Ordinance Approving First Amendment To Agreement W: Fill & Download for Free

Nuclear boostIndia recently cleared the hurdle to join Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This membership will make path for India to achieve high-end technology and also shape its engagement with nuclear proliferation group, which can positively impact India's bid to join elite Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) club.A membership into 48-nation NSG will open wide-array of nuclear possibilities for India. India can get help from global markets to set up nuclear power plants. Apart from giving India the knowledge of state-of-art technology, it can also solve the problem of nation's energy crisis. Under this membership, India can also commercialize the production of nuclear power equipment. This, in turn will boost innovation and high tech manufacturing and can bring India into level-playing field with its dragon neighbour. Most importantly India's access to advanced nuclear technologies, will help it export power generators to other emerging economies.However, China is a major stumbling block to country's NSG dreams. Backing Pakistan's membership bid, China asserts that India is not qualified to join the nuclear group, as the latter has not signed NPT.Waking the Beast: India’s Defense Reforms Under ModiWith all due respect to Parrikar—who has been a breath of fresh air after the paralytic reign of his predecessor, AK “Mr. No” Antony—few in Washington or Delhi would agree. Fortunately, the reforms he and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have shepherded are steering India in the right direction.When Modi assumed office in June 2014 he inherited a sluggish Leviathan of a defense bureaucracy and a military facing large (and widening) capacity gaps. By one estimate, India’s military is “short of some 300 fighter jets, at least a dozen submarines, over 1,000 combat helicopters, seven frigates and perhaps 3,000 artillery guns.”These shortfalls are partly the byproduct of an under-performing and highly bureaucratized defense industrial complex, and partly the result of broader contradictions in India’s defense strategy. Delhi wants to field world-class weapons capabilities as soon as possible but it wants to source those platforms from domestic producers and reduce arms imports. India wants to build a first-class domestic defense industry but has discouraged private-sector participation and foreign direct investment with counterproductive policies and regulations.Building a first-rate defense industrial base is a laborious, multi-generational effort under optimal conditions and India’s experience has been anything but. As India’s Economic Times notes: “a 40-year effort by [Delhi] to develop a battlefield tank has yet to produce anything the army can use.” Its effort to build an indigenous fighter aircraft, the Tejas has by one account produced “One of the single worst fighter projects that has ever been conceived of in the history of aviation. Even as it enters service, the aircraft is obsolete.”To be sure, India has made substantial strides in other areas like cruise and ballistic missile technology, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and drones. Yet even many of India’s success stories are the result of co-production and co-development projects with foreign partners, or include a high proportion of imported hardware.First Step: Admitting You Have a ProblemTo Modi’s credit, he identified the scope of the problem early in his tenure. He used a speech in 2014 to implore India’s state-dominated defense industry to abandon its “anything goes” approach. “The world will not wait for us…we should not say in 2014 that a project conceived in 1992 will take some more time.”Modi has since adopted a dual-track approach to defense sector reform. First, he is attempting to make India’s defense sector more competent, agile, and competitive by streamlining the procurement process, cutting red tape and, crucially, encouraging greater involvement by India’s private sector in an arena long dominated by state-owned enterprises.The Modi government had established three new committees focused reforming India’s defense acquisitions process, including “one charged with reshaping the basic patters of defense spending; another with galvanizing defense procurement by restructuring the ministry’s acquisitions agency; and five sub-committees that evaluate how to [better involve] in the private sector.”The latter may prove the most consequential. Nine state-owned undertakings and 39 state-owned ordinance factories account for 90 percent of India’s domestic defense manufacturing. Atop this hierarchy is the massive Defense Development and Research Organization (DRDO), with its 30,000 personnel and 52 research centers. Dissatisfied with its performance, in 2015 Parrikar ordered the DRDO to cease work on its growing portfolio of construction projects (which generated $735 million in revenue last year), and focus exclusively on building better weapons platforms.Additionally, the Modi government has adopted several initiatives to provide a boost to India’s long-neglected private sector defense industry. This year Delhi invited representatives of 200 private defense firms to an event offering unprecedented access to the Indian military. In another first, the Ministry of Defense (MoD) listed 23 projects—including UAVs, bombs, and tank engines—specifically earmarked for Indian private firms. Notably, the MoD shared details on platform requirements and acquisitions schedules with private industry, “things that were shrouded in secrecy in the past.”Finally, Delhi has unveiled a new “Buy IDDM” (Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured) policy giving private Indian firms “first preference in most purchases” in six new priority defense categories. Under the new policy, “it will be mandatory for 40% of the content to be sourced locally.”Ben Schwartz of the U.S.-India Business Council calls Modi’s efforts to bolster the private-sector “arguably the most significant policy shift” of his administration. And yet, it’s far too early to wave the victory flag. To date, the MoD has yet to sign a deal with any private sector firm worth more than $400 million.Trouble With FDIFor years Indian leaders have articulated a desire to have 70 percent of the country’s defense needs met through the domestic production with only 30 percent deriving from foreign imports. For the past decade, the ratio has been frozen at nearly the exact opposite.Rather than seeking to attract foreign capital and technology through financial incentives, Delhi has instead sought to force the hand of foreign defense firms with a problematic “offset” policy. Any arms sale to India valued at more than $44 million requires the seller to “discharge offsets of at least 30 percent [and as high as 50 percent] of the total value of the contract” in one of several pre-approved categories. In other words, a $10 billion arms sale to India could require a separate $3 billion investment in an Indian arms manufacturer.By raising the cost of selling arms to India, the policy is directly at odds with Delhi’s desire to field cutting-edge defense platforms. This contradiction would be far less problematic if India’s defense sector was thriving and rife with lucrative projects awaiting foreign investors. Sadly, that is not the case today. From April 2000 to March 2016, India attracted a meager $5.12 million in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) equity inflows in the defense sector, which ranked 61 out of 62 Indian industries in attracting FDI.Modi has embraced India’s longstanding obsession with “indigenization” with his high-profile “Make In India” initiative. Yet, he has paired the initiative with efforts to reduce onerous restrictions on defense-related FDI.Since 2008, the MoD has been gradually easing the guidelines on how much of the offset must be finalized at the outset of the initial contract and expanded the list of categories that can count as offset investments. Foreign firms can now direct offsets to “services” like research and development, or maintenance, repair, and overhaul. Foreign defense firms can also now “reopen” offset investment contracts if they find their Indian counterpart is unsuitable, and identify a new offset partner or project.Additionally, in August 2014 Delhi raised the cap on FDI in defense to 49% from 26%. Exceptions for investments of up to 100% will now be granted when access to “modern” technology is involved, a slight amendment to the previous exception for “state-of-the-art” technology. Delhi has also eliminated a provision requiring a single Indian investor to have at least a 51 percent stake in any joint venture.In aggregate, the moves are welcome but insufficient. One year after the revised guidelines foreign firms had submitted just six proposals valued at $15 million and only two seeking a 49 percent stake. In April 2016, Parrikar admitted India had attracted just $167,000 in defense-related FDI over the previous 18 months. Notably, any joint venture with an Indian defense firm still must be headed by an Indian chief executive. Many believe the cap must be raised to 74 percent or 100 percent to make a material impact.Full CircleDelhi can’t be blamed for wanting to field advanced military hardware now, or for seeking a more competent and competitive domestic defense industry while reducing arms imports. But it should recognize the inherent contradiction in giving equal priority to these competing objectives. Additionally, Delhi should continue to think innovatively about how to nurture a private defense industry still in its infancy and how to create positive incentives to capital investment and technology transfer.Modi and Parrikar deserve credit for shaking the Leviathan from its prolonged slumber and setting India on the path to true defense sector reform.India Approves New 'Strategic Partnership' Defense Manufacturing PolicyIndia’s Defense Acquisition Council (DAC), chaired by Defense Minister Arun Jaitley, approved and finalized a new policy that will allow private firms to enter into agreements as “strategic partners” with non-Indian original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for certain types of systems. These would include single-engine fighter jets, helicopters, submarines, and armored vehicles.The policy is expected to support the Indian government’s ‘Make in India’ initiative, something Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has long emphasized. Originally spearheaded by former Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar, the policy had been mooted as early as 2014.Following the DAC’s approval, the policy will need approval from India’s Cabinet Committee on Security. The “strategic partners” under the new policy will be able to compete for fighter and helicopter tenders, but Indian public sector firms will be able to compete for submarine and armored vehicle contracts.At its core, this reform is designed to enable a more dynamic and efficient defense industrial base in India. India’s defense sector has long been maligned for sluggish public sector performers, who are prone to cost overruns and delays.The policy does have perceived shortcomings, however. The new policy will require private sector “strategic partners” to work with non-Indian OEMs in joint ventures, which could lead to unfavorable risk-sharing for Indian firms.On the flipside, the policy is likely to be perceived positively outside of India in a manner similar to the Modi government’s early move in 2014 to open up the defense sector foreign direct investment ceiling to 49 percent.India is the world’s largest importer of defense equipment. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India was the world’s largest importer of weapons between 2012 and 2016, with its imports increasing by 43 percent between that period and 2007 and 2011.New Delhi’s indigenization and short-term security needs have led to competing priorities where defense deals with external OEMs and governments are bogged down in lengthy and complex negotiations over offset clauses, technology transfer agreements, and other vexing issues.While the new “strategic partners” policy won’t solve these issues overnight, it will considerably loosen up the defense industrial space in India, making room for new private sector players.Assessing US-India Defense Relations: The Technological HandshakeWe will now turn our attention to the “technological handshake,” shorthand for the growth in arms sales, technical cooperation, and defense co-production and co-development.Decades of political estrangement deprived the United States and India of any meaningful defense relationship during the latter half of the Cold War. To make up for lost time, just one year after the collapse of the Soviet Union the two held the first edition of their now-popular Malabar joint naval exercise. A modest defense cooperation framework followed in 1995, sandwiched by two more Malabar exercises in 1995 and 1996. Yet this early courtship proved fleeting. Another decade of trust-building would pass before Delhi and Washington began to explore the true potential of a defense partnership.In 2001, President George W. Bush brought to the White House the first contemporary Indophile foreign policy team. Their impulse to seek a strategic rapprochement with India was further reinforced by the 9/11 terror attacks, and they found a willing partner in the Atal Vajpayee-led BJP government in Delhi. The Next Steps For Strategic Partnership (NSSP) signed in 2004 served as the foundation for a groundbreaking 10-year defense partnership reached a year later with Vajpayee’s successor.Unlike the civil nuclear deal signed the same year, the defense pact quickly reaped dividends. By 2008 defense trade exceeded $1 billion, after cumulatively totaling some $300 million in the 55 years prior. Since 2008, the total has swelled to a $15 billion, as India has become the world’s largest importer of arms atop a $50 billion annual defense budget.Practically, India’s initial raft of purchases—including eight P-8I maritime patrol aircraft, six C-130J, and ten C-17 heavy lift aircraft—offered it some of America’s most capable military platforms. Symbolically, the sales marked an important departure from India’s philosophical attachment to Non-Alignment. Yet the initial euphoria was followed by a lull in defense ties.Both sides realized there were still formidable political and bureaucratic obstacles limiting the potential for defense cooperation in both capitals. Washington’s highly legalistic defense and export control regime often proved inhospitable to India, which sought privileged treatment despite lacking the institutional benefits of American defense partners or the perks of membership in the international arms control and non-proliferation architecture. Meanwhile, India’s defense industrial complex, a sluggish Leviathan by any measure, was undermined by the lack of a viable private sector, poor civil-military coordination, a highly-bureaucratized and burdensome regulatory regime, and a zealous anti-corruption campaign arguably as paralyzing as actual corruption.In recent years both sides have witnessed success in diminishing these barriers. The Modi administration’s multi-layered effort to reform India’s defense sector will be the subject of a third article to follow. To date, the prime minister is making his biggest impact outside the purview of institutional reform, through his personal intervention in advancing defense cooperation when and where the Indian bureaucracy has proven resistant.For India the same could be said of Secretary Carter, who has transformed the Pentagon’s “mindset regarding technology transfer to India from a culture of ‘presumptive no’ to one of presumptive ‘yes’.” As Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2011-2013, Carter served as point- man on Indo-U.S. defense ties, overseeing reforms that expedited the Pentagon’s review process for defense exports to India and dropping India’s prominent Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) from an “entities list” that limited technical cooperation. In 2012 Carter was tasked with heading a new Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) designed to surmount the bureaucratic obstacles inhibiting defense trade in both capitals.In 2015, Carter was promoted to Defense Secretary and quickly created an Indian Rapid Reaction Cell (IRRC), the first-ever country-specific “cell” of its kind in the Pentagon. The IRRC carries a staff of six; three are attached to the cell on a long-term basis and three rotate through the office every six months.By 2015, the DTTI had identified four “pathfinder” projects for Indo-U.S. co-development. Two of the four were government-to-government initiatives between the Pentagon and India’s DRDO. They included mobile electric hybrid power sources (MEHPS) developed for the U.S. Marine Corps, and advanced chemical, biological warfare protection gear for the U.S. Army. Contracts for both were signed in August 2015 and have been hailed as a success. In May 2017 they will reach their two-year life cycle and Washington and Delhi will soon determine whether to move forward with co-production.The remaining two pathfinder projects were joint private-sector initiatives. These included a joint venture between India’s Dynamatic Technologies and America’s AeroVironment to co-develop an advanced version of the RQ-11 Raven hand-launched drone. The second focused on “roll-on, roll-off” kits for Lockheed Martin’s C-130J Hercules.The Indian military was apparently unsatisfied with the Raven mini-drones, and has made no secret of its desire to purchase more advanced armed American UAVs like the Reaper and Global Hawk drones. To date, U.S. export control laws prohibited the sale of armed UAVs to India. However, India’s accession to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in June 2016 has opened the door to new opportunities for defense collaboration and arms transfers, including potentially armed drones. (U.S. officials caution that the sale of armed drones will not be quick or easy, and India’s entry into the MTCR is only the first of many hurdles that must be cleared.)In the interim, the two sides have launched a pair of new government-to-government DTTI co-development projects. They include a digital helmet-mounted display and a joint biological tactical detection system. Both were approved during Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s visit to India in April 2016.At a July 2016 meeting of the DTTI, Delhi and Washington agreed to establish five new joint working groups, including Naval Systems; Air Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; Chemical and Biological Protection; and Other Systems. Moving forward, the United States has proposed 11 new ideas for defense cooperation under the DTTI while India has proposed six of its own. For now, both sides prefer those proposals go unnamed, as they quietly explore each platform’s potential at various working group meetings.Outside the DTTI, India and the United States have established two important new initiatives to collaborate on advanced technology. Both the Jet Engine Technology Joint Working Group (JETJWG) and the Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology (JWGACT) were proposed by Delhi and were initially considered by many Washington insiders to be non-starters.Secretary Carter disagreed, and the Jet Engine Technology Joint Working Group (JETJWG) held its first meeting in India in December 2015. Pentagon insiders say the JETJWG has to date been hobbled by India’s insistence on full tech-transfer of advanced jet engines but that Washington has proposed a way forward that is “instructive, informative, and productive.” In fact, Washington recently amended its policy guidelines on military jet engine tech-transfer to put India on par with NATO allies, though even that falls short of full transfer of advanced jet engine tech. Like India’s perennial interest in U.S. nuclear submarine technology, that is likely to remain a non-starter for the foreseeable future.The Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Co-operation (JWGACTC), meanwhile, has witnessed more progress. The JWGACTC is exploring the potential for sharing the technology behind EMALS, a system designed to launch aircraft from naval carriers at a higher rate and with less stress on the aircraft than the legacy steam-catapult systems currently in use. With India’s 57-year-old, Centaur-class carrier Viraat headed for retirement in the coming months, it will soon begin sea-trials for its first indigenously-built aircraft carrier, the Vikrant. (India also operates a 1980s-era Russian-built carrier, the Vikramaditya, commissioned in 2013).The JWGACTC has met twice thus far (a third meeting of the JWGACTC was planned for this summer but was canceled by India last-minute and had to be rescheduled), and during Prime Minister Modi’s June visit to Washington the two sides reached agreement on an Information Exchange Annex to the joint working group that will deal with confidential information. This is significant, as India is the only non-treaty ally of the United States with such an arrangement in place and a privilege shared by only two of America’s closest allies. The two sides are also exploring the possibility of having Washington “test and certify” the flight deck of India’s indigenous carriers, and the United States has offered to lead courses on carrier operations for the Indian Navy at the Defense Acquisition University in New Delhi.Finally, U.S. defense giants Boeing and Lockheed are aggressively pursuing opportunities to establish manufacturing lines in India for their F-16 and F-18 fighter aircraft, both for sale to India and as exports to third parties. In April 2016 Delhi and Washington organized the first “government-facilitated talks on producing an American fighter jet in India” where Boeing and Lockheed executives, accompanied by Pentagon point-man Keith Webster, jointly met with Indian Defense Ministry officials. “We are looking at establishing a complete manufacturing base ecosystem,” says one Lockheed official, with the company “offering India the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft.”Meanwhile Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have partnered with Tata Power to jointly manufacture the world’s most advanced anti-tank guided missile, the 4,000-meter range “fire and forget” Javelin. Representing an “important precedent for future technology transfer to India,” Washington has committed to having 70 percent of the value of the Javelin built in India. That includes “manufacturing smokeless propellant, and assembling the missile seeker—the Holy Grail of missile technology.”In September 2015, Delhi announced terms had been reached on a $3 billion deal five years in the making to purchase 15 Chinook and 22 Apache helicopters (including Longbow fire-control radar), while India continues to express interest in the KC-46 strategic mid-air refueling tanker, as well as armed Predator drones and advanced surveillance drones. In the coming years India will take delivery of six additional C-130J Hercules heavy lift aircraft, four additional P-8I maritime surveillance aircraft, two dozen Harpoon anti-ship missiles, as well as hundreds of Stinger and Hellfire missiles.Tackling the March of the DragonIndia’s expenditure on defense acquisition has remained largely static in real terms in recent years, resulting in constraints on not just the navy but the armed forces in general. The defense outlay for fiscal year 2016/17 was INR 2.49 trillion (USD 36.63 billion), but according to IHS Jane’s 360, this was counterbalanced by rising inflation, and weakening of the Indian rupee against the U.S. dollar over the past two years. Furthermore, the force posture and modernization agendas of the Indian armed forces under the continued broad influence of a “two-front war” construct have left the Indian Navy with a mere 16 percent of the defense budget (excluding defense pensions). This limits the navy’s capacity to address increasing diffusion of the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN)’s capabilities in the region.The commissioning of the INS Kalvari, first of six indigenously-built French Scorpene-class submarines, should be a shot in the arm for the navy’s ageing and dwindling submarine fleet. However, the submarine will be inducted sans its primary weapon: torpedoes. The navy plans to buy Black Shark torpedoes from a subsidiary of Italian defense big wig Finmeccanica. But the company is currently embroiled in a helicopter bribery scam in India that will create further delays in acquisition, leaving the weapons platforms ineffective for the near future. Given how long submarine building takes, the follow-on program for Project-75 I submarines is probably more than a decade away, considering the Ministry of Defence is yet to issue a Request for Proposal.The navy’s most-recently inducted surface combatants destroyers — INS Kolkata, INS Kochi, and ASW corvettes INS Kamorta and INS Kadmatt — lacked Active Electronic Towed Array Sonar (ATAS) systems to detect submarines at the time of commissioning. The Indian Navy is also woefully short of ASW helicopters, which means that ships have taken to sailing without their requisite air complements of late. The purchase of 16 Sikorsky S-70B naval multi-role helicopters (MRH) is stuck in price negotiations. While the navy has made significant progress in acquiring government approval to build a robust warship program, its acquisition of an adequate multi-role ship-borne helicopter has been futile. This significantly reduces the ability of Indian vessels to triangulate and engage underwater targets. However, in recent years, India’s aerial maritime surveillance has received somewhat of a boost with the induction of eight Boeing Poseidon-8I maritime patrol and ASW aircraft, which have been deployed to the strategically important Andaman and Nicobar Islands and more recently, Seychelles. The process of acquiring four more P-8I aircraft is on.In contrast, according to a new Congressional Research Service report, “China since the mid-1990s has acquired 12 Russian-made Kilo-class non-nuclear-powered attack submarines and put into service at least four new classes of indigenously-built submarines.” The same report quotes various defense sources, estimating the PLAN submarine force to grow to between 69 and 78 submarines by 2020. A combination of nuclear-powered (such as Jin class/Type 094) and conventionally-powered (such as Yuan class/Type 039A) submarines will represent formidable capability.Compounding Indian concerns over China’s increasing underwater ambition in the Indian Ocean, Pakistan is believed to be in the process of purchasing eight Type 039A/Type 041 Yuan-class diesel-electric submarines from Beijing. Added to the existing three French Agosta-90B/Khalid and two Agosta-70 submarines of the Pakistan Navy, the Indian Navy faces a significant under water threat in the years to come.Fitting India’s defense needs within a reasonably-sized budget remains a challenge as concerns remain over its fiscal situation. Despite allocating around 54 percent of its budget (INR 394.25 billion/USD 5.93 billion, excluding pensions) to capital expenditure this year, the navy would be woefully short of funding its Long-Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP 2012-27). This is because the assumption was that the allocation for defense would equal three per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the entire plan period, which has not happened.Co-operating with the United States and regional partners in ASW in the Indian Ocean will help the navy bridge its ASW capacity deficit, and also allow for the optimization of its available assets and capabilities. The commitment to sign the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) during U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s visit to India — which grants India access to certain U.S. military bases like Diego Garcia, Djibouti, Bahrain as well as logistical assets in the region— will be central to Indo-U.S. co-operation in ASW. With a bit of imagination, the Indian naval assets can increase their endurance, and range in tracking and deterring PLAN’s submarine forays into the region. Division of labour, by way of forming different areas of responsibility to track and monitor, will help focus India’s limited ASW capacities in strategically-vital regions.While procurement difficulties and funding issues will drive New Delhi’s co-operative sourcing of maritime capabilities, India’s defense preparedness and capability-development efforts will ultimately depend on building an efficient system of defense procurement, indigenous production capability, and acquisition reform, in order to sustain this modernization. Given the centrality of the Indian Ocean to India’s national security and China’s increasing activity and ambition there, New Delhi must recapitalize and optimize its ASW capability in order to shape the region’s security environment.Cyber WarIn 2013 India framed for the first time a cyber-oriented national security policy . The change was in part prompted by media reporting of US NSA hacks to our strategic interests. India has a chance to play a leadership role not only for its sake but for the sake of international order. In cyber terms, 2016 marked a watershed year for India – she was included at the big table in the top UN cyber body (GGE) and the Dutch have handed over the leadership of Global Conference on Cyber Space (GCCS) over to the Indian government. Yet in the eyes of many India remains a “reluctant digital power” and it’s time to step up.We are the world’s second largest digital nation – more than 350 million Indians are online and millions more will be getting connected in the years to come. There is a push towards greater digital dependence– with demonetisation a cashless system is being propagated, with Aadhaar, an entire India Stack is being built and the wider platforms such Digital India and Smart Cities will push things further along.We are keen to capitalise on the enormous economic opportunity, but we need to be prepared for potential cyber onslaughts. Eventually our systems, our people and our devices will all be connected that is when modern war games will start being played. We’ve already received a few unwanted pokes: allegedly, Chinese or otherwise hostile hackers have targeted the offices of the Dalai Lama, our embassies and government departments. In 2013, the DoT blocked the import of Huawei equipment on grounds of potential breach of security.More recently in the beginning of 2017, the newly launched Bharat Interface for Money application (BHIM app) reportedly faced spam threats.India should take certain steps to safeguard itself. Indeed, our country’s approach to this will be pivotal. The recent appointment of a national cyber security coordinator in the PMO is a step in the right direction. That said a lot more will need to be done in the days ahead:While cyber war should be avoided at all costs, India still needs to be prepared for it. Thus preparing for the offensive, and drafting a cyber war manual is essential.A robust ecosystem must be built to secure India from acts of state and non-state actors, including protocol for grievance redressal in international forums.Better capabilities must be built to detect and deflect attacks.The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) must be strengthened and aligned with military and foreign affairs operations.Building a joint task force between the government and key technology players will be crucial.The government’s cyber security policy can be revisited and more importantly implemented in mission mode.Key areas of cyber importance, such as the banking system, India Stack, various government infrastructure, should be identified. –The government should push for the creation of a global charter of digital human rights.A national gold standard should be created, which ensures that Indian hardware and software companies adhere to the highest safety protocols.Changing nature of conflictKlaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, feels technology will radically alter the nature of conflicts. He considers cyber-attacks “one of the most serious threats of our time”. If everything from our social media to our mobile phones now have an impact on international security, cyber as an arena of war needs to enter mainstream discussion and the gap between policy and technical experts needs to narrow. The Internet is fast becoming humanity;s lifeline. Therefore the stakes are high and thus ripe ground for conflict.While a ‘Code War’ will likely never replace conventional modes of conflict, it will with time become a relevant part of any state’s arsenal. With increased dependence on digital infrastructures, acts of war on those assets are inevitable – in some cases such actions could also lead to material damage to life and property. Moreover, nation states should be prepared for conventional retaliation to a cyber attack and vice versa. Lastly, cyber, like all security, is a public good and nations will have to determine the level of safety it must provide to its average citizens and small businesses (beyond securing critical infrastructure).There is a real impact for India. The digital revolution presents once in a generation opportunity for our country, but it also leaves us exposed and open to attack. While we climb the inevitable ladder of technological progress one eye must be kept on the potential perils. The government is in the process of building deep digital infrastructure, from payments to ID.

Definitely, the NDA government elected in 2014 , in the initial 2 Years emerged as the worst ever government , always confused in its own policies and eventually stick to old UPA policies by repackaging them into a new format or just a name changer .Let me give the facts.Forget about economics , fiscal deficit and all other sophisticated rubbish vocabs to defend government by Bhakts … ‘Dal’, the most important part of the common mans Thali is now absent from it . Shoot up to 200 per Kg from 65/kg. Acche din.GDP of India is more then 7 …the 4th Fastest growing economy in the world(Though they are saying its the fastest). Ok , no issues but the factors on which the GDP calculation depends have been changed in the year 2014, If those same factors would have been used by UPA then the GDP at that time too would not come down then 7.The luck is with NDA .. as the oil prices started to come down from the day NDA took the control. The 107 $ per barrel oil which costs 75 rs per litre as petrol to consumers , is still at more then 67 Rs when the crude oil prices have dipped upto 30 $ per barrel. Now Bhakt will say that Modi ji is clearing the backlog of Iran , Russia and other bullshits. The reality is that the excise duty has been increased on the oil and all oil companies are getiing the benefit. The government which used to do the cost cutting in UPA rule is not doing the same. so a benefit to the government too. Yes the banks and Air India which have been in loss in the recent years have been supported by that . But again at the same time Adani and other people have been given a large amount of loan from those banks so a risk still prevails for the banks. ( as we have already seen in Malyas case). Summary is ultimately the consumer is not getting the benefit of the low oil prices.Not a single resignation have come from BJP , an arrogance which was not present in the UPA, Whenever there was some scam come across in UPA reign , they purchase the peace by resignation of the concerned minister, but in NDA whether it is Lalitgate, Vyapam , Chikki, Ramans Govt Rice scam , not a single minister has given the resignation. Galti ka ahsaas bhi koi baat hoti he .Jobs are nowhere. Modi promised for 1 crore job so at least 40 % or 20 % should be generated in the beginning 2 Years, but the figure says only 1 lac jobs have been created. And interestingly , Swamy is blaming the policies of Rajan for the same in Rajya Sabha. LOLBoasting about gas subsidy that 1500 crores Rs have been saved. But the actual figure are lower. Just mere 143 crores. Google it , figures are easily available. Still government has spent 1000 Crores Rs for 5 hours Program on its 2 Years completion. Desh badal Raha he!!!Intolerance always arose when Government fails on its ends to create a harmony between different sects. This government is right winged and so cant do that . The incidents of mob lynching are increasing day by day. The jumlas and provoked speeches from ministersNo proper steps have been taken by Government to tackle the suidices of farmers.. They are not getting even the minimum price for thier cutivatited grains. The kissan app will not help here . In maharshtra some krishi cess is burdened on the people but that also is not helping.Worst foreign policies ever with neighbouring countries. They called ISI to investigate PathanKot. Why not CBI ? Nepal has ignored India and invited China to lay the railway Lines. The relationships with China are also not better.BJP menifesto become evntually a collection of elections jumlas and nothing more then that whether you take dhara 370 , Ram mandir, black money, Daood , delhi full statehood or any other point .The above are just a tip of iceberg.The U turns of BJP(or NDA) includes the following :a) In this partys reign Dal goes from 70 to 160 ... jo kaam aajatak congress nahi kar payi thib)2007 :We will re-negotiate nuclear deal: BJP2014: Ahead of Modi’s US trip, IAEA pact ratifiedIAEA to get more access to India’s nuclear programme.c) Then : Narendra Modi opposes GSTBJP blocks GST because of Gujarat minister (Amit Shah): PMNow: Modi’s GST U-turn set to make India single market for first timed) Then: 1962 Indo-China war secret report 'blames' Nehru;BJP demands the document be made publicNow: In U-turn, Modi govt rules out release of Henderson Brooks reportJaitley Wanted China War Report Declassified, Changes OpinionJaitley Deletes blog post demanding release of Henderson Brookse) Then: No talks till Dawood and Saeed are handed over, demands BJPNow: Pakistan PM to attend inauguration of India's Narendra Modif)Then: BJP warns against removal of AFSPA - The Times of IndiaNow: After Article 370, BJP does a U-turn on AFSPA in J&Kg) Then: BJP wanted files on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose made publicNow: U-turn: BJP govt won't make Netaji files publicBJP following Congress path in suppressing facts on Netaji. Just made some public to get advantage against Congress in WB electionsh) Then: We'll bring back black money in 150 days: BJP presidentWill bring back black money in 100 days: BJP chief Rajnath SinghNow: Never talked about bringing black money in 100 days: GovtBlack money: Back to square one, list same as last June, says SITBJP falling into black money ditch: SIT report will embarrass ModiBlack money case: Most accounts cleared or closedHave BJP's white lies on black money been nailed?i)Then: Irony: Rape accused PJ Kurien heads for global meet on womenNow: Sexual assault: No question of minister's resignation, BJP saysh) Then: BJP to oppose land boundary agreement with BangladeshNow: PM Modi endorses UPA’s land swap deal with Bangladeshi) Then: BJP attacks Robert Vadra over ‘inappropriate’ behaviourNow: Robert Vadra continue to enjoy security check exemptionsj) Then: BJP looking for clean candidatesBJP wants Chidambaram, Sibal droppedNow: Half of Modi's new ministers face criminal cases, majority crorepatisGovernment’s FCRA tweak plan to benefit BJP, Congressk) Then: BJP against hiking FDI cap to 49 per cent in insurance sectorNow: Determined BJP seeks to table insurance, GST BillsInsurance bill: The reasons behind BJP's puzzling about-turnl) Then: BJP calls for direct transfer of subsidiesNow: Modi's "Free Loans" depends on rapid expansion of cash transfersm )Then: Train fare hike unacceptable, says BJPDMK opposes railway fare hike, BJP wants rollbackNow: BJP defends railway fare hike, puts blame on UPAn) Then: We condemn the decision to deregulate diesel prices, says BJPNow: Govt raises diesel price, puts limit on LPG subsidyBJP allies want diesel subsidy to continueo) Then: BJP to strengthen institutions like CVC, CAGBJP to oppose any government attempt to dilute CAG authorityNow: BJP pulls up Narayanasamy for questioning CAG's mandatep)Then: BJP, Left hit out at interim budgetNow: Jaitley's budget is like Chidambaram's with a saffron lipstickBJP at pains to explain why Budget isn't extension of UPA policiesq) Then: BJP hails PM Modi's Jan Dhan YojanaNow: NDA copying UPA's financial inclusion plan: CongressIt's an UPA scheme: Congress on Jan Dhan Yojna's launch todayr) Then: Congress opposed to being covered by RTI; BJP sees no wrongNow: BJP reverses stand on bringing parties under RTIs) Then: Uma Bharti promises clean Ganga in 3 years - The Times of IndiaNow: Centre’s claim on Ganga remains unfulfilled: ExpertsCleaning Ganga will take 18yrs massive investment, Centre tells SCt)Then: Aadhaar not approved by Parliament, says BJPNilekani's Aadhaar project a political gimmick with no visionNot afraid of Nilekani Aadhaar a national threat: BJP's Ananth‘Will Scrap Aadhaar, Revive National Population Registry’Now: PM Modi sees advantage for BJP government from UID schemeModi govt to give legal backing to Aadhaaru) Then: Ceasefire violations should not be politicized, says PM ModiNow: Where's The Pakistan Tough Talk Now, Modiji?Narendra Modi on TwitterCongress targets PM over his ceasefire violations remarksv) Then: People won't spare congress for fixing LPG cap:BJPLPG cylinder cap will be increased to 24 if BJP voted to powerNow: Eye trained on deficit, FinMin pushes for lowering LPG capRaising LPG cap was UPA mistake, oil minister to tell Modi govtCentre to deregulate diesel prices, reduce LPG capw) Then: BJP slams price hike of non subsidized LPG cylindersLPG cylinder price hiked, cylinder to now cost Rs.921LPG price hike: BJP slams govt, Congress chief Sonia GandhiNow: LPG price hiked by Rs 16.50 per cylinderLPG price hike to affect only 1% of consumers: GovernmentNon-subsidised LPG price hiked by Rs 16.50 per cylinderx) Then: Government's 'pink revolution' destroying cattle, says ModiNow: Modi govt’s biggest U-turn on ‘Pink Revolutiony) Then: Haryana: BJP's manifesto released, promise 24 hrs electricityHaryana polls: BJP promises to develop the state capitalNow: Can't assure 24x7 power in this term: CM - The Times of Indiaz) Then: Land Bill passed; gets majority support from BJPNo ordinance to amend land acquisition law, law min Gowda saysSushma Swaraj's pro-farmer stand on Land Acquisition BillNow: Govt approves ordinance to ease Land Acquisition Act for reformsStringent Land law to be amended without Opposition’s support----- ABCD Ends now starting with 123 :D1) Then: Full statehood for Delhi is top BJP priority | The Asian AgeBJP demands full statehood for Delhi, Congress sees politicsDikshit failed to get full statehood for Delhi: Harsh VardhanBJP releases 'Delhi-specific' manifesto ahead of Lok Sabha pollsNow: Modi may not grant Delhi full statehood2) Then: Modi government plans 660 Centres for women violence victimsNow: Modi govt to build just 36 of the 660 promised rape crisis centres3)Then: Modi sarkar breaks from UPA, to rethink Section 66ASection 66A: Nightmare for citizens who dare to dissentNow: Modi government flip-flop: this time it defends net censorshipInternet needs stricter curbs than print, TV: Centre to SCU-turn as Government Prepares to Defend Controversial IT Rule4) Then: Declaration of assets of the Ministers of the UPA Union CabinetNow: PMO under Modi blocks access to information on ministers’ assets5)Then: BJP accuses UPA Govt. of providing shelter to the corruptGovt protecting 'corrupt' ministers: AdvaniNow: Coal ordinance by BJP gives blanket protection to ministers6) Then: Will Modi's 'swacch bharat' spell acche din for Indian hygiene?Cabinet approves 5-year-long 'Swachh Bharat' missionNow: Modi has just washed his hands off Swacch Bharat in budgetModi's Swachh Bharat Abhiyan is nothing but a UPA scheme7) Then: Congress draws criticism from BJP as Khemka transferred againBJP, IAC demand probe into Ashok Khemka's transferNow: Ashok Khemka transfer: Bharatiya Janata Party justifies actionBJP downplays Khemka’s transferHaryana CM Khattar defends Ashok Khemka's transferAshok Khemka, whistleblower IAS officer, transferred again8) Then: BJP puts repealing of Article 370 in J-K manifestoModi's demand for 'debate on Article 370' sparks political rowNow: Will remove Article 370 when we have numbers in Parliament: BJPWhat explains the BJP’s U-turn on removing Article 370?BJP cannot abrogate Article 370 even with 2/3 majority: Congress9) Then: Congress has neglected defense issues in its tenure: BJPParrikar says some ex-PMs ‘compromised’ India’s deep assetsNow: Mountain Strike Corps size to be cutWhy China-specific mountain strike corps has been downsized?10)Then: Community radio stations now face the heatNow: Govt. goes back on community radio content scrutiny order11) Then: BJP gets into poll mode in Vidarbha, raises separate state demandState BJP ready to back govt resolution for Vidarbha in assemblyNow: First anniversary Shah gift for Vidarbha – no statehood!BJP omits promise of separate Vidarbha from 'vision document'Vid activists say Shah stance amounts to backstabbingNever promised Vidarbha: Amit Shah12) Then: Prime Minister Modi's Europe Trip to Push 'Make In India'PM Modi's 'Make in India' Push to Drive Investments, Create JobsMake in India kicks off with defence dealsRafale the next logical step under 'Make in India': DassaultNow: Modi abandons ‘Make in India’ as he opts for French planes'Make-In-India' Now is 'Make-In-France': Congress on RafaleRafale purchase a setback for ‘Make in India’ pitchCongress asks BJP why HAL was removed from Jet agreement13) Then: Govt not taking Capt. Saurabh Kalia issue with Pak seriously: BJPNow: Modi govt backtracks on Saurabh Kalia issueModi govt shuts doors on Kargil martyr Captain Saurabh Kalia14) Then: India to Britain: Kohinoor diamond belongs to youNow: In U-turn Modi government, promises to to bring back Kohinoor15) Then: India issues visa to Uyghur 'terrorist' Dolkun Isa; China angryNow: India takes U-turn, cancels visa given to Chinese dissidentIndia does a U-turn, cancels visa to Chinese dissident Dolkun Isa16) Then: Hurriyat has no place in talks with Pakistan, says IndiaNSA-level talks off: After war of words, India and Pakistan decide not to talkNow: Major change in ‘Pak policy’? Govt says no problem in Hurriyat talking to IslamabadHurriyat are Indian Citizens, Can Meet Any Foreign Representative, Says Govt17) Way: BJP had proposed 100% FDI in 2002:Back: BJP admits it promised FDI in retail in 2004Then: Nirmala says no to FDI in multi-brand retailBJP not to support more FDI in insurance, pension sectorsNow: Govt departs from BJP to let FDI stay in multi-brand retailModi signals BJP rethink on multi-brand retail FDIBJP may consider higher FDI in insurance, but not in retailBJP not against FDI in pension, insurance, wants to see fine print'Guj will be among the 1st to implement FDI in retail' - OpinionBJP To Welcome FDI In DefenceAnd many more ...

Except as provided in subdivisions (u), (v), and (x), and Section 602.8, every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:(a) Cutting down, destroying, or injuring any kind of wood or timber standing or growing upon the lands of another.(b) Carrying away any kind of wood or timber lying on those lands.(c) Maliciously injuring or severing from the freehold of another anything attached to it, or its produce.(d) Digging, taking, or carrying away from any lot situated within the limits of any incorporated city, without the license of the owner or legal occupant, any earth, soil, or stone.(e) Digging, taking, or carrying away from land in any city or town laid down on the map or plan of the city, or otherwise recognized or established as a street, alley, avenue, or park, without the license of the proper authorities, any earth, soil, or stone.(f) Maliciously tearing down, damaging, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard, or notice placed upon, or affixed to, any property belonging to the state, or to any city, county, city and county, town, or village, or upon any property of any person, by the state or by an automobile association, which sign, signboard, or notice is intended to indicate or designate a road or a highway, or is intended to direct travelers from one point to another, or relates to fires, fire control, or any other matter involving the protection of the property, or putting up, affixing, fastening, printing, or painting upon any property belonging to the state, or to any city, county, town, or village, or dedicated to the public, or upon any property of any person, without license from the owner, any notice, advertisement, or designation of, or any name for any commodity, whether for sale or otherwise, or any picture, sign, or device intended to call attention to it.(g) Entering upon any lands owned by any other person whereon oysters or other shellfish are planted or growing; or injuring, gathering, or carrying away any oysters or other shellfish planted, growing, or on any of those lands, whether covered by water or not, without the license of the owner or legal occupant; or damaging, destroying, or removing, or causing to be removed, damaged, or destroyed, any stakes, marks, fences, or signs intended to designate the boundaries and limits of any of those lands.(h) (1) Entering upon lands or buildings owned by any other person without the license of the owner or legal occupant, where signs forbidding trespass are displayed, and whereon cattle, goats, pigs, sheep, fowl, or any other animal is being raised, bred, fed, or held for the purpose of food for human consumption; or injuring, gathering, or carrying away any animal being housed on any of those lands, without the license of the owner or legal occupant; or damaging, destroying, or removing, or causing to be removed, damaged, or destroyed, any stakes, marks, fences, or signs intended to designate the boundaries and limits of any of those lands.(2) In order for there to be a violation of this subdivision, the trespass signs under paragraph (1) shall be displayed at intervals not less than three per mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the land.(3) This subdivision shall not be construed to preclude prosecution or punishment under any other law, including, but not limited to, grand theft or any provision that provides for a greater penalty or longer term of imprisonment.(i) Willfully opening, tearing down, or otherwise destroying any fence on the enclosed land of another, or opening any gate, bar, or fence of another and willfully leaving it open without the written permission of the owner, or maliciously tearing down, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard, or other notice forbidding shooting on private property.(j) Building fires upon any lands owned by another where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not greater than one mile along the exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands, without first having obtained written permission from the owner of the lands or the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession.(k) Entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession.(l) Entering any lands under cultivation or enclosed by fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or entering upon uncultivated or unenclosed lands where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands without the written permission of the owner of the land, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, and any of the following:(1) Refusing or failing to leave the lands immediately upon being requested by the owner of the land, the owner’s agent, or by the person in lawful possession to leave the lands.(2) Tearing down, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard, or notice forbidding trespass or hunting on the lands.(3) Removing, injuring, unlocking, or tampering with any lock on any gate on or leading into the lands.(4) Discharging any firearm.(m) Entering and occupying real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession.(n) Driving any vehicle, as defined in Section 670 of the Vehicle Code, upon real property belonging to, or lawfully occupied by, another and known not to be open to the general public, without the consent of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession. This subdivision does not apply to any person described in Section 22350 of the Business and Professions Code who is making a lawful service of process, provided that upon exiting the vehicle, the person proceeds immediately to attempt the service of process, and leaves immediately upon completing the service of process or upon the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession.(o) Refusing or failing to leave land, real property, or structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open to the general public, upon being requested to leave by (1) a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, or (2) the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession. The owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession shall make a separate request to the peace officer on each occasion when the peace officer’s assistance in dealing with a trespass is requested. However, a single request for a peace officer’s assistance may be made to cover a limited period of time not to exceed 30 days and identified by specific dates, during which there is a fire hazard or the owner, owner’s agent, or person in lawful possession is absent from the premises or property. In addition, a single request for a peace officer’s assistance may be made for a period not to exceed 12 months when the premises or property is closed to the public and posted as being closed. The requestor shall inform the law enforcement agency to which the request was made when the assistance is no longer desired, before the period not exceeding 12 months expires. The request for assistance shall expire upon transfer of ownership of the property or upon a change in the person in lawful possession. However, this subdivision does not apply to persons engaged in lawful labor union activities which are permitted to be carried out on the property by the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975 (Part 3.5 (commencing with Section 1140) of Division 2 of the Labor Code) or by the federal National Labor Relations Act. For purposes of this section, land, real property, or structures owned or operated by any housing authority for tenants, as defined in Section 34213.5 of the Health and Safety Code, constitutes property not open to the general public; however, this subdivision shall not apply to persons on the premises who are engaging in activities protected by the California or United States Constitution, or to persons who are on the premises at the request of a resident or management and who are not loitering or otherwise suspected of violating or actually violating any law or ordinance.(p) Entering upon any lands declared closed to entry as provided in Section 4256 of the Public Resources Code, if the closed areas have been posted with notices declaring the closure, at intervals not greater than one mile along the exterior boundaries or along roads and trails passing through the lands.(q) Refusing or failing to leave a public building of a public agency during those hours of the day or night when the building is regularly closed to the public upon being requested to do so by a regularly employed guard, watchperson, or custodian of the public agency owning or maintaining the building or property, if the surrounding circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that the person has no apparent lawful business to pursue.(r) Knowingly skiing in an area or on a ski trail that is closed to the public and that has signs posted indicating the closure.(s) Refusing or failing to leave a hotel or motel, where he or she has obtained accommodations and has refused to pay for those accommodations, upon request of the proprietor or manager, and the occupancy is exempt, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1940 of the Civil Code, from Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1940) of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code. For purposes of this subdivision, occupancy at a hotel or motel for a continuous period of 30 days or less shall, in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, or other written evidence of a periodic tenancy of indefinite duration, be exempt from Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1940) of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code.(t) (1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision.(2) This subdivision applies only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property.(3) A single notification or request to the person as set forth above shall be valid and enforceable under this subdivision unless and until rescinded by the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property.(4) Where the person has been convicted of a violent felony, as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, this subdivision applies without time limitation. Where the person has been convicted of any other felony, this subdivision applies for no more than five years from the date of conviction. Where the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, this subdivision applies for no more than two years from the date of conviction. Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision applies for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision does not apply to convictions for any other infraction.(u) (1) Knowingly entering, by an unauthorized person, upon any airport operations area, passenger vessel terminal, or public transit facility if the area has been posted with notices restricting access to authorized personnel only and the postings occur not greater than every 150 feet along the exterior boundary, to the extent, in the case of a passenger vessel terminal, as defined in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3), that the exterior boundary extends shoreside. To the extent that the exterior boundary of a passenger vessel terminal operations area extends waterside, this prohibition applies if notices have been posted in a manner consistent with the requirements for the shoreside exterior boundary, or in any other manner approved by the captain of the port.(2) A person convicted of a violation of paragraph (1) shall be punished as follows:(A) By a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100).(B) By imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, if the person refuses to leave the airport or passenger vessel terminal after being requested to leave by a peace officer or authorized personnel.(C) By imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, for a second or subsequent offense.(3) As used in this subdivision, the following definitions shall control:(A) “Airport operations area” means that part of the airport used by aircraft for landing, taking off, surface maneuvering, loading and unloading, refueling, parking, or maintenance, where aircraft support vehicles and facilities exist, and which is not for public use or public vehicular traffic.(B) “Passenger vessel terminal” means only that portion of a harbor or port facility, as described in Section 105.105(a)(2) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with a secured area that regularly serves scheduled commuter or passenger operations. For the purposes of this section, “passenger vessel terminal” does not include any area designated a public access area pursuant to Section 105.106 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.(C) “Public transit facility” has the same meaning as specified in Section 171.7.(D) “Authorized personnel” means any person who has a valid airport identification card issued by the airport operator or has a valid airline identification card recognized by the airport operator, or any person not in possession of an airport or airline identification card who is being escorted for legitimate purposes by a person with an airport or airline identification card. “Authorized personnel” also means any person who has a valid port identification card issued by the harbor operator, or who has a valid company identification card issued by a commercial maritime enterprise recognized by the harbor operator, or any other person who is being escorted for legitimate purposes by a person with a valid port or qualifying company identification card. “Authorized personnel” also means any person who has a valid public transit employee identification.(E) “Airport” means any facility whose function is to support commercial aviation.(v) (1) Except as permitted by federal law, intentionally avoiding submission to the screening and inspection of one’s person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access when entering or reentering a sterile area of an airport, passenger vessel terminal, as defined in subdivision (u), or public transit facility, as defined in Section 171.7, if the sterile area is posted with a statement providing reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a trespass described in this subdivision, is a violation of this subdivision, punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) for the first offense. A second and subsequent violation is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than one year, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a first violation of this subdivision is responsible for the evacuation of an airport terminal, passenger vessel terminal, or public transit facility and is responsible in any part for delays or cancellations of scheduled flights or departures, it is punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year in a county jail.(w) Refusing or failing to leave a battered women’s shelter at any time after being requested to leave by a managing authority of the shelter.(1) A person who is convicted of violating this subdivision shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year.(2) The court may order a defendant who is convicted of violating this subdivision to make restitution to a battered woman in an amount equal to the relocation expenses of the battered woman and her children if those expenses are incurred as a result of trespass by the defendant at a battered women’s shelter.(x) (1) Knowingly entering or remaining in a neonatal unit, maternity ward, or birthing center located in a hospital or clinic without lawful business to pursue therein, if the area has been posted so as to give reasonable notice restricting access to those with lawful business to pursue therein and the surrounding circumstances would indicate to a reasonable person that he or she has no lawful business to pursue therein. Reasonable notice is that which would give actual notice to a reasonable person, and is posted, at a minimum, at each entrance into the area.(2) A person convicted of a violation of paragraph (1) shall be punished as follows:(A) As an infraction, by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100).(B) By imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, if the person refuses to leave the posted area after being requested to leave by a peace officer or other authorized person.(C) By imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, for a second or subsequent offense.(D) If probation is granted or the execution or imposition of sentencing is suspended for any person convicted under this subdivision, it shall be a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling, as designated by the court, unless the court finds good cause not to impose this requirement. The court shall require the person to pay for this counseling, if ordered, unless good cause not to pay is shown.(y) Except as permitted by federal law, intentionally avoiding submission to the screening and inspection of one’s person and accessible property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access when entering or reentering a courthouse or a city, county, city and county, or state building if entrances to the courthouse or the city, county, city and county, or state building have been posted with a statement providing reasonable notice that prosecution may result from a trespass described in this subdivision.(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 303, Sec. 389. (AB 731) Effective January 1, 2016.)