NEW DELHI November 19 (KNS): The Global Counter Terrorism Council (GCTC), an independent, non-profit public policy and advocacy civil society think tank, successfully concluded the second and final day of its landmark webinar, ‘FROM Campus to Redfort: Radicalisation, Disruption and India’s National Security Response’. The final day brought together a formidable group of international and Indian experts from the security establishment, academia, and the technology sector for three intense panels, driving a passionate and informed debate on what GCTC Chair Cleo Paskal described as a "life-or-death question" for the nation.
The day’s discussions focused on the complex, multi-domain threat landscape, examining the nature and scale of radicalisation, the disruptive role of AI and encrypted platforms, and the necessary legal and infrastructural reforms required to secure India's future.
Panel I: Debating the Nature and Scale of Radicalisation
The first panel, chaired by Mr. R. Swain, IPS (Retd.), former Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, tackled the fundamental question of what constitutes 'radicalisation' and how to effectively combat it. Panelists included Mr. Peter Knoope (Distinguished Fellow at ICCT), Mr. Atiq Ur Rehman (Scholar of Political Islam, Bombay University), and Mr. Sushil Pandit (Human Rights Advocate and Founder of Roots in Kashmir).
Mr. Swain initiated the discussion by sharing his perspective on the situation in Kashmir. While acknowledging the presence of educated individuals—citing examples of PhD and MBA graduates—joining terrorist movements, he maintained that their number remains "few and far between" over the last 35 years. He suggested the core problem is driven by an elite group involved in the logistics, finance, and narrative-building of the ecosystem, not the common folk, who desire a normal life. Mr. Swain proposed a "whole of society" counter-measure strategy based on a "33-33-33 ratio": 33% on improved governance and quality of life; 33% on investment and opportunity; and the final 33% on interception efforts, including technology, surveillance, and punitive measures to create deterrence.
Mr. Peter Knoope provided an international perspective on preventing violent extremism (PVE), cautioning that PVE is only part of the overall counterterrorism response. His framework focused on three areas: addressing societal issues at large, approaching individuals at risk, and rehabilitating those in prison. Kopic stressed that prevention must be tailored to the specific environment, addressing varying push factors (marginalisation, economic exclusion) and pull factors (status, self-fulfilment). Crucially, he argued for shifting from "early detection" to "early action" by creating trustworthy, non-securitised referral systems—such as social workers or community leaders—where family members can report behavioural changes. He also noted that while recidivism among convicted terrorists is low, community acceptance remains a "significant challenge" for rehabilitation efforts.
Mr. Atiq Ur Rehman shifted the focus to the theological dimension, asserting that radicalisation is fuelled by the distortion of religious scriptures, stating unequivocally that "no religious text allows a Muslim to kill innocent people." He highlighted how terrorist masterminds misrepresent Quranic concepts, particularly the term "infidels," which historically referred to pagan Arabs who tormented the Prophet, not present-day fellow human beings. Mr. Rehman called out the hypocrisy of masterminds who preach suicide bombing but do not practice it. He stressed the importance of youth understanding that all major conflicts must be declared on a battlefield, not by individuals or clerics. He concluded by urging the government to forgo "hardcore policy" like mass jailing in favour of dialogue with youth and marginalised communities, drawing parallels to engagements held with Maoists.
In a strong counter-argument, Mr. Sushil Pandit vehemently critiqued the term "radicalisation" as a "soft euphemism" that normalises and diminishes the severity of the issue, which he described as a "violent ideology with the potential for blood and gore." Mr. Pandit challenged the notion that the joining of educated youth was a mere aberration, arguing that the recent lull was a deliberate strategy by separatists to "conserve energy" following changes in Jammu and Kashmir's status and reduced foreign funding. He asserted that extremism is not an "isolated individual phenomena" but the result of an "industrial-scale factory" of organized, long-term indoctrination through networks of madrasas and mosques. He warned that superficial measures like offering financial incentives are ineffective and contended that the Indian state is in denial about facing a "jihad," which prevents it from addressing the problem by its real name and scale. Mr. Pandit cited France's aggressive measures, such as banning unapproved teaching materials and teachers, as an example for India to follow in tackling the deep societal roots of the problem.
The panel concluded with Mr. Knoope’s call for the debate to continue, based on "numbers and figures and research," while Mr. Swain summarised the agreement on the existence of a pervasive ecosystem for spreading extreme views, and the absolute necessity for the "surgical enforcement of the rule of law across all fronts."
Panel II: Radicalisation in the Age of AI, Algorithms, and Encrypted Platforms
The second panel, chaired by Mr. Shiv Sahai (Former Additional Secretary, National Security Council Secretariat), confronted the rapidly escalating challenges posed by emerging technologies, a factor Ms. Paskal noted makes the situation "harder to handle." The panel included Dr. Madan Oberoi (Former Executive Director-Interpol & Special Commissioner, Delhi Police & Advisor-MHA), Dr. Hans Jacob Schindler (Senior Director, Counter Extremism Project), Mr. Mandar Kulkarni (National Security Officer, Microsoft India and South Asia) and Major Gaurav Arya (Editor and Chief, ChanakyaForum).
Mr. Sahai set the stage by highlighting the use of encrypted platforms like Threema, Confide, and Zangi—which operate without SIM cards—in cases like the Delhi blast, leaving minimal digital footprints. He warned that law enforcement is "always behind the curve" and stressed the urgent need for cooperation from service providers to get ahead of the threat without compromising privacy.
Major Gaurav Arya agreed that the government is "always behind the curve," noting the shift from physical infiltration to online radicalisation following border fence construction. He cited the example of the Pulwama suicide bomber, Adil Dar, who was radicalised online. Major Arya argued that radicalisation is made easy by the lack of a clear, publicized national counter-narrative from the government. He called for a structured, widely advertised national counter-radicalisation policy, potentially enacted through an Act of Parliament.
Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel
Dr. Hans-Jakob Schindler asserted that malign actors are consistently the "first adopters of new technology." Speaking from a European perspective, he noted that platforms driven by "engagement-based algorithms" (like TikTok) naturally amplify conspiratorial, hateful, and divisive content, leading to "faster and weirder" radicalisation paths. He highlighted that terrorist groups are already using AI for both propaganda and tactical operations, such as directing drone swarms. He pointed out a massive regulatory gap, where platforms in Europe are generally excluded from liability and not required to be proactive in detecting radical content, despite commercially analysing the very same data.
Dr. Madan Oberoi affirmed that radicalisation is moving from ideological exposure to "algorithmic conditioning," transforming the digital ecosystem into a "laboratory of manipulation" where indoctrination happens in hours instead of months, driven by deep fakes and gamified narratives. He strongly advocated for algorithmic transparency and independent audits as a public safety requirement. Both he and Mr. Sahai affirmed that tech companies are no longer neutral conduits but must become proactive partners in the security ecosystem, moving from ad hoc crisis response to the co-creation of safeguards.
Mr. Mandar Kulkarni identified a crucial technology adoption gap between threat actors, private industry, and government. He stressed the need for increased public-private collaboration to enable government technology adoption and "contain algorithms" to prevent "undesigned radicalisation." He called for stringent regulation, including mandatory stamping of AI-generated content, arguing that the speed of digital radicalisation necessitates timely intervention beyond voluntary self-regulation.
Addressing the balance between privacy and security, Mr. Sahai noted that anonymity and privacy are major commercial drivers for platforms. Dr. Schindler proposed a regulatory solution: mandating platforms to proactively analyse data for security concerns based on government guidelines, similar to the financial industry, without "breaking privacy for all individuals." Dr. Oberoi concurred, suggesting strengthened lawful access frameworks and metadata-based intelligence, rather than weakening encryption.
Panel III: India’s Legal Arsenal, Judicial Reforms, and Future Challenges
The final panel, introduced by Karnal Singh (Former Director General, NIA), focused on India's current counter-terrorism legal framework, specifically the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The panel featured Mr. Dinkar Gupta (Former DGP, Punjab and former Spl. DGP, NIA) and Surya Prakash Nigam (Advocate).
Mr. Gupta traced the evolution of anti-terror laws, defending the necessity of stringent UAPA provisions, such as extended detention, for effectively combating violent crime, especially given the slow pace of court trials in India. He identified critical challenges in India’s counterterrorism infrastructure:
• Capacity of NIA: The NIA remains a "relatively young, small, and understaffed organization" that struggles to quickly upskill deputationists for complex cases like cyber terrorism and terror financing.
• State Police Gap: State police forces possess limited capacity and lack necessary infrastructure, such as special terrorism courts.
• International Cooperation: Timely responses to international legal instruments like Letters Rogatory are often not received, hindering the extradition of fugitives.
• Witness Protection: The challenge of witness intimidation and loss of undercover agents is escalating, with weapons often delivered via drones.
• Technology Evasion: Non-Indian financial intermediaries and the use of encrypted communication and VPNs limit the power of Indian courts to compel information.
Mr. Karnal Singh defended the UAPA’s difficult bail conditions, arguing they are essential to prevent suspected terrorists from fleeing the country and planning from abroad. He proposed amending the law to legalise undercover operations to provide protection for agents infiltrating terror groups and suggested addressing the radicalisation of educated people before they join any organizations. Both he and Mr. Gupta called for a national policy on terrorism to counteract false narratives and allegations often made against law enforcement personnel who risked their lives in counter-terror operations.
A major consensus emerged around the need for Judicial Reforms and Capacity Building. Mr. Gupta called for criminal trials in terror cases to conclude within one year to maintain deterrence. He and Mr. Singh agreed on the vital need to establish fast-track UAPA courts and for Mr. Singh’s proposal to club terrorism trials from different states into NIA courts to expedite the judicial process.
Mr. Surya Prakash Nigam, providing a legal perspective, noted that the UAPA has transformed into a sweeping instrument, but that this reflects the changing, digitally-worked, and globally financed nature of terrorism. He cautioned that the fight against radicalisation must not become a "war against dissent" and stressed that the Constitution intended for reasonable restrictions, not a license for excess.
In a final address on future readiness, Mr. Gupta admitted that efforts against emerging threats like AI and drone swarms are only about 20% successful, with weapons and drugs easily crossing the border, and that "significant ground needs to be covered" to cope with these challenges.
Conclusion and Call to Action
In her concluding remarks, Cleo Paskal underscored the urgency, emphasising the complexities of fighting modern terrorism with inadequate laws, new technology, and international challenges. She reiterated the key takeaway of the day: the imperative for a fundamental shift that includes a more honest appraisal of the problem's nature, substantial judicial and police capacity building, and the necessary regulation to make the private sector a proactive partner in protecting society.
About the Global Counter Terrorism Council (GCTC)
The Global Counter Terrorism Council (GCTC) is an independent, non-profit public policy and advocacy civil society think tank committed to providing strategic analysis, engaging in evidence-based research, and advocating for effective counter-terrorism policies and solutions on a global scale.(KNS)