What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: ​​Changing the frame

Context

India should leverage forecasts to strengthen disaster preparedness.

Introduction

India’s 2025 monsoon brought 8% above-normal rainfall, boosting kharif crop cultivation and reservoir storage. While this appears as agricultural prosperity, torrential rains caused flooding, landslides, and erosion, devastating communities. Uneven distribution, misuse of terms like “cloudburst”, and inadequate disaster preparedness highlight the need for a shift in viewing excess rainfall as risk rather than blessing.

Monsoon Rainfall and Agriculture

• Above Normal Rainfall: India received 8% more rainfallthan the long-period average this year.
• Kharif Crop Expansion:
  • Total sown area rose by 15 lakh hectares, reaching 1,110 lakh hectares.
  • Rice cultivationincreased by 45 lakh hectares (from 430 to 438 lakh hectares).
  • Pulses, coarse cereals, and oilseedsalso recorded growth.
• Reservoir Storage:
  • As of late September, water storage was 163 BCMcompared to 8 BCM last year.
  • (1 BCM = 1 trillion litres).

Flooding and Destruction

• Torrential Rains(August–September) led to:
  • Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjabfacing inundation and isolation.
  • In Punjab, entire villages submerged, farmland lost.
• Widespread Disasters:
  • Landslides, flooding (urban & rural).
  • Land erosion and siltationcaused colossal damage across multiple states.

Regional Rainfall Patterns

• Excess Rainfall Distribution:
  • Northwest India: 27% above normal.
  • Central India: 15% above normal.
  • South Peninsula: 10% above normal.
• Cloudburst Reports:
  • Multiple claims, but only Tamil Nadu’s casematched the meteorological definition.
  • Misuse of the term “cloudburst”distorts public perception of extreme events.

Framing of Rainfall and Preparedness

• Terminology Issues:
  • Words like “cloudburst”or “normal rainfall” often create a false sense of inevitability.
  • This framing makes disasters seem like acts of faterather than preventable crises.
• IMD Forecasts:
  • Since April, IMD projected “above normal” rainfall(>4% more than the 87 cm average).
  • Success in forecasts is celebrated, but failure in preparednessis ignored.
• Governmental Attitude:
  • Drought warningstrigger war-footing measures.
  • Excess rainfallstill seen as natural bounty instead of a disaster risk.
• Call for Change:
  • With improved forecasting technologyand infrastructure capabilities,
  • Failure to acton heavy-rainfall warnings should be treated as government negligence.

Conclusion

Though excess rainfall has improved agriculture and water storage, it exposed serious flood management gaps. The government must treat heavy rainfall with the same urgency as drought, ensuring infrastructure resilience, early warning systems, and climate adaptation policies. Failure to act on forecasts is not fate but an abdication of responsibility towards public safety, livelihoods, and sustainable development.

 

Editorial 2: ​​Fraught franchise

Context

A nationwide SIR would mirror the risks already exposed in Bihar.

Introduction

The Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar reduced electors from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore, raising concerns about transparency, exclusion, and fairness. With women and vulnerable groupsdisproportionately affected, and the Supreme Court intervening for accountability, the Bihar case highlights risks in extending such a process nationwide without reform.

Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Experience

• Final Tally: Electoral rolls reduced to 42 crore electors, down from 7.89 crore.
• Purpose: Intended to clean up rollsby removing duplicates, migrants, deceased.
• Concerns:
  • 65 lakh names deletedwith little transparency.
  • Supreme Court interventionforced ECI to provide reasons.
  • Women disproportionately affected, raising accuracy questions.
• Opacity: No clear data on 66 lakh removals, Form 6 additions, or foreign nationals.

Exclusion Risks and Identity Barriers

• Default Suspicion: Bihar’s exercise reflected an attitude of mistrusttowards voters.
• Identity Requirements: ECI demanded birth certificates, caste, domicile papers.
  • Many poor, illiterate, women, SCs, and OBCslacked these.
  • Refusal to accept widely-held documents(like ration cards, Aadhaar) worsened exclusion.
• Result: Vulnerable groups faced disproportionate deletionand systemic bias.

Lessons from Electoral Management Research

• Best Practices Suggested:
  • Door-to-door verificationby enumerators to supplement self-reporting.
  • Acceptance of widely available documents(Aadhaar, ration cards).
  • Advance publicationof deletion reasons with a robust appeals process.
• Past Indian Experience:
  • Early 2000s revisions used booth-level officersand physical checks, reducing errors.
  • Burden of proof not solely on voters.

Way Forward for a National SIR

• Risks of Replication: Extending Bihar’s model nationally may repeat exclusions.
• Digital Solutions:
  • Use technologyto consolidate and publish exclusion data.
  • Provide physical noticesat constituency level.
  • Balance transparency with privacy.
• Objective: Ensure no legitimate voter is excluded.
• Urgency: Karnataka’s Aland incidentalready raised doubts over ECI’s technical capacity.

Conclusion

A nationwide SIR, if based on Bihar’s model, risks large-scale voter exclusion and erosion of trust. To safeguard electoral integrity, the ECI must adopt inclusive practices—accepting widely-held IDs, ensuring door-to-door verification, and offering a clear appeals process. Combining digital transparency with local verification is essential to prevent disenfranchisement and uphold democratic participation.