Interesting little article about a topic that always generates some heat –
I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner—but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times. To trace the roots of India’s anti-gun legislation we need to step back to the latter half of the 19th century. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874-1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878, an act which exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a “loyal†subject of the British Empire.
Discuss amongst yourselves. 
There are a lot of laws that only made sense during the British colonial period. The Second Amendment is one of them: at that time there was a real possibility that your ‘well-regulated militia’ might need to overthrow your own government. These days we do it all via data mining and gerrymandering.
I’m pro-gun ownership from the standpoint of civil liberties and small government, but lethal force is clearly a legitimate area for regulation.
I actually like the fact that only gang hitmen carry guns in India, and all you really need for self-defense is a collapsible nightstick.
Or a nice pair of stainless steel dandias.
Just because restrictions on gun ownership initially were put in place to keep the masses down, is no reason that gun regulations should serve an all together different purpose today. I love how here in America, and I guess conversely in India, just because something like gun ownership has a certain tradition that dates back to colonial times, that that colonial implication should determine its value as a law in today’s society w/o considering its value in a contemporary context.
Would have been nice if you’d linked to the original article on my website: http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/ 😉 Cheers! Abhijeet
I’m sure that the people that were slaughtered today in Mumbai, are happy that their fellow citizens weren’t carrying guns. Had the citizens been able to carry they could have prevented a great number of innocent people getting killed. This is just another example of how disarming the public doesn’t work. It only ensures that the citizens civil liberties are the whim of those who will have guns irregardless of the gun laws.
I tell you, every Mumbaiker should take to the streets tomorrow, en masse, to protest this act of terrorism, with signs saying TERRORISTS QUIT INDIA NOW!!!.
I can’t believe this is happening. I hope finally the GOI actually DOES something.
Whichever “group” is responsible for this, the entire city of Mumbai should cry out for their heads. Every. Single. Mumbaiker.
God knows that we can’t rely on the police to do anything in time… its downright unacceptable that an honest, hard-working, tax-paying Indian adult cannot purchase a gun to defend himself and his loved ones because he is denied that fundamental right by the very government that collects his taxes. An armed society is a polite society – we need gun rights NOW!