• Current Status: Two stealth frigates being constructed in Russia for the Indian Navy are nearing delivery after facing delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine conflict, and Western sanctions.
• First Frigate: Named Tushil, it is ready for acceptance and is scheduled for delivery by September 2024.
• Second Frigate: Named Tamal, it is expected to be delivered by February 2025.

Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) Details:

• Agreement Date: October 2016.
• Scope: The agreement involves four stealth frigates.
• Direct Import: Two of these frigates are to be directly imported from Russia.
• Local Manufacturing: The other two frigates are to be manufactured locally by Goa Shipyard Limited (GSL).

Technical Aspects:

• Engines: All four frigates are powered by engines from Zorya-Mashproekt, a Ukrainian company.
• Stealth Capabilities:
• Design: The frigates are designed with advanced stealth technologies, including radar-absorbent materials and angular shapes to reduce radar reflection.
• Purpose: These features aim to minimize the frigates' visibility to enemy radar and other detection systems, enhancing their survivability and effectiveness in combat scenarios.

Significance for the Indian Navy:

• Enhanced Capabilities: The inclusion of stealth frigates bolsters the Indian Navy's capabilities by providing advanced warships that are harder to detect and target.
• Strategic Importance: The frigates' delivery strengthens India-Russia defense ties and contributes to India’s naval modernization efforts.

Challenges Faced:

• COVID-19 Impact: The pandemic led to construction delays and disruptions in the supply chain.
• Ukraine Conflict: The ongoing war in Ukraine has affected the production and delivery schedules.
• Western Sanctions: Sanctions imposed on Russia have further complicated the procurement process, impacting timelines and logistics.

Conclusion:

The addition of these stealth frigates to the Indian Navy’s fleet will enhance its maritime capabilities, particularly in terms of stealth and advanced warfare technologies. Despite the challenges faced during construction, the delivery of these frigates represents a significant step in India's naval expansion and modernization efforts.

Recent Developments

• Successful Flight-Test:
• DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation) recently conducted a successful flight-test of the Phase-II Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) System.
• The test involved the Phase-II Air Defence (AD) Endo-atmospheric missile, which was launched from the Integrated Test Range in Chandipur.
• The missile was launched following the detection of a target missile by weapon system radars positioned on land and sea.

About Phase-II Air Defence Endo-atmospheric Missile

• Indigenous Development:
• This is an indigenously developed 2-stage solid-propellant ground-launched missile system.
• Functionality:
• Designed to neutralize enemy ballistic missile threats within the altitude bracket of endo- (within Earth's atmosphere) to low exo-atmospheric regions.
• Capabilities:
• Demonstrates India’s ability to defend against ballistic missiles with a range of up to 5000 km.

Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) Systems Overview

• Objective:
• BMD systems are designed to protect against aerial attacks such as drones, fighter jets, and ballistic and cruise missiles.
• They achieve this by launching interceptors that aim to destroy incoming missiles upon impact.
• Key Components:
• Detection and Tracking:
• Radar systems and other sensors detect and track incoming missiles.
• Interceptors:
• Missiles launched to intercept and destroy the incoming threats.

Examples of Global Missile Defence Systems

• THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) - USA:
• Designed to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles during their terminal phase.
• Effective against short, medium, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
• Iron Dome - Israel:
• A mobile all-weather air defence system designed to intercept and destroy short-range threats such as rockets and artillery shells.
• Patriot Missile System - USA:
• Primarily designed for air and missile defense, including the interception of tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and aircraft.

Key Features of India's Ballistic Missile Defence Program

• Phased Approach:
• The BMD program is structured in phases, with Phase-I focusing on short-range ballistic missiles and Phase-II extending to medium-range and higher altitude threats.
• Indigenous Capability:
• Emphasis on developing and integrating indigenous technologies to enhance self-reliance in national defense.
• Strategic Importance:
• Enhancing defense capabilities against potential missile threats from neighboring countries, ensuring national security and deterrence.

Cruise Missiles vs. Ballistic Missiles

Cruise Missiles:

• Flight Path:
• Trajectory: Cruise missiles travel within the Earth's atmosphere along a relatively level, straight-line trajectory. They are designed to fly at consistent altitudes and can follow a predefined path, often utilizing waypoints.
• Speed: They typically travel at subsonic or supersonic speeds.
• Guidance Systems:
• Navigation: Cruise missiles use a combination of guidance systems, including GPS, inertial navigation systems (INS), and terrain-following radar. They can be reprogrammed mid-flight for course corrections.
• Accuracy: They are highly accurate, capable of hitting specific targets with precision.
• Range and Payload:
• Range: Cruise missiles can have varying ranges, from a few hundred to over a thousand kilometers, depending on the model.
• Payload: They can carry a variety of warheads, including conventional explosives, nuclear, or chemical payloads.
• Deployment:
• Launch Platforms: They can be launched from a variety of platforms, including ships, submarines, aircraft, and ground-based launchers.

Ballistic Missiles:

• Flight Path:
• Trajectory: Ballistic missiles follow a high-arc trajectory that takes them out of the atmosphere and back in. They are launched into a ballistic trajectory and follow a parabolic path, spending most of their flight time in space.
• Speed: They travel at very high speeds, including supersonic and hypersonic speeds during re-entry.
• Guidance Systems:
• Navigation: They have initial guidance to ensure they are directed toward the general target area but rely less on mid-flight course corrections compared to cruise missiles. Modern ballistic missiles can have advanced guidance systems to improve accuracy during re-entry.
• Accuracy: They can be less accurate than cruise missiles but modern systems have improved precision, especially with the development of Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) and guidance systems.
• Range and Payload:
• Range: Ballistic missiles can have very long ranges, from a few hundred kilometers to over 5,000 kilometers, depending on the type (short-range, medium-range, intermediate-range, or intercontinental).
• Payload: They can carry large payloads, including nuclear warheads, conventional explosives, or chemical weapons.
• Deployment:
• Launch Platforms: Typically launched from ground-based silos, mobile launchers, submarines, or aircraft.

Comparison

• Flight Dynamics:
• Cruise missiles operate within the atmosphere and are designed for precision strikes at specific targets. Ballistic missiles are launched into space and re-enter the atmosphere, following a high-arc trajectory and are typically used for long-range strikes.
• Use Cases:
• Cruise Missiles: Ideal for precision strikes against high-value or well-defended targets. They are often used for tactical strikes where accuracy is critical.
• Ballistic Missiles: Suited for strategic deterrence and large-scale attacks, often with the capability to carry nuclear warheads. They are used for long-range engagements where the goal is to overwhelm defenses.
• Defense Against:
• Cruise Missiles: Can be intercepted by systems designed for low-altitude, high-speed targets, such as the Iron Dome or Patriot missile systems.
• Ballistic Missiles: Typically intercepted by systems designed for high-altitude, high-speed threats, such as THAAD or Aegis BMD.

Evolution of India’s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) Program

Background and Initiation:

• Sanctioned in 2000: India’s BMD program was initiated in response to the growing security threats from neighboring countries, particularly China and Pakistan, and the increasing nuclearization of the subcontinent.

Development Phases:

• Phase-I (2000s):
• Objective: Designed to intercept ballistic missiles with a range of up to 2000 km.
• Components:
• Prithvi Air Defence (PAD): Aimed at intercepting incoming missiles at exo-atmospheric altitudes.
• Ashwin Advanced Air Defence (AAD): Designed for endo-atmospheric interception.
• Swordfish Radar: A long-range tracking radar developed for the BMD system.
• Status: Successfully tested and deployed, providing India with a foundational capability to intercept short to medium-range ballistic missiles.
• Phase-II (2010s onwards):
• Objective: Designed to intercept ballistic missiles with a range of up to 5000 km.
• Components:
• AD-1 Missile: A long-range interceptor capable of both low exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric interception. It can target long-range ballistic missiles as well as aircraft.
• AD-2 Missile: Aimed at intercepting intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a range between 3000-5500 km.
• Recent Developments: The successful flight tests of these systems have demonstrated India's capability to defend against long-range ballistic missile threats.

Significance of the BMD Program:

• Strategic:
• Autonomy: Enhances India's strategic autonomy and reduces reliance on foreign defense systems, crucial for national security in the Indo-Pacific region.
• Regional Influence: A robust BMD system influences regional power dynamics, affecting adversaries' perceptions and strategic calculations.
• Security:
• Nuclear Deterrence: Helps counter nuclear coercion while maintaining India's no-first-use nuclear policy.
• Defense Against Non-State Actors: Provides protection against potential threats from both state and non-state actors in South Asia.
• Technological:
• Advancements: Promotes advancements in radars, tracking systems, and dual-use technologies like telecommunications and aerospace.
• Diplomatic:
• International Relations: Affects India’s relationships with major powers like the US and Russia and plays a role in global non-proliferation efforts.

Challenges and Concerns:

• Arms Race: The development of BMD systems could trigger an arms race, prompting adversaries to develop counter-technologies, thus impacting strategic stability.
• Cost and Resources: High costs associated with research, development, and deployment pose a challenge. Securing adequate funding is critical given the lack of economies of scale.
• Inter-operability and Evolution:
• Integration: Ensuring smooth integration with existing military infrastructure is essential for effective BMD operations.
• Evolving Threats: The BMD system needs to evolve to address the advanced and unpredictable missile capabilities of potential adversaries.

Conclusion:

India’s BMD program, along with projects like ‘Project Kusha’ (aiming to detect and neutralize various aerial threats), represents a significant step in enhancing the country’s defense capabilities. It marks a new phase in India’s defense modernization efforts, contributing to a more robust deterrence posture and improved protection against potential threats.

The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024, aims to address the rising threat of Naxalism in urban areas by empowering the government and law enforcement agencies to combat unlawful activities and organizations linked to Naxal groups.

Current Context:

• Urban Naxals: These are individuals allegedly supporting the Naxalite movement from urban areas, providing various forms of support to insurgents.
• Statistics: From 2018 to mid-2023, there were 3,544 incidents related to Left Wing Extremism (LWE) and 949 deaths.

Legal Framework Related to Naxalism:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2024:
• Section 196: Penalizes acts promoting enmity between groups based on various grounds.
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967:
• Addresses terrorism and unlawful activities, including support and funding for such activities.
• State-Specific Acts:
• Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 2020.
• Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2005.
• Odisha Public Security Acts.
• These states have similar laws to manage LWE-related threats.
• National Policy and Action Plan, 2015:
• A multi-faceted approach involving security, development, and rights of local communities.

Key Provisions of the MSPS Bill, 2024:

• Definition of Unlawful Activities:
• Activities posing a threat to public order, interfering with law and administration, involving violence or vandalism, preaching disobedience to law, or collecting funds for such activities.
• Declaration of Unlawful Organizations:
• The state government can declare an organization as unlawful if it promotes armed rebellion against constitutional mandates.
• Legal Review Process:
• Advisory Board: Within six weeks of declaring an organization unlawful, the government must refer the case to an advisory board comprising three qualified individuals (current/former High Court judges).
• Board's Report: The board must review evidence and submit a report within three months. If the board finds insufficient cause, the government must revoke the unlawful declaration.
• Offences and Punishment:
• Members of Unlawful Organizations: Up to 3 years imprisonment and Rs 3 lakh fine.
• Non-members Aiding Unlawful Organizations: Up to 2 years imprisonment and Rs 2 lakh fine.
• Management/Promotion of Unlawful Organizations: Up to 3 years imprisonment and Rs 3 lakh fine.
• Committing, Abetting, or Planning Unlawful Activities: Up to 7 years imprisonment and Rs 5 lakh fine.
• Cognizable and Non-bailable: All offences under this bill are serious, allowing police to arrest without a warrant and subject to judicial discretion for bail.
• Seizure and Forfeiture:
• Seizure: The District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police can seize properties and assets used by unlawful organizations.
• Forfeiture: The government can forfeit money and assets intended for unlawful activities. A revision petition can be filed with the high court against such actions.

Significance and Implications:

• Enhanced Security Measures:
• Strengthens the legal framework for tackling Naxalism and related activities in urban areas.
• Aims to improve the effectiveness of security operations and legal responses against Naxal-affiliated organizations.
• Legal and Constitutional Considerations:
• Compliance: The bill aligns with existing legal frameworks for combating terrorism and unlawful activities but introduces stricter measures for urban contexts.
• Judicial Oversight: The advisory board provides a check on the state government's power to declare organizations unlawful, ensuring fairness in the process.
• Public and Administrative Impact:
• Public Safety: The bill seeks to enhance public safety by targeting organizations and individuals involved in Naxal-related activities.
• Administrative Burden: Implementation will involve significant coordination among law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.

Comparison of the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967

Scope and Focus:

• UAPA:
• National Scope: UAPA is a national law that addresses terrorism and unlawful activities across India. It deals with various forms of terrorism, including activities that threaten the integrity and sovereignty of the country.
• Broad Coverage: UAPA covers a wide range of terrorist acts and unlawful activities, including those related to Naxalism but also other forms of terrorism and secessionist activities.
• MSPS:
• State-Specific Focus: MSPS specifically targets the issue of 'urban Naxalism' within Maharashtra. It is designed to address activities and organizations within the state that are alleged to support or promote Naxalite insurgencies, particularly in urban areas.
• Narrower Focus: The bill concentrates on combating unlawful activities and organizations associated with urban Naxals, distinguishing it from the broader national focus of UAPA.

Legal Review and Oversight:

• UAPA:
• Tribunal for Verification: Under UAPA, the declaration of an organization as a terrorist organization or the imposition of certain restrictions is subject to verification by a tribunal led by a High Court judge. This provides a judicial check on the state’s actions.
• MSPS:
• Advisory Body: The MSPS Bill establishes an advisory board comprising three qualified individuals, including current or former High Court judges, to review and provide recommendations on the government’s decision to declare an organization as unlawful. This review must occur within six weeks of the declaration, with a report due within three months.
• Government Accountability: If the advisory board finds insufficient cause for the declaration, the government must revoke the notification. This offers a mechanism for oversight and accountability.

Legal Procedures and Enforcement:

• UAPA:
• Standard Legal Procedures: UAPA follows standard legal procedures for arrest, investigation, and prosecution. Arrests typically require warrants, and the accused are informed of the charges against them.
• MSPS:
• Enhanced Powers: The MSPS Bill grants enhanced powers to state police and security agencies, allowing for arrests without warrants and often without immediate disclosure of charges. All offences under MSPS are cognizable and non-bailable, meaning police can arrest without a warrant, and bail is not a right but subject to judicial discretion.
• Combination with MCOCA: In extreme situations involving individuals labeled as ‘urban Naxals’, the Maharashtra government may use the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) alongside UAPA. MCOCA provides additional measures for organized crime, but MSPS aims to streamline enforcement by focusing specifically on urban Naxalism.

Punishments and Offences:

• UAPA:
• Range of Offences: UAPA defines various offences related to terrorism and unlawful activities, with corresponding punishments, including imprisonment and fines. It provides for stringent measures but within the framework of established legal processes.
• MSPS:
• Specific Offences and Penalties: The MSPS Bill defines specific offences related to urban Naxal activities and prescribes punishments, including imprisonment and fines. The bill outlines clear penalties for members of unlawful organizations, contributors, and those involved in planning or committing unlawful activities.

Key Differences Summarized:

• Scope and Focus:
• UAPA has a national scope covering a broad range of terrorism and unlawful activities.
• MSPS is specific to Maharashtra and targets urban Naxalism.
• Legal Review:
• UAPA uses a tribunal led by a High Court judge for verifying declarations.
• MSPS uses an advisory board with high judicial qualifications for review.
• Enforcement Powers:
• UAPA involves standard procedures with required warrants and informed charges.
• MSPS allows arrest without warrants and provides for non-bailable, cognizable offences.
• Combination with Other Laws:
• UAPA may be used alongside other laws like MCOCA.
• MSPS seeks to consolidate powers under one framework specific to urban Naxalism.

The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024, has faced several criticisms based on its scope, definitions, and the powers it grants.

1. Unrequired Legislation

Criticism:

• Redundancy: Critics argue that the MSPS Bill is redundant given the existing legal framework. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which includes provisions for handling terrorist activities, organized crimes, and petty organized crimes, already centralizes and addresses similar issues covered by UAPA and MCOCA.
• Overlap: The BNS consolidates the legal framework for handling terrorism and organized crime, making the MSPS Bill appear unnecessary. This overlap might lead to confusion and inefficiency in law enforcement and judicial processes.

Implication:

• Legal Complexity: Introducing a new law when existing laws already cover the intended areas can lead to legal and administrative complexities. It may also dilute the effectiveness of existing frameworks and create confusion among enforcement agencies.

2. Vague Definition of Unlawful Activities

Criticism:

• Ambiguity: The MSPS Bill's definition of "unlawful activity" is criticized for being overly broad and vague. Terms like "menace to public order, peace, and tranquillity" are not clearly defined, leaving significant room for interpretation.
• Misuse Risk: The ambiguity in definitions can lead to misuse of the law, as authorities may interpret these terms in ways that could suppress legitimate dissent or target individuals unfairly.

Implication:

• Arbitrary Enforcement: Vague definitions increase the risk of arbitrary enforcement, where individuals or groups could be prosecuted based on broad or subjective interpretations of the law.

3. Arbitrary Police Powers

Criticism:

• Excessive Authority: The bill grants police the power to arrest individuals without a warrant and to seize or take possession of any premises associated with unlawful organizations. This power is seen as excessive and prone to abuse.
• Potential for Misuse: The broad powers given to police can lead to situations where individuals are unjustly detained or property is unjustly seized, undermining civil liberties.

Implication:

• Civil Rights Concerns: The potential for misuse of police powers raises significant concerns about civil rights and personal freedoms. Such powers may lead to violations of fundamental rights and erosion of trust in law enforcement agencies.

4. Advisory Board

Criticism:

• Appointment Concerns: The bill allows for the appointment of an advisory board consisting of ex-judges or individuals who qualify to be judges. Critics argue that this provision might allow the government to appoint individuals who are sympathetic to its views.
• Lack of Independence: The possibility of appointing individuals with political or governmental biases could undermine the objectivity and independence of the advisory board.

Implication:

• Bias and Influence: The potential for biased appointments may compromise the fairness and credibility of the advisory board’s reviews, affecting the checks and balances intended to ensure just application of the law.

5. Prosecuting Non-Members

Criticism:

• Overreach: The bill allows for the prosecution of individuals who are not members of an unlawful organization but who may contribute to or support such organizations in various ways. This can include those who are not directly involved but may have provided indirect support.
• Risk of Innocents Being Targeted: This broad approach increases the risk of innocent individuals being prosecuted, potentially leading to wrongful convictions and undue legal consequences for people with no direct involvement in unlawful activities.

Implication:

• Injustice and Miscarriages of Justice: Broadening the scope to include non-members can lead to miscarriages of justice and unfair treatment of individuals who may have minimal or indirect connections to the unlawful activities in question.