Interesting little article about a topic that always generates some heat -
I live in India and I am a proud firearm ownerâbut 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 Indiaâs 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 âloyalâ subject of the British Empire.
Discuss amongst yourselves. 
