Debates in the Lok Sabha.

Today, I had the chance to hear two luminaries of the Lok Sabha, give speeches. One of the luminaries was Mr Chidambaram, and the other was Mr L K Advani. What Mr Chidambaram says is very significant, because he is the Minister for Home. Mr Advani is somewhat more significant in his speech, because he heads the opposition. The speeches of luminaries are very engrossing, when the speeches are made in the Lok Sabha. Mr Chidambaram was very specific, when he was discussing the laws pertaining to public peace. Mr Advani was very emotive, and spoke with feeling, but in a more general manner. Mr Chidambaram discussed the finer points of the mentioned law. I seriously feel, that laws should be made redundant in society. The longer the laws exist, the more complex is their interpretation. Why does a person have to be conscious about the laws of society? To take the discussion further, perhaps, when a Judge has seen evidence, and has made a determination, then that evidence cannot be disputed. If any party wants to dispute the evidence, that is not possible. He may have to present different evidence, for the Judge to make a different determination. The reason why court cases pend, is because the people carry this process to the extremes, when presenting their case. Because of this extreme effort by the parties to the lawsuit, the person who does not see himself in any advantage, at the termination of the lawsuit, is suitably mentally disposed to the situation. Hence, how has the Law been perceived by such a person? Mr Advani pointed out that India is perceived as not being agreeable to the Al Qaeda, but not to the extent that the United States is disagreeable. I would like to point out, that Mr Bin Laden was not very well disposed towards the Saudi Sultan either, who is considered to be the custodian of the holy site in Mecca. Perhaps, they are more at peace with each other. But at one time, the disagreement of the viewpoints of the Saudi Sultan, and Mr Bin Laden, must have preoccupied Mr Bin Laden's mind. Mr Bin Laden is the head of the Al Qaeda. But, the people who carried out the physical attacks on the World Trade Center, were of a definite number. The aeroplanes used were four. Hence, those who were responsible for the attacks, should be the only persons booked. There are many people in society, who profess animosity and hate towards other people, and causes. But they may not carry out attacks physically on those people or causes. Many opinions on the net, posted by United States citizens, bear animosity towards the U S President. But what if a lone opinion, causes an attack on the president of the United States, not an action of the Al Qaeda, but of another American citizen? How far is the horizon of the war on 'terror'? If the horizon is unending, then where is the end to be determined? An ordinary citizen of the United States, may be said to hold militant aspirations towards the President of the United States, towards the detriment of the President. If possible, it is better to change the attitude of the perceived aggressor, to the perceived victim. Can not the International States, and their representatives, not be perceived as the rightful targets of those, who may want to target them? In such a situation, if there is an aggression, then is any action of self defence to be justified by any party? Why is an act of self defense, by any party, in a situation, a matter of conjecture, and surmise, by those, who are not a party to the situation? Perhaps, to be fair, these acts, when once determined by the perpetrator, are difficult to determine. Otherwise, the tragedy of 9/11, would not have taken place. Can one surmise, that it is due to the diligence of the United States bureaucracy, alone, which is the cause of another 9/11 not taking place? Laws must be made redundant. I have respect for the Law, but if there is no need for the Law, then the law does not apply in a particular situation. The concerned parties, must act when the act is required. Perhaps, this will cause the situation to better. Let not the verdict of the law be a justification to some, and for others, leave them with a sense of shame, and animosity towards the society. Let the law be not blind, but perceived as dead, when it operates.