SWATANTRA VS SWARAJ VS INDEPENDENCE VS FREEDOM

THIS CLOWN IS THE UNION MINISTER SANTANU THAKUR

EXACT WORDS THAT HE SAYS...TRY AND MAKE SENSE OF IT

আমার মনে হয় এই 'ইন্ডিপেন্ডেন্স ডে' কথাটি ডিকশনারি থেকে তুলে দেওয়াই উচিত।
(I believe the term 'Independence Day' should be completely removed from the dictionary.)
So far very good!!

কারণ ভারত যখন স্বাধীন হয়েছে, তার আগে থেকে ভারত ডিপেন্ডেন্ট ছিল।
(Because before India achieved independence, India was dependent.)
What?? Now I am confused!!

ব্রিটিশ আসার আগে জিডিপি ২৭ ট্রিলিয়ন ডলার ছিল, ব্রিটিশ আসার পরে জিরোতে নেমে গেছে যখন ব্রিটিশ ছেড়ে যায় আমাদের।
(Before the British arrived, [our share of global] GDP was 27 trillion dollars, and after the British arrived, it plummeted to zero by the time the British left us.)
Oops!! History lessons gone horribly wrong

Modern inflation-adjusted or purchasing power parity (PPP) estimates (most famously by economic historian Angus Maddison) calculate that in 1700, India accounted for roughly 24% to 27% of the total global economy. However, raw global GDP at that time was nowhere near tens of trillions; the total world output was a fraction of modern economic figures. The figure "27" refers to India's estimated percentage share of global GDP, not a trillion-dollar amount.

India’s economy did not collapse to 0%. When the British departed in 1947, India’s share of global GDP had dropped from ~24–27% down to roughly 3% to 4%, and its economic growth rate had stagnated significantly due to colonial extraction, deindustrialization, and famine.

তো আমরা সবসময় ডিপেন্ডেন্ট ছিলাম। বরং বলা উচিত 'স্বরাজ দিবস'।
(So we were always dependent. Rather, it should be called 'Swaraj Divas'.)
I am now completely lost!!

SO.......... we were always dependent, thus we never got independence therefore we should call it Swaraj Divas!! OK

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I do agree that an occupied colony aka the colonised is never dependent on the coloniser. The coloniser is actually dependent on the colony for its natural resources and human resources to enrich itself. History has proven that the coloniser powers, medieval or modern have always enriched themselves at the expense of the colonised.

Decolonisation SHOULD NOT be called "independence".

British India was never economic or administrative "dependent" on the UK in the sense of receiving financial aid, subsidies, or economic sustenance from London. The relationship was entirely reversed: the UK was dependent on the Indian colony, while India was kept in a state of enforced political subordination and economic exploitation.

In fact, even the British Indian Army was not dependent on the Army HQ/War Office in London. The British Indian Army was commanded by the Commander-in-Chief, India based at General Headquarters (GHQ India) in New Delhi/Simla. The C-in-C reported directly to the civilian Viceroy (Governor-General of India), giving GHQ India independent operational control over tactical planning, recruitment, internal security, and regional deployments (such as the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) or North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) etc ).

The British Indian army had its own cadre, even the British officers were either seconded to or permanent Indian Army cadre instead of British Army cadre. That same principle applied to Indian Civil Services cadre including Police Services.

Officers in the British Indian Army belonged to the Indian Army (IA) cadre (trained at Sandhurst/Dehradun or transferred early in their careers), not the regular British Army. They spent their careers serving in India, learned native languages (such as Hindustani or Pashto), and were paid directly by the Government of India.

While regular British Army regiments (e.g., the Royal Artillery or British infantry units) served rotations in India, they remained on the British Army list. The native regiments themselves were permanently officered by the dedicated Indian Army cadre.

The Indian Army was funded entirely out of the Indian budget, not the British treasury. The British Empire used the Indian Army as its primary expeditionary force to expand and secure imperial interests across the globe—including operations in China, Egypt, Sudan, Mesopotamia, and both World Wars—without British taxpayers footing the bill for their maintenance.

The Indian Civil Service (ICS) and the Indian Police (IP) were distinct services created specifically to govern the subcontinent.

Although examinations were historically conducted in London (and later simultaneously in Allahabad/Delhi), candidates who passed were assigned directly to specific provincial cadres within India (e.g., Bengal Cadre, Punjab Cadre).

Officers in these cadres were employees of the Government of India, paid out of Indian revenues, and reported up through the provincial Governors and the Viceroy rather than home-UK civil service departments.

SWARAJ VS INDEPENDENCE

While both terms broadly refer to freedom from external rule, Swaraj and Independence have distinct conceptual and historical meanings in the Indian context.

Independence refers primarily to political sovereignty—the removal of foreign rule, the establishment of a self-governing national state, and international recognition of legal autonomy.

Swaraj (derived from Sanskrit Swa = self, Raj = rule) encompasses political independence but extends much further into moral, social, economic, and individual self-governance.

Swatantrata Diwas or Freedom day is a very apt name.