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

Editorial 1: Hague ruling on Indus Waters Treaty revives legal debate. But trust cannot flow when terror does

Context: The recent supplemental award by the Court of Arbitration in The Hague has once again drawn attention to the persistent challenges facing the Indus Waters Treaty.

Introduction

• The tribunal rejected India’s suspension of the Treatyand reaffirmed its jurisdiction despite India’s absence from the proceedings. India responded swiftly. It called the court illegal, the proceedings irrelevant, and reiterated that the Treaty stands in abeyance until Pakistan abjures cross-border terrorism.
• The simmering dispute over the Indus Waters Treaty is not just about water. It is about sovereignty, security, and a Treaty that has withstood conflicts for over six decades but now strains under the pressures of asymmetric warfare. The question before India is not only legal. It is strategic, too.

Indus Water Treaty

• The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered by the World Bank in 1960,was hailed as a triumph of cooperative diplomacy.
• It partitioned the rivers of the Indus basin between India and Pakistan, granting India full rights over the eastern rivers and limited use of the western ones.
• Despite wars and political breakdowns,the Treaty endured because it insulated water from politics.
• But terrorism has no insulation. And India, bleeding from attacks launched across the very rivers it shares, reached the limits of forbearance.

A Wake-up Call

• The Hague tribunal’s award may be procedurally valid. It reflects the logic of legal permanence. Pakistan, which initiated the proceedings, argued that disputes over interpretation should be addressed legally and stated that India’s suspension was unjustified.
• The Treaty, the panel concluded, cannot be suspended unilaterally, and jurisdiction, once triggered, cannot be undone by later events.
• But the law cannot be blind to contex India did not act lightly. It placed the Treaty in abeyance after Pakistan-based terrorists killed dozens of Indians in a brazen attack in Pahalgam on April 22. When blood stains the snow of the Pir Panjal, the abstractions of international law ring hollow.
• India has not cut off water or violated Pakistan’s share. Instead, it has frozen the instruments of cooperation as a wake-up call.The message is stark: Treaties are built on trust, and trust cannot flow when terror does.

Lessons from Global River Disputes ·         Other river basins offer cautionary tales. In the past, Egypt has threatened to use force over Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam. ·         Thailand and Vietnam often complain about China’s control of the Mekong. ·         These flashpoints offer ample proof that there are no outright winners. While geography sets the opening bid, legitimacy and transparency determine whether power becomes a lasting advantage or an enduring grievance.

Strategic Options for India

• As India plans for the future, it faces a range of strategic choices beyond the purely legal. It can continue boycotting arbitration to deny it legitimacy.
• It can withdraw from the Treaty entirely, though this carries risks. It might also maximise its legal entitlements, including the neutral expert’s forthcoming decision, and use structural advantages to pressure Pakistan without breaching the agreement.
• Another path is to offer conditional cooperation, using upstream geography as leverage, if Pakistan meets clear and verifiable conditions.
• A more cautious approach would involve keeping technical channels open while political tensions persist. Each course demands a careful balance of resolve and restraintthat matches the stakes.
• India’s choice must blend firmness with foresight. India should expand its infrastructure and fully utilise both its entitled share of the eastern rivers and its permissible use of the western ones under the Treaty. It must do so with transparency, precision, and speed.
• At the same time, India should craft a diplomatic path that links re-engagement to Pakistan’s demonstrable action on terror. This is not a compromise. It is conditional justice. If Pakistan wants the benefits of the Indus water system, it must stop using terror as a tool.
• India must also speak to the world with clarity. It is not undermining peace. It is demanding that peace be real. It is not holding water hostage. It is refusing to be hostage to hypocrisy.

Conclusion

In the end, regardless of choices, the Indus and its tributaries will flow. The question is whether the nations they nourish will choose harmony over hostility. India has drawn its line. Now, Pakistan must decide whether to treat the Indus system as rivers of peace or allow them to become torrents of tension. By choosing a firm but just path, India can prove that strength and responsibility can still flow together.

 

Editorial 2: Lend a hand

Context:

The Mexico-headquartered International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) — synonymous with Norman Borlaug, the “father of the Green Revolution” — is seeking financial support from India.

Introduction

• This comes as the Donald Trump administration has shut down the US Agency for International Development, which provided $83 million out of CIMMYT’s total $211 million revenue grantsto fund its global breeding research and development programme in the two cereal crops.
• CIMMYT basically wants countries such as India to fill the void left by the USthat, under President Trump, has adopted a transactional approach to foreign policy; it no longer sees value in cultivating soft power or projecting a positive image of the US on the world stage.

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) ·         CIMMYT is a global nonprofit research organization focused on developing enhanced, climate-resilient maize and wheat crops. It also promotes sustainable farming techniques to strengthen food security and support the livelihoods of small-scale farmers in developing nations. ·         Established by Norman Borlaug, CIMMYT played a key role in India’s Green Revolution by introducing high-yielding wheat varieties such as Lerma Rojo 64A, Sonora 63, and Sonora 64. ·         CIMMYT and the Indian government jointly manage the Borlaug Institute for South Asia (BISA), established in 2011. ·         CIMMYT also collaborates closely with ICAR institutions, such as the Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research located in Karnal.

Why India should consider stepping up its funding of CIMMYT?

• There are at least three reasons whyIndia should consider stepping up its funding of CIMMYT, or even the Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).
• The first is that the money these organisations require isn’t all that big. A country with $700 billion in official foreign exchange reserves can afford more than the $0.8 million and $18.3 million that it gave to CIMMYT and IRRI respectively in 2024.
• The second is the international goodwill this creates, consistent with the leadership role that India is increasingly taking within the Global Southand given that it is also acting as a bridge with the developed North: There can be no peace and stability without food security.
• Third, India has stakes in both organisations that played a stellar role in turning it from ship-to-mouth to self-sufficient, if not surplus, in wheat and rice. But the challenge is to grow these crops using less water and fertiliser, besides making them tolerant to rising temperatures, salinity and other abiotic stresses.
• Breeding today for tomorrow’s climate is a strategic imperative for a country that cannot, beyond a point, depend on othersto feed 1.7 billion mouths by 2060. This extends to maize too. As Indians consume more animal products with rising incomes, the demand for it as feed — and now also as a fuel grain — will only go up.

Revitalising India’s Agricultural Research

• India must simultaneously strengthen its national agricultural research system that has suffered from a lack of resources (too little money spread across too many institutes), leadership and sense of purpose.
• The Green Revolution owed its success as much to Borlaug as to MS Swaminathan, the Indian Agricultural Research Institute and a minister like C Subramaniam, who could make tough calls based on scientific opinion and what the situation demanded.
• Contrast this with the present procrastination, whether on commercialisation of genetically modified crops or allowing under-pricing of fertilisers, water and electricity.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Conclusion

The Indian farmer today faces a host of practical and evolving challenges — from erratic weather patterns and declining soil health to pest outbreaks and water scarcity. These issues cannot be effectively addressed through subsidies alone, which often offer temporary relief without resolving underlying problems. What is truly needed is sustained investment in science, innovation, and applied agricultural research that can deliver long-term, adaptive solutions tailored to farmers’ real-world conditions.