Independence Means Democracy That Respects Citizens’ Dignity
August 15 Should Serve as an Annual Audit of Civil and Political Freedoms
August 15, 2025
We mark every August 15 with flag hoisting ceremonies, parades and speeches to remember the day India ceased to be under British colonial rule in 1947. These rituals have value, but the greater focus should be on the intended culmination of independence, which is a system of government that safeguards the dignity and autonomy of those it serves. It must be understood that democracy is inseparable from independence.
The political philosopher Immanuel Kant described dignity as that which has no price, something intrinsic to human beings by virtue of their capacity for moral reasoning and self-determination. In political terms, this translates into the right of individuals to make decisions about their own lives without coercion.
The German-born political thinker Hannah Arendt, who fled Nazi persecution and later became one of the most influential analysts of freedom and of the rise of totalitarian regimes, argued that freedom is experienced most authentically in the public realm, where individuals can act and speak among equals. Independence, if taken seriously, means that citizens – irrespective of their caste, religion, class, ethnicity or gender – are no longer dependent on an external power for the direction of their collective affairs.
Democracy is the system that ensures the freedom gained through independence is not confined to the state alone. It builds institutions such as representative legislatures, independent courts and a free press that allow citizens to participate in decisions affecting their lives. Through these institutions, the ability to govern oneself moves from the abstract level of national sovereignty to the concrete realities of everyday life.
Seen in this light, celebrating independence should mean more than the fact that those in power and those they govern are of the same nationality. The presence of Indians in the highest state positions has little value if the system they lead does not protect the dignity that comes from citizens being able to take part meaningfully in governing themselves.
In a democracy, those who hold power should be judged first by the quality of governance they provide, not by how loudly they warn of threats from other nations or from groups within the country. Addressing genuine threats is part of their role, but it is secondary to their primary duty, which is to govern in the service of the people. Too often, leaders devote energy to keeping public attention fixed on external dangers or internal divisions. This creates the conditions for them to avoid accountability for governance and, in doing so, to erode the freedoms that belong to citizens by virtue of their human dignity.
In several post-colonial nations in Africa and Asia during the mid-20th century, liberation from colonial rule was followed by the rise of single-party states or military regimes. In these cases, sovereignty existed, but it was concentrated in the hands of a narrow political class, with little room for citizen participation beyond symbolic rituals. Political theorist Claude Lefort said that democracy is unique because power is never held permanently by a single figure or party, but remains open, contested and subject to change. Without that openness, independence can become merely a change of rulers rather than the achievement of real freedom, even decades after independence.
In India, the Constitution of 1950 gave independence its shape as a democratic order. It laid down universal adult suffrage, fundamental rights and institutions intended to uphold checks and balances. However, the philosopher John Rawls cautioned that a just society requires more than formal equality, it needs the conditions for all citizens to exercise their rights on equal terms. This includes access to education, freedom from arbitrary arrest and a press that is free to scrutinise those in power. Without these conditions, the link between independence and democracy can break, even if elections are still conducted.
Further, independence must be measured from the viewpoint of ordinary citizens rather than the state. Do citizens feel empowered to challenge policies they disagree with? Can they organise without fear? Are they confident that the justice system will treat them impartially?
However, the imagery of Independence Day often puts the state at the centre. The televised ceremony at the Red Fort revolves around the official flag hoisting, military honours and the Prime Minister’s address, which are elements clearly crafted and led by the state. Cultural participation from citizens or community groups is not prominent or clearly visible in mainstream presentations of the event.
We need to treat August 15 as an annual audit of the present, and not just a commemoration of the past. Independence is not a possession that, once gained, can be stored away. It’s a relationship between citizens and their state that requires constant evaluation and adjustment. In that sense, the day belongs less to the government than to the people. It is an occasion to ask whether the democracy that followed independence still safeguards human dignity in the way its founders intended.
You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.
