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

Editorial 1: ​​Sleeping disasters

Context

Authorities must regularly assess silt build-up in high-risk areas.

Introduction

The recent flood disaster in Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, is a stark reminder of the Himalayas’ ecological vulnerability. Triggered by torrential rain, it claimed lives, damaged property, and exposed the region’s infrastructure fragility. In an era of climate change and unchecked hill development, such incidents are no longer rare but increasingly reflect the systemic risks haunting mountain communities.

Tragedy in the Mountains: A Reminder of Himalayan Fragility

• A devastating flash flood hit the Uttarkashi district in Uttarakhand, highlighting the constant threat of natural disasters in the Himalayas.
• At least four people have been confirmed dead, and around 60 individuals are feared to have been swept awayby the floodwaters.
• The flood was triggered by a torrent of water, mud, and debrisin the Kheer Ganga river after intense rainfall.
• The disaster struck Dharali town, located at an altitude of 8,600 feet, causing major destruction to residential buildings and hotels.
• Shocking video footagecaptured giant waves engulfing homes and people.
• Preliminary reports also indicate several Indian Army personnel may be among the missing.

Cloudburst or Cumulative Disaster? Dissecting the Cause

• The immediate triggerwas extremely heavy rainfall from August 3 to 5, with some areas receiving up to 30 cm in one day.
• Officials initially termed the event a ‘cloudburst’, though the IMD defines cloudburstas rainfall of 10+ cm within an hour over a 10 sq km area.
• However, due to the absence of weather radars in high-altitude areas, the cloudburst classification remains speculative.
• It is possible that prolonged heavy rainfall over 48 hoursloosened the soil, leading to a sudden surge of water and silt due to the steep terrain.
• Regardless of whether it was a cloudburst or not, the impact in terms of human loss and infrastructure damage is undeniable.

Structural Vulnerability and Climate Reality

• The frequent labelling of such events as freak occurrencesprovides an easy excuse for state inaction and superficial responses, like online condolences and small compensation payouts.
• Climate change has significantly increased the frequency of extreme weather events, especially intense rainfall in the Himalayas.
• Rampant infrastructure development in ecologically sensitive zonesleads to accumulation of construction debris and silt, which worsen flooding impacts.
• These man-made stressors act like “latent explosives”, set off by every major rain event.
• Once relief operations conclude, the State government must urgently audit and manage debris and silt, especially in critical catchment and river points, to mitigate future disasters.

Conclusion

Labeling the tragedy as a “cloudburst” risks oversimplifying the deeper causes—climate instability, poor disaster preparedness, and unplanned development. Real change requires shifting from reactive responses to proactive risk mitigation, especially through ecological safeguards and infrastructure audits. As extreme weather events rise, protecting the Himalayas means addressing both natural and man-made threats with equal urgency.

 

Editorial 2: ​​Judicial overreach

Context

Supreme Court’s Observations on Rahul Gandhi Raise Concerns Over Democratic Dissent.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s response to Rahul Gandhi’s Galwan remarks raises critical concerns about the boundaries of free speech in a democracy. By straying into subjective judgments on patriotism, the Court risks undermining constitutional principles and Opposition rights. In a vibrant democracy, truthful critique and fact-based dissent must be protected—not penalised under the guise of national loyalty.

Supreme Court’s Handling of Rahul Gandhi’s Case

• The Supreme Court’s recent approachto the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi marks a troubling departure from norms of free speech and constitutional jurisprudence.
• A Bench led by Justice Dipankar Dattastayed proceedings related to Mr. Gandhi’s 2020 Galwan remarks but made problematic oral observations.
• Justice Datta stated that if Mr. Gandhi were a “true Indian,” he wouldn’t have made those comments — a remark outside the scope of legal reasoning.
• The Court’s roleis to interpret laws and constitutional principles, not to define patriotism or prescribe nationalistic behavior.
• In a democracy, a “true Indian”is one who pursues truth, questions authority, and holds the government accountable — not someone who passively accepts state narratives.

Legitimacy of Opposition Critique

• Gandhi’s remarks were critical of the government’s border policiesand highlighted concerns about Chinese intrusions.
• This falls within the legitimate domainof Opposition politics and must be seen as part of democratic debate, not national betrayal.
• Criticising the governmentdoes not equate to criticising the nation.
• Such statements are protected under Article 19(1)(a)of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
• Political criticism is vital for public accountabilityand essential in maintaining democratic health.

Factual Basis of Mr. Gandhi’s Remarks

• Gandhi referred to the Chinese occupation of Indian territory— a claim backed by publicly available evidence.
• Satellite imagery, news reports, and parliamentary committee documentssupport the presence of Chinese activity along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
• A parliamentary reporthas acknowledged loss of access to patrol points in eastern Ladakh.
• Military officialsand independent defence analysts have corroborated these findings at various points in time.
• The estimated loss of 2,000 sq. km, cited by Mr. Gandhi, is supported by independent strategic experts.
• Even local communitieshave reported being unable to access traditional grazing grounds in the affected areas.

Concerns Over Judicial Commentary

• The Court’s remarksrisk creating a chilling effect on political speech, particularly Opposition voices.
• By questioning the intentions or patriotismof a political figure, the Court may inadvertently undermine free discourse.
• This sets a dangerous precedentand could be used to delegitimise dissent in future cases.

The Need for Judicial Restraint

• The judiciary must avoid moral and patriotic judgmentsand instead focus on objective legal analysis.
• The Court should apply its energies to upholding constitutional values, not reinforcing nationalistic sentiment.
• Only through impartial adjudicationcan the judiciary retain its credibility and safeguard the spirit of democratic dialogue.

Conclusion

To uphold its credibility, the judiciary must exercise restraint and focus on legal reasoning, not patriotic gatekeeping. Mr. Gandhi’s remarks were grounded in public evidence and aligned with the democratic right to dissent. The Court must ensure that constitutional freedoms remain robust and that legitimate criticism of the government is seen as a democratic strength, not a threat.