Security Forces and Agencies — Practice Questions
UPSC-pattern practice questions on security forces and agencies with explanations — CAPF mandates, raising order, agency control and the Chief of Defence Staff.
Questions
These are original UPSC-pattern practice questions. Attempt each one before revealing the answer.
Which one of the following is India’s federal contingency force for counter-terrorism and counter-hijacking operations?
Solution
The National Security Guard (1984; NSG Act, 1986) is the federal contingency force for counter-terrorism and counter-hijacking. The CRPF handles internal security and counter-insurgency; the ITBP guards the China border; the CISF secures industrial and critical installations.
Answer: A
Arrange the following forces in the chronological order of their raising:
- Border Security Force
- Indo-Tibetan Border Police
- Central Industrial Security Force
- National Security Guard
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Solution
ITBP — 1962 (after the war with China); BSF — 1965; CISF — 1969; NSG — 1984. Order: 2-1-3-4.
Answer: C
Consider the following pairs:
| Agency | Functions under |
|---|---|
| 1. Narcotics Control Bureau | Ministry of Home Affairs |
| 2. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence | Department of Revenue |
| 3. National Technical Research Organisation | National Security Adviser |
| 4. Defence Intelligence Agency | Ministry of Defence |
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?
Solution
All four are correct. DRI functions under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in the Department of Revenue; the DIA was set up in 2002 on the GoM’s recommendation.
Answer: D
With reference to the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), consider the following statements:
- The CDS heads the Department of Military Affairs.
- The CDS exercises military command over the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
- The CDS is the Permanent Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is wrong — the CDS does not exercise any military command, including over the three service chiefs. The role is to be the principal military adviser to the Defence Minister on tri-service matters and to promote jointness.
Answer: B
Mains
The frequent deployment of Central Armed Police Forces for law and order duties in States has implications for both federalism and the forces themselves. Discuss.
Solution
Introduction: Public order and police are State subjects, but States routinely seek CAPFs for elections, riots and LWE operations. The Union may deploy them under Article 355 and Union List Entry 2A.
Body:
- Federal implications: States under-invest in their own police when CAPFs are available; deployment without request can cause Centre–State friction; dependence weakens State capacity.
- Implications for the forces: border-guarding forces diverted from primary roles; loss of training time and specialisation; long deployments, stress and morale concerns raised by parliamentary committees.
- Way forward: strengthen State police (modernisation, filling vacancies, Prakash Singh reforms); specialised State units for riots and LWE; time-bound, cost-shared CAPF deployment; keep border forces on borders.
Conclusion: CAPFs should be a reserve, not a substitute, for State police — a cooperative-federal division of labour serves both security and the Constitution.
Intelligence failures are often failures of sharing and assessment rather than of collection. Examine this statement in the Indian context and suggest reforms for the intelligence architecture.
Solution
Introduction: The Kargil Review Committee (1999) and the post-26/11 reviews both found that relevant inputs often existed but were not shared, fused or acted upon in time.
Body:
- Architecture: IB (domestic), R&AW (external), NTRO (technical), DIA (defence), State special branches; coordination through the NSA and NSCS; Multi-Agency Centre under the IB; NATGRID.
- Sharing and assessment gaps: agency silos and turf protection; weak State-level intelligence capacity; inputs too generic to be actionable; limited joint assessment; the dropped NCTC proposal (2012) showing Centre–State distrust.
- Collection challenges also exist: encrypted communications, cross-border sanctuaries, shortage of language and cyber skills.
- Accountability: none of the major agencies has a statutory charter or parliamentary oversight, unlike many democracies — affecting both legitimacy and performance review.
- Reforms: strengthen MAC and State-level fusion centres; NATGRID with privacy safeguards; joint assessment culture; statutory basis and oversight; specialised recruitment (cyber, languages); regular audits of failures.
Conclusion: The statement is largely valid. India’s next step is fusion with accountability — so that intelligence becomes timely, actionable and trusted.