MHA unveils ‘PRAHAAR’, India’s First National Counter-terror Policy

The Debate Over ‘PRAHAAR’: India’s Bold Counter-Terror Strategy

On February 24, 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) unveiled its first national counter-terrorism policy, ‘PRAHAAR’. Aimed at reinforcing a ‘zero tolerance’ stance against terrorism, the policy combines intelligence-focused prevention, rapid response capabilities, international collaborations, and rehabilitation measures. Yet, even as this ambitious framework claims to plug critical gaps in India’s counter-terror architecture, questions remain over whether its promises match the realities of institutional challenges, technological threats, and uneven state-level capacities.

The Policy Instrument: PRAHAAR’s Blueprint

At the heart of the policy lies a multi-agency architecture. Intelligence gathering is spearheaded by the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) and Joint Task Force on Intelligence (JTFI), mandated to provide seamless real-time intelligence to operational forces. On the response end, state police forces remain first responders, supplemented by the specialized National Security Guard (NSG), underpinned by swift investigative capacities in the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

PRAHAAR also outlines six focus areas:

• Prevention via intelligence and technology-driven surveillance.
• Swift, proportionate response through specialized forces and state support systems.
• Capacity-building with modernized tools, skill-training, and infrastructure upgrades.
• Adherence to human rights frameworks, including India’s commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
• Efforts to counter radicalization through graded interventions based on individual assessments.
• Collaborating internationally under treaties like the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and other bilateral agreements.

Financial commitment to these initiatives remains robust. The policy leverages an allocation of ₹15,000 crore over five years to upgrade infrastructure, procure advanced counter-terror equipment, and enhance state capabilities.

The Case for PRAHAAR: Why It Matters

PRAHAAR arrives at a time when India’s vulnerabilities to terrorism have grown increasingly complex. Between 2015–2025, India witnessed a 40% rise in terror incidents in conflict-heavy zones like Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, and Northeastern states. Cross-border handlers now utilize advanced tools—encrypted communication, drones, and the dark web—which evade traditional paradigms of surveillance and enforcement.

The policy’s focus on an intelligence-guided approach directly responds to these evolving threats. For instance, the operationalization of the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) has already improved the success rate of pre-emptive operations by 26% between 2022–2025, according to MHA data. The inclusion of advanced technological acquisitions, from AI-enabled systems to interoperable databases for intelligence-sharing, signals a calibrated move forward.

Further, PRAHAAR’s emphasis on addressing radicalization through graded interventions is a notable departure from reactionary strategies reliant on punitive measures. By combining social rehabilitation efforts—community leaders, psychologists, and NGOs—with legal action proportional to the level of radicalization, the policy attempts to stem terrorism at its root.

The Case Against: Institutional and Operational Concerns

However, the gap between aspiration and execution looms large. For one, while PRAHAAR outlines a ‘whole-of-government’ approach, systemic coordination across intelligence, enforcement, and state-level decision-making has historically faltered. The Standing Committee on Home Affairs report (2024) noted that state forces often lack adequate training to handle technologically sophisticated threats, leading to heavy reliance on central forces like NSG—even in low-scale operations.

An over-centralized architecture raises concerns about bureaucratic inefficiency. State police accountability under PRAHAAR risks being sidelined by directives from national authorities, undermining localized agility. Further, budgetary provisions—₹15,000 crore over five years—may fall short when juxtaposed with the scale of investment required. For reference, the United States’ Counterterrorism Bureau receives annual funding exceeding $1.3 billion, complemented by state-specific allocations.

The evidence is also mixed regarding India’s adherence to human rights in counter-terror operations. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has faced allegations of arbitrary detentions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [UAPA]. Enforcement tied to PRAHAAR risks exacerbating concerns of civil liberties violations unless accountability mechanisms are explicitly built into its framework.

What Other Democracies Have Done: UK’s PREVENT Policy

India might find lessons in the United Kingdom’s PREVENT Strategy, launched under its Counter-Terrorism and Security Act (2015). Focused on addressing radicalization in vulnerable communities, PREVENT mandates schools, healthcare providers, and community organizations to flag individuals showing signs of extremism. While its implementation has yielded tangible successes—for instance, reducing UK ISIL recruitments by over 20%—it has triggered backlash over racial profiling and marginalization, undermining public trust.

India’s PRAHAAR, which seeks a less institutionalized and more community-driven approach, may help avoid similar pitfalls. However, the UK example underscores the importance of robust oversight mechanisms to guard against discriminatory misuse.

Where Things Stand: A Measured Assessment

PRAHAAR is undeniably ambitious, but ambition alone is not enough. Its greatest strength—an integrated multi-agency framework—also heightens its risks. Without precise delineation of functions among intelligence, enforcement, and state actors, operational efficiency could prove elusive. Similarly, the policy’s reliance on centralized funding risks ignoring disparities in state-level capacity to absorb and utilize resources effectively.

To its credit, PRAHAAR offers a coherent vision for countering terrorism in the digital age, emphasizing both prevention and post-attack resilience. Yet, structural constraints—uneven financial allocations, lack of robust accountability mechanisms, and fragmented implementation—could dilute its impact. The real test will lie in bridging the gap between rhetoric and reality.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions