Here’s a thought experiment: imagine a situation where ten gunmen don’t have the ability to completely demobilize a city of 12 million. As the crises in Mumbai has shown us, government sponsored anti-terrorism units, even well funded ones, can’t be everywhere at once.
India should take Israel’s lead, to start with. The small, middle eastern country is no stranger to terrorist attacks and it relies mainly on private security forces to guard public buildings. In Israel, every place from banks to supermarkets has an ex-soldier carrying an AK-47s at the entrance.
This is not the final answer, though. India has to repeal its antiquated weapons ban; laws which originate from the British occupation days, enacted to squelch Indian resistance movements. It should come as no surprise then, that these laws are equally effective in preventing the Indian populace from protecting themselves against terrorists. In America, for comparison, where the ratio of guns to people is 9.6:10, the last successful terrorist attacks were conducted where citizens are also banned from carrying firearms; airplanes. Banning guns doesn’t prevent the ‘bad guys’ from carrying weapons, but it does leave people dependent on potentially inept governments for protection. Mahatma Gandhi said “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” Why then, has the Indian government held onto laws that make it prohibitively difficult to obtain a firearm license?
It’s time to revisit the logic of weapons banning. Our own constitution treats the ownership of firearms as a civil liberty in a way that is inextricably tied to the natural right to self defense; a notion that was recently verified by the supreme court. India should learn from our example. Terrorism, in nature, wants its victims to respond by sacrificing liberties out of fear. Shouldn’t, then, free people respond in the exact opposite way; guarantee even more freedoms to create a safer and happier society?
