Maruti violence: Some questions

[Katana]

Lately there has been violence, rioting and even a murder at the Maruti plant in Manesar, Haryana. Press and electronic media suggest that the non managerial staff and workers were looking for an excuse to indulge in arson with a clear goal of disrupting industrial production and to close down the plant.

A question playing in my mind is that, how come there was no attempt to defend these executive/ managerial staff from within the premises? Is all security abdicated to so called 'security agencies', who obviously shun the idea of getting involved in any legal tangle; or is it company policy not allow firearms on the premises, in which case it would contravene our rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution? Quite a few industrialists/ entrepreneurs own hand guns and I'm sure they carry it to work. Is this reminiscent of the 26/11 Bombay attacks wherein not one guest in either of the two hotels was armed?

Secondly, Maruti is in the process of shifting it's operations to Bechraji in Gujarat, with the assumption that Gujarat is an investor friendly locale and that worker/ union problemsare virtually unheard of. I would disagree here. With rampant industrialisation around Ahmedabad, and in particular with the advent of the Nano factory in Sanand, the crime graph has shot up stupendously. Moreover, the earlier round of industrialisation in Ahmedabad in the '70's during the textile boom saw immense rioting upto the mid '80's, with the result that the industry shifted to Surat and a whole lot of people were left unemployed.

Would it not be prudent to amend the Arms Act to allow such large firms to maintain their own firearms for an eventuality just as this? Just as banks keep firearms with the guard as the retainer?

[Biren]

Maruti case is differet of its kind.. and arming executives will not solve the problem as the relation among employees is of mutual respect & trust, which seems to be missing in the case... if as a subordinate my boss has to carry weapon or if i have to carry weapon as a boss then its nothing but poor leadership

Rgds,
Biren

[goodboy_mentor]

I agree the Maruti case is matter of poor relation of management with employees.

A question playing in my mind is that, how come there was no attempt to defend these executive/ managerial staff from within the premises?

There can be various reasons, including the mindset of the victims. Sometimes victims think that begging for mercy from irate mob can save them.

Even if you have a gun, your response is limited by the "ammunition quota" on your license. There have been plenty of instances where arms license holders fired in self defense on irate mob but failed due to their limited ammunition quota. A famous case is about Gulbarg Society massacre where it was attacked by large violent mob. An elderly former Congress MP in his 70s, Ehsan Jafri was able to keep the mob away by firing from his licensed gun but quickly his ammunition ran out and was mercilessly killed by mob. You can well imagine how long can one keep a violent mob away with quota of 25 or 50 cartridges?

Is all security abdicated to so called 'security agencies', who obviously shun the idea of getting involved in any legal tangle;

In all probability you are absolutely correct in your observation.

Secondly, Maruti is in the process of shifting it's operations to Bechraji in Gujarat, with the assumption that Gujarat is an investor friendly locale and that worker/ union problemsare virtually unheard of.

Idea of Maruti management may or may not be correct.

[Katana]

Biren,

I'm not suggesting that Maruti arm its executive employees as a matter of policy. What I'm trying to ask is that would Maruti keep armed guards or security personnel on it's rolls and not contract these services? This would imply that Maruti would be licensee and the guards be retainers or at least be able to use these firearms.

Secondly, what is the general notion of large corporate houses as concerns their executive employees being armed in their individual capacity whilst at work? What would be greater, the right of the individual to bear arms and use it if the need be or the company's policy of debarring it's employees from doing so, should such a policy be in force in that institution?

[Biren]

Subject to law of land, corporates should have sound security systems to protect its assets and men, which should act as deterent to miscreants. The day when corporates start arming their employees to protect them against each other or start a armed cadre, they should shut the establishment. To run establishment there should be mutual trust & respect among employees, without which organisation cannt function, retainer or no retainer.

God forbid a situation, where weapons are used to buy industrial peace, instead of good sound HR practices. Maruti type cases need all together different treatment... usko daawa ki jaroorat hae... Daruu ki nae.....

Rgds,
Biren

[Katana]

I'm afraid you have missed the entire gist of my query. Let it pass.

[Safarigent]

Unfortunately, riot control is a bit outside the pale of these willy nilly security agencies.
Most of the times, the weapons are side by side shotguns, which will never serve the purpose of protection of premises/ life in SHTF situations.
You need handguns as the bare minimum with plenty of ancilliary support in the form of shooting ranges, access to plentiful ammo, company support and a robust legal framework to support the defenders of property/ life in a particular case etc
In the absence of these, these incidents will happen more and more, and relocating wont help.

[hamiclar01]

In 1946, on an island in the San Francisco bay, determined and well co ordinated assaults by prisoners caught the guards by surprise. The convicts managed to arm themselves, setting the stage for the chilling event known as the battle of Alcatraz.

I shudder to think of the fallout of a rampaging mob helping themselves to firearms from lockers in the Manesar factory.

[Katana]

Quite true. Agree with you there.

[Vikram]

I believe Biren has it right when it comes to that sound HR practices and industrial relations are the key.In India an additional problem is with the political actors.Corporations arming themselves against possible labour unrest/rioting is going to bring up the spectres of early twentieth century capitalist excesses elsewhere. The news alone will not do any good to the issue.

Haiclar makes a valid point too.

I would think a CISF type of protection would go a long way. The government can take the responsibility of protecting the industries for a price.It will be politicised nevertheless but a lesser problematic issue than the other alternative.

An example from my present station,Georgia. You will find Makarov toting security guards in supermarkets,big shops etc. The security police are paid for by the businesses but they are the employees of the state.There are strict regulations under which they operate. I think that is a good model.

Best-
Vikram

[Katana]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 099426.cms

This is getting interesting. Naxalites in industry now?

[Vikram]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 099426.cms

This is getting interesting. Naxalites in industry now?

#

While we do not know if that is the case in the incident in question, extreme left within industries and TUs is not new.They had been quite active in the Singareni Collieries in AP, for example, for a long time.

Best-
Vikram

[dsingh]

This is a case of trade union unrest today trade unions r run by antisocial small time leaders and magament executives too have narrow outlook but it does not mean there must be lawlessness .I remember a case of Gurgoan in1984 mass killing case a house of joint sikh family was surrounded by a mob of 5000 persons who tried to set it fire the elderly head of family fired from .315 bore rifle which killed killed the leader of mob when bullet penetrated inside his mouth and blew away his brain then it hit another rioter who lost his arm it detered the others who fled but that elderly man has to face trial for 6 years before he was set free by paying hugh sum to injured one to change statement as an lawyer I would have taken the defence of self defence. This is attitude of officials but there is one lesson to be learned the elderly man succeeded in defending his family because of his weapon .Another case is of Rewari village of Hondh Chiller where the mob killed 32 people in 1984 when it attacked another cluster of houses a person with his big Kirpan defended successfully not his own family but saved 40 lives .In teror attacks or mob violence only common people like us are primary targets .So personal arm is must for each citizen.