Use of ​Private Security Industry for Law Enforcement I Informative Podcast I NISSMAT

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Today we have a very interesting subject on NISSMAT's podcast. But before I start the podcast, I'd like to brief you on what NISSMAT is all about. NISSMAT is a think tank with an international audience. NISSMAT has a couple of activities, the prime of them being the NISSMAT forum where we do podcasts and opinion building within the security industry.

It's also taken on the role of being a think tank in the safety and the management aspects of the security industry. We have an education branch which deals with educating the bosses on subjects which deal with the disput forum. We've done a number of podcasts in the past going over 100 plus. We keep getting a lot of reviews on them, and a lot of people have raised questions and suggested certain topics that we as NISSMAT must look at from a think tank point of view. If any of you who are watching the podcast do have a suggestion, please send it to the email id that is at the end of this podcast.

I also request you to like and subscribe to this channel. The moment you do it, it helps us and it helps giving our opinion a wider coverage. On the panel with me today are two illustrious gentlemen, Mr. Sepal Singh, who is the president of NISSMAT. Mr. Sipal Singh is a very distinguished police officer who's been awarded a lot of recognitions by the president of India for his service during the years that he was in the police service. General Betha is a third generation service officer who's commanded units, who's commanded divisions in various terrains of the Indian army and at various positions of planning and thinking.

Our subject today that we will discuss on is private security industry with the law enforcement agencies. I now hand you over to Mr. Sepal Singh for his opening comments.

Thank you, Ban. I'll straight away try to give you a background of the subject. In the last few years, the security environments all over the world have taken a beating. Close home in India, we have had a number of disturbing news and incidents, either in terms of terrorism or in terms of law and order situation or in terms of local disturbances. The present safety environment being so harsh and so difficult, there is a need of having adequate apparatus and organization to meet these problems.

However, the police population ratio is rather inadequate. According to the Indian constitution, law enforcement is a state subject, and state subject is clearly defined, is under the police. All other agencies are ancillary or for other purposes, specific purposes. But as far as law enforcement is concerned, constitution clearly laid down that is a subject which is a federal subject, which is a state subject. Therefore, the states have to basically manage these disturbances.

Unfortunately, the police population ratio in our country is very very inadequate. As far as the international standards are concerned, the laid down recommendations are about more than 222 people for one lakh of population. As far as India is concerned, it is not even 199 average compared to, as far as one lakh population is concerned. In some state is more, some state is less. Where I'm talking about the average is laid down 199, but we have not even 150, 140, which means the population versus police ratio is so low that the law and order, which is a state subject according to seven of constitution, has become a problem to deal with.

The states took their own time in fact to meet this situation because of non availability of force. That's what I say, that it is important that we have some force multiplier which should be able to give adequate additional strength to the police so that they're able to meet the situation adequately and rightly and on time. So the question today is how and in what manner we can add to the police, how, in what manner we can serve, private security agency can serve as a force multiplier. How, in what manner and how effectively the public private partnership can be executed through this agency — that is the subject of discussions today. You may please continue, and let us start as to how the private security agency can add to the police force or can help in maintaining law and order or meet other situations which are not possible to be met because of lack of force with the states. Thank you.

Gentlemen, we are at a strategic crossroad in India's security architecture. The private security industry employs about 9 to 10 million people in India. It is no longer just a service provider. It's a sovereign extension of our national capabilities. As both of you have served the Indian armed forces, the Indian armed forces and the Indian police services for many many years, you would have seen the gap that exists in the law enforcement capabilities of our police services.

My first question that I would like to discuss is: should we formally deputize certified private security companies as a tier 2 response force with a legal mandate to act as states extension during the golden hour of a crisis? Mr. Cal Singh, may I have your comments?

You see, as far as the legal position is concerned, the private guards are there only for guarding privately, according to the act. That act is there, PSARA, Private Security Agency Regulation Act. Lot of restriction, restraints as well as regulatory provision which are available, and the private security agency has to perform according to PSARA. As you know, ever since PSARA was enacted, the states took their own time even to implement PSARA. They did not implement PSARA.

They, for few years, they never introduce PSARA, private security agency, in their states, which means for that purpose of security is nothing to do with the PSARA. But now, by and large, as all the states have introduced PSARA and the security agencies are acculated with PSARA, the issue is that within the ambit of PSARA and further, to implement, how to implement the private, how the private guards can enhance such duties. I will say first of all the private security guards can enhance surveillance. You have got a police force also functioning there. You have got your security guards also functioning there.

How there should be proper coordination, how there should proper coherent, so that the police should ask that whatever surveillance is being done, we can help you in this. Success is a partnership — you please do this much.

People, can I have your comments?

Yes, actually Mr. CPA has very separate that against the requirement of 222 people per lakh, that's 100,000 people, we, the states have a varying figure from 53 to 199. What Mr. the seat singing has brought out, this is not adequate. You see, the police has got multifarious tasks. They now, what you see in the media, they are going out of state to catch hold of criminals. They got to go and leave.

They have various other multi jobs. So with nearly 15 million private security agencies which are there, they need to be integrated with this law enforcement agency, which is the police, which Mr. Cal has very clearly mentioned. As per the constitution, the law enforcement rest with the police. Yes, there's a definite requirement to link up the private security company. There about 15 million which are floating around.

They just leave, they not really integrated with the law enforcement. What they can do is surveillance, is what Mr. Seal has done. They can stem the problem which comes at that point in time and inform the police, the law enforcement agency, to come and come into being. They can assist the police in various jobs, like for example, you know, carrying out verifications now takes a very long time for verifications to take place. So they can assist — one police person goes and they can, there, private security agency people can be involved with the police to assist them.

So they have multifarious jobs, and there is a definite requirement. Also I feel that if the private security agency is linked with the police, there have to be a communication between the private security agency and either police or at the national level.

My question was actually whether, you know, firstly whether we can have a policy across the country where the private security agencies or private security industry can be marked as a tier 2 response force with a legal mandate to act as a state's extension. Now that is the question that I have. Where they can be used is a separate part of it. Firstly is whether we can, in the country, get a policy or a consensus that this is a requirement and it can be done. How they can be used is a separate aspect which we can discuss later.

But the first point is: will our country policy makers start thinking on these lines, whether the private security industry can be utilized as a tier 2 response mechanism within the union of India?

Yes, there is a definite requirement in this. There has to be a policy towards this end. But certain agencies or law enforcement factors, they are looking to, for example, at the airports they have employed private security companies at the security level. So you see, if one organization can do it, it has to be a policy across the board at the national level to integrate the private security agencies with the law enforcement agencies. I agree with you in that.

Mr. Cal Singh, your —

Your question is bifurcated into two. First of all you said yes, the private security agencies available in large number, and they can be utilized, as we have already agreed. Then the question was, what is the legal preval? I have submitted to you, I'll submit to you once again for the information of the ideas: the legal position says, as far as law enforcement is concerned, the legal position is that it does not rest even with the union. The legal position is it rest with the state governments.

Now the question is whether the state government can legally give the powers, or the legal powers can get implied to the security agency. Specific legal powers cannot be given.

They can't be given.

For law enforcement, unless we the constitution. Even state refuse at time — I'm sorry — even the state refuse at time to get some agencies. Unless, even for CBI to come, there are reasons that they have to ask the state, and there's a luna in that respect. So my estimation is that legal position, as legal position is concerned, now the question implied legal position — there is a lot of employed legal position. How? Supposing one security guard or two security guards are provided on a patrol along with three other constable, the legal position is that they can implement, because legally the cover is given by the local police.

Two police constables are there. Four of you are there. The legal position, as it can be for any legal individual, as can be for any individual of a state. The legal position implied, because the police multiplier — we are giving them as a multiplier force. If we do anything, it will be covered under law, because it's the police force which is using you.

So my — I think I reframe my question. Let us say we are talking of two things. What Mr. Cal Singh, you are referring to is the legal position as it exists on the ground today. I would like you to place yourself as a policy maker for the country and look at the larger picture that emerges. If the thing is that the private security industry, or a selected few companies of the private security industry, can be used for this role, what is the methodology that sort of needs to go in as a policy from the top, so that the states can also follow the policy and implement it?

So what you're talking of at the moment is the current policy and the current objections that can come. Let us say that the policy changes across the country. If we were to reinvent the policy and we write a new policy and we say that the private security agency now has come of age, every state can sort of select three, four, five agencies within its area which allows them to sort of assist the police, and some legal mandate can be brought about on them. I'm just throwing it as a question — not whether it is possible or not possible. If you think that it is something that is required, then obviously the policies can change.

Now P, what you said makes a lot of sense. You see, private security agencies — there are some very well-known and accredited private security agencies. They're multifarious, small ones, big ones, but very very few accredited security agencies. They have to be in link. They have to be taken on charge by the law enforcement agency to assist them.

You know, the small sentry standing at some place or a guard standing at some place, it does not have the legal provision. It is a private security company which should be linked with the law enforcement agency to execute the task, what they want to do.

You see, the whole question is of acceptability of the idea. If the idea is acceptable and a policy is made — I don't say that every security agency that exists in the country or is licensed can be picked up to do a quasi police job.

No, you can select a few companies and train them to sort of be of assistance to the police, when, you know, on whatever methodology that is used. It's just a question that I'm discussing. It's nothing that it's to be set in stone or something, but as a think tank, can we think of a policy which sort of can involve the private security industry into assisting the police in local law enforcement and subsequently in other matters?

I'll give you the response. I'll give you the response. You are talking that there should be some policy decision, not a legal position, enunciation of a policy. There, I'll back — let me complete my sentence. I am saying, sir, today as we stand, in view of the fact there's a lot of stress on the police force, or for the agencies who are managing law and order — let's not talk, because the police force are the word only for force multiplier.

There were any agency which the police is having with it in terms of local — they have got armed police, they have got their own C, they have got the — all state police organizations have. Irrespective of all of this, still there is inadequate strength, and today, as the policy stand, we are not — the government's initiation is that not only we provide them that sort of security, but there should be a sense of security also. That is why they said that every citizen should feel a sense of security. Now the sense of security is that the police is not possible to provide. Who can provide this sense of security?

And for that, people, definitely the policy decision can be taken, but the question is implementation of law and order, or implementation in terms of law and order. It's not question of law and order as such. Anything which is concerning law and order, it rests with the local state. The state government has no powers to introduce a law that you should — it has to come from the center, and center and state decided amendment of constitution. So therefore, legal position I have told you many a time again.

What policy decision? Policy decision, yes. That is what we are trying to say, that we can help them, or the private security can help them in various ways. As we said, that even legally they are covered if they are given — one guard or two guard or three guard with one constable, legally they stay uncovered. Similarly in festival, or similarly in disturbances of your disaster management, similarly in other cases where police is not having adequate strength, they can get with them and they get a legal code.

No legal code, forget it. Now the policy decision — who is to take the policy decision? Policy decision has to be taken by the state government along with the security agencies. There no question of separate training. If you want —

Why should the state be responsible? After all, we are talking of a policy at the sovereign level. So if the country has to decide, so the decision is taken at the center, the parliament sort of approves and gratifies it, and then after it is implemented, then the state as a subject of their implementation.

Sir, I am submitting to you: policy decision and regulation are different. Policy decision has been taken by the states, by the center at one time. You have been in the industry for such a long time. Policy decision was taken for regulation of, and enactment was done at the central level — PSARA. That was the policy decision, but the implementation was not done by some statement.

I think you're confusing what I'm asking. I'm saying, if the idea is that the private security agencies, or a selected few private security agencies from representing the private security industry, can be picked out — you know, first let's put the framework in mind that the private security industry can be utilized by the states for aiding them into law enforcement. What they can do, what they cannot do, will come out as a method of policy. Thereafter, once the policy gets implemented, and all the — whatever they have to do at the central level is approved, then it is for the states to implement it. Whether they take two years to implement or they take five years to implement, it is their job.

But what I'm talking of is that if the policy makers can decide that private security agencies selected on them — because, you know, I'm talking of, even in the west, you have private military security companies who actually go out and fight wars on behalf of the sovereign nation. So there is no harm today in starting to think that you can have a few private security agencies which will aid the state in doing a few jobs. Like in the United States, and in America, and in the United Kingdom, the prisons are guarded, as you are aware, Mr. Sepal Singh, are guarded by the private security agencies. So if that be so, and the sovereign, that as a nation we decide that it is something that can be offshed, then companies can be trained to do those jobs.

Would it involve financial aspect also?

Obviously, nothing is so free. After all, if you have your own soldiers doing something, or people who are part of the government.

Sure. Sure enough.

The only thing, sir, is that it may be slightly more cost effective into doing it. Now there are always pros and cons of something — in terms of efficiency, in terms of responsibility levels, in terms of whatever. But the point that I'm trying to make is that first we need to have a policy that says that this is something which is desirable and can be done. Let it take a couple of years. But once it is taken and once the policy is enacted, then it is for the states to implement, and let each state be on its own to decide how they want to do it.

Utilize them. Oh, so the discussion now fall into different ambit. Mr. Berwalia, the subject of discussion was how can you enhance the available security operators by providing multiplier, force multiplier. On that you agree, by and large, all right. We'll discuss later how they can enhance, because they can enhance in terms of festivals, in terms wherever parameter security, in terms of disaster management, in terms of so many things.

Now your second part, which you are making as first — I am getting confused. I am telling you, your question is entirely — you say, what are the policy decisions to be taken so that some security agencies can be earmarked, and no, what I mean, either I'm not clear about your question or I'm not clear about my answer. There are two aspects of the question. First aspect is that whether legally they are there. I said yes, legally they get covered.

If we have force, they should try to utilize us, so that they are force multiplier. They can have certain duties, they can be performed, which can be performed by the private security agencies for law enforcement. The second question which you have is that why not take a policy decision at the central level, or at whatever level it is, that some agencies should be earmarked for this person, some agencies should be earmarked for that person. On that level also, Mr. Arwalia, this will need any amendment. Let us say the policy decision is taken about the A agency or B agency — I'll not name.

Let us say it is an AX agency which is to be trained for that particular purpose, and for that, AX agency has to be available at all the — in all the states, because the state has to implement. If you have trained AX agency in duty — let us say, I'll name X agency — if you have X agency has been trained in these duties, that X agency should be available in all the states to do that, or X, Y, Z.

I don't think it is necessary. Every state can choose its own. So let us say the nation, as a sovereign nation, decides that private security agency can assist the police in the following jobs, and this is the method in which it can be done, and a constitutional amendment or whatever it is required, a policy is decided that this can be done, and then it is left to the states to implement.

Yes. Then there are two again.

So you see, what we start from talking of is that within the current framework, what can they do? I —

We are discussing how can they help. No, the question is, if my help can become larger and better — I'm, as a think tank, what we are looking at is how can we give an idea that can bring better policing within the country. Let me be clear.

There's a definite requirement. There's a definite requirement to enhance the capability of the law enforcement agency, and that can only be done through the private security aids, and what this — if a policy is made, the implementation has to be done with the state. Now each — Mr. Cal Singh has mentioned that you got to have same security agency all, but that the state, which is looking after the law, safety and security, they can find some security agency within their state to be linked up with them.

You see, Deepak, I'm coming from a slightly different angle. You look at the United States: it goes into Afghanistan, it has a few soldiers of its own, and the rest come from security companies which provide military service to the government.

Yes.

Right. Similarly, you have those people out of the Russian Wagner group, which is doing the same thing. Now, I am not aware that India — now they are using it for military purposes. I'm just saying, switch the thing and bring it to law enforcement, or not law enforcement, but law — assisting the law enforcement agencies.

They're not taking over police powers. They're not taking over anything, but they are doing those mundane activities. For example, writing reports or doing something or receiving a phone call.

You see, I got a point. Also —

I saw some time back that some private security agencies have been mustered with the home guards. Now, this I read some time back. Now that means the home guard is against the police.

Sir, Deep sir, we are getting into a idea. Definitely it is mentioned in the — when you will further discussion, I would have elaborated. You can — home guard is definitely — there's a home guard act. Home guard acts them to help the home guard. Separate act is there, and that act provides that home guard can be utilized.

I was going, as further subject, there is a police — the police act provides SPO, special police officers, which any person can be taken by them who is little trained or not trained, and you train them and use them, special police officers, by paying them from the police budget. The SPOs were used by us when we were adequate police. We had take a lot of people as SPOs even from the security agency. What Mr. Panwalia, the moderator, is saying, that there should be a policy decision — there are three. Now we have divide the subject in three.

First subject is it can be used as a force multiplier. As present, as it is, it can be used, and states can use them as a state. Will it help them to use them as a multiplier of the police force or the law enforcement agencies, whatever you may name — even home guard has got its own law, its own act. So you have to enunciate that, all right. They — first point, we agree that yes, they can be used.

The second point is why they are not being used — because 90% of the people in the state may not be in consonance with the new policy which has to be taken. Three: yes, new policy. There's a new policing style, you can call it, where it needs to be appreciated that the focus of the state is gradually now shifting from only maintenance of law and order to ensure safety. There's a new policing style. That policing style is to be changed from only security to the safety.

It ensures safety, and for safety environments in the states, or for the citizens of the country, a large and multiple more force is required. So hence there's a need of some partnership of police and whatever agency — you are not interested in police agency, whatever. If police can give, security agencies can provide to the home guard, security agency can provide to the jails also. Jailers are there. There were jail act — you can provide for jails also.

There is SPO, the police act, SPOs. So this is a separate question, that yes, they should utilize, they can. That is what they say — how they can be utilized ultimately. Now, third point he has taken is that some agency should be earmarked. That ear marking also has to be done by the state, because if you mark one agency for this purpose, that agency has to be in all the states, and that — no national license. The state which will do it — it is the state subject, and the state will do it.

State subject — again you are coming back to state subject. State subject is only, sir, for the —

No, I disagree, sir. I'm saying that if there is a policy of the country and the states are mandated that they can do it, the states will start doing it.

One is a policy decision. One is a policy decision. For policy decision, the only thing is, sir, I agree with you. The policy decision is taken by the center. Do the policy decisions to be implemented by all the states? Policy decision is taken by the center. That policy decision is implemented by all the states. Even the enactment, your, was implemented was —

At the moment, what I'm saying is that first, if there is a need, then we need to put a policy in place. If the policy is in place, then bring the enactment out which says that it can be done. Then let the states get down to implementing it as per the rules which are formed.

Is very simple. On that issue there's no doubt. The policy decision should be taken, yes. Yes, should be taken, the policy decision.

All that — one line, one line approach. Yes, policy decision should, yes.

So it is a very good thing that once the need is identified, then the methodology to implement it can be brought in, and in what all areas the security agencies which are selected, or people who are nominated to do it — what are the areas in which the police can use them for. If those get formalized, and then a proper system gets into place, probably it would be a better system than doing it at hop, the way we are currently doing.

Yeah. May I say something here?

Yes.

You see, with the increasing population, increasing crime rate, number of police people per lakh reducing, there's a definite requirement to enhance the safety and security of the public, and this safety and security of the public, to the public, is best done by the security agencies, which are in very large numbers. This is just to help the police, who is a law enforcement agency. I think there is a definite requirement for it.

So, you know, what method it has to be taken into, to sort of filter it down to every — at the bottom level. Because, you see, the policy taken at the center needs to filter down to a police station ultimately.

Yes.

Right. So the entire system has to be set in place. The state police has to be trained as to how to use these people. The people who have to be used for this purpose have to be trained in the art of aiding the police at various places. So it is not a small job. It is a mammoth's job that has to be brought in to put the system into place.

Yeah, you brought a very interesting point on this. One of the — my battalion officer, he was a senior police, were the CRPF, and he was commanding a training center of the CRPF, and I asked him, do you have the ex-servicemen who come into — he says yes. I said, they are fully trained? He says no, they required to be given minimum six months of training in police jobs. So this point you brought out in terms of training is also very important, face it.

So like he says that we have these — the chaps will come from ex-servicemen who come to the CRPF. They, to be in control, certain provisions of law have to be taught to them, so it takes them about six months to get fully integrated with the jobs they're supposed to do later. So this aspect you brought out just now, the training, is again a very important for these people.

If, for example, a policy is taken, the policy — to drive home the policy, certain amount of training and reorientation of the users as well as the people who provide the service to the user has brought it.

Yes.

Both have to be in sync.

Yes.

And the public at large must know that this is a service, that this is the way, you know, the police is taking aid of people who are actually not police officers.

No, let me tell you what I just saw other day: traffic control in Delhi. The private security, some agency, have been given these jackets with a police emblem on it, and they were doing traffic control very close to which I — I was quite surprised to see them. That mean there is some provision where the police can pick up private security agency, but there's no policy per se, what you talking about, the policy.

See, so if somebody is doing it, it may be okay, it may not be okay. But is there a policy that says that you can do it? That is what I'm talking of.

That means you are talking something which is have an issue entirely. First of all, let us say that the private security is capable of providing these things. Capable means training etc. Irrespective of training, they can go to the aid of police in some — training is already laid down. That training — I'm not saying the policy training, policy decision and training — I'm saying the training which is already there under PSARA. Those people can be utilized, this is my first point, in various ways, and they can be easily covered by the police if they want: observed law, observation, passing on the intelligence on the ground, and all these activities which can be easily done by the local, your, security forces, if allowed by the state government or if desired by the — already there that they can use them, subject to the condition that they are passed through various agencies and they are done like that, and that training etc as present.

The second is a policy decision to be taken in terms of specific duties. Then you have to take policy decision — not in general, you should use it. Specific decision will be given: all right, you can not arrest, this extent law, this extent disturbance control, this extent. So there should be elaborate policy decision. Okay, the policy decision we agree, because we are available with them. Let the center — center has been taking policy decision, and let the state utilize them.

Third, that the policy decision should be taken by the state government. Yes, the policy decision should, state government. Fourth, whether one agency can be used or many agency — the agencies which you have specified the training, you give them training in that specific. If you want training in terms of police duties or law enforcement duties or observe watch duties, then specific subjects will laid down for that. That is not an issue that is there.

The need of the police, as I have already told you — the conditions have changed. Today the requirement is not only security. Is a need of safety, mental safety, to people, and that is required in terms of multiplier. The force is not available, and that can be provided in terms of what you say. But then these things, I have only submitted that this is a policy decision etc.

We were at the moment — I wanted to confine that how we can be utilized, which we are not being utilized. I mean the private security — they can be utilized if this awakening comes in the state government and the agencies and the state police forces, or the home guards or the other agencies, SPOs, or other agencies where jail wardens etc, or even for summons, for example. For this, no consciousness — summon can be issued by the court decision, by a civilian. Summon can be issued by the court decision, by anyone. He can send — summons are also issued through the police.

Now the summons issue — if it is said, all right, it can be issued also from the security guard, is nothing but CRPC provides. Is not — already legal powers are there for the court to designate anyone for issuing of summons. They are issuing summons to personal people, sending their, issuing. So my question is, the policy decision in respect of various phases has to be taken. There's no doubt.

That is what we say. We were discussing as to how we can be used as a force multiplier. B, in addition to that, the word which earlier was used — that in the earlier stage, I'm just giving my view. In the earlier stages, the medical profession did not have paramedics. I have told you once earlier. So they had a lot of resistance — how paramedics can be used etc, there's no need etc. But ultimately paramedics has become one of the important employment for the country. Paramedics.

Then you — paralegal. There were no such thing as paralegal. You go to the country's history — paralegal was provided subsequently. Only legal people were there. So I was only saying that para enforcement, para police, para whatever, you mean now, to name that these agencies can be termed straight way, and gradually it will take on the role. So you may call it para police, whatever, and mental mindset, mindset of the people and mindset security agency. If the security agency — my agency only can do it, and that agency can do, and this agency can — that also you have to lay down.

At the moment, I think what we doing is we are looking at policy and implementation both together. My intention is to split the policy from the implementation at this point of time, so that a coherent system can be put into place. Now, we've already discussed this subject for about 40 minutes, and what we'll do is we will take on the subjects that can possibly be done by private security industry in aid of police or something. So we started with the policy. We look at what are the things that the private security industry can do for the law enforcement agencies. So we first fix that, and then we look at the implementation.

Yeah. So this is the first of the series that we have done, and I'd like to conclude today by saying that this is the first time that we are doing a discussion like this, and we'd like more and more thought processes of people to come into us, and what we'd like is that if all the people who listen to it and have something to contribute to the discussion, please write into NISSMAT, so that we can take up your points for further discussion.

Yes. And this the first of the series that we are doing on how the private security industry can aid the law enforcement and police in various aspects. So we will take on various subjects subsequently, keep going on with them till the time we have a conclusive thing which we can present to the government of India and say, this is an idea from NISSMAT, which you please have a look at. I'd like to ask Mr. Separat Singh for his concluding remarks, and then Deepak Mata, your concluding remarks, and then we thank you.

I think by and large is all right. We have discussed all the anger that policy decision should be taken, and states should take policy, and centers can sit down then and take policy decisions to use your private security agency, and we can hopefully — and use will be employed already. It has been in discussion with lot of states, and they want, all right. In certain places you will find that even for the VIP duties, there are outer parameter — you have got mixed private security and all. So training etc is also the aspect which you have already indicated. There should be training.

But I like to add one last point, which is just for the information of the audience as well as for information of the moderator and Mr. General Pakita. Very interesting thing came up. You see, under present circumstances, the general police and the general public is normally not willing to pass on the information to the police for any further action. They are scared that this will be leaked out or something will be in trouble etc. The general public is not generally having that much trust in the police to pass on some vital information which they may be having with them for the safety of the particular area or safety of the people, because of the lack of trust sometime in the police.

So for that purpose, I think the private security agencies can be of great help to them. If they say, okay, all right, whatever information we — they get a trust of the private security agencies. The police people and the private security agencies which are here, they are already deployed. They can certainly give much more information and much vital information, which can be of much use. So in general, I feel the police itself, in its own interest, or in law and order, or in maintenance, should have that sort of cordiality and approach with the local security agencies. Thank you very much.

Your concluding remarks.

I feel that, in view of the — I mentioned also — in view of the increasing population, increase the number of crime, limited police force, there's a definite requirement to have private security agencies assisting the police. Now for that, as we be, there has to be a policy to that effect, and this policy should percolate down to the state level, which is actually the holders of the police force or the law enforcement agencies. And it will be, like Mr. Cass Singh has mentioned, these private security agencies, which are integrated with the police as a policy, have a very major role to play towards the safety, security of the population. That's all.

Now, as the moderator, I would say that NISSMAT would be doing a series on this topic and subject, and this month's goal is to transform the private security industry from a territorial service into a core pillar of India's security architecture.

Right?

Nations would like that people stop viewing security as a cost to be minimized and start treating it as a national capability to be harnessed. And we want to end the era of silent guarding and come into strategic issues that will aid the country to progress. So with this I end. Once again, request all viewers to please like and subscribe and share the podcast with your friends, relatives and whoever you feel may be interested in a subject like this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.