Q.9 Terrorism is a global scourge. How has it manifested in India? Elaborate with contemporary examples. What countermeasures has the State adopted? (10 marks, 150 words)

Introduction (human lens):
Terrorism attacks everyday spaces—markets, trains, places of worship—aiming to spread fear and polarisation. India faces a diverse threat mix across geography and cyberspace, requiring law-bound, intelligence-led responses.

Manifestations (indicative):

• Cross-border terrorism/insurgency: Infiltration, drone-dropped arms, narcotics, and targeted attacks in sensitive regions.
• Urban modules & online radicalisation: Encrypted apps, propaganda, crowdfunding, lone-actor attempts.
• Ideological variants: Global jihadist influence, residual Left-Wing Extremism pockets, and periodic NE insurgent spillovers.
• Targets & tactics: Crowded places, security forces, critical infrastructure; IEDs, small arms, and cyber disruption attempts.

State countermeasures (multi-pronged):

• Legal & institutional: UAPA, expanded NIA remit, special courts; improved forensics and digital evidence handling.
• Intelligence fusion: Multi-Agency Centre, inter-state coordination, watch-lists; smart fencing, drones and coastal security grid.
• Financial choke: AML/CFT tools, hawala crackdowns, targeted terror-funding probes.
• Capability & technology: CCTNS, facial/ANPR, SIGINT, UAVs; training and joint drills.
• Prevention & community: De-radicalisation, counter-narratives, victim support, resilient urban design.
• International cooperation: Extraditions, joint investigations, information-sharing, adherence to UN/FATF norms.
  

Conclusion:
A rights-respecting, intelligence-driven approach—paired with community trust and international coordination—reduces risk, protects lives, and preserves social cohesion.

Q.10 The Government of India has recently stated that Left Wing Extremism (LWE) will be eliminated by 2026. What do you understand by LWE, and how are people affected by it? What measures has the government taken to eliminate LWE? (10 marks, 150 words)

Brief context (what is LWE):
LWE denotes armed Maoist extremism that rejects constitutional politics and seeks to capture territory through violence, intimidation, and parallel “taxation,” largely across forested/tribal belts with weak state presence and lagging development.

How people are affected:

• Lives & fear: Killings, IEDs, forced recruitment; civilians trapped between militants and security operations.
• Service denial: Schools, health centres, roads and telecom targeted; welfare delivery disrupted.
• Livelihood loss: Forest produce trade, agriculture, and local markets shrink; mobility and investment suffer.
• Trust deficit: Governance vacuums breed mistrust and alienation.

Government measures:

• Security & law: Unified command, specialised forces, area domination, better roads/coastal–border tech; strict action against arms/funding.
• Rights & justice: Faster land/forest rights, PESA/FRA implementation, grievance redress and legal aid.
• Development push: Last-mile health, education, PDS, banking/DBT, telecom, solar micro-grids.
• Rehabilitation: Surrender policies, skilling and livelihood packages; youth engagement and sports/culture initiatives.

Bottom line:
A rights-respecting security posture + dignified development is shrinking LWE’s support base and enabling lasting peace.

Q.19 What are the major challenges to internal security and the peace process in the North-Eastern States? Map the various peace accords and agreements initiated by the government in the past decade. (15 marks, 250 words)

Introduction (why it matters):
The North-East is a geostrategic bridge to Southeast Asia with dense ethnic diversity and porous borders (Myanmar, Bangladesh). While violence has declined in the last decade and AFSPA’s footprint has narrowed in several areas, sustaining peace needs calibrated security, justice, and development.

Major challenges (diagnosis):

• Cross-border dynamics: Safe havens, arms/narcotics flows along the Golden Triangle; difficult terrain complicates border management.
• Ethno-political fault-lines: Competing homeland claims, inter/intra-tribal frictions; unresolved inter-state borders (e.g., parts of Assam–Meghalaya).
• Splintering & criminality: Factions outside talks, extortion economies, illegal taxation.
• Governance gaps: Remote habitations, land/forest rights disputes, service deficits feeding mistrust.
• External influence & information warfare: Online radicalisation, diaspora narratives.

Peace accords/agreements in the past decade (illustrative map):

• Naga Framework Agreement (2015) with NSCN (IM): broad understanding; final settlement pending.
• NLFT (2019), Tripura: Surrender and rehabilitation.
• Bru–Reang Quadripartite (2020): Permanent resettlement package in Tripura for displaced families.
• Bodo Accord (2020): Reconfiguration of governance in BTR; welfare and language protections.
• Karbi Anglong Agreement (2021): Mainstreaming of armed groups, development package.
• Adivasi Groups Accord (2022), Assam: Multiple outfits integrated.
• Assam–Meghalaya MoU (2022): Resolution of a first set of border pockets.
• Dimasa (2023), ULFA MoS (2023): Further mainstreaming; one ULFA faction still out.

Way forward (peace to prosperity):

• Secure borders + law-led operations against trafficking and extortion.
• Time-bound delivery of accord benefits, land/forest rights, and civic services.
• Economic inclusion: Roads, telecom, skills, tourism/value chains; transparent DMF-like funds usage.
• Dialogue & verification: Keep channels open with remaining factions; robust ceasefire monitoring.

Conclusion:
A rights-respecting security posture + credible development + inclusive federalism can lock in a durable peace dividend.

Q.20 Why is maritime security vital to protect India’s sea trade? Discuss maritime and coastal security challenges and the way forward. (15 marks, 250 words)

Introduction (why vital):
About two-thirds by value and most by volume of India’s merchandise trade moves by sea. Energy cargoes, undersea data cables, and container flows through chokepoints (Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, Malacca) make secure Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs) an economic necessity.

Maritime and coastal security challenges:

• Sea-borne terrorism & infiltration: Post-26/11 vigilance must be continuous.
• Piracy, narco-arms, human smuggling: Routes across Western IOR and the Makran coast.
• IUU fishing & resource theft: Economic/ecological loss and livelihood stress for coastal communities.
• Grey-zone pressures: Survey/research activity, distant-water fleets, and great-power competition in the IOR.
• Chokepoint fragility: Disruptions spike freight/insurance; ripple effects on inflation.
• Coastal vulnerabilities: Radar/AIS gaps, uneven coastal policing, port cyber risks, rising cyclone/storm surge exposure.
• Sub-sea infrastructure risks: Cables, pipelines, offshore energy.

Institutional/capability base (what exists):

• National Maritime Security Coordinator (NMSC): Whole-of-government coherence.
• IMAC & IFC-IOR: Maritime domain awareness and information-sharing with partners.
• Mission-Based Deployments: Persistent naval presence across key SLOCs; HADR/anti-piracy readiness.
• Coastal Security Scheme: Stations, boats, and community integration (fishermen IDs).

Way forward (exam-ready agenda):

• Close the coastal grid: Complete radar/AIS chain, fishermen transponders, 24×7 Joint Ops Rooms; harden port cyber security.
• National MDA platform: Integrate Navy, Coast Guard, customs, fisheries, ports on a common real-time picture.
• Secure SLOCs via partnerships: Logistics pacts, QUAD/IORA exercises, route diversification, maritime insurance pooling.
• Climate resilience: Cyclone-proof ports, oil-spill response, and protection of cables/offshore assets; green ports and bunkering.

Conclusion:
Strong MDA + coordinated governance + credible naval presence keeps trade flowing, cushions the economy from shocks, and underwrites India’s blue-economy ambitions.