The onus of alleviating structural violence is one of the prime charters of governance and long-term measures towards the same need to be within the scope of an effective counter-terror policy. (File Photo)
India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) organised a two-day anti-terror conference on November 7 and 8 in New Delhi. As per a PTI report, the Home Minister (HM), in his inaugural address, said that the central government will bring a “national counter-terrorism policy and strategy” soon and added that a unified approach is required to fight “terrorism, terrorists, and their ecosystem”.
Various facets concerning terrorism and counter-terrorism were touched upon by the HM that included standard operating procedures (SOPs) applicable for central and state forces, developing synergies among various stakeholders, coordination of various agencies, employing emerging technologies, whole-of-the-government approach, etc. The stakeholders attending the conference included 21 DGPs, officials from all central investigation and intelligence agencies, among others.
Undoubtedly, the aspects brought out by the Home Minister are crucial for a counter-terrorism policy and will find a place in the intended national policy. The steps are going to strengthen the law and order structure in the country. It is also expected that the policy, in its final form, shall have in its purview several other features that go beyond the domain of law and order that mainly concern once the bullet is fired or the bomb goes off. In order to address the factors concerning the “whats”, “whys” and “hows” of manifestations prior to a terror act, the aspect of prevention is an inescapable imperative to be incorporated in a counter-terror policy. The purpose of prevention should be to mitigate the challenges that confront when terror strikes — exactly like nipping the challenge in the bud.
In fact, prevention should be at the heart of a counter-terror strategy to safeguard and support vulnerable people and to stop them from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. The vulnerable ones could be from any section — an ethnic community, gullible youth, Adivasis, marginalised people and many more. Prevention also needs to include the rehabilitation and disengagement of those already involved in terrorism. It should be planned in a way similar to programmes designed to safeguard people from gangs, drug abuse, and physical and sexual abuse. Successful prevention entails a response to tackle radicalisation in communities and online; continued support to those who are vulnerable to radicalisation, and disengagement from terrorist activities by those already engaged in or supporters of terrorism.
Prevention ought to also safeguard those at risk of radicalisation through early intervention, identifying them and offering support. A well-structured prevention programme, as part of national policy, shall depend on delivery through a wide network of partners – with communities, civil society organisations, public-sector institutions, including local authorities, schools and universities, health organisations, police, prisons, religious teachers and the private sector.
The HM talked of tweaking the counter-terror SOPs as applicable to each state. An assessment of the threat picture in local areas through continuous research and evaluation shall enable effective prevention and its delivery, to strengthen the policy.
A call for a whole-of-the-government approach must encompass local governance at the grassroots, i.e. local rural and urban bodies. The decentralised and tiered governance structure of the country offers an opportunity to make counter-terrorism a people’s movement. This requires participation by expanding the stakeholdership much beyond the law enforcing security agencies. Moreover, the whole-of-the-government approach will also necessitate diminishing the scope of structural violence as defined by Johan Galtung, wherein social structures or social institutions harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs or rights.
The onus of alleviating structural violence is one of the prime charters of governance and long-term measures towards the same need to be within the scope of an effective counter-terror policy. Of course, this calls for a tremendous amount of legwork on the part of the State, by getting at the roots of causal aspects of terrorism. In the eventuality of a law-and-order-biased counter-terrorism policy and strategy, we may miss the woods for trees.
Sadly, of late, talking of root causes is taken as justifying acts of terror. Such an approach is an indication of seeking alibis for convenience. For a counter-terrorism policy to be triumphant, the stakeholders at the high table of policymaking shall have to acknowledge that terrorism, especially in the Indian context, has by and large been endogenous. The exogenous component pitches in to fish in the troubled waters. Measures that ensure that water doesn’t get troubled, in a nutshell, ought to be the basic structure of a national counter-terrorism policy and strategy.
The writer is a retired colonel with substantial experience of serving in the counter-terrorism environment in J&K and North East. He currently teaches at OP Jindal Global University
