What to Read in Indian Express Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: As global consensus against nuclear testing frays, India should re-evaluate its options

Context:

The signing of Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty marked the watershed moment, as it banned nuclear tests almost in any form. Recent developments weaken this consensus; India needs to revaluate its nuclear testing strategy to adapt it to changing global scenarios.

Global scenario regarding nuclear weapons:

• The post-Cold War era witnessed an unprecedented global consensus against nuclear testing.
• For nearly three decades, a voluntary moratorium anchored more in political prudence than legal obligation helped maintain nuclear restraintamong major powers.
• However, recent developments indicate that this consensus is weakening.
• The United States, under President Donald Trump, has signalled a possible resumption of nuclear testing, while Russia and China have revitalized their nuclear programmes.
• These shifts compel India to re-examine its long-standing voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing, declared after the 1998 Pokhran-II tests.

Indian Nuclear testing strategy:

• India’s decision to refrain from further tests since 1998symbolized both strategic maturity and moral confidence.
• It reassured the global community that India’s nuclear ambitions were guided by restraint, not defiance.
• This policy facilitated India’s diplomatic acceptance, leading to the lifting of sanctions and the landmark civil nuclear cooperation agreements, including the Indo-US nuclear deal of 2008.
• However, restraint, if unrelieved in a changing security landscape, risks transforming into strategic inertia.

Changing Geopolitics:

• The global nuclear order today is undergoing profound transformation.
• Russia has withdrawn from critical arms control regimes. China is expanding its arsenal and constructing new missile silos.
• The United States is questioning whether simulation-based verificationcan replace physical testing indefinitely.
• Meanwhile, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which India has not signed, remains stalled as major powers themselves refuse to ratify it.
• The supposed stability of the nuclear order, therefore, appears increasingly fragile.

Indian Nuclear Doctrine and No-First-Use policy:

• India’s nuclear doctrine of credible minimum deterrence, combined with a No First Use (NFU) policy, has long balanced moral restraint with strategic credibility.
• Yet deterrence depends not merely on possessing weapons but also on the confidence in their reliability.
• India’s nuclear designs were last validated in 1998, and since then, delivery systems and technologies have evolved significantly such as the Agni-V and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
• As India moves toward more advanced capabilities, including Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs), assurance about weapon performance becomes essential.

Computer Simulations and changing technology:

• While computer simulationsand subcritical tests can supplement understanding, they cannot fully substitute for empirical testing data.
• Even advanced nuclear powers like the United States acknowledge this limitation. Therefore, India’s challenge lies in maintaining deterrent credibility in an environment where others might resume testing.

Ways to improve and build consensus for safe nuclear tests:

• A reconsideration of restraint does not imply reckless action. Should testing ever become necessary, it must be limited, scientific, and consistent with India’s ethical framework.
• “Testing for validation, not demonstration”can coexist with the principles of NFU and credible minimum deterrence. It would aim to ensure reliability, not provoke escalation.
• At the same time, India must preserve the moral and diplomatic capital earned through restraint. Strategic autonomy demands flexibility, not rigidity.
• If major powers return to an era of verification through detonation, India must ensure that its deterrent remains both credible and responsible.
• Ultimately, India’s restraint after 1998 reflected maturity. Its willingness to re-examine that restraint today would reflect confidence.

Way Forward:

In an evolving global order, strategic prudence lies not in immobility but in readiness the capacity to adapt policy when circumstances demand. To sustain deterrence in a world where others move, India must balance restraint with preparedness, ensuring that its nuclear posture remains a symbol of both peace and power.

 

Editorial 2: Why China Seems to Have the Upper Hand after the Trump–Xi Meeting

Context:

The recent meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, on the sidelines of the APEC Summit, marked a key moment in the trajectory of U.S.–China relations. The meeting reflected both sides’ desire to stabilize ties amid an era of economic and technological rivalry. Despite the conciliatory tone from both leaders, many analysts believe China emerged from the dialogue with a strategic advantage.

Agenda of the Bilateral meet:

• The discussions covered a wide range of contentious issues from rare earth mineral exports and semiconductor access to U.S. trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking.
• The U.S. side announced a “historic agreement” that included China’s commitments to curb the flow of precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl, remove export controls on critical minerals, and stop retaliatory measures against American companies.
• In exchange, the U.S. reduced tariffs on Chinese goods from 57% to 47%and paused investigations into China’s trade practices.
• China’s official statements highlighted cooperation and equality, with Xi describing the U.S.–China relationship as one of “partners and friends.”

China’s Confidence and Strategic Messaging:

• China used the occasion to showcase economic resilience.
• Xi cited stronger-than-expected GDP and trade numbersas evidence of stability despite global headwinds.
• His metaphor of the Chinese economy as a “vast ocean big, resilient, and promising” signaled confidence in Beijing’s long-term strength.
• Chinese state media, particularly Global Times, reinforced this narrative, portraying the meeting as a reaffirmation of China’s constructive global roleand the U.S. acknowledgment of its status.

Change in Geopolitical perspectives:

• Western commentators generally agreed that Xi walked away from the meeting stronger.
• The New York Times observed that most outcomes required China only to extend previous commitments while retaining leverage in strategic sectors like rare earths.
• Experts noted that China managed to secure tariff reductions without conceding on structural reforms, a win that enhances Beijing’s global standing.
• Analyst further contextualized this by tracing the S.’s three miscalculations over decades,  that China’s economic liberalization would lead to political reform, that WTO entry would moderate its behavior, and that tariffs would weaken its rise. None of these assumptions held true.

Way Forward:

While the meeting projected an image of cooperation, it did little to resolve deeper structural disputes in trade, technology, and geopolitics. Yet, it underscored China’s growing confidence in managing global challenges and leveraging diplomacy to maintain parity with the U.S. In essence, the Trump–Xi engagement symbolized a tactical pause rather than a breakthrough, one that allows Beijing to consolidate its position as a stable and assertive global power.