The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Monday unveiled India’s first publicly articulated national counter terror strategy document, PRAHAAR. Running into eight pages, the document lays out a broad framework of India’s approach to terrorism, the steps already taken over the years, and the plans it envisages for the future.Many of the measures listed are not new: they are either already in force through laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and other security statutes, or they reflect ongoing initiatives of the MHA and law enforcement agencies pulled together into one policy statement.PRAHAAR situates India’s terrorism challenge in a broad threat landscape shaped by decades of cross-border violence, the presence of global jihadist networks such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and the accelerating use of technology including drones, encrypted communications, dark web platforms, crypto-financing, cyber attacks, and attempts to access CBRNED (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive, Digital) materials, while avoiding a narrow focus on any single theatre.It proposes a seven-pillar response centred on intelligence-led prevention and real-time inter-agency coordination to disrupt propaganda, sleeper cells, funding, and arms networks; swift, proportionate response led by local police and backed by specialised counter-terror forces; aggregation of capacities through police modernisation and standardised training; firm adherence to human rights and the rule of law; graded de-radicalisation and community engagement with attention to youth and women; alignment of international cooperation through intelligence sharing, legal assistance, extradition, and multilateral designations; and recovery and resilience through a whole-of-society approach involving civil administration, professionals, NGOs, and communities, underpinned by a clear political stance of zero tolerance for terrorism without linking it to any religion or identity.What is new about the programme?Substantively, many of the tools PRAHAAR mentions — MAC, NSG, NIA, UAPA, CAPFs, community outreach, socioeconomic schemes — already exist and are in use; the document does not suddenly create new agencies or powers. The “newness” lies in putting them together in a single, public, national-level policy and strategy.Until now, India’s CT architecture was scattered across laws, internal SOPs, cabinet decisions and state level arrangements. It also elevates some elements that were earlier implicit such as making human rights and rule of law a named pillar; explicitly tying CT to poverty alleviation, education, housing, jobs, scholarships and women’s empowerment for vulnerable communities; clearly affirming that India does not associate terrorism with any particular religion or community, a line that carries diplomatic weight in multilateral forums.Also Read | Delhi court grants seven-day police custody of six arrested over ‘terror links’“This is more an articulation of intent as it broadly covers what we have already been doing. It would, however, be a message to both the general public and the adversaries that we are serious about dealing with terrorism,” a senior security establishment officer said.How has the West approached counterstrategy?Story continues below this adBoth the US and the UK have published counter-terror strategy documents. The then Trump administration spelt out the nation’s policy on terrorism in The US National Strategy for Counterterrorism (USNSCT) in 2018, supplemented by the Strategic Framework for Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence (CTTV) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2020. In the UK, the Rishi Sunak government updated the country’s 2003 CT strategy document, CONTEST, in 2023.The USNSCT intends to use all “instruments of US power” to protect the homeland and US interests overseas, built around objectives such as diminishing terrorists’ capacity to attack, severing financial and logistical support, protecting infrastructure, and countering radicalisation and recruitment, with “lines of effort” including pursuing terrorists to their source, tightening border and travel screening, and expanding financial and intelligence tools with allies.The UK’s CONTEST 2023 organises CT work into four strands — Prevent (stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism), Pursue (stop attacks), Protect (strengthen protection) and Prepare (mitigate impact) — and stresses a whole-of-government and whole-of-society partnership using tools such as the Counter Terrorism Operations Centre, stronger border controls, and agile responses to diverse threats including Islamist and extreme right-wing terrorism.How does PRAHAAR compare?Unlike Prahaar, both the US and UK strategies are detailed articulations of their CT plans. While Prahaar is eight pages, USNSCT runs into 34 pages and CONTEST into 78 pages.Story continues below this adGranular details: PRAHAAR sets out principles — intelligence-led policing, MAC and JTFI sharing inputs, roles for police and specialised forces, training through BPR&D and NSG, and socio-economic schemes — but does not break these down into public objectives, sub-programmes or agency-specific tasks.The US strategy, by contrast, turns big goals into lines of effort and then into concrete “we will” actions: for example, using financial tools and global anti-money laundering standards to disrupt terror finance, modernising border screening and vetting, and working with foreign partners to build CT capacity. The DHS CTTV then names four goals and attaches priority actions for understanding threats, stopping dangerous individuals from entering, preventing terrorism and targeted violence in communities, and improving infrastructure and community preparedness.The UK’s CONTEST goes even further in spelling out delivery machinery. The 2023 update talks about a dedicated Counter‑Terrorism Operations Centre (CTOC) to pool data and expertise, and local government documents set terms of reference for “Protect & Prepare Groups” — who sits on them, how often they meet, what they review, and how they report into the national system. For a school headteacher or council official in the UK, there is a clear, written role under the Prevent/CONTEST architecture.Oversight and metrics: PRAHAAR stresses rule of law but does not embed public reporting or independent strategy-level review. There is no commitment in the text to annual public reporting on PRAHAAR’s implementation. In the US, DHS has committed to annual assessments to Congress and measurable improvements; in the UK, CONTEST is delivered through formal reporting lines across departments and local CT structures.Story continues below this adMore Explained | Maoist leader Devuji surrenders: For party out of leaders, territory, firepower, key moment of unravellingNarrower ideological canvas: PRAHAAR focuses mainly on cross-border and jihadi terrorism, while Western strategies explicitly address extreme right-wing and hybrid forms of extremism.“Detailed plans appear to have been purposefully avoided in order to not give away tactical details,” a senior security establishment officer said.The way forwardAny strategy document is only as good as its percolation to the grassroots and its implementation. For PRAHAAR to matter beyond Delhi, MHA will need to follow it up with clear, possibly state-wise guidelines translating the seven pillars into day-to-day policing, intelligence sharing, prison management and community engagement. It will also require capacity-building for state ATS units and district police. MHA would need mechanisms — even if internal — to monitor whether the “whole of society” and socio-economic elements are being integrated into security planning.“The success of the strategy will depend on how well the role of each spoke in the response wheel is defined and how well they are equipped. If the state police is the first responder, it will have to be trained for that. All states will need to have state-specific forces. It will also have to be spelt out at what point will NSG come in,” a former officer involved with India’s counter-terror efforts said.Story continues below this adFlagging the gap between intent and implementation, he added, “While the document talks about deradicalization, there is no national framework for it. States such as Telangana and Maharashtra have done great work in this, but the same has not been scaled up.”Former Additional Director General of the NIA, NR Wasan, who retired as BPR&D DG said, “The NIA is said to be India’s FBI. But unlike the FBI it has no intelligence gathering capabilities. That job is with MAC and IB. So NIA’s success hinges on coordination with other agencies.”PRAHAAR’s strengths are its explicit rejection of religious profiling, its formal recognition of human rights and the rule of law as a pillar of CT, and its attempt to knit together security and development. Its weaknesses are the lack of operational detail, oversight and metrics in the public version, and the challenge of turning aspirational phrases into routines at the thana and district level.