Terror ecosystem must be dismantled, Rajnath tells SCO

1. At a Glance

• At the 25th SCO Council of Heads of Government (CHG) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh asked SCO members to dismantle the "entire ecosystem of terrorism." He said there must be "no justification" for terrorism and "no double standard" in dealing with it [1].
• He spoke with Pakistan's Deputy PM Ishaq Dar in the room. India uses the SCO to raise cross-border terrorism and to name those who finance, support or give safe havens to terrorists [1].
• The topic covers India's multilateral counter-terror diplomacy, the SCO's structure (RATS), and India's position on connectivity and trade within Eurasia. These map to GS-II and GS-III [1][9].

2. Why in the News

• 20 Oct 2026: Rajnath Singh addressed the 25th SCO CHG in Dushanbe. He said terrorism "results in the loss of innocent lives and disrupts investment and commerce… radicalises societies and deprives youth of the opportunities" [1].
• He repeated PM Modi's remarks at the SCO Summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, which called for concrete steps on security, connectivity and opportunity [1].
• India backed adopting an action plan for multilateral trade and economic cooperation. He also called for resilient supply chains, easier trade and investment, and using technology against geopolitical, trade, energy and food-security uncertainties [1].
• At the same event, Singh said India will host the SCO Civilisation Dialogue Forum by the end of the year [11].

3. Background & Evolution

• SCO permanent bodies: a Secretariat in Beijing and the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) in Tashkent, Uzbekistan [9][10].
• How India joined:
• 2005: India became an observer [9].
• 2014, Dushanbe Summit: India applied for membership before this summit [9].
• 2015, Ufa Summit: the accession process began [9].
• June 2016, Tashkent Summit: India signed the Memorandum of Obligations [9].

• 9 June 2017, Astana Summit: India and Pakistan became full members, taking the total to 8 [9].

• Expansion: Iran joined in 2023 and Belarus in 2024, so there are now 10 member states [10].

• India's counter-terror stand at SCO defence meetings:
• 28 Jul 2021, Dushanbe: Singh called terrorism the gravest threat to international peace and security. He said any act of terror, including cross-border terrorism, is a crime against humanity. Afghanistan was also discussed [2][3].
• Apr 2023, New Delhi (India's chair year): he called for rooting out terrorism collectively and fixing accountability on its supporters [7].
• Jun 2025, Qingdao, China: Singh refused to sign the joint document because it left out the 22 April 2025 Pahalgam attack (26 killed) [5][6][8].
• Apr 2026, Bishkek: he said there is "no place for double standards" and that the SCO should seek action against those who abet, shelter or provide safe havens to terrorists [4].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Geopolitical / Strategic

• India uses SCO meetings, which Pakistan and China also attend, to raise state-sponsored cross-border terrorism without naming any country [1][5].
• India refused to sign the Qingdao 2025 document. This shows India will block consensus documents that leave out terror incidents it cares about, such as Pahalgam [5][6].
• Jaishankar said "one country didn't want terror reference" in the communique. This shows how hard it is to reach consensus in the SCO [6].

Security

• India's language has moved from "terror is a crime against humanity" (2021) to "fix accountability" (2023) and now to "dismantle the ecosystem" (2026). The focus is now on financing, safe havens and support networks, not just the attackers [2][7][1].
• RATS in Tashkent is the SCO's counter-terrorism body. It is the organisation's institutional lever on this issue [9][10].

Economic

• Singh argued that terrorism disrupts investment and commerce, linking security to economic growth [1].
• India supported the action plan for multilateral trade and economic cooperation, resilient supply chains and energy and food security [1].

Social

• He said terrorism radicalises societies and takes opportunities away from youth [1].
• India's plan to host the SCO Civilisation Dialogue Forum is a soft-power, people-to-people initiative [11].

Governance / Multilateral

• SCO statements need consensus, so a single member can block wording on terrorism. India has taken the same position in other forums [6].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 22 Apr 2025: Pahalgam terror attack in J&K killed 26 people [5].
• Jun 2025, Qingdao: at the SCO Defence Ministers' Meeting, India did not sign the joint document [5][8].
• Jun 2025: Singh urged SCO members to condemn terror without bias and pressed China for a "permanent solution" to the border standoff [12][13].
• Apr 2026, Bishkek: at the SCO Defence Ministers' meeting, Singh said there is "no place for double standards." He also met Chinese Defence Minister Adm. Dong Jun [4].
• 20 Oct 2026, Dushanbe: at the 25th SCO CHG, he called for dismantling the terror ecosystem and supported the trade action plan [1].
• Oct 2026: India announced it will host the SCO Civilisation Dialogue Forum by year-end [11].

7. Prelims Hooks

• SCO RATS is headquartered in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, not Beijing [9][10].
• The SCO Secretariat is in Beijing [9][10].
• India became an SCO observer in 2005 [9].
• India signed the Memorandum of Obligations at the Tashkent Summit, June 2016 [9].
• India and Pakistan became full SCO members at the Astana Summit on 9 June 2017 [9].
• Iran joined in 2023 and Belarus in 2024, giving 10 members [10].
• India's accession process began at the Ufa Summit in 2015 [9].
• The 25th SCO Council of Heads of Government was held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in Oct 2026 [1].
• India was represented at the 2026 CHG by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh [1].
• The SCO Defence Ministers' meeting was held in Dushanbe on 28 July 2021 [2].
• India refused to sign the SCO Defence Ministers' joint document in Qingdao (June 2025) because it left out Pahalgam [5].
• The Pahalgam attack happened on 22 April 2025 and killed 26 people [5].
• India announced it will host the SCO Civilisation Dialogue Forum [11].

8. Why One Country Can Block the SCO on Terrorism

• Every SCO text needs every member to agree
• SCO documents are adopted by consensus (all members must say yes) [6].
• So the country being blamed for cross-border terrorism sits in the same room and has a vote on the wording.

• At Qingdao in June 2025, Jaishankar said "one country didn't want terror reference" in the text [6].

• The same rule lets India say no

• The joint document at Qingdao left out the Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 people [5].
• Rajnath Singh refused to sign it [5][8].

• India could not get its own wording in. But it could stop a weak text from going out with India's name on it.

• The price of saying no

• When India refuses to sign, it protects its position, but no shared SCO message on terrorism comes out of that meeting [5].

• So the consensus rule gives India the power to block. It does not give India the power to get things done.

• Why India never names the country

• Singh speaks of those who "finance, support, or provide safe havens" but does not say "Pakistan" [1].
• Naming a member state would make agreement impossible. So India keeps the words general enough to be accepted, and clear enough that everyone knows who is meant [1][4].

9. The Counter-Case: Is the SCO the Wrong Room for This Fight?

• The strongest objection
• India has said the same thing at SCO meetings for five years: 2021 Dushanbe, 2023 New Delhi, 2025 Qingdao, 2026 Bishkek, and now 2026 Dushanbe [2][7][5][4][1].
• The words have got stronger, from "crime against humanity" to "fix accountability" to "dismantle the ecosystem" [2][7][1]. But none of the sources records any SCO action against a safe-haven state.

• China and Pakistan are both full members [9][10]. In 2025, one member was able to keep Pahalgam out of the text [6]. So critics ask: why use a forum where those you accuse can block you?

• What is right about it

• The SCO will not punish Pakistan. RATS (the SCO's anti-terror body in Tashkent) coordinates among members. It cannot act against one member when another member is protecting it [9][10][6].

• Saying it louder does not dismantle anything. It only puts India's view on record.

• Why India still stays in

• It is a room India cannot get elsewhere. India meets Central Asia, Russia, Iran and Belarus here, as well as China and Pakistan [10].
• It allows quiet talks with China. At Bishkek, Singh met Chinese Defence Minister Adm. Dong Jun [4]. At Qingdao he pressed China for a "permanent solution" to the border standoff [13].
• Leaving would hand the narrative to others. If India is absent, SCO texts on terrorism would be written without India's objections. Qingdao showed India's refusal to sign is the only check [5].

• The economic agenda matters too. India backed the trade action plan and will host the Civilisation Dialogue Forum [1][11]. These keep India useful to Central Asian members, not just a country that complains.

• Honest verdict

• The SCO is a place for India to state its view and to block weak texts. It is not a place where terrorism gets punished.
• India's real tools against terror financing sit elsewhere (see the next section).

10. Where the Fight Against the Terror 'Ecosystem' Must Actually Happen

• What 'ecosystem' means
• Not just the attacker, but the money, the safe havens and the state support behind him [1].

• India's language has shifted from the attack itself to these networks [2][7][1].

• Why the SCO cannot reach the money

• Cutting terror funding needs a body that can check a country's banks and punish it for failing. The SCO is built on consensus and does not grade its members [6][9].

• So 'dismantle the ecosystem' at the SCO is a goal. The tools to reach it are in other forums.

• MEA and the Finance Ministry: use FATF

• FATF (Financial Action Task Force, the global watchdog on money laundering and terror financing) can grey-list a country. Grey-listing means more checks on that country's money flows.

• Singh's focus on those who "finance" terror fits this forum directly [1].

• MEA at the UN: push UNSC 1267 listings and the CCIT

• The UNSC 1267 Sanctions Committee lists terrorists for asset freezes and travel bans. Here too, one member can block a listing. That is the same 'double standards' problem India raises at the SCO [4].

• India's long-pending CCIT (Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism) would give one agreed UN definition of terrorism. That would remove the 'good terrorist vs bad terrorist' excuse India keeps criticising [1].

• India at the SCO: work on wording that can pass

• Instead of seeking a named condemnation, India can push for general rules, such as members acting on each other's requests about terror financing.
• This fits India's 2023 call to "fix accountability on supporters". Pakistan finds it harder to veto than a named condemnation [7].

11. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Pahalgam attack, 22 April 2025: 26 killed. This was the trigger for India refusing to sign at Qingdao [5]
• Data: The SCO now has 10 members, all of whom must agree on every text, after Iran (2023) and Belarus (2024) joined [10]
• Law/Case: UNSC 1267 Sanctions Committee. Its consensus-based listing faces the same 'double standards' problem India raises at the SCO
• Comparison: Qingdao 2025 vs Dushanbe 2026. At Qingdao India refused to sign a text without Pahalgam [5]. At Dushanbe it pairs the terror message with support for a trade action plan [1]. This shows India both blocks texts and engages with the SCO
• Comparison: India's SCO wording over time: 'crime against humanity' (2021), then 'fix accountability' (2023), then 'dismantle the ecosystem' (2026) [2][7][1]

12. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: "Important international institutions, agencies and fora — their structure, mandate"; "Bilateral, regional and global groupings involving India"; "Effect of policies and politics of other countries on India's interests."
• GS-III: "Linkages between development and spread of extremism"; "Security challenges and their management in border areas"; "Money-laundering and its prevention" (terror financing).
• Possible question stems: 1. India's insistence on 'no double standards' on terrorism has repeatedly tested consensus within the SCO. Critically examine the utility of the SCO for India's counter-terrorism objectives. 2. Dismantling the 'ecosystem' of terrorism requires going beyond kinetic action. Discuss with reference to terror financing and safe havens. 3. With China and Pakistan as co-members, is the SCO a platform of opportunity or constraint for India's Eurasian strategy? Analyse.

13. Related Topics to Study Next

• SCO RATS and the Shanghai Convention on terrorism: the SCO's counter-terror body and its legal base.
• FATF and terror financing: relevant because Singh focused on those who "finance" terrorists.
• UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT): India's long-pending proposal at the UN, which carries the same "no double standards" theme.
• UNSC 1267 Sanctions Committee: blocked listings of terrorists show the double-standards problem.
• Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor (2025): the trigger for India's tougher SCO position.
• India–Central Asia relations and connectivity (INSTC, Chabahar): linked to the "connectivity" pillar of Modi's Bishkek message.
• BRICS and the Quad: compare India's approach across groupings.

14. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• International North-South Transport Corridor (Geography): India's Central Asia and Eurasia connectivity push, which the note links to Modi's 'connectivity' message, relies on this route via Iran.
• Money laundering (Economy): Dismantling the terror ecosystem means cutting off financing, which ties to laundering of illicit money and the note's GS-III angle.
• Multilateral trade (Geography): India backed an SCO action plan for multilateral trade and economic cooperation; this explains trade under common rules.
• Accountability (Polity): India has called for fixing accountability on those who abet, shelter or finance terrorists; this concept clarifies that idea.
• Economic sanctions (Economy): Pressing states that give safe havens or finance terror links to sanctions tools such as UNSC listings.
• Food security (Economy): Singh named food and energy security among the uncertainties SCO members should tackle together through trade and technology.

15. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• RATS is in Tashkent, the Secretariat is in Beijing. Aspirants often swap them [9][10].
• Council of Heads of Government vs Council of Heads of State. The Oct 2026 Dushanbe event was the CHG (the PM-level/economic track), not the summit. The summit referred to in the article was in Bishkek [1].
• Defence Ministers' meetings vs the CHG. Dushanbe hosted both: the 2021 Defence Ministers' meeting and the 2026 CHG. Don't mix up the years or formats [2][1].
• India's year of accession is 2017 (Astana), not 2016. 2016 was the Memorandum of Obligations in Tashkent [9].
• Member count: it is 10 after Belarus joined in 2024, not 8 or 9 [10].