And so we’re all set to celebrate sixty years of ‘independence’ – however you want to parse the word or ‘semanticize’ it. Two basic definitions are: ‘freedom from dependence or control by another person, organization or state’, and ‘the date or time when a state achieves its political independence’, which, I guess would be the one applicable to what we’re on about here. So great! We’ve been ‘independent’ going on sixty years and I guess we’ve had our share of freedom from political dependence on another state or other states – or have we?

Can any country be truly independent of other states or countries, especially in this day and age when the ‘global village’ is becoming more and more pronounced? Conventional treaties or agreements exist between all states / countries, which create inter-dependence between the parties to the agreements, and although ‘political independence’ may exist at whatever degree and where ever it does in prevailing circumstances, what does it take to be truly ‘politically independent’?

Does it mean that just because elections are held to decide which political organization will run the affairs of the country and which individual will be the head of state, that the country is ‘independent’? The more we think about it, the less meaningful the word ‘independent’ becomes in the context of a country being so.

Just a thought that occurred – what do you think? Java, as usual, goes off on a tangent about it:

Shheeet maan, dere’s no such animal in da nachural world – all organisums be interdependent wit dere environment, odder systems, an sheet like dat. A whole lotta dat symbiosis sheet goin down, hear? All dis odder crap be a whole lotta toro-pupu made to get dose emoshuns goin in dat ‘patriotic’ direcshun – an we be seein where dat be leadin to huh? Independence? Sheet man, like I be sayin – no such animal.