Indians For Guns

Hello,

I am Abhishek.
Recently, a lucknow cop shot an apple executive which led to his death, the cop "alleged" to have fired in "self-defense".
Article here: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/law-was ... le-1924209

This is not the first time such an incident has occurred however this again brings up the debate of Right to bear and keep arms. Though, India has not recognized it but US Second Amendment does "A 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."

What is security of free state ? Basic understanding is freedom from despotism and also included military, police and state sanctioned force, exception is due process of law.
Article here: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/view ... ntext=ndlr

So, in light of this context i would like to know what the elders here think or what there opinions are.

Looking forward to a healthy discussion.

Regards,
Abhishek

PS: In no way, this post is meant to disrespect the Nation, its armed forces or police.

sfcabhishek wrote:PS: In no way, this post is meant to disrespect the Nation, its armed forces or police.

I am wondering what wrong or crime you have done in discussing this matter(about cops killing innocent persons or freedom), that is compelling/ terrorizing you to give the above quoted "clarification"? Is it fear of government filing false cases against you for discussing these type of matters? If yes, then question arises, are we living in a true democracy or a free country? These type of clarifications were a common place during the British rule, when the boot-lickers of the colonial rule used to out do each other, to display that they are "more loyal than the King".

I do not know what your idea or perception about "the Nation" is, following is the legal definition -

From Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition -

Nation - A large group of people having a common origin, language, and tradition and usually constituting a political entity. When a nation is coincident with a state, the term nation-state is often used. Also termed nationality.

"The nearest we can get to a definition is to say that a nation is a group of people bound together by common history, common sentiment and traditions, and, usually (though not always. as, for example, Belgium or Switzerland) by common heritage. A state, on the other hand, is a society of men united under one government. These two forms of society are not necessarily coincident. A single nation may be divided into several states, and conversely a single state may comprise several nations or parts of nations." John Salmond, Jurisprudence 136 (Glanville L Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947).

From above it follows that "India" is a multi national State composed of various Nations. There is a difference between a State and a Nation. For example Bengalis, Biharis, Marathas, Punjabis, Tamils, Telugus, Nagas and so on are different Nations or Nationalities. These Nations or Nationalities are being ruled over by a State called India. It was created by the British colonial rule. To illustrate further, at least three nationalities, the Punjabis ,the Bengalis, the Tamils at this point in history, are being ruled over by two different States. The Punjabis by India and Pakistan. The Bengalis by India and Bangladesh. The Tamils by India and Sri Lanka. The partition of Bengal and Punjab in 1947 is another saga of political and historical criminal fraud done by "Indian politicians" of that time.

There is no nation of Indians in the real sense of the world, it is yet to be created. In believing we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. - Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

The matter of RKBA has been discussed a lot in this forum. To begin with, you may click here.

I would like to say that western idea of Nation does not apply to Indian context. Bharat is a multi lingual, multi ethnic and multi religious Nation united by political idea.

I agree with you goodboy_mentor.
The clarification was for members of such forces here on this forum, which may offend them.
I do not intend to create a ruckus, that's why the clarification.
Nation and state are different I agree, I used the state's force. I was not discussing Indian jurisprudence, I was only trying to get thoughts of other people if such scenarios continue to appear and its extent to RKBA.
I may be wrong, no one is born will all knowledge. We learn in course of our lives. I was also trying to learn by having a healthy discussion.

sumbriavikramaditya wrote:I would like to say that western idea of Nation does not apply to Indian context.

Please read the First Article of the Constitution of India. It clarifies everything and is exactly opposite of what you are saying. It begins by saying "India, that is Bharat,". It clearly means India is equal to Bharat and Bharat is equal to India. "India" is a colonial administrative entity created by the British. Before British colonial rule, there was nothing called "India" on the political map of the Indian sub continent. It means "Bharat" is a continuation of colonial "India" created by the British. I am not saying this, the First Article of the Constitution of India is saying this. In other words the Constitution of India itself says it is a western colonial political idea. It is well settled fact that the Indian Constitution is based on British Common Law. Why? Because western idea of colonial State or colonized Nations applies? The Indian Constitution is basically a copy paste job from Government of India Act 1935 enacted by London. Why? Because western idea of colonial State applies or colonized Nations applies? The Indian Constitution has been written in a manner so as to comply with most of the laws enacted by the British Parliament. Why? Because western idea of colonial State applies or colonized Nations applies?

sumbriavikramaditya wrote:Bharat is a multi lingual, multi ethnic and multi religious Nation united by political idea.

"united by political idea"? As already mentioned, the Constitution of India itself says it is a western colonial political idea. By implication, it implicitly means there was no freedom struggle before 14-15 August 1947, "we the people" were actually in love with the British colonial rule. That is why they adopted a Constitution that says India is equal to Bharat and Bharat is equal to India.

"united by political idea"? Is it a fact or a political rhetoric? If it is a fact, then why the Constitution of India was not ratified by direct representatives of the people? Constitution is a socio political contract, it is written consolidation of all the past oral and written socio political contracts. Since it is an explicitly written contract, it must also explicitly comply in writing with all the ingredients of a valid contract. Then why explicitly written ratification was not done by the direct representative of the people?

If "united by political idea" is true then why was partition in 1947 encouraged and engineered by "Indian politicians" through the back door? There is enough historical evidence that partition(and the genocidal violence that followed) was secretly engineered by those who were publicly opposing partition and pretending to be peaceful. British(as well as Mr. M. A. Jinnah) wanted peaceful transfer of political power as well as populations. That is why British wanted to take time and leave by around middle of 1948. Which ideology was at work that pressurized to the transfer of political power hurriedly by 14-15 August 1947?

sfcabhishek wrote:I agree with you goodboy_mentor.
The clarification was for members of such forces here on this forum, which may offend them.
I do not intend to create a ruckus, that's why the clarification.

I see. But if some rogue policeman or rogue soldier shoots some innocent person, I don't think we should worry about such rogues being offended. On the contrary they should get a message that they will have to face the law sooner or later. Isn't it?

sfcabhishek wrote:Nation and state are different I agree, I used the state's force. I was not discussing Indian jurisprudence, I was only trying to get thoughts of other people if such scenarios continue to appear and its extent to RKBA.

Such scenarios(about innocents being shot dead, tortured or raped by rogue police or rogue armed forces personal) have been continuing unabated since 15 August 1947 itself. Yes RKBA will certainly be an equalizer to a large extent for such rogues. I am wondering why the Indian State has been behaving like a de facto rogue State for such a long time and why "we the people" have been silent on this matter for so long?

sfcabhishek wrote:I may be wrong, no one is born will all knowledge. We learn in course of our lives. I was also trying to learn by having a healthy discussion.

Of course, fully agree with you. I am also learning a lot with these type of discussions. For example, had been reading the Constitution and it's Articles often, but it was only during this discussion, realized the real meaning of "India, that is Bharat," mentioned in Article 1 of the Constitution.

Let me tell you, you have raised a very important topic, probably it deserves a much more detailed reply than this post.