The Second Amendment

The morning of January 8th, 2011 is a day that has gone down in America as another moment in history when the issue of gun ownership rights has emerged on the forefront of mainstream politics. The massacre was carried out by, what is currently believed, a deranged man. However, unlike previous shootings, this one was different. It seemed to carry a political hue to it, and in the current state of politics in the United States of America, I don’t think the political atmosphere as been as charged up as it was in the run up to the Civil war nearly a hundred and 50 years ago. Does this mean that a 2nd civil war is in the making? Definitely not. The political leadership is currently dealing with this more like a hot-potato and there are still no clear lines of divide that have taken place to suggest such a thing. However, what is important to understand is what purpose does the second Amendment to the United States Constitution serve, and whether in these times, is it a suitable right.

I won’t go into the details of the making of the Second Amendment but you can read that here on Wikipedia where it is explained in a very objective unbiased perspective.

The rationale behind the right to bear arms can be summarized in the experiences that the young American nation had prior to the forming of its constitution. The objectives (Ref: Wikipedia) of the bill were

1. enabling the people to organize a militia system
2. deterring undemocratic government
3. repelling invasion
4. suppressing insurrection
5. facilitating a natural right of self-defense
6. participating in law enforcement

It is important to understand that the very basis of the birth of the United States had to do with the undemocratic nature of its governance as a British colony in the mid 18th century. Repeated requests to have adequate representation were turned and lead to the famous Boston Tea Party that eventually triggered the American Revolution. The founding fathers, through observation of the European political scene, also understood that many monarchies were in power primarily through the rule of the gun.

The arming of its citizens was to ensure that no government could resort to undemocratic means of imposing its authority (read, military might), while the ability to form militias would allow for the nation to call upon its citizens to fight in its defense. This alone, they felt, would be sufficient to meet the security of a new democratic nation in the mid 18th century.

The natural right to self-defense is something that is rooted more in support of the Third (Protection from quartering of troops) and Fourth (Protection from unreasonable search and seizure) Amendments.

Last, but not the least, the purpose is to allow citizens to participate in law enforcement, again a mild safeguard against possible abuse of power by a government’s law enforcement agencies.

However, much has changed in the way the world is since the late 1700s. Most monarchies have either been overthrown and replaced by democracies or military dictatorships, or simply sidelined as executive puppets (read, constitutional monarchies) to such governments. In fact, the words of the Second Amendment sound much out of place in today’s world order -
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

While the objectives that were listed are met by it, it is never explicitly mentioned in more detail. And that is where the trouble comes. While the world has changed, the US Government has itself changed over time. Almost all the objectives that this amendment sort to protect have at some point been violated or are no more being met.

The argument for a militia makes little sense in today’s world order. The Second Amendment sought to have its military power drawn from the civilian populace. However, the United States has had a standing army very much since the formation of the Continental Army that fought the American War of Independence. If anything, the need for militias is almost as good as non-existent. The only near semblance to the Second Amendment’s call for a well-regulated Militia is the United States National Guard.

The objective of deterring an undemocratic government has been met, but not so much by the Second Amendment as much as by the legislative reforms over the past two centuries. Explicit term limits and clear division of power and jurisdiction in most cases (one of the notable exceptions being the Vice President of the United States) have ensured that at no point in history has the country been under an illegitimate government that wasn’t voted into power by its citizens.

The next two objectives of the Second Amendment have failed to be met already numerous times. Experiences from the War of 1812 showed the need for a standing army in place of reliance on militias to fight against an invasion. The Civil War went one step further with both sides of the conflict in essence violating and enforcing the spirit of both these objective almost simultaneously. The Union Army was in many ways, suppressing an insurrection, while the Confederacy was repelling an invasion of its states from what it deemed to be an undemocratic government. Invasion of the Northern states by the Confederate Army, also applied these roles reversibly. That leaves us with a very fundamental question -- Is it possible that the right to bear arms and form militias is essentially what caused the political environment of the 1860s to erupt into a full-scale civil war?

It’s reasonable to assume that in the absence of the Second Amendment, the southern states would not have the chance to form the Confederate Army, and trigger the war. Perhaps, the highly polarized political atmosphere in Washington, D.C might have forced both sides to make compromises that ensured gradual abolition of slavery over time, or passage of a bill of rights for the slaves themselves. Perhaps, 700,000 people would not have lost their lives.

But as history reminds us, this was not the case, and both sides did eventually fight a bitter war that led to the final logical conclusion desired by the victorious side.

Now, we are down to two basic objectives of the Second Amendment which apply to the micro-political level -- the individual citizen.

The Second Amendment tries to provide the citizen a natural right to self-defense. But what would be an acceptable level to which a citizen can arm oneself before being perceived as a threat to other citizens? Is a small arm like a revolver adequate? Does a shot-gun constitute as an adequate guarantee? Or is an automatic firearm that continuously sprays bullets at the squeeze of the trigger sufficient? Is the right to have a small concealable firearm a form of self-defense? The answer to all these are in shades of gray and not black-and-white as one might hope. However, there are basic degrees of lethality that any modern society would consider as excessive.

Firearms provide protection to an individual in only 2 ways -- either by acting as a deterrent to the threatening party, or as an actual means of stopping the threat from harming oneself. In that context, automatic firearms are considered excessive. Yet, by different interpretations of the Second Amendment’s ambiguous clause, these qualify as a legitimate form of self-defense.

In many ways, having firearms acting as deterrent is more effective than having to actually use them. Clearly, the framers of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn’t expect that governments and its citizens would shoot their way through hostile situations, but actually work out mutually acceptable solutions. Concealed weapons are unlikely to be deterrent, so the case for small concealed arms actually weakens the argument for deterrence. Unfortunately, the visibility of this deterrence especially does not work when the situation involves mentally unstable individuals.

Examples of the 2011 Tucson, AZ shootings or the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings are a stark reminder of what goes wrong when firearms are placed in the hands of mentally unstable people. However, there are many who argue in case of the Virginia Tech massacre that the policy of no firearms on university grounds was one of the causes of this. The argument goes that had individuals been allowed to carry arms on campus, they might have been able to stop the senseless killings. The killer, Seung-Hui Cho, carried 2 concealed pistols onto the premises before revealing them for use. So, while having others carry firearms probably might have saved lives that instance, it would have also opened up the possibility of more violence on campus. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has shown that the majority of gun violence in the United States is perpetrated by those in their teens and in early adult lives. And this is with majority of universities following the no guns on campus policy. Imagine what can happen when street violence can potentially spill onto the campus!

With the advent of modern information technology, we are still seeing governments and individuals fight it out in the courts over what constitutes as violation of the various clauses in the Bill of Rights by the federal and state governments’ actions. Whether those actions are indeed violations is something that the courts will need time to ponder over. But what is certain is that the majority of the objectives that the Second Amendment sought out to achieve have already been surrendered to the US Government. Any form of militant action against the United States Government, no matter how righteous it might be deemed, will be treated as an act of terror after 9/11. The American Civil War is a clear example that an uprising by a population that views its rightfully elected government as undemocratic will not survive. Private militias have sprung up with numerous armed individuals forming what they might call the last line of defense against tyranny, but are in all probability, and ironically, proving to be the agents of terror for the rest of the American population.

The truth is that the vast majority of individuals, by themselves are susceptible to irrational thought and actions. In fact, the whole premise of democracies is that the wisdom of crowds ensures that the right decisions are made in the best collective interest. So, when a constitution grants individuals the right to so drastically alter and affect other individuals by providing them the right to bear arms without due diligence on a case-by-case basis, the constitution, in effect, is undermining the very principles of democracy and freedom that it claims to preserve.

Interestingly enough, the biggest casualties of these guns haven’t been Americans, but actually their neighbors to the south - Mexicans. The booming demand for drugs in the United States has resulted in Mexico being a major conduit for drugs flowing through its relatively porous borders into the United States. But while Mexicans too have a constitutional right to own firearms, purchasing a firearm from gun shops is extremely difficult (the Mexican Army controls this). The result is that the estimated 15-40 billion dollars in money pouring back into Mexico is used in part to purchase arms by various cartels through front-persons in the United States with no criminal record. 2010 alone saw an estimated 15,000 killings in drug-cartel-related violence, and an estimated 90% of the illegals arms seized by Mexican authorities have origins in the United States. And the cycle of drugs, money and firearms repeats.

It is very unlikely that the Second Amendment will ever be repealed. If at all, the cost will be very high. Perhaps not as high as the price this nation paid for the Civil War, but high nonetheless. A more likely scenario is that stricter gun control laws will come into effect. Until then, we have to only hope unrealistically that no more senseless massacres take place.

A Generation of Lost Opportunities

The last few days of this week have been a rather eventful week. Not only did we see Pakistan finally take on the Taliban in its own backyard (there is still a lot of skepticism about how committed is the Pakistani leadership); but also saw the end to the 26 year long civil war in Sri Lanka. The former is still too early to comment on; but the latter is history. So I'm going to speak about what I think about this decades long conflict that has torn apart the island nation.

The speed with which the LTTE had seen significant reversals in its fortunes in the last couple of years was something that took most people by surprise. After all, unlike the Afghan Mujahideen, the Tamil Tigers were a proper functioning hierarchial organization. But the speed with which the LTTE met its demise was rather unexpected. But looking at how the Sri Lankan army carried out the campaign, it really is a no-brainer. With China (and Russia) arming the Sri Lankan armed forces and blocking any international intervention; the Sri Lankan army took on the LTTE with all its might and overlooking any collateral damage in this conflict. The international (and presumably, domestic) press and aid workers were (quite literally) sent packing out of the conflict zones. I don't believe casualties have every been so high in the entire 26-year conflict as it has been in the last few months. India, of course, was not ready to directly intervene; and with economic woes on top of the Indian Tamil's mind during election time, the Sri Lankan conflict was simply not worth all that. In all, Sri Lanka made a bold decision by finishing the rebel forces in such ferocity. And the gamble paid off.

However, placing this victory squarely on the shoulders of Sri Lanka's military and its political timing would be unfair. The LTTE had this coming there way. If you look at the history of the LTTE, it rose like many other similar factions fighting for the rights of the Tamil minorities in the island nation. With support from Indian Tamils (and the Indian govt.), these rebels appeared to have made an impact. The arrival of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was something that should be taken in with good faith, primarily because it tried to preserve the Sri Lankan state, while disarming the armed movement with the hope of entry into the political mainstream of Sri Lanka.

LTTE's chief - Prabhakaran, however, did not see it this way. Refusing to disarm, they ended up fighting the IPKF troops first, while systematically eliminating all sibling armed movements. They say, no one questioned Prabhakaran's loyalty to the goal of a Eelam (Tamil homeland). But I think that is less to do with the fact that he was so committed, and more to do with the fact that he was ruthless enough to assassinate anyone who did not agree with his ways. Any voice of dissent was ruthlessly crushed, making the LTTE administered areas to be more like a police state. If he had even the slightest of common sense, he should have understood that assassinations does not solve socio-political problems. Despite repeated breakouts of fighting with the Sri Lankan armed forces, for 26 years, the LTTE managed to keep significant tracts of territory under their control. Yet, they never worked towards setting up institutions that might have helped give meaning and show real fruits of their struggle. By forcing young children to enlist into their 'army'; they essentially began to alienate themselves from the very people for whom they began the cause. As much as the Sri Lankan Tamils might lament the loss of the LTTE, they must be also happy that the misery of conflict due to the Tamil Tigers is now over.

Prabhakaran had ample opportunities to resolve the conflict. Acceptance of a federal structure for the Sri Lankan state would have devolved sufficient powers into the hands of the ethnic Tamil minorities. By prolonging the conflict with no plan for a clear solution in sight and assassination attempts of both rivals and even civilian critics, the LTTE was, at the end of it, a much despised group.

The result is now far worse than it began with. An entire generation of Tamils have seen nothing but war and bloodshed all their life. The scars of such a long bloody conflict will last atleast another generation. In all these decades, the Sri Lankan Tamils had a bargaining chip -- the threat of secession. Now, they have nothing.

For now, Sri Lanka will have to answer some tough questions regarding the high collateral damage that the civilian population suffered to the international community and its own population. But time will be the best judge of these events when history answers whether the outcome of all this was even remotely worth the lives lost. The only hope (after such a bitter conflict) for those looking for a meaningful end to all this is that the Sri Lankan government will indeed grant and protect the rights of the Tamil minority; having emerged wiser about its past policies towards them.

Until then, an entire generation will remain lost, devoid of all the opportunities it had.

Pakistan: A State of Denial

26 November was a dark day in the history of India. 10 heavily armed terrorists held entire city to ransom as the rest of the country and the world looked on for nearly 3 days.

And as the smoke began to clear, and details of the terrorist attack emerged, it became clear that this attack came from just across the border. And once again, the finger pointed to Pakistan. But while questions rose over how valid these claims were, considering that the Samjhauta Express train blasts were carried out by Hindu extremists (though originally believed to be the handiwork of Islamic fundamentalists), it shouldn't have been as clear a case for this either. But it was. Unlike most previous major engagements with terrorists, this time the Indian personnel had captured one of them alive. With the exception of mindless killing in the station and on the streets, the people in the hotels were singled out based on their religion. If this was indeed a ploy by Hindu extremists to pass the blame on Islamic fundamentalists, undertaking such a suicide mission would be a stupid move.

Within days, the details of the lone surviving terrorist emerged. Foreign and local Pakistani media tracked down and captured on film the admittance by the parents of the surviving terrorist to be their son. Transcripts of telephonic conversations between the terrorists and their handlers were prepared and shared with foreign diplomatic agencies (not the public, as yet). Indian intelligence wire-tapped conversations between individuals who have been influential in the power politics of Pakistan. Yet, Pakistan denies it. In fact, they respond by whisking off these parents, and literally cordoning off the village. For a country that is claiming to be innocent, one wonders - why such a reaction?

The truth is that Pakistan is now in a state of denial. It denied that it had anything to do in the Kargil war. So much so, that it was willing to disown over 600 of its troops. Their casualties are believed now to have been as high as 4000. Nuclear proliferation was most rampant under both military and civilian adminsitrations.

And the denial, though frustrating for India in particular, is a classic example of how the left hand not knowing what the right hand does. The Pakistani military has been so entrenched in the country's politics, that you now have a state where there are essentially 2 entities that govern Pakistan. The Army (backed by the Secret Service) ... and the democratically elected government. And while all these misadventures are undertaken by the former, the latter is largely ignorant or unwilling to do something about it, other than face the rap on the international forum. Years of nurturing and funding the Islamic radicals has been eating away at the core of Pakistani society. There is a whispered acceptance that the problem is very much there, and compounded by the vested interests of some (if not many) in the Army. And many in Pakistan realize (including those within the political circles) that unless something is not done soon, it is a matter of time before the country turns into a second Afghanistan.

Like Kargil, it is possible that much of the civilian leadership was unaware of what some quarters of the Army was up to. However, the absence of any decisive move to get to the bottom of the Mumbai attacks on 26th November until now only reinforces the belief that Pakistan is unwilling to shake of its being in a perpetual state of denial. Bloggers online often report that Pakistani history text books in school indoctrinate or deny much of the rich history of the subcontinent to suit political agendas. If there is any truth in a nation denying its past, I guess, the denial of the present isn't a shocker after all! Pakistan, in that case, will remain... a State of Denial.

After the Mumbai Mayhem

It pains me that I should start off my blog with this, of all topics, but it is something that is the freshest on my mind. I've been in Mumbai (or Bombay, as I really love to call it), for nearly all my life. So when the riots happened in the early 90s, followed by the bomb blasts, till the 2006 train bombings... I've been in the city all the time. I was worried then too... and my heart goes out to those who lost their dear and loved ones. But the November 2008 terror strike was different.

The November 2008 terror strike took place while I was thousands of miles away... finishing my last day of work before starting a 4 day long weekend holiday with friends. Unlike the previous terror attacks (excluding the Dec '92 riots), this one lasted more than a day. And unlike previous attacks, which struck mostly a specific segment of society... Muslim minorities during the '92 riots or middle class during the 2006 train bombings, this one struck at all classes, races, nationalities and religions; in one fell swoop. But this nightmare lasted for 3 days, which simply made it far worse. I knew my parents were safely at home, and a false sense of security calmed me a bit through those days.

But what followed this is what amazed me. With the exception of a handful of politicians, leaders across the political spectrum remained united as Indian special forces weeded out these Pakistani-based terrorists. Politicians in India are generally opportunistic, and with national elections around the corner in about a year, this was a golden duck, waiting to be picked. Even more amusing was to see generally hard-lined politicians (namely the right-wing party folks) taking an eerie silence. I have a number of friends from the minority community. Some of the best schools in Bombay are run by minority institutions with a healthy mix of all religions. For once, I actually feared for their well-being. But, thankfully, nothing happened. And as if that wasn't comforting enough, there were actual protest marches against those terrorists by minorities as well! It was amusing to read about how Muslim priests refused to bury the dead terrorists on the grounds that Muslims don't carry out such dastardly acts, and its up to the Government to decide what to do with their bodies. And these were not only restricted to the streets of Bombay, but in a number of cities far removed from this mindless bloodshed.

Of course, the lone terrorist that was caught this time (there has been no one caught red-handed in any of the previous bombings) is now proving to be a serious embarrassment for Pakistan, which has had to go to the extreme lengths of cordoning off his village and whisking away his aged parents (who, I hope are safe). Of course, sadly, no one is coming forward as his legal aid to defend him. Sentiments are high, and people are, undoubtedly, upset. But as much as this remains an open and shut case, he still deserves a lawyer. After all, the rule of law should prevail over sentiments.

I look back now and see... over a 160 innocent lives were lost in a mindless spate of violence. One would think they died in vain, like many before them... in the 2006 bombings and before. But I see now that this tragedy has brought out the best in us Indians, and especially in the citizens of Mumbai (or Mumbaikars, as they are fondly called). It has brought many hard right-wing party leaders to their senses. Absence of their vitriolic rhetoric proves that the terror strikes sent down a much more chilling fact... even high-flying citizens and political leaders can pay with their lives. Perhaps it is this that has made many of them act more responsibly.

So as I look back now and see... they didn't die in vain after all. They died in uniting a country!

Crystal Blur?

Being my first blog, and the fact that it took me a while to get this address, I decided that I at least need to put down a blog to commemorate my creating this blog.

Frankly, I've missed chatting out with a number of friends with whom I used to talk, discuss and even argue over politics. But then came this period when I was busy with my graduate studies, and all this took a back seat. Its been about 6 months since my graduation, and I suddenly realize, that there is so much I want to speak and discuss, but I can't! And that is simply because the people I did so with aren't really around. Most are in other unearthly time zones, or simply busy with their lives to spare some time.

So, I decided to take this to a new level, the internet. In reality, while I like meeting new people, I'm wary of those I meet on the internet. And with good reason... I know, in many cases, people are not what they seem, and its always easier to assess someone in person than online. After all, as someone interested in AI (artificial intelligence) research, you never know when you might simply be conversing with a computer! Nah.. I'm kidding. I think we're still a few decades away from that.

And since I intend to write mostly stuff that is political, probably controversial, and with an open mind to accept other possibilities; the internet provides a certain level of anonymity, which is characteristic of a truly open society. The freedom of thought... and speech.

So while things should as clear as a crystal, we'll still find ourselves with a blur when it comes to seeing things. Writing this blog will give me a chance at perhaps explaining that blur as my opinion, while giving me a chance to hear what others (who take out time to read my blog) have to say about the same.

So I hope that you all like reading (and replying) on this, as much as I will like writing to it. Thanks for stopping by!