Did you recently see a movie on assassins? Have you stumbled upon stories about mercenaries? Chances are that you have. Our pop-culture has a significant share of careered killers that sway our action craving fantasies. But fantasy doesn’t stray too far from reality.

Soldier of Fortune is one of the oldest professions in human history, parallel to Harlotry. Mercenaries have been part of wars since the ancient times to the medieval period. Warmongers hired these sell-swords who were loyal only to the coin, to fight conflicts where one’s manpower was not enough to conquer the battlefield.

Indian history has its lore of mercenaries, most notably the Purbiyas. During the medieval period, Purbiyas were a clan of warriors that belonged to the region of Gangetic plains (present-day Western Bihar and Eastern Uttar Pradesh) who were led by Rajput warlords. Over time, they have fought for Mughals, Marathas and even the British. I must say, a portfolio like this is what The Big Four are looking for.

Fast forward the clock to 21st century and you’ll see how such line of work has been formally institutionalised to suit our society. The French Foreign Legion is a prime example of present-day military outsourcing which has its roots in history. It employs foreign nationals with designated ranks of their army. However, it’s a body of the French government, so these soldiers preach Viva la France and cannot render their service to independent parties.

The birth of modern democracy, the evolution of warfare and the escalating climate of global conflict paved the way for corporate mercenaries, better known as Private Military Companies or PMCs. Their presence on the battlefield has risen since the 1990s and their legitimacy lies within the fact that they mostly employ people who served in the forces.

PMCs have garnered a fierce reputation of being equally efficient, yet highly controversial. They are not burdened by any political fallout; they can be deployed in areas which are diplomatically untouchable and they are highly expandable for clandestine operations.

On a global scale, the United States has been the centre of emerging PMCs, followed by Europe and other nations in the West. Eastern powers like Russia and China are catching up with the rest of the world. Collectively, the Gulf, Africa and other majorly disturbed regions have been their most active zones in recent years. Their consistent coverage by news outlets begs the question – what about India?

Speaking of India, Private Military Companies are non-existent in both media adaptations and the field. A report by FICCI suggested that private security firms are amongst the largest employers in India, employing more than 8 million people, with the potential to employ about 3 million more by 2022. A booming industry where the manpower is dominated by ex-servicemen; Indian firms are unable to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with PMCs due to two major reasons – gun control and state supremacy.

Gun Control in India

I’ll start by stating the obvious. Firearms are ubiquitous in institutions that provide security and protection. Around the globe, Private Military Companies have evolved due to the freedom offered by their country’s government; to build a distinctive force of employees that are capable of undertaking tasks associated with the defences forces. The training, resources, facilities, and income that supplements the top-notch weapons at their disposal makes them a superpower for hire as a whole.

But when you and I think of gunmen in the private sector of India, we think of guards deployed for the security of banks, logistics and uptown venues with very ‘modest’ weaponry. The image of a full-fledged unit with a tactical arsenal just does not click, as the crippling reality is quite evident. The strict laws of India withhold its citizens from getting their hands on such toys.

The first known gun control law of India predates back to its colonial-era which was enacted to curb any possibility of a strong revolt against the British regime. The Indian Arms Act of 1878 forbids Indians from carrying arms, while the Britishers could do so. Pretty sneaky!

After getting independence in 1947, the old act was replaced by a completely new Arms Act that came into effect in 1959. It was an augmented departure from the Britisher’s version, but still reflected the Government’s distrust in its citizens. The Arms Rules of 1962 further supplemented this act and together, they both regulate the possession and distribution of guns in India.

Buying guns in India is not as easy as buying groceries. The law states that a citizen can own a firearm under the claims of self-defence, crop protection or being a practitioner of shooting sports. Your claim is thoroughly verified by the authorities. I’ll also add to the fact that getting an arms license is a tough ordeal for civilians, compared to veterans, who are the prospective focus of security companies.

The choice of available firearms includes a couple of handguns, shotguns and bolt action rifles that are manufactured by the Indian Ordnance Factory with an exception of few imported small-arms sum up the Indian market. Heavy weaponry used by law enforcement and defence forces is out of citizen’s reach.

From a corporate standpoint, these regulations prohibit the expansion of a security company’s arsenal to the level of weaponry that we call military grade. Overall, these firms cannot upscale their organisational structure to achieve the prowess of PMCs, than merely playing the role of a civil patrol.

It also kills the possibility of having a niche high-end security service for personal and domestic use, which is high in demand. Business elites and people of influence are left with limited options, despite being in a position to afford such a privilege. Well, at least it reassures us that some spoilt brat won’t be showing off daddy’s goons.

State Supremacy in Defence Affairs

War and Conflict have always been the backdoor for big businesses. Megacorporations manufacture weapons, vehicles, equipment and more under the government’s payroll; pioneering innovation and advancement in this demand intensive market. Profiteering from war is also a subject of moral debate, but that’s just capitalism.

A few powerful countries collectively have a defence expenditure that is more than the GDP of small countries. Such hefty budgets also include the outsourcing of combatants. The global market for Private Military Companies is estimated to be more than $100 billion. The Armed Forces are a nation’s first line of defence, but some governments do not shy away from authorising and financing PMCs to fight for their cause.

Compared to the West, private companies don’t have such a strong influence over matters of defence in India. Most of the defence-oriented companies are state-owned with a heavy reliance on sanctioned imports. With such a monopoly of the state over its defence projects, it’s unlikely that the private sector will ever be provisioned for outsourcing combatants.

India takes pride in its armed forces for fighting its wars. Most of the countries that facilitate PMCs have been involved in conflicts that are far from their home turf for strategic interests, which also underlines their notorious foreign policy. India has maintained a strict neutrality in foreign conflicts, with the exceptions of few peacekeeping missions. I do want to highlight that Indians have brought peace where they went, unlike other superpowers that won’t even spare the oil in your food. Moreover, India has been dealing with its neighbours with whom it shares disputed borders along with insurgency and contras on its soil. The nature of such conflict and the political climate where government bodies do all the work, there is no question of authorising the formation of PMCs.

Conclusion

A country with the third-largest military conveys a solid argument that the manpower of former combatants can be potentially utilised in a globally renowned industry. Although a decent number of ex-servicemen incorporate or join private security companies, it’s unlikely that we will ever see them transformed into elite units fighting for independent interests.