Indians For Guns

https://service.mail.com/dereferrer/?ta ... es&lang=en

"A state of high alert has been declared for the entire state of Uttar Pradesh. Soldiers are conducting door-to-door searches in Muzaffarnagar, 150 kilometres north-east of Delhi. A curfew has been imposed in three districts."


http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/c ... 111758.ece
Compensation

Hospital sources said that after the government announced a hefty compensation to the next of kin of those killed, increasing cases of deaths of elderly people were being reported. “This needs to be investigated,” said one of them.

Pointing out that notice for revocation of firearm licences had been issued to 1,570 people, the official said the process of seizure would soon be initiated. Security personnel also seized firearms during door-to-door searches. "

IS this legal? I thought only in AFSPA regions the army or security forces can do this.
This reminds me of hurricane Katrina where national guard did the very same thing in new orleans, USA.

They did the exact same thing in 1984... disarming the victims, BEFORE the mobs were sent in to attack innocents! Some things never change

Disarming of people by the "rulers" has been going on from times immemorial. Aim of disarming is to humiliate people, to send message that they are slaves and not trustworthy.

He degraded the Jats and the Luhanahs and bound over their chiefs. He took a hostage from them, and confined him in the fort of Brahmanabad. He imposed the following terms on these people. (the Jats and the Lúhánahs), namely, that they should not carry swords,
except on occasions of urgent necessity; that their undergarment should be of some
woollen cloth; that they should not wear velvet or silken cloth; that they might use scarfs
of cotton thread, of black or red colour; that they must ride horses without saddles; that
they must walk about bareheaded and bare-footed; that, when going out of their houses,
they must take dogs with them; that they must supply firewood to the ruler of
Brahmanabad; that they must serve him in the capacity of guides and spies; that, if they
distinguished themselves for these qualities, they would be considered trustworthy and honest

Source Chachnama. Chachnama is a book about the history of Sindh, chronicling from the Chach Dynasty's period till the Arab conquest by Muhammad bin Qasim. The Chach Nama was written by Kazi Ismail. He was appointed the first Kazi of Alor by Muhammad Kásim after the conquest of the Sindh. Those interested in history of the period can download the book from this link http://panhwar.com/Books_By_Sani/The-Ch ... -Sindh.pdf

mundaire wrote:They did the exact same thing in 1984... disarming the victims, BEFORE the mobs were sent in to attack innocents! Some things never change

A legit will always suffer, person owning licensed weapon is both target of the Police and criminal, Police use the licensed weapon recovery to show that they have recovered weapons of riots and criminal use it to their own interest.
I know lot of ppl who gave up licensed weapon as it became more pain for them at the time of riots. Police would make their life hell to confiscate the weapon and then they will have to go through long ordeal to get weapon back once riots were over. Most of the time the weapon were kept in bad situation and conditions and would end up loosing there finish.

Are they searching door-to-door for any/all weapons or only going to the houses of license holders and seizing those?

Doesn't seem possible for legitimate arms. For a temporary surrender of arms, or 'deposit' in our parlance like elections etc., the DM has to officially notify it in the Gazette, a copy of which is to be given to the licensee. Only then is it deemed procedural. Now in this scenario (Muzzafarnagar riots), I doubt if these rule would have been followed. The cops or soldiers cannot just pick up something from someones house and walk off.

However, this matter needs further investigation. If such an incident or incidents have taken place then they are in gross violation of a citizens' fundamental right under Sec. 21 of the Constitution. If not, then it may be either rumour mongering or 'pyshcological warfare' by some vested parties, including those in the local administration.

During the 2002 Gujarat riots, the cops came calling asking us to surrender arms. My parents and I refused flatly. There was nothing they could do.

If this is true then NAGRI should take this up with the supreme court.

Then why the hell do we take licenses for, if not allowed to protect self and family during riots.
I am saying police must shoot down the rioters, but in no way should take away legit arms.

Do we take licenses only to dangle the arms??? If you cant use it in the hour of need.

goodboy_mentor wrote:Disarming of people by the "rulers" has been going on from times immemorial. Aim of disarming is to humiliate people, to send message that they are slaves and not trustworthy.

He degraded the Jats and the Luhanahs and bound over their chiefs. He took a hostage from them, and confined him in the fort of Brahmanabad. He imposed the following terms on these people. (the Jats and the Lúhánahs), namely, that they should not carry swords,
except on occasions of urgent necessity; that their undergarment should be of some
woollen cloth; that they should not wear velvet or silken cloth; that they might use scarfs
of cotton thread, of black or red colour; that they must ride horses without saddles; that
they must walk about bareheaded and bare-footed; that, when going out of their houses,
they must take dogs with them; that they must supply firewood to the ruler of
Brahmanabad; that they must serve him in the capacity of guides and spies; that, if they
distinguished themselves for these qualities, they would be considered trustworthy and honest

Source Chachnama. Chachnama is a book about the history of Sindh, chronicling from the Chach Dynasty's period till the Arab conquest by Muhammad bin Qasim. The Chach Nama was written by Kazi Ismail. He was appointed the first Kazi of Alor by Muhammad Kásim after the conquest of the Sindh. Those interested in history of the period can download the book from this link http://panhwar.com/Books_By_Sani/The-Ch ... -Sindh.pdf

With few exceptions, Aurangzeb had all the natives banned from carrying arms, mounting horses or palkis.
Sikhs/Khalsa reaction of carrying arms all the time, was a furious response to the same.

Disarming people from their legal self-protection tools has always been aim of the cruel rulers whether they be mughals, british or the post-independence rulers.
Bahut dino se hai ye mashgala siyasat ka,
Ki jab jawan ho bachhe to katla ho jaye.
Nagri should fight against such attrocities.

Virendra S Rathore wrote:With few exceptions, Aurangzeb had all the natives banned from carrying arms, mounting horses or palkis. Sikhs/Khalsa reaction of carrying arms all the time, was a furious response to the same.

Sorry for reviving this thread. Came to this one again while following the links, after had created another thread today here.

Would like to clarify that lot of distortion of history was done during the British rule. Unfortunately that is still continuing after the British left. Their boot licker "historians" have done a spectacular job of creating an impression as if Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were all fighting with each other for religious reasons. Authentic history is quite contrary to it. You would be surprised to know that there was no Jizya tax or ban on arms on the Sikhs during the entire Mughal rule. Yes entire Mughal rule. They did not provide any military service to Mughal rule, but still there was no Jizya tax on them because they were considered an Islamic Sect. Rajput tribes that provided military service to the Mughal rule were exempt from Jizya tax and ban on arms(if it was actually done). More on this tomorrow or later because I am going to sleep now.

goodboy_mentor, thanks for point out the distortion of history, looking forward to "more"

pistolero wrote:goodboy_mentor, thanks for point out the distortion of history, looking forward to "more"

Sorry for the delayed reply, was traveling. I appreciate your interest. This thread has a different topic and is in legal eagle section. Also as you can understand, this element of distortion of history also has component of religious angle to it. Therefore it has to be written in a manner that does not hurt sentiments of any particular person or social group. Moreover it has to be written in a manner that the discussion remains academic and does not drift into emotional outbursts, political or religious matters. Therefore I am thinking of ways how it can be presented in a new thread in general ramblings section, so that it remains within the rules of this forum. It may take some time.

There was no Jizya tax on the Sikhs is a well settled historical fact. Even during the rule of Aurangzeb, who did very orthodox and narrow interpretation of law, there was no Jizya tax on Sikhs. Mughals had theologically very solid and valid reasons for this. Whenever there was conflict, it was purely a political conflict with the injustice of Mughal State only. These are subtle but very important points to be noted. The history has been very subtly distorted on these very points by a third party. A casual or inexperienced reader is usually unable to catch this subtle fraud. Usually it has been done by changing one or two crucial words or sentences, or change the meaning or perception of the words or sentences in explanations or translations, or hide or destroy some important historical facts, or add or mix some forgeries, fabricated lies or myths. And in almost all the cases, even as late as during partition of Punjab in 1947, the conflict or misunderstanding was created by the conspiracies of the same third party that gained most from the conflict. If you read my posts in some other threads, probably you may get the idea. The posts are represented by the following four hyperlinks - 1. Click here 2. Click here 3. Click here 4. Click here

Jizya tax is nothing but protection tax paid by those who do not take part in the State. It is also levied today, even in modern western democracies under different names, like alien tax etc. until persons become part of the State(citizens). Sikhs also imposed Jizya tax under different name, Rakhi tax(protection tax). It was also called Kambli tax. Kambli means a small or light blanket. Just search the internet for "Kambli Wale" or "Kali Kambli Wale", you will understand it refers respectfully to whom. Maximum rate of Rakhi tax during war times was one fifth or 20% of the income or produce. This rate matches exactly with the rate mentioned in Chapter 8, verse 41 of the Holy Qur'an. And in contrast, the tax imposed by Marathas was Chauth, meaning one fourth or 25% of the income or produce.

A kharita written by Gangadhar on 25th April 1768 makes clear that Rajputana State of Jaipur had won over the Sikhs and had agreed to pay Rupees Two Lakh as Rakhi tax. Around this time, Marathas were trying to occupy and enslave Rajputana States and this understanding was done to keep the Marathas away. It was also agreed that in any territory jointly conquered, "Khalsa Ji" would have sovereign right to levy Rakhi tax in that territory. There is popular misconception that Khalsa means pure, it is mischievously propagated by that same third party. Correct meaning of Khalsa is Sovereign. Definition of Khalsa was - Khalsa Baagi ja Badshah. It means Khalsa is either a Rebel or a Sovereign. A perusal of Jaipur records confirms that the arrangement formed in March 1768 remained in force for quite a long time. Until the time I create a separate thread for this topic, if you or anyone reading this topic of discussion have any specific questions or any more inputs, may discuss over PM or email.