I watched two Tamil movies recently and was surprised to see a new trend. In old time movies, there will be a clear cut villain and an all powerful hero who overcomes evil and either changes the villain to be a good guy or hands him over to police. Then they portrayed heinous criminals as villains and they got killed by the heroes. We saw portrayal of bad guys as kings, jamindars, politicians, police, dadas etc. That changed overtime and we started seeing stories of gangsters and paid killers fighting with each other. The level of violence on screen meanwhile went through the roof.
Now we have a new trend. Innocent victims revolting in novel ways to kill the bad guys! "Yutham Sei" and "Easen" portray smart little guys, who mind their own business in general, get victimized by criminals and they scheme and succeed in killing the evil doers! Of course, this trend culminates from a total lack of faith in the institutions in India. The state of affairs signifies that common man has entirely lost confidence in the police, justice system and the social security. Everyone is on their own. Jungle law, the survival of the fittest prevails! A total systemic meltdown in other words. Unfortunately it is not far from reality in places like Madurai (sic).
For a long time I have noticed in Indian society that for the sake of security and protection, people with means need to ally themselves and play subservient to those with muscle and political power. If you are a salaried individual you probably don't come face to face with this power dynamics of the landlords, businessmen and agriculturists. In an increasingly urbanized society that sort of clan-ship is lost. That gives bad apples more opportunity to go after innocent unprotected common folks, especially in urban settings. When the bad guys go unpunished and those who are supposed to protect the innocent play cahoots with the bad guys or stay ineffective with ludicrous case backlogs that takes years to bring someone to justice, more number of people act bad and more innocent people will have to take charge on their own. Thus a vicious cycle is set in motion.
In this context, I see the 2nd amendment of US constitution as a mechanism to increase protection of innocent people. For a long time, I didn't understand the meaning of this bill of right.
"well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The fundamental belief here is that because a nation need to keep an army, individuals have a right to keep weapons to protect themselves!
If you think of this in the mindset of a bad guy, before he dares to commit an evil act against innocent people, if he knows that he may get hurt, do you think he will hesitate a little? Won't there be increased courtesy in dealing with all people? If a stranger walks in to a home and the home owner shoots him down, it is identified as an act of self defense and the home owner is protected by law. House break-ins are the lowest in US! Police treat everyone with respect. You cannot abuse a decent, educated and honest man or women if there is a possibility that they could be armed. It may sound strange. But increasing licensed arms to rightful people who are responsible citizens of the society will reduce crime. After all that was proven by the former commissioner of police Mr. KPS Gill in Punjab in the 80s to defeat the Khalistan movement. He armed and trained the villagers to protect themselves from dacoits and fight against terrorists. Isn't it every individual's right to defend themselves and their loved ones from mindless thugs who run around with swords and terrorize innocent people?
Our college Professor Sri Krishna used to say, "A man with integrity and not intelligence is not bad. A man with intelligence, but not integrity is dangerous" One way to disarm the people without integrity is to arm the people with integrity. Of course there will be a period of lull when the crime may seem to increase when the bad guys learn the effectiveness of the new reality. But I am sure more bad guys will be affected than good ones and the society will benefit by far.
Having said that, a very strict policy should be administered to license the arms to the right kind of people. I am mindful of the literacy levels and maturity of minds of the majority in India. Perhaps a psychological profiling is necessary. A training program and evaluation on ethics and values should be mandatory. If we can conduct professional colleges exams, train reservations, civil services, passport issuance etc in a corruption free manner, this should also be doable.
What do you think...?
Now we have a new trend. Innocent victims revolting in novel ways to kill the bad guys! "Yutham Sei" and "Easen" portray smart little guys, who mind their own business in general, get victimized by criminals and they scheme and succeed in killing the evil doers! Of course, this trend culminates from a total lack of faith in the institutions in India. The state of affairs signifies that common man has entirely lost confidence in the police, justice system and the social security. Everyone is on their own. Jungle law, the survival of the fittest prevails! A total systemic meltdown in other words. Unfortunately it is not far from reality in places like Madurai (sic).
For a long time I have noticed in Indian society that for the sake of security and protection, people with means need to ally themselves and play subservient to those with muscle and political power. If you are a salaried individual you probably don't come face to face with this power dynamics of the landlords, businessmen and agriculturists. In an increasingly urbanized society that sort of clan-ship is lost. That gives bad apples more opportunity to go after innocent unprotected common folks, especially in urban settings. When the bad guys go unpunished and those who are supposed to protect the innocent play cahoots with the bad guys or stay ineffective with ludicrous case backlogs that takes years to bring someone to justice, more number of people act bad and more innocent people will have to take charge on their own. Thus a vicious cycle is set in motion.
In this context, I see the 2nd amendment of US constitution as a mechanism to increase protection of innocent people. For a long time, I didn't understand the meaning of this bill of right.
"well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The fundamental belief here is that because a nation need to keep an army, individuals have a right to keep weapons to protect themselves!
If you think of this in the mindset of a bad guy, before he dares to commit an evil act against innocent people, if he knows that he may get hurt, do you think he will hesitate a little? Won't there be increased courtesy in dealing with all people? If a stranger walks in to a home and the home owner shoots him down, it is identified as an act of self defense and the home owner is protected by law. House break-ins are the lowest in US! Police treat everyone with respect. You cannot abuse a decent, educated and honest man or women if there is a possibility that they could be armed. It may sound strange. But increasing licensed arms to rightful people who are responsible citizens of the society will reduce crime. After all that was proven by the former commissioner of police Mr. KPS Gill in Punjab in the 80s to defeat the Khalistan movement. He armed and trained the villagers to protect themselves from dacoits and fight against terrorists. Isn't it every individual's right to defend themselves and their loved ones from mindless thugs who run around with swords and terrorize innocent people?
Our college Professor Sri Krishna used to say, "A man with integrity and not intelligence is not bad. A man with intelligence, but not integrity is dangerous" One way to disarm the people without integrity is to arm the people with integrity. Of course there will be a period of lull when the crime may seem to increase when the bad guys learn the effectiveness of the new reality. But I am sure more bad guys will be affected than good ones and the society will benefit by far.
Having said that, a very strict policy should be administered to license the arms to the right kind of people. I am mindful of the literacy levels and maturity of minds of the majority in India. Perhaps a psychological profiling is necessary. A training program and evaluation on ethics and values should be mandatory. If we can conduct professional colleges exams, train reservations, civil services, passport issuance etc in a corruption free manner, this should also be doable.
What do you think...?
Posts
4 comments:
Indian experience with regulation / license and control has been rather poor. One of the reasons why I do not agree to your suggestion of permitting citizens to tot a pistol in the name of self protection. Unless proper systems, procedures are in place and there is proper enforcement, all these things suggested by you can only be in the realms of dreams. I have rather strong views on the thoughts expressed by you but don't think, I have the patience to put it down in words.
Let's dream a little here. Let's say we arrive at a perfect regulatory situation. No corruption whatsoever. Do you think genuinely qualified, upstanding citizens have a right to own arms and defend themselves? Or do you think citizens should only be protected by the State 100% and have no right whatsoever as individuals to protect themselves.
Hi Anna,
Coming to your blog after a very long time. This is a very good topic. My understanding is that while any citizen can procure firearms under the law, it is extremely difficult to do so in reality due to strict gun control laws in India. On one hand I tend to agree with you that these laws should be relaxed so that upright citizens can defend themselves. This is important because no country, however good its police force may be, can defend every single citizen, every single time. And often there is not enough time to go to the police for help. If a bunch of thugs drag a women into a moving car and try to rape her, police can't exactly prevent it. And it would also help small business owners to protect themselves from thugs wanting "protection money". Today, these thugs don't factor in the risk of being killed when extorting someone of money. Fear is their tool and guns in the hands of good citizens takes that tool out of their reaches. I don't entirely agree with the line that relaxing gun control laws will put guns in the hands of bad people - I mean how many involved in organized crimes carry licensed firearms? They carry unlicense pieces today and they will do the same tomorrow.
While this is on one side, there is another side which is not rosy. It would be very difficult for the govt. to decide what constitutes an "upright" citizen. So long as the person hasn't committed violence yet, can we allow them to have a gun? Furthermore, just as "immature" people have the basic right to vote, shouldn't they have the basic right to defend themselves? It would be very hard for the govt. to make a law that puts guns in the hands of upright and mature citizens while denying the same to others. And there will always be someone to take advantage of the lax laws and procure weapons that will ultimately be sold in black market for extra profit. Forget about all this, what happens during riots? Like the one that happened after babri masjid or the Gujarat riots? Riots will turn into mini civil wars. You have to remember that such things don't happen in U.S. because there are no large groups that have strong feelings against eath other - Hindu/Muslim divisions in India, however, run deep. To see what happens when there are such strong differences, just look at Africa - how many nations there are under civil war due to small arms alone!
I like your comparison of Naitons to individuals. But even in the case of nations, when they arm themselves with more and more powerful weapons, the chances of having conflicts increased likewise. This is true thoughout the history until Oppenheimer recited the famous Gita verse, "I am become death...." which forever stopped big nations from fighting.
All that being said and done, if you ask me a direct question if I will possess a gun in India if gun laws allow it, I will not buy one. I will buy five.
Dinesh, welcome back! :-) Thoughtful comments as always. You have raised some valid points.
I understand your concern on the riots triggering a civil war. If small arms possession increase, mindless riots that affect innocent people may reduce. The incident where the party thugs burnt a bus with three girls come to mind. Any concerned citizen armed in that situation might have deterred such incident, who knows. Also, I am not saying there should be no police force. Police should be there to protect the innocent during mass gatherings. So possibility of civil war breaking out of riot situations may be surreal.
I also think the comparison between African colonies and India is unwarranted. There are few significant differences. Majority of people in India are peace loving and abstain from violence. The problem is the few party "leaders" local, regional or national who are opportunistic and incite violence for selfish reasons. "Dinakaran" incident in Madurai, Babri masjid demolition, Cauvery riots all are examples of some politician leading the cause while the police watched over. Who will defend the innocent in such situation? As you finally concluded, I don't see a better choice than enabling the reasonable, patriotic and empathetic minds to protect themselves and the helpless. I understand this may not be flawless or perfect for a corruption ridden country. But a choice to consider, debate and choose to protect the individual against the system.
Post a Comment