Think twice before you pull that trigger

When 75-year-old Sriramulu Patel was woken by the incessant barking of his dog, he knew something was amiss. The septuagenarian took his licenced revolver and went to check the source of disturbance. Barely did he open the door, a man tried to push past him into the house.
Patel fired twice and the intruder collapsed on the floor. After dragging him inside, Patel called the police.
The burglar survived the gunshot wounds and was taken into custody after being discharged from hospital. He was booked under Section 457 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code for ‘trespassing with the intention of committing a crime’.
So far, the police have refrained from filing charges against Patel as their preliminary investigation revealed that the act was in self-defence.
However, legal luminaries beg to differ. M Ranga Reddy and Justice Iyaapu Panduranga Rao, former High Court judges opine that Patel should be charged under relevant sections of the IPC. They are of the opinion that it should be the courts, which should judge Patel’s actions and no the police.
The whole episode calls our attention to the injury or death caused while exercising the right to self-defence. The Constitution provides us with the right to life. Naturally we have the right to defend it when someone threatens it.
When the threat materialises in the form of a physical confrontation, it is only natural that resistance to it will result in use of force — injury or death of assailant is always a possibility.
The question is; where do you draw the line between a desperate action to survive and intentional attempt to murder? Burglars or assailants don’t give notice before they strike. Under usual circumstances, the civilian gun-wielder has only a few seconds to react before pulling the trigger.
Therefore, following the legal procedure, of shouting out a warning followed by firing in the air and then, as a last resort, firing below the knees, is practically impossible.
One also has to take into consideration that the assailant/burglar is likely to be a hardened criminal with no qualms to kill you. He is likely to be better than you in close-quarters combat and use of knives/firearms — the worst part is that there is no way you can know.
Since most such incidents occur at night when visibility levels are low, judging the level of threat posed by the assailant becomes even trickier. The only option before the victim of an attack is to target the attacker with the intent to cause maximum damage.
All rules, though created with the best of intentions, can be bent and the laws providing for the right to self-defence are no exception to this.
Ours is a country (in)famous for ‘staged encounters’. Every year there are more exposes of the police, armed forces and intelligence agencies faking circumstantial evidence for illegal executions.
If those killing in self-defence are allowed to walk free even without the botheration of registering a case, it is only a matter of time before the rich and the well-connected start fabricating circumstantial evidence and bumping off their opponents.
Due course of law must be followed when injury or death is caused by an act of self-defence. Instead of taking the incident at face value, the investigative agencies must conduct an objective and thorough probe. Then it should be left to the courts to consider the merit of the case and arrive at a decision.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on March 7, 2012)

Husain laughs at saffron love for ‘Satanic’

So much drama has been unfolding over Booker-winner author Salman Rushdie’s proposed visit to the Jaipur Literary Fe­stival, with several groups pitting themselves for and against his visit.
Ironically, Rushdie had attended the Festival in 2007 and there was hardly any protest then.
This time the scenario is different, with Assembly polls to five States set to commence shortly. No wonder the love-hate soap opera over his visit has reached a crescendo.
In 1988, the author had courted controversy (and invited a prize for his head from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran) with his book The Satanic Verses, which alle­gedly made derogatory references to the Prop­het. The book has since then been banned in 12 countries including India.
Twenty-five years have passed and even Iran is no longer keen on persecuting him but the ‘guardians of the faith’ in India refuse to dilute their aggressive appro­ach.
Rushdie called off his visit over security threat inputs he received from Mumbai and Rajasthan police, only to thunder via Twitter that the Rajasthan government had cooked up the threat story to keep him off the conclave and avoid unnecessary tensions.
An angry Rajasthan CM said the threats were real and were passed on by the Centre whereas the Mumbai cops said they did not receive any threat intelligence.
In another development, four authors fou­nd themselves in a legal soup when they read out passages from The Satanic Verses at the Festival to justify Rushdie’s creative freedom — only to find themselves booked under law to prosecute inciters of communal violence.
With so many feet muddying the waters, it also triggered a great opportunity for the specialists who fish in troubled waters — the politicians.
The BJP and its allied outfits have come out in support of Rushdie and his freedom of expression, citing India’s culture of tolerance. They were also quick to point out that it was the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the policy of minority appeasement by the Congress government, which had robbed the Festival of the esteemed presence of a hallowed litterateur.
In a repeat of the several political debacles that took place recently, the move has only done damage to the BJP by exposing its doublespeak and lack of credibility.
The saffron party was vocal in its attack on MF Husain and its offshoot organisations hounded him with dozens of cases across the country and vandalised his works wherever possible. His works had to be pulled off several prestigious art shows due to fears of violence and vandalism.
The internationally acclaimed painter was forced to live abroad like a fugitive for fear of being arrested on returning to India. He bre­athed his last not as Indian but as a Qatari, lon­ging for India and homemade food. His crime — objectionable depiction of Indian goddesses in his paintings.
Even after his death, the BJP refused to go back on its stand that his artistic freedom was not acceptable to them.
Now let’s break this down to simple equations. Rushdie ‘insults’ Islam — acceptable. Husain ‘insults’ Hinduism — not acceptable. Both were exercising their creative freedom. Both are internationally acclaimed by critics and fans alike for their contributions to their respective fields.
We would like the BJP to explain the rocket science they have used to differentiate between the two and take separate stands. There is much more to India and the depth of its culture than what its self-appointed defenders project.
Step aside zealots, before you go down in history as geckos who assumed they supported the roof and stopped it from falling.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on January 25, 2012)