[Answered] Examine how India’s ‘relative isolation’ in global affairs exacerbates its tryst with terror. Critically analyze the role of internal socio-cultural fault lines in national security.

Introduction

Amid shifting geopolitics and declining regional stability, India’s reduced influence in global conflict-resolution forums coincides with rising cross-border threats and revived urban terror, as highlighted in the Global Terrorism Index 2024 and regional security assessments.

India’s Relative Isolation and Its Security Implications

1. Reduced Diplomatic Leverage Amid Global Turbulence: India’s limited role in shaping outcomes in West Asia, Ukraine conflict, and Indo-Pacific security restricts its ability to secure favourable geopolitical environments. Despite being a key voice of the Global South, India remains absent from major ceasefire negotiations or maritime security arrangements.
   Such marginalization weakens India’s deterrent messaging, encouraging adversarial adventurism.
2. Hostile Neighbourhood Entrapment: India today faces unprecedented regional instability.

• Pakistan has institutionalized military dominance through the 27th Constitutional Amendment, centralizing power in the new Chief of Defence Forces, heightening risks of strategic adventurism—similar to patterns seen under Ayub Khan and Zia-ul-Haq (per the Kargil Review Committee Report).
• Bangladesh’s interim regime has shown signs of drift, including renewed India-scepticism and naval cooperation with Pakistan.
• The revival of extremist networks in Afghanistan and Myanmar’s instability deepen India’s vulnerability to radicalization and weapons flows.
• India’s limited influence in shaping these neighbourhood dynamics enhances the probability of proxy-based terror spill-overs, as seen repeatedly since the 1990s.

3. International Power Shifts Eroding India’s Counter-terror Environment: Growing Chinese influence in the subcontinent—through BRI, naval visits, dual-use ports like Hambantota, and backing for Pakistan in multilateral forums—creates strategic asymmetry. India’s exclusion from certain global coalitions or crisis groups reduces its ability to diplomatically isolate terrorism sponsors, unlike the success after the 26/11 attacks.

Internal Socio-Cultural Fault Lines and National Security Risks

1. Emerging Urban Terror by Indigenous Actors: The recent Srinagar–Faridabad–Delhi module—run by educated professionals and doctors—marks a dangerous shift: Homegrown radicalization, digital indoctrination, encrypted recruitment, and transnational online influence.
   This represents a qualitative departure from the “lumpen” networks of 1993 or Pakistan-led 2008 attacks.
2. Communal Polarization as a Force Multiplier: Socio-cultural fault lines—identity grievances, historical injustices, religious polarization—act as radicalization accelerants. The module’s ideological motivation tied to Babri Masjid (1992) indicates enduring emotive triggers. Scholars like Paul Brass emphasize how “institutionalized communal narratives” can feed alienation and violence.
3. Vulnerability of Youth and Professionals: The radicalization of educated youth reflects: High emotional mobilization, Identity-based victimhood narratives, Transnational Islamist influence and weak social cohesion mechanisms. This mirrors trends noted in the UNODC 2023 Radicalisation Pathways Study, where professional classes formed a rising share of extremist recruits in conflict-adjacent regions.
4. Institutional Gaps and Urban Security Fragility: The ability of the group to stockpile 3,000 kg of explosives, bypass checkpoints, and plant devices near Red Fort underscores: Intelligence gaps. Urban surveillance weaknesses, Inter-agency coordination challenges and limits of community policing. These structural gaps magnify the consequences of socio-cultural polarization.

Conclusion

Internal cohesion is the foundation of external strength. India’s security strategy must integrate diplomacy, counter-radicalization, neighbourhood management, and societal harmony to prevent deeper fissures.