India: Wake up and Shoot Back

[mundaire]

India: Wake up and Shoot Back
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Kerri Houston Toloczko

Last spring, while preparing for their murderous attack on Mumbai, ten terrorists dutifully took their driver's licenses and proofs of residency to their nearest gun licensing office to ensure that their rifles and handguns were legally registered with the appropriate authorities.

Seriously? Of course not - its ludicrous. Criminals don't stand in line to register weapons, and neither do terrorists. Only the law abiding do, unless - as in the case of India - they can't.

Although private gun ownership in India is allowable by law, bewildering licensing restrictions, bureaucratic red tape, and government policy that makes guns and ammunition prohibitively expensive renders gun ownership unattainable for most people - and provided the Mumbai terrorists unfettered access to their victims.

In fact, gun licensing is so difficult in India that even security guards don't have guns. When the terrorists entered the Mumbai train station and the Taj and Oberoi-Trident hotels, none of the guards were armed. Instead, they are issued bamboo sticks, a traditional Indian defense tool called a "lathi."

After Sebastian D'Souza of the Mumbai Mirror took the above picture of one of the terrorists at the Mumbai train depot, he noted "I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

Incredibly, at a roadblock set up by Mumbai police to stop the terrorists as they made their way toward the hotels, only 3 of the 9 police officers had guns; the remaining nine brandished their bamboo sticks at the oncoming terrorists. Reports from Mumbai claim that the police were killed before even getting out of their cars.

Gun control in India is a product of its bureaucratic culture, but also has deep roots in British colonial rule. To ensure continued dominance in India after several insurrections, the colonial government destroyed local firearm manufacturing and passed the Indian Arms Act of 1878, prohibiting Indians from possessing firearms. The new laws that replaced it in 1959 and 1962 created such a labyrinth of rules and restrictions that very few Indians even bothered to try to license a gun. Government limits on domestic manufacturing and imported firearms make guns and ammo extremely expensive. Many Indians who have managed to acquire guns can't afford the bullets.

At no point during the terrorists attack was there an armed response. Security guards at the hotel, armed only with sticks, could not protect their guests. When the terrorists attacked the Cama Hospital for Women and Children, they were also met with unarmed security guards.

It is clear that whatever particular branch of hell spawned the Mumbai terrorists, it was an attempt at fomenting a renewed Pakistan/India conflict. The terrorists were successful in their attack because nobody shot back - will this success lead to an overt hostile act between India and Pakistan?

If Mr. D'Souza's camera really had been a gun he could have picked off a few terrorists starting with Ajmal Amir Kasab in the photo above, at whom he was already aiming. If even one of the train station security guards had been armed and he had shot only two terrorists, how many lives would that have saved? What if it had been the two that headed for the Jewish Chaban House - would the beloved American Rabbi and his wife and the three others killed there still be alive?

India is our reliable friend and ally, as we are to it. But in 2008, a nation that is a regular target of terror as is India, not only has the right to a fully armed response, it also has a responsibility.

As no nation lives in isolation anymore in today's global construct, war will never again be between only two nations.

India should not wait for another murderous attack to jolt itself out of antiquated colonial bureaucracy and realize that when only the bad guys have guns, there are no good guys to shoot back and any one attack has the potential to spark a global conflict.

India needs to get off the stick and buy some guns.

*****************************************************************

Link >>>

[dev]

Hear...hear...a thumping round of applause to the writer.

Dev

[TenX]

"India needs to get off the stick and buy some guns. "

.. True indeed. If one remembers the 1970's movies of old Ambassadors.. you see the cops with a lathi and shorts, and a huge head gear. In the 2000's we have an assortment of cars, hats to replace the turbanized headwear.. but the lathis remain.
The .303 Lee Enfield Bolt Action was devised for battle, and not terrorist control. I agree its a great rifle, but will not match the AK's in trench-type warfare!
If only uniforms were good enough to implement control, everyone would wear one, and there would be peace in the world.. But what if the evil side also wears them? Sometimes the best of bank security is a SBBL which has probably not been fired for ages, and the person holding it would be in no position for armed terrorisms.
Unplanned traffic, mesmerizing population, yet to improve communications... there are a whole lot of glitches for the common man to rest in peace, putting all their burden on the lathi clad heroes.
As technology starts to improve cars and give them more speed, they also ought to ensure breaking power. When technology, communication, stealth, and several factors can help the bad side gain strength, so should the good side also be able to cope up with impending peril!

The babus have plenty of security to look around and feel safe, but when the common man searches for a cop, you may find one in plenty, with the same lathi, pot-belly and eyes finding avenues of under table revenues.

...India should not wait for another murderous attack to jolt itself out of antiquated colonial bureaucracy and realize that when only the bad guys have guns, there are no good guys to shoot back...

.. There may be good guys capable of shooting back, but presently they are armed with stones and pebbles, thanks to the municipality's non-concern of cleaning up streets!