It’s do-or-die for cornered Kiran

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Kumar Reddy’s categorical statement that he won’t be pushed around over Telangana statehood heralds a turning a turning point for the embattled CM and his party in the State — for better or worse.

Ever since he took charge after the exit of K Rosaiah, the former cricketer always confined his game to defensive shots as the party’s national leadership kept dilly-dallying on the statehood issue.

Even wave after wave of agitation causing losses of tens of thousands of crores in terms of production, destruction of public property, security, and not the least, investments that went to Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for lack of political stability in the State.

The violent agitations also ensured that the image of the City was sullied. The debris of statues at Tank Bund, barely a kilometre from the Secretariat, is a reminder of the paralysis of the State administration.

Though in power with adequate numbers, the chief minister has been constantly under attack from elements within the party — some blaming his indecisiveness over Telangana, the rest over issues ranging from corruption-tainted ministers to policy blunders.

The constant wrangle for power between the CM and APCC chief Botsa Satyanarayana also undermined Kiran’s ability to command the support of the party’s rank and file. With Botsa and actor-turned-politician Chiranjeevi being promoted by some factions as possible replacements, the CM’s continuation in the post was always under doubt. To make matters worse, the numerous visits by national leadership’s envoys never made any credible impact in favour of or against the CM.

The divisions in Congress also resulted in the party being humiliated in bypolls, first by the TRS and then by former chief minister YS Rajashekar Reddy’s son and YSR Congress chief YS Jaganmohan Reddy. Kiran’s inability to stop a scam-tainted political novice from a sizeable chunk of Assembly seats was the ultimate humiliation for the chief minister.

It was at this point that Kiran Kumar Reddy realised that personal political oblivion and decimation of the party was at the doorstep. And ever since, the CM has taken the route of squarely confronting political adversaries.

The CM made it clear that he  will be at the helm till 2014 and rubbished suggestions to the contrary. This was also an open challenge his critics within the Congress to come out and confront him. Kiran’s gamble paid off as, with a series of electoral defeats in the backdrop, no one could muster enough courage to stage a coup and face the prospect of snap elections.

The latest statement of ‘enough is enough’ shows that the party’s national leadership sees Kiran Kumar Reddy as the best bet for the Congress in these testing times.

However, there are more challenges that await the CM. He will have to get the Telangana leaders of the party to either fall in line or keep quiet. With the Telangana agitation going out of KCR’s control, Kiran will have to decide whom he should woo and whom to ignore.

He also needs to get his act together as the head of the Council of Ministers and ensure that the complacence and paralysis that has become the trademark of administration are done away with.

The fate of the government, the Congress and Hyderabad now hinges on the ability of Kiran Kumar Reddy to walk the talk.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on October 3, 2012)

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)