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

Editorial 1 : Tackling Terror, the India Way

Context: Terrorism in Kashmir and India-Pak conflict; 50 years of Vietnam War

Comparative Analysis of Conflict Strategies

• US in Vietnam vs. India in Kashmir
  • US Failures
    • Reliance on brute force (e.g. Agent Orange, napalm) instead of nuanced strategies.
    • US ignored the Marine Manual’s emphasis on minimizing force and prioritizing socio-political development.
  • India’s Approach
    • India adopted Governance by Stealth, focusing on minimal force and institutional resilience.
    • Emphasized public order and legitimacy through democratic processes.
  • Pakistan’s Proxy War Tactics
    • Pakistan uses terrorism to destabilize democracy in India, the latest tourist murders in Pahalgam is an example.
    • It relies on outdated ideologies (e.g. two-nation theory) and ignores India’s growing economic and military strength.

India’s Three-Pillar Security Strategy in Kashmir

• Specialization
  • Targeted Security Responses
    • Creation of specialized units: Rashtriya Rifles (1990), J&K Police Special Operations Groups (1993), and CRPF (1995).
    • Shift from blunt force to intelligence-driven operations.
  • Institutional Upgrades: National Investigation Agency (NIA) replacing CBI to combat terror financing.
• Moderation
  • Minimizing Civilian Harm: Highlighted terrorist surrenders (1993 Hazratbal siege) and voter participation in 2024 elections as symbols of legitimacy.
  • Strategic Restraint: Avoided excessive force to maintain public trust.
• Democracy  
  • Inclusive Governance
    • There was an inherent pressure for elections even during Governor’s Rule.
    • Integration of civil society, bureaucrats, and diplomats in decision-making.
  • Political Resilience
    • India tolerated soft separatists while isolating hardliners.
    • Abrogation of Article 370 and push for statehood to integrate J&K with India.

Recent Developments and Implications

• Security Setbacks     
  • Pahalgam Tourist Murders: A tactical setback but framed as evidence of Pakistan’s desperation amid India’s long-term success.
  • India’s Retaliation
    • Cross-border strikes (e.g. surgical strikes 2016, Balakot 2019).
    • Economic and diplomatic isolation of Pakistan.
  • Strategic Successes
    • Global Isolation of Radical Islam: Partnerships with moderate Gulf states (e.g. Saudi Arabia).
    • Infrastructure Development: Railway connectivity and tourism revival in Kashmir.
    • J&K Police as Local Face of Law: Reducing reliance on central forces.

Conclusion

• Lessons for Global Powers
  • Proxy wars require institutional adaptability, restraint, and democratic legitimacy.
  • India’s strategy contrasts with US or Pakistan failures by prioritizing human terrain over brute force.
• Veer Bhogya Vasundhara(The brave inherit the earth) emphasizes courage and sacrifice as foundations of peace.
• Indian strategy is driving Pakistan’s deep state to desperation, validating a mix of military, economic, and democratic tools.

 

Editorial 2 : Disturbing the Balance

Context: Supreme Court judgment on Tamil Nadu Governor holding assent to state bills

Introduction: Background of the Case

• Tamil Nadu Governor withheld assent to 10 bills seeking to transfer administrative oversight of universities from the Governor to the state government.

Key Aspects of the Supreme Court Judgment

• Invocation of Article 142: Supreme Court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to pass the bills directly, deeming them enacted after re-passage by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
• Precedents Established
  • Time limit of 3 months for Governors or President to decide on bills.
  • Prohibition on withholding assent to non-money bills.
  • Bills re-passed by the Assembly deemed automatically enacted if the Governor delays action.

Legal Repercussions and Criticisms

• Constitutional Concerns
  • Violation of Article 145(3): The judgment was delivered by a 2-judge bench, bypassing the requirement for a 5-judge bench for constitutional interpretation, raising question about procedural validity.
  • Misinterpretation of Article 200: The Court conflated withholding assent with sending bills back for reconsideration, despite these being distinct actions under Article 200.
    • This renders the term withhold in Article 200 superfluous, violating rules of textual interpretation.
  • Executive Overreach by the Judiciary
    • Separation of Powers: The Court’s direct enactment of bills via Article 142 encroaches on legislative functions, undermining the constitutional separation of powers.
      • The judiciary lacks mechanisms for legislative debate and deliberation, making time limits arbitrary.
    • Expansion to Presidential Powers: The judgment extended its mandate to the President’s office (reserved bills), exceeding its jurisdiction over state-level disputes.
  • Impact on Federalism
    • Erosion of Governor’s Role: The Court ruled Governors have no discretion and must act on ministerial advice, ignoring exceptions under Article 163 (e.g. in hung assemblies).
      • Risk: States with supermajorities could bypass Union oversight in Concurrent List matters.
    • Undermining Commissions’ Recommendations: Recommendations of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions were disregarded.

Way Forward

• Curative Petition: The Governor of Tamil Nadu should challenge the judgment to restore constitutional balance and safeguard the President’s and Governor’s roles.
• Clarification of Article 200: A constitutional bench must clarify distinctions between withholding assent and sending bills for reconsideration.
• Legislative Reforms: Parliament could amend Article 200 to codify timelines for assent while preserving gubernatorial discretion in exceptional cases.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s judgment, while resolving an immediate stalemate, risks long-term constitutional instability by blurring separation of powers, undermining federalism and setting arbitrary precedents for executive-legislative interactions. A curative petition and legislative clarity are essential to preserve the Constitution’s basic structure and uphold institutional dignity.