Often statists try to color the inhuman governmental wrongs as ‘Humanitarian’ stern acts for the safety and benefit of all.
Can one really justify the Iraq Invasion by US as a Humanitarian act to save the Iraqis from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein? One may say that Saddam was a real danger for Iraqi people and by overthrowing his regime, US actually served the welfare of Iraqis. They may say that although American Invasion killed Iraqi people, but those deaths were accidental and if Saddam’s regime has continued many people might have suffered death, penury and tortures under his tyranny.
Yet such justifications of foreign invasion is futile because nobody can know, what the future harms Saddam’s tyrannical government could have caused to the innocents or those harms if calculated properly could have been more than the harms and killings the American invasion caused on Iraqis.
That is, there is no actual reasonable way to say that Saddam would have caused any more harm to Iraqis than whatever has been actually caused by American invasion. Since there is no such real way, there can be no moral humanitarian justification for Iraq war. Nor such justification can be put forth to the American Drone invasion on Pakistan territories. Innocents are being attacked and killed in Pakistan. Children, mothers, elders are suffering the attacks. One can never say that had America not attacked Pakistan using drone missiles, Pakistanis might have suffered much more.
Since we cannot calculate about the harms that would have been caused if America had not attacked Iraq or Pakistan, we simply cannot determine the moral proper course of action, yet one thing that we know is, we should not directly murder or harm or injure the innocent, we should not jeopardize their economic and social life.
Yet that is what being done in Iraq or Afghanistan or in Pakistan by the American government, and all this is under the fake mask of Welfare of people, welfare of those people who are under attack, who are innocent and who are being killed regularly.
As a matter of fact, wars can never be justified.
Now a days, American government and media are also trying to paint Iran as a dangerous state under a tyrannical head of government. Every second day media covers an article how Iranians are suffering tyranny under Iranian regime. Will this be any moral base to justify yet another invasion by America?
Bombing civilian places full of innocent people was in no means necessary to oust Saddam, or to end his tyrannical regime. Nor is the use of very high explosives with the unmanned drone fighting planes on Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which every now and than kills the innocent public ‘unintentionally’.
How can the defenders of Iraqis or Pakistanis or Afghans claim that these deaths of Innocent people were accidental? They actually were pre-planned cold blooded murders, meant for the safety and welfare of those who were killed.
The so-called ‘smart weapons’ used by US forces, like Drones, Aerial an artillery bombardment etc failed hugely to defend the innocents, rather they killed the innocents, and are killing.

Doctrine of Double Effect

Again, government supporters claim that US forces did not aim to murder those innocents rather those innocents were unavoidably in the region of attack hence they were killed. This is known as Doctrine of Double Effect. It states that, if the injury to the innocent is controllable and proportionate, than only one can attack the culprit without considering the harm to the innocent. One cannot bombard a cricket stadium full of thirty to forty thousand audiences just because one of those audiences is a supposedly high profile terrorist. That is, just in order to encounter one terrorist or tyrant, one cannot jeopardize the life of whole audience of the cricket stadium. At most, one may try to shoot the terrorist with his gun without fearing that his missed shot may kill an innocent. Yet, in case of Iraq invasion or Drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the killing of innocents is obviously wayward and absurd. Many more innocents were killed without any proper success of actually killing or punishing the terrorists.
Obviously, all such humanitarian grounds in support of US forces invasion on Iraq or Afghanistan and Pakistan are futile. So, was the issue of nuclear warheads with Iraq a proper reason to invade Iraq, or can it be a proper ground to Invade Iran?
We now know that the intelligence reports that suggested that Saddam’s regime had nuke powers were fake and false, yet the Iran is beyond any doubt a Nuke power. Yet, Iran with Nuclear arms is a very minute matter.
USSR had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads and sophisticated delivery vehicles that were always kept in constant readiness. Yet USSR never threatened or ‘Blackmailed’ USA. How can a minute and much weak nuke Iran be of any threatening consideration to USA? Or How could have been Iraq any threat to USA even if Saddam had nuclear power?
US army also claims that Pakistani warheads are under threat and Al-Qaida may try to control them, hence they say that it is necessary to attack and end the Taliban and Al-Qaida outfits involved in Pakistan. The thing is, it is sincerely not wrong to try to kill the Taliban or Al-Qaida members, but US government has no authority or right to endanger and actually murder the innocents while trying to notch the terrorists.
Furthermore, can government justify the extremely large military budgets for which the common people are being confiscated of their wealth by means of taxation?

Attacks on our own citizens

It is not that a government can only kill the innocents in other countries. Many a times, government does not even flinch away from the possibility of killing its own citizens and that too for their own welfare.
During the Indira Gandhi regime in 1984, when a handful of terrorists lead by Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale occupied the Golden Temple, Indian government ordered attack and firing on the Golden Temple. That act was named as Operation Blue Star that killed Thousands of Innocent people along with Bhindranwale’s supporters. Those innocent people were simple religious people and Indian government actually was supposed to safeguard them. Similarly, many innocents were killed during the formation of Bangladesh by the Pakistani government.
The programmed massacre of Muslims in Gujarat against Narendra Modi’s state Gujarat government after the Godhra attack is yet to be forgotten. The list of fake encounter cases of central and state government police and special task forces keep on increasing month by month and it is all done under the mask of protecting and providing a secure welfare state for the same innocent citizens who are being butchered.
Conclusion: Just like other social welfare policies of government, the war and conflict safety policy of government also fails absurdly and instead of being a welfare state, a government lead state often turns out to be a warfare state, while wars brings no good for any one ever.

The Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India, is on the way to amend the Arms and ammunitions policy. The document issued by MHA says “Proliferation of arms and ammunition in the country disrupt the social order and development.” How true is it? As in many other issues, the conventional wisdom could be wrong. India has very strict gun control laws. In India, people were prevented from bearing arms by the British under Lord Lytton as Viceroy through the Arms act of 1878 after the mutiny of 1857. Though the Arms act, 1858 was repealed in 1959, Arms Act, 1959 was put in place, supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. As a result, there was improvement in several development indicators, after Independence, but crime rates in India have gone up several times, mostly in urban areas.

With all these gun control laws, we were not able to prevent the terrorist attacks in 2008, Mumbai. A reporter in the location was caught saying he wished he had a gun instead of a camera. Only people loyal to the British were allowed to possess arms. Many freedom fighters were opposed to this rule. Even Mahatma Gandhi opined in his Autobiography:”Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of its arms as the blackest. “I do believe that when there is only a choice between cowardice and violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless victim to her own dishonor.”

Proponents of gun control usually argue that gun rights will lead to high crime rates. Firstly, a criminal is a person who violates the law. Is it logical to assume that such a violator will obey gun control laws? A criminal planning to attempt a murder won’t think “Oh, I am sorry. I don’t have a gun. So, I am not going to do this!” In one way or the other, he will get hold of a gun or some other powerful weapon. Vikram Kona writes: “There are around 40 million illegal small arms in circulation in India. Most of them are either illegally smuggled in or manufactured in the illegal cottage industries. Criminals never apply for licenses, nor do they spend a fortune to buy illegal guns. They get them cheaply and easily on the black market, and use them against law abiding citizens with impunity.” Gun control would only disarm innocent, law abiding citizens. Secondly, there is no empirical evidence to prove that gun rights lead to severe crimes. Quite the contrary, in fact! Nations with the highest crime rates are the ones with the strictest gun control laws. The low crime rate of Switzerland is illuminating. Violent crime skyrocketed after gun measures were prohibited in Australia in the last 90’s. When Washington D.C. enacted a ban on handguns, homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. Often, it is argued that Gun controls are the reason for the low crime rate in UK. There are two points to be noted here. Crime rates were extremely low in UK, even before the hand gun ban. Crime rate rocketed after the ban. As it is said, “Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.” A study by the US Department of Justice found that there were 40 percent more muggings in England, and burglary rates were almost 100 percent higher than in the United States.

It follows from the philosophy of self-ownership and the right to own property that people have the right to defend their lives and property- If necessary, by force. If so, people should have the right to bear arms. It goes without saying that people should be held accountable for their actions too. But, it makes no sense to punish a person before the criminal act is performed. It is absurd to prevent some people from being armed simply because there are people who use guns for wrong purposes. Why should ones rights be determined by the actions of others? Should a person be prevented from driving an automobile as others drive recklessly? (People killed by their own guns are an extremely rare minority) Charles Reese perceptively noted: “To believe that guns cause crime is as stupid as believing that hammers and saws cause houses. Cars and doctors kill a lot more people than firearms, but nobody wants to ban them.” There is even an NRA slogan: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Not for a single moment am I saying that gun rights will prevent crimes. But, people will have a more chance of protecting themselves if they are free to defend themselves. Murderers, thieves and terrorists would think twice before attacking their victims if there is a chance that they are armed. Women and physically weak people could be made strong only through gun rights. It’s ridiculous to expect policemen to be omnipresent. Defending oneself is a skill which anyone can acquire.

It should also be said that a ban of guns won’t eliminate guns from the society. There will always be people who get hold of guns, just like people have access to drugs despite of strict penalty. Such laws can only be enforced selectively. Almost always, people who are not in good terms with the authorities will be punished. The real intention of the people in power is to increase their power through disarming people. Gun control is the greatest threat to individual liberty.

While accepting “Noble Peace Prize” at Oslo, Obama did not forget to mention his recent decision to escalate conflict in Afghanistan soil. He further argued that his decision to increase 30,000 some more US troops in Afghanistan is justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism and to maintain peace.
In short, Obama declared that wars are essential for the establishment of peace. He also paid his tribute to his “Heroes” Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Some will say that Obama wrongly mentioned Mahatma Gandhi as his ideal; Mahatma Gandhi obviously is known as apostle of peace and pacifism. How could a Gandhian support wars? Could Gandhi be a supporter of wars? Are not wars the ultimate and most excruciating form of violence?
It is a well known fact that wars ultimately causes violence, wastage and poverty. Yet, if some nation is all set to attack you and threat other nation, than the nation under the threat of attack would presumably try to defend itself. Self-defence is a natural right, no one can argue against it. Self-defence cannot be termed as violence. Yet, what about pre-emptive wars?
Is it right to attack a nation just because it may or may not attack you in future?
Does self-defence includes pre-emptive wars to be staged in order to dishevel and destroy the other nations. Is it necessary to destroy and defeat all in order to establish peace? Are wars necessary to sustain peace?

Mahatma Gandhi on Wars

As Obama reverberates himself as being a disciple of Gandhi, we should look at Gandhi’s attitude about Wars. Gandhi ji was obviously against staging any war, he was a supporter of Non-violence, yet there was not a war that he did not support. He supported all the wars in his life time. The apostle of peace Gandhi himself supported British in the Boer War, Zulu War, WW1, WW2.
In 1914, Gandhi himself joined British army as volunteer for the Ambulance corp. to serve the injured Indian and British soldiers at Zulu war. One may understand his compassion for the suffering of soldiers; he was not taking part in active violence.
Yet, in April 1918, Mahatma Gandhi urged Indian youth to take part in British army as war recruits. Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India’s independence, he deemed it necessary to take part in the war.² He might have considered it as pacifist way of non-violence, that is rather than fighting against the British rulers, let the Indian youth fight for the British Empire and in turn demand or beg independence as reward. It should be mentioned that while he openly demanded Indian youths to help British army in World War1, he felt aghast when some Indian youth tried to protest against British brutality on Indians “violently” and because of that, he took his Non-cooperation movement back in 1922.³ Obviously, Gandhi was strictly against any form of violence against British Empire by Indians, yet he was ready to recruit Indian youths to kill enemies of British empire, including the Zulu protesters. For Gandhi, the most necessary peace was, peace of Indians against British Empire.
For Gandhi, the pacifist form of war in order to establish and sustain peace was non-violent, hence although he urged Indian youths to fight and die in battle grounds for British Empire, he also maintained that Indian youths must not fight against British rulers in India, because that would be direct violence, and that was not acceptable to Gandhi. Why was Gandhi ready to recruit Indian youths to “co-operate” with British Army in Imperial wars, while he himself was launching the Non-cooperation movement?
During the WW2 again, Pacifist Mahatma Gandhi again favored offering Indian moral support to British army in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Obviously, it seemed right decision as Nazi Germany obviously was violent. Yet, when other leaders of India objected Indian youth’s inclusion in British war, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi drafted a resolution demanding for British to Quit India. Obviously, his pacifist support for British army during the wars became the saddle of deal for Indian independence. Gandhi realized that British Empire would be exhausted after the two consecutive world wars and hence he declared that even if some Indians directly fight violently against British Empire, he would not take his Quit India demand this time as he did after the World War1.⁴
He knew it was the ripe time to force exhausted British Empire to Quit India.
Thus, it can be seen that if Obama mentions that he took his inspirations from Mahatma Gandhi, he does not sound hypocrite or wrong.

Changing standards of Noble peace prize community

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for Noble Peace prize many a times, but he was rejected every time. The last time Gandhi was nominated, the Noble prize committee rejected Gandhi because of his known support for Indo-Pak war.
Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:

“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause, he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan, they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.”⁵

That became the reason for Gandhi’s rejection for Noble price of peace.
Yet now, when every body is familiar with Obama’s support for Afghanistan war, when Obama himself argues and justifies his decision to escalate combat against Afghanistan on the platform while receiving the Noble price, nobody really think that he should not get a Noble because his support to wars.
Maybe now, the Noble Committee agrees that War is necessary for maintaining peace and that preventive war are a part of establishment of peace. Obviously, this is a change in the attitude. Gandhi was rejected the Noble for his support to war against Pakistan in order to keep peace, while Obama has been given Noble despite of his support to war at Afghanistan to keep peace.

How Gandhian Idea would help Afghanistan Situation?

Pacifism of Gandhi suggest that the native Afghans should openly help US troops in order to fight against Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and after the end of Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, the Afghans should peaceful demand evacuation of US troops from Afghanistan. That is the appropriate way and it will ensure the non-violence of Afghans supporting US army against Taliban. Gandhi might have urged Afghan youth to recruit themselves along with US troops to fight against Taliban. A Gandhian may request Indian government too, to help US army to fight against Taliban as a “pre-emptive non-violent measure to maintain peace.”

Libertarian Idea on Pre-emptive Wars

Unlike Pacifists, a libertarian does not believe in preventive wars. A libertarian cannot support an attack on a nation or a person on the name of defensive necessity. The right to self-defense does not mean to attack first in order to remove any chances of being under attack. Libertarian sense of Self-Defense necessarily means No use of Violence at first but full right to defend yourself within your limits if you are being attacked. An Indian libertarian might not have thought of fighting for British Empire and than to argue for his own independence. Rather he would have preferred to fight against the British Empire, as they were the invaders, attackers because self-defense is not a right, it is basically a duty of a freedom lover, a Libertarian, or a Libertarian might have simply adopted non-cooperation in all accounts, including no-operation for British Empire in their wars too.
Unlike a pacifist Gandhian, a libertarian will oppose Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan and will demand a sudden end to all war fronts, just like Ron Paul did during his famous Libertarian speech “What If” in assembly–

1. Obama :War has a role in Peace, Times of India
2. Role of Mahatma Gandhi in WW1, Wikipedia
3. Mahatma Gandhi, Non-cooperation, Wikipedia
4. World War2 and Quit India, Wikipedia
5. Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate, Nobleprize.org

1. Liberhan Commission, wikipedia
2. Babri Demolition meticulously planned: Liberhan Commission, Indian express
3. Liberhan Commission report, PDF file

“Sir, you need to immediately visit St-Tropez and beaches in France as Pakistan has coastal areas that could be built on similar lines to attract foreign tourists,” Senator Enver Baig advised the minister. The proposal was readily endorsed by other participants of the meeting held on Wednesday.¹

The Minister believes that visiting foreign beaches will broaden Mr Rehman’s “intellectual” horizon.
Obviously, peeping on topless beach-goers will certainly increase the “intellect”.
Anyways, what do you think about the ban of alcohol in Gujarat?
Gujarat also has a big shoreline that can easily be converted to well-maintained private or government supported tourist line.
Recently after the Mumbai terrorist attack, Indian Intelligence pointed out the doubt that terrorist might have entered Indian coastal lines through Gujarat sea area.²
If Government allow and inspire private investors to develop Gujarat coastal area, that will provide enough reason to keep a keen eye at Indian shores with a proper safety need to abort any such further attempt by terrorists or attackers.
In addition, it will create jobs and options to produce wealth and that will reduce poverty. As the private investors on the Gujarat shoreline will be earning from it, they will provide or innovate a better and proper safety net to protect their consumers and visitors and foreign tourists.
Yet, the problem of Gujarat coastal lines will face the same situation as the Pakistan Ministry is facing. Alcohol is completely abolished in Gujarat. When in 2007, CM Modi tried to relieve bans on alcohol, congress politicians opposed the move, claiming it is against Gandhiji’s moral and disrespect for all Gujarat if government allows sale of alcohol.
Should we send all such Indian politicians to seashores of south France too along with Mr Rehman? They may also experience the increase of “intellect” then.
Indians exclaim about there pseudo-secularism pompously, but the reality is, India is no better than any theocracy like Pakistan where the political goons keep teaching and preaching Morality and culture every now and then.

1. Tourism, Islam, ban on liquor and advice to visit foreign beaches, The International News
2. Terrorist knocking on Indian Doors, Reason for Liberty

The first Irony of the political freedom is the very logic of democracy¹ which just seeks a 50% + 1 as the mandatory majority for any democratic resolution to get through. Even though this tyranny of majority on the free will of the minority defies all logic of individual liberty and freedom, it is still hailed as one of the most fair and just political systems which at any time represents will of the majority of its citizens. For instance we may have voted against the present regime of government, but we still honor outcome of a democratic contest and accept its decision as our own. In American context Barak Obama² is president of each and every American irrespective of whom they voted in the election. The moment we accept this as a fact and with our free will decides to follow and exercise democracy, we cannot exonerate ourselves thereafter from consequence of any decision our representatives take on our behalf. Citizens of nations under monarchies, or military dictatorship or for that matter under a communist regimes, where irrespective of the civic freedom, political freedom is considerable negligible, can feign away from this responsibility. It is so that Iraqi citizens cannot be held responsible for the gulf war but American citizens have to shoulder their part of responsibility for the event. It can thus be stated that freedom is a great privilege and power and with it comes great responsibility.

Let us now examine the nature of freedom, what is its essence, what really constitutes our idea of freedom and how it manifests in our day to day life and society. If you equate freedom to lawlessness, some kind of manifestation of wild, where there are no laws no regulations to follow, we would arrive at rather dubious conclusions out of it. Many war trodden countries of Africa where civic administration has completely collapsed, there exist no civic laws for that matter no traffic laws. You don’t have to stop at every red light that you encounter on the road, and can even get away with a murder for that matter. Will it be then prudent to state that citizens of these seemingly lawless countries enjoy more freedom than countries with democratic set ups like India or America? The answer is an obvious no, and as to why these civic laws and regulations do not infringe our freedom is simply because these laws exist as an exercise of free will and rationality at the first place. As rational human beings we felt the need for these laws and so it was imposed on ourselves and our society. In addition we reserve the rights to amend or remove the laws that are found to be inappropriate or have out lived its utility. We have choice with these laws but once in place we need to follow them, similarly we do have choice with our governance, but once in place we have to bear with it till its allocated period in office is over. There are provisions of impeachments and dissolution of government available in democratic set ups, It is however a rather difficult task and quite out of hand with respect to an ordinary citizen.

The second Irony of democratic political freedom is that although we do have a choice, we do not have choice of action but merely choice of electing representatives who would thereafter act on our behalf. Even though governments do try and sway the public opinion in their favor over major issues of national interest, it is merely a political compulsion rather than political necessity. Political freedom thus essentially manifests in the truest sense in a very brief window. It is the time when we exercise our liberty to choose our representatives and empower them to take decisions on our behalf. Thereafter public opinion acts merely as a subtle pressure on the political forum.

Idealistically we can at this point denounce the very concept of democratic political freedom, and argue that we have indeed got very little on the name of freedom.³ Pragmatically however we all are aware that democracy is here to stay. It has established itself as one of the most stable and effective forms of governance. Society is not yet grown to accept anarchy and dissolution of state as a viable solution. If we are to accept this fact then the only solution we are left with is to revitalize and strengthen democracies. Find means to plug the loopholes existing in the system and make it as foolproof and workable as possible.

At this juncture let us re-examine our idea of freedom. If we dissect our concept of freedom we would realize that it finally manifests merely as some choices that we get to make. How dimensionless free will gets limited to freedom to make certain choice would be a philosophical ordeal for us to fathom. It is also perhaps beyond the scope of this article, but what needs to be crucially examined is if the choices that we finally make are rational and a legitimate exercise of free will. Although lots of studies exist on mind and its nature both in philosophy and psychology, one that especially pertains to our context is Hegelian dialectics named after Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel a nineteenth century philosopher. He in his philosophical work examined the very nature of human reality as a prelude to understanding human choices emanating out of it. Hegelian dialectics state that our reality consist of two essential part a thesis (what it is subset) and an antithesis (what it is not subset) and our idea of reality a synthesis (a superset) of both. It applies to both perceptual reality and conceptual reality that our minds can figure. For instance idea of color red is incomplete without having an idea of both what red color is and what it is not. If you see everything red you cannot distinguish it from any other color. A blind man is presumed to see everything dark or black, but a person who is born blind cannot explain the concept of darkness, for he has never seen any light to distinguish his perception as one of darkness. Conceptual realities to same phenomenon exists our idea of good is incomplete without an idea of bad. That is if there is no conception of bad there is no conception of good either. A good example for this would be movies of super heroes. The moment we create a super hero we need to create a super villain to validate his existence. What use is spider man if he was to just deal with petty thieves and burglars who are no match to his powers. Only through induction of a super villain and his triumph over this villain can we really accept him as a super hero. Almost every religion conceived the idea of bad and evil the moment they conceived the idea of good and God. Without dwelling in further detail this duality or dichotomy of our reality let us examine its implication on our idea of freedom and choices that we tend to make.

The applied studies of this concept are popularly known as perception management also quite infamously known as problem- reaction-solution among conspiracy theorist. The point however is not how extensively it has been used the state but the viability of the whole idea and its implication on our freedom. If we are to be denied any part of the information both from thesis or antithesis front our perception of reality will alter dramatically. Our perception further has lacunae which are known in psychological parlance as availability heuristics and confirmation bias. Simply put our minds have a tendency to put one and one together at the first available opportunity and thereafter have a tendency to stick to this idea even when presented with contradicting information. This phenomenon is also brought forth in the popular idiom ‘First impression is the last impression’.
Both America and India, the strongest and the largest democracies in the world have had instances of 9/11 and 26/11⁴ respectively wherein there was an equal failure in the part of intelligence administration and also at the later stages states ability to tackle a developing disaster. The perception of the public was however managed away from these glaring failures of state administration to external enemies, on whom the whole blame was fixed. There is so much of red tape-ism which regulates and at times manages the flow of information between the state and its citizens that it is practically possible for the state to actually do what these conspiracy theorist claim.

How is it then that we can really envisage a more enduring freedom for ourselves?⁵ The answer lies in slowly dis-empowering the state. To start with government must have no control over the media. Media must not be state run at all as far as possible and it must be kept insulated from other instruments of state. Media itself however has to rise to the need of the hour and act in an utmost responsible manner. In addition all other instruments of state like judiciary, policing and investigation must be privatised or private players must also be included to prevent state from manipulating these instruments to get public perception in their favour.

It is very necessary at this juncture that we make some modifications to our idea of freedom itself. Most of us tend to carry an 18th century baggage with respect to this concept. To many a people, slavery is when one is chained and made to work like an animal and relatively anything else is more or less freedom. Many others misinterpret self governance to freedom. To most Indians, India was free before the English came and free thereafter. Not many are able to really apply logic and explain how is it that a rule of Indian monarchic ruler better than rule of queen of Britain. Post independence which is also termed as freedom struggle, India happened to inherit the concept of democracy from Britain itself. It is what is now celebrated as the coveted freedom by most. If we have to make progress towards ensuring that our so called freedom has some real viability. If we have our choices marked out clear in light of reason and justice and not on some manipulated emotional or non consequential agenda brought forth by political parties to sway our judgment, we have to first admit the limitation and nature of freedom that have in our hand and thereafter make endeavor to improve upon it by slowly dis-empowering the state and reducing its power to more manageable limits. At this moment we are far away from it and in fact moving in opposite direction. The new anti terror laws in India and patriotic acts⁶ in America are instances of such infringement of our freedom to further incapacitating levels. It is for us to decide which way we would like to move and exercise our choice before we are left with none.

1. Impasse of Democracy, Voting is not a solution, it is a Killer
2. Killing Instinct of President,Barack Obama
3. Need of Individual Autonomy,Reason for Liberty
4. Terrorist attack on Hotel Taj, 26/11/08
5. Sovereign Citizen, Sovereign state
6. UAPA and Patriot Act, Military Keynesianism

Worth Mentioning::So let me suggest a truly audacious hope for your administration: How about a five-year time-out on war – unless, of course, there is a genuine threat to the nation?⁴

1. Obama ordered attack on Pakistan, 23rd of January, Times Online UK.
2. Obama ordered Missile attack on pakistan on 26th of january, TOI
3. Paul Krugman, after the 9/11 attacks
4. Calling a Time Out

For decades, secretaries of defense helped to justify their gargantuan budget requests by claiming that high levels of military spending would be “good for the economy” and that reduced military spending would cause recession. So common did this argument become that Marxist critics gave it the apt name military Keynesianism. On both the right and the left, people believed that huge military spending propped up an economy that, lacking this support, would collapse into depression. Such thinking played an important part in the political process that directed about $15 trillion (in today’s dollars) into Cold War military spending⁶ between 1948 and 1990. Nor did the argument disappear even after the Soviet Union unsportingly left the playing field.
Military Keynesianism has enough surface plausibility that it garnered a substantial following in certain quarters even before Keynes’s General Theory gave it apparent intellectual respectability. In his 1944 book As We Go Marching⁷ John T. Flynn noted as a fact “this devotion of the conservative elements to military might,” and he emphasized that “militarism is the one great glamorous public-works project upon which a variety of elements in the community can be brought into agreement.” He understood, however, that military public-works spending has far graver consequences than ordinary Keynesian pyramid building. “Inevitably, having surrendered to militarism as an economic device, we will do what other countries have done: we will keep alive the fears of our people of the aggressive ambitions of other countries and we will ourselves embark upon imperialistic enterprises of our own.” Flynn deserves high marks as a prophet.

Thus, it shows why it is possible for Pakistan to support terrorism, wars and havoc even in a situation when it is economically devastated. Just before Mumbai attacks, Pakistan was begging money from international communities to pay for its charges.
As the general thinking of Mixed economy governments is that government spending helps economy, it is quite possible that Pakistan planned it all.
Now one may say that Pakistan was already spending allot on Afghanistan border along-with America. We all know that Pakistani people just do not support US and its anti-terror strikes. In order to gain public confidence and gather the military power properly devoted for an aim, Pakistan needed to create a situation. After Mumbai attacks, Indian government got enraged and started making international pressure on Pakistan, and Pakistan got a chance to move its forces towards Indian borders. Now public has more important issue to handle for instead of opposing and criticizing Pakistani government. Against India, they are all united, and that brings confidence in government. Thus, more than anything, the reason behind all Pakistani military efforts since long past is the Keynesian mixed Economy, government regulated economy based on Military Keynesianism.
Is India immune to this Keynesian mixed economy madness?
We all know Indian government and politicians like our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is staunch Keynesian economist. As he said in his interview.⁸

It clarifies that in any recession or downturn, a government, be it Indian, or Pakistanis, or Chinese, or US government, may go for wars and mass murders, and what would be the reason? Just to bring economy out of recession or depression or deflation.
Such is the effect of Mixed economy government controlled economy.
In His article, Higgs clarifies that these entire Keynesian hypothesis is nothing but a myth. Austrian economists have been opposing all this madness since always, yet American government almost always followed the Military Keynesianism idea and so is Indian government is hell bent to do it. The recent tension on borders and Media are just phase of it. Just some days ago, Indian government announced the draconian UAPA law which is no better than the Patriot act. India is demanding missiles from US. How logical it is to go for an Arm’s race? Should government waste tax-payers money in such infertile activities?
Does spending on worthless unproductive things help anybody?
After 9/11 attacks, Paul Krugman⁹ suggested that there will be favorable effects of the terrorist attack.
Yet that is how almost all government’s act. After 2001 recession in USA, US troops engaged in severe attacks on Iraq. Was it Keynesian Mixed economy effect?

The U.S. is likely to increase further spending on defense and on rebuilding the infrastructure that has been destroyed. This would ultimately create a positive sentiment in an already lethargic American economy, says Oommen A. Ninan¹⁰ .

Again there is recession, and Obama is a Keynesian. He knows he cannot keep US military fighting in Iraq, thus, he has announced stronger troops in Afghanistan.
In such a situation, is there possibility for Indian government to waste money on such needless wars? While discussing Indian Reserve Bank Dilemma, we showed how fear of recession is senseless as it clears out all “non-productive-activities” and helps the market to revamp and gain stability. We further discussed that injecting money in market would be a wrong cause as it would further increase the percentage of bad assets. We discussed how “Bail Outs” never help an economy but further increase the burden. We, the citizens of India and Pakistan do want peace, yet is it possible?
It is quite obvious that any governmental intervention in economics causes harm alone. Yet, the biggest harm to human kind can be wars terrorism and Military Keynesianism.

1. Military Keynesianism, Wikipedia Link
2. Keynesian economics, Wikipedia Link
3. Robert Higgs, Independent.org
4. Military Keynesianism was refuted in 1945-47, Independent.org
5. Higgs,Independent.org
6. Cold War military spending between 1948 and 1990, Independent.org
7. As We Go Marching, John T. Flynn
8. he says here,sikhtimes.com
9. Paul KrugmanHis article
10. Oommen A. Ninan, The Hindu

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. ~~Ayn Rand

Hello Dr. Piazza,

I am writing this letter to you as a long time Front Sight newsletter subscriber.

I always wanted to take a few courses in your institute.

I am from India and a big supporter of Second Amendment.

I write this letter to you in wake of the recent events in Mumbai. That massacre of Indian, American and Israeli Citizens by armed Islamic terrorists.

India has draconian gun laws.

To currently keep a gun you have demonstrate a direct threat on your life, and surrender it as soon as the threat is gone. You need to go to the police station every month and show your gun for a checkup to the police officer there, show the bullets you have, in case if you fired them then show the casings and tell them where you used them.

Not just civilians even police officers who use their weapons have to collect the casings to be included in their report of where and why did they fire their weapon.

In simple words, it is an example of a society which has completely disarmed itself. It is like a bunch of sheep.

The terrorists which landed in Mumbai through sea routes were armed to the teeth.

They got into a car, and shot people, moved a bit forward threw a grenade here and there and moved forward again to wreck havoc. They knew one thing, it will be impossible for the police to react in that short amount of time, and public has no guns to use on them.

They finally got into the Five Star hotels where they would find plenty of foreigners, mainly American, British and Israeli citizens and held them hostages. Again nobody has any guns anywhere.

The Indian government quickly mobilized their police officers, but the best of them were shot dead by the terrorists.

I have made the case for Gun Rights in India from a long time, and every time I talk about relaxing the gun laws, I am usually kicked out of the discussions and banned from online forums. One moderator even said “We take proud in being a society free from guns, and where Guns are not easily accessible to people.”

Indians are always afraid of having a “gun culture”(the term given to America’s fascination with guns), coming to India. Every time there is a school shooting incident in India, they claim “we’re afraid that gun culture has come to India”.

What they never talk about the number of deaths, and gang rapes which can be prevented by guns during a riot. India may not have a gun culture, but it definitely has a Riot Culture.

In an average riot at least a 100 people are killed and dozens of women are raped and murdered.

How are they so easily able to do such things?

Because people don’t have guns.

When a Hindu or Muslim(the biggest riots in India are among Hindus and Muslims) family which has nothing to do with riots is hiding in the safety of their house, they have nothing to defend themselves from, and a rioting gang comes in armed with nothing but Molotov cocktails and long blades.

The whole family is killed, if there are women in the house they are caught and raped then killed. If there are no women, then the family is just burnt alive.

Many people say that the rioters might be more armed than the family if gun laws are loosened, well even in that case, the rioters will not be able to go far, they will not be able to cover more houses if they keep on taking even small amount of casualties from each house.

Maybe a suicide bombing may not be prevented by civilian ownership of firearms, but an attack of Mumbai’s nature and this scale can definitely be tackled by the scores of people affected by the attacks.

I would like you to cover this incidence, and your views upon it in your next newsletter.

Five star hotels (many of them are a part of American hotel chains) have been the favorite target of terrorists in recent time (Mariott Hotel bombing in Pakistan, and the yesterday’s attack in India). The hotel executives, the staff never carry any kind of guns.

If I were the owner of any of these hotels, I would fly over my staff to Nevada Front Sight, and have them trained in firearm and security courses.

It is my dream to see Gun Rights in India in my lifetime.

Regards

PS: Here is the Face of a Terrorist

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [1774-1775]

Although Indians always respected the ideals of Ahimsa, and regarded Gandhi as the Mahatma, but what were Gandhi’s own views about the Gun-Control?
Gandhi criticized the Gun-Control law vehemently and said—

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)

British had a reason to oppose freedom of Indians to own a gun, an instrument for self-defense, but after the Independence, it was well-sought by the Indians that such ridiculous and anti-freedom act will be removed as soon as possible.
India got independence in 1947, yet it took almost 12 years to repeal the Indian-Arms-Act. In 1959, free Indian government denounced the Indian Arms Act of 1878 and enacted the Arms Act of 1959. Nevertheless, India was still struggling with the distrust of government against its own people. The Indian Government started License-Raj and the legislation gave enormous powers to the Licensing Authority to decide whether a common honest law abiding citizen can hold a gun or not.
It was the era of communistic impressions on India

“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

As all other departments, government strictly controlled the arms production and private arms manufacturing industry completely.
Obviously, it was all done to reduce the ongoing dangers of secession at Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, Mizoram and Nagaland borders, and to decrease the dangers of Naxalism.
However, during the mid 1980′s the government put an end to all small arms import because of the rising dangers of terrorism and seized the little freedom for private arms manufacturing units.
Government never considered that not a single terrorist or criminal ever used a licensed arm; still it made owning an arm legally near to impossible. Thus, the honest law abiding citizen was disarmed completely.
On the other hand, the black market of illegal arms started flourishing in every next city of India and crime kept increasing continuously.
It is a fact that licensed arms are far less dangerous than motorcycles or city buses.
It is also a fact that Gun-Control provides a certainty to the criminal that the victim, who mostly is an honest law-abiding citizen, is unarmed. The situation goes as-
Less guns, more crimes.
Most violent crimes, including the terrorist attacks and religious riots are committed using illegal arms and there is no way to trace and stop the illegal arms trade. Terrorists or underworld criminals are not going to respect gun-control laws, they seldom respects any law. They will be willing to gain any arms of their choice and will use them to commit crimes. Government always ignored the fact that in India it is much easier and cheaper to buy an illegal weapon than to own a legal weapon, and why will a criminal or terrorist try to get a legal weapon? Legal weapon are for self-defence by the law-abiding citizens only, and government makes them rare, government makes it impossible for the honest citizen to defend himself against the criminals.
Who can oppose owning a gun for self-defence? Who can oppose the right to self-defence?

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

Was it possible for the rioting mob of Aligarh and Bhopal in 1993 to kill those hundreds of innocent if they had a gun, an instrument for their self-defence? Was Godhra riot or Best Bakery massacre, or Mumbai Riots or Golden temple Massacre possible if the common law-abiding citizen had a chance to defend himself?
We say our sisters and mothers to learn martial arts to defend themselves against the rapists and women haters. How would a rapist be able to abduct a working girl while returning from her work to rape her if he knows she owns a gun for her self-defense? At present, he knows she has no way to defend herself, her cries will not be strong enough to call back some cop to defend her and he attacks the girls freely, but what if he comes to realize that she can shoot him pretty well.
When a person owns a gun, he becomes godlike with special powers to harm and attack others. When a person owns a bike, he becomes godlike to run faster than the air. Do all bike owners commits accidents and kill people on roads through rash driving? So yes, it may be a case that some people may abuse the gun-power but mostly owning a gun makes a person responsible and careful enough to use it properly. Can anyone deny that despite of all dangers of road accidents, bikes, cars, and mopeds are a necessary need and a modern power as bless of god for the common man? A legal gun will be just another power for the honest citizen against the criminals to defend self.
Arms are free for the criminals and terrorists. Crimes and riots are free for the criminals and evil doers. However, when the evil-doers and criminals know it with certainty that the honest law-abiding citizen is defenseless; they become more audacious and adamant. If the Law-Abiding citizen owns the guns, the power to defend themselves against any sort of riots or crimes, it is clear that no or very few will even think and try to create any riot on the name of religion or caste.
Some people wonder on the removal of gun-control, will the violence increase abruptly.
Guns are not necessary for killing and domestic violence is already up. Nevertheless, if the physical weakness of women against the violent male is counter equated by the ownership of gun by a woman, it will certainly reduce the chances of domestic violence.
As a matter of fact, Indian Laws or so much strict that a common citizen cannot even hold a stick, on the other hand, even the constables are now allowed to hold a gun but they are empowered with Lathis, Lathis to lathicharge the mob.
A Mob with illegal guns and grenades can not be controlled by lathis.
When the police cannot defend itself, how is it going to defend a common citizen?
The honest law-abiding citizen needs to demand for the right of self-defence, and government should help him by removing gun-control.

“And for God’s sake, let us stop reiterating that clichéd”Sprit of Mumbai” retort. Yes Mumbai is strong and resilient and shall not be cowed down by any such occurrence. But let us not conveniently use it as our cover sheet; pull it over our heads and go off to sleep. Because that is what has been happening every time. Incidents of grave disaster have continued to be camouflaged with ‘oh, this is Mumbai, we have a great spirit, we will spring back’. Fine, we will, of course. But who is assuring us that the disaster will not !!
As an Indian, I need to live in my own land, on my own soil with dignity and without fear. And I need an assurance on that.
I am ashamed to say this and not afraid to share this now with the rest of the cyber world, that last night, as the events of the terror attack unfolded in front of me I did something for the first time and one that I had hoped never ever to be in a situation to do.
Before retiring for the night, I pulled out my licensed .32 revolver, loaded it and put it under my pillow. For a very disturbed sleep.”

Luckily, Amitabh possesses a licensed gun; most of the Indians do not possess any instrument to defend themselves. Although they have got an illusive sense of right to self-defence, or do they don’t have that right?
Everybody is praising the Navy Marcos and NSG Commandos for the safety operation they carried out at Nariman House, Oberoi Trident and Taj-Heritage. Sure they deserves the praise for the pain-staking efforts they put forth to save the innocents against the terrorists. But was the effort efficient enough? So why did it took almost 3 days to end up an attack of 8 people?
And can we ignore the security lapse of whole system? We can say that it was wrong of terrorists to attack the innocent, but what about the wrong of lethargic attitude of the security forces and the government’s unwillingness to safeguard the innocent citizens? Will this attack make them aware of their own faults?
It is so easy for Indians to point against Pakistan, but can we forget that it is more of Indian intelligence fault and breach of security net? Ohh well we pay for our security, we pay taxes. Even we are disallowed to hold guns for our own security and safety, and yet we are not safe.
What will be the aftermath of Mumbai attacks? Will we make a better security net, more efficient, more sensitive? Or will the political parties keep on their dogs-bark, complaining each other for gaining vote banks?
May be Congress will loose some votes during the current going state elections and the upcoming general elections. May be the central government will change. Will that change make any good? I don’t think so.
With Islamist terrorists carrying out the Mumbai-attacks, communal politics could again become an election issue. There could be a backlash against Muslims by radical Hindu groups, and that will increase religious tensions. There have been reports that Hindu radicals have already carried out bombings this year in revenge for suspected Islamist attacks. So the waters are not going to ease down easily.
While whole world is already experiencing the greatest economic downturn since the last seven decades, this terrorist attack will halt and affect Indian economy too.
Cricket matches being denounced, and ICL being postponed, the effects are quite visible. Tourism will slow down for a while, though it will come back. But yes the poor will suffer because of the temporary effect.
Indo-Pak relations will obviously slow-down. Irrespective of Indian intelligence failure, Indian authorities will blame Pakistan majorly in an attempt to ignore the questions arising on government and Indian bureaucratic security systems.
Recently railway ministry was seeking grounds for Private-Public partnership in railways at Mumbai.
Can there be grounds for Public-Private security systems too? That will increase competence, competition and efficiency of the security net.

The biggest concern right now for Indian bloggers all over the blogosphere is:

Why don’t we pay our taxes?

We don’t care to vote; we don’t care to pay tax; we don’t care to know our rights; we don’t care to stand-up for our rights.

It was caused by “too much freedom“

The Indian media has singularly failed in its duty, by unwittingly abetting the agenda of the terrorists. Lest the media forget, there is no “freedom sans responsibility”.

That’s right guys, nobody is really able to understand a simple fact that if terrorists decide to come through sea, or somehow sneak into city, and start shooting in a heavily crowded market, there are very little options left.

Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, New Delhi, Hyderabad etc are very crowded cities, they have millions of people, and they interact at busy market places almost every day. If a terrorist decides to start shooting people on any random day they are bound to get 100 people pretty easily.

Scenario 1

The terrorists can get into local train of Bombay, since Guns don’t require a lot of baggage their AK47 could be in their small suitcase. They take it out and start shooting at passengers, there are at least 40+ people in a small crowded compartment in Mumbai’s local trains during weekday rush hour. Since he is shooting from an assault rifle, nobody dares to tackle him down, people jump from moving train, someone pulls off the chain the terrorists in other compartments get down and start shooting at the running people.
Since the train stopped in the middle of nowhere, there is no police force anywhere near. The terrorists throw grenades on the other bogies.
Terrorists: 4-5
Logistics: Assault Weapons, Hand Grenades
Casualties: 40-80
Injured: 200+

Scenario 2

Terrorists enter Goa through sea during New Year’s eve celebration, Goa is full of European tourists at that time. So many westerners, and that’s an opportunity standing for them. They have assault weapons they are firing at people in a party, throwing grenades and since most of the people are drunk, they are unable to run to safety.
Though Police and NSG might respond early, but how many forces are we going to devote to protect foreign tourists?
Terrorists: 10-12
Logistics: AK-47, M16, Hand Grenades
Casualties: 10-20 European Citizens
Injured: 100+

Scenario 3

Trained terrorists do exactly what they did in Mumbai, in some other city except this time they are heavily trained in urban warfare by special forces to do maximum damage in urban setup.
Basically its 27th Nov attacks on Mumbai all over, except this time they inflict 10 times more casualties.
Terrorists: 30-50
Logistics: AK-27, M-16, Hand Grenades
Casualties: 300-400 people dead
Injured: 1000+

Solution

One possible solution to all the above given scenarios is we train our Police force with special training, make SWAT forces, give more and more authority to police, give them the power to arrest any individual at any point based only on suspicion, force every citizen to carry IDs. Basically turn the whole nation into a Police state.

The other solution is more strong solution, its a more long term solution with a lot of positive side effects. The only problem is that it requires huge balls to dare go in that direction, and that is we start arming our society. We train our mothers and sisters in using weapons. We make it compulsory in high schools and colleges to learn to use weapons.

We make our society so heavily armed that forget terrorists from neighboring nation, the rapists and the burglars get three bullets from three different guns by the time they fall on ground.

Sadly as usual I expect people to “reject” the “gun culture” of America.
Reminds me of the Battle of Plassey when Sir Robert Clive bribed Mir Jafar and defeated Bengal’s Nawab, and Robert Clive wrote this back to England:

“After we captured 20,000 Prisoners of War from Nawab’s army, we took a precession of our victory in the evening. Thousands of Indian peasants came to see the procession, but what really bothered me was that had they started throwing even one stone by a person all 1000 of the British soldiers would have been dead, and the outcome of battle overturned. But nothing happened, nobody did anything.”

Vlasak said the bombers likely were not trying to hurt Feldheim, but were instead “trying to send a message to this guy, who won’t listen to reason, that if he doesn’t stop hurting animals, more drastic measures will be taken … it’s certainly not an initial tactic, but a tactic of last resort.”

Last week in America at CA, the animal rights activists bombed two UC Santa Cruz biologists; they exploded the car of one of the scientists and bombed the house of other scientist which caused him some minor injuries while he was trying to safeguard his family against the attack.
Obviously such an attack on a researcher or scientist whose work includes introducing genes into living mouse brains, and is aimed at understanding how brain connections form during development, with special focus on the visual system and is important to learn how to fix these connections after damage due to injury or disease is reprehensible. After all it will be we, the beneficiaries of such researches and scientific discoveries, won’t we be?
What if some mad animal rights activist had stopped Alexander Fleming from researching over cows to discover cure of the smallpox, the penicillin?
It is not surprising when supporters of animal ‘rights’ use violence and intimidation, because their cause is fundamentally anti-human and it is almost as similar to the attacks of religious bigots and terrorists attacking people whole round the world for some anti-human cause or other.
Animal rights activists assert that their purpose is to stop superfluous suffering inflicted on animals for no reason. But that is just a false smokescreen. They fight against such benign practices as keeping animals in circuses and zoos, or even as pets–no matter how well-loved and well-cared-for they are. To worsen things, they oppose the use of animals in scientific research, no matter how compassionately they are treated and no matter how many lives could be saved from the medical advances this makes possible.
And all this happens because of the false notion that animals have ‘rights’. But the concept of ‘rights’ properly only applies to rational beings, who can recognize and respect the rights of others and who can defend their rights by rational means. In the name of the imagined ‘rights’ of animals, they have no hesitation about assaulting the actual rights of individual people.
It is a mistake to regard these criminals as ‘extremists’ who are hijacking an otherwise valid cause. It is the cause of animal ‘rights,’ itself that is vicious and anti-human.
More alarming fact is these animals’ rights activists pose themselves as some extremely compassionate people who are trying to raise some sensible cause to save some breeds and the environment. While trying so, they almost ignores the ecological truths and even don’t flinch from attacking the very personal rights of citizens. What if people be banned or attacked or criticised from public places just because they are non-vegetarians?
By their misleading and corrupt notes and emotional appeals at one hand they try to cajole the public for their unwarranted causes to support for animals rights but what they forget is, they keep on infringing the individual rights of very human beings which surely have an authority or rational faculty on their own to decide for themselves about what they will wear, or eat or will work for.
The attack on the researches at CA is not only reprehensible but it is alarming about the dangers of the new version of terrorism against humanity, the terrorism of animal rights activists.

1. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/03/MNMI124HSI.DTL&tsp=1

‘Freedom of expression for some is not enough.
We must work for freedom of expression for all.
Human rights for some is not  enough.
We must work for the human rights for all.
Peace  for some is not  enough.
We must work for peace for all.
I, come what may, will not be silenced.
Come what may, I will continue my fight for equality and justice without any compromise until my death.
Come what  may, I will never be silenced.’ “Taslima Nasreen”!
References.

1. [1]

2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]

7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]
11. [11]
12. [12]
13. [13]
14. [14]
15. [15]
16. [16]
17. [17]
18. [18]

The Pink city of Jaipur turned to Blood Red, there were eight blasts to hurt people and kill them. Today, during the IPL cricket match at Sawai Man Singh Stadium, when IPL manager commented that this cricket match is signatory that Jaipur city never frowns and never accept defeat, I was wondering what the city is? Same words were spoken for Mumbai after the train bomb blasts and for Hyderabad after the Mecca Mosque blast. Lucknow, Varanasi, Ajmer, Delhi, no city stopped or turned into shambles after the bomb blasts every third month people suffer whole across India at some city or other. More than sixty-five innocents were killed, and nobody will ever come to know about why they were killed. Central and state government announced monetary compensations but that won’t change the fact that individual life is not safe under the state or central rule. For some days, media took it as frontline news, expressing concern about the failure of Indian intelligence and police and security systems, and then all again was lost in same news about Shahrukh Khan’s smoking a cigarette. So, is that all showing the strength of Jaipur city? Or it just shows the lack of concern of today’s media and the government about the Individuals, their safety and life?
Some Islamic law makers shouted that since Taslima Nasreen came from Kolkatta to Jaipur, the Islamic militants attacked Jaipur. But was Taslima Nasreen also a reason for Varanasi, Delhi, Lucknow, Ajmer and Hyderabad blasts?
Just like any other governmental sector, security system of India and police force is a flop show. It is a flop show because it lacks professionalism, it lacks competition, it lacks responsibility, it has basically no threat against failure, it is a monopoly. And like any other monopoly, it is destined for failure.
Not a single terrorist attack during the last 3 years has been traced out and solved. Obviously in such situations, there is no force on the terrorists against their activities.
“We” keep shouting that India is a sovereign state. By announcing India as a sovereign state “we” mean that India is a free and responsible state. It cannot be obligated for any commitment or bond and is free to take its own decision; it is financially responsible and independent and won’t permit any other nation to influence its freedom. On collective base, being sovereign feels great, it is a need and right of India as a nation, but what about citizens of India? How much sovereign they are and how safe?
A sovereign individual is self-reliant. He does not need government to provide for him nor tell him what to do. His word is his bond. He is responsible for his actions and expects to enjoy the fruit of his efforts. He demands true financial independence – free from unnecessary government interference, safe from spurious lawsuits and unscrupulous claims on his life and wealth. Living the life he desires. Apparently, it sounds ridiculous to talk about Sovereign Individual, free from state. An individual pays the compulsory taxes; he pays his contribution to the state because he is bound to pay for it. Yet he has virtually No Power to ask for the services he must get for the taxes he pays, because he has no options.
As a matter of fact, despite all its fantastic colors, the sovereign nation are nothing more than a fantasy, and the Government, what is it? Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. It is a system, which loots everybody by one hand, and provides ointment by other.
Government has two hands, one is to receive from the citizens and other is to give. Government doesn’t produce anything, the citizens do, government collects and redistributes. It defines and instructs how the citizens should live and spend their products and earnings. But the government can take only, it cannot restore. Because the hands of the government are porous, they always retain partially, or sometimes wholly, of whatever they touch. It reduces the resources and makes it clumsy. It can never be the case that Government may take less from citizens and pay them more, it is bound to waste a part (or big part of the collected resources), yet we tend to let ourselves being looted by the government. We all know we lack security, we all know our security systems are not proficient and are unprofessional. Yet, we tend to avoid the question of the need of professional competitive security services and tend to rely on the monopoly of the government over security services.
First of all, government fails in catching the criminal, second many times the police itself is found guilty of bribes and corruption, third even if they catches the criminals, the courts takes lots of time, fourth, its in politicians hands, they can make new laws any day by passing an amendment. So basically, the monopoly of government over security system is bound to be inefficient because of its inability to check the corruption and lack of alertness. It is unable because hardly there is anyone who is not corrupt in government.
It is unable to check the pores of corruption because, the base of government itself is corrupt. Man recoils from troubles and sufferings, yet nature condemns him to the sufferings of poverty if he does not take the trouble to work. But some men tend to avoid both, the trouble to work, and the sufferings of privation. They opt for the third course, which is, to enjoy the labors of others. That is the root of all plunders whatever may be its form, whether that of wars, or impositions, violence, terrorism, restrictions, frauds, etc.
With changing times, the plunderers have changed their ways too. The oppressors don’t acts directly, nor does the oppressor use his own power against the victims. The government acts as a tool for the collectivistic tyrants. The government is to appease them, the collectivistic groups of religion, castes, gender and creeds. Government has no way to oppose the system of appeasement, because it counts for vote banks.
To avoid these plundering and loot, to avoid further mass-murders, it is necessary to remove this static heavy structure of government.
Security systems for the citizens will surely be improved, proficient and much more professional if the monopoly of government over security forces is denied and proper competitive market is opened up for the progressive security cells of cities and towns and villages. In absence of any liable competitor in security services, government acts as a monopolistic security agency without any fear to loose clients and hence the earnings. There is a need to provide sovereign citizenship, there is need to ask for individual safety, security and freedom, and that is possible only by providing the property rights and removing the compulsory taxation. The Individual should be free to choose for best security services he can get by paying the charges. The rational market forces will always improve the security process as the professionalism of the security agencies will provide those more clients and greater profits, furthermore, it will reduce the actual charges for security services and will make it possible for every citizen equally, without the removal of monopoly of government from the security services, professionalism can’t be expected, and without professionalism and commitment, these problems of terrorism, Naxalism, tribalism etc cannot be solved.

I heartily accept the motto, – “That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, – “That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

–Henry David Thoreau

A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims

Ayn Rand

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmNMiN-SVy4]
——————————————————————————–
Today, as you read this another 394.000 children were born into this world…
They break like waves of hunger and desire upon these eroded lands, carrying the curses of history, a history that is yet unwritten…
The oil burns in the thick, black columns – the buzz saws echo through the forest floor…
They shout “give us a fair share, give us justice”
…here comes the war…
On a grey morning to the south of here, two young men in makeshift uniforms peer into the misty light and figures dart behind the trees as a ship of rifles round echos out across the fields…
Well they hardly know their secret mother tongue…but they know their duty to defend the flag hanging limp and bloody above the village church…
While a thousand miles away in a warehouse complex down the river…young money men play painfull games
…here comes the war
Put on the lights on the age of reason…blow out the candle and tell us another of those great stories…the once about serial killers…
Let dreams flow into savage times…
Do you hear the sirens scream across the city, we’ve had three hot nights in succession..the riot reason is here again…
Dear brother, lead us back into the valley of shadows of death
…here comes the war
Do you think, we were born in peaceful times?
Faster,faster…like a whirrling dish spinning round…faster,faster…until the centre cannot hold…faster, faster…
You screamed “give us liberty or give us death”…
Now you’ve got both… What do you want next?
…here comes the war
For God’s sake. let us put on the lights on the age of reason…
I, for one will keep the light of peace burning brightly….

——————————————————————————–

New Model Army rocks with this song. The song just explains the present condition of world, a haphazard of logic and illogic, ethical objectivism and mystical dilemmas, Individual honesty and collectivistic frauds, rational lucidity and religious quagmires.
India is also facing similar situations. Be it tension between different religious groups in Kashmir, West Bengal, Aligarh, Kanpur, Godhra, or linguistic discrimination in Assam, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore, or the caste discriminations in Bihar, UP, MP, Karnataka, TN.
Every part seems to be in a state of flux within itself.
No matters they are farmers of Vidharbha or Kutch or Rajasthan, or the Tea farm workers of Darjeeling West Bengal, if they are committing suicide, it shows something is wrong.
I know things are improving and will improve, but this is fact, we are yet not in the Age of Reason.
Some other songs which I exceptionally like are Zombie by the Irish band Cranberries (I am true fan of Dolores O’Riordan) and Civil War by Guns N’ Roses.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyp5we2ySDo]