Context

• Governance in any democracy is often evaluated by how swiftly and effectively governments respond to crises.
• Yet, genuine leadership is better measured by the ability to anticipate challenges and reform institutions to prevent future upheavals.
• In India, this transformation is particularly evident in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which has historically been perceived as a reactive body, responding to crises as they emerged.
• However, recent developments indicate a paradigm shift from reaction to reform, marking a new era of governance and internal security.

A Historical Context of Ministry of Home Affairs

• Traditionally, the MHA has been synonymous with crisis management. Whether in quelling riots, responding to insurgencies, or restoring law and order after disasters, its interventions were typically reactive.
• For decades, India’s internal security landscape was defined by violence in Kashmir, insurgency in the North-East, and Naxalite movements in Central India.
• These conflict zones dictated the Ministry’s priorities, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives, both civilian and personnel.
• The Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) were deployed extensively as many States lacked the capacity to modernise their police forces.
• The MHA’s growing responsibilities during these years shaped its identity as a Crisis Ministry.
• This reactive approach extended into legislation. Key security laws such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), and the formation of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) were born out of violent episodes.
• While these legal responses were necessary, they often lacked continuity and long-term vision.
• Frequent changes in leadership during critical political periods also undermined consistent policymaking in internal security.

A Shift Towards Structural Reform

• The narrative began to shift under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose emphasis on ‘Reform, Perform, and Transform’ captured the essence of future-ready governance.
• This vision translated into a fundamental reorientation of the MHA’s objectives, from crisis response to structural preparedness.
• One of the most striking changes has been the Ministry’s focus on building a modern security architecture.
• This includes strengthening counter-terror laws, modernising agencies, integrating technology, and improving intelligence coordination.
• From 2019 onwards, over 27 legislative reforms have been introduced, reflecting a deliberate and strategic shift in internal security jurisprudence.
• The amendments to the NIA Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) not only defined terrorism more clearly but also sought to financially undermine terror networks.
• These legislative changes have been complemented by institutional reforms such as expanding the NIA, revamping the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC), and fostering a “duty to share” intelligence culture across agencies.

Key Aspects of MHA and Tangible Impact on the Ground

• Integration of Governance and Security
  • Unlike many global counterparts that separate governance and security, India’s MHA integrates the two.
  • Empowered by constitutional provisions such as Articles 355, 256, and 356, the MHA plays a crucial role in Centre-State coordination, national stability, and federal governance.
  • It has also undergone administrative restructuring, relinquishing responsibilities like North-East affairs and justice while absorbing functions related to disaster management and narcotics control.
  • This structural consolidation allows the MHA to function as the backbone of India’s internal security.
  • Initiatives like the establishment of the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU), the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS), and the promotion of separating forensic and investigative functions in State police forces are reformative steps aimed at professionalising law enforcement.
  • The introduction of three new criminal laws, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, further signify the Ministry’s commitment to overhauling India’s colonial-era criminal justice system.
• Budgetary Support and Institutional Modernisation
  • The transformation of the MHA has also been backed by unprecedented budgetary support.
  • For the first time in 2019, the Ministry's budget crossed ₹1 lakh crore, and by 2025, it surged to ₹2.33 lakh crore.
  • Spending on paramilitary forces rose from ₹38,000 crore in 2013-14 to ₹97,000 crore in 2024-25.
  • These investments underscore the government's priority in modernising internal security and equipping forces with the necessary infrastructure.
• Tangible Impact on the Ground
  • The reformed approach has yielded significant results. Violence in Kashmir, the North-East, and Naxal-affected regions has declined by 70%.
  • Stone-pelting incidents in Kashmir have subsided; insurgent activity in the North-East has been curtailed through peace deals; and Naxal-affected areas are now witnessing social development and integration into the national mainstream.
  • These outcomes are not merely coincidental but are the result of a dual strategy that combines enhanced security presence with development initiatives.
  • The dilution of Article 370, the integration of Kashmir, and socio-political engagements in the North-East and Central India reflect the Ministry’s holistic approach.

Conclusion

• The evolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs from a reactive crisis management body to a reform-oriented institution marks a pivotal shift in India’s internal governance.
• It illustrates the broader truth that while responses are necessary, it is reforms that secure the future.
• The MHA’s new model, grounded in strategic planning, legislative consistency, inter-agency collaboration, and institutional modernisation, offers a blueprint for resilient and future-ready governance.
• By pre-empting rather than merely reacting to threats, the Ministry has emerged as a cornerstone of India’s internal stability and federal strength.