This report provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of terrorism trends and counter-terrorism policies in India under two distinct administrations: the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) from 2004 to 2014, and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) from 2014 to the present. The analysis draws upon official data from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and other authoritative sources to assess the efficacy of each government’s approach.
Quantitative data reveals a significant reduction in overall terrorist incidents and associated casualties under the NDA government compared to the UPA era. From 2014 to 2024, India experienced 2,242 terrorist incidents, a 68.9% decrease from the 7,217 incidents recorded between 2004 and 2014. Civilian deaths fell by 68.7%, and security force fatalities by 72.5% during the NDA’s tenure. This decline is particularly pronounced in regions historically affected by terrorism, such as Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and areas impacted by Left Wing Extremism (LWE).
Qualitatively, the NDA government has demonstrated a strategic reorientation from a largely reactive stance to a more proactive and assertive “zero-tolerance” policy. This shift is characterized by strengthened legislative frameworks, enhanced intelligence capabilities leveraging advanced technology, decisive military responses, and a comprehensive focus on dismantling terror financing networks. The integrated “Whole of Government Approach,” particularly evident in counter-LWE efforts, appears to have contributed to more sustainable reductions in violence.
Despite these demonstrable gains, India continues to face persistent and evolving terrorist threats. Challenges include the adaptive nature of terrorist groups, ongoing cross-border support for terrorism, and the inherent tension between robust security measures and the protection of civil liberties. Future considerations necessitate sustained technological advancement, continued international cooperation, and a balanced approach to internal security to consolidate and build upon the progress achieved.
India faces a complex and persistent terrorism threat, a challenge that has significantly shaped its internal security landscape for decades. This multi-faceted threat encompasses various forms, including Islamist terrorism, ultranationalist terrorism, and Left Wing Extremism (LWE). Key active terrorist organizations operating within or impacting India include internationally recognized entities such as ISIS, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Hizbul Mujahideen, al-Qa’ida in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), as well as domestic groups like the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), and Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh.
These groups primarily direct their attacks against civilians, government officials, and security forces, often employing a range of tactics including direct assaults on installations, ambushes, and the use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Historically, the regions most affected by these activities have been Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), the east-central and south-central parts of India (due to Naxalism), and the Seven Sister States in the Northeast.
This report undertakes a comprehensive comparative analysis of India’s terrorism landscape and the counter-terrorism policies adopted by two successive administrations: the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), which governed from 2004 to 2014, and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), in power from 2014 to the present. The analysis will focus on quantitative data regarding incidents and casualties, qualitative assessments of policy frameworks, and the operational responses implemented by each administration.
A rigorous, evidence-based assessment is paramount for understanding the efficacy of counter-terrorism strategies. By meticulously examining statistical trends and policy implementations, this report aims to provide objective insights into whether terrorism has demonstrably reduced under the Modi government, and to what extent policy shifts have contributed to these changes. Such an examination is crucial for informing future national security strategies and ensuring a robust response to evolving threats.
Terrorism Landscape Under the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) (2004-2014)
The decade of UPA governance, from 2004 to 2014, was characterized by a persistent and evolving terrorism challenge across India. The administration grappled with various forms of extremism, necessitating a range of policy and operational responses.
A. Statistical Overview of Incidents and Casualties
During the UPA’s tenure, India experienced a significant number of terrorist incidents and associated fatalities. Across the entire decade (2004-2014), the nation recorded a total of 7,217 terrorist incidents.3 These acts resulted in substantial human cost, with 4,766 civilian lives lost and 1,851 security personnel martyred across all violent incidents during this period.
Regional breakdowns further illuminate the severity of the threat. In Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), a perennial hotspot, the year 2004 alone saw 1,587 terrorist incidents, leading to 733 civilian deaths and 331 security force fatalities. A notable indicator of the volatile security environment in J&K was the widespread phenomenon of stone-pelting; from 2010 to 2014, an average of 2,654 organized stone-pelting incidents occurred annually, contributing to 112 civilian deaths and 6,000 injuries.
Left Wing Extremism (LWE), or Naxalism, represented another formidable internal security challenge. The period from 2004 to 2014 witnessed 16,463 violent incidents attributed to LWE. LWE violence reached its peak in 2010, with 1,936 incidents recorded in that single year. Correspondingly, 2010 also saw the highest number of civilian deaths (630) due to LWE, while security force fatalities peaked in 2009 with 319 deaths. Cumulatively, from 2004 up to March 31, 2025, a total of 8,895 people were killed by LWE.
In the Northeast region, insurgency-related activities also contributed to the overall terrorism landscape. In 2014, the region experienced 824 such incidents, resulting in 212 civilian deaths, 20 security force deaths, and 181 extremist deaths.
B. Key Counter-Terrorism Policies and Legislative Frameworks
The UPA government’s counter-terrorism policy was marked by significant legislative and institutional adjustments, often in response to major security crises. A pivotal early action was the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) in 2004, a law enacted by the preceding NDA government in 2002. This repeal was accompanied by simultaneous amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967, which aimed to re-incorporate many of POTA’s provisions related to terrorist activities and organizations into the existing legal framework. Further amendments to UAPA were introduced in December 2008, following the devastating Mumbai terror attacks (26/11), to broaden its scope and align it more closely with international anti-terrorism financing conventions, including new provisions concerning bail and remand.
A direct institutional response to the intelligence and operational failures exposed by the 26/11 Mumbai attacks was the establishment of the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Created under the NIA Act of 2008 and becoming operational in 2009, the NIA was mandated as the principal counter-terrorism law enforcement agency with concurrent jurisdiction across India, specifically tasked with investigating and prosecuting offenses related to national security and terrorism.
The Multi-Agency Centre (MAC), initially formed in 2001, continued its function under the UPA as a 24/7 nodal body for real-time intelligence collation and sharing among central and state intelligence and security agencies. By 2014, this intelligence network had expanded to include 374 Subsidiary Multi-Agency Centres (SMACs) across India, indicating an effort to decentralize and enhance intelligence coordination.
In the realm of cybersecurity, a dedicated national policy framework was notably absent prior to 2013. The National Cyber Security Policy 2013 was finally unveiled in July 2013, with objectives to protect critical information infrastructure, build national capacity to prevent and respond to cyber threats, and establish mechanisms for effective cyber crisis management.
C. Major Incidents and Policy Responses
The UPA’s tenure was punctuated by several high-profile terrorist attacks that tested the government’s resolve and shaped its policy trajectory. These included the 2004 Dhemaji school bombing in Assam, the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, and the 2008 Assam bombings. The most impactful event was arguably the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks (26/11), which exposed significant vulnerabilities in India’s security apparatus and directly led to the establishment of the NIA. Major LWE incidents during this period included the 2010 Dantewada attack and the 2013 Naxal attack in Darbha Valley.
The UPA government’s approach to national security was often characterized by critics as lacking strategic clarity and taking a “submissive stand” on terrorism, particularly in the aftermath of the 26/11 attacks. In J&K, the government pursued a multi-pronged strategy that combined proactive measures against cross-border terrorism by security forces with efforts to accelerate economic development and engage in dialogue.
For the Northeast, the strategy emphasized accelerated infrastructure development, job creation, good governance, and the initiation of peace dialogues with various militant outfits. Naxalism was addressed through a multi-pronged strategy encompassing political, social, economic, and security fronts, including overtures for peace negotiations.
D. Analysis of Effectiveness and Challenges
While the UPA era saw certain positive developments, such as reported improvements in the security situation in J&K and a decline in violence in the Northeast in its early years, the overall period was marked by continued high levels of terrorist activity. The establishment of the NIA represented a significant institutional reform aimed at strengthening investigative capabilities, a crucial step in modernizing India’s counter-terrorism framework.
However, a major criticism leveled against the UPA was its perceived “soft stand” on terrorism, particularly evident in the aftermath of the 26/11 attacks, a perception that significantly influenced public discourse and confidence. This period also highlighted persistent issues with intelligence failures and a lack of seamless coordination among various agencies, which hampered effective pre-emptive action.
The continued existence of terror infrastructure in neighboring countries and cross-border infiltration remained a significant and unresolved challenge, indicating limitations in India’s external security posture. Furthermore, while legislative changes aimed to strengthen anti-terror laws, concerns arose that the UAPA, particularly after its amendments, was becoming an “omnibus preventive detention law,” raising questions about potential overreach and its impact on civil liberties.
The evolution of the UPA’s counter-terrorism policy, particularly legislative and institutional changes like the repeal of POTA, subsequent UAPA amendments in 2004 and 2008, and the creation of the NIA, largely occurred in direct response to major terror incidents or to address existing legal gaps. This pattern suggests a reactive and incremental development of policy rather than a pre-emptive, comprehensive national strategy. A reactive approach can lead to policy gaps or a lag in response time, potentially allowing terrorist threats to adapt and persist. It also indicates a tendency for significant reforms to be driven by crises rather than being part of a continuous, proactive strategic review process.
The consistent criticism from opposition parties regarding the UPA’s “submissive” or “soft” stance on terrorism underscores that national security became a highly politicized issue during this period. This narrative, irrespective of its complete factual accuracy, significantly shaped public perception and contributed to a sense of national vulnerability. The politicization of counter-terrorism can shift focus from nuanced, long-term strategic planning to rhetoric and perceived strength. This can influence policy choices, potentially prioritizing visible, assertive actions over less conspicuous but equally vital intelligence and systemic reforms, and may ultimately affect public confidence in the government’s ability to ensure security.
Terrorism Landscape Under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) (2014-Present)
Since assuming power in 2014, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has implemented a distinct approach to counter-terrorism, marked by a stated “zero-tolerance” policy and a series of legislative, operational, and technological enhancements.
A. Statistical Overview of Incidents and Casualties
The NDA’s tenure has witnessed a notable decline in terrorism-related metrics across India. From 2014 to 2024, the total number of terrorist incidents significantly dropped to 2,242, representing a substantial decrease from the 7,217 incidents recorded in the preceding decade (2004-2014). This period also saw a 70% reduction in total deaths, an 81% decrease in civilian fatalities, and a 50% reduction in security personnel casualties compared to the 2004-2014 period.
In Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), a region historically plagued by violence, 2024 recorded a dramatic reduction to just 85 terrorist incidents, 26 civilian deaths, and 31 security force deaths A striking indicator of improved ground realities is the reported absence of any organized stone-pelting incidents in 2024, a stark contrast to the annual average of 2,654 such incidents from 2010-2014. In 2023, J&K experienced 94 terrorism-related incidents, resulting in 117 deaths, comprising 73 alleged terrorists, 30 security personnel, and 14 civilians.
Left Wing Extremism (LWE) has also seen significant containment. Violent incidents related to LWE decreased by 53% between 2014 and 2024. Fatalities among security personnel dropped by 73%, and civilian deaths decreased by 70% in this period. LWE violence specifically reduced by 81% from its peak in 2010 (1,936 incidents) to 374 incidents in 2024. Total deaths (civilians + security forces) due to LWE also saw an 85% reduction, from 1,005 in 2010 to 150 in 2024. The geographical footprint of LWE has significantly shrunk, with the number of LWE-affected districts reducing from 126 in 2014 to just 12 in 2024, with a stated goal of zero by March 2026. Similarly, police stations affected by Naxal incidents reduced from 330 in 2014 to 104.
In the Northeast region, the number of insurgency incidents continued its downward trend, reaching 252 in 2018, with corresponding reductions in civilian, security force, and extremist deaths.
B. Key Counter-Terrorism Policies and Legislative Frameworks
The Modi government has articulated and pursued a “zero-tolerance policy against terrorism,” asserting a firm and uncompromising stance against both terrorists and their support networks. This has translated into concrete measures, including the removal of terror-linked individuals from government jobs and the imposition of restrictions on public services for supporters of terrorism.
A notable shift in policy has been the adoption of a more assertive and proactive military response to cross-border terrorism. Following significant attacks like Uri (2016) and Pulwama (2019), India conducted surgical strikes into Pakistani territory, signaling a departure from previous reactive postures. More recently, “Operation Sindoor” (May 2025) was launched in response to the Pahalgam massacre, demonstrating India’s continued commitment to directly targeting and destroying terror bases and related infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The government’s messaging explicitly conveys that India “no longer tolerates, it gives a befitting reply”.
In August 2019, the Indian government undertook a fundamental policy shift in J&K by revoking Article 370, which had granted special autonomous status to the region. This move was framed as a decisive step towards greater integration of J&K with India and is cited by the government as a key factor in bringing about peace and normalcy, evidenced by increased tourism in the region.
Legislative tools have also been strengthened. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was further amended in 2019, notably empowering the central government to designate individuals as terrorists without requiring a prior judicial trial. Concurrently, the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) mandate was expanded to include the investigation of offenses related to human trafficking, prohibited arms, cyber-terrorism, and explosives, with the added capability of exercising extra-territorial jurisdiction. A Supreme Court ruling further broadened NIA’s powers to investigate non-scheduled offenses if they are connected to scheduled ones, enhancing the agency’s ability to dismantle complex criminal and terror networks.
Significant investment has been made in bolstering intelligence capabilities, with a pronounced emphasis on technology integration. This includes leveraging advanced tools such as drone surveillance, satellite imaging, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) for sophisticated data analysis, location tracing, mobile activity monitoring, and the precise deployment of security forces. The Multi-Agency Centre (MAC), India’s foremost intelligence fusion center, has undergone a substantial upgrade at a cost of Rs 500 crore, incorporating AI/ML techniques and Geographic Information System (GIS) services for advanced data analytics, trend analysis, hotspot mapping, and predictive outcomes.
The NDA government has intensified its focus on Counter-Terror Financing (CFT) and adherence to Financial Action Task Force (FATF) compliance. India maintains a “zero-tolerance” policy towards terror financing and actively engages with FATF. In 2023, the NIA seized significant assets, including $7.2 million in real estate and bank accounts, in terror-related financing cases. An integrated 25-point plan was formulated in 2020 to control terror funding, addressing various channels from jihadi terrorism to narcotics and fake currency. A recent FATF report (July 2025) explicitly recognized state sponsorship as a means of funding terrorism, a stance India has long advocated, reinforcing its position on countries like Pakistan.
Furthermore, there has been a concerted effort to strengthen ground-level security infrastructure. The construction of 612 new fortified police stations in the last 10 years under the Modi government, compared to only 66 until 2014, reflects a strategic focus on enhancing the resilience and operational capacity of local law enforcement.
C. Major Incidents and Policy Responses
Key terrorist incidents during the NDA’s tenure, such as the Uri Attack in 2016 and the Pulwama Attack in 2019, were met with swift and decisive retaliatory surgical strikes. These actions marked a distinct and assertive shift in India’s response to cross-border terrorism, signaling a new doctrine of proactive engagement. The Pahalgam massacre on April 22, 2025, which resulted in the brutal killing of 26 innocent people by TRF terrorists, prompted the launch of “Operation Sindoor” on May 6 & 7, 2025.
This operation demonstrated a continued assertive stance against terror infrastructure, emphasizing the government’s commitment to eliminating those responsible and their support networks. In 2023, other notable incidents included an ambush by JeM-linked terrorists that killed five soldiers in J&K on April 20, and an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attack by Maoists that killed ten state security forces and a civilian in Chhattisgarh on April 26.
The NDA government’s counter-terrorism approach is consistently characterized in official statements as a “firm and responsible fight” , a “new strategy to strengthen national security” , and a deep commitment to eradicating terrorism by eliminating the entire terror infrastructure. This framing underscores a strategic intent to project strength and resolve in the face of security threats.
D. Analysis of Effectiveness and Challenges
The significant quantitative reductions in overall terrorist incidents, civilian deaths, and security force casualties under the NDA government suggest a notable positive impact of its policies. The near cessation of stone-pelting in J&K and the drastic reduction in LWE-affected districts are strong indicators of success in specific conflict zones. Proactive military responses, strengthened legal frameworks, and enhanced intelligence capabilities appear to have contributed substantially to these outcomes.
Despite these reported successes, India remains one of the countries most impacted by terrorism globally. Active terrorist groups continue to pose threats, indicating that the challenge is ongoing and requires sustained effort. Concerns have been raised by civil society organizations regarding the potential misuse of stringent anti-terrorism laws like UAPA against human rights defenders, activists, and minority groups, potentially impacting civil liberties and freedom of expression. Securing India’s extensive land and maritime borders against infiltration and illegal activities remains an ongoing challenge, requiring continuous vigilance and resource allocation. The persistence of state-sponsored terrorism from neighboring countries continues to be a major external threat, necessitating sustained diplomatic and operational pressure.
The NDA’s “zero-tolerance” policy and the execution of surgical strikes and “Operation Sindoor” explicitly signal a shift towards a more proactive and assertive stance in counter-terrorism. This contrasts with the UPA era, which was characterized by a more reactive approach, with major policy shifts often occurring in the aftermath of significant attacks. The emphasis on intelligence-driven operations, including drone surveillance and AI integration, and the strengthening of the security grid further underscore this proactive reorientation. This strategic shift aims not merely to respond to terrorist acts but to pre-empt them, dismantle their support structures, and impose significant costs on perpetrators. This contributes to a more sustained reduction in violence and projects a stronger deterrent signal to external actors.
The significant reduction in LWE-affected districts and incidents under the NDA is a result of a multi-pronged strategy. While intensified security operations, leading to increased Naxalite neutralization, arrests, and surrenders, are a key component, the Ministry of Home Affairs’ LWE Division also coordinates the implementation of various development schemes in affected states. The construction of fortified police stations and efforts to improve connectivity (as part of broader rural development initiatives like BharatNet) suggest an integrated approach.
This indicates that for deeply rooted internal security challenges like LWE, a purely kinetic approach is insufficient. Sustainable reductions in violence are achieved when robust security measures are complemented by efforts to address socio-economic grievances, improve governance, and integrate affected areas into the national mainstream through development initiatives. This holistic strategy fosters long-term stability by undermining the ideological and recruitment base of extremist groups.
The NDA government’s strengthening of the UAPA, particularly the 2019 amendments allowing individual designation as terrorists and expanding NIA’s jurisdiction, has drawn criticism from civil society organizations. These groups contend that such provisions are overly broad and are being misused to target human rights defenders, activists, and minority groups, potentially stifling dissent. While these legislative enhancements may contribute to the reported statistical reduction in terrorism by providing law enforcement with more tools, they raise critical questions about the delicate balance between national security imperatives and the protection of fundamental civil liberties. An effective counter-terrorism framework must acknowledge this potential trade-off, ensuring that increased security does not come at the cost of democratic space, and is managed with robust oversight and accountability.
Comparative Analysis: UPA vs. NDA Records
A direct comparison of the terrorism landscape and counter-terrorism approaches under the UPA (2004-2014) and NDA (2014-Present) administrations reveals distinct trends and strategic shifts.
A. Quantitative Comparison of Terrorism Trends
The Ministry of Home Affairs data provides a clear quantitative basis for comparing the overall terrorism landscape under both administrations.
Table 1: Comparative Overview of Overall Terrorism Incidents and Fatalities
| Metric | UPA (2004-2014) | NDA (2014-2024) | Reduction (%) |
| Overall Terrorist Incidents | 7,217 | 2,242 | 68.9% |
| Overall Civilian Deaths | 4,766 | 1,495 | 68.7% |
| Overall Security Force Deaths | 1,851 | 509 | 72.5% |
Data Source: Ministry of Home Affairs
This table demonstrates a substantial reduction in overall terrorism metrics under the NDA government compared to the UPA. The number of terrorist incidents decreased by nearly 69%, while civilian and security force fatalities saw similar significant declines. This broad reduction suggests a shift in the overall security environment.
To provide a more granular understanding, a regional breakdown of terrorism trends is essential, as the dynamics of conflict vary across India.
Table 2: Regional Terrorism Trends: Incidents and Fatalities by Period
| Region & Metric | Period | UPA Data | NDA Data |
| Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) | |||
| Terrorist Incidents | 2004 vs. 2024 | 1,587 (2004) | 85 (2024) |
| Civilian Deaths | 2004 vs. 2024 | 733 (2004) | 26 (2024) |
| Security Force Deaths | 2004 vs. 2024 | 331 (2004) | 31 (2024) |
| Left Wing Extremism (LWE) | |||
| Violent Incidents | 2004-2014 vs. 2014-2024 | 16,463 (2004-2014) | 7,744 (2014-2024) |
| Security Personnel Deaths | 2004-2014 vs. 2014-2024 | 1,851 (2004-2014) | 509 (2014-2024) |
| Civilian Deaths | 2004-2014 vs. 2014-2024 | 4,766 (2004-2014) | 1,495 (2014-2024) |
| Northeast Region | |||
| Insurgency Incidents | 2014 vs. 2018 | 824 (2014) | 252 (2018) |
| Civilian Deaths | 2014 vs. 2018 | 212 (2014) | 23 (2018) |
| Security Force Deaths | 2014 vs. 2018 | 20 (2014) | 14 (2018) |
| Extremist Deaths | 2014 vs. 2018 | 181 (2014) | 34 (2018) |
Data Sources: Ministry of Home Affairs , South Asia Terrorism Portal
The regional data reinforces the overall trend of reduction. In J&K, the drop in incidents and casualties from 2004 to 2024 is particularly stark, indicating a significant improvement in the security situation. Similarly, LWE-related violence and fatalities have seen substantial decreases between the two periods. The Northeast region also shows a clear downward trend in insurgency incidents and casualties from 2014 to 2018. These granular comparisons highlight where specific counter-terrorism strategies may have yielded the most pronounced effects.
B. Qualitative Comparison of Policy Approaches
The strategic approaches of the UPA and NDA governments towards counter-terrorism exhibit notable differences in clarity, assertiveness, and implementation.
The UPA’s approach was frequently criticized for a perceived lack of strategic clarity and a “submissive stand” on national security issues, particularly in the aftermath of major attacks like 26/11. This perception may have stemmed from a foreign policy doctrine that emphasized “strategic autonomy” and “non-alignment,” potentially leading to less aggressive responses on the international stage. In contrast, the NDA has projected a clear “zero-tolerance” policy and adopted a more assertive, proactive stance, exemplified by cross-border surgical strikes and operations. This shift in posture aims not only to respond to terrorist acts but also to deter them and dismantle terror infrastructure more aggressively.
Both administrations utilized the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as a primary legislative tool, but with differing emphases. The UPA repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and re-incorporated its provisions into UAPA, also establishing the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in response to the 26/11 attacks. The NDA, however, further strengthened UAPA, notably allowing for the designation of individuals as terrorists without trial and expanding NIA’s jurisdiction, including extra-territorial powers. This reflects a continuous evolution towards more potent legal instruments, providing law enforcement with broader powers to tackle terrorism.
Operational responses and intelligence gathering also show a divergence. The UPA’s operational responses were sometimes perceived as hesitant. The NDA has emphasized direct targeting of terrorists and the destruction of terror infrastructure. A key difference lies in the significant technological upgrade of intelligence gathering under the NDA, with increased use of drone surveillance, satellite imaging, AI, and a modernized Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) for advanced data analytics and predictive outcomes. This shift from a more traditional intelligence gathering model to one heavily reliant on advanced technology aims to provide more actionable and timely intelligence, enabling more precise and effective counter-terrorism operations.
In the domain of counter-terror financing, while India joined the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) under the UPA in 2010, the NDA has intensified efforts. The NDA government has actively pursued terror financing cases, seizing significant assets, and aligning international discourse with India’s long-standing concerns about state-sponsored terrorism. A recent FATF report in July 2025 explicitly recognized state sponsorship as a means of funding terrorism, a stance India has consistently advocated, reinforcing its position on countries like Pakistan. This sustained focus on choking terror funding channels represents a critical component of the NDA’s strategy.
The NDA government explicitly articulates a “Whole of Government Approach” to counter-terrorism, implying a coordinated effort across various ministries and agencies. This is particularly evident in the multi-faceted strategy against LWE, which combines intensified security operations, legal actions (UAPA amendments), and development initiatives coordinated by the Ministry of Home Affairs’ LWE Division. The comprehensive approach to terror financing also reflects this integration. This contrasts with the UPA’s approach, which, while undertaking reforms, was sometimes criticized for a lack of overarching strategic clarity and a more fragmented implementation.
An integrated approach, where security, legal, intelligence, and socio-economic development efforts are synergized, is likely to yield more comprehensive and sustainable results in combating complex threats like terrorism. It addresses not just the immediate symptoms but also the underlying facilitators and root causes, leading to a more resilient national security posture.
Beyond the raw statistics of incidents and casualties, the language used by the NDA government, emphasizing “zero-tolerance”, “befitting replies”, and “Operation Sindoor” as a demonstration of “military capability, national resolve, morality and political acumen”, actively constructs a narrative of strong political will and decisive action. This contrasts sharply with the “submissive” narrative often associated with the UPA The abrogation of Article 370 is also framed as a decisive political step with significant security implications.
This perceived political will and the narrative projected by the government can significantly influence various aspects of counter-terrorism. It can boost the morale of security forces, deter potential adversaries, and shape public confidence. A strong, consistent political narrative can reinforce the effectiveness of policies and operations, creating a more formidable overall response to terrorism.
C. Impact of Policy Shifts on Ground Realities
The policy shifts under the NDA government have had a tangible impact on ground realities in key conflict zones. In Jammu & Kashmir, the abrogation of Article 370 marked a fundamental policy shift, intended to fully integrate J&K into India. This is presented as a key factor behind the significant reduction in terrorist incidents and the virtual end of stone-pelting, contributing to a perceived return to normalcy and increased tourism in the region. The government views this as a direct consequence of its assertive integration policy.
In areas affected by Left Wing Extremism, the combination of intensified security operations, the establishment of more fortified police stations, and the implementation of development schemes has led to a marked shrinking of the geographical and operational footprint of Maoist groups. This multi-pronged strategy has aimed to address both the security vacuum and the socio-economic grievances that fuel LWE.
Regarding cross-border terrorism, the shift towards proactive military responses, such as surgical strikes, signals a change in India’s deterrence posture. These actions aim to raise the cost for state and non-state actors supporting cross-border terrorism and to dismantle their infrastructure in neighboring territories, thereby reducing their capacity to launch attacks within India. This assertive stance is intended to convey a clear message of India’s resolve.
The comparative analysis of terrorism trends and counter-terrorism policies in India under the UPA (2004-2014) and NDA (2014-Present) administrations reveals a discernible shift in the nation’s security landscape and strategic approach.
Summary of Terrorism Reduction Under Modi Government
Based on the Ministry of Home Affairs data, there has been a demonstrable and significant reduction in overall terrorist incidents, civilian deaths, and security force casualties under the Modi government (2014-2024) compared to the UPA tenure (2004-2014). This reduction is particularly pronounced in critical regions such as Jammu & Kashmir, where terrorist incidents and related fatalities have plummeted, and stone-pelting incidents have virtually ceased. Similarly, Left Wing Extremism-affected areas have seen a substantial decrease in incidents and a significant shrinking of their geographical and operational spread. These quantitative improvements indicate a positive trajectory in India’s fight against terrorism.
Overall Assessment of India’s Evolving Counter-Terrorism Strategy
India’s counter-terrorism strategy has evolved from a more reactive posture, which was at times criticized for being “submissive” under the UPA, to a more proactive, assertive, and “zero-tolerance” approach under the NDA. This evolution is characterized by several key pillars:
- Strengthened Legal Frameworks: Amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) have provided law enforcement with enhanced powers, including the ability to designate individuals as terrorists.
- Enhanced Intelligence Capabilities: Significant investments have been made in leveraging advanced technology, such as AI, drone surveillance, and satellite imaging, integrated through an upgraded Multi-Agency Centre (MAC), to improve intelligence gathering and analysis for predictive outcomes.
- Assertive Military Responses: The adoption of a doctrine of surgical strikes and cross-border operations in response to major attacks signals a clear shift towards imposing costs on perpetrators and dismantling terror infrastructure in neighboring territories.
- Comprehensive Focus on Terror Financing: Intensified efforts in counter-terror financing, including asset seizures and active engagement with international bodies like FATF, aim to choke the financial lifelines of terrorist organizations.
The “Whole of Government Approach” appears to have contributed to more integrated and effective outcomes, particularly in addressing complex internal security challenges like LWE. This approach combines robust security measures with socio-economic development initiatives, recognizing that a purely kinetic response is insufficient for deeply rooted issues. This holistic strategy fosters long-term stability by undermining the ideological and recruitment base of extremist groups.
Persistent Challenges and Future Considerations
Despite the significant progress, India’s counter-terrorism landscape continues to present complex challenges that necessitate ongoing vigilance and adaptation:
- Evolving Nature of Threats: Terrorist groups remain active and continuously adapt their tactics, including increasingly sophisticated methods such as cyber-terrorism and the misuse of digital platforms for propaganda and recruitment. This necessitates constant vigilance and adaptation of counter-measures, including robust cybersecurity infrastructure and proactive cyber defense strategies.
- Cross-border Support: The challenge of state-sponsored terrorism from neighboring countries remains a critical and persistent external threat. This requires sustained diplomatic pressure, international cooperation, and continued operational readiness to counter cross-border infiltration and dismantle external terror infrastructure.
- Balancing Security and Rights: The enhanced powers granted under laws like UAPA, while contributing to security gains, have raised concerns among civil society organizations about their potential misuse against human rights defenders, activists, and minority groups, potentially impacting civil liberties and freedom of expression. Ensuring that counter-terrorism efforts do not inadvertently undermine democratic freedoms and human rights will be a continuous challenge requiring robust oversight, accountability, and adherence to due process.
- Sustaining Gains in LWE Areas: While significant progress has been made in containing LWE, long-term stability will depend on sustained efforts in both security and inclusive socio-economic development. Continued focus on improving governance, delivering public services, and creating economic opportunities in remote and tribal areas is crucial to prevent a resurgence of extremism and fully integrate these regions into the national mainstream.
- Technological Imperatives: Continued investment in cutting-edge intelligence tools, cybersecurity infrastructure, and counter-radicalization strategies will be crucial to stay ahead of emerging threats in the digital domain and maintain an effective counter-terrorism ecosystem. This includes research and development in areas like AI-driven threat detection, secure communication networks, and digital forensics.
In conclusion, the data indicates a substantial reduction in terrorism under the Modi government, attributable to a more assertive, technologically advanced, and integrated counter-terrorism strategy. However, the dynamic nature of global and regional threats mandates continuous adaptation, strategic foresight, and a careful balance between national security imperatives and the preservation of democratic values.
