The Indian military occupies a border village believed to be harbouring insurgents and asked the residents to vacate their houses in a night operation. Which one among the following statements is the correct interpretation of this incident ?

examrobotsa's picture

Submitted by examrobotsa on

Q: 118 (CAPF/2011)
The Indian military occupies a border village believed to be harbouring insurgents and asked the residents to vacate their houses in a night operation.
Which one among the following statements is the correct interpretation of this incident ?

question_subject: 

Polity

question_exam: 

CAPF

stats: 

0,46,47,15,46,25,7

keywords: 

{'human rights violation': [0, 0, 0, 2], 'indian military': [0, 0, 0, 2], 'insurgents': [0, 0, 1, 1], 'military action': [0, 1, 0, 2], 'military operation': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'insurgency': [0, 1, 1, 2], 'basic fundamental rights': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'indian constitution': [102, 1, 17, 18], 'correct interpretation': [0, 1, 0, 1], 'night operation': [0, 0, 0, 1], 'military': [1, 0, 0, 2], 'citizen': [1, 0, 0, 0], 'warrant': [1, 0, 0, 0], 'india': [8, 1, 7, 13], 'incident': [0, 0, 0, 1]}

Option 1: This option states that asking residents to vacate their houses without a warrant is a human rights violation. However, the answer is incorrect because it does not take into account the circumstances of the situation, such as the presence of insurgents in the village.

Option 2: This option correctly interprets the incident by stating that the military operation does not constitute a human rights violation because it is taking place in an insurgency-infested area. In such areas, the military may need to take necessary action to address the security threat posed by the insurgents.

Option 3: This option argues that the military cannot ask anyone to leave their house based on mere suspicion of supporting insurgents, and therefore, constitutes a human rights violation. Although it acknowledges the importance of fundamental rights, it fails to consider the specific context of an insurgency-infested area.

Option 4: This option states that occupying a village based on mere suspicion of supporting insurgency is a human rights violation. This interpretation is incorrect because it overlooks the security concerns and the need for the military to take proactive measures to neutralize threats.

In summary, option 2 is the correct interpretation as it recognizes the need for military action in an insurgency-infested area and acknowledges that it does not constitute a human rights violation in this specific