So it is over a month now when Mumbai was slaughtered - its famous spirit shattered, and its people ravaged by terror on an unprecedented scale, and still we are looking for some fundamental change in our security system. Although Indian politicians and government along with Pakistan regime are trying their best to display their efforts in solving out the problems, but there is nothing substantial coming out with a shape. On the name of change, we have a draconian law UAPA now in procedure while there is no discussion over the right of self-defence for every citizen, the gun right.
Mumbai (and other targets in India) remain as vulnerable today as on that awful night when cold- blooded killers effortlessly floated into the Financial Capital of India and took it over for 60 hours. Sixty excruciatingly long hours of mayhem, confusion, unproductive, ineptness and a complete absence of meaningful leadership.
So who is responsible for this absence of meaningful leadership?
Often politicians, intellectuals, and activists propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly inconsistent idea: the notion that our most important right is the right to vote. They term the right to vote as “the most fundamental right of citizenship, it is the heart and soul of our democracy,” And by saying so, they even do not flinch from stating that it is our responsibility too to vote, produce and bring a meaningful leadership. Therefore, if the Indian democracy is suffering an absence of any meaningful leader, it is the wrong of its citizens. The corrupt politicians than even term it as a shame for the more 1.2 billion people of India to be unable to produce a meaningful leader bringing a “change” a change like “Obama promised to bring for America”?
The whole solution these politicians suggests is to vote for better leadership as it is our right and our duty too “to vote” and choose the dictators for ourselves. If voting is truly our most fundamental right, then all other rights — including free speech, property, even life — are contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials) and that is what happens in India.
The democratically selected government by majority of West Bengal did confiscate the property of Nandi gram villagers forcibly to suffice its whims of SEZ.
Taslima Nasreen was forced out of a state to another state to another… because “the majority voters” hate her”. Every body knows what happened in Gujarat riots was culpable, but majority voted for supporting the wrong, the crime, furthermore, there seems to be no “Just” option other than the wrong. Congress proved to be just the other face of the coin of wrong of BJP.
India, thus is a society based not on Individual Rights and Freedom, but and unlimited majority rule—just like an Ancient Athens, where the public, exercising “the most fundamental right of citizenship,” voted to kill Socrates for stating the unpopular ideas. Or may be India is just like the modern day Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Robert Mugabe seized the property of farmers and caused the nation to reach the edges of starvation. Ohh well India already has experienced the similar fate under the most popular and democratically elected Politician of India Ms. Indira Gandhi, The dictator of emergency period. One must not forget that Germany was also a democratic country supporting the “right to vote” as “the fundamental right of freedom”. The majority voted for Adolf Hitler, to turn Democratic Germany to a Nazi Germany. Will India follow the same trend?
Can Indian citizen claim that it is perfectly acceptable to kill or punish controversial philosophers, writers, painters or to exterminate six million Jews, so long as popularity majority vote supports it?
Democracy is not a system that holds public elections for government officials, it is a system in which majority vote rules everything and everybody and leaves no freedom no right for the Individual, the smallest minority.

“In a democracy, there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” James Madison in The Federalist Papers.

That was the major reason why Indian Politicians removed the right to property from Indian constitution as a fundamental right, making Individual Liberty and autonomy impossible for Indians.
Indian freedom is NOT based on the right of property, but it is dependent on the right to vote, which these corrupt and tyrant politicians’ terms as the Fundamental right, while these similar enemies of liberty aborted the “right to property” because that provides an Individual the right of sovereignty.
Once the Individual Rights and Liberty is based on the “right to property” as a fundamental right, then the role of government becomes distinctively clear, and that is, to safeguard the Individual rights and liberty of the individual citizen.

The fundamental right is described in the constitution as:
All citizens shall have the right-
• To freedom of speech and expression;
• To assemble peaceably and without arms;
• To form associations or unions;
• To move freely throughout the territory of India;
• To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
• to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Now consider the right to freedom of speech.
It suggests that Every Indian has a right to express him-self and a freedom to say, write and speak anything.
So how is it possible if you do not define where he can speak freely?
One can not and should not go to some other person’s house and start abusing him.
He certainly does not have the right to speech on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has approved, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.
Similarly, A person does not have a ‘right to freedom of the press’; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it).
Indians need to realize that without property rights, it is impossible to define freedom. Indians need to realize the necessity of Individual autonomy.
Right to vote cannot be a fundamental right to define freedom; it is just a signatory right to voluntarily choose a system to safeguard the fundamental right of freedom, and that is the “property right”.
Update: Republic India struggling against Slavery