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

Editorial 1: A Document past its time

Context:

Indus water treaty was signed in 1960 to provide the arrangement for the judicious use of Indus River and its tributaries. It was necessary to ensure the proper use and allocation of its waters for irrigation, building dams. Its relevance is debatable in the present challenges of 21^st century including climate change. The Pahalgam terror attack has strained India-Pak relation and the treaty is kept in abeyance since then.

Historical Context and Significance:

• The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed 65 years ago in 1960 by India and Pakistan with the World Bank’s mediation, was a unique experiment in water diplomacy.
• It divided the Indus river system into two groups: the western rivers—Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab—were allocated to Pakistan, while the eastern rivers—Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—were given exclusively to India.
• This arrangement was backed by provisions for utilization, regulation, and dispute resolution through arbitration.
• At that time, the treaty was seen as both a pragmatic compromise and a symbol of sovereign control over rivers in the post-colonial imagination.
• For India, losing access to the eastern rivers would have jeopardized irrigation in Punjab and Rajasthan, while for Pakistan, access to western rivers was essential for agriculture and survival.
• By enabling Pakistan to build barrages and canals, the treaty helped it avoid food insecurity.
• For decades, the IWT was hailed as one of the most successful trans-boundary water-sharing agreements in the world, functioning despite wars, terrorism, and political hostility between the two countries.
• It was viewed as a bridge of peace, an instrument that forced two hostile neighbors to cooperate, at least on paper, over shared natural resources.
• However, with the passage of time, its relevance has come under scrutiny.

Changing Realities:

• Terror Attacks and political hostility have reduced the shared water resource management strategy to hollow idea. The treaty is kept in abeyance by India since Pahalgam Attack.
• Climate change is one of the realities today which are not addressed by the Treaty. The glaciers are shrinking in Hindu-Kush and Himalayas mountain ecosystems.
• In upper stream Indus basin, water flow is expected to increase due to melting of glaciers. This may lead to major shifts in the course of river.
• Downstream monsoon has become erratic.  Recent floods in Punjab have affected all the 23 districts and have submerged 1.75 lakh acres of farmland. In Pakistan’s Punjab province, over two million people have to be evacuated due to rise in the level of rivers.
• These floods are not mere natural disaster; they have become new hydrological reality. This leads to extraordinary strain which is far beyond the reach of the clauses of this treaty.
• The Treaty is not able to deal with Siltation, which is new reality in modern times. It leads to choking of reservoirs, shrinking storage capacity, and rising riverbeds making floods fierce.
• In Punjab floods this year left large tracts of land buried under silt. Siltation has become national crisis.
• However, slit is a good natural resource with wide uses such as enriching soil use in construction, and aiding land reclamation.
• The rivers need not a piecemeal dredging after each flood or adhoc siltation when reservoirs clog, but a coherent national strategy on silt management. It may reduce floods, expand storage, and make water use far more efficient.
• Treaty was forged mainly to prioritize irrigation projects, dams and water sharing mechanisms. Today, treaty needs to adapt to modern challenges of resilience in climate extremes, disaster preparedness, and sustainability of fragile ecosystem.
• Today disaster management needs the sharing of trans-boundary hydrological data and timely flood information. Though data exchange was embedded in the Treaty. Despite political challenges, the data sharing arrangement was adhered.

Way Forward:

This year marks the 65^th anniversary of the Indus water Treaty. The treaty is a case study in water diplomacy as it has been in operation for 65 years. The present challenges call for renegotiating the Treaty to withstand the shocks of 21^st century. India must also adopt a national siltation policy. It needs to be made broad based by addressing these modern challenges.

 

Editorial 2: When Process is Punishment

Context:

The recent rejection of bail to activist Umar Khalid by the Delhi High Court once again demonstrates how the legal process in India can undermine the constitutional right to liberty. The way draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)  are misused and the trial process itself become a form of punishment, often harsher than any final sentence.

Judicial Delays and Endless Adjournments:

• The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that “bail is the rule, jail the exception.”
• However, in cases under UAPA, this principle is turned upside down. Courts routinely deny bail, citing the seriousness of charges, even without conclusive evidence.
• In Khalid’s case, his bail application was dismissed despite the lack of proven grounds. This reflects a broader judicial pattern where the severity of charges overshadows the presumption of innocence, leading to long years in jail for under trials who have not been convicted.
• Khalid’s trial has dragged across 16 months and 48 hearings, with repeated adjournments.
• Each hearing means more uncertainty and extended incarceration. Such delays defeat the purpose of a speedy trial, effectively making the trial process itself punitive.
• By the time courts eventually acquit or dismiss cases, individuals may have already spent years behind bars, losing valuable time, livelihood, and dignity.

UAPA misuse:

• UAPA stands out as one of India’s harshest laws. Its vague definitions of “unlawful activities” and “terrorist acts” give enormous discretionary powers to the state.
• Authorities can easily categorize political dissent, peaceful protest, or even online expression as “anti-national” or “terrorist.”
• Unlike ordinary criminal laws, UAPA makes bail extremely difficult. Section 43(D)(5) states that courts cannot grant bail if the accusations seem “prima facie true.”
• This clause effectively forces judges to deny bail, even when evidence is flimsy.
• As a result, an accused may spend years in jail before being acquitted, by which time the punishment has already been served.
• Such laws strike at the heart of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. By allowing the state to incarcerate individuals without trial, UAPA violates this principle.
• The misuse of UAPA poses a grave threat to civil liberties, freedom of speech, and democratic rights. This weakens the very foundation of democracy.

Curbing political dissent and activism:

• UAPA has repeatedly been used to silence dissent rather than tackle genuine threats.
• Student activists, journalists, or political opponents have been booked under UAPA for criticizing government policies or participating in protests.
• Though conviction rates under UAPA are extremely low, the lengthy pre-trial incarceration serves the state’s purpose of silencing the voices of opposition.
• The introduction of the new criminal codes — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — was an opportunity to reform these issues.
• Instead of strengthening safeguards for liberty, they expand police powers, extend custody periods, and ignore the core problem of misuse of anti-terror laws.

Way forward:

The rejection of bail to Umar Khalid symbolizes a much larger problem in India’s justice system. When trials drag on for years, bail is routinely denied, and draconian laws invert constitutional principles, the process itself becomes the punishment. Reforming this culture requires both judicial sensitivity and sustained public pressure. This will uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens and their trust in judicial system.