Even PhDs in Indian History do not know that in 1931, Vallabhbhai Patel, Jawaharlal etc passed the resolution of Congress Karachi Adhiveshan where in they had demanded that right to bear weapons be made a Fundamental Right !! And the Karachi Adhiveshan Resolution was co-drafted and fully approved by Duratma Gandhi himself !! This demand was a demand cum promise i.e. a promise from Duratma Gandhi and other Congressmen to people of India that if and when Congress comes into power, they will make right to bear weapons a Fundamental Right. I believe that Duratma Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patel and Jawaharlal had no intention to keep this promise when they made it. It was a dishonest promise made with intention of breaking it. They had made this promise only because Mahatma Bhagat Singh had put such views. And these views had become so popular in commons and activists that Duratma Gandhi et al had no option but to add them to their books to retain their market share in the activists. Duratma Gandhi and Company never wanted an armed citizenry as the British elitemen and Indian elitemen who sponsored Duratma Gandhi and other Congressmen did not want an armed citizenry.
The existing eminent intellectuals insist on keeping us commons weak so that their sponsor elitemen can beat us commons via criminals and policemen, and not worry about retaliation or deterrence. If we commons are armed, it would become impossible to beat us commons left, right and center and fleece money from us. So Indian eminent intellectuals never told students and activists via newspapers or textbooks that Duratma Gandhi and company in 1931 had demanded right to bear weapons, and also demanded that it should be made a Fundamental Right. In addition, eminent intellectuals tell the non-80G-activists that Indian commons are irrational, fools, temperamental, violent natured, aggressive etc and so only “weapons” a common of India should have is nail-cutter, takali, charkha, truth, non-violence, satyaagrah etc.
One should note the double talk of Indian eminent intellectuals. When asked why Russia or China style revolution did not happen in India, they say Indians are by nature non-violent and too tolerant. And when asked why shouldn’t Indian commons have guns? They will do a 180 degree turn and say India’s commons are too aggressive and violent and so they must not have guns !! I would have argued with them, if at all I thought they were honest.
I at RRP propose that we activists should raise mass-movement to print TCP draft in the Gazette and then use TCP to know whether citizens want to make weapon bearing as fundamental right and also a fundamental duty. I would propose to make weapon bearing a Fundamental Right as well as a Fundamental Duty i.e. each adult citizen will be required to keep a non-automatic gun and 240 bullets in his home. The citizens may register their YES\NO on this proposal. The duty will enforced on all able bodied male between the age of 21 and 45 and for females it will encouraged but not compulsory. The duty is similar to Switzerland where in a male resident between 21 and 45 is required to keep gun and 24 bullets at home.
The democracy had perished in most of Europe by 300 AD, and re-started in about 950 AD in Britain. In 950 AD in Britain, the King had to enact a procedure that if a policeman is involved in death of a citizen, the King’s Officer named as Coroner will call 7-12 citizens at random from the census list. The citizens were allowed to ask questions to the policemen and victim’s family members etc were allowed to make statements. As the end of the inquiry, each Juror would say one of the three words about the accused officer’s conduct : Justifiable, Excusable or Criminal. Though there is no explicit law, but if majority of the Jurors say “conduct was criminal”, then the officer’s service is almost terminated.
Now why did the King in 950 AD enact this procedure? Was there any demand by then eminent intellectuals to have “citizen’s participation in Govt”? NO. The reason was that so many citizens were armed in Britain back then, that the King could see that citizens cannot be suppressed by Military and Police anymore. And so the citizens managed to get this power over policemen. (Aside : The King had to let so many citizens bear arms as the Arab armies had conquered Spain in South and Turkey in East, and so fight against Arab armies, the Kings and priests had no option but to arm a big part of the citizenry). Then later, in about 1100-1200 AD, the King was forced to print Magna Carta , in which he had to accept that citizens will not be imprisoned or fined without permission of Jurors. The citizens and Knights could force the King to print Magna Carta only because a large number of citizens had weapons. Further, in 1650, the King was executed when he disobeyed the Parliament. Back in 1650, Parliament represented less than 5% of population. But the Nobility was only 0.1% of population. And the bottom 95% was closer to the 5% than 0.1% and so they supported the 5%. In 1650, Parliament of UK created its own army and defeated the Royal Army. The King was captured Parliament decided to form a Special Court to sentence the King. General Cromwell, who was the commander of Parliament’s Army, blocked the pro-King MPs from entering the Parliament. The anti-King MPs passed a resolution to create a court consisting of 70 judges !! And the judges were none but the anti-King MPs themselves. And this court and these 70 MPs-cum-judges after “fair and impartial” trial decided to execute the King in 1650. Later, the MPs kept the statue of King is there is Royal Museum with one word below it “REMEMBER”. IMO, it is a warning to all next Kings. But Parliament could raise army, defeat Royal army and execute the King because citizens were armed to teeth. An unarmed citizenry could not have put up such a fight.
IOW, modern democracy has come because of armed citizenry. In fact, I can show that Democracy is a system where in commons are armed or so called Democracy is nothing but a welcome symptom of armed citizenry and nothing else.
In 1930, many Americans lost jobs, and had no money to buy food and lost their homes as they had no money to pay rents. The American elitemen immediately raised income tax from 25% in 1928 to 70% in 1936 in stages and raised inheritance tax from 20% in 1928 to 70% in 1936. And a wealth tax was imposed of about 1% of land value approximately. The money was used for creating shelter homes, soup kitchens (free food), doles, Military Industrial Complex (to create jobs) and also other industrial activities (like roads etc). Deficit financing was used, but over a period of 1932-2008, altogether, less than 20% of all expenses came from deficits, rest 80% came from this income tax, wealth tax and inheritance tax and other taxes.
Why did American elitemen agree to pay such taxes? Not because of electoral process, because electoral process in US at Federal level has no Right to Recall and so it is very weak. The compelling reason why US elitemen created high taxes to fund welfare system was the fact that over 70% of citizens had guns. IOW, weaponization of commons is the mother of welfare state. In India, citizens are not armed, and so elitemen lavishly spend Govt money on IIMs, JNU, UGC, highways, flyways, skyways, airports etc rather than solving hunger problems. The so called Welfare State is nothing but a welcome symptom of armed citizenry and nothing else. And absence of welfare state is due to lack of arms in the citizenry.
India is facing hostilities from Pakistan and Bangladesh (both backed by Sauds) , China and USA\UK. Pakistan is more than eager to throw 1000 Kargils on India. China threatens attack on Arunachal Pradesh issue. Bangladesh wants to annex Asam. And USA\UK has been consistently helping ISI in sending terrorists into India to kill 100s and 1000s of Indians so that India has to depend on USA\UK for “protection from Pakistan”. In addition, USA\UK have covertly insisting on Independent Kashmir so that USA\UK can build bases there. Now if USA\UK, China and Sauds provide all the money and weapons to Pakistan, India can be in serious trouble. The Military of mere 11,00,000 soldiers and other para-military of 10,00,000 soldiers will not be sufficient.
The best way to build a deterrence is to arm each and every citizen. As Joseph Stalin said in 1941, every hands which can lift a gun should have gun. The paid historians in India and world do not mention this --- but Russia was saved only because Stalin decided to give guns and bullets to every young man in Russia , not because of any other reason. And in fact, had Stalin had given gun to every citizen in 1938, Hitler would not have dared to attack Russia at all and 2 crore Russian lives could have been saved.
Stalin said “give gun to every man who can lift a gun”. I say “imprison every able bodied young man who refuses to lift a gun”. Arming the whole citizenry is surest and fastest way to deter Pakistan, China, US etc. from attacking India.
When commons are weaponized, most powerful armies decide not to attack that country. eg in 1940, the ONLY reason why Adolfbhai Hitler did not attack Switzerland was because every citizen in Switzerland was armed to teeth. Otherwise, Adolf were very much attracted by the gold in the Swiss banks , which they needed badly to fund the wars. It was the fact that every Swiss had gun which deterred Adolf. The Indian eminent intellectuals lie that Adolf did not attach Swiss as he respected their autonomy. This is utter lie and a myth invented to keep activists and students of India unaware about importance of armed citizenry.
In 1938, number of British with weapons in India was mere 80,000. And they ruled over region of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc which had population of over 35 crore. And today, 100,000 soldiers of US are not able to control Afghanistan of mere 3 crore of population. Why? Because over 99% of commons in India did not have guns, where as in Afghanistan, gun culture is so intense that people would make fun of a man and his whole family if he does not have a gun. IOW, India was slave because commons were unarmed. And if Afghanistan has still not become total slave, it is due to armed society.
Some 40 lakh people in Bengal died in 1940s. Not because there was no grain, but they did not have guns, and so could not stop British and elitemen from stealing away the grains. If citizens have no guns, there is no freedom --- no freedom from external powers and no freedom from local elitemen. Armed citizenry is the only known source of lasting freedom.
The 950 AD revolution which gave Coroner Jury to British was because of armed citizenry. The 1200 AD revolution in which the King was forced to print Magna Carta and give “power to punish” to commons (Juries) was due to armed citizenry. The 1650 revolution in Britain which led to effect end of Monarchy and rise of elected MPs was because of armed citizenry. And French Revolution happened only because sizeable number of citizens had arms. The Russian Revolution in 1917 happened because in years 1700s, Czars had started arming citizenry, in and 1800s, Military Service was made almost compulsory and in 1910s as many as 15% to 20% of Russians were armed. The Chinese Revolution too had happened because sizeable population of China was armed.
The most noteworthy were the “armed non-violent revolutions” in US, UK and almost whole of Europe in 1930s which led to establishment of Welfare States. Since as much as 60% to 70% population had guns, the revolutionaries did not even need to organize and fire shots at elitemen or even pull out their guns and point them to the elitemen. Without a gunshot, te elitemen cowed down and created Welfare Sate in US and across Europe.
And last but least, India got freedom ONLY because of guns and not because Charkha Brigade run by Duratma Gandhi and Congress. Due to WW2, British had to train over 40 lakh Indians as soldiers and Military engineers. The Indian engineers in 1945 were capable of manufacturing guns and bullets, and so unlike 1857, Indians soldiers would not have run out bullets in 1946. The fear of Indian soldiers revolting was there since 1857. But till 1930, British were capable of suppressing them, as Indian citizens did not know how to manufacture bullets and gins. But in 1946, the British saw that Indian soldiers cannot be suppressed if they were to revolt. The Navy Revolt (which shameless Indian paid historians refer as Navy Mutiny), was the last nail in the coffin. The fear had become reality. And so British left India. IOW, British left because of guns, not because of charkha, takali, satyaagrah, non-violence and other nonsense.
Suffices to say that weaponization of commons is the key factor that has created ALL violent or non-violent revolutions in history so far.
(for more details, pls see section 24.10)
As an immediate solution and only to possible threat of war with China-Pakistan-Bangladesh (multi-front), it is must that we give guns to all citizens of India. Let me explain the problem of possibility of 2 front war and proposed solution.
If China provides all its latest weapons and satellite information to Pakistan and Bangladesh, and India doesn’t import weapons, then Pakistani Army will reach Madras and Kolkata. The biggest threat is Cruise Missiles of China. India does not have radar to detect them and India doesn’t have anti-missile missiles to counter these Cruise Missiles. So Pakistan can use these Cruise Missiles to destroy key airfields. In addition, China has superior anti-aircraft missiles. So within days, Pakistan aided by Chinese weapons, can destroy Indian air force or make it dysfunctional. In next round, Pakistani Army will advance with air force cover, and Indian Military will have no cover. Indian Army will lose badly and get decimated. To make matter worse, there are some 1 cr Bangladeshies in India. China via Bangladesh can provide guns and other weapons such grenades, rocket launchers etc to Bangladeshies and create an army of 10 lakh to 20 lakh Bangladeshi soldiers inside India !! And that will be almost as powerful as Indian Army minus tanks !! To make matter further worse, only 20 lakh soldiers plus policemen in India have AK-47 of above guns and civilians have no such guns. Whereas in Pakistan, lakhs and lakhs of civilians have AK-47 level guns. So once the wall of Indian Army breaks, lakhs of armed Pakistani and Bangladeshi civilians will rush into India and unleash murders, loot, arson, maiming and rapes. So even if Chinese do not directly intervene, by giving weapons to Pakistan and Bangladesh, China can practically destroy India.
So in case of Pakistan + Bangladesh + China attack, as far as I seem there are 3 choices :
1. India doesn’t buy weapons and doesn’t manufacture weapons --- outcome : India dies
2. India imports weapons from West --- India dies slowly
3. India manufactures weapons --- India may live
Choice – 1 : India doesn’t import or manufacture weapons
No point is discussing this as India will take only choice-2 or choice-3 and not this choice.
Choice – 2 : India imports weapons from West and dies slow death
The West will come and help, but only after Pakistan + China has caused huge losses of lives, property and dignity. This is to ensure that West can create image of savior and also ask for a high price. The West will provide the weapons, and in return it will ask for all the mineral mines and will also control polity by giving weapons to those who accept the control and by killing those who refuse to accept the control. During the war, the West will use Indian soldiers and youth to attack China, Pakistan, Bangladesh and even middle east countries. So we will end up doing dirty work, absorbing l the losses of lives and limbs, and West will gain control over China, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. After the was, with political control, the West will finish science\maths education in India so that India becomes dependent on West for technology for good. And in the next phase, the West will exterminate all religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, Islam etc from India and impose Christianity, and make India a permanent slave of West. (eg Philippines). So all in all, importing weapons will be a slow death for India.
Choice – 3 : India manufactures weapons : India may live
As of oct-2011, existing PM and most Ministers are US agents and oppose large scale manufacturing of weapons in India, and insist on import. The newcomers too will sell out if they see that citizens can expel them for 5 years. So RTR is must not only to expel existing leaders in short time, but also to ensure that newcomers do not sell out to West.
Now RTR creates a polity that will work towards large scale indigenous weapon manufacturing. But a large scale weapon manufacturing of complex weapons such as tanks, planes etc would need time and may need more time as it also needs a large number of scientists, engineers etc. What steps should we take to deal with possibility that attack happens before we reach the stage where we are manufacturing complex weapons at a large scale?
The only way I can think of is to manufacture a large number of AK-47 and AK-100 levels and give such guns to crores and crores, possibly all, citizens. Say we have 2 years time. The two years are not enough to setup factories to make fighter planes, cruise missiles, tanks etc, This would need at least 4-5 years. If we are planning for possibility of a war in coming few months, then only choice is have is manufacture crores of guns. This is possible, because we know how to make guns and they are easy to make in large number in short time.
If crores of citizens have guns, then Pakistani Military may at worst manage to destroy bridges, power station etc but cant capture much of territory because each citizen will give fight. If territory is preserved, then sooner or later, we can defeat the invaders and re-built the lost wealth.
The Indian eminent intellectuals claim that crimes will increase if we commons have guns. This is a lie. In countries where citizenry is unarmed, crime is high. Why? Because criminals who have nexuses with policemen, Ministers and judge anyway, they have arms anyway and so these criminals run amok. In countries where citizenry is armed to teeth, the criminals are deterred from attacking citizens to a considerable extent.
The paid Indian eminent intellectuals have unleashed a false propaganda since 1950s that weaponizing us commons will increase deaths. This is nonsense. In Swiss, Canada and many countries, where commons have tons of guns, homicide is bare minimal. US is the only country with armed citizenry and fairly high homicide rate. But how high is this homicide rate? And it is higher than gun-less citizenries? The number of gun related homicide in US in 2005 was less than 16000 (and number of deaths in vehicle accidents were about 40000). One reason for high gun deaths in US is ban on drugs --- the ban on drugs has increased costs and so addicts resort to crimes. And ban on drugs has increased profits and so gangs fight for territories to sell drugs. But even without such factors, say armed citizenry in India causes 10 times i.e. 160,000 deaths in India every year. Even then, weaponization will reduce deaths. How? Because weaponization of commons will increase “poverty deaths”. When citizens are armed, as US/European events of 1930s show, rulers and paid-eminent intellectuals take citizens’ miseries more seriously and this alone reduces poverty. IOW, if citizenry of India was armed, it would have been less poor. So the weaponization of commons will reduce the “poverty deaths” in India.
The paid-economists have refused to accept the term “poverty deaths” i.e. deaths coming early due to lack of food, medicine and hygiene. But poverty deaths exists. In India, about 60 out 1000 infants die each year. The number translates into about 10,00,000 deaths a year. If poverty was even slightly lower, at least 500,000 would have been able to live a many years longer. Likewise, some 60000 women in India die during pregnancy each year. Most of them are from poor families. If they had just Rs 1000 a year more, many would have survived. Out of 1 cr people who die in India every year due by natural causes, lakhs of them would have lives a few years longer if they had Rs 2000 a year more. Consider 40 lakh Benaglies who died in 1940s. They did not die because they did not have grains but they died as they did not have guns to stop British and Indian elitemen from robbing away the grains. If these Bengalies in 1940s had guns, they would not have died of hunger. That one “savings” of poverty death alone that weaponization would give outweighs possible deaths that homicides may cause. To that add the 10 lakh Indians who died in partition violence. Much fewer would have died if they all had guns to protect themselves. And to that, add reduction of say 10 lakhs to 20 lakhs of poverty deaths. So even if gun violence in India causes 1 lakh deaths a year, the “savings” in poverty deaths would give more benefits.
I at RRP request all activists to raise mass-movement to convince PM to print TCP-draft in the Gazette. Once TCP is printed in the Gazette, activists can collect citizens’ opinion on whether they support the draft which makes weapon-bearing a right as well as a duty. In the draft I have proposed, the procedure is as follows :
1. any citizen over the age of 25 years can apply
2. if Police Chief or Grand Jurors (based on private complaint) think that he should not get a gun, then they can call a Jury
3. if 7 out of 12 Jurors agree that he should not have a gun, then he will be de-barred from having gun, till Grand Jury and Jury approve later
4. The Police Chief as well as Jurors may conduct a lie-detection test on the applicant.
5. If Police Chief and Grand Jurors do not deny the permission in 30 days, the applicant will be automatically eligible for the license.
If citizens approve the proposed draft and if PM prints it in Gazette, then over 60% to 80% adults will manage to acquire guns within 1 year. This will make India safe against possible attacks from China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and USA\UK. So all in all, TCP will decide
Please send order to PM and Loksabha Speaker via SMS that your Yes\No sent via SMS on any bill presented in the Parliament should be posted on the website of Parliament. Pls also order PM\email via SMS to print TCP-draft in Gazette. Please also see chap-13 of this book http://rahulmehta.com/301.htm . It has several steps where-in you can spend 6 hours a week and help to bring TCP draft in Gazette in India. The steps involve sending necessary orders to PM via SMS\emails, distributing pamphlets, informing citizens on motives of leaders such Congress MPs, BJP MPs, The Anna, Arvind Gandhi etc who oppose TCP draft, by giving newspaper ads, contesting elections. Once TCP gets printed in Gazette, using TCP, it will become easy for activists to get citizens’ opinion “Weaponization of us Commons” draft. Based on citizens’ opinion, the PM may decide.