Today is the first anniversary of the Mumbai Massacre, where 10 armed terrorists killed over 200 unarmed people over 2 days – only because the general populace is unarmed as well. There were reports of brave citizens throwing stones at Pakis armed with AK-47s. Yet, none think of an armed citizenry as a solution to the provision of security. All have faith in the State Police, which is nothing but an ugly, extremely ugly, exploitative monopoly.
Today, there are many articles and editorials on the Mumbai Massacre, but what I would like to draw my reader’s attention to is the lead editorial in Mint – titled “A Republic Living With Fear.”
The title of this editorial jarred with me, for I am a great fan of Rabindranath Tagore's immortal poem, “Where the Mind is Without Fear.”
Tagore was born in 1861, and the Indian Police Act is also dated 1861. It is the Indian Police Act that has made this nation a “republic of fear.” Tagore thought otherwise.
Of course, only “responsible” people should possess gun licenses. But our current policies are aimed at denying them just this. I would advocate a proactive policy aimed towards arming citizens who want to own guns, who pay taxes, who possess no criminal record, and who are pillars of society.
We own Godrej almirahs to protect our valuables. We buy Godrej locks for our front doors. We keep dogs. We hire private security guards for our residential localities. In precisely the same way, we must own guns. A Colt is better than a Godrej at making us feel safe – “where the mind is without fear.”
It is well said that “a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.”
Among the columnists of today, I recommend Vir Sanghvi, who also says that “The Authorities” were sleeping during the carnage. I remember reading that a bystander noted that armed cops within the CST train terminus were hiding as the killers went about killing. We cannot depend on armed mercenaries in State employ for our security. We must arm ourselves. And train ourselves. Why do terrorists never target Switzerland? – only because every citizen there is armed to the teeth. Such citizens are also the eyes and ears of the Swiss police.
I also recommend Salil Tripathi’s column titled “Bambai, Meri Jaan.” He strikes the right note. Yes, the map of Bombay is like a human arm reaching out. I wrote an editorial once in ET suggesting that we Indians should buy the Statue of Liberty from the Yanks and install it in Bombay harbour.
Yeah!
“Give India your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”
The Yanks don’t believe in all these lofty thoughts anymore. So let us.
Note that Chacha is cozying up to Uncle Sam Obama, just as he cozied up to Uncle Sam George Bush, in order to get our The Chacha State in possession of nuclear weapons, and to have “co-operation” in combating terrorism. As if Uncle Sam has made Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan safer.
Say “No” to Uncle Sam – and his dollar.
Say “No” to nuclear weapons.
Say “Yes” to the Colt.
Sauvik,
ReplyDeleteGreat fan. But i have to disagree with this post. Arming citizens would onl lead to a gun culture akin to the mess that the US is now fighting. More people die because of gun fights rather than terror acts. In a country like India where 'licensing' only leads to one invidual having power in his hands, do you think we can ever have a proper system that can correctly identify 'responsible' citizens?
@Vishy: On the contrary, I think it is essential to have a "gun culture" within civil society. We will never be safe if the only people who can handle weapons are State Employees - viz., mercenaries.
ReplyDelete@Vishy: I agree identifying 'responsible' citizens is a problem. But, it should be the other way round. You only need to identify the 'irresponsible' citizens. Then control their arms.
ReplyDeletethere are more people getting killed on kamal nutt's non-roads in india than any terrorist can imagine. like nassim taleb says, it is difficult for the human brain to understand that there is more risk of dying while crossing the street than being killed by a terrorist act.
ReplyDeletein anycase,how come nobody wants to give cars to 'responsible' drivers alone considering they kill more than bullets?. in most states, you dont even have to pretend to appear for a driving test.
also,the gunculture is a culture of strength respecting strength and not nutjobs running amok (who will kill even if owning guns are unlawed)
this is rubbish- how can we allow anyone- and many have agendas, may not know how to handle guns safely, may be stressed (like road rage) --to carry guns?
ReplyDeleteWe are looking at mass killings that may hppen at a whim like that idiot Manu Sharma used his gun and killed jessica because she refused him a drink! men will kill women if they refuse sex, children will kill their parents because they have a tantrum and women will kill nasty mothers in law. STUPID
this is rubbish- how can we allow anyone- and many have agendas, may not know how to handle guns safely, may be stressed (like road rage) --to carry guns?
ReplyDeleteWe are looking at mass killings that may hppen at a whim like that idiot Manu Sharma used his gun and killed jessica because she refused him a drink! men will kill women if they refuse sex, children will kill their parents because they have a tantrum and women will kill nasty mothers in law. STUPID
Anon- I agree, let us have peace not gun totting gundas and thugs using the everyone carry guns as an excuse to kill. Imagine Mayawati or DP Yadav with guns! Awful scenario!
ReplyDelete@Anon & Swati: Actually, DP Yadav and Mayawati already have guns. Not only private guns, but also State guns.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, there is a huge illegal guns industry in India - the so called "country guns" have proliferated among the rural poor just like "country liquor."
Causing death or injury with a gun is a TORT anyway. But our question runs deeper: How will YOU feel safe, possessed of a "mind without fear." Would you be less fearful if you owned a gun and had been trained to use it, took part in your local gun club and enjoyed the gun culture? Or would you prefer to be gun-less, dependent on the State police mercenary soldiers? Think deeply about that!
S,
ReplyDeletepeople are trained to drive cars and get licences for the cars. And many people die in road accidents, the reason is that a car or any vehicle must be treated like a killing machine because it can kill. same as a gun. The deeper question is how to get rid of the DP Yadavs and their lot, have participative democracy and accountability. Just guns will not do.
@Swati: Too late for that. Participatory democracy has already put criminals in charge of the criminal justice system. Root-and-branch reform is required there - so that democratically elected people cannot interfere with and subvert the system. Also, I do believe an armed citizenry will put these local thugs in their place. Look at Coorg, where every home has a few guns, and there is perfect order. Their politicians and their police are also law-abiding.
ReplyDeleteWhat a terrifying thought,that everyone might one day be allowed to carry a gun - just in case. Do you really believe that the mind will be without fear in such a world? I think people will simply live in constant and real fear of being shot by someone for no reason other than a foul mood. But hey, what does it matter as long as the gun-toting weirdo is a "responsible" citizen and has a certificate to prove it! More guns is not a solution. It will simply create a more paranoid world.
ReplyDelete@Varuna: One thing is certain, that with technological growth, weapons will develop even further. Who should own guns then? Civil society? Or our The State? Note that I don't advocate lawlessness. Torts must apply to gunshot injuries. My only point is this: You can live in a society where your husband, sons, and friendly neighbours are armed. Or you can depend on the State Police. Take your pick.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need more guns. That's my only point.Most of us live through an entire life without needing a gun or needing to be protected by someone (state police or private) who has a gun.
ReplyDeleteSauvik,
ReplyDeleteyou argue well and you try and justify your point. The fact is that something like guns for all is not practical and nor can it be executed effectively. Every system has bugs and faults, we cant debug or rectify everything, just like no human being is perfect but we cant fix everything neither is there a perfect world or an utopia. But structures and forms have to exist, and we need people to formulate it as best as possible. Guns for all is a disaster, violence only breeds violence. You may argue that my husband who was shot by accidently shot might have saved himself if he had a gun, but he might have killed someone else who might have harmed my children in revenge etc. This is not civil society but uncivil. Please do not fight for this- this is a no brainer, guns are not safe in all hands.
I agree with Varuna. Sauvik, fight for change but not through guns. No one will agree and the ones that do will be from the lunatic fringe
ReplyDelete@Varuna: Your paradise is current reality, where the citizenry is unarmed while The State has all the guns. Note that when you visit an ATM you are protected by a private gun. I advocate extension of this principle.
ReplyDelete@Varuna,
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a 10 yr old school going Indian kid in Nov 14th or Oct 2nd mood ;-)
I agree that Coorg is the best Indian example. Compare Coorg's crime-rate with Bangalore's.
BTW: I have a Coorgi neighbor (with a nose twice the size of Sauvik's :-) and I am never threatened.
I completely agree with Sauvik that good - law abiding and tax paying - citizens too need to carry guns when musclemen of the State (Police forces) and all bad people anyway carry with or without gun control.
If a gang of corrupt and incompetent people with the backing of laws made by another bunch of corrupt people can carry weapons, why can't the law abiding, tax paying citizen carry a gun?
Guns in the difference between a government and a tyranny.
ReplyDeleteIf we had guns, Gujarat 2002, 1984 in Delhi would not have happened. I remember a particular story where a Sikh colony resisted police invasion during 1984 by using their own guns. But the police came back later and collected their guns and then shot those people.
And also I don't buy the hypothesis that more guns means more crime, look at Nbombs-they have actually prevented any major war since WW2.
@Anon, did you never hear the terms "pacifist" or "antiwar"? There are those who oppose guns (like me) and those who think more guns will somehow, paradoxically, mean greater safety and security. Of course, given that we live in a belligerent world, where even nice normal people can tend to be on the edge or at least simmering inside somewhere, I'm not surprised that the belief in no guns should appear naive and little-schoolgirlish. What seems to be implied is that if you're a big brave macho man you'll carry a gun because otherwise you're no more than a little girl, sugar and spice and all things nice.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about others but my support for guns has nothing to do with machismo. The main reason I support guns is that it keeps the state in check. And it helps in wars as well.
ReplyDeleteThe swiss are a militia nation and they have never been attacked for over a century now and Nor have they engaged in any war. look at how uncle sam is struggling against the Taliban despite all the US' military might.