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

Editorial 1: ​​​Indicators of Israel’s unsustainable hegemony

Context

Despite its unchallenged military dominance, Tel Aviv may turn out to be a giant built on fragile foundations.

Introduction

The recent series of Israeli military successes has created the perception that Israel has emerged as the dominant military and political power in West Asia, capable of reshaping the region to align with its interests. These include the near elimination of Hezbollah’s military wing in Lebanon, the collapse of the Assad regime and Israel’s expanded control over Syrian territory, the devastation of Gaza and crippling of Hamas’s military strength, and most notably, the near-total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, achieved partly with American support.

A Fragile Ceasefire and Its Real Implications

• The S.-brokered Gaza ceasefire, announced by President Donald Trump, seemed to favour Israel, given his stern warnings to Hamas.
• In reality, it was Israelthat had to halt its offensive, withdraw troops, and abandon plans to destroy Hamas completely.
• Hamas, meanwhile, only agreed to exchange hostages for prisoners, refusing to disarm or relinquish controlover Gaza– leaving the future of peace uncertain.

Israel as a Binational State: An Emerging Dilemma

• Unsustainable Hegemony:Although Israel’s regional dominance appears strong now, its long-term supremacy is unsustainable.
  • Beneath its military superiority, Israel risks becoming a colossus with feet of clay, facing deep internal contradictions.
• Demographic Reality:Within Israel’s 1967 borders, the population is about nine million, of which 20% (around two million) are Palestinians.
  • The West Bank (including East Jerusalem)and Gaza Strip together add over six million Palestinians.
  • Thus, a “Greater Israel”would consist of nearly equal numbers of Jews and Palestinians, effectively making it a binational state.
• Political and Moral Choices:
  • Israel faces an existential dilemma:
    • Option 1:Accept a binational democracy granting equal rights to both Jews and Palestinians – which would end the Zionist vision of a Jewish homeland.
    • Option 2:Continue as an apartheid-like state, with one ethnic group ruling over another and drawing global condemnation and isolation, similar to South Africa’s apartheid era.
  • Consequences:Either path would leave Israel internally divided or internationally ostracised, undermining its legitimacy and stability.
    • Such a fragile socio-political foundationmakes the idea of a sustained regional hegemony highly improbable in the long run.

The Impact of Israel’s Actions: Eroding Regional and Global Support

• Strained Ties with Arab Regimes:Israel’s recent military offensives have alarmed several Arab states, especially the Gulf sheikhdoms and Saudi Arabia, which once viewed Israel as a strategic counterbalance to Iran.
  • This perception underpinned the Abraham Accords— signed with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, but Israel’s excessive aggression has now shattered this trust.
  • The devastation in Gaza, where over 67,000 Palestiniansincluding women and children were killed and mass starvation imposed, has outraged Arab populations, threatening the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes if seen aligning with Israel.
• Breakdown of Trust after the Doha Incident:Israel’s attempt to assassinate Hamas negotiators in Qatar (September 2025), despite pledging not to, further alienated Gulf rulers.
  • This act convinced them that Israel is unreliable and reckless, setting back by years the S.–Israeli ambitionof normalising relations with Saudi Arabia.
  • Consequently, Israeli legitimacyhas hit a historic low even among Arab elites who once discreetly supported it.
• Erosion of Support in the United States:Israel’s actions in Gaza, verging on ethnic cleansing, have caused a major shift in American public opinion and a crucial pillar of Israel’s power.
  • President Trump’s pressureon Prime Minister Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire plan, contrary to Israeli goals, exposed Israel’s dependence on Washington.
  • Recent surveys highlight this changing tide:
    • A Pew pollfound 60% of Americans now hold negative views of the Israeli government.
    • A Washington Post pollshowed 61% of American Jews believe Israel committed war crimes, and 40% even describe it as genocide.
  • Genocide scholars, human rights organisations, and European governmentsincreasingly align with this view, prompting many to recognise the State of Palestine despite U.S. and Israeli objections.
• Consequences for Israel’s Hegemony:The collapse of Arab confidence, coupled with declining American and global support, has weakened Israel’s diplomatic standing.
  • As public opinionshifts in the U.S. and including among Trump’s own MAGA base.  Israel’s reliance on American backing becomes increasingly precarious, undermining its long-term hegemonic ambitions in West Asia.

The View in Washington: A Shifting Strategic Equation

• Centrality of U.S. Support:American backing remains the cornerstone of Israel’s power and security, shaping its military and diplomatic leverage in West Asia.
  • Any shift in Washington’s stanceon the Israel–Palestine conflict could reshape regional dynamics and weaken Israel’s dominant position.
• Evolving U.S. Priorities:The United States holds significant strategic and economic interests in West Asia, which have long been subordinated to its unwavering support for Israel.
  • However, under President Donald Trump’s transactional foreign policy, alliances are conditional— driven by S. self-interest rather than loyalty to partners.
• Implications for Israel:If Washington begins to recalibrate its regional approach, prioritising economic and security pragmatismover ideological alignment, Tel Aviv’s privileged position could erode.
  • Such a transformation would fundamentally alter the balance of power, compelling Israel to navigate a more uncertain and less indulgent U.S. policy environment.

Conclusion

Furthermore, with Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities severely weakened and the Tehran-led Axis of Resistance in disarray, Israel’s strategic importance to Washington has significantly diminished. Increasingly, Tel Aviv is being viewed as an impediment to the United States’ broader strategic and economic objectives in West Asia. In the absence of America’s unconditional backing, Israel’s regional dominance would quickly erode, and its ambitions of long-term hegemony could be irreversibly dismantled — a prospect that appears more imminent than distant.

 

Editorial 2: ​​Great Nicobar revives the issue of nature’s legal rights

Context

There are examples in the legal world that offer guidance on the protection of territories and natural resources

Introduction

From an ecological standpoint, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands rank among the world’s most significant biodiversity hotspots, serving as a crucial carbon sink and climate regulator. However, the region’s development trajectory has largely been dictated by perspectives from mainland India, often disconnected from the unique ecological sensitivitiesof island ecosystems. The current concern revolves around the Government of India’s mega development plan for Great Nicobar Island, involving a power plant, township, transshipment port, and airport, which threatens nearly 13,000 hectares of untouched forest.

Essential Judicial Precedent: The Niyamgiri Hills Judgment (2013) and Its Relevance to Great Nicobar

• Case & Context:The Supreme Court’s ruling in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment & Forest and Ors. (2013) under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) stands as a key precedent on forest diversion and tribal consent.
  • The case arose from the Dongoria Kondh tribe’s oppositionto bauxite mining in Odisha’s Niyamgiri Hills, a site sacred to their faith and vital to their ecosystem.
• Court’s Action & Principle Established:The Court ordered a referendum among affected Gram Sabhas, all of which rejected the mining proposal.
  • It affirmed the Gram Sabha’s constitutional competenceto decide on matters concerning community culture, religion, and natural resources, thereby establishing that tribal consent is a legal prerequisite for projects impacting forest land.
• Relevance to Great Nicobar Project:The same principle applies to the proposed mega development project on Great Nicobar Island, involving large-scale forest diversion.
  • The critical question is whether the Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobarwas given the opportunity to certify the settlement of forest rights under the FRA before approval.
  • As per a report, the Council allegedthat the Andaman and Nicobar Administration falsely claimed tribal rights were settled, when in fact they were not fully recognizedbefore the diversion of 13,000 hectares of pristine forest.
• Legal Implication:The Niyamgiri judgment reinforces that no forest land can be diverted without free, prior, and informed consent of local tribal institutions, making it a crucial safeguard for Great Nicobar’s indigenous and ecological integrity.

Granting Rights to Nature in India: The Shift Toward Earth Jurisprudence

• Context and Emerging Pattern:The situation in Great Nicobar Island reflects a recurring pattern of environmentally unsustainable development projects — similar to Tehri (North), Koel Karo (East), and Sardar Sarovar (West).
  • These projects exemplify planned ecological disasters, exposing the failure of conventional environmental lawsto safeguard natural ecosystems.
• Global Legal Response- The ‘Rights of Nature’ Approach:
  • To address these shortcomings, countries such as Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and New Zealandhave adopted a framework known as “earth jurisprudence” or “rights of nature”.
  • This legal philosophy recognises natural entities — rivers, forests, and mountains  as rights holders, granting them legal personhoodand protection independent of human interests.
• Philosophical Foundation- Christopher Stone’s 1972 Thesis:
  • The concept draws from Christopher Stone’sseminal essay, “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” (1972).
  • His arguments:
    • Environmental damages are typically assessed only in terms of human impact, not harm to nature itself.
    • Relief and compensationgo to affected humans, not to the damaged natural entity.
    • Recognising nature as a legal person, with its own rights and the ability to seek redress through guardians or trustees, would ensure direct environmental protection.
  • Implementation suggestion:Creation of a guardianship body to represent nature in legal proceedings, manage restoration, and collect funds for ecological preservation.
• Indian Context-  Recognition of Nature’s Legal Personhood (2017):
  • A turning point came with the Uttarakhand High Court judgmentin  Salim vs State of Uttarakhand and Others (2017).
  • The Court granted legal personhoodto the Ganga and Yamuna rivers, along with the Gangotri and Yamunotri glaciers.
  • It conferred rights and obligationsupon these natural entities, exercised through designated guardians acting on their behalf.
  • Although the Supreme Court later stayedthis ruling, it established a foundational precedent for recognising guardianship and stewardship models for nature in India.
• Significance for Great Nicobar and Beyond:
  • The rights of nature approachcould provide a powerful legal safeguard for ecologically sensitive regions like Great Nicobar, where development threatens forests and biodiversity.
  • Recognising natural ecosystems as legal personswould compel accountability, ensuring their intrinsic value and right to exist are protected — not merely as human resources, but as living entities with legal standing.

The Case in Colombia as Guidance for India’s Legal Personhood Debate

• Expanding the Forest Rights Framework:Extending the Forest Rights Act (FRA) to include the concept of legal personhood for natural entities could be a progressive step in India’s environmental jurisprudence.
  • However, this would necessitate clarity on key legal aspects, such as:
    • The specific rightsnature would hold.
    • The responsibilities and liabilitiesof those designated as guardians.
    • The scope of representation— i.e., who can legitimately speak and act on behalf of nature.
  • Need for Normative Clarity:
    • Before such a framework is adopted, India must examine foundational normative questions, including:
      • How should a rights-bearing natural entitybe defined?
      • What types of rights(existence, regeneration, protection) should be recognised?
      • Who bears the legal and ethical responsibilityto uphold these rights?
    • A comprehensive legal model should balance ecological protection, cultural integrity, and community participation.
  • Learning from Colombia’s Atrato River Case (2016):The Constitutional Court of Colombia recognised the Atrato River as a legal person, introducing the concept of bio-cultural rights.
    • Bio-cultural rightsaffirm the right of ethnic and indigenous communities to autonomously protect and manage their natural territories, integrating their cultural and ecological relationship with nature.
    • The Court mandated the creation of a Commission of Guardians, comprising:
      • Representatives from the affected indigenous communities, and
      • Government-appointed members,
        to ensure joint stewardship and accountability for the river’s protection.
    • Relevance for India:The Atrato River model provides a practical and inclusive framework for India to emulate and combining legal personhood with community-led guardianship.
      • Applying this to regions like Great Nicobarwould empower local tribal councils and forest communitiesto act as guardians of ecosystems, ensuring both environmental preservation and cultural continuity.

Conclusion

The Great Nicobar project reignites the debate on aligning development with ecological justice. Judicial precedents like Niyamgiri (2013) and global models such as Colombia’s Atrato River case (2016) underscore the need to recognise nature’s intrinsic rights. Extending legal personhood to ecosystems, with community-led guardianship, can ensure that India’s progress does not come at the irreversible cost of its natural heritage.