Indians For Guns

Arms and the Agency
Bibek Debroy
Posted: Monday , Mar 08, 2010 at 0153 hrs


The UN recommends a police/ population ratio of 1:450. This is a figure that floats around and can be traced back to a 2002 UN report on public sector management. Cross-country data on size of police forces seem dodgy. But on one such cross-country list, the size of the Indian police force is given as 1,129,200 in April 2009, which means instead of a ratio of 1:450, we have a ratio of 1:1040. The only other country which performs worse is Iran. An alternative way of expressing the ratio is number of policemen per 100,000 population. So we should have 222 policemen per 100,000 population. A cross-country list from a different source says India has 95.6 policemen per 100,000 population and the country which performs best (Montserrat) has 782 policemen per 100,000 population.

There are three reasons why inconsistencies exist in cross-country data. First, there is subjectivity in deciding what is counted as police and what isn’t. Second, the population number in the denominator can vary. Third, there is a difference between sanctioned strength and actual strength. Some vacancies have been filled recently. With that, the size of India’s police force is around 1.5 million and the all-India ratio 155 per 100,000. This still leaves the force short of the desired ratio by some 650,000. More importantly, these are all-India figures, with significant inter-state variations. For example, many Naxal-affected states have large vacancies. It goes without saying a larger force is needed. It must be modernised. There must be police reforms. And one must be more efficient in determining what a police force does.

Fair enough. However, the Indian state has never been good at performing the core governance function of ensuring law and order. Consequently, in both urban and rural India, there have been extra-state channels of ensuring law and order and performing police functions. In urban India, that abdication of police functions has increased with private security agencies and private security guards. No one quite knows how many private security guards are employed now. Guesstimates are around 6 million, which is more than the police and army combined. With emphasis on internal security, a standard line now is that private security forces can perform a supplementary role. We are in the process of demolishing another one of the state’s monopolies, that on exercise of force. Look at Britain, not Britain today — but England then. Unlike continental Europe, police functions were originally private. Look at the US today, where private security agencies have become quasi-army. One shouldn’t tar all Indian security agencies with the same brush. There are ones that employ 20 guards. Others employ 1000. There are reasons why private security has proliferated. It is cheaper to outsource than employ one’s own guards, such as in banks. There is no need for provident fund, gratuity and retirement benefits. If a state hasn’t included private security guards in scheduled employments under the Minimum Wages Act, one can even get away without paying minimum wages. The average salary is between Rs 4,000 and Rs 6,000 a month.

In the home ministry’s annual report, private security agencies are mentioned in the chapter titled “Major Initiatives and Schemes”. The reference is to Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act of 2005, enacted in 2005 and in force from 2006. Subsequently, there were Central rules and the idea is simple. Let’s regulate the sector through a controlling authority in state governments which will grant licences to private security agencies. Hopefully, employed guards won’t be exploited either, and will be paid PF, gratuity, retirement benefits and minimum wages. It is a separate matter that many states haven’t implemented the act or notified their rules. Ones that have done so are Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Chandigarh, West Bengal, Tripura, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Assam and Andhra Pradesh. (There is related Central legislation on private detective agencies pending before Parliament.)

Why doesn’t traditional police perform better? There are several reasons, outlined in assorted commission and committee reports. However, a constant refrain is that law and order is a state subject. Similarly, different states have done different things with this 2005 law. There are states where foreign equity has come into private security agencies. Others where training academies have been set up. But there is a generic issue cutting across all states. That explains why India will never be the US and it also explains why integration between private and public security will always be incomplete.

Next time you are at an ATM, scrutinise the guard’s weapon. It might be an ancient Lee-Enfield or even a musket. When duty hours are over, you might notice the guard cycling home, weapon slung over his shoulder. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in this era of war against terror. The answer lies in the Indian Arms Act of 1959, which provides for licensing of firearms to individuals, not organisations. Nor can an individual have more than three firearms in his possession. Consequently, a private security agency can be licensed by a state government to run security business, but it cannot be licensed to own fire-arms. This 1959 legislation has colonial roots and in his autobiography Gandhiji wrote, “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.” The colonial mindset spilled over into the 1959 legislation, compounded by the belief that freer licensing and registration of arms would somehow aggravate terrorism. It is doubtful terrorists ever use licensed and registered fire-arms, but that fear becomes a deterrent in effective use of private security against terrorism. A far cry from the US, where possession of a fire-arm is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, what do you do if you are a private security agency? You look for a guard who already possesses an arms licence and a gun. This usually means an ex-serviceman, but in rare cases it can also be a civilian. In terms of salaries, there is a premium on a prospective guard who already has a gun and a licence. Now you know why we have all those Lee-Enfields and muskets floating around and why the CISF (if not standard police) inspires more confidence than private guards. This isn’t an issue we will resolve easily and there will be debate and controversy. But until we resolve it, private security will never take off. In terms of regulation and control, it is far better to allow organised private security agencies to own fire-arms. There is plenty of crime floating around and it is unlikely that licences to security agencies will incrementally contribute to it.

The writer is a Delhi-based economist

[email protected]