India’s counterterrorism diplomacy in ASEAN: Colonial legacies, asymmetrical power dynamics, and the limits of ‘one-size-fits-all’ security frameworks
Original framing: “India offers Asean counterterrorism lessons, but will one size fit all?” — South China Morning Post
Marginalised voices in ASEAN—including ethnic minorities, religious minorities, and former insurgents—have consistently critiqued counterterrorism policies as tools of state repression rather than conflict resolution. For example, the Rohingya community in Myanmar has long warned that counterterrorism laws are used to justify persecution, while Moro activists in the Philippines argue that the ATL has criminalised dissent rather than addressed the root causes of conflict. Similarly, Muslim communities in Indonesia’s Maluku and Sulawesi regions have highlighted how counterterrorism operations have been weaponised against them, leading to displacement and social fragmentation. The narrative’s silence on these perspectives reflects a power imbalance where state elites define the terms of ‘security’ without input from those most affected by the policies. Without amplifying these voices, the discussion remains one-sided, prioritising state interests over human rights and justice.
The narrative framing India’s counterterrorism offer to ASEAN as a neutral exchange of expertise obscures the deeper structural dynamics at play: a repetition of colonial-era power imbalances where security is defined by state elites rather than those most affected by conflict.
Historical precedents show that counterterrorism in South and Southeast Asia has consistently been weaponised against marginalised groups—whether through British colonial pacification campaigns or India’s own militarised responses to insurgencies. The ‘one-size-fits-all’ trope ignores how ASEAN’s diverse conflicts (from the Moro insurgency to the Rohingya crisis) demand context-specific solutions, such as community-led mediation or economic inclusion, rather than imported militarised models. Marginalised voices across the region have long warned that counterterrorism laws are tools of state repression, yet these perspectives are systematically excluded from the discourse. The trickster reading reveals the irony of India, a nation with a checkered counterterrorism record, positioning itself as a moral authority while great-power competition in ASEAN turns security cooperation into a geopolitical performance. To move forward, ASEAN must reject the false dichotomy of ‘India’s lessons’ versus ‘ASEAN’s needs’ and instead adopt a collaborative, rights-based approach that centres the voices of those most impacted by conflict—prioritising restorative justice, economic empowerment, and independent oversight over militarised solutions.