Dear Sarabjit,
The problem with people like you is that you first reach a conclusion and then build up your arguments to justify it.
That happens at the cost of unbiased objective observation and holistic reflection.
None of the examples you have given justify a citizen taking law into his own hands , whether Hindu Muslim or Sikh riots.
My memory may not be selective like yours but take the most recent example of how the power of people without guns toppled one of the strongest dictators in Egypt and how miserably the gun powder is failing in Syria.
Nelson Mandela did not win the long battle by throwing bombs at the Pretoria regime.
And last but not least, the minority community of Tamils in Sri Lanka suffered and is still suffering in spite of having the most dreaded terrorist armed to the teeth at their disposal.
Both the Sikh carnage and the Muslim riots were a direct reaction and result of
Deeply hurting the majority community first and then with great impunity rubbing salts into the wounds of the otherwise peace loving hindu community while also defying rule of Law and mocking at the state.
Please re read the History and re- orient yourself with some objectivity although it is almost impossible to come about given the conceit that you exude with such great aplomb.
Naveen tewari
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Pavan
When Communal riots are taking place and you are the target, I hope you remember your brave words for section 99 IPC.
Section IPC essentially says that a citizen shall have to bear all the zulm and brutality of any public servant acting under the colour of his office unless it is likely to cause death or grievous hurt -EVEN IF THE.PUBLIC SERVANT IS NOT ACTING STRICTLY WITHIN THE LAW
The net result of clauses like section 99 is that public servants have been elevated to positions where they cannot be questioned or bashed up.
SarbajitOn Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 9:58 AM, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarbajit,The US had to amend its Constitution, the second amendment whereby the right to bear arms was made legal. We do not have any such provision on our statute. We can argue in favour of such a law but till such time it is passed, possessing an unlicensed weapon is illegal and procuring it from the same lot of people who were a part of a larger conspiracy in which hundreds of lives were lost is downright criminal (in the legal sense). The right to self-defence under Sec 97 is qualified by Section 99. Sanjay Dutt could have approached public authority which he did not. Case closed. Pavan Nair
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Naveen
Shri Shanti Bhushan has laid down the LAW.
You can argue with Mr. Bhushan but you cannot argue with the LAW.
If the State fails to protect a person, he is in his rights to acquire ALL MEANS REQUIRED TO DEFEND HIS LIFE
Mr,. Bhushan ECHOES IAC when we stand for right to bear arms freely and defend ourselves.
Mr. Bhushan's legal basis is IDENTICAL with IAC's because IPC is a 150 year old law almost as old as IAC (or Mr. Bhushan)
SarbajitOn Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM, naveen tewari <nct.lko@gmail.com> wrote:
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"Dear All,Shanti Bhushan has certainly gone beyond senility and is showing signs of Dementia. His long article in the Hindu of 26th march is the latest example of that. Here he is with all his remnant legal acumen misplaced to the hilt, arguing for a summary reprieve for Sanjay Dutt. In this venture mr. Bhushan quoted the judgment of the supreme court wherein the court has mentioned that Sanjay Dutt's reason for possessing those prohibited guns and arsenal was self defence. Mr. Bhushan argues that it is not a crime to defend oneself even if the ammunition possessed by one is without licence.What a wonderful logic by this legal luminary who was once our Law Minister. I can only feel ashamed as an Indian that people of such calibre find there way to top positions in the country where they can play with the destiny of the people of this country. I am also deeply distressed that such people still manage to find a place in the public discourse no matter what level of atrophy their brain has reached.The Hindu, my most favourite newspaper, is also springing surprises like these every now and then.I request you all to read this article by Shanti Bhushan and react to it.regardsnaveen tewari
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in
No comments:
Post a Comment