Terrorism and Insurgency — Practice Questions
UPSC-pattern practice questions on terrorism and insurgency with explanations — counter-terror law chronology, AFSPA, the CCIT and North-East peace accords.
Questions
These are original UPSC-pattern practice questions. Attempt each one before revealing the answer.
Arrange the following laws in the chronological order of their enactment:
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- Prevention of Terrorism Act
- National Investigation Agency Act
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Solution
UAPA — 1967; TADA — 1985; POTA — 2002; NIA Act — 2008. Order: 2-1-3-4. The trap: UAPA feels recent because it became the main anti-terror law only after POTA was repealed in 2004 and its terror provisions were moved into UAPA.
Answer: B
Consider the following statements about the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958:
- The Supreme Court upheld its constitutional validity in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1997).
- No prosecution can be instituted against a person acting under the Act without the prior sanction of the Central Government.
- The Act has been withdrawn from the whole of Tripura.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
All three are correct. The 1997 Constitution Bench upheld AFSPA but required periodic review and adherence to do’s and don’ts. Section 6 requires the Centre’s prior sanction for prosecution. Tripura withdrew AFSPA in 2015; Meghalaya followed in 2018.
Answer: D
With reference to the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), consider the following statements:
- It was proposed by India at the United Nations in 1996.
- It has been adopted by the UN General Assembly and has entered into force.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is wrong — the CCIT remains unadopted because member States disagree on a common definition of terrorism and on what to exclude (for example, national liberation struggles and the conduct of State armed forces).
Answer: A
Consider the following pairs:
| Peace accord | Year |
|---|---|
| 1. Mizo Accord | 1986 |
| 2. Framework Agreement with NSCN (IM) | 2015 |
| 3. Third Bodo Accord | 2003 |
| 4. Karbi Anglong Agreement | 2021 |
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?
Solution
Pairs 1, 2 and 4 are correct. Pair 3 is wrong — the 2003 agreement (the second Bodo accord) created the Bodoland Territorial Council; the third Bodo Accord, creating the Bodoland Territorial Region, was signed in January 2020.
Answer: C
Mains
AFSPA has been described both as a necessity for operations in insurgency-hit areas and as an obstacle to accountability. Discuss.
Solution
Introduction: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 gives the armed forces powers to use force, arrest and search in areas declared “disturbed”, with protection from prosecution without the Centre’s sanction.
Body:
- Necessity: the army operates in aid of civil power where State police are overwhelmed; legal cover is needed for operations against armed groups in difficult terrain; the Supreme Court upheld the Act (Naga People’s Movement, 1997).
- Accountability concerns: Section 6 sanction is rarely granted, critics argue; allegations of excesses; the Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005) and 2nd ARC (2007) recommended repeal and folding provisions into UAPA.
- Middle path in law: EEVFAM (2016) — no absolute immunity; periodic review of declarations.
- Practice: withdrawal from Tripura (2015) and Meghalaya (2018); reduced disturbed areas from 2022 as violence fell.
Conclusion: AFSPA should be a calibrated, time-bound tool — reviewed regularly, withdrawn as normalcy returns, and paired with transparent inquiry into allegations.
“Strong counter-terror laws are necessary, but their legitimacy depends on due process.” Critically examine this statement with reference to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Solution
Introduction: UAPA, enacted in 1967 and turned into India’s principal anti-terror law after 2004, was strengthened in 2008 and 2019 in response to cross-border and networked terrorism.
Body:
- Why strong laws are needed: terror is transnational and planned in secret; evidence is digital and cross-border; organisations rename themselves, hence the power to designate individuals (2019); financing needs attachment powers.
- Due-process concerns: Section 43D(5) makes bail very difficult; investigation can run to 180 days; long pre-trial detention; critics point to low conviction rates relative to arrests; broad definition of “terrorist act”.
- Judicial balancing: K.A. Najeeb (2021) — prolonged incarceration can justify bail despite statutory bar; Watali (2019) — limited scrutiny at bail stage; Arup Bhuyan (2023) — membership of a banned organisation can be an offence.
- Safeguards: tribunal confirmation of bans; review committees for designations; Special Courts.
- Way forward: time-bound trials, independent review of sanctions, better forensic and investigative capacity, transparency in data.
Conclusion: Effectiveness and legitimacy are not opposites — speedy, evidence-led prosecutions both deter terror and protect liberty.