Today's Symposium-Indian Democracy and Concept of Ramrajya

Dear Dr.Thripathi, Greetings from CONSCIENCE OF THE SOCIETY, a non-profit in Delhi that stands for philosophic initiatives into causes of Reason,Fraternity and more centrally,reinventing democracy ! 

We,with our philosophic insight, observe that our concept of democracy is the world is totally flawed, twisted and badly deformed. It is an alien thing than what democracy was originally and self evidently intended for. We politely invite you to look at the material and arguments put forth by us at our blogger site  https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

We observe many hidden energies in the working of our democracy other than plain reign of man's wisdom and Reason to manage his collective affairs that democracy was intended to be. It is now being used a convenient tool in the hands of  power hungry people to occupy the seats of political power once abandoned by Kings and foreign rulers. The paraphernalia of old time governance, jails,coercion, power,tax-man,police etc.are still there,where as democracy,people's own governance system needed a totally different system.Kindly respond to us whether a PIL on the basis of our arguments at blogs will stand in SC or not  to get some exposure to the base theme at least ! (www.conscienceofthesociety.com)

Amar Ujala, Hindi Daily - epaper p. 6 हिंदुस्तानी एकेडमी के समारोह में सचिव एडीएम प्रदीप तिवारी ने ध्वजारोहण किया। सामाजिक विधिक प्रचेतन समिति के संयोजक डॉ.वीएन त्रिपाठी के निवास पर भारतीय लोकतंत्र एवं रामराज्य की अवधारणा विषय पर गोष्ठी हुई। ज्ञान पुस्तकालय एवं वाचनालय के समारोह में पूर्व मंत्री सत्य प्रकाश मालवीय ने झंडा फहराया।

Dainik Jagran, 28/1/11 epaper p.7

भारतीय जनता पार्टी के अल्पसंख्यक मोर्चा के महानगर उपाध्यक्ष तहसीन अहमद ने दारागंज निराला प्रतिमा पर ध्वजारोहण किया। मुलायम सिंह यूथ ब्रिगेड के जिलाध्यक्ष राम सूरत यादव ने सिविल लाइंस में ध्वजारोहण किया। बहुजन समाज पार्टी के कार्यकर्ता तारा चंद्र साहू ने प्रीतम नगर कार्यालय पर गणतंत्र दिवस हर्षोल्लास के साथ मनाया। अखिल भारतीय राहुल गांधी विचार मंच के प्रांतीय मुख्यालय पर मंच के पदाधिकारियों ने ध्वजारोहण किया। सामाजिक विधिक प्रचेतन समिति के संयोजक वीएन त्रिपाठी के आवास पर भारतीय लोकतंत्र एवं रामराज्य की अवधारणा विषय पर गोष्ठी के साथ झंडारोहण हुआ।

Ramrajya!! What MKG Meant!!

BY RAMARAJYA I do not mean Hindu Raj. I mean by Ramarajya Divine Raj, the Kingdom of God. For me Rama and Rahim are one and the same deity. I acknowledge no other God but the one God of truth and righteousness.

Whether Rama of my imagination ever lived or not on this earth, the ancient ideal of Ramarajya is undoubtedly one of true democracy in which the meanest citizen could be sure of swift justice without an elaborate and costly procedure. Even the dog is described by the poet to have received justice under Ramarajya. (YI, 19-9-1929, p. 305)

Ramarajya of my dream ensures equal rights alike of prince and pauper. (ABP, 2-8-1934)

Friends have repeatedly challenged me to define independence. At the risk of repetition, I must say that independence of my dream means Ramarajya i.e., the Kingdom of God on earth. I do not know it will be like in Heaven. I have no desire to know the distant scene. If the present is attractive enough, the future cannot be very unlike. (H, 5-5-1946, p. 116)

No Coercion
My conception of Ramarajya excludes the replacement of the British army by a national army of occupation. A country that is governed by even its national army can never be morally free and, therefore, its so-called weakest member can never rise to his fullest moral height. (ibid)

There can be no Ramarajya in the present state of iniquitous inequalities in which a few roll in riches and the masses do not get even enough to eat … my opposition to the Socialists and other consists in attacking violence as a means of effecting any lasting reform. (H, 1-6-1947, p. 172)

I compare nirvana to Ramarajya or the Kingdom of Heaven on earth…. The withdrawal of British power does not mean Ramarajya. How can it happen when we have all along been nursing violence in our hearts under the garb of non-violence?  (H, 3-8-1947, p. 262)

Respect For Others
My Hinduism teaches me to respect all religions. In this lies the secret of Ramarajya.
(H, 19-10-1947, p. 378)

If you want to see God in the form of Ramarajya, the first requisite is self-introspection. You have to magnify your own faults a thousand fold and shut your eyes to the faults of your neighbours. That is the only way to real progress. (H, 26-10-1947, p. 387)

https://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap67.htm

Our First President Dr. Rajendra Prasad was a real genius he had got the remark “EXAMINEE IS BETTER THAN EXAMINAR”. While being at the post of president, he was living in a small room, and was sleeping on “CHOWKI” (A simple wooden bed) and he had pasted a slogan in the room “JAHE VIDHI RAKHE RAM, TAHI VIDHI RAHIYE”. 

All the above are pious emotional rhetoric of no current or practical significance. Some even dispute whether Rama Rajya was just. They quote Sudra Muni Vadham and the suspicion of Rama regarding Sita’s chastity even after she went through fire. Still if Rama’s rule was a just rule, you can say it was a benign monarchy and not a republic or democracy.

Further, values change with time. It is easy to prove that the values enshrined in our Constitution are in conflict with values at the time of Rama Rajya. In any case we have now to abide by the Constitution and not with what Rama ordained. We do not even have to ascertain whether what is said in the Constitution is in conformity with laws of Rama Rajya.

Ram and Rahim may be one. But the Dharmashastras and the Shariat are not same. Let us try for a modern India without too much harping on the past, real or imaginary.

"Let us try for a modern India without too much harping on the past, real or imaginary."

I agree to what Ashutosh Bhartiya and MPS Ramani have said, both have a point.

Dear Dr. V. N. Tripathi and Mr. Abraham Joseph, we can keep on dwelling on the philosophical aspects, but nothing is going to practically change so long those ruling over people know that fact they have monopoly of power and violence. Check the history of civilization, all acts of violence/tyranny/corruption etc. were always done under the cover of "good" intentions. Please note: the common trait among all tyrants has been to disarm the people under one excuse or the other. It does not make any difference if we have one type or Constitution or the other type, so long people are kept disarmed of  the most important natural right, human right, fundamental right, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, all this is corruption/open lawlessness and insenstivity against plight of people is bound to take place. It is no surprise why criminals are able to threat/intimidate the unarmed voters and get elected to become MPs/MLAs etc. It is wisely said "Koi kisee ko Raj na dehe, jo lehe nij bal se lehe". Means nobody gives power to rule to anybody, those who want to rule, they have to take power with their own strentgh. In democracy, it is said that people are rulers, if people truly want to become rulers, they will have to first learn to excersice first their nature given human right of Right to Keep and Bear Arms. THEIR IS NO SUBSTITUTE to this right, no matter how had or brilliantly we may try.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution under Article 19 and 21. How many people are aware of this fact?

Article 19(1)b says:

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (PLEASE NOTE the word "and". It is referring to the Right to Assemble Peaceably and without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms)Wherever in the Article 19(1) of the Constitution is talking of two fundamental rights, it is joining them with the word "and" or excluding one from the other with the word "or".

If Article 19(1)b would have been referring to only one right namely the Right to Assemble Peaceably and not acknowledging the presence of another right the Right to Keep and Bear Arms then "and" in Article 19(1)b is unnecessary. "to assemble peaceably without arms;" would have been adequate to convey the intended meaning.

Let us not forget that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, in order of importance, the first human right. It is Indian people's First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the other rights. All through our freedom struggle, our leaders were fighting for this human right and was promised to the nation to include its guarantee in "any constitution". Among freedoms of the speech and expression, of the assembly, of forming associations, of movement, of residence, of practice of any profession, of the religion, of the equality, it is the first among the equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows all other rights to exist at all.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is among one of the most important human, natural and fundamental rights because its infringement can lead to infringement of various other fundamental rights as explained below:

(a) If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not being enjoyed, the Right to Self Defense under Article 21 also gets very severely affected.

(b) If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not being enjoyed, the rights under Article 19(1)d also get very severely affected. Example: If for any reason like you have to take family members especially children or ladies to hospital for emergency at night or you have to travel at night with children and ladies, life of all people including yourself will be at the mercy of criminal elements since Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not getting enjoyed. Hence you are also being forced to avoid enjoying your rights under Article 19(1)d.

(c) If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not getting enjoyed, the rights under Article 19(1)a are also getting affected, you are not able to openly speak or express your opinions against various types of dangerous persons since you will not be able to defend yourself or your near and dear ones if they decide to take the law in their own hands. Attacks on defenseless RTI activists is one such example, wherein they are unble to excersice their fundamental right of RTI, self defense because they are not able to excesice their fundamental right of Right to keep and Bear Arms.

I would like to end this discussion by drawing the attention to a quote from Gita, which also talks about the human right of Right to Keep and Bear Arms of people, which translated into English would mean:

"The State that protects the nation and its people with arms, only there the people can talk about arms"

And the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights(on which the basic structure and doctrine of the Part III of our Constitution is based) says:

"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."

The basic structure and doctrine conveyed by both the quote from the Gita and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is essentially the same, which is also reflected in the Part III of our Constitution.

"Both the oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle

"Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved."- Aristotle

Disarming of people has been done from day one by oligarch and tyrant, it does not make any difference if people are disarmed under any color or pretext in Democracy. The day people regonise this fact in this country, true democracy will start taking its roots on this soil.

"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."- George Orwell

Neither Lord Rama is coming here to rule this country nor is anything like that going to happen what happened during Ramrajya. The issue is the appropriate word which expresses the ideal/perfect rule. Here Ramrajya is being used as a phrase/word, which is easily understandable.

The Arms Act in India was first introduced by the British. Its purpose was to ensure that the people of India do not rise in armed rebellion against the British rule as they tried in 1857. Mahatma Gandhi, though he preached non-violence, has spoken against the denial of the right to bear arms. He said that it was a symbol of slavery. In USA guns can be purchased from a shop without any hassle. But in recent years, with so many shootings including campus shootings taking place, there is an outcry in America to bring laws for arms control.

Still I am not sure whether the right to bear arms will improve the quality of our freedom. Then what about the right to use the arms?  The law of evidence is almost against killing someone even in self-defence. Some years back a woman in Rajasthan killed a man, who tried to rape her. She was promptly put in police lock-up. I do not know whether she was ultimately acquitted for having murdered only in self-defence. Laws in this country are made to favour criminals. There was one Salauddin. He was a notorious criminal wanted in Rajasthan and Gujarat for extortions and murders. The law could not catch him and punish him. The Gujarat Police killed him in an encounter, fake or real. Now the police are facing trial. The media reports are such that an ordinary person will think that Salauddin was innocent and a hero, and the Gujarat Police were criminals. Salauddin being a Muslim and the incident taking place in Gujarat has added to his image. Is any further proof required to prove that law is distorted in this country?

The central point in this debate appears to be about human rights. What about the many fake Indian and International human rights activists with hidden political agenda of their own?  They come to the rescue of law breakers in the name of human rights.

It is a good for this world that there is something called death for everybody. Suppose there was no death, tyrants like Aurangazeb will be ruling the country forever. Even Aurangazeb died only at the ripe old age of 88 years. Shivaji, who was 10 years younger to Aurangazeb, died much earlier. In 1999 or so the Election Commission derecognized Shivasena saying that there was no intra-party democracy. They promptly elected Bal Thackeray as President for life and the Election Commission approved them. In a true democracy no one can be elected for a long period and certainly not for life.

Everyone will know that George Washington was the first President of the United States of America, elected in 1789 for 4 years. He is also known as the Father of the Nation of America. In 1793 he did not want to stand for re-election saying that no one should have a permanent stake in a democratically elected position. But people compelled him and he agreed, on the condition that he will not stand for a third term. Thus in 1797 John Adams was elected as the second President. In 1801 he stood for a second term, but lost to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson served two terms and he made a limit of two terms for the President as a convention not by law. All the further Presidents respected this convention until President Roosevelt in 1941. He was President from 1933 and he justified a third term for continuity during the war. In 1945 January, the war was not still over, he stood for election and got elected for a fourth term. But God had other plans. He died in April, 1945.

After Roosevelt, the American law-makers wanted to limit the tenure of President to two terms by law. Thus the 22^nd amendment to the Constitution came into force in 1953. Please note that from 1789 to 1953 there were only 21 amendments to the US Constitution. How many amendments did we have since 1950?  Almost none of the amendments were well-intentioned.

While the tenure of a US President is limited to 8 years, what is the limit for a Prime Minister or Chief Minister of a State? Here political offices are birth-rights most often dynastic. The Prime Minister or Chief Minister is not elected by popular vote, but by self-serving sycophants. Until this changes there cannot be true democracy in India.

 "But in recent years, with so many shootings including campus shootings taking place, there is an outcry in America to bring laws for arms control."

Incorrect, just the opposite is happening. Instead people are being encouraged to keep themselves armed. All these shootings happen in legally "no gun" zones. No criminal can dare to conduct mass shootings were people are armed, for the simple FACT he will be eliminated within seconds. This is the reason why 26/11 was so succesful, not a single victim was armed. 95% of crime in USA happens in states that have gun control.

"Still I am not sure whether the right to bear arms will improve the quality of our freedom."

It has a direct relation with the quality of freedom people enjoy. When the most fundamental of human right is being violated, what kind of freedom can be expected? When one of the most important human right(Right to Keep and Bear Arms) which has been guaranteed by Articles 19 and 21 is being violated, what kind of freedom can be expected? I have clearly shown above how other fundamental rights guaranteed are also getting affected if RKBA is affected. The basic quality of relation between the State and the citizens is affected. The quality of relationship becomes that of Master and his Subject. All through the history tyrants have kept themselves armed and kept their subjects disarmed. It does not require an Einstien to figure out that what does it mean, if the citizens are kept disarmed by any government? They are reduced to mere subjects in every practical way.

"The central point in this debate appears to be about human rights."

Exactly, one of the most important human right(RKBA) on which other human rights/fundamental rights are dependent to a large extent cannot be ignored.

"The law of evidence is almost against killing someone even in self-defence. Some years back a woman in Rajasthan killed a man, who tried to rape her."

Please read Sections 96 to 106 IPC. If someone is trying to rape anyone, killing in self defense is not an offense an offense as per Section 100 IPC. I quoute this Section below:

Section 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descripttions hereinafter enumerated, namely :--

First-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Secondly-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

Thirdly-An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly-An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

Fifthly-An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

Sixthly-An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

"Thus the 22^nd amendment to the Constitution came into force in 1953. Please note that from 1789 to 1953 there were only 21 amendments to the US Constitution. How many amendments did we have since 1950? Almost none of the amendments were well-intentioned."

Reason is very simple. There is something called 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution. Which politician can dare to do something to cause mass uprising when all the people are armed? In India who cares about the people, because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have been effectively subverted by the Government, even though it is guaranteed under Article 19 and 21. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was explicitely enumerated in our Draft Constitution, but was removed later on.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."-Benjamin Franklin

”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”~George Washington

‘‘Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined’’— Patrick Henry

‘‘...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.’’— Alexander Hamilton

‘‘Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial ... the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding’’— U. S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928

 

I am not a legally qualified person,but one who have researched a lot on the faculty of human Reason. Hence what I feel is that the era for keeping arms by citizens was over long back in history. During those oeriods of free keeping of arms, disputes were settled between two persons by allowing one to shoot the other in split second smartness - -both would stand at a spot,their backs touching, then take a fixed number of steps. The one who manage to turn and shhot the othetr after these manadatory steps was decalred winner !

In the advent of democrcay, the old paraphernelia of coercive governmnets of Kings and Foreign rulers were supossed to be buried, and a new system with the FUEL of Reason,wisdom and common sense (instead of the old fuel of POWER, AUTHORITY and COERCION )was to be installed for the governmnet of equal citizens. Here the ruler and the ruled was becoming one. These fundamentals of Democrcay are what we have depicted at our blog spot: :https://direneedofreinventingdemocracy.blogspot.com/, https://democracywithoutpoliticalparties.blogspot.com/

https://changefuelofdemocracy.blogspot.com/  and in many other posts.

We are eager that if some of you with adequate constitutional knowlege could assess the feasibilty of a well meant PIL in SC, to projcet these flaws in the fundamnetals of our democrcay. Law  rests on Reason. We would love to share with you,our findings on this fundamnetal faculty of Reason at our blogs : https://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/

Dear Mr.Ramani,

Greetings ! We would like to share what we have replied to the 'DEMOCRATIC INIDAN' about the dire need of reinevnting democrcay to end the confusions about status of human right. 

You are also invited to share our various blogs on related themes, especially thesuggested modeel of 'democrcay with out political parties'.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293

You being a scientist, we would love you to read our blogs on faculty of human Reason too:https://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/

Conscience of the society

www.conscienceofthesociety.com

Dear Mr. Joseph,

Thank you for you reply. I am not aware of the kind of "research" you have done. I would go through the links you have provided. I would like to say that the basic human beheviour has not changed over the years nor the "era" for citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms has become over. In unconsious level we all are still cavemen, we will always be cavemen. Why? because nature wants us to be like that. We are not more powerful than nature. RKBA is a basic natural right, a human right , a fundamental right. Just having "Democracy" on paper is not enough, that is the reason we have reached such a pathetic stage and we are all here discussing all this. Even in "Democracy" scoundrels are able to subvert it, if citizens are not armed. By armed means armed by knowledge, information and physical arms. Unamrmed citizenry is the best thing for the crooks to subvert the democracy. Just observe how elections are conducted in this country. Citizens are threatened/intimidated by criminals of political parties, polling booths are captured, police looks the other way. Thanks to our "intellectual" citizenry who cherish "unarmed" citizenry even if the facts stare out on their face. In America citizens are able to go to polling booth fully armed. Can any criminal dare to threaten or intimidate them? I hope you can see the point.

Just like 2 plus 2 is always 4, it can never be 3 or 5, similarly rulers can never be unarmed. THIS THE LAW OF NATURE, no matter if we have a democracy or dictatorship or whatever. All thorough the ages it is the rulers who kept themselves armed and kept their subjects disarmed. It hardly makes any difference to this fact if we have a "Democracy". It is for the people do decide if they want to make themselves rulers or subjects in a democracy.

Certainly democracy needs to be reinvented on solid foundations, not on hollow concepts, wherein the most important human rights are subverted under one excuse or the other, even when they are guaranteed by the Constitution.

As reqards your query related to PIL in SC, to project the flaws in the fundamnetals of our democrcay, unfortunatley Supreme Court is not  a sovereign body over and above our Constitution. People have given a Constitution to themselves. If the fundamental structure of our Constitution needs to be changed, even Parliament cannot change it, a Constituent Assembly needs to be formed. For this people need to elect such MPs who support the idea of forming a Constitutient Assembly and change the very fundamentals of Constitution. Which I do not think any MP in his right frame of mind like to do in the given circumstances, he is enjoying himself, he would always like to enjoy himself. What does he have to gain in forming a Constituent Assembly? He would always prefer a situation wherein he can fool the people. Under no circumstances Supreme Court is competent to do this.

The debate now appears to be focusing on the Right to Bear Arms.  In my first opinion on this debate I had mentioned about Mahatma Gandhi on the subject. Now I give below some opinions about him and of him on the Subject.

“If [Gandhi] had had guns he might well have used them in an armed revolution against the British which would have been in keeping with the traditions of revolutions for freedom through force.  Gandhi did not have the guns, and if he had had the guns he would not have had the people to use the guns.”

               Saul D. Alinsky, Rules For Radicals (New York: Random House, 1971) p. 38

Mohandas K. Gandhi, an Indian nationalist, was keenly interested in enabling his countrymen to once again bear arms and learn their use.  M.K. Gandhi, The Story Of My Experiments With Truth (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1954) p. 546.  A leaflet he distributed urging Indians to volunteer for military service (not ambulance duty) in World War I stated, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the [Arms] Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.  If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.  If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.” Ibid. (italics added)

Gandhi considered being disarmed by white colonizers as the mark of a servile status

The Arms Act was not repealed by the British after the War.

Democratic Indian says that bearing arms are encouraged in the US. It is not so. After the adoption of the Second Amendment, everything short of amending or abrogating the Second Amendment has been done so far.

The National Fire Arms Act, 1934 – required license for the first time to possess arms

Gun Control Act, 1968 seeks to control manufacture and domestic transport of weapons. It also prohibits selling of arms to wrong persons. Probably this was the after-effect of the Assassination of President Kennedy.

Brady Handgun prevention Act requires checking background of persons buying firearms. This was passed during Clinton’s time after the assassination attempt on President Reagan.

Though many assassinations have taken place in India, there is no need for a new Arms Control Act, as already there is total ban’

There is strong opposition in USA for Arms Control Legislation from bodies like the National Rifles Association. Anyway the United States is moving towards more arms control. Notwithstanding the Second Amendment, you do not see every other person in the United States moving around with a revolver in his waist-belt. People interested in hunting get gun licences. In India also one can get a license for a justifiable purpose.

In order to carry arms for self-defense, not only one has to carry arms but also Section 100, IPC. When the situation arises, one has to hurriedly check which of  the 6 conditions is satisfied before using the weapon. Things are easily said. One will have a harrowing experience in a Court of Law to prove that one did, what one did, only in self-defense.

One cannot entirely agree with Mr. Joseph either. It is to be noted that the Second Amendment was adopted after the establishment of first democracy in the World. Of course, people all over the world have become more civilized to a greater or lesser extent in last 200 years. Somebody may dispute this. That is because some parts are yet to be civilized. Also there is hypocrisy. Everyone criticizes only the other person as not being civilized. Some say they try to follow the eleventh commandment “Thou shalt not be caught red-handed”.

At least I am not able to suggest a solution. Is there anyway to ensure that people do not vote at least for the patently wrong persons?  I do not think that, though high-handedness is there in elections, it will be able to seriously alter the faces of the legislatures.

"Gandhi considered being disarmed by white colonizers as the mark of a servile status"

What is the difference now in the "status" of citizens(haven't the white sahebs been replaced by brown sahebs) or the idea of Mahatma has lost relevence?

"The Arms Act was not repealed by the British after the War.

Why would any ruler do it? Just see how much importance is of armed citizenry to maintain its freedom, that British had learnt from American War of independence, they never allowed the same mistake to be repeated in India. The importance of armed citizenry is so great that great amount of efforts were made by the colonial rulers to systematically disarm this nation. Each Act systematically being replaced by another one of greater severity under the guise of "public safety". East India Company, in order to strengthen its position promulgated Arms and Ammunition and Military Stores Act 18 of 1841 which came into force on August 30, 1841 and that prohibited the export of arms and ammunition out of the territories belonging to the East India Company and enacted certain prohibitions as regards the storing of ammunition. This Act was repealed by another Act 13 of 1852.

After the uprising against the British rule in 1857, the Government felt that a more stringent law was required for preventing insurrections and maintaining order and so a new Act was passed, Act 28 of 1857. This Act was a comprehensive one dealing with many matters not dealt with in previous legislation, and contained elaborate provisions as regards the manufacture, import, sale, possession and use of arms and ammunition. This Act empowered the Governor-General to order general search for arms and ammunition in any district. In exercise of the power conferred by this Act, the Governor-General issued a notification on December 21, 1858, ordering a general search and seizure of arms in in the territories north of the Jumuna and Ganga then known as North Western Provinces. The reason for this was that it was this territory that was the main seat of the disturbances of 1857.

Act 28 of 1857 was a temporary Act which was to be in force for a period of two years and after some extensions it finally lapsed on October 1, 1860. On that date a new Act, Arms and Ammunition Act 31 of 1860 came into force. This statute contained in addition to what was enacted in Act 28 of 1857, certain new provisions, like the following:-

"'Clause 1. It shall be lawful for the Governor-General of India in Council or for the Executive Government of any Presidency or for any Lieutenant Governor, or with the sanction of the Governor General in Council for the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of any Province, District or place subject to their administration respectively, whenever it shall appear necessary for the public safety, to order that any Province, District, or place shall be disarmed.

Clause 2. In every such Province, District, or place as well as in any Province, District, or place in which an order for a general search for arms has been issued and is still in operation under Act XXVIII of 1857, it shall not be lawful for any person to have in his possession any arms of the descripttion mentioned in s. 6 of this Act, or any percussion caps, sulphur, gunpowder or other ammunition without a licence."

This Act was repealed, in 1878 and the Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878) which was even more draconian, than the previous acts was enacted. What we have today as Arms Act 1959 is a repainted version, its various sections based on the same theme of the repealed Indian Arms Act 1878.

Founding fathers of America were smart enough to understand this fact, hence the 2nd Amendment.

"After the adoption of the Second Amendment, everything short of amending or abrogating the Second Amendment has been done so far."

Fact remains that 2nd Amendment has not been amended. It is not without a reason. Even people of Switzerland have rejected gun control in recent refrendum. It is also a fact the "gun control" lobby is usually backed by people having vested interests(usually mafia) and backed by ignorant people, whose main interest is to disarm the people.

"The National Fire Arms Act, 1934 – required license for the first time to possess arms. Gun Control Act, 1968 seeks to control manufacture and domestic transport of weapons."

Why talk of only these 2 laws, there are more than 20,000 gun control laws in USA. Fact remains no amount or severity of law can prevent arms from going in the hands of "wrong persons". This is just a  trick to disarm and fool the law abiding people.

‘‘Four out of five politicians surveyed prefer unarmed, ignorant peasants.’’— Unknown

"Though many assassinations have taken place in India, there is no need for a new Arms Control Act, as already there is total ban’"

Your statement itself says that the arms are "banned", still assasinations have taken place. It clearly shows laws do not prevent unlawful from getting arms. Then what is the real motive behind these laws? The motive is not about controlling guns or criminals, but to control people like you and me, who follow the law. Why would someone like to control you and me, if intentions are pious?

"There is strong opposition in USA for Arms Control Legislation from bodies like the National Rifles Association. Anyway the United States is moving towards more arms control."

Exactly there is a strong opposition from NRA and the MPs know the value of NRA if they want to win elections. USA is not moving towards any real gun control, on the contrary it is propaganda by anti gun lobbists whose career depends on misleading and fooling people. "Since 1991, 23 states have adopted “shall issue” laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 90 million. There are more RTC states, gun owners, people carrying firearms for protection, and privately owned firearms than ever before. In the same time frame, through 2008, the nation’s murder rate has decreased 46 percent to a 43-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 41 percent to a 35-year low. Preliminary data reported by the FBI indicate that rates fell further in the first half of 2009." This data is from FBI.

"Notwithstanding the Second Amendment, you do not see every other person in the United States moving around with a revolver in his waist-belt."

It is said that there are 96 firearms per 100 citizens in USA. If they want to keep in car's glove compartment or waist belt, it is upto them.

"In India also one can get a license for a justifiable purpose."

It is a wrong impression that one has to show a "justifiable" purpose. Courts have already ruled it is a citizen's right to obtain an arms license. It is another matter that executive has subverted this right. It is a fundamental right of citizens under Articles 19 and 21.

"At least I am not able to suggest a solution. Is there anyway to ensure that people do not vote at least for the patently wrong persons?  I do not think that, though high-handedness is there in elections, it will be able to seriously alter the faces of the legislatures."

I fully agree with your opinion. Faces of legislature can be altered if people understand the wisdom in the words of Mahatma Gandhi. You have mentioned that Gandhi considered being disarmed by white colonizers as the mark of a servile status. It has 100% relevence even today.  He was talking about the relationship of the State and citizens.  The relationship of Master and Slave has to be changed. This was done by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Can the the legislature in US become so insensitive, so that it can afford making entire armed population angry? Absolutely not. But the exactly the reverse is true in India, why to do the MPs/MLAs have to respect/fear unarmed people? They can keep themselves secured by armed guards and do whatever they please. How many Indians recognize this fact? RKBA is guaranteed under Article 19 and 21, how many Indians, or even advocates on this forum know this know this fact?