first of all i am not sure about your argument as pro and you are not clear on which side pro you are. assuming that you are on the side that india won independence much by there own efforts then let me counter it as a healthy debate giving some solid reasons. INDIAN independence was not an exception as it was a rule that most colonies of europe in third world were crumbling down. Between 1945 and 1960, three dozen new states in Asia and Africa achieved autonomy or outright independence from their European colonial rulers. while INDIA itself divided on religious lines was not ready for independence. after july 1945 the change of guard in uk from churchill to atlee atlee govt who was from labour party held indian independence inevitable but since indian politicians mainly congress and muslim league were not ready for a solution. The religious line was so deep that it couldnt stop the casualities occured between 1945 till1947 which shows the country was not ready for independence and it needed a foreign power to keep its home intact and at last we saw division of the country when britishers finally passed indian independence act and was much reluctant to rule any further but mountbatten was asked to stay back by india itself. the catastrophic effect of large scale massacres occured shows how divided we were. because he political parties were playing more or less on there religious lines than for the formation of a nation. Though we should never underestimate the contribution of national movement under the leadership of gandhi but mainly we were more happy to be ruled under the british dominion. The national movement itself initially simply demanded more powers to govern and it never wanted complete independence. only after poorna swaraj and quit india movement in 1940s they demanded complete independence. because they were afraid of any japanese attack which had come to our eastern borders till burma and even supported by few indian organizations itself to escalate british. so it was in much later stage that independence seemed inevitable and we ourself felt insecure due to british presence since japan being enemy state and India being a british colony was prone to be attacked. This does not at all means that indian national movement didnt played any role in Indian independence. Actually even the passive resistance was a strong irritant for british colony but i am much convinced by the fact that had there been no 2nd world war and inspite of winning in war british economy couldnt maintain the large colonies it had in asia and africa which were boiling for independence nad since US which had become a great player till 2nd world war and it was for restoring democracy worldwide due to threats from communist expansion of ussr during cold war era that led to independence of number of countries in asia africa. So when the Indian independence is seen in larger geopolitical context we see that ww2 and its aftermath. change of guard in uk. led to a great extent of our independence. INC was formd in 1885 then why did they took so much time to get us freed from british yoke if it was really intending to free us. USA also being a colony of british empire was freed much before. I am not blaiming anyone but the fact is do we really want to be free its a big question mark. because even after so called independence we are much relying on our british legacy . Those british laws which britain had changed finding it obsolete and irrelevant we are still cherishing them as our great legacy and part of our culture. I hope i am clear with my point. Though i know reality would be hard to be digested by some extreme right winger but i hope rationalists will take my argument and will further augment it by there sound reasoning.