Manipur Bans Radical Content from Bangladesh-Based Terror Outfits
Manipur has banned content from 34 terror outfits based in Bangladesh, citing national security and public order concerns.
Photo by Imtiaz Ahmed Dipto
त्वरित संशोधन
Manipur government banned content from 34 terror outfits
Outfits reportedly based in Bangladesh
Action taken under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
Aims to prevent radicalization and maintain public order
महत्वपूर्ण संख्याएं
दृश्य सामग्री
Manipur's Ban on Bangladesh-Based Terror Content
This map illustrates the geographic context of the Manipur government's ban on radical content, highlighting Manipur's location and its border with Bangladesh, the reported base of the terror outfits. It underscores the cross-border nature of the threat.
Loading interactive map...
परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण
Provisions and amendments of UAPA
Centre-State relations in internal security and law enforcement
Challenges of cross-border terrorism and digital radicalization
Balance between national security and fundamental rights (freedom of speech)
Role of technology in governance and security
विस्तृत सारांश देखें
सारांश
The Manipur government has taken a significant step by banning content from 34 terror outfits reportedly based in Bangladesh. This move comes under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and aims to curb the spread of "radical" and "jihadi" material that could incite violence and disrupt public order.
Essentially, the government is trying to prevent the dissemination of propaganda and recruitment efforts by these groups, especially targeting vulnerable youth. This action highlights the ongoing challenges of cross-border terrorism and the use of digital platforms for radicalization, underscoring the state's efforts to maintain internal security.
पृष्ठभूमि
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, is India's primary anti-terrorism law. It has been amended multiple times, notably in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019, to strengthen its provisions against terrorism and unlawful activities. The 2019 amendment allowed the central government to designate individuals as terrorists, in addition to organizations.
The Act aims to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and for dealing with terrorist activities. The issue of cross-border terrorism, particularly from neighboring countries, has been a persistent challenge for India's internal security, with digital platforms increasingly becoming tools for radicalization and recruitment.
नवीनतम घटनाक्रम
बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967: 1. The Act empowers the Central Government to declare an individual as a terrorist. 2. An 'unlawful activity' under the Act necessarily involves the use of arms or explosives. 3. The Act has extraterritorial jurisdiction, allowing it to apply to Indian citizens or persons on ships/aircraft registered in India, even if the act is committed outside India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.1 and 3 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: B
Statement 1 is correct. The UAPA was amended in 2019 to empower the Central Government to designate individuals as terrorists. Previously, only organizations could be designated. Statement 2 is incorrect. 'Unlawful activity' under UAPA is broadly defined and includes any action intended to disrupt the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India, or which causes disaffection against India, and does not necessarily require the use of arms or explosives. For instance, advocating secession is an unlawful activity. Statement 3 is correct. UAPA has extraterritorial jurisdiction, meaning it applies to Indian citizens outside India, persons in service of the government wherever they may be, and persons on ships/aircraft registered in India, regardless of where the act is committed.
2. In the context of India's internal security framework, which of the following statements correctly describes the division of responsibilities between the Union and State governments regarding counter-terrorism and law and order? 1. 'Public Order' and 'Police' are exclusively State subjects under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 2. The Union Government can issue directions to a State Government for the protection of the State against internal disturbance under Article 355. 3. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has jurisdiction to investigate scheduled offences across states without requiring prior consent from the respective state governments. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1, 2 and 3
- D.1 and 2 only
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: C
Statement 1 is correct. 'Public Order' (Entry 1) and 'Police' (Entry 2) are explicitly listed as State subjects in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule. Statement 2 is correct. Article 355 of the Constitution states that it is the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. This allows the Union to issue directions. Statement 3 is correct. The NIA Act, 2008, grants the NIA concurrent jurisdiction to investigate scheduled offences (including those under UAPA) across the country without requiring prior permission from state governments, which is a key feature designed to enhance its effectiveness in combating terrorism.
3. Which of the following is NOT a commonly recognized challenge in effectively combating digital radicalization and cross-border terrorism in the contemporary era?
- A.The anonymity and encrypted nature of online communication platforms.
- B.The rapid dissemination of propaganda across international borders.
- C.Lack of legal frameworks to prosecute individuals for online radical content.
- D.The difficulty in distinguishing between legitimate dissent and radicalizing material.
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: C
Option C is incorrect. Most countries, including India (through UAPA and IT Act), have legal frameworks to prosecute individuals for online radical content, hate speech, and incitement to violence. The challenge is often in enforcement, jurisdiction, and evidence collection, rather than a complete lack of legal frameworks. Options A, B, and D are all recognized challenges. The anonymity and encryption make identification difficult, rapid dissemination makes content control challenging, and the subjective nature of 'radical' content can blur lines with legitimate free speech.