“India’s internal counter-terrorism architecture continues to suffer from reactive measures, poor intelligence coordination, and lack of accountability”. Elucidate using recent trends. What systemic reforms are essential?
Kartavya Desk Staff
Topic: Role of external state and non-state actors in creating challenges to internal security.
Topic: Role of external state and non-state actors in creating challenges to internal security.
Q5. “India’s internal counter-terrorism architecture continues to suffer from reactive measures, poor intelligence coordination, and lack of accountability”. Elucidate using recent trends. What systemic reforms are essential? (15 M)
Difficulty Level: Medium
Reference: IE
Why the question: In the context of attacks like the Pahalgam terror incident (2025) and public debates on the limitations of India’s counter-terrorism architecture, especially regarding coordination, accountability, and reactive approaches. Key Demand of the question: The question requires an analysis of how India’s counter-terrorism system remains reactive, poorly coordinated, and unaccountable, along with recent evidence, and demands a well-structured set of systemic reforms to address these issues. Structure of the Answer: Introduction: Briefly introduce India’s counter-terrorism structure and highlight the persistence of institutional weaknesses despite growing threats. Body: Explain the reactive nature of India’s response to terrorism using key aspects with current examples. Analyse how poor intelligence coordination across agencies weakens pre-emption. Discuss lack of institutional accountability in both intelligence failure and post-attack investigations. Suggest systemic reforms like intelligence integration, legal restructuring, local policing, and independent oversight mechanisms. Conclusion: Summarise the need for a shift from episodic to institutionalised, tech-integrated, and accountable counter-terrorism strategies to secure long-term stability.
Why the question: In the context of attacks like the Pahalgam terror incident (2025) and public debates on the limitations of India’s counter-terrorism architecture, especially regarding coordination, accountability, and reactive approaches.
Key Demand of the question: The question requires an analysis of how India’s counter-terrorism system remains reactive, poorly coordinated, and unaccountable, along with recent evidence, and demands a well-structured set of systemic reforms to address these issues.
Structure of the Answer:
Introduction: Briefly introduce India’s counter-terrorism structure and highlight the persistence of institutional weaknesses despite growing threats.
• Explain the reactive nature of India’s response to terrorism using key aspects with current examples.
• Analyse how poor intelligence coordination across agencies weakens pre-emption.
• Discuss lack of institutional accountability in both intelligence failure and post-attack investigations.
• Suggest systemic reforms like intelligence integration, legal restructuring, local policing, and independent oversight mechanisms.
Conclusion: Summarise the need for a shift from episodic to institutionalised, tech-integrated, and accountable counter-terrorism strategies to secure long-term stability.