Unarmed INDIA

[Safarigent]

Xl: i think we must disagree on this point. Wikipedia has the following on p.i.l's
In Indian law, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) OR जनहित याचिका means litigation for the protection of the public interest. It is litti introduced in a court of law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself or by any other private party. It is not necessary, for the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, that the person who is the victim of the violation of his or her right should personally approach the court. In Public Interest Litigation, the power to file a suit is given to a member of the public by the courts etc through judicially conscious judicial activism.That member of the public can be a NGO, Institution or an individual.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Litigation

That pretty much means you can file a p.i.l. Even if you arent the affected party

[goodboy_mentor]

I see your arguments and you seem very convinced about them. I think you are too.

You see, it does not matter if I am convinced or you are convinced. What matters is that court gets convinced and utters the same. Many judges have their own preconcieved notions and a mindset. This aprehension was also raised by Virendra here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 30#p146237

Why havent you ever filed a p.i.l. And sort this matter out?

PIL or writ can be be filed, this matter already has a valid cause of action(the MHA policy) or one can join a related one that is arleady going on. A SLP very closely related to this matter is already going on, this one http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p155703 What problem do these petitioners have raising this matter? Let me see what are the submissions made by the petioners in this SLP and is there any scope for getting impleaded in the matter.

I mean you are a lawyer, you have the facts and you seem motivated enough.

Please do not consider me to be a practicing advocate. You may just consider me a student of law trying to learn a b c of law.

So what stops you?

Nothing. But I do not want to rush in a hurry and the fate of case ends similar to Anirudh Singh Katoch Vs. Union of India(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/956897/).

[Safarigent]

Well, i guess its wait and watch for us inspite of much we type away or talk.
Lets hope this idiotic state of affairs gets sorted out sooner than later.
Best regards,A

[goodboy_mentor]

Well, I don't think the matter is entirely wait and watch or typing or talking only. There are many members on this forum who are working in the background. It will not be reasonable to expect some sudden and big results quickly since the matters have been allowed to go bad for far too long time and made literally pucca in the minds of the establishment including judiciary. Making small but sure steps in positive direction at a time would be better. The things are moving, probably slow and steady wins the race would be the appropriate words.

I would like to add one more point to this post http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 30#p158059 If we read the following will find that RKBA was legally acknowledged by the Legislature of Dominion of India and how slowly and steadily in small steps at a time, the right to keep and bear arms has been diluted till date, beginning with Act XXVIII of 1857, Act XXXI of 1860:

Act XXVIII of 1857 was passed by the Legislative Council of India and received the assent of the Governor Central on the 11th September, 1857. The preamble of that Act said "An Act relating to the importation, manufacture, and sale of Arms and Ammunition, and for regulating the right to keep or use 'the same". It was an Act of 36 sections. The first section dealt with the places to which the section extended and the necessity for a written notice of the possession or Arms to be given to the Magistrate. The second section provided for penalty for wilful neglect to give notice. The third section required a Register to be prepared and certificates to be granted on request. The fourth section dealt with the seizure and detention of Arms and Ammunition by the Magistrate. The fifth section provided for disarming persons in certain cases and in certain places and the persons who were authorised to disarm. The next material section of this 1857 Act is Section 17 providing for apprehension of persons conveying Arms, Ammunition., etc., under suspicious circumstances without warrant. Then Section 22 of this Act goes on to provide for penalty for wilful neglect to give notice of possession of Ammunition of military stores. Section 23 provides for the power to enter and search houses where there was reasonable cause for suspecting Arms and Ammunitions.

The preamble of this statute of 1860 says -

"An Act relating to the manufacture, Importation, and sale of Arms and Ammunition, and for regulating the right to keep and use the same, and to give power of disarming in certain cases,''

Reference http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1854807/

In addition to the combined reading of Preamble of Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(b), Article 21, Article 51A(b),(c),(d),(i) and Article 246(5) all together with Objects and Reasons of Arms Act 1959 and its provisions, also the reading of the preambles of Act XXVIII of 1857, Act XXXI of 1860, the preamble, objects and reasons of Arms Act 1878, Article 367(1)of Constitution of India, Section 6 and 24 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 all together also point to the fact that Constitution of India recognizes the fundamental right to keep and use arms.

[captrakshitsharma]

Very well written, I have been saying the same and believe very strongly that once the Polity of the nation becomes aware of the fact that denying citizens RKBA would cost votes and elections RKBA will be on the agenda of most political parties. To however make them realise this we need strong representation and a collective body to represent us. NAGRI seems to be the answer, we must make NAGRI strong. NAGRI so far has no issues like politics,money and vested interests the only issue it has is low membership numbers and a minor issue of registration . Please keep supporting NAGRI and keep sending in your forms.

[James_Bond]

Unarmed India

I have come across a rather naive proclamation on this forum and on NAGRI that, “Turn the pages of our history and you will realize that India has always believed in providing arms to its bonafide citizens to protect themselves and their families. Arms were always a part of our culture, our rituals, and most importantly owning a firearm was always considered a mark of honor for the head of the family till the British came and changed everything overnight. They passed stringent laws to ensure that it was next to impossible for Indians to own Guns.... How could they allow civilians of a slave nation to own such potent tools of retaliation.” “Among the greatest injustices the British have done to India, to deny an entire nation of the right to own and keep arms will go down as its blackest”.

I have serious objections when people say “India has always believed in providing arms to its bonafide citizens”...and that the Politicians and the breaucracy is stupid and illogical. You may ask why?

India never believed in social-justice and equality and never had either. Except during the brief interval between late BCs and very early ADs, which was the period of Buddhism and since Independence, at least theoretically. The Brahminic India didn't even believe in providing education to all its bonafide citizens along with other basic civilian amenities, how could it arm them. The fact is that the Brahminic society (governed by the ideals of Brahmanism) was based on graded inequality and social-injustice. Military education (read bearing arms) was strictly restricted to a select and a very small privileged group. When other 'bonafide civilians' tried to acquire arms they had to face very grave consequences. Remember how Dronacharya chopped off the thumb of Ekalavya, who did not belong to the privileged class. Have you read how the Karna had to fake his birth-identity to gain Military Education from Parashurama? Have you read about the real history of Shivaji Maharaj's conronation? Why did Guru Gobind Singh had to insist that every Khalsa should bear arms, if every 'bonafide civilian' was already bearing arms?

Any unbiased, apolitical Historian will tell you that the so called “first war of Independence” was a mutiny by the landed gentry backed by their private militia against the British in General and Robert Clive's “Doctrine of Lapse” in particular. Yes, some sepoys of the East India Company sparked it. But never was it a People's revolt. My argument is that the 'bonafide civilians' of India were always denied social justice. The Bhraminic Society never allowed the majority to bear Arms. It was against their vested, selfish interests. Though the Arms Act of 1878 sounds as if it striped the entire nation of its weapons, in actual effect it was aimed to strip the privileged gentry which possessed arms.

If, as falsely assumed, every or most of the Indians had been armed then no foreign invasion into this country would have been complete and final. The truth is that the majority of Indians were not armed. There never was or is, a second line of defense. When the armies of the Privileged warriors were defeated the gates to India were thrown wide open. The invading armies never ever faced any problems marching to Delhi from the battlefield. No 'bonafide civilian' or citizen was ever in a position to resist or even harass the invaders. A minion like, Ahmad Shah Abdali when by tact and unlucky chance defeated the great Maratha force at the third battle of Panipat was any civilian in a position to defend himself from the pillaging Afghans? Or earlier in history, could the Mahamud of Ghazni raid India SEVENTEEN times if he confronted an armed citizenry?

There were however, certain warrior communities who lived on the periphery of our societies about whom Chanakya talks about in his Arthashastra and advises the King not provoke such guilds into war as such war will come at a very great cost. Kalinga was probably one such guild of warriors. In antiquity we hear of these guilds harassing Alexander the Great's army when it was returning to Persia from the conquest of west Punjab (Present AFPAK border)from the Greek records. Beyond this nothing.

If India was an armed nation (armed with education and weapons) would it have accepted the inhuman Chaturvarna or the unequal grading of castes? Every bone in me doubts it.

Now coming to the Arms Act of 1959. If my wonderful country which always “believed in providing arms to its bonafide citizens to protect themselves and their families” and which suffered, “Among the greatest injustices the British have done to India, to deny an entire nation of the right to own and keep arms will go down as its blackest” and indeed wanted to do right this great wrong then why did it connived a License system in the first place? The following quote from Vladimir Lenin might perhaps, help us answer it, “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie”. In Indian context the word bourgeoisie must be equated with NOT privileged.

My take is that the privileged few who came to power after Independence never quite had the WILL to change the status-quo that had been in existence since 1878. However, there were people in the post-independence power setup who did not belong to privileged class and it were these people who were favorable to repeal the Arms Act of 1878. It was because of these men we have Arms Act of 1959. Yet the privileged exercised enough influence to create ambiguity regarding the grant of weapons and deliberately kept the Act open to interpretation, their interpretation. They have since then very strategically tried to keep the benefits of this Act within the privileged group. The definition of the privileged has changed since the antiquity but not by much, really.

Personally I don't think Indian Government will ever ease the situation with respect to the Right to bear arms. If any thing it will make it more and more difficult to carry and keep arms. It suits them perfectly to have greatest control. Given the ever increasing gap between haves and have nots, do you really think it is in the interests of the privileged to arm the have nots? They are neither stupid nor illogical.

If guns are great equalizers for the oppressed, then why would the oppressor want to nullify his/her advantage. The fact is Governments rule by the power of the gun, yes even in a democracy and more so in a hollowed out democracy like ours. Behind almost every rule or law there is gun to enforce it. That is the gist. Think. “Power flows from the barrel of the gun”, and not just in the Maoist country but everywhere. Do the Governments want their poor and hungry to have this power? Can the Governments afford to have their deprived, hungry, bonafide citizens to have this equalizer?

Globally something is happening, something is churning, something is round the corner, the sensitive enough can feel it coming. The Governments all over the world want Gun Control. Something is making them either nervous or they are clearing landscape for something. The most disturbing is the United Nations' advocacy of Global Gun Ban. Why?

Consider this quote by James A. Donald, “The usual road to slavery is that they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it”. I sincerely hope this is not true, I truly hope we never face such a situation. But if we find out that we are indeed being forced by the Governments to follow the steps as quoted by James A. Donald then we don't have any other choice but to arm ourselves by any and every means and resist to the dying breath.

My humble suggestion to the NAGRI and Others who are pleading the Government for more gun rights is to take some direct action. We must ask and make aware every citizen in this great country to apply for a gun license. Let millions of applications storm the offices of the Licensing Authority and let them reject as many they want to; then take every rejected application to the honorable courts of India. Only a mass drive like this will enable us to empower the nation. If we are serious about the question of gun rights then sooner than later we must become more direct in our fight.

I hope that people will realize and understand what they are up against. I hope they will get together and resist every injustice that inhibits their well being. Sooner the better.

Regards...

very very Well Said sir

[kdbanan]

Very well written article Sir.... The thing is that taking it up with the Govt. is like banging your head against a concrete wall. Until and unless RKBA increases the awareness of the common people towards gun rights nothing much can happen. I tried talking to people outside of the forum about the anti gun culture in India. Not even a single one out of them agreed to the relaxation of gun laws in India. All of them had a weird look and most of them said are you crazy thinking of arming the irresponsible citizens of India. The Indian population is not ready to bear arms. However after lengthy discussions and arguments some of them understood the importance of arms in the hand of civilians.
My point here is that most of the citizens of India are unaware of the fact that guns are not just killing machines...... Its not their fault too. Since childhood we have all grown up seeing guns only in the hands of a cop or a criminal. RKBA needs to change this mindset of majority of people before taking up anything with the Govt. America's NRA is so powerful just because it has got such a strong support from American citizens.