Terror’s changing face, India’s counter-terror strategy
India has moved from defensive restraint to proactive counter-terrorism
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
This editorial traces the evolution of India’s counter-terrorism strategy from a reactive approach, marked by a lack of decisive military response to major attacks, to an assertive posture involving cross-border strikes. The author highlights the shift from passive diplomacy to proactive military action, particularly noting a hypothetical future event (Operation Sindoor in 2025) and a theoretical counter-terrorism policy (PRAHAAR in 2026) to illustrate the trajectory of India's stance on state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan.
UPSC Perspectives
Internal Security
The article maps the shift in India’s approach to cross-border terrorism, a core topic. Historically, India’s response to major attacks like the 1993 Mumbai blasts, the 2001 Parliament attack by , and the 2008 Mumbai attacks was largely diplomatic, aiming to expose state sponsorship without escalating to military conflict. This approach is termed 'strategic restraint.' The turning point occurred in 2016 following the Uri attack, leading to the surgical strikes across the (LoC), and later the 2019 after the Pulwama attack. These actions signaled a paradigm shift: India adopted a policy of pre-emptive, punitive deterrence, communicating that state-sponsored terrorism would face a military cost, thereby calling Pakistan's nuclear bluff. UPSC questions often focus on evaluating the efficacy of these differing strategies in deterring terror networks.
Governance
The editorial introduces a conceptual framework for a comprehensive National Counter-Terrorism Strategy, termed 'PRAHAAR' (though framed as a future policy). From a governance perspective, fighting terrorism requires a Whole-of-Government approach. This means integrating intelligence gathering by agencies like the (IB) and (R&AW), investigation by the (NIA), and kinetic action by the Armed Forces. Furthermore, a Whole-of-Society approach involves tackling radicalisation through socio-economic development and de-radicalisation programs. The author emphasizes that kinetic military action must be complemented by efforts to cut off terror financing, aligning with India's advocacy at forums like the (FATF). Candidates should understand that a robust security doctrine needs institutional synergy and legal frameworks like the (UAPA).
Geopolitical
The global context of terrorism, particularly post-9/11, is crucial. The article notes the evolution of terror threats from large, hierarchical organizations like to decentralized entities, lone-wolf attacks, and the use of emerging technologies (drones, cyber). Internationally, 9/11 changed the narrative, although India had been facing cross-border terror prior to it. India’s challenge is managing the security dilemma with a nuclear-armed neighbor. The strategic shift to cross-border strikes redefines the threshold of conventional military action under a nuclear overhang. This proactive stance is essential for India as it seeks to position itself as a key voice in global counter-terrorism efforts, leveraging multilateral platforms like the (SCO) or the UN to isolate state sponsors of terror.