Ali Ahmed replies: There are companies in India offering military relevant services and others providing security. The latter are more visible and much in demand after 26/11. The former are fewer as they are catering to a narrower more specialised field. Nevertheless, they have figured in areas such as demining in Sri Lanka. Their profile is lower than similar companies in the US for instance, since India has the necessary military and paramilitary wherewihal in the state sector to provide the military related services, be it in terms of planning, management, logistics, consultation, maintenance, security etc. The profile of companies such as Xe Services etc is higher due to the outsourcing of many military relevant services to them by the US in the GWOT. This was done to reduce the visibility as a target of the US military and to reduce pressures and expenses on the US military. These companies hire an international staff. Indians also work for these companies. These companies undertake tasks such as logistics, maintaining bases, provisioning dining facilities and even protection of assets. They have come under controversy, especially where they have had to open fire. They blur the distinction between combatant and non-combatant and occupy questionable status in domestic law of the host country. Some dubious companies have been known to undertake politically sensitive missions earlier in the African continent. The case is India is considerably different and in prosecution of wars or internal security India would not depend on such companies. Also see - http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_4_4_rkbhonsle.pdf (p. 54)

Sarabjeet Parmar replies: India has not signed up CSI. There are two areas of concern. Firstly the possible clash of jurisdiction as CSI requires US officials to be posted to CSI compliant ports. Secondly it is felt that the presence of US officials would affect the sovereignty of the nation.

As per the initial plans JNPT has been selected for installation of CSI related equipment as a pilot project for further replication in other ports. The selection of JNPT was based on the fact that it caters for movement of 58% of India's outbound container traffic. Only 14% of the outbound containers are bound for the US.

Some issues under deliberation with the US are:

• The local government would have jurisdiction.
• Security rules of the local government would have to be followed.
• Indian personnel would carry out the pre-screening.
• US officials will not operate the facility but will only have access to findings.
• Pre-screening of containers by US officials would have to be requested for. Details such as container number, bill of lading etc would have to be submitted.
• Posting of Indian officials at US ports as a reciprocal gesture. Presently only Japan and Canada have their officials posted at US ports.

An advantage India stands to gain is that the same equipment can be used to screen incoming containers as is being done in non US CSI compliant ports.