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)

This high-steak game could land you in jail

The president has given her approval for Madhya Pradesh’s anti-cow slaughter legislation after a delay of almost two years. Not just slaughter, even consumption of beef can land you in jail for seven years.
It also has provisions allowing a whole range of officials beginning at head constable to barge in anywhere and conduct checks on mere grounds of suspicion.
Cow slaughter is one topic that has been the centre of heated debates and disputes over it have led to innumerable communal clashes across the country but not a single government, Central or State, has been able to come up with an amicable solution.
Such legislations’ implications don’t stop at socio-religious spheres but spill over into guidelines on state policy that defines the right of an individual.
Ours is a country where there are thousands of castes, sub-castes and communities — each with its own culture, tradition and way of life. One sweeping law like that is a blunt statement to those in the minority to let go of all that and be in ‘conformity’ with what’s ‘acceptable’.
For many communities, beef is very much a part of their regular diet and a cheap supply of essential proteins. Beef dishes are part of ceremonies ranging from birth to death. It would be gross injustice to force them to abandon their culture using legal coersion.
What about the Northeastern states or a State such as Kerala, where beef is a delicacy popular among all communities? Who will protect the rights of millions of Hindus spread across the country who eat beef?
Now imagine a scenario where two of the biggest minorities were to declare onion as sacred to their faith. Will the governments introduce laws to prohibit farming, sale, transportation and consumption of onions because it would hurt the religious sensitivities of the minorities?
The essence of a functional democracy is presence of an environment of tolerance where every segment can enjoy their unique way of life without being arm-twisted to fit into a larger picture.
If a plural country like ours can’t ensure their rights, how different are we from countries where rape victims are stoned to death because they did not follow the lifestyle demanded by the majority religion?
For a country to progress the people have to feel motivated and for that they need to feel that they are valued for what they are. If not, the feeling of alienation would creep in and the social, economic and political cost would be too much to bear.
The harassment and humiliation people from Northeast face all over India, with hardly any help coming from the police or the otherwise vigilant civil society, because of their ‘different’ lifestyle has left scars that reservations and economic packages can’t heal.
When Indians are targeted abroad in racially motivated attacks there is an outrage across the country. Media, civil society and politicians compete to outdo each other in pointing out the stark contrast between our ‘tolerant’ heritage and the narrow-minded West. Next time your blood boils at the news of racial abuse of Indians, think of what we are doing to our people in our country.
A possible solution doesn’t require rocket science to arrive at. It’s called the policy of ‘live and let live’.