Armed guards on Indian Merchant ships

It would be a lot cheaper if India let sailors be able to use guns. At least by doing this the government recognizes the benefits of self-defense. From The Hindu newspaper:

In view of the piracy attempts on merchant vessels, the Directorate-General of Shipping will soon issue a notification allowing armed security guards on board Indian merchant vessels. “The process is going on. The draft notification will be issued in 3-4 weeks,” Director-General of Shipping S.B. Agnihotri said here on Saturday. He was addressing a meeting to mark the first year celebrations of the ‘Day of Seafarer'. It will be celebrated on June 25 every year.

Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Nirmal Verma said: “A policy for deploying armed security guards on Indian flagged ships is being examined by the government.” . . .

Referring to the return of some m.v. Suez crewmembers, who had been taken hostage by Somali pirates, the Minister expressed confidence that the 39 other Indian seafarers, who were still held hostage, would be released soon. “The Government of India is doing discreet work. Piracy is an acute problem. I am sure we will be able to bring back the rest of our seafarers.” The Minister felicitated Sachin Pawase, a crewmember, who returned home on Friday.

Admiral Verma said piracy could be best tackled as a shared security threat and multilateral challenge. The International Maritime Organisation had declared ‘Piracy: Orchestrating the Response' the theme for the World Maritime Day this year.

He said maritime piracy cost the world economy around $ 12 billion each year. . . .

"Indians embrace the right to bear arms"

A lot of the rhetoric in India here sounds like things that I have written over time.

In the land of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian gun owners are coming out of the shadows for the first time to mobilize, U.S.-style, against proposed new curbs on bearing arms.

When gunmen attacked 10 sites in Mumbai in November 2008, including two five-star hotels and a train station, Mumbai resident Kumar Verma sat at home glued to the television, feeling outraged and unsafe.

Before the end of December, Verma and his friends had applied for gun licenses. He read up on India's gun laws and joined the Web forum Indians for Guns. When he got his license seven months later, he bought a black, secondhand, snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver with a walnut grip.

"I feel safe wearing it in my ankle holster every day," said Verma, 27, who runs a family business selling fire-protection systems. "I have a right to self-protection, because random street crime and terrorism have increased. The police cannot be there for everybody all the time. Now I am a believer in the right to keep and bear arms."

Verma said he plans to join the recently formed National Association for Gun Rights India to lobby against new gun controls that the government has proposed, blaming the proliferation of both licensed and illegal weapons for a rise in crime.

Although India's 1959 Arms Act gives citizens the legal right to own and carry guns, it is not a right enshrined in the country's constitution. Getting a license is a cumbersome process, and guns cannot be bought over the counter -- requirements that gun owners describe as hangovers from the colonial past, when the British rulers disarmed their Indian subjects to head off rebellion.

In December, the Ministry of Home Affairs proposed several amendments to the Arms Act that would make it even harder to acquire a gun license, restrict the number of people eligible for nationwide licenses and curtail the amount of ammunition a gun owner can amass. . . .

In Bombay (Mumbai) India, Politicians and Film Stars get almost all the gun licenses

The Times of India reports:

Of the 1,393 licences granted, 546 were for pistols and 847 for rifles, said businessman and activist Chetan Kothari, who got the information through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Renewal of a licence for a year costs Rs 50 for a pistol and Rs 20 for a rifle.

Kothari in his RTI application had requested that the police department furnish details of how many politicians, filmstars, businessmen and builders had got arms licences in the last one year. The department mentioned that 20 builders and 12 businessmen were granted licences last year. However in its break-up on the total number of licences granted in 2007, the police refused to specify how many filmstars and politicians held the right to own a pistol or a rifle. . . . .

That is 32 out of 1,393 licenses went to businessmen or builders (about 2.3 percent). It would be nice to know of the remaining 98 percent how many went to politicians.

Upper class in India reacts to terrorist attack

The NY Times has this (take it as always with a grain of salt). People are upset that the government didn't protect them from the attack, but there seems to be little appreciation about how many vulnerable targets there are in India and how hard it is to put enough troops and police around to protect everyone.

MUMBAI, India — Last Wednesday, an extraordinary public interest lawsuit was filed in this city’s highest court. It charged that the government had lagged in its constitutional duty to protect its citizens’ right to life, and it pressed the state to modernize and upgrade its security forces.

The lawsuit was striking mainly for the people behind it: investment bankers, corporate lawyers and representatives of some of India’s largest companies, which have their headquarters here in the country’s financial capital, also known as Bombay. The Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the city’s largest business association, joined as a petitioner. It was the first time it had lent its name to litigation in the public interest.

The three-day siege of Mumbai, which ended a week ago, was a watershed for India’s prosperous classes. It prompted many of those who live in their own private Indias, largely insulated from the country’s dysfunction, to demand a vital public service: safety.

Since the attacks, which killed 163 people, plus nine gunmen, there has been an outpouring of anger from unlikely quarters. On Wednesday, tens of thousands of urban, English-speaking, tank-top-wearing citizens stormed the Gateway of India, a famed waterfront monument, venting anger at their elected leaders. There were similar protests in the capital, New Delhi, and the southern technology hubs, Bangalore and Hyderabad. All were organized spontaneously, with word spread through text messages and Facebook pages. . . .

More info on gun free zone in Mumbai

The WSJ has a detailed discussion of the attacks at Mumbai here:

The hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government, according to the hotel company's chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi. The gunmen raced through the marble-floored lobby, past the grand piano into the adjoining Verandah restaurant, firing at the guests and shattering the windows. . . .

Trivia: I kept on wondering to myself during the news coverage on all this where is Mumbai in India. Decades ago I was very up on learning where everything was. In any case, it turns out Mumbai is the new name for Bombay.

A history of Indian gun regulations

Abhijeet Singh provides a brief discussion of the history of Indian gun regulations here (more detail is available by following the link):

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 (11 of 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. . . .

India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government's innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the "Licensing Authorities", in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license. . . .

This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment. Even the shoddy domestically produced guns suddenly seem to have found a market. Also since the Government now had a near monopoly on (even half-way decent) arms & ammunition for the civilian market, they started turning the screws by pricing their crude public sector products (ammunition, rifles, shotguns & small quantities of handguns) at ridiculously high rates - products that frankly, given a choice no one would ever purchase. . . .

While I had seen this, I appreciate Erik Gregg emailing me about the piece.

"Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back"

Belfast Telegraph reporter Jerome Taylor has this telling report:

It is the photograph that has dominated the world's front pages, casting an astonishing light on the fresh-faced killers who brought terror to the heart of India's most vibrant city. Now it can be revealed how the astonishing picture came to be taken by a newspaper photographer who hid inside a train carriage as gunfire erupted all around him.

Sebastian D'Souza, a picture editor at the Mumbai Mirror, whose offices are just opposite the city's Chhatrapati Shivaji station, heard the gunfire erupt and ran towards the terminus. "I ran into the first carriage of one of the trains on the platform to try and get a shot but couldn't get a good angle, so I moved to the second carriage and waited for the gunmen to walk by," he said. "They were shooting from waist height and fired at anything that moved. I briefly had time to take a couple of frames using a telephoto lens. I think they saw me taking photographs but theydidn't seem to care."

The gunmen were terrifyingly professional, making sure at least one of them was able to fire their rifle while the other reloaded. By the time he managed to capture the killer on camera, Mr D'Souza had already seen two gunmen calmly stroll across the station concourse shooting both civilians and policemen, many of whom, he said, were armed but did not fire back. "I first saw the gunmen outside the station," Mr D'Souza said. "With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles.

"Towards the station entrance, there are a number of bookshops and one of the bookstore owners was trying to close his shop," he recalled. "The gunmen opened fire and the shopkeeper fell down."

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back." . . .

Gun Control in India

I confess that I know little about the gun control regulations in India so I can't verify much of this.