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

Editorial 1: Ladakh Protests: Demand for Statehood and Sixth Schedule Inclusion

Context:

The Union Territory of Ladakh has recently witnessed widespread unrest as protests demanding statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution turned violent in Leh. The agitation, spearheaded by civil society groups and local activists, reflects growing dissatisfaction with the Centre’s handling of Ladakh’s long-standing political and administrative concerns.

Background of the Protest:

• The protests were organized by the Leh Apex Body, a coalition representing local interests, and were supported by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been observing a 35-day fast to highlight Ladakh’s demands.
• Wangchuk, a prominent figure in the movement, was excluded from the delegation scheduled to meet Union Home Ministry officials on October 6, highlighting differences between the Centre and local groups.
• At the core of the agitation are two key demands: statehood for Ladakhand constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule, which provides special protections for tribal and indigenous populations.
• The Sixth Schedule, under Article 244 of the Constitution, allows for the creation of Autonomous District Councils with legislative, judicial, and administrative powers within a state.
• Currently, these provisions apply only to parts of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura.
• Ladakh’s demand for similar protections is driven by concerns over safeguarding land, culture, employment opportunities, and the fragile ecology of the region.

The Centre’s Position:

• The Union Government has been reluctant to extend Sixth Schedule provisions to Ladakh.
• Instead, it has offered alternative measures such as domicile-based job reservations and recognition of local bodies.
• However, local groups believe these are inadequate to protect Ladakh’s unique identity and interests.
• No formal talks have been held between the Centre and Ladakh groups for months, with the impasse deepened by the exclusion of Wangchuk from negotiations.
• The Home Ministry is reportedly uncomfortable with his presence at the dialogue table, leading to a widening trust gap.
• The upcoming talks in October were only scheduled after the Leh Apex Body decided to drop Wangchuk from its delegation and nominated former MP Thupstan Chhewang as chairperson.

Rising Tensions and Wangchuk’s Setbacks:

• Adding to tensions, the Ladakh administration recently cancelled the allotment of 1,000 kanals of land to Wangchuk’s Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, citing irregularities.
• Wangchuk criticized the move as retaliation for his opposition to large-scale land allotments to corporations in Ladakh.
• The unrest in Leh marked a turning point, shifting from Wangchuk’s largely peaceful campaign into violence.
• A police vehicle was set on fire during the protests, underscoring the volatility of the situation.
• Wangchuk, however, continued to urge restraint, appealing to youth not to resort to violence despite frustrations with unemployment, land issues, and lack of adequate protections.

Support from Kargil:

• Support for the protests has extended beyond Leh to Kargil, Ladakh’s other district. The Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), representing the Muslim-majority region, has echoed calls for statehood and Sixth Schedule inclusion.
• The KDA announced plans to hold a bandh in Kargil in solidarity with the Leh protesters, warning the government that it would be held responsible for any further unrest.
• This unity between Leh’s Buddhist-majority population and Kargil’s Muslim-majority residents underscores the shared concerns across Ladakh despite religious and regional differences.

Way Forward:

The current protests in Ladakh highlight deep-rooted concerns over identity, autonomy, and governance in the strategically sensitive region. The demand for statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule reflects fears of cultural erosion, ecological damage, and marginalization in the absence of constitutional safeguards. Unless meaningful dialogue and concrete assurances are provided, the unrest risks escalating, threatening both local stability and national strategic interests in the border region.

 

Editorial 2: Trajectory of Irrelevance

Context:

The United Nations (UN), as it marks its 80th anniversary, should ideally be celebrating its achievements as the world’s foremost international organization dedicated to peace and cooperation. Instead, it faces the uncomfortable reality of sliding into irrelevance. The organization’s inability to prevent wars, resolve conflicts, or adapt effectively to shifting global dynamics has left it adrift and increasingly marginalized.

Eroding Mandate and Credibility:

• The UN was born out of the devastation of World War IIwith a noble mission: to prevent future wars, uphold peace, and foster cooperation among nations.
• Over time, however, its credibility has eroded. The United Nation Security Council (UNSC), the apex decision-making body, has been paralyzed by power rivalries and vetoes.
• From conflicts in Gaza to the war in Ukraine, the UN has not only failed to stop violence but has also been reduced to offering humanitarian relief rather than durable political solutions.
• While Secretary-Generals and diplomats continue to call for peace, their appeals rarely carry weight. The UNGeneral Assembly, with its unwieldy 193-member structure, delivers little beyond symbolic resolutions.
• Even UN peacekeeping, once seen as a hallmark of the organization, is now plagued by underfunding, inefficiency, and declining trust.

US selective funding:

• A major shift accelerating the UN’s decline is the changing attitude of its largest contributor and most powerful member: the United States.
• In 2025, Washington has drastically reset its role. American funding now prioritizes narrow security concerns, such as counterterrorism, while cutting back on core UN functions like food aid, health programmes, and human rights.
• This selective support reflects a broader global trend: the UN is no longer a forum for collective action but a platform for major powers to pursue transactional interests.
• Disdain for multilateralism, especially on migration and development financing, has weakened the UN’s legitimacy further.
• Meanwhile, the U.S. preference for bilateral or ad hoc arrangements sidelines the multilateral framework.

China patched vision of multilateralism:

• As America disengages, China has been quietly reshaping international governance by creating parallel institutions and mechanisms.
• With significant financial contributions to development banks and infrastructure projects, Beijing now offers alternatives to countries frustrated with the UN’s inefficiencies.
• Its growing influence in specialized agencies also shifts the balance of power within the UN system itself.
• Yet, China’s vision is not necessarily multilateral. Instead, it reinforces power politics, leaving the UN increasingly squeezed between disinterested Western powers and assertive authoritarian models.

Failure of UNSC to fulfill its mandate and resistance to reform:

• The Security Council’s structure, frozen since 1945, epitomizes the UN’s irrelevance. Permanent members cling to their veto powers, blocking action on urgent crises.
• Reform proposals, from expanding permanent membership to curbing veto abuse, have circulated for decades but remain stalled.
• For countries like India, Brazil, Japan, and many in Africa, this stagnation reflects the UN’s failure to adapt to contemporary realities.
• Global representation and legitimacy are undermined when the Council ignores the aspirations of emerging powers and the Global South.

Development and humanitarian crisis:

• Beyond peace and security, the UN’s credibility in humanitarian and development fields has also suffered. Funding shortfalls cripple responses to refugee crises, climate disasters, and pandemics.
• For example, famine-struckSudan received little meaningful support, as major powers withheld aid due to political calculations.
• Even flagship initiatives like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)are faltering. With wars intensifying, inequality widening, and climate change accelerating, the UN appears incapable of mobilizing the necessary collective will.

Failure to provide voice to global issues:

• Historically, the UN provided a stage for global leadership, with speeches at the General Assembly offering moral authority.
• Today, these addresses are largely rhetorical, ignored outside diplomatic circles. Leaders bypass the UN, preferring regional groupings like the G20 or unilateral actions.
• The UN’s decline also stems from its over-bureaucratic structure, slow response mechanisms, and susceptibility to the agendas of powerful nations.
• As crises multiply—from Gaza to Ukraine to climate shocks—the UN is more spectator than problem-solver.

Way Forward:

• If the UN is to regain credibility, it must confront its paralysis and embrace reform. This means restructuring the Security Council to reflect current geopolitical realities, ensuring equitable funding for humanitarian needs, and re-centering its mission on peace and human dignity rather than power rivalries.
• However, prospects for meaningful change remain bleak. The permanent members show little appetite for reform, preferring the status quo. Meanwhile, global challenges demand urgency: pandemics, climate change, cyber threats, and nuclear risks cannot be managed unilaterally. Yet the UN, conceived as the forum to address these very issues, is failing to inspire confidence.