Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:46 AM, lukhman_khan wrote: > *hope this is of some help to people who want to shout at someone > > Dr. VS Acharya > Home Minister - Karnataka State > Room no. 315 & 315 A > Vidhan Soudha > Bangalore 560001 > Tel: 080 22252536 > vsacha...@gmail.com > > P. Chidambaram > Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block > Central Secretariat > New Delhi - 110 001 > Phone: 23092011, 23092161 > > websitemha...@nic.in > > > Dr. Ajai Kumar Singh > DG & IGP > Karnataka State Police Headquarters > Nrupathunga Road > Bangalore > Tel: 080 22211803, 22942999 > > > Lukhman, I am going ahead and putting this info up on Citizen Matters, an e-magazine that I contribute to...thank you. Deepa.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
*hope this is of some help to people who want to shout at someone Dr. VS Acharya Home Minister - Karnataka State Room no. 315 & 315 A Vidhan Soudha Bangalore 560001 Tel: 080 22252536 vsacha...@gmail.com P. Chidambaram Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi - 110 001 Phone: 23092011, 23092161 websitemha...@nic.in Dr. Ajai Kumar Singh DG & IGP Karnataka State Police Headquarters Nrupathunga Road Bangalore Tel: 080 22211803, 22942999
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
>>Then the pink chaddis will run >>like hell. If they dont, aim a little lower and pull the trigger. > carrying a gun simply to wave it around is stupid. i know someone who > carried a gun just for that, I am sure I said "pull the trigger" IF the wielding doesnt work. What I was trying to say was - first ask questions and then shoot. Well, another perfectly reasonable line of thinking is (from good bad ugly) if you gotta shoot, shoot - dont talk. To each his own. Lukhman
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
Charles Haynes wrote, [on 3/6/2009 1:59 AM]: >>> I think it's been ascribed to Mahatma Gandhi, but I don't know who actually >>> said it :Civilization is when a jewel-bedecked, beautiful woman can walk >>> through the streets alone at night, without fear. Or words to that effect. > >> I would describe that outcome as the castration of humanity. > > I would describe any other outcome as barbaric, and I do not believe > that humans are inherently barbarians. Humans are inherently driven by biochemistry, just like any other species. I found Cheeni's choice of words interesting, as there is a fairly large body of research that correlates testosterone levels and aggression levels [1]. Udhay [1] e.g, http://tr.im/h4o6 -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Deepa Mohan wrote: > [...] >> I think it's been ascribed to Mahatma Gandhi, but I don't know who actually >> said it :Civilization is when a jewel-bedecked, beautiful woman can walk >> through the streets alone at night, without fear. Or words to that effect. > I would describe that outcome as the castration of humanity. I would describe any other outcome as barbaric, and I do not believe that humans are inherently barbarians. -- Charles
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Deepa Mohan wrote: > [...] > > I think it's been ascribed to Mahatma Gandhi, but I don't know who > actually > > said it :Civilization is when a jewel-bedecked, beautiful woman can walk > > through the streets alone at night, without fear. Or words to that > effect. > > I would describe that outcome as the castration of humanity. > 'Yes, I did also hear it mentioned that one sure way to peace is large-scale frontal lobotomies! :) -Deepa.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Deepa Mohan wrote: [...] > I think it's been ascribed to Mahatma Gandhi, but I don't know who actually > said it :Civilization is when a jewel-bedecked, beautiful woman can walk > through the streets alone at night, without fear. Or words to that effect. I would describe that outcome as the castration of humanity. I like a safe and peaceful society as much as anyone else, but I believe that the expectation that all human beings can share a common view on any single idea to be utterly false. Humans tend to disagree, it is at least as important as our tendency to agree occasionally. Peace can only reign if we wipe out the entire gene & behavioral (nature and nurture) pool of violence which would be a pretty large chunk of the human population. Mandatory death penalty to all rule violators might be the way to get there - you know, like killing all people caught without a ticket on the trains, and perhaps also kill all of their extended family and friends. Sooner or later, I suppose after 3 or 4 generations of steadfastly applying this policy you will get peace for sure, and you'll be lucky if to have any people left. Switzerland is probably the most peaceful country I have been in. My mental image of the Swiss protestor is one who will throw a rock in anger and immediately run after it to pick it up and drop it in a dustbin out of force of habit. Bizarrely there are days of scheduled violence where the swiss teens can let loose their rebellious streak. May 1 in Zurich is recognized annually as a day of protest, rioting and rowdyism, supposedly against capitalism, but in reality they happen for no reason other than to protest. The police warn all normal folk away from the areas of protest in advance, and the Police won't bother harassing the protestors as long as they stay within the declared protest areas. My imagination here is that the protestor who is trashing the place on May 1st, is also the city janitor who is cleaning up the mess the next day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOzZXXlV9mk You don't see a single policeman in the area, and that's typically the case - the police don't step in unless things get really out of hand. They are willing to tolerate a few burnt cars and spray painted walls. Cheeni
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
> A said: > > > The whole idea of carrying a gun is to simply wield it. B said: > > > carrying a gun simply to wave it around is stupid. Which has brought us to a debate that has raged in the US for years and years now... I read, in college, an essay ( in a volume titled "Several Essays"...what an imaginative title) that defined "civilization" as the ability of the average citizen to *lay down" arms and live in peace. I think it's been ascribed to Mahatma Gandhi, but I don't know who actually said it :Civilization is when a jewel-bedecked, beautiful woman can walk through the streets alone at night, without fear. Or words to that effect. Deepa.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:12 AM, lukhman_khan wrote: >> carrying a gun (or any weapon) is a bad idea, unless you actually >> intend to use it. With a gun, it means you have to be prepared to >> cause a fatality. > Do I detect a contradiction here (in what you said above)? > > The whole idea of carrying a gun is to simply wield it. Then the pink chaddis > will run > like hell. If they dont, aim for the pink chaddis, literally. Then the pink > chaddis will run >like hell. If they dont, aim a little lower and pull the trigger. carrying a gun simply to wave it around is stupid. i know someone who carried a gun just for that, simply as a deterrent -- they ended up getting shot by that very same gun because they were indecisive when it came to the point of using it. i know another guy who let of a gun at a car hijacker, but ended up shooting a bystander because he didnt know how to handle the gun correctly.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > > I personally don't think what is happening now deserves such grave reaction. > I still maintain that it is a passing phenomenon, and as long as it is not > given credence through our reaction to it, it will go away. Your line of thought seems to extend to the powers that be too : women need not be taken seriously in Karnataka (read India). Todays DNA paper (back page) has a photograph of Bangalore PC Shankar Bidari at the Woodeyar birthday party on tuesday. -- .
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
> > I still maintain that it is a passing phenomenon, and as long > as it is not > > given credence through our reaction to it, it will go away. > I'm a little confused. The same goons who have no qualms about giving > up their lives just to show women their place in society would give up > and go away because we refuse to acknowledge them?! Venky. ROTFL. Lukhman
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
> Why have guns to defend yourself? What is wrong with running > away or begging to be left alone? If that doesn't work, the > link below has a solution. > http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/krav-maga-an-israeli-system-of-self-defence-makes-its-way-to-india_100140760.html I read that article. Nowhere does it mention the phrase "run away" from your attacker. Lukhman
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
> Why have guns to defend yourself? What is wrong with running > away or begging to be left alone? If that doesn't work, the link > And guns are to the individual what nuclear weapons are to nations. > If you are at the receiving end of a nuclear attack, you only have > two choices - attack the attacker with a nuclear weapon if you have > them or unconditional surrender. > I personally don't think what is happening now deserves such grave > reaction. I still maintain that it is a passing phenomenon, and as > long as it is not given credence through our reaction to it, > it will go away. There are 10 lines of quoted text above. First 2 lines --> If someone attacks you, you should run away. Next 4 lines --> If the moral brigade attack you, and you cant attack them, surrender (or run away). Next four gems-> Close you eyes and they will all go away. Now please also explain the logic behind what you are saying. Lukhman
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
> carrying a gun (or any weapon) is a bad idea, unless you actually > intend to use it. With a gun, it means you have to be prepared to > cause a fatality. > > i carry a rubber whip made out of an old truck tire -- and also a > rungu (a kind of truncheon) in my car - the usual threat > to deal with > here are either shit-throwing-extortionist-street-kids ... or rowdy > matatu (taxi-bus) touts ... i have used the whip / and the truncheon > on one occasion each and both times i struck the first blow and the > confrontation ended there. Do I detect a contradiction here (in what you said above)? The whole idea of carrying a gun is to simply wield it. Then the pink chaddis will run like hell. If they dont, aim for the pink chaddis, literally. Then the pink chaddis will run like hell. If they dont, aim a little lower and pull the trigger. You dont always cause a fatality with a gun if you know what you are doing. The discussions here are all assuming more. And a cool headed lady can handle it better, than a whip wielding guy. Lukhman
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > I personally don't think what is happening now deserves such grave reaction. > I still maintain that it is a passing phenomenon, and as long as it is not > given credence through our reaction to it, it will go away. I'm a little confused. The same goons who have no qualms about giving up their lives just to show women their place in society would give up and go away because we refuse to acknowledge them?! Venky. -- One hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Tuesday 03 Mar 2009 7:57:07 am Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > getting the BJP out of government in Karnataka (and ensuring it doesn’t > come to power in the Lok Sabha polls) should be your focus if you want to > stop this I am dead certain that the BJP is heading down sh1t creek in Karnataka - but less sure about Lok Sabha wheer everyone is a crook and everyone is a hijra Like the old Hindi song "Napunsak hai tum" "Napunsak hain hum" "magar lagta ke mere saath" "saara sarkaar darpok hain" For those who don't know Hindi it means "Hitler had only one big ball" "Goring, had 2 but they were small" "Himmler.." "had something similar" "but poor old Goebbels had no balls at all" shiv
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 07:22:31PM +, ashok _ wrote: > carrying a gun (or any weapon) is a bad idea, unless you actually > intend to use it. With a gun, it means you have to be prepared to And why would you want to carry a weapon if you wouldn't be fully prepared to use it? > cause a fatality.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
From: Bonobashi To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Sent: Tuesday, 3 March, 2009 12:15:17 PM Subject: Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police From: Kiran K Karthikeyan To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Sent: Tuesday, 3 March, 2009 6:20:09 AM Subject: Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police How is this different from the Islamic moral police who go about telling women that their ankles are visible and hence they are inappropriately dressed. If Taliban is considered a terrorist outfit, I don't see why organizations like Ram Sene who inflict such fear in our citizenry are not called terrorists. Is it because they are backed by the politicians? Or is it because they have not yet killed anybody? Mutalik was out on bail shortly after his arrest. And he is a suspect in other cases. Where is the logic? I tried to avoid this comparison in my mail as this opens a can of worms. Does that mean that the worms go away? Sooner or later, one has to acknowledge that they exist. But to be honest, I don't think Ram Sena or any other outfit in India will ever come close to what the Taliban is. I presume, since you claim honesty as an element in the formation of your opinion, that you are aware that the Taliban started in small ways, and did not commence actions with executions in broad daylight? You are aware, of course, that they began by insisting on superficial adherence to the decencies as they saw it, the wearing of long beards by men, for instance, the restrictions of women from certain locations (even, in one numbingly stupid instance in Swat, banning them from a cloth market), shutting down barber-shops, shops selling music and video and book-shops which sold English publications? You do know that like the first infant steps of the Ram Sene, and the Bajrang Dal before them, and the Shiv Sena in parallel with the Bajrang Dal, the Taliban too started with an assault on 'foreign' culture and the corruption of time-hallowed ways? You are also saying this, one presumes, bearing in mind that the precursor of the Ram Sene is the venerable gentleman of Shiv's acquaintance, grieved over a small minor cultural matter like women wearing flowers in their hair? Nothing harmful in these, is there? So, my question: what trajectory do you foresee for the Ram Sene? And what gives you the confidence that they won't land up burning a helpless man and his two infant sons as the Bajrang Dal did? Hinduism is a very personal religion (way of life), it is also very tolerant. I presume from that broad-brush statement, that you have never bothered with the liberal arts curriculum during your education, but have concentrated on the essentials. Do please give yourself some time to figure out what the rather violent references in the Vedas to the dealings of the tribes of the Vedas with the authochthones could have meant. Were those also personal, tolerant statements of intent, or depictions of what happened over something like two millennia of ethnic cleansing? Or will we be subjected to the line of argument that Shiv has skewered as 'My fly is open, but so is your shirt button', so if it appears that Hindus have been less than tolerant, somehow it is all right because Muslims and Christians are even less tolerant? If you reside in Bangalore, do ask yourself how the large community of Iyengars came into this state, and what impelled them? It might throw some light on the non-violence that you imagine was a hall-mark of Hindu society at all times. While on the subject of history, you might also like to figure out why the Saivite revival, in general, the Hindu revival of the fifth century onwards, and the subjugation of a large Buddhist population in the eastern part of India was so unpopular if Hinduism essentially was tolerant and accepting of pluralism. It is a telling commentary on the state of affairs that more than 80% of the local population in Bengal was converted to another religion by preachers without the backing of military might. Drawing an inference from this is not particularly difficult, unless one is determined not to see what happened. By its very nature and the way it has been practiced for millenia doesn't let it be twisted towards the narrow purpose of fundamentalists. I am a little confused at this point: is 'Bosh' or 'Balderdash' a more appropriate reaction at this point? You are referring to the same non-fundamentalist, broad religion where the Shankaracharya of Puri (one of the four genuine ones, not the fake) stopped a learned woman's recital from the Vedas in his honour at a public gathering, on the grounds that women are not permitted to read the Vedas? The RSS have been around long enough and even they haven't been able to gain significant ground. It won't happen. Right. I have recently come to the conclusion that I am the Queen of Siam. Pleased to meet you. Kneel, and
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
From: Kiran K Karthikeyan To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Sent: Tuesday, 3 March, 2009 6:20:09 AM Subject: Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police How is this different from the Islamic moral police who go about telling women that their ankles are visible and hence they are inappropriately dressed. If Taliban is considered a terrorist outfit, I don't see why organizations like Ram Sene who inflict such fear in our citizenry are not called terrorists. Is it because they are backed by the politicians? Or is it because they have not yet killed anybody? Mutalik was out on bail shortly after his arrest. And he is a suspect in other cases. Where is the logic? I tried to avoid this comparison in my mail as this opens a can of worms. Does that mean that the worms go away? Sooner or later, one has to acknowledge that they exist. But to be honest, I don't think Ram Sena or any other outfit in India will ever come close to what the Taliban is. I presume, since you claim honesty as an element in the formation of your opinion, that you are aware that the Taliban started in small ways, and did not commence actions with executions in broad daylight? You are aware, of course, that they began by insisting on superficial adherence to the decencies as they saw it, the wearing of long beards by men, for instance, the restrictions of women from certain locations (even, in one numbingly stupid instance in Swat, banning them from a cloth market), shutting down barber-shops, shops selling music and video and book-shops which sold English publications? You do know that like the first infant steps of the Ram Sene, and the Bajrang Dal before them, and the Shiv Sena in parallel with the Bajrang Dal, the Taliban too started with an assault on 'foreign' culture and the corruption of time-hallowed ways? You are also saying this, one presumes, bearing in mind that the precursor of the Ram Sene is the venerable gentleman of Shiv's acquaintance, grieved over a small minor cultural matter like women wearing flowers in their hair? Nothing harmful in these, is there? So, my question: what trajectory do you foresee for the Ram Sene? And what gives you the confidence that they won't land up burning a helpless man and his two infant sons as the Bajrang Dal did? Hinduism is a very personal religion (way of life), it is also very tolerant. I presume from that broad-brush statement, that you have never bothered with the liberal arts curriculum during your education, but have concentrated on the essentials. Do please give yourself some time to figure out what the rather violent references in the Vedas to the dealings of the tribes of the Vedas with the authochthones could have meant. Were those also personal, tolerant statements of intent, or depictions of what happened over something like two millennia of ethnic cleansing? Or will we be subjected to the line of argument that Shiv has skewered as 'My fly is open, but so is your shirt button', so if it appears that Hindus have been less than tolerant, somehow it is all right because Muslims and Christians are even less tolerant? If you reside in Bangalore, do ask yourself how the large community of Iyengars came into this state, and what impelled them? It might throw some light on the non-violence that you imagine was a hall-mark of Hindu society at all times. While on the subject of history, you might also like to figure out why the Saivite revival, in general, the Hindu revival of the fifth century onwards, and the subjugation of a large Buddhist population in the eastern part of India was so unpopular if Hinduism essentially was tolerant and accepting of pluralism. It is a telling commentary on the state of affairs that more than 80% of the local population in Bengal was converted to another religion by preachers without the backing of military might. Drawing an inference from this is not particularly difficult, unless one is determined not to see what happened. By its very nature and the way it has been practiced for millenia doesn't let it be twisted towards the narrow purpose of fundamentalists. I am a little confused at this point: is 'Bosh' or 'Balderdash' a more appropriate reaction at this point? You are referring to the same non-fundamentalist, broad religion where the Shankaracharya of Puri (one of the four genuine ones, not the fake) stopped a learned woman's recital from the Vedas in his honour at a public gathering, on the grounds that women are not permitted to read the Vedas? The RSS have been around long enough and even they haven't been able to gain significant ground. It won't happen. Right. I have recently come to the conclusion that I am the Queen of Siam. Pleased to meet you. Kneel, and you shall be knighted. With (please correct my count) five states: Gujarat, MP, Chhatisgarh, Uttaranchal and Karnataka, under their control,
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > Mutalik and his ilk are a passing phenomenon. He won't be able to carry this > on for too long. And he will quit once he realizes he is not getting any > political mileage out of this. I'm ignoring him, and also refuse to change > the way I live to acquiesce to his demands. > I think that is a very naive reaction. Mutalik and his goons might go away, but the damage is done. There are scores of people in India now who think it is their duty to be the moral police. And, to add to it, personal vendettas can easily be executed under this guise. Unless the powers that be deal with this seriously, and the people themselves change their ways, we will live with the fear of being attacked. I encourage my wife to buy and carry a mace spray with her now. I have never done this before and I've lived here all my life. Well, except for a few where I was out of the country. Why should I submit to such rowdies and live my life in fear? I would prefer to pack up and leave if I cannot count on the government to protect me, or allow me to protect myself. Venkat
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > this. In other words, go out and vote for a secular party. > Guess we'll have to find a new party then. None of them in India are secular. Everyone pays lip service, nobody really means it.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > > Why have guns to defend yourself? What is wrong with running away The latter was the first thing our sensei taught us. Holding a black/blue/add colour belt in AND using it is no protection when you are a lone woman pitted against 3-4 men. His words rang in my ears some years later on a very crowded Mumbai railway station platform (and was the smartest thing I did, in retrospect) which had a lot of spectators gawking away. The latter form of specimens abound in any situation in India. > or begging to be left alone? If that doesn't work, the link below has a > solution. Dialogue, reasoning, talking sense etc with your attacker never works to your advantage. Harassing women drivers is something that is very common in Bangalore and the best bet is "safety in a crowd" so for example the lady on noticing the bikers tailgating her should have taken her car to the middle of the Indiranagar junction on CMH road which is crowded and caused a traffic jam there instead of turning into an inner bylane where there are less people to help her. Its not the perfect solution but such attacks should not occur in the first place. > http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/krav-maga-an-israeli-system-of-self-defence-makes-its-way-to-india_100140760.html I echo the "lack of real-life applicability". In practice sessions students wear gi's which are strong cloth which is double stitched and does not tear easily, have tons of space in the dojo to swing an arm/kick and practice all the moves with partners who *dont* get hit (to incapacitate) in reality. In real life, women may wear clothes (like a sari) which is not exactly convenient/flexible if she wants to kick her attacker. When you are standing on the steps of a BEST bus and someone grabs you from behind there is hardly any free space to throw an elbow jab without hurting yourself. Also in a crowded space one has to be careful about not hurting other people, except your attacker (who knows _and_ takes advantage of this). > The government of any country will be unable to defend you when the enemy is > composed of a significant number of its own citizens. It will also be unable ..and iirc, its still the duty of the police/law to protect its *tax-paying citizens*. > to defend you when the attacker has absolutely no qualms about giving up > his/her own life. Nah, these goons are not that brave to give up their life and 4 men attacking a lone woman Not my definition of brave. > Nice allegory :). And I see your point about deterrence. But the issue is > bigger than that. If you up the game by buying firearms, every goon, thug, > thief knows they have to have one too. So pretty soon, everybody is arming point taken. > I personally don't think what is happening now deserves such grave reaction. > I still maintain that it is a passing phenomenon, and as long as it is not > given credence through our reaction to it, it will go away. Being silent/Ignoring/turning a blind eye is not a solution. Btw, how do you know/conclude its a passing phenomenon ?
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
> First they came for the ... [1] Let's leave that Neimoller quote out of it. And simply focus on what needs to be done. Lukhman nailed it - getting the BJP out of government in Karnataka (and ensuring it doesn’t come to power in the Lok Sabha polls) should be your focus if you want to stop this. In other words, go out and vote for a secular party.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
> > Sounds more idealistic than practical to me. The right to defend > yourself is pretty fundamental. We have to a large extent (and in my > opinion, not entirely wisely) traded in that right to have the > government defend us. Now, if the government is unwilling or unable > to defend me, I will set about defending myself. I'm not saying it > has come to that right now, but if it ever does, I would have > absolutely no qualms about getting a firearm, preferably licensed. > Why have guns to defend yourself? What is wrong with running away or begging to be left alone? If that doesn't work, the link below has a solution. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/krav-maga-an-israeli-system-of-self-defence-makes-its-way-to-india_100140760.html The government of any country will be unable to defend you when the enemy is composed of a significant number of its own citizens. It will also be unable to defend you when the attacker has absolutely no qualms about giving up his/her own life. So is the answer allowing citizens to arm themselves. Imagine what the Bombay and Gujarat riots would have become if people had guns? I really very much doubt people would go about taking potshots at > other people just because they own a deadly weapon. It is like being > in a car in a tough neighbourhood. You feel much more secure than if > you are on foot. But that doesn't mean you run people over if they > shake a fist at you. A firearm, like a functioning legal system, is > primarily about deterrence. Most places, the kind of harassment we > are talking about is not common because the threat of legal > repercussions is very real. As we all know, that is not the case > here. But it would take a brave goon to attack a girl if he though > there was a reasonable chance she might have a Beretta in her handbag. > It is just not worth the risk. > > I don't understand why owning a firearm is so taboo. If anything, > people who are willing to risk their own lives to avoid owning guns > should be among the safest people to carry them! All this seems very > similar to (I hate that term!) "the moral police", who are so > convinced of their inability to control themselves in the presence of > naked skin that they want to force everybody to cover up for their own > good! :) Nice allegory :). And I see your point about deterrence. But the issue is bigger than that. If you up the game by buying firearms, every goon, thug, thief knows they have to have one too. So pretty soon, everybody is arming themselves. With most other weapons, you can at least run away, but with guns the wielder can deal death from a distance simply by pulling the trigger. And this the same logic why now we have nuclear weapons amassed by the super powers enough to destroy the entire world many times over. And guns are to the individual what nuclear weapons are to nations. If you are at the receiving end of a nuclear attack, you only have two choices - attack the attacker with a nuclear weapon if you have them or unconditional surrender. I personally don't think what is happening now deserves such grave reaction. I still maintain that it is a passing phenomenon, and as long as it is not given credence through our reaction to it, it will go away.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > I tried to avoid this comparison in my mail as this opens a can of worms. > But to be honest, I don't think Ram Sena or any other outfit in India will > ever come close to what the Taliban is. Hinduism is a very personal religion > (way of life), it is also very tolerant. By its very nature and the way it > has been practiced for millenia doesn't let it be twisted towards the narrow > purpose of fundamentalists. The RSS have been around long enough and even > they haven't been able to gain significant ground. It won't happen. To avoid the comparison simply because it may open a can of worms isn't very far from outright denial. Hoping that the Indian outfits will never come close to the Taliban merely by thinking it is also denial. It also reeks of idealism. Hinduism may be many things but that does not, in any way, automatically ensure that mobs of thugs will behave - the Mangalore/Bangalore attacks being examples against that very idea. > Mutalik and his ilk are a passing phenomenon. He won't be able to carry this > on for too long. And he will quit once he realizes he is not getting any > political mileage out of this. I'm ignoring him, and also refuse to change > the way I live to acquiesce to his demands. Muthalik may be a passing phenomenon but I doubt that it is the same with his ilk. If we choose to sit quietly hoping that they are, we also choose to send them the signal that it's acceptable for them to carry on. And like the juveniles they emulate, they will try to see how far they can push the boundaries of acceptability. First they came for the ... [1] -gabin [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... > > Kiran > -- Groucho Marx - "I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
How is this different from the Islamic moral police who go about telling women that their ankles are visible and hence they are inappropriately dressed. If Taliban is considered a terrorist outfit, I don't see why organizations like Ram Sene who inflict such fear in our citizenry are not called terrorists. Is it because they are backed by the politicians? Or is it because they have not yet killed anybody? Mutalik was out on bail shortly after his arrest. And he is a suspect in other cases. Where is the logic? I tried to avoid this comparison in my mail as this opens a can of worms. But to be honest, I don't think Ram Sena or any other outfit in India will ever come close to what the Taliban is. Hinduism is a very personal religion (way of life), it is also very tolerant. By its very nature and the way it has been practiced for millenia doesn't let it be twisted towards the narrow purpose of fundamentalists. The RSS have been around long enough and even they haven't been able to gain significant ground. It won't happen. Mutalik and his ilk are a passing phenomenon. He won't be able to carry this on for too long. And he will quit once he realizes he is not getting any political mileage out of this. I'm ignoring him, and also refuse to change the way I live to acquiesce to his demands. Kiran
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
Charles Haynes wrote: > issue. While it's important to address class issues in general, I > think addressing the specific problem at hand requires staying focused > on the > sexism inherent in the attacks. Venky TV wrote: > should be among the safest people to carry them! All this seems very > similar to (I hate that term!) "the moral police", who are so > convinced of their inability to control themselves in the presence of > naked skin that they want to force everybody to cover up for their own > good! :) > How is this different from the Islamic moral police who go about telling women that their ankles are visible and hence they are inappropriately dressed. If Taliban is considered a terrorist outfit, I don't see why organizations like Ram Sene who inflict such fear in our citizenry are not called terrorists. Is it because they are backed by the politicians? Or is it because they have not yet killed anybody? Mutalik was out on bail shortly after his arrest. And he is a suspect in other cases. Where is the logic? Venkat
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > I have been reading quite a few articles on the harrassment issue, and what > has become evident is that the catalyst for this is not the appeal of > orthodoxy, but economic disparity. I don't like this conclusion either, but > there is just no way around it. While class is relevant, it's obvious that sexism - specifically controlling women's behavior by fear and intimidation is the primary issue. While it's important to address class issues in general, I think addressing the specific problem at hand requires staying focused on the sexism inherent in the attacks. -- Charles
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM, lukhman_khan wrote: > > After careful thought i now have a flat iron rod which I can swish > around like a sword - permanently near my driving seat. Thankfully no > one has even as much as given me the stare after that. > > For you I suggest you go for a gun license and carry a firearm all the > time. The only good goon is a dead goon. > carrying a gun (or any weapon) is a bad idea, unless you actually intend to use it. With a gun, it means you have to be prepared to cause a fatality. i carry a rubber whip made out of an old truck tire -- and also a rungu (a kind of truncheon) in my car - the usual threat to deal with here are either shit-throwing-extortionist-street-kids ... or rowdy matatu (taxi-bus) touts ... i have used the whip / and the truncheon on one occasion each and both times i struck the first blow and the confrontation ended there.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote: > Righteous indignation and idealism are great for coffee table conversations, > and I indulge in them too. But when push comes to shove, I prefer being a > realist and practical. > > Moreover, I'm concerned when ordinary people start arming themselves. I once > had a gun pointed at me (for no fault of mine I might add, lest I be judged > :) ) and I know what it feels like, and I would never do that to a fellow > human being, no matter what the circumstances. Sounds more idealistic than practical to me. The right to defend yourself is pretty fundamental. We have to a large extent (and in my opinion, not entirely wisely) traded in that right to have the government defend us. Now, if the government is unwilling or unable to defend me, I will set about defending myself. I'm not saying it has come to that right now, but if it ever does, I would have absolutely no qualms about getting a firearm, preferably licensed. > I also know what holding a > deadly weapon does to a man (or woman). The power to take another's life is > not something you want to or should possess unless it’s your job and you’re > trained not to use it at the slightest provocation. I really very much doubt people would go about taking potshots at other people just because they own a deadly weapon. It is like being in a car in a tough neighbourhood. You feel much more secure than if you are on foot. But that doesn't mean you run people over if they shake a fist at you. A firearm, like a functioning legal system, is primarily about deterrence. Most places, the kind of harassment we are talking about is not common because the threat of legal repercussions is very real. As we all know, that is not the case here. But it would take a brave goon to attack a girl if he though there was a reasonable chance she might have a Beretta in her handbag. It is just not worth the risk. I don't understand why owning a firearm is so taboo. If anything, people who are willing to risk their own lives to avoid owning guns should be among the safest people to carry them! All this seems very similar to (I hate that term!) "the moral police", who are so convinced of their inability to control themselves in the presence of naked skin that they want to force everybody to cover up for their own good! :) Venky.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Deepa Mohan wrote: > > I would suggest that since women do, usually, carry a mobile, the general > police number, 100, should be on it as a quick-dial no. (though I agree > that it may often mean nothing at all.) Perhaps, just the act of calling > will deter these goonsI am just not able to say anything definitively. > > I would welcome it if others could come up with small, concrete steps that > women could implement to ensure some degree of safety. http://www.svaksha.com/post/2009/cellf-help iirc Ashwin of Mapunity had told me that a beta version of the above was available for airtel subscribers. I am not one but those who are could comment on its usefulness. > Wearing only sarees and salwar kameez is NOT an option. Who knows, they may > decide next that salwar kameez is a "northern" dress. ugh... draping the former takes ages and both loosuu garments are the perfect noose material ...
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Kiran K Karthikeyan < kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Moreover, I'm concerned when ordinary people start arming themselves. I > once > had a gun pointed at me (for no fault of mine I might add, lest I be judged > :) ) and I know what it feels like, and I would never do that to a fellow > human being, no matter what the circumstances. I also know what holding a > deadly weapon does to a man (or woman). The power to take another's life is > not something you want to or should possess unless it’s your job and you’re > trained not to use it at the slightest provocation. > > My two paisa. > Kiran > Kiran a resounding "hear, hear!" to this paragraph, as much as I agree with the rest. Very well put...thank you for saying this. Cheers, Deepa.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
> Gun licenses are extraordinarily difficult to acquire and a man who won't use > a stick will not use a gun. The chap who uses a gun will not need a licence. I have been reading quite a few articles on the harrassment issue, and what has become evident is that the catalyst for this is not the appeal of orthodoxy, but economic disparity. I don't like this conclusion either, but there is just no way around it. So what does it mean for the economically fortunate? It means that you can use sticks, and so will they. You can defend yourself with legal guns, and the next time they'll attack with illegal guns. But the inescapable fact is that they have nothing to lose, while you do. And more often than not in any physical confrontation, the ones who prevail are those with nothing or less to lose. Those you seek to defend yourself against are more in number, and they are your countrymen. If you, like me, read the tale of two cities and sympathised with the French revolutionaries, well you should be able to sympathise with them. If you wondered at the naiveté of Marie Antoinette when she said, "Let them eat cake", well the circumstances are not too different. Yes, it is your right to blow as much money in a restaurant on one night as many in your country live on for a month. It is also your right to show as much skin as you want to while staying with the level of modesty prescribed by law. But the wise realize that it’s not the law or ideals that determine right or wrong, but the context in which an action is performed. And as such, the context is not on your side. Don't get me wrong, I don't suffer from pangs of conscience when I dine at a five star restaurant nor am I a big fan of charity which involves parting with my hard-earned money (though I am ready to spend my time and have). But if these goons catch me, I either run (I have long legs and can run pretty darn fast) or fall on my knees and beg (because the mob rarely likes to hurt somebody begging for their life - it just doesn't give them the same ego boost and dampens the adrenaline rush). Also, get insurance which might cover you from any financial loss or hospital expenses due to such episodes (it’s definitely cheaper than a gun). End result - the goons are satisfied and you're in one piece. I doubt any of these goons want to cause any serious injury - they are not fundamentalists or extremists. Righteous indignation and idealism are great for coffee table conversations, and I indulge in them too. But when push comes to shove, I prefer being a realist and practical. Moreover, I'm concerned when ordinary people start arming themselves. I once had a gun pointed at me (for no fault of mine I might add, lest I be judged :) ) and I know what it feels like, and I would never do that to a fellow human being, no matter what the circumstances. I also know what holding a deadly weapon does to a man (or woman). The power to take another's life is not something you want to or should possess unless it’s your job and you’re trained not to use it at the slightest provocation. My two paisa. Kiran
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 04:35:55PM +0530, ss wrote: > Gun licenses are extraordinarily difficult to acquire and a man who won't use > a stick will not use a gun. The chap who uses a gun will not need a licence. The latter seems to apply more to the thugs. I could use excellent reasons to carry a firearm with a permit. As to not being able to fire, there is training for that. Same applies to the stick.
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:05 PM, ss wrote: > On Saturday 28 Feb 2009 6:30:17 pm lukhman_khan wrote: >> For you I suggest you go for a gun license and carry a firearm all the >> time. The only good goon is a dead goon. > > Gun licenses are extraordinarily difficult to acquire and a man who won't use > a stick will not use a gun. The chap who uses a gun will not need a licence. The street price of a legal weapon in India is prohibitively expensive, and the only weapons you can get your hands on are made at the Indian Ordnance factory - which are of very poor quality and have a very high failure rate. Further, IOF handguns have very little stopping power and you are allowed a ration of 25 bullets a year. Yet, there is a wait period of 6-12 months for these bad guns. Ironically, you get a much better and cheaper deal if you buy an illegal weapon that has been smuggled in. In other words, guns in India are not meant for the average citizen seeking protection. Cheeni
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
On Saturday 28 Feb 2009 6:30:17 pm lukhman_khan wrote: > For you I suggest you go for a gun license and carry a firearm all the > time. The only good goon is a dead goon. Gun licenses are extraordinarily difficult to acquire and a man who won't use a stick will not use a gun. The chap who uses a gun will not need a licence. shiv
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
From: lukhman_khan To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Sent: Saturday, 28 February, 2009 6:30:17 PM Subject: Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police > I would suggest that since women do, usually, carry a mobile, > the general police number, 100, should be on it as a > quick-dial no. (though I agree that it may often mean > nothing at all.) Perhaps, just the act of calling > will deter these goonsI am just not able to say anything > definitively. I did try that once. I dialed 100, I told them I was being harassed on the road (I am a guy BTW) and they gave me the number of the nearest police station. Police are of not much help in such situations. I have attended a lot of self defense classes but it takes a long time to develop the skill and proficiency. And with the adrenaline rush I tend to break more of my own fingers than that of the goons' bones. After careful thought i now have a flat iron rod which I can swish around like a sword - permanently near my driving seat. Thankfully no one has even as much as given me the stare after that. For you I suggest you go for a gun license and carry a firearm all the time. The only good goon is a dead goon. Have you a taser? > I would welcome it if others could come up with small, > concrete steps that > women could implement to ensure some degree of safety. For a long term solution, think before you vote. Lukhman Is is possible to get a phone-in service organised? Would Alternate Law Forum be useful in this regard? Is an alternative forum required, which will focus on taking immediate action (maybe linking to the lawyers for subsequent action)? Download prohibited? No problem. CHAT from any browser, without download. Go to http://in.webmessenger.yahoo.com/
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
> I would suggest that since women do, usually, carry a mobile, > the general police number, 100, should be on it as a > quick-dial no. (though I agree that it may often mean > nothing at all.) Perhaps, just the act of calling > will deter these goonsI am just not able to say anything > definitively. I did try that once. I dialed 100, I told them I was being harassed on the road (I am a guy BTW) and they gave me the number of the nearest police station. Police are of not much help in such situations. I have attended a lot of self defense classes but it takes a long time to develop the skill and proficiency. And with the adrenaline rush I tend to break more of my own fingers than that of the goons' bones. After careful thought i now have a flat iron rod which I can swish around like a sword - permanently near my driving seat. Thankfully no one has even as much as given me the stare after that. For you I suggest you go for a gun license and carry a firearm all the time. The only good goon is a dead goon. Have you a taser? > I would welcome it if others could come up with small, > concrete steps that > women could implement to ensure some degree of safety. For a long term solution, think before you vote. Lukhman
Re: [silk] Regarding complaints to the police
I concur. As always, it's useful to apply marketing/usability/KISS principles: 1. Call 100, and *yell* : "MADAM ! URGENT ! ROWDIES ! LADIES PROBLEM ! -GE HOYSALA KALSI !" The Kannada helps. The 100 helpline is recorded (useful from a legal perspective, I'd think) and manned by operators who are trained (enough to call the relevant Police station/closest Hoysala if they think it's important ). If you find a lady operator , it's your lucky(?) day. And the threat of an imminent Hoysala should deter (most) goons. 2. Learn techniques to memorise number plates. Make it a habit. Its not as easy when you're pumping adrenalin and seeing through a bloody eye, so you need practice. Keep the (healthier) eye open. 'Looking up a licence plate' is usually the only thing the cops are forced to follow up on (if it's in the FIR), so give them that information. I say this out of the wisdom of many years of dealing with cops in Bangalore. -Jai http://iyermatter.wordpress.com On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Deepa Mohan wrote: > With regard to > > > http://www.babajob.com/person.htm?user=10041 > > > I thought of having my police station number on speed dial on my phone..and > then realized it wasn't going to be that simple. I spoke to a couple of > friends, and some of us have been doing some research into this. Sadly, one > cannot call one's own police station. Wherever the harassment happens, one > must report at the police station that covers that area (and that may not be > the nearest police station, either.) We perceive a lot of people-unfriendly > problems here and will start working on it. > > I would suggest that since women do, usually, carry a mobile, the general > police number, 100, should be on it as a quick-dial no. (though I agree > that it may often mean nothing at all.) Perhaps, just the act of calling > will deter these goonsI am just not able to say anything definitively. > > I would welcome it if others could come up with small, concrete steps that > women could implement to ensure some degree of safety. > > Wearing only sarees and salwar kameez is NOT an option. Who knows, they may > decide next that salwar kameez is a "northern" dress. > > > Deepa. >
[silk] Regarding complaints to the police
With regard to http://www.babajob.com/person.htm?user=10041 I thought of having my police station number on speed dial on my phone..and then realized it wasn't going to be that simple. I spoke to a couple of friends, and some of us have been doing some research into this. Sadly, one cannot call one's own police station. Wherever the harassment happens, one must report at the police station that covers that area (and that may not be the nearest police station, either.) We perceive a lot of people-unfriendly problems here and will start working on it. I would suggest that since women do, usually, carry a mobile, the general police number, 100, should be on it as a quick-dial no. (though I agree that it may often mean nothing at all.) Perhaps, just the act of calling will deter these goonsI am just not able to say anything definitively. I would welcome it if others could come up with small, concrete steps that women could implement to ensure some degree of safety. Wearing only sarees and salwar kameez is NOT an option. Who knows, they may decide next that salwar kameez is a "northern" dress. Deepa.
