for independence, it would congruently have to have its foundation with the reasons mentioned of any country’s freedom. To make a principle basis for the idea of independence in modern era we would have to outline a few notions through which we can weigh the independence movement. Given the context of how country’s work now, there has been a shift in the unions, there is no USSR, but there is an Indian Union, meaning the shift from union to seperation or separate to union entirely depends on the functioning of the former and the ideals of the latter, meaning that depending on how the union is working out, the human rights, economy, infrastructure, exploitation of resources; it being on the weaker or rather oppressive side the union has to split for the people of different regions to live better lives, given their consent. Whereas, for the seperated, foreign policies and regional similarities will matter a lot for them to be able to enter a union if it comes to it. 

As mentioned earlier there exists a foundation justification of freedom movements and they have certain pillars of existence which can’t be morphed for the given reasons. Now provided that there is a region which exists as a separate entity and is living through a time where the reasons for freedom are all there because of the mismanagement, atrocities of the governing bodies, human right violations, government cover-ups, then that region has either of the two option; that they either go through a civil movement to better their chances of a better government or enter a union which according to them has the best chances of providing for the governing that they desire. On the flip side, given a region exists in a union that goes through the same and if the region has suffered enough times (according to the people living there [homeland]) by the hands of the governing body then consequently the one option is an independent nation, which India went with, the land of India had its own ideals to live by, the people of the (any) land have a right to fulfil the ideals and foreign rule can’t budge in the discussion – Kashmir enters the chat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.