Prahaar: India’s First Counter-Terror Policy

For decades, India has lived with the reality of terrorism that include cross-border infiltration, urban attacks, ideological radicalisation, insurgencies, lone-wolf threats, and now digital recruitment networks. In the 2025 Global Terrorism Index (GTI) released in March 2025 by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), India is ranked 14th most impacted country, with a score of 6.41, indicating that terrorism remains a significant national security challenge. 

Yet, despite this long and painful experience, India never had a formally articulated, unified national counter-terrorism doctrine. Responses existed. Laws existed. Agencies existed. But a single strategic framework tying everything together did not. 

With the unveiling of Prahaar, India’s first National Counter-Terrorism Policy and Strategy, the government has attempted to fill that gap. 

The announcement is historic. But history alone does not guarantee wisdom. The real question is, does PRAHAAR signal strategic maturity or does it risk becoming another strong document whose success will depend entirely on how responsibly it is implemented? 

The Core Philosophy: Zero Tolerance, Structured Response 

At its heart, PRAHAAR rests on two foundational principles: zero tolerance for terrorism and a calibrated, proportionate response. These are not new slogans in India’s security vocabulary. What is new is their codification within a comprehensive strategy. 

The policy outlines a “whole-of-government” approach. It recognises that counter-terrorism cannot be handled by one agency or one ministry. Intelligence agencies, state police forces, financial regulators, border management authorities, cyber units and diplomatic channels must operate in coordination. 

The emphasis on prevention stands out. Prahaar places intelligence-led operations at the centre. Strengthening the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC), ensuring seamless information sharing between states and the Centre, and integrating real-time threat assessment mechanisms form the backbone of this approach. 

In principle, this moves India away from reactive security management toward anticipatory governance. In practice, it will demand institutional discipline that India has historically struggled to sustain. 

Disrupting the Ecosystem, Not Just the Attack 

One of Prahaar’s more thoughtful features is its focus on the enabling ecosystem of terrorism. The document recognises that modern terror networks survive not only through physical training camps but through financial flows, digital communication channels, ideological networks and criminal partnerships. 

As per RBI data, banks file lakhs of Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) annually, reflecting the scale at which financial monitoring has become central to counter-terror operations.

Accordingly, the policy places emphasis on: 

• Breaking terror financing networks, including hawala and cryptocurrency channels. 

• Monitoring misuse of emerging technologies such as drones. 

• Countering online radicalisation. 

• Disrupting the nexus between organised crime and terror groups. 

  
  

This is important. In the past, counter-terror responses often concentrated on eliminating individual operatives. PRAHAAR attempts to weaken the structural conditions that sustain these groups. 

However, disrupting financial and digital networks requires sustained technical capability. Without consistent investment in cyber infrastructure and training, these ambitions may remain aspirational. 

Counter-Radicalisation and Resilience 

PRAHAAR also acknowledges the ideological dimension of terrorism. It speaks of reducing radicalisation, promoting community resilience, and addressing narratives that fuel extremist recruitment. 

This is a sensitive but necessary inclusion. Terrorism cannot be defeated solely through armed response. It requires long-term social engagement. 

At the same time, this is an area where implementation must be careful. Counter-radicalisation initiatives can easily become politically contentious if perceived as targeting specific communities. The policy’s success here will depend on transparency, inclusivity and community trust.

Preventive and De-Radicalisation Doctrine: Addressing a New Terror Profile

The evolving counterterror strategy reflects a decisive shift from reactive crackdowns to preventive disruption and calibrated intervention. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies now identify vulnerable youth early and apply a graded police response based on levels of radicalisation. Legal action is proportionate, while multi-stakeholder engagement including community leaders, moderate religious scholars, NGOs, and families seeks to counter extremist narratives. 

Importantly, radical ideological interpretations framed through religion are now explicitly addressed, marking a structural acknowledgement that extremist thought, even when couched in religious language, poses a national security risk.

Prison monitoring, staff sensitisation, and structured de-radicalisation programmes aim to prevent ideological hardening. Simultaneously, poverty, unemployment, housing insecurity, and educational gaps are tackled through scholarships, loan schemes, skill development, and welfare access to reduce exploitative recruitment pathways.

This doctrinal recalibration comes amid the rise of “white-collar terrorism,” as cautioned by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh.

The November 10 Delhi blast accused included PhDs, MBAs, engineers, doctors, and commerce graduates. 

Data indicates 32.74% engineering backgrounds, 32.74% humanities, 9.73% medical, 9.3% commerce, alongside law and media professionals. The profile of the homegrown extremist has evolved, educated, networked, and ideologically driven, demanding a preventive, intellectual, and socio-economic counter-radicalisation response beyond traditional policing.

Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami Sweeps Border Belt: Strategic Implications for India

The recent electoral surge of Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh’s border districts marks a significant geopolitical development for India. Even as the Bangladesh Nationalist Party led nationally, Jamaat secured 68 seats in constituencies contiguous with India, its highest tally in over 25 years. This creates a continuous ideological arc from Satkhira and Kushtia in the southwest through Rangpur in the north, directly facing West Bengal, parts of Assam, and the Siliguri Corridor.

Historically, Jamaat opposed Bangladesh’s independence in 1971 and maintained close alignment with Pakistan’s establishment. Its cadres and affiliates, including Razakars, were implicated in atrocities during the Liberation War. After being barred from contesting between 2013 and 2024 under Sheikh Hasina, the party re-entered electoral politics, rebranding around governance and anti-corruption narratives. Despite fielding a Hindu candidate, the broader mandate in border areas reflects consolidation of hardline Islamist influence.

For India, the concern is not immediate violence but ideological mobilisation and radical ecosystem building in contiguous districts. Intelligence agencies remain alert due to Jamaat’s historical linkages with multiple radical and militant entities. Border security therefore becomes a function not only of fencing and patrols but governance vigilance, intelligence coordination, and political clarity within West Bengal.

Emerging Eastern Security Arc: A Two-Front Ideological Pressure

The consolidation of Jamaat influence along India’s eastern flank must be assessed in a wider regional matrix. With Pakistan-based extremist networks active to India’s west and instability persisting in Afghanistan, an ideological consolidation in Bangladesh’s border belt effectively creates a reinforcing arc of pressure.

This does not imply immediate coordinated militancy, but it signals the risk of ideological synchronisation, cross-border radical narratives, recruitment facilitation, and logistical safe havens. The Siliguri Corridor, often described as India’s strategic chokepoint, gains heightened sensitivity in this context.

Eastern India’s security calculus now requires anticipatory policy rather than reactive measures. Strengthening border governance, monitoring cross-border ideological flows, ensuring communal stability in districts such as Murshidabad and Malda, and reinforcing socio-economic resilience become critical. Stability in West Bengal will depend as much on internal administrative firmness as on developments across the border.

Human Rights and Rule of Law 

The document explicitly commits to constitutional values and human rights compliance. In a democracy, this inclusion is not ornamental ; it is foundational. 

India’s counter-terror legal framework, particularly under UAPA, has faced criticism regarding prolonged detention and low conviction rates. Civil liberties groups have argued that preventive detention powers must be exercised with restraint and oversight. 

India’s counter-terror legal framework, particularly under UAPA, has faced criticism over prolonged detention and low conviction rates. Official data shows that over 10,000 individuals were arrested under UAPA between 2019 and 2023, while conviction rates in cases disposed during recent years have remained in the range of 2–4%, according to NCRB data. Although UAPA trials often span several years — meaning arrests and convictions do not directly correspond — critics argue that the combination of high arrest numbers and slow case disposal raises concerns about due process and extended pre-trial detention.

By foregrounding rule of law, PRAHAAR attempts to reassure that counter-terrorism will remain within constitutional bounds. Yet the credibility of this assurance depends on implementation. Judicial review mechanisms, oversight structures and periodic evaluation will be essential to ensure that expanded security capabilities do not compromise civil liberties. In a democracy, legitimacy strengthens security; it does not weaken it. 

The Neighbourhood Factor

Prahaar cannot be understood without reference to India’s volatile neighbourhood. 

India’s security challenges are deeply shaped by cross-border terrorism and state-sponsored proxies. The document’s language reflects this reality. It underscores India’s resolve to respond decisively to external sponsorship of terrorism. 

However, the regional context is complex. With Pakistan, accusations of cross-border support for militant groups have defined bilateral relations for decades. A formalised doctrine like this signals institutional clarity and deterrence. It conveys that responses will not be improvised but grounded in a strategic framework. 

China adds another dimension. While terrorism is not the primary axis of India–China tension, border instability and geopolitical competition complicate regional security dynamics. Any escalation triggered by terror incidents along sensitive borders could intersect with broader strategic rivalry.  Afghanistan’s instability and the presence of extremist groups in the region also remain a concern. The return of militant safe havens, whether direct or indirect, affects India’s security calculations. 

In this environment, PRAHAAR serves not only as a domestic policy but as a strategic message. It communicates

preparedness. Yet it must operate in tandem with diplomatic channels. Military firmness without diplomatic engagement risks narrowing strategic options. 

Federal Realities 

Another consequence lies within India’s own structure. 

Law and order remains a State subject. Effective counter-terror coordination requires trust between the Centre and States. Past attempts at centralised security bodies have faced pushback from States wary of overreach. 

Prahaar emphasises coordination rather than command. If implemented through consultation and institutional partnership, it can strengthen cooperative federalism. If implemented heavy-handedly, it may revive political friction. 

In counter-terrorism, efficiency depends on collaboration. Intelligence that does not flow across jurisdictions becomes useless. 

The Geopolitical Dimension: Beyond Internal Security 

Prahaar is not merely a domestic security blueprint. It carries an unmistakable geopolitical message. 

The document explicitly refers to state-sponsored terrorism and cross-border support structures. This is significant. For decades, India’s security discourse has alleged that terror networks operating against it have enjoyed safe havens beyond its borders. By formalising this concern within a national doctrine, Prahaar elevates it from political rhetoric to institutional policy. 

This does two things. 

First, it signals deterrence. 

Official data illustrates this volatility. According to figures presented in Parliament, infiltration attempts along the Line of Control stood at 143 in 2018 and 141 in 2019, before dropping sharply to 51 in 2020 and 34 in 2021 following the reaffirmation of the ceasefire agreement. While attempts declined further to 14 in 2022, they rose again to 28 in 2023, underscoring that cross-border networks have not disappeared but merely fluctuated. This persistence explains why Prahaar embeds deterrence within a structured strategic framework.

A codified doctrine implies predictability. It tells adversaries that responses will not be improvised or symbolic but structured and calibrated. In strategic terms, predictability strengthens deterrence because it reduces ambiguity about consequences. 

Second, it internationalises India’s position.

Pakistan’s placement on the FATF grey list between 2018 and 2022 highlighted international concerns over terror financing frameworks — an issue Prahaar addresses through stronger financial monitoring mechanisms.

Prahaar emphasises cooperation with global partners, multilateral institutions, intelligence-sharing platforms, and financial monitoring bodies such as FATF frameworks. By doing so, India situates its counter-terror fight within a broader international system. It frames terrorism not as a bilateral dispute, but as a global security threat. 

That distinction matters diplomatically. 

Critical Perspectives : What the Critics Are Saying 

While many analysts welcome Prahaar’s strategic coherence, critics raise key concerns that merit careful reflection: 

1. Implementation Challenges in a Federal System 

India’s federal structure disperses law and order powers across states. Analysts warn that a uniform national policy might strain Centre–state coordination, especially if state governments perceive counter-terror priorities as centralising authority ; a debate reminiscent of earlier resistance to proposals like a National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) due to federalism concerns.  

2. Human Rights vs. Enforcement Tension 

Although Prahaar promises adherence to human rights and due process, critics emphasise a worrying backdrop: Indian anti-terror laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) have been criticised for broad definitions and low conviction rates, and have sparked debate about potential misuse. Some argue these legal frameworks risk civil liberties unless checked by robust safeguards.  

This points to a structural tension: can Prahaar reconcile rigorous security enforcement with genuine civil liberties protection? The answer will shape India’s democratic ethos. 

3. Efficacy in the Digital Domain 

The digital battlefield that is social media, crypto, cyber spaces ; is fast evolving. Skeptics question whether law enforcement agencies, often burdened with traditional policing, can truly keep pace with such sophisticated digital threats without dedicated capacity enhancements. Coordination versus capability building is often two different goals in practice. 

4. External Threat Attribution 

The policy’s emphasis on “state-sponsored terrorism” and external actors risks amplifying geopolitical tensions. While India’s security imperatives are legitimate, a heavy emphasis on attribution can complicate diplomatic avenues and negotiations, especially with neighbouring states. Balancing deterrence and diplomacy is critical.  

Conclusion 

India needed a comprehensive counter-terror strategy. Prahaar provides one. It integrates prevention, financial disruption, digital vigilance, community resilience, proportionate response and constitutional commitment into a single framework. 

But doctrines do not guarantee outcomes. 

In a volatile neighbourhood, Prahaar must operate with strategic patience. Domestically, it must preserve federal balance and civil liberties. Institutionally, it must be backed by real investment in intelligence and cyber capability. 

If implemented with discipline and accountability, Prahaar can strengthen India’s long-term security posture. 

If treated merely as a declaration of intent, it risks becoming another policy whose promise exceeds its practice. 

Security in South Asia is rarely simple. Prahaar is an attempt to bring structure to that complexity. Its ultimate value will lie not in its announcement, but in its execution ; at home and in the shadow of uneasy borders.