At the outset, it must be reiterated that this write-up is not intended to endorse or defend the establishment’s actions, whether through commission or omission. On the contrary, there are legitimate questions that must be answered – why the outreach to the protesters was inordinately delayed, why was the police response not sufficiently proactive in the initial stages, why was the crowd allowed to develop into a critical mass before decisive crowd-control measures were employed and why was the use of pellet guns not transparently acknowledged at the outset. These are serious issues, and the SC constituted committee should establish responsibility and attributability for decisions that may have unnecessarily escalated the situation. However, accountability is not one way street and the actions of the protestors, including causing severe injuries to the police personnel, should also be examined to arrive at a balanced perspective in this volatile and explosive situation.

The police have stated before the SC that the protesters refused to vacate the Jantar Mantar complex and no permission had been granted for the Parliament march. Therefore, the gathering and the attempt to march towards the Parliament were illegal by an unlawful assembly. Despite repeated requests and warnings by the police, protestors breached multiple layers of barricades and refused to comply with lawful directions in their bid to reach the Parliament. Disregarding these significant causative factors, the ongoing public discourse assumes that the protesters were exercising their legitimate democratic right to protest and that the police subsequently violated that right. That narrative becomes imperfect once a protest crosses the line and degrades into violence. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental. The right to attack another human being is not. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita itself recognises the right of private defence of every person. That includes a policewoman. A police person does not surrender his fundamental right to life and bodily integrity merely because she is wearing a uniform. More importantly, the organisers and participants in a protest cannot distance themselves from violence by arguing that “criminal elements” infiltrated an otherwise peaceful demonstration. A large organised demonstration also carries a degree of collective responsibility for maintaining discipline within its ranks and ensuring that participants do not attack police personnel. In fact, the organisers should cooperate with the police to identify and isolate those who attempted to turn a peaceful demonstration into a violent confrontation. If they fail to do so, they cannot expect the entire burden of responsibility to fall upon the police.

Since the recommendations of the SC appointed committee to frame guidelines for graded use of force during disorderly protests will be applicable pan India, it should not narrowly focus on this incident. The case of J&K is particularly instructive. Agitational resistance manifesting in protests, stone throwing incidents and bandhs started in 2008, with the ISI of Pakistan attempting to replicate the tactics seen in Intifada II in Palestine. Engineered mass protests against the SF for alleged human rights violations, withdrawal of the Army and Armed Forces Special Powers Act were common, especially on Fridays. There were also a few incidents of terrorists joining the protestors and firing on the SF. The intent was to provoke the SF to retaliate, resulting in collateral damage to escalate the situation.  The 2010 Kashmir unrest was a series of violent anti-India protests and riots that resulted in the deaths of over 100 civilians, mostly teenagers and young adults. Protests later broadened into anti-India rallies, demands for independence, and clashes over unrelated international events.  The SF heavily used tear gas, batons and live ammunition during the peak of the crisis. Due to intense criticism over lethal casualties from live gunfire, the police and para military forces introduced 12-bore pump-action pellet shotguns in 2010 as an alternative crowd-control method. Therefore, if the pellet guns were used on July 20, this year by the SF as enshrined in their SOP, they followed the matrix of graded use of force. Surprisingly, there was intense pressure on the Army as well to acquire riot control equipment for such situations. It was rightly resisted, highlighting the use of the Army in its secondary role as an instrument of last resort and its doctrine and training based on “fire for effect”.

Moreover, in a rapidly deteriorating violent-crowd situation, an individual officer may have only seconds to decide whether he or his colleagues are in imminent danger. Judging that decision later from a video clip, without visualising what the officer could actually see and reasonably apprehend at that moment, risks producing an inherently distorted assessment. The proportionality and necessity of the response must, therefore, remain central to any investigation. But proportionality must be assessed against the threat actually confronting the officer and not against an ideal peaceful protest. This is where the present debate needs greater balance.

Courts, lawyers and the media have an important role in protecting citizens from state excesses. But protection of civil liberties cannot mean treating law enforcement personnel as people without rights. The police are also citizens. They have families, fears and physical vulnerabilities. The shield and helmet do not make them invulnerable. Indeed, if the state expects police personnel to confront violent crowds, it has an obligation to give them appropriate training, equipment, clear rules of engagement and competent leadership. Conversely, police leadership must ensure that personnel are not placed in situations where poor planning, delayed intervention or inadequate communication make violence more likely. The real lesson from this occurrence should, therefore, not be that police action is essentially suspect or that protesters are inherently innocent. It should be that both sides have rights and responsibilities. The right to protest is indispensable to a free society. So is the right of the person in uniform to return home safely after enforcing the law. The objective should not be to choose between the two. It should be to ensure that both perform their respective mandates without fear or unnecessary castigation.

The post The Forgotten Rights of those in Uniform appeared first on IMR.

The Allocations were as follows:

Rs 31,772.23 crore – Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).

Rs 24,771.28 crore – Border Security Force (BSF).

Rs 13,214.68 crore – Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).

Rs 8,096.89 crore – Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).

Rs 8,329.10 crore – Seema Suraksha Bal (SSB).

Rs 7,052.46 crore – Assam Rifles (AR).

Rs 1,286.54 crore – National Security Guard (NSG)

Total Rs 1.27 lakh crore earmarked for paramilitary forces.

The allocations made to the ministry, headed by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, according to the Budget document, is higher by over Rs 10,000 crore, as in the Budget for 2022-23, it was pegged at Rs 1,85,776.55 crore.

The bulk of the amount allocated to the MHA, Rs 1,27,756.74 crore, has been earmarked for the CAPFs in comparison to Rs 1,19,070.36 crore in 2022-23.

Among the CAPFs, the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), mostly responsible for internal security duties and fighting militancy in Jammu and Kashmir, has been allocated Rs 31,772.23 crore in comparison to Rs 31,495.88 crore given in 2022-23.

The Border Security Force (BSF), which guards India’s border with Pakistan and Bangladesh, besides handling internal security assignments, has been given Rs 24,771.28 crore in comparison to Rs 23,557.51 crore given in the current financial year.

The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), which protects vital installations such as nuclear projects, airports and metro networks, has been given Rs 13,214.68 crore in comparison to Rs 12,293.23 crore allocated in 2022-23.

The Shashastra Seema Bal (SSB), which guards India’s borders with Nepal and Bhutan, has been allocated Rs 8,329.10 crore in comparison to Rs 8,019.78 crore given in 2022-23.

The Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), which guards India’s borders with China, got Rs 8,096.89 crore in comparison to Rs 7,626.38 crore given in the current fiscal.

The Assam Rifles, which is deployed along the India-Myanmar border and for anti-insurgency duties in the North-East, has been allocated Rs 7,052.46 crore in comparison to Rs 6,561.33 crore given in the current financial year.

The National Security Guard (NSG), the elite commando force to tackle any emergency security situation, has been allocated Rs 1,286.54 crore in comparison to Rs 1,183.80 crore given in 2022-23.

Expectations

What the CAPFs expected from the 2023 Union budget was funds for infrastructure development in border areas, better equipment with latest technology for disaster management, training and operations and a robust communication system.

Each year funds for the CAPFs see only a marginal increase, most of which goes into salaries, allowances and other wages, with only a little left over for the development and modernisation of the organisation.

Although a separate fund is also earmarked for modernisation of the forces, focus on infrastructure development and better training and equipment, is often ignored owing to lack of funds.

In the previous budget, in 2022, the Ministry of Home Affairs was allocated Rs 1,85,776.55 crore – a more than 11 per cent increase over the Rs 1,66,547 crore allotted in the previous fiscal year.

Last year, as a new feature, funds were allocated for the modernisation of the CAPF, to equip the forces with modern, state-of-the-art weapons and equipment, according to their operational requirement, keeping in view their deployment pattern in different sectors. Besides, upgraded IT solutions were also to be provided to CAPF. The plan announced a total financial outlay of Rs.1,523 crore between 1 February 2022 and 31 March 2026.

The National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and Delhi Police, both of which also roll up to the Ministry of Home Affairs, also had similar expectations from the budget.

With climate change there has been an increase in episodes of natural disasters, which requires the latest technology relief operations and the next budget should focus on that.

The post MHA Gets Rs 1.96 lakh crore for Police and Paramilitary appeared first on IMR.

In 2013, DARPA announced the advanced One Shot XG program to substantially increase the efficiency of the military snipers. The program revolves around a small, mountable scope system that can either be placed on its spotting scope or on weapon’s barrel. The scope is designed to automatically calculate a number of decisive variables, such as wind conditions, weapon alignment etc., using an internal OS.

Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance

The Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance Program is a project initiated by DARPA, in which they are developing a class of smart and self guided bullets that can change their projected path during the flight to align with the movement of the target or due to any external factors that may drive the bullet off course.

It has an advanced real-time optical guidance systems that lets you track and direct projectiles – bullets to their targets by adjusting for weather, wind, target movement and other factors. In 2016, Russia also revealed that they are already working on a similar “smart bullet” designed to hit targets at a distance of up to 10 km.

Cornershot

This can be the biggest life saver of all in urban combat, where soldiers have to navigate buildings, walls and other obstacles, and if they could shoot their opponents without leaving the cover of a wall, then the risk involved will be greatly reduced. Of course, a bend barrel wouldn’t be such a good idea, so they had to improvise. And the Cornershot is what it led to. A nozzle mounted video camera relays a video feed to a screen on which soldiers can analyze the battleground and take on enemies with no risk of bringing harm to themselves.

Sonic Guns

Sonic and ultrasonic weapons (USW) are weapons of various types that use sound to injure, incapacitate, or kill an opponent. Some sonic weapons are currently in limited use or in research and development by military and police forces. Some of these weapons have been described as sonic bullets, sonic grenades, sonic mines, or sonic cannons. Some make a focused beam of sound or ultrasound; some make an area field of sound.

Extremely high-power sound waves can disrupt or destroy the eardrums of a target and cause severe pain or disorientation. This is usually sufficient to incapacitate a person. Less powerful sound waves can cause humans to experience nausea or discomfort. The use of these frequencies to incapacitate persons has occurred both in anti-citizen special operation and crowd control settings.

Laser Induced Plasma

Effect Weapon

The Pentagon is working on a weapon that uses lasers and plasma to transmit sound files, even human speech, directly to individual people at great distances. The lasers could be beamed down from military planes or other vehicles to issue instructions or disperse crowds of protestors or otherwise disgruntled people in the area. Individuals begin to hear strange, disembodied voices and see bright lights that come seemingly from nowhere, while others duck for cover from phantom machine gun fire or begin to feel a burning sensation.

This specific project, called Non-Lethal Laser Induced Plasma Effects (NL LIPE), aims to have a perfected a beam that can produce audible instructions and commands to an individual or a small group of people within three years and maybe have a practical prototype system ready in five years.

The Pentagon’s central less-than-lethal weapon office, called the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD), is working on it.

Russia’s Filin 5P-42

The Filin 5P-42, a new non-lethal light-based optical interference system designed for military and law enforcement use, is capable of effectively suppressing enemy optical systems including, sniper sights, laser rangefinders, guidance systems and thermal imagers in low light conditions.

By increasing or decreasing the number of emitters in a single system, and combining components with a lower or greater power output, it’s possible to create both strong stations for military and special purpose use and weaker ones for the civilian market, including use by large companies for security or for guarded facilities.

Filin is not so much a weapon as it is a system of protection against weapons. The system interferes with the enemy rifleman or gunner’s ability to aim correctly, to the extent that it may cause some hallucinatory symptoms. While lasers emits a rather powerful beam of light, and can damage both optics and a gunner’s sight, Filin does not blind the adversary.

The post FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES : Accurate Lethal and Novel Non-Lethal Weapons appeared first on IMR.

Union minister for home affairs, Amit Shah said during the debate on the Bill that as per the intent of the original law, Special Protection Group (SPG) focussed on the prime minister’s security, as he was constitutionally the Head of the Government. It looked after the prime minister’s personal security, health, communication and secured the prime minister’s office (PMO) and the prime minister’s residence. It must not be made a status symbol and its mandate must not be diluted in deploying the specialized force for the security of a particular family, without naming the Gandhis. Shah also stressed that the Government was responsible for the security of 130 crore Indian citizens, which included the said family.

The home minister noted that there was a perception that the amendment in SPG Act was brought only for the purpose to remove the SPG security cover for the Gandhi family. Opposed to that, the Gandhi family’s security level was not being removed but was changed from SPG to Z+ with ASL (Advance Security Liaison) and 24X7 ambulance provision. This had been done on the basis of threat perception as per the original version of the law and the family’s security cover was at par with that of the home minister, defence minister, etc.

Taking a dig at the opposition benches, Shah said that the person who would be at the greatest disadvantage because of the amendment in the Act is the current prime minister, who would lose SPG cover five years after he demits office. He also remarked that the SPG security cover of several previous prime ministers had been removed in the past, but there were no protests previously.

The Government, earlier in August, downgraded the security cover of former prime minister Manomhan Singh, from SPG to Z+ of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The security cover of several other very important persons (VIPs), too, was downgraded.

The SPG protectees travel in special bullet proof or armoured cars. Under the SPG Act, the commandos carry ultra-modern assault rifles and the state governments are bound to meet the security cover demands of the SPG. An SPG protectee is entitled to use special choppers or aircraft of the Indian Air Force for transport.

Deciding on Level of Protection

The home ministry takes the decision based on inputs from intelligence agencies, which include the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). They largely give a subjective measure of threat to life or injury to a person from terrorists or any other group, based on information from their sources.

Certain individuals, by dint of their position in government, are automatically entitled to security cover. These include the prime minister and his immediate family. The home minister and officials such as the national security adviser (NSA), too, generally get security cover on the basis of their position.

Since none of the intelligence agencies in India is accountable to any statutory body, barring the internal oversight of the home and external affairs ministries, VIP security is sometimes seen as open to manipulation. A number of protectees, it has been alleged, were under security cover for political reasons and not necessarily due to any real threat.

 The elite ‘Black Cat’ commandos of the National Security Guard (NSG) are deployed to protect VIPs for whom the threat perception is the highest.

Protection Levels

There are largely six types of security covers: X, Y, Y+, Z, Z+ and SPG. While SPG is meant only for the prime minister and his immediate family, other categories can be provided to anyone about whom the Centre or state governments have inputs about facing a threat.

The X category on an average entails just one gunman protecting the individual; Y has one gunman for mobile security and one (plus four on rotation) for static security; Y+ has two policemen on rotation for security and one (plus four on rotation) for residence security; Z has six gunmen for mobile security and two (plus eight) for residence security; Z+ has 10 security personnel for mobile security and two (plus eight) for residence security.

There are various kinds of cover within these levels. These include security of residence, mobile security, office security and inter-state security. Different VIPs are given different kinds of cover depending on threat perception.

Then, different forces may be engaged for residence and mobile security. Many protectees get residence security from state police and mobile security from a Central Armed Police Force (CAPF).

What is the SPG?

The SPG is a force raised specifically for the protection of the prime minister, former prime ministers and their immediate family. The force is currently 3,000 strong and protects only four people – prime minister Narendra Modi, Congress president Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul Gandhi and her daughter Priyanka Gandhi.

The elite force is highly trained in physical efficiency, marksmanship, combat and proximate protection tactics and is assisted by all central and state agencies to ensure foolproof security. SPG special agents assigned to the prime minister security detail wear black, Western-style formal business suits, with sunglasses, and carry a two-way encrypted communication earpiece, and concealed handguns. They wear safari suits on occasions.

Then there are special operations commandos who carry ultra-modern assault rifles, and wear dark-visor sunglasses with inbuilt communication earpieces, bulletproof vests, gloves and elbow/knee pads.

History of SPG

The SPG was raised in 1985 in the wake of the killing of prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1984. Earlier, Delhi police (before 1981) and Special Task Force (raised by the IB in 1981) provided residence and proximate security to the prime minister.

Following Indira Gandhi’s killing, a review committee of secretaries recommended formation of a special group under a designated officer and for Special Task Force (STF) to provide immediate security cover both in New Delhi and outside as a short-term measure.

In 1985, the Birbal Nath Committee set up by the home ministry recommended raising a Special Protection Unit (SPU), and 819 posts were created under the Cabinet Secretariat. The SPU was then re-christened SPG and the post of Inspector General of Police (IGP) was re-designated as director.

For three years, SPG functioned under executive orders. In 1988, Parliament passed the SPG Act. Then, the Act did not include former prime ministers. When VP Singh came to power in 1989, his government withdrew SPG protection given to his predecessor Rajiv Gandhi. After Rajiv’s assassination in 1991, Singh faced much criticism and the SPG Act was amended to offer protection to all former prime ministers and their families for at least 10 years.

In 2003, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government again amended the SPG Act to bring the period of automatic protection down from 10 years to “a period of one year from the date on which the former prime minister ceased to hold office” and beyond one year based on the level of threat as decided by the government. During the Vajpayee regime, the SPG cover of former prime ministers such as HD Deve Gowda, IK Gujaral and PV Narasimha Rao was withdrawn.

Who are the National Security Guard?

The NSG was founded as a special commando unit for surgical strikes against organised terrorist attacks within the country. It was envisaged in the wake of high casualties and damage during Operation Blue Star in 1984.

According to NSG’s website, it is a “Federal Contingency World Class Zero Error Force” to deal with terrorism. It says it is a force “specially trained and equipped to deal with specific situations and therefore to be used only in exceptional circumstances to thwart serious acts of terrorism”.

Yet its mandate of the force has been diluted over the years with the burden of VIP security. NSG has two groups of personnel and officers: Special Action Group (SAG) and Special Ranger Group (SRG). SAG is drawn from the Army and focuses on counter-terror training and action; SRG is used for VIP security.

NSG personnel have always been in high demand among politicians. The force has often argued that Black Cat commandos, as NSG personnel are popularly known on account of their combat dress, has become a status symbol and the government must take it off VIP security duties. That has not happened. NSG is not a protection unit; its core ability is in handling terror, hijacking, etc.

=====================

Prime minister Narendra Modi at Rajpath on the occasion of the 69th Republic Day Parade.

The men who protect the PM. While those in suits form the inner ring of PM’s security set up, the others come out during Republic Day and I-Day for outer security cover

================

CRPF Gets Gadgets Used by SPG

Although Special Protection Group (SPG) cover has been withdrawn from the three members of the Gandhi family – Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra – none of the vehicles, equipment and gadgets previously being used by the SPG have been withdrawn. Now, it is the CRPF that is using them to provide Z+ security to these three VVIPs.

However the official transfer of vehicles, equipment and gadgets from NSG to CRPF would take some time, the Gandhi family will continue to commute in the designated Range Rover SUVs which they had used under SPG protection.

In a smooth transition from the SPG to the CRPF, the latter has been providing security to Gandhis and two others as per Z+ security norms. The other two protectees who had SPG cover in the past are former prime minister Manmohan Singh and his wife Gursharan Kaur. Manmohan and his wife’s SPG cover was withdrawn prior to Gandhis.

While an SPG protectee is guarded by nearly 100 SPG commandos, the one with Z+ cover is guarded by a team of 55, which includes at least 10 National Security Guard (NSG) commandos. The CRPF deploys its strength (number of personnel) as per the location where the Z+ protectee has been visiting. Also, the team providing Z+ security cover to Gandhi family members have NSG commandos in it who have earlier served at NSG.

The post Homeland Security : How VIPs Are Protected appeared first on IMR.