Lawless chickens

Has anyone even tried wondering at the fact that why in our country security lapses happen over and over again? Why does concerned officers with prior information do not take any affirmative action and end up becoming a passive party to mayhems like the one we witnessed on 26th of last month? The answer is essentially simple. It is because of we, The Indians, are by and large lawless individuals. We end up negating the law on the most petty to the severly grave issues, that we possibly can. We think it is okay to dispense a chips packet on the road as much as we think it is okay to drink and drive. If we have gotten over the elitist politician bashing, i think it's time to introspect. Why do you think even after the coastal guards informed our intelligence services of possible infiltration through the seas, they ignored the report? Because our RAWs are made of people like us who tend to take our law and order enforcing system a bit too lightly like the rest of us. It's almost like us when we park our cars in places we are not supposed to and bribe out of the problem. And they we go on to blame our system, our Police Services of corruption. Ironical, i must say. Much of the reaction to the recent Bombay (Mumbai for Fascist Senas) attacks has refelected this lawlessness in ecah one of us. People are talking about abandoning democracy, taking up arms and breaking into vigilante groups and pesudo-patriotic (youngistan is the synonym for it) jingoism. We all want immediate solutions beyond a speck of doubt as we have had enough but they can't be achieved in any way whatsoever by destroying the law and order mechanism of our state. So if someone asks me, what is the primary yet the simplest way we can help the current security crisis in our country is by being a lot more law abiding than we are today. You might talk about the oppressing laws which effectively subjugate a section of the society, like the draconian laws in place in our Northeast and in Kashmir which effectively ghettoise the minorities. The Muslim Law Board is one such isolating factor which has kept a large chunk of Islamic people in our country within an impervious, middle-aged framework of personal law which has variously impaired them and their social and cultural exchanges with other communities through all these years. Article 377 of our Penal Code which criminalises homosexulaity exemplifies another devious law of our legislative framework. But can these oppressive laws be repealed by gun-toting and flouting state law and order? The answer is a resounding NO. In a constitutional democracy like ours there are certain legal procedures in place which can only defunctionalise a redundant law. You might question the fallaciousness of our legal system then, quoting how time consuming a case is and the commonplace interference of the various bodies in Judiciary but my answer to that would be with my vote. I would see to the fact, that my vote goes to someone who would take care of these matters, if it doesn't help or if there is no one, then we always have PILs and non-violent protests to take final recourse to. As violence in any form is never a solution. It is time we start honouring our Constitution more than our National flagor religious texts for that matter. I would end this article (which might seem a boring harangue to you guys) with a very recent event in International Polity which has received a lot of media attention. U.S President George W. Bush on his final visit to Iraq as a President was hurled with a shoe by one of the journalists of the state media. We have all gloated at this and have wished how we would cherised to be a part of such an event. I agree that President Bush committed the most gravest diplomatic follies which resulted in the demise of millions of people in Afganishtan and Iraq and he should be effectively tried in International Court for that. I can so empathise with the man who threw the shoe at President Bush, given the horrible times Iraq have been going through for the past 5 years. And if i were in his position, i probably would have done the same. But the crux of the matter does not lie in what we would have in such situations, it lies in what should have been the right thing to do. People often do not do the right things when they are angry but people who are not in that state of passion and in a position of judgement should not endorse such unlawful and undemocractic acts in expressing our agitation against someone or something, as guys we need to set a precedent that we can be angry yet composed. As passion translated in the vocabulary of sanity and propriety is the first step to an effecive change.