private military contracting in india

[nagarifle]

the anwser here on the forum is

We dont know and do not care. as any one who does any fighting for money is a merc.lol

[goodboy_mentor]

Technically, Gorkhas were not mercenaries in British Indian Army but they are mercenaries in Indian Army. Due to the high respect accorded to them and to Nepal, no one at the ruling or defense circles will ever invoke that technicality to treat them differently. As said above, it is a tradition & will stay that way against most odds. Those troopers are considered as Indian as me & you gets.

Yes you are quite correct. However i would disagree on certain points. We as humans do have respect for citizens of Nepal and every country because they are fellow human beings. There is no doubt about it. But recruitment of people into armed forces is altogether a different matter. Not just the Indian State but any State power that hires soldiers or mercenaries is not because of "respect" for certain people but because of its policy of statecraft. There are two components to it, one is political policy and other is foreign policy.

Political Policy - If you hire mercenaries from some other country or hire politically marginalized people from your country and use them as canon fodder, you are not politically answerable to the people(the majority) who elect you. They cannot remove you from office or change the State policy.

Foreign Policy - When you hire mercenaries, the mercenaries, their family, friends and relatives are potential espionage assets. You are getting all their personal details, you are controlling them economically. They can spy for you even while in service and even when retired.

Yes those troopers are considered as Indian as me & you gets, except that they are not allowed to elect or get elected. This is an important difference.

am just curious about it and planing to make an article on it and wanted to know if any one here answers it . i wanna know the pros and cons for vetrans,govt and society like india if there are any pmc

Private military contracting etc. is a politically volatile explosive material. Nobody would like to touch it even with a barge pole.

[Big Daddy]

United Nations Mercenary Convention can be read directly from UN website. The full text of the convention can be downloaded by going to the following link https://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/530?OpenDocument

goodboy_mentor, thanks for the link. Learnt something.

shashank, looks like you opened a can of worms

I guess there are lot of technicalities. As much as I hate to think Gorkah's as mercenaries, goodboy might have a point on technical grounds.
But then a Nepali does not need a passport or visa to come or be in India. So technically (strictly IMHO) they are unofficially Indians.
I guess the argument continues

BD

[estousandy]

But recruitment of people into armed forces is altogether a different matter. Not just the Indian State but any State power that hires soldiers or mercenaries is not because of "respect" for certain people but because of its policy of statecraft.

GBM, i never said they are "recruited" out of respect. It's just that nobody will invoke "the technicality to treat them just as foreigners", out of respect. It all winds down as you said to statecraft. It's also a tradition passed through generations, something much more complicated than Blackwater enlistment. Quite explosively volatile indeed, if anyone dares to poke into it.

[goodboy_mentor]

Glad that this discussion is a learning experience. Myself never knew the facts that emerged in this discussion. The creator of this thread raised an important question which raised further questions and answers.

I guess there are lot of technicalities. As much as I hate to think Gorkah's as mercenaries, goodboy might have a point on technical grounds. But then a Nepali does not need a passport or visa to come or be in India. So technically (strictly IMHO) they are unofficially Indians.
I guess the argument continues

Big Daddy, there does not appear much technicalities. Article 51(c) of Constitution of India clearly says -

The State shall endeavour to—

(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another;

The definition of who is mercenary is very clear as per international law i.e. UN mercenary convention. Therefore as per Article 51(c) the State should respect the mercenary convention.

Article 1(3)(c) of Constitution of India says -

The territory of India shall comprise—

(c) such other territories as may be acquired.

Article 2 of Constitution of India says -

2. Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.

So combined reading of Articles 1(3)(c) and 2 means that the Indian State is open to the idea of territorial expansionism. But this idea of territorial expansionism is against the doctrine of Westphalian peace which says to respect one another's territorial integrity and sovereignty. The same doctrine of Westphallian peace is also the foundation of Article 51. How territorial expansionism is to be done or when it is to be done has not been mentioned in these Articles. Probably it has been left to the art of statecraft and foreign policy to be followed with neighboring countries. As mentioned earlier the matter appears of statecraft.

Checked the government of India's immigration website. It says Nepalese citizens do not need passport, if they enter from Nepal but will surely need any other document that proves Nepali citizenship. If they enter from Chinese border they need passport and visa. If they enter from any other border they need passport.

GBM, i never said they are "recruited" out of respect. It's just that nobody will invoke "the technicality to treat them just as foreigners", out of respect. It all winds down as you said to statecraft. It's also a tradition passed through generations, something much more complicated than Blackwater enlistment. Quite explosively volatile indeed, if anyone dares to poke into it.

estousandy, as illustrated above with proper reference to Articles of the Constitution, it appears the matter has nothing to do with respect in any manner other than statecraft. Of course we as human beings will respect every human being with respect and dignity but the view of State may differ.

As far as question of tradition of using mercenaries is concerned, if we read the history of the Indian sub continent, it was probably started as a regular feature, with coming of Europeans. Men of one kingdom were hired to fight against another kingdom. After the revolt of 1857 the British realized that they must not recruit those people who are able to understand their political games and create problems. They disbanded the Bengal regiment etc. Instead they started recruiting people who were generally not intellectually inclined and could be easily conned and made cannon fodder. They were Pathans, Punjabis, Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs, Gorkhas etc. To con them and inflate their egos, they floated the martial race theory. After 1947 this arrangement was not disturbed, as it similarly suited perfectly well to the ruling elite because the Punjabis, Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs, Gorkhas etc. can hardly create political problems to safeguard their own political interests, due to their insufficient numbers(due to demographic disadvantages) in Parliament and other reasons.