Examine how India's evolving counter-terrorism doctrine, from restraint to proactive deterrence, can be shared with regional partners. What limits does such cooperation face?

India's counter-terrorism (CT) approach used to be restraint after attacks. It is now declared, proactive deterrence. At the 13th ADMM-Plus in Cebu (October 2026), India offered this "battle-tested" experience to ASEAN partners [1]. Regional institutions can carry much of it, but not all of it.

Evolution of the doctrine

• Restraint phase: for decades, India answered cross-border attacks mainly with diplomatic pressure and domestic policing.
• Proactive deterrence: after the Pahalgam attack killed 26 civilians, Operation Sindoor destroyed nine terror camps [2]. India also enforced a "non-negotiable red line against state-sponsored terror" [1].

Channels for sharing with regional partners

• Institutional platform: India and Malaysia co-chair the ADMM-Plus Experts' Working Group on CT (2024–27). This is India's first CT co-chairmanship [3].
• Joint exercises: a Table-Top Exercise is planned in Malaysia (2026) and a Field Training Exercise in India (2027) [3]. New Delhi hosted the planning conference in January 2026 [4].
• Capacity-building and intelligence sharing: these, with joint exercises, are the three channels India offered [1].
• Technology focus: the Defence Secretary said terrorists' use of advanced technology calls for a collaborative, action-oriented response [5].

Limits of such cooperation

• Different threats: ASEAN's priorities are foreign terrorist fighters and online radicalisation [6]. India's experience comes mainly from state-backed cross-border terror.
• Strikes cannot be exported: cross-border strikes clash with ASEAN's stress on sovereign equality and non-interference [6].
• Forum politics: the US, China and Russia all sit at the ADMM-Plus table [7]. So India said "state-sponsored terror" without naming Pakistan [1]. Forums that work by consensus avoid blaming any one country.
• Definition gap: there is still no agreed global definition of terrorism. UN Sixth Committee members are still trying to finish the draft convention [8]. Without an agreed definition, partners hold back intelligence on disputed groups.
• Existing frameworks: all ten ASEAN members have ratified the ASEAN Convention on Counter-Terrorism, and UN counter-terrorism bodies (UNOCT, CTED) already give them technical support [6]. India's offer must add something new.

What India can share is skills, drills and intelligence, not a model of cross-border strikes. India should build the 2027 exercise around ASEAN's own threats, train jointly with UN bodies, and use the ASEAN Convention's terms while it keeps pushing the CCIT. That would make India a trusted security partner, add substance to the Act East Policy, and serve SDG 16 on peace and strong institutions.