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

 

Editorial 1: ​Social scourge

Context

Child marriage undermines health, disrupts education, and perpetuates poverty, leading to long-term social and economic disadvantages.

Introduction

India’s commitment to end child marriage by 2030, aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, reflects strong policy intent and growing awareness initiatives. Declining national figures signal progress, yet regional disparities, poverty, educational deprivation, and gender inequality continue to undermine outcomes. Bridging the gap between targets and ground realities remains a critical development challenge.

India’s Commitment and Policy Framework

India has committed to ending child marriage by 2030 under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

The Union government marked one year of Bal Vivah Mukt Bharat Abhiyan with a 100-day nationwide awareness campaign.

Despite policy intent and multiple schemes, achieving the target remains a work in progress.

Trends and Progress

Child marriage rates have declined steadily, from 47.4% (2005–06) to 23.3% (2019–21).

This improvement is based on data from the National Family Health Survey.

However, progress is uneven across regions and social groups.

Regional Disparities

High prevalence among women aged 18–29 persists in West Bengal, Bihar, and Tripura.

Comparable concern exists in Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan.

These patterns reflect regional inequalities and local socio-economic realities.

Poverty and Education Linkages

Analysis by the United Nations Population Fund shows a strong correlation between poverty, low education, and child marriage.

40% of girls from the poorest wealth quintile marry before 18, compared to 8% from the richest quintile.

48% of girls with no education marry early, versus only 4% with higher education.

Legal Framework and Gaps

The Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is the primary law, but enforcement is weak, with low conviction rates.

Data from crime records indicate infrequent application of the law.

The strict use of POCSO provisions has created unintended consequences for consenting adolescents.

Health and Social Consequences

Fear of criminal prosecution pushes underage girls towards unsafe, unregulated health services.

Child marriage is directly linked to poor maternal and child health outcomes.

These risks compound existing vulnerabilities.

Schemes and Implementation Challenges

Despite incentives like cash-transfer schemes for girls’ education, States such as West Bengal still report high incidence.

The Centre’s Beti Bachao Beti Padhao must better reach the most vulnerable communities.

Supportive infrastructure—clean toilets, safe transport, and secure schools—is critical to retain girls in education.

Global and Developmental Implications

According to Girls Not Brides, 9 of the 17 SDGs cannot be achieved without ending child marriage.

In India, unless poverty, education gaps, health risks, and gender inequality are addressed together, the policy–practice divide will persist.

Conclusion

Ending child marriage in India demands more than laws and schemes. Without addressing poverty, strengthening girls’ education, improving health access, and ensuring safe infrastructure, progress will remain uneven. Stronger implementation, community engagement, and gender-sensitive governance are essential. Only by aligning policy with practice can India protect girls’ rights and achieve its SDG commitments sustainably.

 

Editorial 2: ​Gates and windows

Context

A single round of appeals is insufficient to address the large-scale deletions in electoral rolls.

Introduction

The Election Commission of India (ECI) launched the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to clean electoral rolls by removing duplicates, outdated entries, and ineligible names. While the objective is legitimate, the design and execution of the SIR raise serious concerns about speed, exclusion, transparency, and the shifting of responsibility from the State to voters.

Purpose of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

The Election Commission of India (ECI) initiated the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to clean electoral rolls.

The aim is to remove duplicates, update outdated addresses, and delete entries of deceased or migrated voters.

Such corrections are necessary because electoral rolls in India tend to accumulate errors over time.

Design Flaws in the Current SIR

The present SIR is modelled on the Bihar exercise, despite similar problems resurfacing across States.

The ECI appears reluctant to acknowledge or correct systemic flaws already observed.

The fast-paced execution raises concerns about fairness and accuracy.

Speed vs Inclusion: A Risky Trade-off

The responsibility of proving eligibility has shifted from the State to individual voters.

This suggests that exclusion of eligible voters is being treated as an acceptable risk.

Although digital tools could justify speed, they also exclude many citizens.

Digital Gaps and Arbitrary Deletions

Voters are expected to rely on 2002–2005 electoral rolls, which are not machine-readable.

Even minor data mismatches are being used as grounds for deletion.

The scale of exclusions in Phase I draft rolls is a serious warning sign.

It is unreasonable to expect that one round of appeals can correct these errors.

Limits of the Claims and Objections Process

Errors are corrected only if voters identify and pursue them.

The process favours those with time, literacy, digital access, social support, and confidence.

If a voter is unaware of deletion or unable to appeal, the mistake becomes an official fact.

Transparency and Accountability Deficits

Key information is not consistently available, including:

Precise reasons for deletions

Granular demographic data, such as gender-wise patterns

This restricts public scrutiny by civil society, journalists, smaller parties, and voters while corrections are still possible.

Administrative Constraints on Field Staff

The SIR depends on house-to-house verification, form distribution, digitisation, and repeat visits.

These tasks are performed by State staff with multiple responsibilities.

Tight deadlines increase the risk of target-chasing over task completion.

SIR as Administrative Gatekeeping

The process effectively creates a two-tier electorate:

Those who can repeatedly prove eligibility in prescribed formats

Those who cannot meet procedural demands

This administrative gatekeeping undermines inclusive democratic participation.

A single-appeal window cannot resolve this, as the appeals process itself is part of the gate.

Conclusion

In effect, the current SIR risks institutionalising exclusion rather than ensuring electoral integrity. High speed, digital barriers, weak transparency, and limited appeal mechanisms disproportionately affect the most vulnerable voters. A single-appeal window cannot correct systemic flaws. For democracy to remain inclusive, administrative efficiency must not override the fundamental right to vote.