View source for Guns/ Arms/ Firearms: India

[[File: States with over 1000 people killed by firearms, 2001-16.jpg|States with over 1000 people killed by firearms, 2001-16; Graphic courtesy: [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Gallery.aspx?id=16_05_2016_006_035_002&type=P&artUrl=STATOISTICS-UP-AND-BIHAR-ARE-INDIAS-MOST-TRIGGER-16052016006035&eid=31808 ''The Times of India''], May 16, 2016|frame|500px]] 

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%">
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.</div>
|}

[[Category:India|A]]
[[Category:Crime|A]]

=A history of gun manufacture in India=
==16th- 18th century, and how the British destroyed the industry==
[https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-gun-the-basis-of-modern-anglo-civilisation ''AEON'']

'' Priya Satia is professor of modern British history at Stanford University in California. Her latest book is Empire of Guns: The Violent Making of the Industrial Revolution (forthcoming, 2018). Her academic and popular writing has appeared in American Historical Review, Technology & Culture, Financial Times, Slate and The Nation, among others. '' 


In the mid-18th century, advanced areas of northwest Europe and east and south Asia enjoyed roughly comparable life expectancy, rates of consumption, and potential for economic growth. But around 1800, in what scholars call the ‘great divergence’, the power and wealth of the West suddenly and dramatically eclipsed that of India, China and the Ottoman Empire. 

The British in particular found vindication for their expanding empire in ideas of cultural and racial superiority. Scholars from Edward Said to Kenneth Pomeranz have done much to discredit such theories and to reveal their importance in motivating and justifying British conquest in Asia. European colonialism in Asia and the New World itself helped to propel the divergence between Europe and Asia – securing European access to unprecedented riches and coercively secured markets and resources.

Still, some scholars continue to rummage through the vast terrain of ‘culture’ in search of an explanation for European ascendancy. Most influential of late is the theory (popularised especially by the economic historian Joel Mokyr) that the Enlightenment fostered a unique culture of sharing both the knowledge and the microinventions – or ‘tweaks’ – that drove the British industrial revolution.

The idea that knowledge-sharing was a particularly European trait would have surprised the Enlightenment thinker Adam Smith as he observed the world in that moment. Concerned about Britain’s aggressive pursuit of empire, he presumed that the universal capacity for knowledge-sharing would ultimately right the wrongs of colonialism. Noting in An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) that South Asians were not reaping benefits from the discovery of the Americas and suffered ‘every sort of injustice’ at the hands of Europeans, Smith remained sanguine that the sharing of knowledge and improvements that commerce produced would eventually put all nations on an equal footing and compel them into mutual respect.

We know that history did not play out that way. Why not? Why didn’t knowledge-sharing equalise the world? Was Smith too generous or naive in believing that it had cultural purchase beyond Europe? Smith’s naivety in fact lay in his presumption that the emerging political inequalities that he observed would not also shape the spread of knowledge. Like liberal thinkers today, he imagined that knowledge-exchange somehow transpires regardless of power relations.

n reality, in the 18th century, as now, power shaped knowledge-sharing everywhere. In Britain, for instance, government offices engaged in military supply often prohibited contractors from patenting their inventions: a patent would slow the spread of innovation to other contractors and thus slow the production of urgently needed supplies. While the British government thus abetted the sharing of know-how within Britain, it actively stifled such sharing abroad. British industrialists copied Asian textiles and pottery without scrupling over ‘intellectual property’, but could rely on their government to minimise the threat of colonial competition with their own manufactures.

In 1737, for instance, English iron manufacturers urged prohibition of bar-iron manufacturing in America, fearing that it would stimulate manufacture of iron goods there and ruin English ironworks and iron manufactures, depopulating the ‘Mother Country’. In 1750, they ensured that legislation allowing duty-free imports of American bar iron at once prohibited American iron-manufacturing, explicitly to prevent creation of a war machine there. Such inequities fuelled anti-British sentiment in America.

In India, old, rather than new, manufacturing industries caused concern. British colonial officials strove to strangle local gun-manufacture and block Indian access to British gun-making knowledge. They did so out of an understanding that arms-making lay at the heart of industrial progress. The result was South Asian dependence on British guns, fuelling Britain’s industrial take-off while undercutting India’s industrial potential.

Eighteenth-century Britons perceived the connection between war manufacturing and industrial development, especially in the West Midlands. In a 1752 petition, the West Midlands town of Birmingham boasted that ‘above 20,000 Hands’ were employed ‘in useful Manufactures, … greatly serviceable to the Government’. In 1795-96, an influential and powerful Quaker gun-maker of the town explained to his concerned fellow friends that there was no industrial work that did not in some way contribute to war.

'''Intensifying European involvement in Indian conflicts heightened demand for weapons'''

During the long wars against France unfolding then, military contracting dominated the town. The Ordnance Office took control of the arms industry, monopolising its output. From 1804 to 1815, Birmingham produced 7,660,229 arms and components. The town worked to quash any legislation threatening the gun trade. Townspeople knew that injury to arms manufactures would damage the entire West Midlands region, throwing a ‘considerable … portion of its population’ out of employment. The industrial downturn after the wars in 1815 confirmed their view. As late as 1857, opponents challenged John Bright’s parliamentary election bid on the grounds that his pacifism fit awkwardly in a town whose economy depended on the ‘paraphernalia of military metallic supplies’.

Similar regional military-industrial economies existed in the Indian subcontinent. In the 16th century, arms sales constituted part of Ottoman-Mughal diplomatic business in India. Babur, the first Mughal emperor, brought Turkish firearms, which Mughal adversaries, the Rajputs and the Afghans, in turn adopted. Exchanges with the Portuguese and Egypt helped to establish the technology in the subcontinent. The Mughal emperor Akbar was deeply interested in firearm manufacture, and drew master gun-makers to his court.

By the 17th century, the Mughals had state foundries and arsenals. From Malabar to Bihar, kingdoms across the subcontinent cultivated arms manufacture. Intensifying European involvement in Indian conflicts heightened demand for guns. Indian craftsmen also copied European firearms. Peasants of the Gangetic plains used cheap handguns made by local blacksmiths. Travancore, Kashmir, Rajasthan, Punjab and Sindh possessed sites of arms manufacture. Indian guns and gun parts were also sold in Persia, Oman and across the Indian Ocean. British military men noted the superior range and velocity of Indian matchlocks. European observers also praised Golconda muskets. Indian designs, the British recognised, were sophisticated and effective; subcontinental arms emerged from a rich and dynamic culture of technical knowledge.

The East India Company (EIC) – a commercial arm of the British state – also sold British arms in the Indian subcontinent. To obtain trading privileges, they also presented arms as gifts. By the 1690s, the company exported nearly 1,000 tons of small arms per year for profit. ‘Hardly a ship came [in the 1760s] that did not sell them cannon and small arms,’ marvelled a colonel in Parliament. The French and British used arms deals as a proxy to challenge one another in the subcontinent. With each British success, EIC arms acquired ever more cachet, making them an ever more effective medium of diplomatic exchange. In 1815, the Board of Customs reported an annual export of 151,572 guns to South Asia, the Indonesian archipelago and China worth £103,463.

To be sure, the British worried about arming their enemies. In 1765, for instance, the EIC’s Madras government urged steps to prevent arms from ‘falling into Hands who may turn them against Us’. The EIC also wanted to ensure that arms supplied to the trusted nawab (or governor) of Arcot did not reach ‘improper hands’. But short-term commercial interests often prevailed. Officials worrying about reckless sales confronted the logic that forbidding them would merely push custom to European rivals, forfeiting both British profit and influence. This was the calculus with respect to Hyder Ali of Mysore: the British felt that selling him guns brought both profit and his goodwill as he brought down their common enemies, the Marathas. He had access to French and Spanish guns anyway, they noted.

The EIC also bought British guns for its own use. As its territorial stake in India grew, it required massive gun shipments for its expanding professional army. In 1764, it anticipated an annual demand of 5,000. In 1765, Calcutta officials asked for 10,000 stand of arms plus 4,000 more each subsequent year, to be supplied by the same manufacturers who supplied the home government. The same year, the EIC acquired the right to collect taxes in Bengal, assuring its capacity to pay for arms. With both its own army and the right to collect taxes from colonial subjects, the EIC was becoming a colonial state. 

'''When the American war started, it was difficult to lure Birmingham’s smiths away from all this Indian work'''

In 1766, the EIC’s Madras Council determined to provide a spare musket for each company soldier. They also needed 17,000 new arms, plus more for the nawab of Arcot. Before 1765, the EIC’s small arms expenses rose above £10,000 only three times, but after 1765, an annual outlay of £20,000 to £50,000 was the norm. In 1767 and 1769, payments were more than £60,000. Guns in the Indian climate required replacement three times as often as those in the King’s Service. The EIC was also extravagant, relative to the Ordnance Office, in its readiness to replace damaged arms. While the Ordnance Office ordered few guns in the brief interlude of peace in the early 1770s, EIC demand remained robust, partly as a result of design changes that consolidated the classic ‘India-pattern’ musket in 1771. That year, it wanted 40,000 muskets for Madras and more for the nawab of Arcot, Bengal, the nawab of Awadh, the Bombay Marine, and the king of Travancore. Thousands more went to short-lived militias formed from time to time around the subcontinent. When the American war started in 1775, the Ordnance Office had difficulty luring Birmingham’s smiths away from all this Indian work. After that war, too, the EIC routinely had at least 20,000 muskets en route to the subcontinent, in addition to maintaining 75,000 in store.

During the wars against France from 1793 to 1815, Britain’s Ordnance Office could not procure guns fast enough, and the EIC became a crucial arms supplier to the British state. By the end of 1794, the EIC handed over some 30,000 guns for use by other British forces around the world. The Indian army had enough British guns in store and on continual order to spare all this, even as its forces expanded from 88,000 in 1793 to 192,000 in 1805. By the end of the war, the Ordnance Office had bought more than 162,000 guns from the EIC.

The India-pattern guns were lighter and plainer in style than the standard Ordnance Office musket – making it more easily mass-produceable. Its adoption as the standard infantry weapon in 1797 revolutionised English arms production. Between 1804 and 1815, Birmingham produced more than 3 million barrels and gunlocks, plus another million for the EIC. More than 1.7 million complete arms were set up. The India-pattern was Britain’s most numerous military muzzle-loading weapon ever: more than 2.8 million were produced. During a slackening of demand in 1812, the company helped Midlands ironmasters by anticipating munitions orders for the next year and thus purchasing 4-5,000 tons of Midland iron. In short, Birmingham’s industrial transformation owed a great deal to the EIC and its imperial activities in India.

While facilitating industrial revolution at home, the EIC actively stifled industrial progress in India. It manufactured some military goods in its arsenals and purchased some locally made tents, swords and tulwars (sabres). Local manufacturers repaired guns. But the company drew the line at arms-manufacturing, out of fear of stimulating an industrial capacity that would threaten Britain and Britain’s hold on India.

Occasionally, a British official suggested that Indian manufacturing might offer efficiencies. In the 1770s, complaints about the quality of English arms prompted a suggestion to minimise importation of stores that could be manufactured in India. But the EIC’s Court of Directors dismissed the consequent proposal to manufacture drums and fifes in India. The EIC likewise rejected a proposal to develop lead, iron, copper and tin mining in Bengal on the grounds that it would cost the EIC profit and control. Any steps toward industrial development, the EIC noted, was to make the colony still more independent of the ‘Mother Country’. It also risked supporting the ‘supply to the neighbouring powers of Military Stores[,] and the teaching of them new means of independence and new Sources of Wealth’. In short, proposals that might promote industrial development in Bengal were ‘very impolitic and contrary to our government’s maxims’. Certainly, they might bring ‘great and important advantages’ to Bengal, ‘considered as independent’. But of course Bengal was not independent; it was part of the British Empire.

The richness of Bengal’s natural resources and technical knowledge presented a threat, from the EIC’s point of view, insofar as they might tend to industrial development in the region, and thus ‘occasion a heavy loss’ to British national interests. Bengalis, an official noted, ‘are not absolutely ignorant of the use of iron ore’. If other metal mines were opened, producing good metal more cheaply than European imports, ‘their curiosity and their avarice would be excited and they would at least proceed to experiment’. Like Adam Smith, this official knew that curiosity and experimentation were not components of some unique European culture.

'''As arms manufacture lay at the heart of progress, officials helped create the divergence between East and West '''

Colonial officials in particular feared that Indians would acquire knowledge leading to improved weapons-manufacturing. Facilitating or allowing the spread of knowledge of metalworking among South Asian colonials presented a simple danger. The ‘step from a knowledge of smelting Metals and the manner of casting them into certain forms to that of casting Cannon Shot and Shells is so inconsiderable that if the Natives once acquired the former art they would soon become Masters of the latter’, wrote a company official. The EIC’s leadership likewise insisted that its ammunition laboratories at Fort William remain a mystery:

No Indian, black or person of mixed breed, nor any Roman Catholic of what nation soever, shall, on any pretence, be admitted or set foot in the Laboratory or any of the military magazines, either out of curiosity or to be employed in them, or to come near them so as to see what is doing or contained therein.
This was the European culture of knowledge-sharing.

In 1813, the EIC considered closing the Fort William foundry out of fear that knowledge about casting might spread. Thus, while EIC arms purchases stimulated industrial revolution in England, the EIC prevented analogous stimulation of metalworking in the subcontinent, and took steps to counter it. EIC officials were sure that arms manufacture lay at the heart of industrial progress, and they helped create the divergence between East and West. In their ad hoc decisions lie the beginnings of global industrial disparities. That was what empire was about. As British industrialism took off, Indian economic development was reoriented to serve it.

Preventing exposure to British knowledge and suppressing Indian development was a big part of the battle, but the British also strove to suppress existing Indian knowledge and close down relationships in which other Europeans might share skills and knowledge with Indian states. It was a real concern. For, in the face of British aggression, indigenous polities were struggling to strengthen their gun-manufacturing capacities. In the early 1760s, the nawab of Bengal, Mir Qasim, began to manufacture firelocks at the fort at Monghyr, where Raja Todar Mal had manufactured guns in the 16th century.

The manufacturing continued after the nawab’s defeat in 1764, but as an EIC arms depot. Its guns enjoyed a reputation superior to the best British military muskets, especially in the barrel metal and flints made of agates from the Rajmahal Hills. As French fortunes declined in the second half of the century, French mercenaries offered their expertise to Indian manufactories. State arsenals and magazines across Agra, Delhi, Gwalior, the former Mughal heartland, produced munitions at the same standards as Europe. Factories in Lucknow, Pondicherry, Hyderabad, Lahore and Seringapatam produced most of the guns used by powers challenging both the Mughals and the British.

'''The British leveraged their military support to force the new nawab to dismiss the Frenchmen in his service'''


In the mid-18th century, advanced areas of northwest Europe and east and south Asia enjoyed roughly comparable life expectancy, rates of consumption, and potential for economic growth. But around 1800, in what scholars call the ‘great divergence’, the power and wealth of the West suddenly and dramatically eclipsed that of India, China and the Ottoman Empire. 

The British in particular found vindication for their expanding empire in ideas of cultural and racial superiority. Scholars from Edward Said to Kenneth Pomeranz have done much to discredit such theories and to reveal their importance in motivating and justifying British conquest in Asia. European colonialism in Asia and the New World itself helped to propel the divergence between Europe and Asia – securing European access to unprecedented riches and coercively secured markets and resources.

Still, some scholars continue to rummage through the vast terrain of ‘culture’ in search of an explanation for European ascendancy. Most influential of late is the theory (popularised especially by the economic historian Joel Mokyr) that the Enlightenment fostered a unique culture of sharing both the knowledge and the microinventions – or ‘tweaks’ – that drove the British industrial revolution.

The idea that knowledge-sharing was a particularly European trait would have surprised the Enlightenment thinker Adam Smith as he observed the world in that moment. Concerned about Britain’s aggressive pursuit of empire, he presumed that the universal capacity for knowledge-sharing would ultimately right the wrongs of colonialism. Noting in An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) that South Asians were not reaping benefits from the discovery of the Americas and suffered ‘every sort of injustice’ at the hands of Europeans, Smith remained sanguine that the sharing of knowledge and improvements that commerce produced would eventually put all nations on an equal footing and compel them into mutual respect.

We know that history did not play out that way. Why not? Why didn’t knowledge-sharing equalise the world? Was Smith too generous or naive in believing that it had cultural purchase beyond Europe? Smith’s naivety in fact lay in his presumption that the emerging political inequalities that he observed would not also shape the spread of knowledge. Like liberal thinkers today, he imagined that knowledge-exchange somehow transpires regardless of power relations.

Subscribe to Aeon’s Newsletter

Daily
Weekly

In reality, in the 18th century, as now, power shaped knowledge-sharing everywhere. In Britain, for instance, government offices engaged in military supply often prohibited contractors from patenting their inventions: a patent would slow the spread of innovation to other contractors and thus slow the production of urgently needed supplies. While the British government thus abetted the sharing of know-how within Britain, it actively stifled such sharing abroad. British industrialists copied Asian textiles and pottery without scrupling over ‘intellectual property’, but could rely on their government to minimise the threat of colonial competition with their own manufactures.

In 1737, for instance, English iron manufacturers urged prohibition of bar-iron manufacturing in America, fearing that it would stimulate manufacture of iron goods there and ruin English ironworks and iron manufactures, depopulating the ‘Mother Country’. In 1750, they ensured that legislation allowing duty-free imports of American bar iron at once prohibited American iron-manufacturing, explicitly to prevent creation of a war machine there. Such inequities fuelled anti-British sentiment in America.

In India, old, rather than new, manufacturing industries caused concern. British colonial officials strove to strangle local gun-manufacture and block Indian access to British gun-making knowledge. They did so out of an understanding that arms-making lay at the heart of industrial progress. The result was South Asian dependence on British guns, fuelling Britain’s industrial take-off while undercutting India’s industrial potential.

Eighteenth-century Britons perceived the connection between war manufacturing and industrial development, especially in the West Midlands. In a 1752 petition, the West Midlands town of Birmingham boasted that ‘above 20,000 Hands’ were employed ‘in useful Manufactures, … greatly serviceable to the Government’. In 1795-96, an influential and powerful Quaker gun-maker of the town explained to his concerned fellow friends that there was no industrial work that did not in some way contribute to war.

Intensifying European involvement in Indian conflicts heightened demand for weapons

During the long wars against France unfolding then, military contracting dominated the town. The Ordnance Office took control of the arms industry, monopolising its output. From 1804 to 1815, Birmingham produced 7,660,229 arms and components. The town worked to quash any legislation threatening the gun trade. Townspeople knew that injury to arms manufactures would damage the entire West Midlands region, throwing a ‘considerable … portion of its population’ out of employment. The industrial downturn after the wars in 1815 confirmed their view. As late as 1857, opponents challenged John Bright’s parliamentary election bid on the grounds that his pacifism fit awkwardly in a town whose economy depended on the ‘paraphernalia of military metallic supplies’.

Similar regional military-industrial economies existed in the Indian subcontinent. In the 16th century, arms sales constituted part of Ottoman-Mughal diplomatic business in India. Babur, the first Mughal emperor, brought Turkish firearms, which Mughal adversaries, the Rajputs and the Afghans, in turn adopted. Exchanges with the Portuguese and Egypt helped to establish the technology in the subcontinent. The Mughal emperor Akbar was deeply interested in firearm manufacture, and drew master gun-makers to his court.

By the 17th century, the Mughals had state foundries and arsenals. From Malabar to Bihar, kingdoms across the subcontinent cultivated arms manufacture. Intensifying European involvement in Indian conflicts heightened demand for guns. Indian craftsmen also copied European firearms. Peasants of the Gangetic plains used cheap handguns made by local blacksmiths. Travancore, Kashmir, Rajasthan, Punjab and Sindh possessed sites of arms manufacture. Indian guns and gun parts were also sold in Persia, Oman and across the Indian Ocean. British military men noted the superior range and velocity of Indian matchlocks. European observers also praised Golconda muskets. Indian designs, the British recognised, were sophisticated and effective; subcontinental arms emerged from a rich and dynamic culture of technical knowledge.

The East India Company (EIC) – a commercial arm of the British state – also sold British arms in the Indian subcontinent. To obtain trading privileges, they also presented arms as gifts. By the 1690s, the company exported nearly 1,000 tons of small arms per year for profit. ‘Hardly a ship came [in the 1760s] that did not sell them cannon and small arms,’ marvelled a colonel in Parliament. The French and British used arms deals as a proxy to challenge one another in the subcontinent. With each British success, EIC arms acquired ever more cachet, making them an ever more effective medium of diplomatic exchange. In 1815, the Board of Customs reported an annual export of 151,572 guns to South Asia, the Indonesian archipelago and China worth £103,463.

To be sure, the British worried about arming their enemies. In 1765, for instance, the EIC’s Madras government urged steps to prevent arms from ‘falling into Hands who may turn them against Us’. The EIC also wanted to ensure that arms supplied to the trusted nawab (or governor) of Arcot did not reach ‘improper hands’. But short-term commercial interests often prevailed. Officials worrying about reckless sales confronted the logic that forbidding them would merely push custom to European rivals, forfeiting both British profit and influence. This was the calculus with respect to Hyder Ali of Mysore: the British felt that selling him guns brought both profit and his goodwill as he brought down their common enemies, the Marathas. He had access to French and Spanish guns anyway, they noted.

The EIC also bought British guns for its own use. As its territorial stake in India grew, it required massive gun shipments for its expanding professional army. In 1764, it anticipated an annual demand of 5,000. In 1765, Calcutta officials asked for 10,000 stand of arms plus 4,000 more each subsequent year, to be supplied by the same manufacturers who supplied the home government. The same year, the EIC acquired the right to collect taxes in Bengal, assuring its capacity to pay for arms. With both its own army and the right to collect taxes from colonial subjects, the EIC was becoming a colonial state. 

When the American war started, it was difficult to lure Birmingham’s smiths away from all this Indian work

In 1766, the EIC’s Madras Council determined to provide a spare musket for each company soldier. They also needed 17,000 new arms, plus more for the nawab of Arcot. Before 1765, the EIC’s small arms expenses rose above £10,000 only three times, but after 1765, an annual outlay of £20,000 to £50,000 was the norm. In 1767 and 1769, payments were more than £60,000. Guns in the Indian climate required replacement three times as often as those in the King’s Service. The EIC was also extravagant, relative to the Ordnance Office, in its readiness to replace damaged arms. While the Ordnance Office ordered few guns in the brief interlude of peace in the early 1770s, EIC demand remained robust, partly as a result of design changes that consolidated the classic ‘India-pattern’ musket in 1771. That year, it wanted 40,000 muskets for Madras and more for the nawab of Arcot, Bengal, the nawab of Awadh, the Bombay Marine, and the king of Travancore. Thousands more went to short-lived militias formed from time to time around the subcontinent. When the American war started in 1775, the Ordnance Office had difficulty luring Birmingham’s smiths away from all this Indian work. After that war, too, the EIC routinely had at least 20,000 muskets en route to the subcontinent, in addition to maintaining 75,000 in store.

During the wars against France from 1793 to 1815, Britain’s Ordnance Office could not procure guns fast enough, and the EIC became a crucial arms supplier to the British state. By the end of 1794, the EIC handed over some 30,000 guns for use by other British forces around the world. The Indian army had enough British guns in store and on continual order to spare all this, even as its forces expanded from 88,000 in 1793 to 192,000 in 1805. By the end of the war, the Ordnance Office had bought more than 162,000 guns from the EIC.

The India-pattern guns were lighter and plainer in style than the standard Ordnance Office musket – making it more easily mass-produceable. Its adoption as the standard infantry weapon in 1797 revolutionised English arms production. Between 1804 and 1815, Birmingham produced more than 3 million barrels and gunlocks, plus another million for the EIC. More than 1.7 million complete arms were set up. The India-pattern was Britain’s most numerous military muzzle-loading weapon ever: more than 2.8 million were produced. During a slackening of demand in 1812, the company helped Midlands ironmasters by anticipating munitions orders for the next year and thus purchasing 4-5,000 tons of Midland iron. In short, Birmingham’s industrial transformation owed a great deal to the EIC and its imperial activities in India.

While facilitating industrial revolution at home, the EIC actively stifled industrial progress in India. It manufactured some military goods in its arsenals and purchased some locally made tents, swords and tulwars (sabres). Local manufacturers repaired guns. But the company drew the line at arms-manufacturing, out of fear of stimulating an industrial capacity that would threaten Britain and Britain’s hold on India.

Occasionally, a British official suggested that Indian manufacturing might offer efficiencies. In the 1770s, complaints about the quality of English arms prompted a suggestion to minimise importation of stores that could be manufactured in India. But the EIC’s Court of Directors dismissed the consequent proposal to manufacture drums and fifes in India. The EIC likewise rejected a proposal to develop lead, iron, copper and tin mining in Bengal on the grounds that it would cost the EIC profit and control. Any steps toward industrial development, the EIC noted, was to make the colony still more independent of the ‘Mother Country’. It also risked supporting the ‘supply to the neighbouring powers of Military Stores[,] and the teaching of them new means of independence and new Sources of Wealth’. In short, proposals that might promote industrial development in Bengal were ‘very impolitic and contrary to our government’s maxims’. Certainly, they might bring ‘great and important advantages’ to Bengal, ‘considered as independent’. But of course Bengal was not independent; it was part of the British Empire.

The richness of Bengal’s natural resources and technical knowledge presented a threat, from the EIC’s point of view, insofar as they might tend to industrial development in the region, and thus ‘occasion a heavy loss’ to British national interests. Bengalis, an official noted, ‘are not absolutely ignorant of the use of iron ore’. If other metal mines were opened, producing good metal more cheaply than European imports, ‘their curiosity and their avarice would be excited and they would at least proceed to experiment’. Like Adam Smith, this official knew that curiosity and experimentation were not components of some unique European culture.

As arms manufacture lay at the heart of progress, officials helped create the divergence between East and West 

Colonial officials in particular feared that Indians would acquire knowledge leading to improved weapons-manufacturing. Facilitating or allowing the spread of knowledge of metalworking among South Asian colonials presented a simple danger. The ‘step from a knowledge of smelting Metals and the manner of casting them into certain forms to that of casting Cannon Shot and Shells is so inconsiderable that if the Natives once acquired the former art they would soon become Masters of the latter’, wrote a company official. The EIC’s leadership likewise insisted that its ammunition laboratories at Fort William remain a mystery:

No Indian, black or person of mixed breed, nor any Roman Catholic of what nation soever, shall, on any pretence, be admitted or set foot in the Laboratory or any of the military magazines, either out of curiosity or to be employed in them, or to come near them so as to see what is doing or contained therein.
This was the European culture of knowledge-sharing.

In 1813, the EIC considered closing the Fort William foundry out of fear that knowledge about casting might spread. Thus, while EIC arms purchases stimulated industrial revolution in England, the EIC prevented analogous stimulation of metalworking in the subcontinent, and took steps to counter it. EIC officials were sure that arms manufacture lay at the heart of industrial progress, and they helped create the divergence between East and West. In their ad hoc decisions lie the beginnings of global industrial disparities. That was what empire was about. As British industrialism took off, Indian economic development was reoriented to serve it.

Preventing exposure to British knowledge and suppressing Indian development was a big part of the battle, but the British also strove to suppress existing Indian knowledge and close down relationships in which other Europeans might share skills and knowledge with Indian states. It was a real concern. For, in the face of British aggression, indigenous polities were struggling to strengthen their gun-manufacturing capacities. In the early 1760s, the nawab of Bengal, Mir Qasim, began to manufacture firelocks at the fort at Monghyr, where Raja Todar Mal had manufactured guns in the 16th century.

The manufacturing continued after the nawab’s defeat in 1764, but as an EIC arms depot. Its guns enjoyed a reputation superior to the best British military muskets, especially in the barrel metal and flints made of agates from the Rajmahal Hills. As French fortunes declined in the second half of the century, French mercenaries offered their expertise to Indian manufactories. State arsenals and magazines across Agra, Delhi, Gwalior, the former Mughal heartland, produced munitions at the same standards as Europe. Factories in Lucknow, Pondicherry, Hyderabad, Lahore and Seringapatam produced most of the guns used by powers challenging both the Mughals and the British.

The British leveraged their military support to force the new nawab to dismiss the Frenchmen in his service

The EIC sold guns to defiant powers partly to inhibit these native strides in gun-manufacturing. In the late 1760s, the British repeatedly refused arms to the nawab of Awadh, Shuja-ud-Daula, and then watched anxiously as he began manufacturing them in Faizabad. Captain Richard Smith observed an excellent eight-pounder brass gun moulded from a Dutch model and nearly 1,000 new matchlocks with bayonets. Good firelocks were being made slowly. Two Bengalis directed casting of big guns, and a French engineer made carriages and mounted them and trained workers to use a boring machine. He had a plan for a furnace, too. Motivated by Shuja’s reviving ambitions, the British asserted greater control in Awadh appointing, in 1773, a resident to Lucknow. They also supplied Shuja with 2,000 muskets.

Shuja died in 1775, and in the vulnerable moment of succession, the EIC secured a monopoly of Awadh’s plentiful saltpeter, the primary ingredient in gunpowder. The British then leveraged their military support and a promise of arms to force Asaf-ud-Daula, the new nawab, to dismiss the Frenchmen in his service. For this, Asaf received 5,000 EIC guns – repaired by his armorers, at his expense. The EIC sold Asaf 14,000 guns for company battalions stationed in his territory. Soon, some of Asaf’s own troops were transferred to EIC service. With all these measures, the EIC co-opted Awadhi military strength – and Awadhi gun-manufacture. Asaf was permitted to construct an arsenal in the new capital, Lucknow, but it made guns modelled on British guns, and an EIC man served as the factory superintendent.

In 1784, a French mercenary bought arms there for the Maratha leader Mahadji Scindia. By the time the superintendent retired in 1787, the EIC had depots up-country and no longer needed the Lucknow armory or Asaf’s troops. It put a final stop to Awadhi gun manufacture, officially prohibiting Europeans from making and selling arms for native rulers. Asaf remained fascinated by arms, amassing an enormous personal collection.

Mysore saw the same story of British proprietary control of technical knowledge and suppression of native industry. Following the Second Anglo-Mysore War in 1780, the EIC grew wary of selling Hyder Ali guns. Hyder Ali put up 20 iron-smelting furnaces in Mysore. Upon his death in 1782, his son Tipu Sultan built gun manufactories emulating European techniques. French observers considered Mysore’s cannon and firearms equal to the best European arms of the time. Indeed, Tipu returned French guns that he found inferior to his own. His workshops included a boring machine adapted to bullock power rather than a waterwheel – an impressive feat of craftsmanship.

After the British defeated and killed Tipu in 1799, they shut down his manufactories. Company arms again flowed into Mysore, ruled by a new, pro-British monarchy. Tipu’s weapons became European collectors’ prizes. William Congreve, controller of the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich, experimented with Mysorean rockets, which had been used effectively against the British. The experiments led to the manufacture of rockets with iron tubes for British forces. Indian technical knowledge was shared in the networks of Britain’s industrial enlightenment, even as Indians were excluded from those networks.

'''The crushing of indigenous arms manufacture was essential to British colonisation'''

The British also turned to close down knowledge networks and industry in the Maratha empire. By 1785, Scindia had ordnance factories in the Agra area. Maratha military culture derived from an elaborate military economy like that of Birmingham’s, in which skilled metalsmiths might as easily craft temple ornaments as artillery. In Maratha towns, metalworkers and wheelwrights might make parts for bullock carts or artillery. As in the West Midlands, the whole regional economy profited from defence contracts. Scindia had high-quality flintlocks made locally. One mercenary described them as ‘very excellent … far superior to the ordinary Europe arms’. Maratha small arms were better suited to the climate and local gunpowder; Maratha cannon combined iron and brass exteriors in an ingenious manner that made them lighter and more durable than British versions. British military observers admired the elevating screw used in larger cannon, which permitted ‘a certain amount of interchangeability’.

Scindia bought surplus British guns from the Third Anglo-Mysore War, in 1792. Despite British efforts to dismantle condemned guns before auctioning them off for use in the manufacture of nails and bolts, he rebuilt decommissioned EIC guns. The clandestine smuggling chain involved in this project included Indians and Europeans. The Marathas sought condemned EIC arms despite having their own manufacturing capacity; they did so because possession of guns was about confidence as much as firepower, and such was the cachet of British arms.

After victory against the Marathas in 1805, the British wasted no time in crushing Maratha artillery-manufacturing and taking control of Maratha small-arms manufacturing. Bengal, Mysore and Maratha are just three of many places in the Indian subcontinent where Britain at great expense and effort restricted, curtailed or closed down knowledge and capacity for arms manufacturing in India. The near parity between India and Britain in small arms made British conquest of the subcontinent slow, costly and difficult, and made the crushing of indigenous arms manufacture essential.

Perhaps many polities had the potential for industrial growth, but imperial ambition, generating military commitments requiring mass levels of supply, ensured that Britain became the site of industrial take-off – and a global arms depot. In addition to its geological and geographical advantages, Britain had coercive colonial policies enabling jealous control of know-how. Eighteenth-century Britons believed in the government’s right and obligation to use its might to promote industrial prosperity at home and strangle it abroad. We too must recognise the way that war shaped the entwined industrial fates of Britain and its colonies, and the way that power always shapes knowledge-sharing.

=Accidents, firearm=
[[File: Firearm accidents India1.jpg|Firearm accidents: India. [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Gallery.aspx?id=20_08_2014_009_022_001&type=P&artUrl=STATOISTICS-FRIENDLY-FIRE-20082014009022&eid=31808 ''The Times of India''] |frame| 500px]]

[[File: Accidents caused by firearms, 2005-14, state-wise.jpg| Accidents caused by firearms, 2005-14, state-wise; Graphic courtesy: [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=STATOISTICS-In-2014-two-people-died-in-firearm-04052016011019 ''The Times of India''], May 4, 2016|frame|500px]]

'''See graphics''':

''Firearm accidents: India''

''Accidents caused by firearms, 2005-14, state-wise''

[[Category:Crime|AGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIAGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA
GUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA]]
[[Category:India|AGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIAGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA
GUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA]]



[[Category:Crime|AGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIAGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA
GUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA]]
[[Category:India|AGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIAGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA
GUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA]]

=Arms made in 20th/ 21st century India=
==Rifle Factory Ishapore==
===Nidar, 250 gm revolver===
[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=At-250g-this-revolver-for-office-goers-is-02022016013003 ''The Times of India''] Feb 02 2016

Arvind Chauhan

Boosting the `Make in India' initiative, Rifle Factory Ishapore has indigenously developed the country's lightest revolver, `Nidar' which weighs a mere 250 gm, half the weight of an earlier model Nirbheek', which was exclusively designed for women.

According to officials, the idea behind creating Nidar was to arm office-going professional men and women, so that they can defend themselves on city streets. The premier Indian small arms manufacturer will launch the revolver on February 2. “The .22 calibre Nidar is the lightest revolver ever made in India, with the cheapest price tag of Rs 35,000. It is capable of firing eight rounds loaded in a revolving chamber, compared to Nirbheek, which has a six-round capacity ,“ said PK Aggarwal, officer-in-charge of Rifle Factory Ishapore.

The weapon, said the factory's public relations officer SS Naskar, can be carried in a small purse, handbag or even trouser and jacket pockets.

When TOI asked local offi ce-going women for their opinion on the new lightweight revolver, they expressed interest and excitement. “I will definitely buy one, as I often face miscreants chasing my car.However, I will need training to fire the weapon,“ said Deeksha Singh, who works with a finance company .

=Firearms licensees, state-wise=
==2018- 2020 Sept==
[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/over-78-of-arms-licences-issued-in-jk-in-last-over-2-5-years/articleshow/78224989.cms  Bharti Jain, Over 78% of arms licences issued in J&K in last over 2.5 years, September 21, 2020: ''The Times of India'']


NEW DELHI: Over 78% of the arms licences issued with all-India permission between January 1, 2018 and September 15, 2020 were in Jammu & Kashmir, while Uttar Pradesh accounted for an equal share (78%) in the arms licences cancelled during this period, according to the home ministry. 

Of the 22,805 fresh arms licences issued across the country between 2018 and September 15 this year, 17,905 were issued in J&K, with UP a distant second with 952 fresh licences. While 666 new arms licences were issued in Madhya Pradesh, 623 were granted in Himachal Pradesh and 314 in Punjab, MoS (home) G Kishan Reddy said in reply to a written question in the Lok Sabha.
 
As per state-wise breakup of 94,400 arms licences renewed countrywide between January 1, 2018 and September 15, 2020, UP emerged on the top with 19,238 renewals, followed by J&K with 14,172, Haryana with 12,230, and Rajasthan with 7,085 renewed licences. 

The maximum of 2,435 licences cancelled nationwide between January 1, 2018 and September 15, 2020, were in UP (1,911), with all the other states showing such cancellations only in double digits. 

Arms licences are granted, renewed and cancelled under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016. While arms licences with all-India validity for restricted category of arms are issued by the home ministry, those for the permissible category of arms are issued by the state governments or UT administrations.


==Uttar Pradesh: districts with a gun culture==
[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Yadav-turf-Mainpuri-Etah-armed-to-the-teeth-24012017016017  Shalabh, Jan 24, 2017: The Times of India]


Infamous for violent election battles, civilians hold almost five times more firearms than the police department in poll-bound Uttar Pradesh. The state accounts for the highest number of firearms licensees in the country (10.76 lakh), followed by Punjab (4.50 lakh) and Madhya Pradesh (2.70 lakh).In contrast, 2.50 lakh police personnel have about 2.25 lakh weapons to use.

Gearing up for the elections, the police department recently carried out a survey to identify arms licence-holders across all the 75 districts in the state. It was found that in 14 districts, arms licences have been issued to more than 20,000 people. The situation seems more alarming in west UP where the number of people with arms licences is quite high.

TOI found gun culture was most prevalent in Yadav bastions with density of guntoting people being the highest in Etah and Mainpuri districts. So while in Kanpur one in 168 individuals possesses a gun, in Etah and Mainpuri one in 58 and one in 77, respectively , flaunt guns.

Contrary to the perception that the gun culture is not so popular in Awadh region, which is considered urbanized compared to Poorvanchal, Bundelkhand, Rohilkhand and west UP (upper, middle and lower Doab), in Lucknow one in 81 individuals has an arms licence. “More than security , guns are used as a status symbol in UP . In the Chambal region, people are so obsessed that they often sell their land to buy rifles. A person without a gun is considered an outcast in some villages,“ said former DGP Shri Ram Arun.

Between September 2015 and February 2016, 12 cases of violence were reported in UP during panchayat polls.According to the Association of Democratic Reforms, 340 candidates with serious criminal cases against them, such as murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, robbery , extortion etc, were in the fray in the 2012 assembly polls.

DGP S Javeed Ahmad said, “We have been cautious while dealing with applicants for the past one year. Those seeking licences as family heir are the only ones that have been entertained. The numbers of licence-holders has come down.“

=Illegal fireams industry=
[[File: illegal firearms.jpg|Illegal firearms, state-wise, Graphic courtesy: [http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/guns-dhar-madhya-pradesh-illegal-firearms-indore/1/394978.html ''India Today'']|frame|500px]]

[[File: Unlicenced, improvised, crude and countrymade arms in India, 2014.jpg|Unlicenced, improvised, crude and countrymade arms in India, 2014; Graphic courtesy: [http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Gallery.aspx?id=09_05_2016_008_024_001&type=P&artUrl=STATOISTICS-INTERNAL-WAR-POLICE-SEIZE-ARMS-AND-EXPLOSIVES-09052016008024&eid=31808 ''The Times of India''], May 9, 2016|frame|500px]]

==Illegal arms factories within 200km of Delhi==

[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=Illegal-arms-factories-within-200km-of-city-worry-14072017007022 Rajshekhar Jha|Illegal arms factories within 200km of city worry cops|Jul 14 2017 : The Times of India (Delhi)]

As if illegal weapon manufacturing modules in Meerut, Munger and Madhya Pradesh were not enough, such factories are now being unearthed in UP and the bordering areas of Delhi as well.
A number of factories are apparently being run within the 200km radius of the capital. Last mont h, the eastern range police had busted one right on the Delhi-UP border.
[[File:arms1.png|Seizure of weapons in Delhi, 2016-17|frame|500px]]
The ease with which a cri minal can procure a weapon is alarming, officers said. In the first six months of this year, the number of cases, seized weapons and arrests -all have gone up, the police data reveal.

Till June 15, around 468 weapons were seized. It crosses the 500 mark if the 37 weapons seized by the Special Cell in the last two days are added to it. In the whole of 2016, 301 weapons were seized.

Till June 15, 390 cases have been registered compared to 315 during the same period last year.

The uninterrupted supply of bullets is also worrying the police. DCP (Special Cell) Sanjeev Yadav said 180 cartridges were seized in the recent bust. While guns can be locally made, the bullets can't be. They are illegally sourced from ordnance factories and authorised arms dealers, officers said.

Last year, the Special Cell had found Maoist links to these modules as well. The UP gangs were found lending carriers and logistical support in return of raw material and workers. In the past five years, the Khargone group from MP has spread its roots and surpassed the conventional hubs like Munger and Meerut.

“The demand for illegal weapons is high in Delhi.Gangs of outer, southwest and west Delhi buy them not only for their criminal activities but also to strengthen their land-grabbing rackets,“ said a senior officer.

Besides phone calls, gunrunners even have a weaponon-demand facility under which arms and bullets are available through text and WhatsApp messages.

The latter is preferred as the customer gets to see photos of the arms. He can even post the picture of a desired weapon for a replica. The buyers even get heavy discounts on bulk purchase and can take the delivery as per their convenience.

[[Category:Crime|AGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIAGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA
GUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA]]
[[Category:India|AGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIAGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA
GUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA]]

=Laws=
==Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019==
[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F12%2F10&entity=Ar01412&sk=0033BF80&mode=text Dec 10, 2019 ''Times of India''] 

A bill providing a maximum punishment of life imprisonment for manufacturing and carrying illegal arms was approved by the Lok Sabha on Monday.

Piloted by home minister Amit Shah, the Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019 also ensures that those using firearms in a rash or negligent manner in celebratory gunfire, endangering human life or personal safety of others, shall be punishable with an imprisonment to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs 1 lakh or with both.

The Bill was passed by the Lower House after rejecting several amendments moved by Opposition members. Replying to a debate, Shah said the bill has been brought as a requirement to significantly impose weapons control in the country. Under the proposed provision, a person can have a maximum of two firear ms, as against the present nor m of three, the home minister said.

[[Category:Crime|AGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA
GUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA]]
[[Category:India|AGUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA
GUNS/ ARMS/ FIREARMS: INDIA]]

=Retail sales=
==Delhi: Buyers prefer guns, revolvers over rifles==
[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F03%2F06&entity=Ar00220&sk=8368040E&mode=text  Sidharth Bhardwaj, Capital’s gun shops not gung-ho any more as sales go off target, March 6, 2018: ''The Times of India'']

[[File: Delhi, 2018- Buyers prefer guns, revolvers over rifles.jpg|Delhi, 2018: Buyers prefer guns, revolvers over rifles <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F03%2F06&entity=Ar00220&sk=8368040E&mode=text  Sidharth Bhardwaj, Capital’s gun shops not gung-ho any more as sales go off target, March 6, 2018: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]

Whenever there is gun firing in schools in the United States, the shots are heard with consternation in Delhi. “Ours is a very sensitive trade and an incident of this sort affects us more severely than it does their National Rifle Association,” says Anil Sawhney, owner of Delhi Gun House at Kashmere Gate. Sawhney isn’t exaggeratinng. While the American gun rights organisation has staunchly weathered all hostile criticism in the face of increasing incidence of public use of weapons, the gun trade in the capital is almost at an impasse.

Gun sellers claim that the several bans on hunting, amateur shooting, import of guns and on foreign ammunition are reasons why sales have turned sluggish. As far back as four years ago, the number of guns sold in a year in Delhi had come down from around 500 to a tenth of that. Rifles hardly sell these days, the .32 bore revolver being the one sought by customers in the capital and for which police get the most applications.

At Singh Arms Corporation neighbouring Sawhney’s establishment, Charan Pal Singh Ghei has stocked quality gun holsters, which are now the primary sale items in one of Delhi’s oldest weapons stores. In his 80s now, the old man recalls the 1950s as being the golden age for the trade. People bought firearms then for hunting and for amateur sports. “Today, the primary reason for buying a gun is self-defence, but we can sell arms only according to the licences issued by the authorities,” explains Ghei, who is president of the Delhi Arms Dealers Association.

Sawhney has turned to exporting weapon-cleaning kits and knives to Europe to augment his meagre trade in air pistols and rifles. “New laws are being drafted to ensure digitisation of licence renewals, but there are teething problems,” Sawhney says, ruing the reduction of his business to a mere 25% of what it was a decade ago. Like him, many others too have taken to marketing air pistols, which don’t require a licence. At least, this business is doing well, helped in no small measure by India’s marksmen making a splash in international shooting championships.

But licensing procedures continue to remain a hurdle, often hitting the supply of bullets and accessories. “I ordered items worth Rs 60 lakh a year ago, but my licence has been pending renewal for a year. In the mean time, I’ve run out of ammunitions,” grumbles one seller. “The ordnance factories won’t give my trucks travel papers until my licence is cleared.”

To the legitimate gun sellers’ chagrin, however, there is a thriving grey market for firearms. “Getting a licensed gun requires verification and the price is prohibitive. I got one for half the Rs 75,000 that I would have paid for it legally,” confided one buyer. “It is easy to procure them and there’s no difference in the gun quality.”

Delhi policemen confirmed the easy availability of sophisticated illegal weapons in the city, with one officer claiming that products are smuggled out of ordnance factories for grey-market disposal.

=See also=
[[Murders: India]]