When National Security Adviser Ajit Doval declared that terrorism has been effectively countered in India, his statement reflected both an undeniable truth and a cautionary challenge. “Facts are facts,” he said, noting that since 2013, there has been no major terror attack in the Indian hinterland. Indeed, a nation once scarred by serial blasts, cross-border infiltrations, and insurgent violence has, over the past decade, achieved a remarkable level of internal security. Yet, as India takes justifiable pride in this achievement, the claim also invites reflection on what “eradication” truly means in a world where terrorism is ever-evolving — shifting its forms, motives, and methods. India’s counter-terrorism journey has been long, costly, and complex. The years between 1990 and 2010 saw hundreds of lives lost in incidents stretching from Mumbai to Delhi, from Jaipur to Hyderabad. The State’s response — combining robust intelligence networks, legislative tools, and diplomatic pressure — gradually built a deterrence architecture that has since proven resilient. The 26/11 attacks in 2008 served as a brutal wake-up call, forcing a fundamental reform in how India conceptualised security.
Today, a coordinated structure involving the National Investigation Agency, state ATS units, and improved intelligence sharing stands as a quiet testament to that learning curve. Doval’s assertion that the “whole country, except Jammu and Kashmir, has remained secure” highlights another reality — terrorism in India has become increasingly localised, contained largely within the unique political and historical complexities of Kashmir. There, militancy remains an instrument of cross-border proxy warfare rather than a manifestation of pan-Indian extremism. The reduction of Left-Wing Extremism to less than 11 per cent of its previous geographical spread, as Doval noted, further underscores a broader trend: armed insurgency, whether ideological or separatist, no longer holds the kind of territorial or emotional sway it once did. Yet, security experts would caution against equating absence with elimination. The lack of major attacks does not mean the disappearance of intent or capability. Terror networks have adapted — shifting to cyber recruitment, lone-wolf radicalisation, and financial infiltration.
With artificial intelligence, deepfakes, and cryptocurrency channels entering the ecosystem, the next front in counter-terrorism may not be fought with guns and grenades, but with algorithms and digital firewalls. The threat, therefore, is less visible but no less real. Moreover, security is not merely the containment of violence — it is also the cultivation of trust, inclusion, and resilience among citizens. Doval’s observation that every Indian must “feel secure” points to the psychological dimension of national security. Polarisation, communal mistrust, or online hate campaigns can erode the very fabric that physical security seeks to protect. The challenge ahead lies in ensuring that national unity and individual safety reinforce, not contradict, each other.
