A new wave of radicalisation amongst people, mostly the young generation, frustrated and outraged by current trends in politics and society, is raising its ugly head. India’s phase of counterterror strategy must shift from containment to prevention. According to political analysts, radicals must be treated as a strategic priority, and their movements and operations watched carefully. The recent blast near the Red Fort in the capital, Delhi, is a testimony.
The term ‘white-collar terrorism’ has suddenly burst into the national consciousness amid charges of a Kashmiri doctor’s involvement in the blast and the arrests of two of his peers in connection with an inter-state and transnational terror module. Some have cautioned against a knee-jerk attribution of the trend to the hold-all phenomenon of radicalisation and stressed the feeling of stage and subjugation many Kashmiris feel.
Also Read
Delving into the aspect of terror, it may be mentioned that UAPA is India’s third terror statute. India enacted its first anti-terror law, called the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, in 1987 to counter the Punjab insurgency.
It soon became a machinery for abuse, torture, coerced confessions and endless pre-trial detentions. Its successor, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2002), repeated the pattern until the UPA-I government repealed it, condemning it as “a slur on democracy”.
The Supreme Court once pruned TADA and POTA by reading in procedural safeguards. Yet it has never constitutionally reviewed the UAPA. The court stated in February 2025 that petitions challenging the 2019 UAPA amendment, which gives the Centre powers to label people as terrorists, must first be heard by the high courts.
The experience of anti-terror laws in India also demonstrates an inherent linguistic challenge. UAPA’s unlawful activi ty criminalises any act intended to disrupt the ‘sovereignty and integrity’ of India. It empowers the executive to label its enemies as terrorists. Analysts are of the opinion that UAPA stands today as a case study in how legal measures taken in the name of national security can curdle into perpetual exception. The real courage of a free nation lies not in how harshly it punishes its enemies but in how faithfully it restrains them through proper counselling.
In analysing terror and other violence-related activities in different parts of the country, it’s vital to delve into the reasons for such actions, which have become frequent. There is a need to understand the societal trends and the anguish and despair of the common people, especially those belonging to Gen Next. The lack of employment opportunities, the waywardness of youth and their exploitation by political leaders to serve partisan interests have aggravated the situation and upset the social balance.
To stop violence in society and communal frenzy and to understand the despair and frustration of youth, a deeper understanding of the political and economic systems of the country is needed. The present policies are moving ahead with misplaced priorities in the development process, where concern for the impoverished and marginalised sections is lacking.
There is a need to follow a decentralised approach and develop bonding and fellow-feeling within communities for peace and greater understanding.
Interestingly, governments not only in India but across South Asia, notably Pakistan and Bangladesh, are not following the path of justice. They are all interested in distracting the attention of the young generation towards caste and religion without weaving out a policy for their rehabilitation. Why is this happening? Can it be called progress, and will it bring harm to many in society?
Importantly, there’s a need to generate awareness across the nation. Radicalism can’t be countered by suspicion but through inclusion, i.e. by engaging civil society, educators and trusted community leaders towards awareness generation. Counselling, vocational training and reintegration can break this cycle so that the communi ty becomes stronger to counter grievance and distorted beliefs.
Finally, there is a need to remember the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, who throughout his life advocated the need for decentralisation and understanding the prob lems and aspirations of the masses in weaving out a development policy that benefits them. Sadly, this remains ignored today as a genuine, inclusive and judicious development policy is missing. The question arises, how soon will this transformation come about, if at all?
