“We need to work together to fight terrorism, terrorists and their ecosystem. And that’s why, we will soon bring a new national counter-terrorism policy and strategy.” Home Minister Amit Shah
One important policy decision which received less traction because of the focus on Assembly elections is about India’s resolve to deal with the menace of terrorism more effectively. In the recently concluded “Anti-Terrorism Conference 2024’ held at New Delhi, Home Minister Amit Shah committed that India will soon come out with a new national counter-terrorism (CT) policy and strategy. While our track record in dealing with terrorism has improved, it is also a fact that our security agencies continue to struggle with the evolving nature of terrorism. The recent hoax threats to airlines, hotels, schools and malls are one example of various shades of terrorism as also the ability of the law of the land to deal with such challenges. As rightly highlighted by the Home Minister, terrorism does not follow geographical boundaries and areas of jurisdiction, as familiar to our policing. The aim of this piece is to recommend key tenets of the proposed counter-terrorism policy and strategy.
Terrorism has afflicted most of the nations in the last fifty years or so but surprisingly there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Your terrorist is my freedom fighter is often quoted as the reason for not accepting any nuanced definition. Even after the spectacular 11 September 2001 attacks by the Islamic extremists al Qaeda, also called 9/11 attacks in the USA, which led to the aggressive US led global war on terrorism. The level of violence has seen many ups and downs but terrorism has flourished in one way or another throughout the world. Each country has largely fought terrorism in stand-alone mode and there has not been much coordination among the nations to come out with a definite plan to tackle terrorism right from the grass roots level. PM Modi has been advocating the idea of an acceptable definition of terrorism in various international forum including the United Nations but unfortunately there has not been much agreement.
The first and foremost requirement is to define Terrorism, from Indian perspective. Indian Army’s Sub Conventional Doctrine, published in 2006 and made available in the public domain has defined “Terrorism is the unlawful use or the threatened use of force or violence against people or property to terrorise, coerce or intimidate governments or societies; this is most often resorted to with the aim of achieving political, religious or ideological objectives.” A universally accepted definition is unlikely to come any time soon but the definition propagated by the Indian Army should meet our immediate and medium-term legal obligations. Indian Army which has the experience of tackling terrorism in some form or another, right from the Pak aided and abetted 1947-48 tribal invasion of Kashmir, which was a classical case of state sponsored terrorism. It continues to tackle terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir and India’s North East till this day and thus Indian Army has to remain embedded in any future CT strategy of India.
Next important step in the policy should be clearly delineate the responsibility and accountability in the fight against terrorism. A large number of agencies have come up both at the Centre and State/UT level and at times, they work at cross purposes and sometimes do not have much synergy among themselves. While CRPF has been designated as the CT Force amongst the para military forces, we still find other para military forces operating in CT domain. The states have come up with their own forces to deal with terrorism and Naxal threat. Indian Army has Rashtriya Rifles (RR) and Assam Rifles (AR) as the designated CT Force. The proposed policy has to offer clear guidelines in a CT grid for a particular state, area or region with clear accountability in case of failure. The strategy can postulate the combination of forces best suited to tackle the menace of terrorism in most effective way. One of the key essentials is seamless communication which still remains a challenge among the various security agencies.
The new CT policy also has to clearly define Human Rights (HR) from the perspective of terrorism. The issue of HR in the fight against terrorism has been the biggest stumbling block for the security forces. CT is essentially a form of grey zone warfare where every thing is not in black and white. Unlike basic HR which is available to a criminal, a terrorist can only be given the shield of HR which justifies strong action against a scourge that affects the whole society. Here the law makers, judiciary and HR activists have to be on the same page. Increasingly, the protection of HR has become difficult in internal security, case in point is the current war of Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah. Even, the US did not pay much heed to HR during their global war on terrorism. Therefore, a nuanced and realistic application of HR is necessary in our fight against terrorism.
The most challenging part of the new policy is going to be Centre-State coordination and synergy. The internal political dynamics of states which lead to dissonance even in the matters of national security has been a major failure of India’s federal structure. Law & Order is a state subject but terrorism which does not follow any boundaries cannot be a purely state subject. The states take any action by central agencies as infringement of their domain and often it leads to friction between the security forces and intelligence agencies. The assurance of the Home Minister that the new policy in no way would reduce the rights of the states is welcome. The proposed model Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and model Special Task Force (STF) appears to be good step to bring common structures and platforms which can be adopted by the states to fight terror more efficiently. Here I would like to suggest deputation of experienced Army officers to the states as part of ATS and STF.
The legal framework to deal with terrorism needs a de novo look. The existing Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) has clear limitations, as experienced during the current phase of hoax threats to the airlines. The aviation minister had to come on record to state that the Centre is working towards framing a law to deal with such menace. Ideally, a single all-encompassing law against terrorism is needed with necessary provisions in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. One good example is Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) which provides legal safeguard to Army personnel while operating in areas afflicted with terrorism. While some HR activists may call the provisions of AFSPA draconian, it is also a fact that the Army has achieved so much in fight against terror with minimum collateral damage. The Centre must bring the modified law to deal with terrorism of all forms in the next year.
The international dimension of terrorism should also be enunciated in the new policy. The strategy on diplomatic engagement, foreign assistance and information sharing should evolve, particularly at a time when India has regained its status as a responsible global player. The CT partnership with a large number of countries including extradition and the standard protocols must evolve soon. We have the example of Khalistan movement being actively supported by the present Canadian government. The Hindus in Bangladesh are a victim of the Jehadi elements under the current dispensation in Bangladesh. The CT strategy has to recommend the necessary action in such scenario. The proactive approach to global terrorism to protect national interest can be documented but can remain in the classified portion of the new policy.
New CT Policy and Strategy is as good as the competence of practitioners of the fight against terrorism. In a country of India size and complexities, we still do not have many specialists on terrorism at the higher rung of leadership in many uniformed forces. The fight against terror requires a large number of young officers who bite the bullet in their formative years of service. The police hierarchy is still stuck in the routine law & order. The higher leadership of the para military forces also does not have much actual ground experience of CT operations. Some states have established CT Training Establishments but have achieved limited success. The focus on intelligence which utilises latest technical trends including AI is still in infancy in most of the states. India as a nation has to quickly put a premium on the human resource training and empowerment of a new generation of young and middle rung cadre who specialise in various shades of terrorism.
The track record of the Modi government against terrorism right from the year 2014 has been consistent and commendable. The recent success in combating the Naxal threat is one good example of eradicating terrorism in the hinterland. So far, India has relied on sheer numbers to defeat the insurgent/terrorist groups. The employment of full state might against terrorism is a good idea but as the recent internal disturbances indicate, the large forces can easily get bogged down with frivolous threats. The answer lies in professional approach with necessary coordination and collaboration till the lowest level. While the Armed Forces will be able to maintain the territorial integrity of the nation, India has to plan and prepare for the more complex forms of terrorism, whether home grown or of the cross-border type. The new CT policy should be discussed and analysed before it is finalised and should remain apolitical discourse, in the larger security interest of India. India has to remain firm in its resolve to eradicate any form of terrorism in its domain.
Comments