The Protection Of Life

The "armed cadre" of the Communist Party (CPI-M) gunned down eight villagers in Bengal yesterday. Killings have been going on every day for months now - and reports say that the main opposition party, Trinamool Congress, is in league with the armed Maoists.

Two questions emerge: first, how do ordinary citizens protect their lives; and second, what do we do with the State Police. Let us discuss the police first, since in India, the protection of life is a State monopoly: the State Police have all the guns, while the citizens are completely disarmed. Ten "terrorists" killed 200 people in Mumbai over two whole days a few years back - and all that some brave citizens could do was throw stones at them.

In Bengal, the "armed cadres" of the CPI-M and the Maoists are a fact of life. As is the fact that the State Police, in addition, are also under the command-and-control of the ruling CPI-M. As to what ought to be done to protect ordinary lives, I found the ToI editorial of today extremely naive. The editors say:

The way is clear. Terminate the political succour that permit militias to spawn and become a law unto themselves, and permit the police to function without let or hindrance against militias of whatever political stripe. If state police cannot tackle the job by themselves, Bhattacharjee ought to take this up with the Union home minister and call for central paramilitary reinforcements.

Let us not forget that there is much talk of "saffron terror" nowadays; and that the State Police in Gujarat are quite saffron themselves. How can you "de-politicise" a State Police? Swaminathan Aiyar made the same naive proposal the other day - and none were convinced. When we see that State education is politicised, the IAS is politicised, the judiciary is politicised - how can we possibly expect the State Police to be apolitical? If they were indeed apolitical, why would they be spending most of their efforts protecting VVIPs and VIPs - while neglecting everyone else? How come over 200,000 pedestrians and cyclists die on our unsafe roads every year?

My own horrible experience with the Karnataka State Police during my time in Mangalore confirms that they are the very opposite of what "rule of law" means. The term, which originated in feudal England, means that the King and his men are also "under the law"; that the King and his men cannot engage in "lawless" deeds - like murder. This is something we orientals have never been able to demand of our rulers: The Emperor Akbar, for example, could execute anyone he chose to, in whatever way he liked.

Early on during my stay in Mangalore, the State Police shot and killed two women in the nearby hills, accusing them of being "Naxalites." There were huge protests from civil society - schools, colleges, students, teachers and professors.

This is not "rule of law" - which means prosecution and conviction in a court of law. These are simply "extra-judicial killings" or "encounter deaths" - and are extremely common nowadays.

When I toured the affected area, I was harassed, arrested repeatedly on flimsy charges, or no charges, and on one occasion goons were sent to my hotel room to liquidate me. When I formally complained to the Lokayukta (ombudsman), I found that the officer receiving my complaint was a policeman! The Karnataka Lokayukta is just an extension of the State Police. Small wonder then that I received no justice.

Thus, as I have repeatedly said, the "rule of law" does not exist in India. The State Police are as "lawless" as any party militia. Veerappan was murdered - without any recourse to the "due process" of law. Indeed, the entire criminal justice system is a flop show; a huge disgrace. Investigation, detection, prosecution, courts - nothing works.

So how does the citizen protect his or her life? My own view is that it would be best if our stringent gun control legislation was considerably relaxed. We need the "right to keep and bear arms." We must be able to protect our own lives and properties when The State fails in this task - which it has monopolised. In support of my position, here is an extract from the Report of the National Police Commission - the report from the mid-1970s that was never ever tabled in Parliament. In the section "Looking Ahead" the report calls for "Self Policing":

Of the answers to the problems that are developing the most important is self-policing. Self-policing means (1) taking adequate preventive measures to protect life and property; (2) resisting an attempt on life and/or property, should it take place in spite of preventive measures undertaken in exercising the right of private defence, and (3) active involvement in the processes of the criminal justice system.

There are armed lawless men roaming free almost all over India. Country-made guns are widely available and cheap. Getting a gun license is next to impossible - and legal guns cost a bomb, while legal ammunition is of poor quality. I think it is time we in India think of private solutions to security. Swaminathan Aiyar's idea of "freeing the police from political control" - a view echoed by the ToI editorial of today - is yet another example of looking towards our The State for a solution to our problems. This line of approach cannot work. It is time we realised that our The State is The Problem. All solutions are "private."

Remember: A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

A gun is a consumer durable that serves to make the consumer more durable.

If you want to support gun rights in India, sign in here.