Indians For Guns

Indian National- A Subject or a Citizen



During my childhood, I used to see camps organised by NCC/SSB and Army to train school going teenagers and adults in fire-arms handling. Sometimes these camps were organised in collaboration with local government schools particularly during summer vacations. At the end of 15 days camp, participating teenagers and adults were used to be taken to a Shooting Range and certificate awarded depicting grades depending upon their performance on Shooting Range. These certificates used to be of immense importance to the recruitment authorities at recruitment rallies. Those were the good old days, when words like terrorism, militancy or naxalites were perhaps unheard of, but the ostensible, policy of govt was to keep youth prepared for the time of need or in other words, for any external/internal threat. Years have elapsed, thanks to our policy makers in the Government, many breeds of separatist have emerged under different names and banners, each propagating it own nefarious agenda, and each hell bent upon making the life of common masses as difficult as possible showing no respect either to Indian constitution, rich Indian cultural heritage or to the lives of innocent civilians. The SSB/NCC training camps have long been vanished, now a few people talk of NCC these days, that too with in the compounds of some educational institutes.

Training in handling of fire arms is something our electronic and print media hesitates to talk of, perhaps out of phobia of some kind, or a fear that masses associate with fire-arms, generally out of ignorance. The media has failed to educate the masses on the subject and always remained a mute spectator to policy of Government on Arms and Ammunition resulting in gross violations of citizen’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms, dead shooting sports in the country, zero competition amongst the manufacturers of Arms and Ammunition apart from a nation of ignorant masses. A fresh example in this regard is that drafting of afresh proposal on Arms Act in under process in Government and comments being sought from the citizens by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, but media has failed to provide the much needed publicity thus nullifying the need of government issuing a circular in this regard at the first place. In the absence of useful suggestions and healthy debate on the subject, formation of a better policy or an Act of Law is totally ruled out.

This fear and ignorance is natural in the wake of vague Arms Act that we still have in place even after 63 years of Independence. The Arms Act of 1962 is basically the extension of the Arms Act of 1878 (II of 1878) passed during the reign of Lord Lytton, aftermath of the failed mutiny of 1857. The sole purpose of Act was to prohibit Indians to acquire fire arms so as to neutralize any possible threat of a fresh armed mutiny from Indian freedom fighters. The intelligentsia of that time including the father of nation Sh. M. K. Gandhi had condemned the Arms Act of 1878 as blackest. In his autobiography “My Experiment with Truth“ he writes in chapter XXVII, “I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the 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.”

Unfortunately, instead of making the Act citizen friendly, the policy makers in Government kept on making policies in such a way so as to make it toughest for law abiding citizens to legally acquire, keep and bear the arms. In fact, this myopic approach has not only rendered civilians helpless for their personal defence but also indirectly made the job of criminals/anti-social elements/ terrorists easy. Moreover, all these policies of Government totally failed to curb the ways the anti-socials elements/criminals/terrorists get their supply of sophisticated illegal weaponry. In spite of stringent gun controls, we had attacks in Two Heritage Shrines in Kashmir and they were totally destroyed, Ragunath Temple in Jammu, J&K Legislative Assembly, Indian Parliament in New Delhi, Crowded markets of New Delhi, Hanuman Temple in Gujarat, Trident, Taj hotels and Nariman Building in Mumbai apart from this, killing of innocent civilians and members of Military/Law Enforcement Agencies/ State Police is routine of day in Kashmir, North East States and naxalite infested areas of the country. The free flow of illegal fire-arms and their use against the civilians, Military/Law Enforcement Agencies/State Police remained unchecked. The so called war in Kashmir, North East States and naxalite affected areas is not fought with licensed non-prohibited bore calibres.

Gun controls are blessings for criminals when criminals have guns and their victims don't, crime becomes a safer occupation as gun bans don’t disarm criminals but attract them. In some countries with strict gun-control laws, burglars enter houses while people are still at home several times as often as that happens in country like the United States. Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behaviour of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality.

The possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved by it. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, thugs, and terrorists and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly. A government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defence is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.

Evidence suggests that armed citizens are very responsible in using guns to defend themselves. The Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that less than 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.

It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized". A society that stigmatizes the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that counter violence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule over those who do.

Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others

One who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives. An unarmed man is incapable of functioning as a free citizen; his property, his body, his very life are at the command of others, since there is no risk inherent in committing depredations upon him, as it is well said that an unarmed man is a subject while an armed men is a citizen


(K KUMAR)
South Africa
(for http://www.indiansforguns.com)

Indian Arms Act and RKBA
 

After putting an end to the mutiny of 1857, British Viceroy,Lord Lytton (1874 -1880),brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878). An act, which exempted Europeans and ensuring, that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description, unless the British masters considered him a "LOYAL" subject of the British Empire. Father of the Nation M. K. Gandhi, referring to Arms Act of 1878 remarked, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" (page 238, My Experiment with Truth, M K Gandhi).

India won her independence in 1947, but our Government still took 12 years to formulate the new Arms Act.1959 which was further supplemented by the Arms Act Rules of 1962. Although a little better than the Arms Act of 1878, the new Arms Act of 1962 unfortunately, did not show any sign that the Government of ndependent India trusted its Citizens. While the new legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the ‘Licensing Authorities’, it however ensured that procurement of Arms License remains a distant dream for the ordinary citizen.

The concept of ‘Prohibited and Non-Prohibited bore/calibers’ was used by the British, to ensure that Ammunition used by the military, police and paramilitary forces do not find its way to ordinary citizens, specifically freedom fighters who had loyalties amongst a major percentage of serving personnel in the British Army and Law Enforcement Units. After partition and independence, the Government of Pakistan showed broader vision and faith in their citizens by waiving aside a redundant relic from the colonial era. On the contrary in India, all the calibers which are/were used by Military/Law Enforcement Units of our country, were made sacrosanct and placed out of the reach of civilians who had to settle for less effective calibers like .32 ACP, .25 ACP, 22 LR etc.

The minimum caliber, advocated world wide for self defense purpose is the 9 mm P/9x19 mm. Another school of thought advocates the 380 ACP/ 9 mm short/9x17 mm as qualifying round for SD purpose. Statistics on the other hand reveal that the ballistics of the .380 caliber is inadequate to ‘stop’ an assailant, in an actual street fight.

Due to the new Arms Act, the indigenous Arms manufacturing Industry has remain fettered, due to a omplete ban on import of machinery, required for production of quality weapons. Today very inferior quality shotguns are produced, which due to ban on import of machinery and coupled with the ban on imports of firearms, are sold with unjustified high price tags. The quality of these indigenous weapons, produced by the few licensed arms manufacturers, which includes the Government owned Indian Ordnance Factory, have no takers in the international market.Countries which have a GDP less than most states in our country, dominate the world market, through the production and sale of quality weapons thereby earning huge foreign revenue.

The situation took a downturn in the 1980s, knowing fully well, that terrorists, criminals, separatists never use licensed weapons but resort to illegal, unlicensed and higher caliber weapons to wreck havoc on society and create mayhem, the myopic policy makers in the Government, citing internal disturbances and insurgency, completely banned the import of Arms and Ammunition of any kind for the civilian market.

The Indian Ordinance Factory-a Public Sector Undertaking is the only factory which produces weapons meant for the civilian market, though its priority is to supply Military and Law Enforcement Units. The weapons they produce are grossly substandard, highly over priced and below the benchmarks to qualify for self defense or target practice. Abhinav Bindra would never hope to qualify for the Olympics, leave alone winning a gold medal if he were to use an IOF produced gun. Some of the ‘gems’ produced by the IOF is the infamous .315 Rifle, when fired, the exiting round, instead of flying true and straight, actually flips over, a ballistic feat which would be appreciated more by the ISRO scientists.

The revolvers produced by the IOF, is at best a crude copy of the British Webley & Scott. Some of the copies of the original Webley & Scott revolvers produced illegally in Munger, Bihar have a better finish. The .22 and 30-06 rifles are no better, repulsive and inferior quality wood are used for the stock which are so heavy and unbalanced, that the owners of these rifles would be better off, if they were used as clubs.

This then brings us to the question, after gaining ‘independence’ what positive changes have we seen in the Indian Arms Act? The obvious answer is ‘Nothing’. In fact the situation has worsened. Is this the ‘freedom’ envisaged for the citizens, by the ‘Father of the Nation’ and other enlightened beings?

India to her proven credit is universally known and respected as a peace loving nation, but does this mean, that her law abiding citizens be deprived of their genuine Right to Bear and Keep Arms (RBKA), to protect their life and hard earned property?

Some may say that liberal guns laws are responsible for increase in crime rate and terrorism, but in fact, this is a grossly incorrect statement. Statistics on recorded crimes and terrorism clearly point out that terrorists use illegal, unlicensed, firearms smuggled into this country. Moreover, these anemic calibers, which civilians are allowed to possess legally in our country do not serve their purpose. For committing their act of terrorism, they need sophisticated, automatic and very high caliber weapons (like AKs, LMG, SMG, grenade launchers, Pikka guns, mortars & rocket launchers, RDX and detonating devices) for which no government will issue a license for civilian use. This explains that the problem of insurgency or crime has nothing to do with the Arms control.

Guns are like any other mechanical tool, ‘they don't kill people on their own’. It is the inherent predatory nature of the‘criminal human mind’ which is primarily responsible for committing crime against his fellowmen. If guns are not available, then to a ‘criminal’ or a person with an ‘unsound’ mind, any ordinary tool like a screw driver, kitchen knives, agricultural implements (sharp or blunt) or even stones can serve the purpose.

There are number of incidents and ‘killings’ reported world wide arising from ‘error of judgment’ while driving. Many innocent lives are lost each day on account of road accidents, thousands die each year on account of train accidents, air crash, boat capsizing, Several kill themselves by jumping from high rise buildings or drinking pills or insecticides/medicines used for agricultural propose. Does this mean that the best approach to prevent a loss of valuable human lives each year, we should ban driving, ban plying of trains and aircrafts, ban kitchen knives, ban agricultural implements/insecticides, ban some otherwise life saving medicines, ban building high rise buildings and ban everything which is responsible for loss of human lives? Would any government advocate such a ban?

Compare the statistics of the percentage of people killed each year with legally owned fire-arms, with those killed by illegal firearms. Documented records clearly indicate that in almost all the firearm related crimes, illegal fire-arms are invariably used. The Arms Act has proved to be a complete failure to check the free flow of illegal weapon and the ease with which the criminals and terrorists are getting their supply of highly destructive weaponry. The law instead of helping and coming to the aid of the law abiding citizens has on the contrary become its worst enemy. Neither can they defend themselves from these criminals/terrorists nor can they save their hard earned property. In fact the Arms Act has almost ‘neutered’ the law abiding citizen from keep a weapon for self defense. The worst possible fall out of this short sightedness, or even plain ‘cussedness’, on the part of the ‘powers that be’ is that our country is bereft of a ‘second line of defense’.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Imperial Japanese Navy), during WWII warned against attacking the U.S. and said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." What would happen to India, in the absence of a second line of defence, if China were to attack us in the near future? We would over run like ‘grass’ in front of a raging prairie fire!

Legally armed citizens, can not only provide the bulwark of a second line of defense but also help the government to curb the crime and fight militancy. There have been many instances in this country, where helpless unarmed citizens have dispossessed weapons from criminals/terrorists and foiled their designs, thus preventing loss of life and property. The recent laudable case of Ruksana Kausar, a simple girl from a small village in Jammu & Kashmir, who not only killed one militant commander, but also scared his accomplices to the extent that they had to run for their lives, thus preventing further harm to her family. The Government would be well advised to inculcate its citizens with adequate knowledge on self protection and responsible gun ownership to protect their life and property. After all they are law abiding citizens of this country.
 
K Kumar,
(Tingriman for http://www.indiansforguns.com)

m24 wrote:Have posted both the articles on my Facebook and Orkut page

Review of Indian Arms Act 1959- A Half Baked Idea


The Internal Security-II Division (Arms Section) of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has issued a memorandum No. 11026/16/2009-Arms dated December 21, 2009, inviting comments of general public on newly proposed Arms and Ammunition policy. The draft gives citizens a feel if they were still living in colonial era as the Arms Act of 1959 (further supplemented by Rules of 1962 - both of which came into existence on October, 01, 1962), which is serving the base to the newly proposed draft itself is based on infamous Arms Act of 1878 (II of 1878), which was highly resented by general masses, freedom fighters and intellectuals including the father of nation for distrust that it showed on the part of Indians and denial of their right to keep and bear arms.

Paragraph 2 & 6 of proposed draft clearly indicate that there is no change in policy with respect to prohibited and non prohibited bore calibers. The concept of ‘Prohibited and Non-Prohibited bore (Pb/Npb) calibers’ was used by the British, to ensure that Ammunition used by the military, police and paramilitary forces does not find its way to Indian citizens, specifically freedom fighters who had loyalties amongst a major percentage of serving personnel in the British Army and Law Enforcement Units. This measure was requisite to prevent any fresh armed revolt/mutiny aftermath of failed revolt of 1857. In spite being not available for sale in India, weapons of Pb calibers have remained the only choice of criminals/terrorists and anti-social elements as the ammunition is cheaper and widely available for smuggling into India from across the border. Therefore, category 1(c), Schedule I of Arms Rules 1962 is more about the distrust on the part of citizens than any gun control in a real sense. It is an irony that even after 63 years of Independence, the policy makers in our government are unable to realize that they are now part of a democratic elected government which is bound to not only serve and protect the rights of its citizens but also trust them. A government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, tax paying citizens with the means of self-defence is not itself worthy of trust.

The reason for the proposed amendment is given in paragraph 3 which states , “Proliferation of arms and ammunition in the country disrupt the social order and development. The proliferation of arms, whether licensed or illegal, vitiates the ‘Law and Order’ situation. Holding of sophisticated arms by the conflicting parties directly contributes towards lethality of violent acts. Therefore, in principle, proliferation of arms needs to be curbed. In this context, there is a compelling need to review the provisions of Arms Act/Arms Rules with regard to grant of arms licences for possession of arms and ammunition by individuals and manufacture of fire arms in the country”.

The reason for the proposed amendment itself is:

1. Faulty and biased as it implies the following:

i) That all firearms (licensed/belonging to SF personnel/illegal) are evil.

ii) That firearm owners are prone to violence and that firearm related crime is a clear & present danger to our society.

iii) That the state machinery is sufficiently able to protect the life & property of all citizens and that they have no need to acquire arms to defend themselves.

iv) That citizens do not have an inalienable right to protect their life & property.

2. Self contradictory:

In another statement of government's Integrated National report on prevention of illicit small arms submitted to the United Nations, admits:“Since almost all terrorist activities involve the use of illegal weapons, including small arms, organizations indulging in such activities are declared as “unlawful” under the provisions of relevant acts”

3. Contradictory to data provided by National Crime Record Bureau:

I)In year 2007, total of 85.53% murders were committed using weapons (sharp edge, blunt, agricultural implements etc) other than fire-arms.

II)Same year, 12.68 % of total murders were committed using unlicensed and illegal fire-arms. These illegal fire-arms were either locally manufactured or smuggled from across the border.

III)1.79% of total murders were committed using licensed/legal fire-arms.

IV)In year 2007, 598 lives were lost in crimes involving legal/licensed fire-arms whereas 114,590 lives were lost in Road accidents. Why Not to cancel all the driving licenses and ban entire surface transport system first of all?

V) UN estimates total number of firearms in India at around 40 million. Using that figure as a base, in the year 2007 only 0.012% of all firearms in the country (whether held legally or illegally) were used in the commission of murder. It is both irrational and unfair to penalise 99.988% of firearm owners, people who quite evidently keep & use their firearms responsibly, for the actions committed by a minuscule minority of citizens who are social misfits or criminals

VI) As per trends in crimes from 1953 to 2007 published by the National Crime Records Bureau, during this period we witnessed a 229.7% increase in murders, a 733.8% increase in rapes, a 423.9% increase in kidnapping & abduction, a 191.9% increase in riots and a 230.5% increase in other cognizable crimes. The need for an average citizen to take measures to protect himself and his family is now more than ever before.

The need of the hour is not stricter gun laws, but better policing and enforcement of existing criminal laws combined with more armed law abiding civilians. The Arms Act and Rules as they are, are sufficient to deal with the issue of illegal firearms and the illegal use of licensed firearms. Equating law abiding citizens holding licensed firearms with criminals is an affront to them and will not be tenable in a court of law. This should be struck down from the proposed amendment. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people which is contrary to the principle of democracy.

Paragraph 5 suggests to delete section 13 (2A), whereby, the licensing authority has power to issue the arms license, if deem fit, in case verification report from Police is not received even after a period of 60 days. As per new proposal, arms license cannot be granted pending police verification, it has been suggested that the licensing authority may send reminder to police for verification report. There is no suggested course of action in case the verification report is not received even after issuing multiple reminders. Another cleaver way of denying the citizens their legal right and promoting corruption. Two months (60 days) is ample time for an honest police officer to complete his job otherwise. There is absolutely no need to delete section 13(2A).

Mandatory police verification after 6 years (as per Para 16 of the proposed amendment) at the time of renewal as being the basis. Since there is a provision in the law as it is at present to suspend or revoke the license, if there is any cause to do so, therefore, proposed proposal is not required. It is an arbitrary time limit and this will only lead to harassment of law abiding citizens. How the MHA has arrived at the conclusion that there is a need for police verification after 6 years, when the present law itself envisages that in case of any wrong doing or misuse of the licensed arms and ammunition, the licensing authority can take action at any point of time, is beyond my understanding.

The amendment proposed at para 14 suggests the licensee maintain a record of where, when, how many times and to what purpose he/ she has fired a gun, another unnecessary effort to harass license holders. It is also proposed to reduce the quantity of ammunition to 50 cartridges per year, which is ridiculously low. The babus at MHA need to know that handguns/fire-arms are not Allah-din-ka-chirag that during the stress full Self Defence situation, at the pull of trigger, the bullet will go right at the intended target nullifying the threat easily. Accuracy/shot placement is of immense importance, particularly in case of low calibre fire-arms; accuracy comes with practice and practice is possible only when sufficient quantity of ammunition is made available. People in other countries as per monthly routine visit the firing range and fire at-least 100 rounds per visit, just to keep better firing accuracy and their confidence level with fire-arm up. In India, 50 cartridges per year is what we will get that too after producing the empties of previously issued ammunition and a written statement justifying when, where and how we fired them.

The proposed amendment at paragraph 15 regarding All India Validity of an Armed License is also highly objectionable as it is discriminatory and contrary to the Right to Equality. To the proposal that only MP's/Union Ministers, IAS and IPS officers, military and para military personnel and those whose job requires them to travel through out the country shall be granted All India Validity on their license by the State Govt. By the way, almost all of these people have armed escorts/body guards everywhere they go, provided by government on tax payers expense. Another proposal limiting validity of All India Permit to only three States is not worthy of itself as it defeats the vary purpose of All India Permit.

The proposed central database for licences issued (as per Paras 8 and 25 of the proposed amendment) is both needless and a waste of taxpayer money. It seems that the MHA is more interested in policing arms license holders than in really combating crime and terror. As has been proved by the facts stated in the very beginning of this document, licensed firearms are used in an insignificant number of crimes. Fully well knowing this fact why is the MHA so keen to spend tax payer money on wasteful things like a national database? Is it because the MHA seeks to further harass arms license holders? Are the owners of licensed arms criminals? If so why have such people been issued licenses at the first place? Would the money and effort not be better spent trying to catch real criminals and terrorists? Will the criminals come forward to submit details regarding their illegal weapons to MHA? As the law stands today the Govt. is anyway empowered to order a census of licensed firearms, what additional security benefits can a common citizen expect from this proposal? Does this also not infringe on the federal nature of our constitution, by trying to whittle down the powers of individual states to manage law & order within their own borders, something that is clearly listed as a state subject in the constitution? Does the MHA contend that State Governments are not competent enough to manage the law & order situation within their individual jurisdictions? Will we also soon see a central database to monitor all driving license holders? After all driving license holders are responsible for the death of many many times the number of citizens than are gun owners. Carrying this argument further, even in a country like USA with a very high standard of medical care, there are 195,000 hospital deaths from medical errors every single year, I shudder to even speculate what the number of such deaths would be in India, but you can be certain the figure will be much much higher in India. How about the MHA set up a central database to monitor all doctors and other medical professionals? Clearly this proposal of the MHA is without any merit whatsoever.

No change suggested with respect to policy on import of fire-arms and ammunition for civilian market. It is said in para 24 that ban on import of fire-arms will continue in future as well. Thanks to the Arms Rules of 1962, the indigenous Arms manufacturing Industry has remain fettered, due to a complete ban on import of machinery, required for production of quality weapons. Today very inferior quality shotguns are only produced in our country, which due to ban on import of machinery and coupled with the ban on Imports of firearms are sold with unjustified high price tags. The quality of these indigenous weapons, produced by the few licensed arms manufacturers, which includes the Government owned Indian Ordnance Factory, have no takers in the international market. Countries which have a GDP less than most states of our country, dominate the world market, through the production and sale of quality weapons thereby earning huge foreign revenue.

The situation took a further downturn in the 1980s, knowing fully well, that terrorists, criminals, separatists never use licensed weapons but resort to illegal, unlicensed and higher caliber weapons to wreck havoc on society and create mayhem, the myopic policy makers in the Government, citing internal disturbances and insurgency a reason, completely banned the import of Arms and Ammunition of any kind for the civilian market.

The Indian Ordinance Factory-a Public Sector Undertaking is the only factory which produces weapons meant for the civilian market, though its priority is to supply Military and Law Enforcement Units. The weapons they produce are grossly substandard, highly over priced and below the benchmarks to qualify for self defense or target practice. Abhinav Bindra would never hope to qualify for the Olympics, leave alone winning a gold medal if he were to use an IOF produced gun. Some of the ‘gems’ produced by the IOF is the infamous .315 Rifle, when fired, the exiting round, instead of flying true and straight, actually flips over, a ballistic feat which would be appreciated more by the ISRO Scientists

The revolvers produced by the IOF, is at best a crude copy of the British Webley & Scott. Some of the copies of the original Webley & Scott revolvers produced illegally in Munger, Bihar have a better finish. The .22 and 30-06 rifles are no better, repulsive and inferior quality wood are used for the stock which are so heavy and unbalanced, that the owners of these rifles would be better off, if they were used as clubs.

How many IOF products meant for civilian market in India qualify to be exported? Why our Ministers, MPs, MLAs and bureaucrats always want imported weapons for themselves? Why all the weaponry confiscated by the custom officials was issued/is being issued to these people even at very highly subsidized rates besides they are provided with highly trained members of police/para-military forces at tax payers expense? Why they cannot do with IOF products? Simply because they know well that IOF products are not just reliable.

The life of common law abiding and tax paying citizens is as valuable as that of these VIPS, tax paying citizens have their legal right to posses right kind of weapon for their self defense. There is no provision in our constitution to prohibit citizens from acquiring weapon of any particular make/foreign make (currently as long as it is NPB), this ban on import violates this fundamental principle in the first place. Also opening of import will enable government to earn huge revenue from the imported quality arms/ammunition apart from opening new competition amongst the private manufacturers.

The above are a few points with respect to a newly proposed draft that I could figure out at this point of time. What our policy makers want to achieve with this half baked idea is beyond my imagination. The objective ideally should have been to curb the free flow of illegal arms and ammunition by cutting the supply lines and disrupting network of anti-social and anti-national elements, rather than to come down cracking on law abiding citizens as this will leave citizens further vulnerable to crime, and also, government shall be held indirectly responsible by the history for promoting crime by strengthening the hands of criminals, rapists, murders, and terrorists.