💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Internal Security

  • [23rd May 2026] The Hindu OpED: Cyber warfare is outpacing gloabl legal accountability

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2023] What are the different elements of cyber security? Keeping in view the challenges in cyber security, examine the extent to which India has successfully developed a comprehensive National Cyber Security Strategy.Linkage: The PYQ directly connects with the article’s themes of cyber threats, legal gaps, attribution challenges, and cyber governance. It helps in linking cyber warfare with India’s preparedness, cyber norms, and accountability mechanisms in internal and international security.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The recent Israel-Iran conflict showed that wars are no longer fought only with missiles and soldiers. Along with military attacks, cyberattacks were reportedly used to disrupt websites, communication systems, and digital networks. This has highlighted a growing problem: while cyber warfare is becoming faster and more dangerous, international laws are struggling to hold countries or groups accountable. This is mainly because it is difficult to identify who carried out the attack and prove responsibility.

    Why is cyber warfare increasingly becoming an instrument of modern conflict?

    1. Hybrid Warfare: Combines cyber operations with conventional military action to weaken communication systems, influence public narratives, and disrupt defence preparedness. Recent Israel-Iran tensions reflected simultaneous cyber disruptions alongside kinetic strikes.
    2. Strategic Disruption: Enables attacks on websites, digital services, and information ecosystems without immediate physical confrontation, reducing costs of escalation.
    3. Military Utility: Supports conventional military campaigns through disruption of command-and-control systems, logistics, and surveillance capabilities before physical attacks.
    4. Non-State Participation: Expands battlefield actors beyond states. The pro-Iranian Handala Hack Team reportedly claimed cyberattacks on entities, including a U.S.-based medical technology company.
    5. Low-Cost Asymmetry: Allows weaker actors to impose disproportionate costs on technologically advanced states through malware, ransomware, or infrastructure sabotage.

    Why is establishing legal accountability in cyber warfare so difficult?

    1. Threshold Ambiguity: International law prohibits the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, but determining when cyber operations amount to “use of force” remains contested.
    2. Classification Problem: Distinguishing between cyber espionage, cybercrime, sabotage, and armed attack remains legally unclear, complicating state responsibility.
    3. Attribution Challenge: Cyber operations are covert by nature. Attackers frequently conceal origins through proxy servers, spoofing, and third-party infrastructure, making definitive attribution difficult.
    4. State Responsibility Gap: International law requires attribution of conduct to a state for legal responsibility. Technical suspicion often fails to meet evidentiary thresholds admissible before courts.
    5. Uncertain Harm Assessment: Difficulty in proving direct causation between cyber operations and measurable physical or economic harm weakens accountability.
    6. Example: Cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure may create large-scale disruption, yet legal consequences remain limited if attribution cannot be conclusively established.

    How do limitations of international law weaken cyber accountability?

    1. Legal Applicability: Existing principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and prohibition of force theoretically apply to cyberspace.
    2. Enforcement Deficit: International legal frameworks rarely produce prosecutions or compensation despite growing cyber incidents.
    3. Doctrinal Mismatch: Traditional legal frameworks were developed for geographically identifiable and physically attributable conflict, unlike decentralized cyber operations.
    4. Absence of Consensus: States disagree on what constitutes armed attack, proportionality, and lawful retaliation in cyberspace.
    5. Normative Fragmentation: Different national interpretations prevent development of universally accepted cyber rules.
    6. Example: A cyberattack disrupting electricity or healthcare systems may create severe consequences but still fall into a legal grey zone below the threshold of armed conflict.

    Why do attribution and evidence create major barriers to litigation?

    1. Secrecy of Operations: Cyber incidents frequently involve classified intelligence, covert capabilities, and anonymous actors.
    2. Evidentiary Constraints: Technical evidence often remains insufficient for legal admissibility in courts.
    3. Causation Complexity: Courts face difficulties in establishing who conducted the operation, the extent of damage caused, and links to specific harm.
    4. Sensitive Information Risks: Litigation may require disclosure of intelligence capabilities, creating national security concerns.
    5. Escalation Risks: States often avoid formal legal proceedings to prevent diplomatic retaliation or military escalation.
    6. Example: Even where intelligence agencies possess strong suspicions, states may avoid public attribution due to inability to disclose classified evidence.

    Why are international legal forums inadequate for cyber disputes?

    1. Jurisdictional Limitations: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) requires state consent, limiting compulsory dispute settlement.
    2. Sovereign Immunity: Foreign states often enjoy immunity protections in domestic courts.
    3. Institutional Deficit: No dedicated global tribunal exists for cyber conflict resolution.
    4. Cross-Border Complexity: Cyber operations transcend territorial boundaries, complicating jurisdiction.
    5. Limited Legal Remedies: Victims struggle to secure reparations, injunctions, or punitive action.
    6. Example: Domestic courts face obstacles when foreign-state actors conduct cyber intrusions through multiple jurisdictions.

    How are international institutions attempting to regulate cyberspace?

    1. Budapest Convention on Cybercrime: Establishes international cooperation mechanisms against cybercrime and digital evidence sharing. However, focus remains primarily on criminal enforcement rather than state cyber warfare.
    2. UN Convention against Cybercrime: Expands global legal cooperation to address emerging cyber threats.
    3. UN Framework Discussions: Ongoing deliberations seek responsible state behaviour, accountability norms, and confidence-building measures in cyberspace.
    4. Norm Development: Attempts to define acceptable conduct, critical infrastructure protection, and proportional responses.
    5. Implementation Gap: Enforcement mechanisms remain weak despite institutional developments.

    Why must India actively shape emerging cyber norms?

    1. Digital Dependence: India increasingly relies on digital infrastructure across finance, governance, energy, healthcare, and defence.
    2. Strategic Vulnerability: Greater digitisation increases exposure to cyber espionage, infrastructure disruption, and information warfare.
    3. Normative Leadership: India can influence evolving global cyber governance frameworks through multilateral diplomacy.
    4. Institutional Participation: Active engagement in accountability, attribution standards, and responsible state behaviour strengthens India’s strategic interests.
    5. Cyber Preparedness: Enhances resilience of critical information infrastructure and national security architecture.
    6. Example: India’s expanding digital public infrastructure, including UPI and Aadhaar-linked systems, requires stronger cyber resilience frameworks.

    Conclusion

    Cyber warfare is growing faster than global laws can handle. It is difficult to identify attackers and prove responsibility. Existing legal systems are not fully prepared for digital conflicts. Countries, including India, must strengthen cyber security and help build stronger global cyber rules.

    International Legal Frameworks Relevant to Cyber Warfare

    1. Tallinn Manual 2.0: Non-binding academic interpretation of how international law applies to cyber operations and cyber warfare.
    2. Article 2(4), UN Charter: Prohibits threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of states.
    3. Due Diligence Principle: The concept was solidified by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the landmark 1949 Corfu Channel Case, which ruled that a state cannot knowingly allow its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other states.
    4. Principle of Sovereignty: Recognises cyber intrusions into critical systems as possible violations of territorial sovereignty. It is anchored in the UN Charter (1945) under Article 2(1), which declares the sovereign equality of all member nations.
    5. Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC): Governs proportionality, distinction, and military necessity in cyber-enabled warfare. It is heavily codified under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols (1977), as well as the Hague Conventions. It is also known as International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

    India’s Cyber Institutional Architecture

    • CERT-In: Coordinates cyber incident response and vulnerability management.
    • National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC): Protects critical sectors including banking, telecom, power, and transport.
    • National Cyber Security Policy: Strengthens resilience, skill development, and institutional coordination.
    • Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C): Supports cybercrime prevention and inter-agency cooperation.

  • [9th May 2026] The Hindu OpED: A watershed moment in India’s defence posture

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2016] The terms ‘Hot Pursuit’ and ‘Surgical Strikes’ are often used in connection with armed action against terrorist attacks. Discuss the strategic impact of such actions.Linkage: Operation Sindoor directly reflects India’s evolving doctrine of calibrated retaliation, cross-border counter-terror operations, and escalation management under a nuclear overhang. The topic links with GS-III microthemes of Internal Security, Border Management, Counter-Terrorism, Defence Preparedness, and Strategic Deterrence.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Operation Sindoor marks a major shift in India’s national security doctrine. The operation reflects the movement from “strategic restraint” to calibrated military retaliation against cross-border terrorism. India reportedly carried out deep, coordinated strikes against terror infrastructure and military assets in Pakistan despite the risks associated with escalation between two nuclear-armed neighbours. It signals the emergence of a new strategic doctrine centred on deterrence, rapid response, military integration, and indigenous defence preparedness.

    How does Operation Sindoor signify a shift from “strategic restraint” to proactive deterrence?

    1. Doctrinal Shift: Replaces India’s earlier “dossier diplomacy” and restrained retaliation approach with direct punitive military action against terror infrastructure.
    2. Zero-Tolerance Policy: Treats cross-border terrorism as an “act of war,” thereby lowering India’s threshold for calibrated retaliation.
    3. Political Resolve: Demonstrates political willingness to undertake high-risk military operations despite nuclear escalation concerns.
    4. Deterrence Signalling: Establishes costs for state-sponsored terrorism through visible and rapid retaliation.
    5. Strategic Messaging: Signals that India will no longer remain constrained by fears of nuclear blackmail.
    6. Pahalgam Trigger: Uses the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam terror attack as the immediate catalyst for doctrinal transformation.

    How did integrated military operations enhance India’s operational effectiveness?

    1. Jointness: Ensures coordinated functioning of the Indian Air Force, Indian Army, and Indian Navy during multi-domain operations.
    2. Air Dominance: Facilitates deep strikes against targets including Nur Khan, Sargodha, Murid, and Bholari.
    3. Naval Deployment: Strengthens maritime deterrence through Indian naval positioning near Karachi.
    4. Drone Neutralisation: Enables interception of Pakistani drone attacks through integrated air-defence systems.
    5. S-400 Deployment: Enhances layered air defence and denies hostile access to Indian airspace.
    6. Escalation Control: Maintains calibrated military pressure while avoiding uncontrolled conflict expansion
    7. Rapid Response Capability: Demonstrates India’s ability to execute simultaneous high-intensity operations across theatres.

    How does the operation reflect evolving escalation management under a nuclear overhang?

    1. Escalation Dominance: Demonstrates India’s ability to impose military costs while controlling conflict intensity.
    2. Calibrated Retaliation: Ensures proportional targeting focused on terror and strategic infrastructure.
    3. Coercive Diplomacy: Pressurises Pakistan into requesting a ceasefire after sustained military setbacks.
    4. Nuclear Threshold Management: Challenges the earlier assumption that nuclear deterrence would prevent conventional retaliation.
    5. Strategic Signalling: Communicates India’s willingness to act despite risks associated with nuclear adversaries.
    6. Termination Timing: Concludes operations after achieving limited strategic objectives, thereby preventing prolonged escalation.
    7. Military Preparedness: Reflects enhanced readiness for high-tempo warfare under complex strategic conditions.

    Why is Operation Sindoor considered a major strategic and psychological signal?

    1. New Normal: Institutionalises rapid punitive retaliation as part of India’s future counter-terror doctrine.
    2. Psychological Deterrence: Increases uncertainty for terrorist groups and their state backers.
    3. Global Signalling: Demonstrates India’s military capability before the international strategic community.
    4. Narrative Shift: Challenges Pakistan’s long-standing use of proxy warfare under nuclear cover.
    5. Domestic Confidence: Reinforces public confidence in India’s military and political leadership.
    6. Transparency Era: Limits information control through digital scrutiny, satellite imagery, and global defence analysis.
    7. Civil-Military Synergy: Highlights coordination between political leadership and military command structures.

    How can Operation Sindoor accelerate indigenous defence reforms and Atmanirbharta?

    1. Defence Industrialisation: Strengthens the need for rapid expansion of indigenous defence manufacturing.
    2. Atmanirbharta: Encourages domestic production under the “Innovate, Design and Manufacture” framework.
    3. Private Sector Participation: Expands the role of MSMEs, startups, and private firms in defence ecosystems.
    4. Technological Innovation: Boosts investments in aerospace, cyber systems, Artificial Intelligence, and drones.
    5. DRDO Integration: Reinforces the role of Defence Research and Development Organisation laboratories in defence modernisation.
    6. Public-Private Collaboration: Enhances integration between Defence Public Sector Undertakings and private industry.
    7. Operational Readiness: Ensures sustained military preparedness through indigenous supply chains.
    8. Innovation Ecosystem: Encourages startup-led military innovation following operational success of indigenous systems.

    What are the broader geopolitical and strategic implications for India?

    1. Regional Deterrence: Strengthens India’s credibility as a decisive regional power.
    2. Counter-Terror Framework: Reframes terrorism as a direct national security threat requiring military response.
    3. Strategic Autonomy: Demonstrates independent decision-making without excessive external dependence.
    4. Military Modernisation: Accelerates reforms relating to theatre commands and integrated warfare.
    5. Global Perception: Positions India as a state willing to defend strategic red lines.
    6. Hybrid Warfare Preparedness: Highlights the growing role of drones, cyber capability, and precision systems.
    7. Civil Defence Awareness: Underlines the importance of societal preparedness during high-intensity conflicts.

    Conclusion

    Operation Sindoor marks a structural evolution in India’s national security doctrine. The operation reflects a transition toward integrated, technology-driven, and deterrence-oriented warfare. It also reinforces the importance of indigenous capability, political resolve, and civil-military coordination in addressing contemporary security threats. The long-term significance of the operation lies in its attempt to redefine strategic thresholds and establish a credible deterrence framework against cross-border terrorism.

  • Nilgiri Class Frigate Mahendragiri 

    Why in the News

    The Indian Navy has inducted INS Mahendragiri, the sixth ship of the Nilgiri class (Project 17A), strengthening India’s naval combat capability and indigenous defence manufacturing.

    Key Facts

    • Name: INS Mahendragiri
    • Class: Nilgiri class stealth frigate
    • Project: Project 17A
    • Built by: Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited
    • Location: Mumbai
    • Designed by: Warship Design Bureau (India)

    Features of Project 17A Frigates

    • Advanced stealth technology
    • Multi mission capability:
      • Anti surface warfare
      • Anti air warfare
      • Anti submarine warfare
    • Equipped with:
      • Advanced sensors
      • Modern weapons systems

    Propulsion System

    • CODOG (Combined Diesel or Gas)
    • Allows:
      • Efficient cruising (diesel)
      • High speed operations (gas turbine)

    Indigenous Capability

    • Around 75 percent indigenous content
    • Involvement of: 200 plus MSMEs
    • Employment generated:
      • 4000 direct jobs
      • 10000 indirect jobs
    [2025] With reference to India’s defence, consider the following pairs: 
    Aircraft type : Description 
    1 Dornier-228 : Maritime patrol aircraft 
    2 IL-76 : Supersonic combat aircraft 
    3 C-17 Globemaster III : Military transport aircraft 
    How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched? 
    (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All the three (d) None

  • [23rd April 2026] The Hindu OpED: India’s post-LWE future, from red sun to new dawn

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2022] Naxalism is a social, economic and developmental issue manifesting as a violent internal security threat. In this context, discuss the emerging issues and suggest a multilayered strategy to tackle the menace of Naxalism.Linkage: The article reflects the shift from security-centric suppression to governance-led, multi-layered strategy, directly aligning with the PYQ’s demand. It highlights that post-LWE success now depends on inclusive development, state legitimacy, and trust-building, which form the core of a holistic strategy.

    Mentor’s Comment

    India’s declaration in March 2026 that it is free of Left Wing Extremism (LWE) marks a historic shift from decades of insurgency. This comes in the news especially after the 2010 Dantewada attack (76 CRPF personnel killed) which symbolized peak violence. This is significant as it represents a transition from a security-centric approach to governance-led transformation, highlighting that while insurgency has declined, the deeper challenge of state legitimacy, inclusive development, and trust-building in affected regions still remains unresolved.

    How did India transition from peak insurgency to near elimination of LWE?

    India’s transition from peak insurgency (2010) to the current phase of near elimination was driven by a multi-pronged National Policy and Action Plan (2015). This strategy integrated aggressive security operations with massive infrastructure and developmental pushes, reducing Left Wing Extremism (LWE) violence by over 80% since 2010. 

    1. Security consolidation: Ensures coordinated operations between Centre and States, reducing insurgent capacity; example: decline post-2010 Dantewada attack phase.
      1. Integrated Strategy: The government replaced scattered efforts with the SAMADHAN doctrine (2017), focusing on Smart leadership, Aggressive strategy, and Actionable intelligence.
      2. Expanded Infrastructure: Over the last decade, the number of Fortified Police Stations increased from 66 to 656. Since 2019 alone, 280 new security camps have been established to fill the security vacuum in core areas.
      3. Financial Choking: Dedicated verticals in the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) have systematically dismantled Maoist funding networks, seizing assets worth over ₹90 crore.
    2. Political consensus and State capacity : Strengthens bipartisan support and sustained strategy across governments.
      1. Capacity Building: Through the Security Related Expenditure (SRE) scheme, the Centre released ₹3,331 crore over the last 11 years, a 155% increase from the previous decade, to empower state police forces. 
    3. Institutional focus: Promotes joint strategic and operational planning, ensuring continuity of efforts.
      1. Infrastructure Push: Since 2014, over 12,000 km of roads were constructed in LWE areas to break geographical isolation.
      2. Saturation of Welfare: Programs like the Aspirational Districts Programme and the Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan target 100% implementation of government schemes in tribal areas. 
    4. Governance intervention: Facilitates district-level developmental programs under Integrated Action Plan.
      1. Lucrative Surrender Policies: High-rank cadres now receive immediate grants of ₹5 lakh, while all surrenderees receive a monthly stipend of ₹10,000 for vocational training. Over 8,000 Naxalites have abandoned violence in the last 10 years.

    Why is the post-LWE phase more complex than the insurgency phase?

    The post-LWE (Left Wing Extremism) phase is more complex because it shifts from a clear-cut military battle to a nuanced “inclusion-led” transformation. While security forces can clear a territory, building lasting peace requires addressing deep-seated psychological and structural fractures. 

    1. Legitimacy deficit: Weakens state credibility due to historical governance gaps; example: fear-driven environments and alienation.
      1. The Trust Gap: Restoring the State’s credibility is harder than neutralizing insurgents.
      2. Parallel Governance Legacy: Maoists established parallel administrative structures; the vacuum left behind must be filled by functional, local, and accountable governance rather than just police presence
    2. Development paradox (The resource curse): LWE areas often hold India’s richest mineral deposits (iron ore, bauxite, coal) but rank lowest in human development. It sustains underdevelopment despite resource richness (resource curse).
    3. Psychological scars: The “final mile” of the LWE journey is as much psychological as administrative.
      1. Intergenerational Trauma: Entire generations have grown up normalized to “gunfire and encounters,” leading to a deep loss of self-confidence and belonging within the tribal population.
      2. Social Stigma: Surrendered cadres often face dual threats, retribution from former Maoist colleagues and social bias or suspicion from the local community and security agencies
    4. Invisible citizens: While tribal populations are formally included in the Constitution, they are often excluded from its actual benefits.
      1. Dilution of Rights: Acts like the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) and the Forest Rights Act are frequently bypassed for industrial projects, weakening tribal rights over “Jal, Jangal, Jameen” (Water, Forest, Land).
      2. The Digital Divide: As government services move online, the lack of digital access in remote tribal belts risks creating a new form of “digital exclusion”

    What structural economic transformation is required in LWE regions?

    1. Local value creation: Strengthens forest produce processing and agroforestry; example: Jungle Mahal, Saranda, Bastar models.
    2. Livelihood diversification: Supports MSMEs and community enterprises for employment generation.
    3. Community ownership: Restores control over commons to tribal communities.
    4. Infrastructure provisioning: Facilitates roads, banking, schools, and healthcare access.

    How can governance reforms ensure sustainable peace in these regions?

    1. Justice delivery: Ensures credible justice systems and grievance redressal mechanisms.
    2. Decentralisation: Strengthens Panchayati Raj institutions with financial devolution; example: Article 275(1), TSP grants.
    3. Administrative convergence: Reduces fragmentation across schemes like PM-JANMAN, DAJGUA.
    4. Accountability systems: Promotes evidence-based governance with transparency mechanisms.

    What role do social transformation and trust-building play in post-conflict recovery?

    1. Human policing: Builds trust through respectful and community-oriented policing.
    2. Rights-based approach: Ensures citizens are treated as stakeholders, not beneficiaries.
    3. Educational integration: Expands access to residential schooling and scholarships.
    4. Cultural integration: Promotes sports and identity-based belonging; example: tribal youth participation.

    Why is cooperative federalism critical in post-LWE transformation?

    1. Centre-State coordination: Ensures unified policy implementation.
    2. Local governance empowerment: Facilitates last-mile delivery at Panchayat level.
    3. Mission convergence: Integrates Aspirational Districts Programme with tribal initiatives.
    4. Policy continuity: Sustains long-term transformation beyond political cycles.

    Conclusion

    Post-LWE India represents a moral and governance threshold, where absence of violence must translate into presence of justice, dignity, and opportunity. Sustainable peace depends on state legitimacy, inclusive development, and trust-based governance.

  • N–SLN DIVEX 2026  

    Why in News

    • INS Nireekshak reached Colombo to participate in the 4th India–Sri Lanka Diving Exercise (IN–SLN DIVEX 2026).

    About the Exercise

    • Name: IN–SLN DIVEX 2026
    • Edition: 4th
    • Participants: Indian Navy and Sri Lankan Navy

    About INS Nireekshak

    • Type: Diving Support and Submarine Rescue Vessel
    • Role:
      • Deep-sea diving operations
      • Submarine rescue missions
      • Underwater engineering tasks
    [2024] Which of the following statements about ‘Exercise Mitra Shakti-2023’ are correct? 
    1. This was a joint military exercise between India and Bangladesh. 
    2. It commenced in Aundh (Pune). 
    3. Joint response during counter-terrorism operation was a goal of this operation. 
    4. Indian Air Force was a part of this exercise. 
    Select the answer using the code given below : 
    [A] 1, 2 and 3 [B] 1, 2 and 4 [C] 1, 3 and 4 [D] 2, 3 and 4

  • A year from Pahalgam, tracking the security shift

    Why in the News?

    A year after the Pahalgam terror attack, there is a structural shift in Jammu & Kashmir’s security doctrine, from reactive containment in urban centres to a dispersed, intelligence-led grid extending into forests and high-altitude areas. This marks a significant transition from earlier patterns where militants operated with relative ease in remote terrains.

    How has the security doctrine shifted post-Pahalgam?

    1. Doctrinal shift: Moves from urban containment to dispersed rural-forest operations, expanding counter-terror grid into difficult terrains.
    2. Proactive operations: Ensures pre-emptive neutralisation rather than post-incident response.
    3. Grid expansion: Strengthens multi-layered deployment across Pir Panjal and Kashmir Valley.
    4. Example: Increased presence in forested belts and high-altitude zones previously under-monitored.

    What role has intelligence integration played in the new strategy?

    1. Intelligence-led operations: Enables targeted strikes against militant networks instead of broad sweeps.
    2. Human intelligence (HUMINT): Strengthens local informant networks for early warning signals.
    3. Inter-agency coordination: Ensures real-time intelligence sharing among Army, J&K Police, and central agencies.
    4. Example: Dismantling of overground worker (OGW) networks aiding militants.

    How has technology transformed counter-terror operations?

    1. Drone surveillance: Enhances real-time monitoring of inaccessible terrains.
    2. Digital tracking: Facilitates data-driven identification of suspects and networks.
    3. Smart checkpoints: Ensures efficient screening through QR-based and digital systems.
    4. Data point: Over 50,000 individuals linked to terrorism brought under Aadhaar-linked identification systems.
    5. Example: Use of drones and surveillance tech in forest operations.

    What are the key operational successes achieved?

    1. Neutralisation rates: Increases elimination of militants through targeted operations.
    2. Network disruption: Weakens logistical and recruitment channels.
    3. Area domination: Expands security presence into previously vulnerable regions.
    4. Example: Decline in large-scale coordinated attacks compared to earlier years.

    What structural gaps and challenges persist?

    1. Intelligence gaps: Limits complete pre-emption of attacks, especially in remote zones.
    2. Terrain advantage: Continues to favour militants in dense forests and mountains.
    3. Adaptive tactics: Enables militants to shift to smaller, decentralised cells.
    4. Local support: Sustains residual overground networks aiding infiltration and logistics.
    5. Example: Sporadic attacks despite enhanced surveillance indicate operational limitations.

    How sustainable is the current security model?

    1. Resource intensity: Requires continuous deployment and technological investment.
    2. Coordination dependency: Relies on seamless inter-agency collaboration.
    3. Civil-military balance: Necessitates public cooperation for intelligence gathering.
    4. Outcome: Ensures short-term control but demands long-term socio-political integration.

    Conclusion

    The post-Pahalgam shift reflects a strategic deepening of counter-terror operations, combining intelligence, technology, and terrain penetration. While operational successes are visible, persistent intelligence gaps and adaptive militant strategies underline the need for continuous innovation and socio-political stabilisation.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Winning of ‘Hearts and Minds’ in terrorism-affected areas is an essential step in restoring the trust of the population. Discuss the measures adopted by the Government in this respect as part of the conflict resolution in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Linkage: The PYQ highlights the shift from kinetic counter-terrorism to intelligence-led, people-centric strategy in J&K, as seen post-Pahalgam. It links trust-building, OGW disruption, and civil-military outreach with improved intelligence flow and long-term conflict resolution.

  • Rajya Sabha Passes CAPF Bill Amid Opposition Walkout

    Why in the News?

    The Rajya Sabha passed the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Bill, 2026, while the Opposition staged a walkout alleging that their concerns were not addressed.

    What are Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)

    CAPFs under Ministry of Home Affairs:

    • CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force)
    • BSF (Border Security Force)
    • CISF (Central Industrial Security Force)
    • ITBP (Indo Tibetan Border Police)
    • SSB (Sashastra Seema Bal)
    • Assam Rifles (operational control with Army)

    Key Objective of the CAPF Bill

    The Bill aims to:

    • Create umbrella administrative structure
    • Remove inconsistencies in service rules
    • Improve cadre management
    • Streamline appointments and promotions
    • Improve coordination with state police

    Government stated:

    • It will strengthen national security
    • Boost efficiency and morale of forces

    Why Government Introduced the Bill

    Over time:

    • CAPFs developed different service rules
    • Lack of clarity in: Promotions, Appointments, Deputation, and Cadre management
    • The Bill aims to standardise administration.

    Opposition’s Concerns

    Deputation Issue

    • Institutionalising IPS officers’ deputation
    • May affect career progression of CAPF officers
    [2023] With reference to Home Guards, consider the following statements: 1 Home Guards are raised under the Home Guards Act and Rules of the Central Government. 2 The role of the Home Guards is to serve as an auxiliary force to the police in maintenance of internal security. 3 To prevent infiltration on the international border/coastal areas, the Border Wing Home Guards Battalions have been raised in some States. How many of the above statements are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None

  • Exercise Dweep Shakti: India Conducts Tri Service Military Drill

    Why in the News?

    The Indian Armed Forces concluded Exercise Dweep Shakti, a high intensity tri service exercise conducted in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to strengthen India’s island defence and maritime security.

    What is Exercise Dweep Shakti

    • Type: Tri Service Military Exercise
    • Forces involved:
      • Indian Army
      • Indian Navy
      • Indian Air Force
    • Focus: Island defence and amphibious warfare
    • Conducted under: Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC)

    About Andaman and Nicobar Command

    • India’s only Tri Service Theatre Command
    • Established in 2001
    • Headquarters: Port Blair
    • Strategic location near:
      • Malacca Strait
      • Indo Pacific sea routes
    [2024] Which of the following statements about ‘Exercise Mitra Shakti-2023’ are correct? 1 This was a joint military exercise between India and Bangladesh. 2 It commenced in Aundh (Pune). Joint response during counter-terrorism operations was a goal of this operation. 3 Indian Air Force was a part of this exercise. Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 1 and 4 (c) 1 and 4 (d) 2, 3 and 4

  • Maoist operations: What after March 31 milestone

    Why in the News?

    India’s anti-Maoist operations have reached a historic turning point with a government-set March 31 deadline, signaling near-elimination of Left Wing Extremism, a sharp contrast to decades when Maoists controlled vast “Red Corridor” regions. The scale of decline is striking, with affected districts shrinking from ~200 to ~38 and deaths falling significantly, indicating a major security success. However, the bigger concern now is whether this victory can be sustained through governance, as the persistence of inequality, displacement, and weak state presence could allow extremist ideologies to re-emerge in new forms.

    How has the State gained the upper hand over Maoists?

    1. Leadership decapitation: Neutralization of top CPI (Maoist) leadership weakened command structure; example, central committee disruption and fragmented local units
    2. Security operations intensity: High-intensity operations by CRPF and state police forces reduced insurgent mobility
    3. Infrastructure expansion: Construction of 15,000+ km roads and 9,000+ mobile towers improved state reach in remote areas
    4. Forward deployment: Establishment of 650+ fortified camps enabled continuous presence in core insurgency zones
    5. Decline in affected districts: Reduction from ~200 districts (early 2000s) to 38 districts (2025); only 7 districts remain highly affected
    6. Casualty reduction: LWE-related deaths reduced from 1000+ annually (2010 peak) to significantly lower levels

    What explains the decline of Left Wing Extremism?

    1. Integrated strategy: Combination of “clear, hold, develop” approach ensured security followed by governance penetration
    2. Policy continuity: Successive governments continued LWE strategy with refinements rather than abrupt changes
    3. Financial choking: Disruption of Maoist funding networks reduced operational capability
    4. Loss of ideological appeal: Declining resonance of violent revolution among tribal youth due to increased exposure and mobility
    5. Localized resistance: Weakening of traditional support base as local populations disengaged from Maoist networks

    Why is security success not sufficient for long-term stability?

    1. Legitimacy deficit: Military victory does not automatically translate into trust in state institutions
    2. Governance gaps: Weak delivery of welfare services in tribal areas risks renewed alienation
    3. Development paradox: Infrastructure expansion without inclusive growth may deepen inequalities
    4. Historical grievances: Issues like land alienation, displacement due to mining, and lack of forest rights remain unresolved
    5. Risk of relapse: Absence of state legitimacy may allow extremist ideologies to re-emerge in altered forms

    What structural issues continue to fuel Maoist ideology?

    1. Land inequality: Persistence of semi-feudal land relations in tribal belts
    2. Displacement: Large-scale displacement due to mining and industrial projects without adequate rehabilitation
    3. Governance exclusion: Limited participation of tribal communities in decision-making processes
    4. Social injustice: Continued marginalization of Adivasis in access to education, healthcare, and livelihoods
    5. State absence: In remote areas, Maoists previously acted as parallel governance structures, filling administrative gaps

    What is the risk of a new phase of radicalism?

    1. Ideological transformation: Shift from armed insurgency to non-violent but radical mobilizations
    2. Urban networks: Potential expansion into urban activism focusing on environmental justice, labor rights
    3. Fragmented resistance: Emergence of localized, issue-based protests rather than centralized insurgency
    4. Youth discontent: Educated but unemployed youth may become new carriers of dissent
    5. Digital mobilization: Increased use of social media for ideological propagation

    What policy shift is required after the March 31 milestone?

    1. Governance consolidation: Ensures sustained delivery of welfare schemes in LWE-affected areas
    2. Administrative reform: Strengthens bureaucratic responsiveness in remote regions
    3. Inclusive development: Prioritizes tribal rights, land reforms, and livelihood generation
    4. Community participation: Enhances local governance through Panchayati Raj institutions
    5. Preventive approach: Focuses on addressing root causes rather than reactive security measures 

    Conclusion

    India’s success in weakening Maoist insurgency represents a major internal security achievement, but it marks only the end of the first phase. The real challenge lies in transforming coercive control into consensual legitimacy. Without addressing structural inequities and governance deficits, the vacuum left by Maoists may be filled by new forms of radicalism.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Naxalism is a social, economic and developmental issue manifesting as a violent internal security threat. In this context, discuss the emerging issues and suggest a multilayered strategy to tackle the menace of Naxalism.

    Linkage: With the March 31 LWE elimination deadline nearing, the issue gains renewed significance beyond security success. The PYQ links directly to this shift, highlighting the need to address underlying socio-economic and governance causes.

  • Centre unveils policy to tackle terror threats

    Why in the News?

    The Union Home Ministry has unveiled India’s first National Counter Terrorism Policy and Strategy (PRAHAAR). The policy seeks to criminalise all terrorist acts, disrupt terror financing, deny logistical support, and strengthen coordination across Central and State agencies. The policy marks a structural shift from reactive counter-terror responses to an integrated, ecosystem-based national security framework covering land, air, water, cyber, and financial domains. The move assumes significance amid rising cross-border terrorism, drone-enabled attacks, and digital radicalisation.

    What is the rationale behind this policy?

    1. The move follows the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam terror incident, which exposed vulnerabilities in intelligence coordination and emerging drone misuse. 
    2. Previously, counter-terror responses were largely reactive and dispersed across agencies without a single doctrinal framework. 
    3. The policy is significant because it integrates prevention, detection, prosecution, and financial disruption under one strategy, covering both state and non-state actors. 
    4. It also formally recognises technological threats such as encrypted platforms, cryptocurrency, and dark web logistics, marking a shift from traditional cross-border terror focus to hybrid and networked terror ecosystems.

    What is the doctrinal architecture of PRAHAAR: Pillar-wise Breakdown

    1. P-Prevention of Terror Attacks; Focus: Intelligence-led, proactive neutralisation. It includes
      1. Intelligence Primacy: Intelligence-guided counter-terror approach; threat neutralisation before execution.
      2. MAC & JTFI Framework: Real-time intelligence aggregation through Multi Agency Centre (MAC) and Joint Task Force on Intelligence under IB.
      3. OGW Disruption: Systematic dismantling of Over Ground Worker logistics and recruitment networks.
      4. Cyber Disruption: Targeting online propaganda, recruitment modules, encrypted communication misuse.
      5. Critical Infrastructure Security: Protection of power, railways, aviation, ports, defence, space, atomic energy sectors.
      6. Border Surveillance: Technological tools deployed across land, air and maritime frontiers.
      7. Core Shift: From reactive policing to preventive security architecture.
    2. R-Responses (Swift & Proportionate); Focus: Layered operational response model. It includes:
      1. Local Police as First Responder: Federal structure respected; decentralised operational response.
      2. State ATS & Special Counter terrorism (CT) Units: Specialised anti-terror forces in vulnerable States.
      3. NSG as National Nodal Force: National Security Guard for major attacks and capacity building.
      4. SOP-Based Coordination: Standard Operating Procedures for apex-level coordination via MHA.
      5. CAPF Deployment: Central Armed Police Forces assisting States in counter-terror operations.
      6. High Conviction Emphasis: NIA-led investigations ensuring deterrence through prosecution.
      7. Core Shift: Structured escalation matrix for response.
    3. A-Aggregating Internal Capacities; Focus: Whole-of-Government synergy. It includes:
      1. Modernisation Mandate: Continuous upgradation of weapons, surveillance tools, training modules.
      2. Standardisation Across States: Uniform anti-terror structures, investigation methodologies.
      3. BPR&D Role: Training and best practice dissemination for State Police & CAPFs.
      4. NSG Urban Combat Training: Specialised combat readiness for metropolitan threats.
      5. Resource Gap Identification: Institutional capacity audit and correction
      6. Core Shift: Elimination of silo-based security functioning.
    4. H-Human Rights & Rule of Law Based Processes; Focus: Constitutional legitimacy. It includes:
      1. Legal Framework Anchoring: The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, as principal law; supported by BNS 2023, BNSS 2023, BSA 2023, PMLA 2002, Arms Act 1959, Explosives Act 1908.
      2. Judicial Oversight: Multi-tier judicial review up to the Supreme Court.
      3. Human Rights Act 1993: Protection against rights violations.
      4. International Commitments: Adherence to Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
      5. Due Process Safeguards: Appeals and legal redressal mechanisms ensured.
      6. Core Shift: Security operations embedded within constitutional democracy.
    5. A-Attenuating Conditions Conducive to Terrorism; Focus: Addressing root drivers. It includes:
      1. Graded De-radicalisation: Calibrated intervention based on degree of radicalisation.
      2. Community Engagement: Involvement of religious leaders, NGOs, moderate preachers.
      3. Prison Monitoring: Preventing indoctrination within correctional facilities.
      4. Youth Engagement: Constructive programs to prevent extremist recruitment.
      5. Socio-Economic Interventions: Addressing poverty, unemployment, housing and education gaps.
      6. Women & Youth Empowerment Schemes: Scholarships and loan support to reduce vulnerability.
      7. Core Shift: Terrorism treated as socio-psychological and developmental challenge, not merely law-and-order issue.
    6. A-Aligning & Shaping International Efforts; Focus: Transnational cooperation. It includes:
      1. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) & Extradition Treaties: Legal cooperation for evidence sharing and fugitive return.
      2. Joint Working Groups (JWG): Bilateral intelligence engagement platforms.
      3. UN Designation Support: Pursuit of global terrorist listings.
      4. Agency-to-Agency Cooperation: Intelligence sharing with foreign counterparts.
      5. Global ICT Misuse Countering: Addressing terrorist exploitation of digital ecosystems.
      6. Core Shift: Counter-terror extended beyond national jurisdiction.
    7. R-Recovery & Resilience (Whole-of-Society Approach); Focus: Post-attack stabilisation. It includes:
      1. Public-Private Partnership: Private sector participation in recovery.
      2. Civil Administration Leadership: Reconstruction and restoration.
      3. Psychological Rehabilitation: Doctors, psychologists, civil society involvement.
      4. Community Reintegration: Social healing and confidence rebuilding.
      5. Preventive Reinforcement: Strengthened security measures post-incident.
      6. Core Shift: From counter-terror to societal resilience model.

    How Does the Policy Restructure India’s Counter-Terror Governance Framework?

    1. National Framework Institutionalisation: Establishes India’s first unified counter-terror doctrine integrating Centre-State coordination.
    2. Ecosystem Approach: Targets not only terrorists but also financiers, handlers, recruiters, and facilitators.
    3. Multi-Domain Coverage: Addresses threats across land, air, water, cyber, and financial systems.
    4. Inter-Agency Coordination: Strengthens operational synergy among intelligence, enforcement, and financial monitoring agencies.
    5. Legal Backing: Aims to criminalise all forms of terrorist support infrastructure.

    How Does the Policy Address Cross-Border and State-Sponsored Terrorism?

    1. Recognition of Proxy Warfare: Identifies state and non-state actors targeting India through terrorism.
    2. Cross-Border Networks: Acknowledges foreign handlers coordinating logistics and recruitment.
    3. Global Jihadist Linkages: Notes influence of outfits such as Al-Qaeda and IS in inciting lone-wolf or cell-based violence.
    4. Punjab & J&K Linkages: Recognises drone-based smuggling of arms and narcotics across borders.
    5. Transnational Cooperation: Emphasises international collaboration to counter financing and safe havens.

    How Does the Policy Respond to Emerging Technological Threats?

    1. Drone Regulation: Identifies misuse of drones for smuggling arms and reconnaissance.
    2. Encrypted Platforms: Flags encrypted messaging apps as tools for coordination.
    3. Cryptocurrency Monitoring: Recognises dark web and crypto wallets as terror-financing channels.
    4. Cyber Radicalisation: Targets online propaganda and recruitment networks.
    5. Digital Forensics: Strengthens use of technical intelligence in disruption operations.

    How Does the Policy Strengthen Preventive and Pre-Emptive Mechanisms?

    1. Pre-Emptive Intelligence: Enhances predictive threat assessment models.
    2. Community Engagement: Involves civil society and religious leaders to counter radicalisation.
    3. Youth De-Radicalisation: Focuses on preventing extremist recruitment among youth.
    4. Capacity Building: Improves training of state police forces in counter-terror techniques.
    5. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high-yield Explosives (CBRNE) Preparedness: Recognises risks of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive materials.

    How Does the Policy Reinforce Institutional Accountability and Federal Balance?

    1. Central-State Synergy: Promotes coordinated response while respecting federal structure.
    2. Role of NIA: Strengthens investigative mandate of the National Investigation Agency in major terror cases.
    3. Legal Standardisation: Ensures uniform procedures across states.
    4. Process Standardisation: Encourages similar and synergistic response frameworks.
    5. Parliamentary Oversight Potential: Opens scope for legislative scrutiny of implementation effectiveness.

    What Are the Regulatory and Legal Implications of the Policy?

    1. Criminalisation Framework: Broadens scope to include logistical and financial support.
    2. Financial Disruption: Targets funding channels through financial intelligence units.
    3. Safe Haven Denial: Focuses on dismantling recruitment and shelter networks.
    4. Surveillance Expansion: Raises concerns on balancing security with privacy rights under Article 21.
    5. Counter-Terror Cell Coordination: Enhances role of specialised Counter Terrorism Cells.

    Conclusion

    The National Counter Terrorism Policy marks a transition from fragmented counter-terror responses to a structured, ecosystem-based security doctrine. Its effectiveness will depend on inter-agency coordination, federal cooperation, technological capability, and safeguards against misuse. Institutional balance between national security and civil liberties remains central to sustainable implementation.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Give out the major sources of terror funding in India and the efforts being made to curtail these sources. In the light of this, also discuss the aim and objective of the ‘No Money for Terror (NMFT)’ Conference recently held at New Delhi in November 2022.

    Linkage: This question directly maps to GS Paper 3 (Internal Security), particularly terror financing, money laundering, and transnational security cooperation. It links with India’s PRAHAAR doctrine and NMFT initiative, highlighting the financial disruption pillar of counter-terror strategy and global coordination against terror funding networks.