Post-independent India has a complex legacy. Exploring the unique nature of the freedom movement that led to the exit of the colonial oppressors, as well as the unusual circumstances of their entry via the East India Company, might help in understanding some of the effects of post-independent India.

To unravel this complexity, we need to examine the disparity between whom political power was wrested from and to whom it was restored when the British finally left India. It would have been legitimate to transfer power back to the princes whose kingdoms the East India Company had seized when the British ultimately handed back power. However, the power was not transferred to the feudal princes but to the leaders of the Independence movement. What, then, are the arguments that can explain the moral underpinnings of this action?

These nationalist leaders, who ultimately claimed political power, were not, in most cases, representatives of the princes. This poses a problem as the direct relationship was between the princes and the British — the former being the victim and the latter the perpetrator. Therefore, to correct the moral wrong, the perpetrator should have restored power to the victim. While this appears to be morally legitimate,it also means that the claim of the nationalist leaders to receive free India from the British then loses its legitimacy.

However, the people of India were the primary driving force behind the freedom movement or the “epic struggle” as termed by Bipan Chandra. Hailing from across the country and various sections of society, they became the principal agency in the struggle against the British even though the immediate victims had been the princes. The feudal unit was fragmented between the rulers and the ruled. Many had moved away from their rulers to participate in the freedom movement.

The other possible moral reason could be the compatibility between the nature of power that was transferred and the nature of the agency that received it. Although they forcibly wrested power from the feudal lords, the British introduced modern education, industry, railways, and communication systems in India. While this served their economic interests, these measures invariably propelled India towards modernity and replaced outdated social practices and institutions. This led Indians to envision an active role in deciding their political life within a representative system like England.

If power were to be returned to the princes, all this modernisation and social reform would be reversed, perhaps even reverting to a situation where the practices of untouchability and confining women to home would be legitimate.Further, the feudal princes did not have the infrastructure to deal with the parliamentary system or to implement other modern practices. On the other hand, the nationalist leaders had accepted many modern ideas and practices introduced by the British. Their ingenuity lay in distinguishing the contents of modernity from the carriers of modernity.

In this changing political situation, especially with a nationalist movement that incorporated modern ideals, the role of the ordinary people was becoming increasingly important. Along with this disaggregation between the rulers and their subjects, there was growing criticism of the oppression of feudalism.The weak and selfish nature of the princes and their ill-governance were also considered by many to have enabled colonial rule in India. All this led to the princes losing the moral justification to be reinstated to power.

In contrast, the nationalist leaders saw a dramatic rise in their popularity as compared to the rapidly declining constituency of the princes. This can, at least retrospectively, provide moral justification for the Indian nationalist leaders to have received the handover of power from the British. Interestingly, many of these leaders were lawyers which significantly contributed to the shaping of India as a nation.

Broadly, if not perfectly, the Independence movement removed both colonialism and the princely states and adopted a modern form of State. It promised the people of India the inclusiveness of different shades and social justice and the assurance of equality, justice, liberty and freedom for all. Fulfilling these promises is a considerable challenge for independent India.

Early Indian cinema symbolically depicted various forms of inclusiveness. For instance, the recurrent theme of lost and found in Manmohan Desai’s films reflects the freedom India lost and subsequently recovered. And several early films under Chetan and Dev Anand’s banner, Navketan, echo the promises of the new nation to its people. Films like Baazi (1951), Taxi Driver (1954), Funtoosh (1956), House No. 44 (1955), Kala Pani (1958), Kala Bazar (1960), and Jewel Thief (1967) made a concerted attempt to reform and bring people from the margins — like thieves, gamblers and murderers— into the mainstream.

There is perhaps a need to revisit the struggle for Independence and take stock of the promises to the people of India who formed the bedrock of this movement. These promises formed an important agenda for an independent India. It may be necessary to take an inventory of promises fulfilled, those that are in the process of being fulfilled, and those yet to be fulfilled. A concerted effort then needs to be made to revise or update strategies or find alternatives to ensure that these assurances are honoured. A balanced proportion between achievements and promises will provide a clearer picture to all Indians as to what they may expect to look forward to in the future.

(A. Raghuramaraju teaches philosophy at the Indian Institute of Technology Tirupati)