see the link above from madhya pradesh
In India, even supporting the idea of owning a gun is an exception, thanks to the ideas of Gandhi and Ahimsa.
No wonder all forgot Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Rani Lakshmi Bai, Kunwar Singh and many more.
After the mutiny of 1857, the British lords were trying to ensure every step to avoid any further revolt by Indians against the oppressive foreign government. One of the steps was to improve British Army and restructuring the administration and strengthening the ways of communication and transportation. On the other hand, British were also engaged in disarming Indians completely and destroying the local firearm production completely to avoid any further chances of mutiny.
It was during that time when Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880) proposed the Indian Arms Act in 1878. The Indian Arms Act exempted British and ruled that an Indian could hold a weapon “only if” the British masters considers and declares him a “Loyal” servant.
The idea of importance of disarming the public was not new and James Burgh exclaimed it in 18th century as—
“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [1774-1775]
Although Indians always respected the ideals of Ahimsa, and regarded Gandhi as the Mahatma, but what were Gandhi’s own views about the Gun-Control?
Gandhi criticized the Gun-Control law vehemently and said—
“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.” — Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
British had a reason to oppose freedom of Indians to own a gun, an instrument for self-defense, but after the Independence, it was well-sought by the Indians that such ridiculous and anti-freedom act will be removed as soon as possible.
India got independence in 1947, yet it took almost 12 years to repeal the Indian-Arms-Act. In 1959, free Indian government denounced the Indian Arms Act of 1878 and enacted the Arms Act of 1959. Nevertheless, India was still struggling with the distrust of government against its own people. The Indian Government started License-Raj and the legislation gave enormous powers to the Licensing Authority to decide whether a common honest law abiding citizen can hold a gun or not.
It was the era of communistic impressions on India
“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
As all other departments, government strictly controlled the arms production and private arms manufacturing industry completely.
Obviously, it was all done to reduce the ongoing dangers of secession at Kashmir, Punjab, Assam, Mizoram and Nagaland borders, and to decrease the dangers of Naxalism.
However, during the mid 1980′s the government put an end to all small arms import because of the rising dangers of terrorism and seized the little freedom for private arms manufacturing units.
Government never considered that not a single terrorist or criminal ever used a licensed arm; still it made owning an arm legally near to impossible. Thus, the honest law abiding citizen was disarmed completely.
On the other hand, the black market of illegal arms started flourishing in every next city of India and crime kept increasing continuously.
It is a fact that licensed arms are far less dangerous than motorcycles or city buses.
It is also a fact that Gun-Control provides a certainty to the criminal that the victim, who mostly is an honest law-abiding citizen, is unarmed. The situation goes as-
Less guns, more crimes.
Most violent crimes, including the terrorist attacks and religious riots are committed using illegal arms and there is no way to trace and stop the illegal arms trade. Terrorists or underworld criminals are not going to respect gun-control laws, they seldom respects any law. They will be willing to gain any arms of their choice and will use them to commit crimes. Government always ignored the fact that in India it is much easier and cheaper to buy an illegal weapon than to own a legal weapon, and why will a criminal or terrorist try to get a legal weapon? Legal weapon are for self-defence by the law-abiding citizens only, and government makes them rare, government makes it impossible for the honest citizen to defend himself against the criminals.
Who can oppose owning a gun for self-defence? Who can oppose the right to self-defence?
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
Was it possible for the rioting mob of Aligarh and Bhopal in 1993 to kill those hundreds of innocent if they had a gun, an instrument for their self-defence? Was Godhra riot or Best Bakery massacre, or Mumbai Riots or Golden temple Massacre possible if the common law-abiding citizen had a chance to defend himself?
We say our sisters and mothers to learn martial arts to defend themselves against the rapists and women haters. How would a rapist be able to abduct a working girl while returning from her work to rape her if he knows she owns a gun for her self-defense? At present, he knows she has no way to defend herself, her cries will not be strong enough to call back some cop to defend her and he attacks the girls freely, but what if he comes to realize that she can shoot him pretty well.
When a person owns a gun, he becomes godlike with special powers to harm and attack others. When a person owns a bike, he becomes godlike to run faster than the air. Do all bike owners commits accidents and kill people on roads through rash driving? So yes, it may be a case that some people may abuse the gun-power but mostly owning a gun makes a person responsible and careful enough to use it properly. Can anyone deny that despite of all dangers of road accidents, bikes, cars, and mopeds are a necessary need and a modern power as bless of god for the common man? A legal gun will be just another power for the honest citizen against the criminals to defend self.
Arms are free for the criminals and terrorists. Crimes and riots are free for the criminals and evil doers. However, when the evil-doers and criminals know it with certainty that the honest law-abiding citizen is defenseless; they become more audacious and adamant. If the Law-Abiding citizen owns the guns, the power to defend themselves against any sort of riots or crimes, it is clear that no or very few will even think and try to create any riot on the name of religion or caste.
Some people wonder on the removal of gun-control, will the violence increase abruptly.
Guns are not necessary for killing and domestic violence is already up. Nevertheless, if the physical weakness of women against the violent male is counter equated by the ownership of gun by a woman, it will certainly reduce the chances of domestic violence.
As a matter of fact, Indian Laws or so much strict that a common citizen cannot even hold a stick, on the other hand, even the constables are now allowed to hold a gun but they are empowered with Lathis, Lathis to lathicharge the mob.
A Mob with illegal guns and grenades can not be controlled by lathis.
When the police cannot defend itself, how is it going to defend a common citizen?
The honest law-abiding citizen needs to demand for the right of self-defence, and government should help him by removing gun-control.
,we are a Democracy in theory,actually we are a Banana Republic,whereby loyalty to the constitution is not must,but loyalty to the ruling family is.INDIA ROCKS