Editorial 2 : A T20 for the win
Context
After Op Sindoor, what is needed is a shift from episodic response to permanent institutional architecture combating terror.
An India-led initiative
- Terrorism is not just an isolated security threat; it is an ongoing war by other means.
- While India showcased military precision and diplomatic discipline during the crisis, the global response to its actions also exposed gaps in the current international system’s ability to credibly and swiftly respond to terror. From these developments emerges a compelling case for a new platform, an India-led initiative: The T20 — Twenty Against Terrorism.
- While allies like the United States, France, and Israel tacitly or overtly supported India, other global institutions such as the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) defaulted to calls for “restraint” and “dialogue” without assigning responsibility.
- China, predictably, shielded Pakistan diplomatically. Russia, once a reliable strategic partner, chose calibrated silence.
- This pattern is familiar and frustrating. The international architecture for counter-terrorism — including the UN, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and the Global Counterterrorism Forum — either lacks teeth, is entangled in geopolitical rivalries, or remains anchored in a Western security paradigm that does not fully reflect the lived realities of terrorism in South Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.
T20 — Twenty Against Terrorism
- The idea of T20 stems from this chronic mismatch between global terror frameworks and the regional intensity of the threat.
- It proposes a dedicated alliance of 20 countries, led by India, comprising nations from the Global South who face frequent, asymmetrical, and politically complex terror threats.
- These include Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, Mali, Fiji, the Philippines, and others — countries that, like India, often find themselves battling both state-sponsored and ideologically driven terrorist violence without adequate global support.
- The mandate of T20 would not be to duplicate existing institutions but to supplement them with agility, real-time coordination, and a Global South-first perspective.
- It would focus on intelligence sharing through a joint task force; capacity building and counter-radicalisation programmes; joint diplomatic statements to name and shame state sponsors of terrorism; a permanent platform to address emerging threats like cyber-terrorism, drone-based warfare, and crypto-financing of extremism.
Multilateralism falters
- Multilateralism falters under the weight of big-power rivalries, smaller groupings are proving more nimble and effective — be it the Quad, I2U2, or ASEAN-led security platforms.
- T20 fits this trend and fills a glaring institutional gap: the absence of a platform focused specifically on terror from the perspective of its most frequent victims.
- Importantly, the T20 would not seek to replace the UN or the FATF but to operate as a conscience-keeper and action-accelerator.
- It would bring in countries often left on the sidelines of global security debates. It would lend weight to bilateral diplomacy by providing collective legitimacy.
- And it would foster collaboration beyond the militaristic models of the past, emphasising data, digital tools, community resilience, and development-linked de-radicalisation.
Advantage for India
- Strategically, India also benefits. T20 would provide it with leadership stature without the baggage of military entanglement.
- It affirms its image as a responsible, proactive power and strengthens its positioning as the voice of the Global South.
- With its experience, digital capacity, and diplomatic network, India is well-placed to host the T20 secretariat, offer training hubs, and shape the global counter-terror narrative from New Delhi.
Conclusion
India must now take the next step — not just to defend itself, but to offer leadership to all those who, like it, stand on the frontline of an undeclared global war.