Thread by @cbkwgl

The debate over law and order comes to the forefront yet again. Law and order - both can be maintained with equal zeal. One needs to take precedence over the other. Will that be Order over Law or Law over Order?

https://twitter.com/Ratnamurlidhar2/status/1345269396902563841

In other words, what do governments prefer - looking away the other side when law is broken with impunity in the fear that acting against the offender will lead to large scale rioting on the roads?

Or will the government gear up to uphold the sanctity of law and punish every single one trying to break it? There are many examples. Take the Tablighi Wuhan Wave. Or Bangalore Riots. Or the destruction of Temples in Andhra.

Now, if the perpetrators are punished, there is going to be large scale rioting. Pointing out Tablighi Wuhan Wave destroyed many a person in the Gulf when Pakistanis and their minions profiled every Indian and got them arrested for insulting Islam.

No one talks about the post to which the MLA's nephew responded to. Singhu Resort is another. What's stopping the government from clearing the protest site? Is it the same confusion between law and order?

This is not an Indian phenomenon. The primary mandate of upholding order on thr streets is noticed by many and a threat of rioting is enough to extract concessions from the government - concessions which they don't deserve and which made concession an entitlement.

Army told they can stop Mussolini. But, Victor Emmanuel(besides himself falling to Mussolini's sales pitch) didn't want to do that - why spill blood on roads? Austria fell to Nazism because they didn't have resources to stop Hitler's Street thuggery and none was ready to help.

This has been a historic problem. Law or order? Non-applicability of Law means inconvenience to a few, Lack of Order means inconvenience to more. And more the appeasement to law breakers in the name of upholding order,

more the chance of the thug setting the narrative. And note, focus on order always led to retreat of the state and rise of madmen like Hitler. The question then would be, at what point should governments say enough is enough and focus on upholding law, whatever the cost?