Internal Security Challenges — Practice Questions
UPSC-pattern practice questions on internal security challenges and Left Wing Extremism, with explanations — FRA, PESA, constitutional lists and key reports.
Questions
These are original UPSC-pattern practice questions. Attempt each one before revealing the answer.
Consider the following statements about the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006:
- The Gram Sabha is the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of forest rights.
- The Act recognises community forest rights in addition to individual rights.
- Other traditional forest dwellers must show residence in forest land for at least three generations (75 years) before 13 December 2005.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
All three statements are correct. The Act makes the Gram Sabha the authority to initiate the process; it recognises individual and community rights (including the right to protect and manage community forest resources); and “other traditional forest dwellers” must show 75 years (three generations) of residence before 13 December 2005. Scheduled Tribes need only show residence before the cut-off date — that difference is a favourite trap.
Answer: D
Consider the following statements:
- Police is a subject in the State List.
- Public order is a subject in the State List.
- Deployment of armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power is a subject in the Concurrent List.
- Article 355 casts a duty on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
Solution
Statements 1, 2 and 4 are correct. Statement 3 is wrong — deployment of Union armed forces in aid of the civil power is Entry 2A of the Union List, inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976). This split explains why the Union supports, funds and coordinates anti-LWE efforts, while States lead policing.
Answer: C
The Expert Group report titled Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas (2008), chaired by D. Bandyopadhyay, was constituted by:
Solution
The Expert Group was set up by the Planning Commission. The Second ARC addressed conflict in its separate 7th Report (Capacity Building for Conflict Resolution, 2008). NITI Aayog replaced the Planning Commission only in 2015, so it is ruled out by date alone.
Answer: B
In the context of internal security, the Supreme Court judgment in Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) is associated with:
Solution
The Court held that arming poorly trained tribal youth as Special Police Officers against Maoists (in the “Salwa Judum” context) violated Articles 14 and 21, and ordered them disarmed. The Niyamgiri decision is a different case (Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF, 2013), and the CPI (Maoist) ban (2009) was an executive notification under UAPA, not a court ruling.
Answer: A
Mains
How can effective implementation of PESA, 1996 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 weaken the support base of Left Wing Extremism? Discuss.
Solution
Introduction: LWE draws recruits from tribal communities that feel dispossessed of land, forest and voice. PESA and the FRA were enacted precisely to restore control over these.
Body:
- Land and displacement: PESA requires Gram Sabha consultation before land acquisition and resettlement — reducing the grievance extremists exploit most.
- Livelihood: ownership of minor forest produce (PESA) and community forest rights (FRA) cut out exploitative middlemen whom extremists claim to fight.
- Voice and legitimacy: an empowered Gram Sabha offers a democratic channel for disputes, undercutting “people’s courts”.
- Example: the Niyamgiri Gram Sabhas (2013) showed that consent-based decisions are possible within the constitutional framework.
- Gaps: delayed State PESA rules, high rejection of FRA claims, weak awareness — each gap hands the argument back to extremists.
Conclusion: These laws are counter-insurgency by legitimacy — when the State delivers rights, extremism loses its narrative.
“Security operations can clear an area, but only development can hold it.” Critically analyse this view in the context of India’s strategy against Left Wing Extremism.
Solution
Introduction: India’s National Policy and Action Plan (2015) combines security, development and the rights of local communities — implicitly accepting that force alone cannot end LWE.
Body:
- Case for the statement: extremism grows in governance vacuums (Bandyopadhyay Expert Group, 2008); roads (RRP-I, RCPLWEA), mobile towers, schools and banking extend the State’s everyday presence; Aspirational Districts focus on lagging indicators.
- Limits of development alone: projects cannot be built where IEDs and extortion block them; contractors and officials will not work without security; extremists target infrastructure precisely because it erodes their hold.
- Risks in the security-first approach: civilian alienation from excesses; courts have set limits (Nandini Sundar, 2011); displacement by the very projects meant to “develop” can create new grievances.
- Synthesis: sequence matters — clear (security), hold (fortified police stations, local police capacity), build (roads, services, rights under PESA and FRA), with accountability throughout. SAMADHAN (2017) itself includes “no access to financing” and intelligence, not just force.
Conclusion: The statement is broadly valid but incomplete: security and development are interdependent. Durable success needs both, delivered through legitimate, rights-respecting governance.