The killing of a girl in broad daylight outside her college this week makes two stark statements on Delhi's state of affairs: First, the killer did not take seriously the police system in the national capital and took the middle class, especially the youth, for granted.
Now, the killer was neither a gangster nor a professional criminal who had planned well the shooting, after learning the policing system in place. Nor did he have accomplices waiting nearby to pick him from the spot.
How audacious he was shoot at Radhika Tanwar around 10.30 am not on a narrow lane or deserted road but on the foot-over bridge of a busy road. If he thought he could get away without being confronted, he certainly was not blocked by anyone for more than half a kilometre – not by the members of the great Indian middle class nor by the country's future – the 'youth'.
Subsequently, students of Delhi university staged protests against the killing. I can understand their fury, but isn't it time for introspection: to stop for a moment and think how could a person muster so much courage to take out a pistol and shoot a girl outside a city college?
Doesn't this speak about his – and in a larger sense, criminals' – perception of the young people whether they would intervene. During my college years in Chennai, boys would not pass comments on girls outside the latter's college, fearing action from the locals. What has gone wrong now?
The alleged killer Vijay's hunch proved true as he could run from the crowded bridge for more than a minute – what is worse is that he could get away through and from the crowd despite being chased by the boy accompanying Radhika.
It's easy to stage protests and blame the government for everything, but how could we let such a thing happen during peak hour? How could the youth let them be taken for granted by criminals?
Then this means worse situation for the police. First, according to their theory, after Saturday's snub, Vijay went to Gurgaon and bought a .315 bore country-made pistol for Rs2,500 and shot her dead on Tuesday. That means a common man in the national territory could easily get hold of a weapon in a very short period.
Isn't that a very frightening situation? Arms sale to a common man from the lower strata of the society – not a gangster or professional criminal – just outside the national capital!
And with impunity he brings it into the city, takes it out in public view just around 30 kms from the power centre of the country and shoots a girl, and flees with it.
The pressing question for the police should be whether this sale is just the tip of an iceberg.
After that how could he bring it inside the city? One may argue that a person cannot be checked at every spot to check for weapons and explosives. But the harsh reality is that if a normal person could carry a country-made pistol up to that area, a professional could easily carry a latest pistol near the city centre or or other important places – and only at their entrances the barricades would stop him.
This obviously would bring in a big conflict between the security forces/ police and the great middle class – the raison d'être of the media – on how to secure the city and its people.
Will the people – who don't have the patience to wait in queues and who often get into arguments with the security personnel at metro stations – bear with the police to bring stringent measures to scan for such threats at all public places.
Or will they stand up for fellow people so that criminals don't perceive us to be a divided and self-centric people, and fear before any such adventure?
0 comments:
Post a Comment