Governments are often judged by how well they react, but true leadership is about how well they reform. Ministries tend to excel in responding to crises such as managing disasters, controlling conflicts, and restoring law and order. While necessary, this approach only addresses immediate threats without securing long-term solutions. Reforms, on the other hand, shape governance for the future.
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaks of ‘Reform, Perform, and Transform’, he highlights the need for structural reforms rather than temporary fixes. This shift is very much visible in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which was traditionally seen as a ‘Crisis Ministry,’ stepping in when riots erupted, insurgencies escalated, or States faced governance failures. Its interventions were often reactive, tackling unrest rather than preventing it through institutional reforms.
A new focus
In recent years, the MHA has fundamentally transformed itself, moving from crisis response to building a structured security architecture. It now focuses on strengthening counter-terror laws, modernising agencies, adopting technology and improving intelligence coordination. From legislative overhauls to institutional restructuring, the Ministry is pre-empting threats, ensuring that India’s internal security is future ready.
The MHA is the backbone of India’s internal security and federal governance. Unlike many countries that divide security and governance, the MHA integrates them, making it a critical pillar of national stability. The Indian Constitution empowers the MHA through Articles 355, 256, and 356, ensuring Centre-State coordination on security matters.
The MHA’s growth has largely been shaped by security challenges of the day. The rise of terrorism and insurgency since the 1980s led to increased security spending. Punjab’s militancy, Kashmir’s terrorism, and Maoist violence required direct intervention, as State police struggled to contain these threats. Many States were slow to modernise their police forces, increasing their reliance on the Central Armed Police Forces or the CAPFs (Assam Rifles; Border Security Force; Central Industrial Security Force, or CISF; Central Reserve Police Force; Indo-Tibetan Border Police; National Security Guard and Sashastra Seema Bal). Reliance on the Rapid Action Force (RAF) of the CRPF for riot control is one example..
Industrial unrest in the 1970s-80s had some role in the creation of the CISF — to manage strikes, particularly in West Bengal and Kerala. Meanwhile, administrative restructuring saw north-east affairs and the Department of Justice separated from the MHA, while Disaster Management and the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) were added.
For nearly four decades, India’s three major security hotspots, i.e., Kashmir, the North-East, and Central India (Naxal areas) dominated the MHA’s priorities, costing thousands of lives. The lives of nearly 36,000 personnel and an equal number of civilians have been lost, with security forces largely turning their focus on these conflict zones.
This focus on insurgency, terrorism and border security has meant that other critical areas such as police modernisation, agency coordination, narcotics control, technology adoption, disaster management and federal governance have received less attention.
Frequent leadership changes have historically affected the Home Ministry’s policymaking. Indira Gandhi’s third term and Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure saw four Home Ministers, leading to instability in internal security reforms. It is only Prime Ministers P.V. Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee who had a single Home Minister throughout their full tenure. Mr. Modi has maintained stability at the MHA, in a reinforcement of a long-term vision for internal security and governance.
Reforms and a shift in responses
On the legislative front, the MHA’s earlier responses were largely event-driven. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, or TADA, was enacted after the Punjab insurgency, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) after the 2001 Parliament attack, and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was formed after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. These laws, though critical, were reactive/reactions rather than being a part of a structured security framework. But since 2019, over 27 legislative reforms have established a strong security jurisprudence, shaping law enforcement and national stability. These include transformative changes in terror jurisprudence, Kashmir integration and the criminal justice system.
The idea of whole-of-government now drives a multi-agency approach, where legislative provisions are backed by operational strengthening, budgetary support and outcome-oriented reviews.
India has long faced terror threats, but past responses have often been short-sighted and temporary. The current Home Ministry has strengthened terror jurisprudence — amending the NIA Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, by defining terrorism in Indian criminal law, and aiming to financially choke terror groups. But at the same time, this has been complemented by strengthening and expanding the NIA, creating technology databases, revamping the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC), and promoting a ‘duty to share’ intelligence culture.
A similar approach is visible in criminal justice system reforms. Three new criminal laws (the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) have been enacted but their foundation was laid much earlier. There has also been the establishment of the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) and full implementation of the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) which integrates 17,130 police stations, courts, jails and forensic laboratories. States are now encouraged to separate investigation from forensics, further strengthening the justice system.
In 2019, for the first time, the MHA budget crossed ₹1 lakh crore. The 2025 Budget allocation has surged to ₹2.33 lakh crore, reflecting the government’s focus on internal security and modernisation. The expenditure on the Central Paramilitary Forces has also risen, from ₹38,000 crore in 2013-14 to ₹97,000 crore in 2024-25, highlighting the enhanced investment in national security and force modernisation.
Impact on the ground
The new approach has led to a significant reduction in violence across Kashmir, the North-East, and Naxal-affected areas. The dilution of Article 370, peace deals in the North-East, and a dual strategy of a filling up of security and development vacuums in Naxal-affected regions have collectively transformed India’s internal security landscape. These measures have attempted full integration, political stability, and economic growth in conflict-prone areas. The impact is evident — violence across these three major hotspots has declined by 70%, incidents of stone pelting in Kashmir have declined, insurgency in the North-East has weakened, and Naxal strongholds are witnessing social transformation.
The MHA has evolved from a crisis-response body to a structured, proactive institution. By shifting from reactionary interventions to strategic reforms, it has strengthened India’s internal security architecture and built a future-ready governance framework. The MHA is now preempting threats rather than merely responding to them, shaping India’s internal security for the years ahead.
Abhishek M. Chaudhari, who has an interest in politics, security, and technology, is currently pursuing public administration at the Harvard Kennedy School
Published – April 09, 2025 12:16 am IST