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

Editorial 1 : Supreme Court’s order on street dogs is inhumane and anti-science

Context:

The debate centres on a recent Supreme Court directive ordering removal of street dogs from key public premises, and whether this departs from India’s statutory and science-based dog-population management norms.

What the Court ordered and why it matters:

The Supreme Court has directed that stray dogs be removed from public places such as schools, hospitals, stadiums, bus and railway stations, and shifted to holding/shelter facilities after sterilisation and vaccination — limiting their presence on public premises. The order aims to protect public safety and reduce dog-human conflict, but it raises tensions with existing policy and science on humane dog population management. The Court’s directive is presently in effect while implementation and related issues are litigated.

Existing legal and policy framework:

India’s approach to free-roaming dogs is governed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules (2001), recently updated and supplemented by the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. These rules require local bodies to implement Catch–Neuter–Vaccinate–Release (CNVR/ABC) programs, create shelters, and coordinate with veterinary and welfare organisations; euthanasia is allowed only for incurably ill or rabid animals diagnosed by a qualified vet. Local bodies are explicitly mandated to plan sterilisation, vaccination and monitoring.

Science and international best practice: CNVR works, culling rarely does:

International standards (WOAH/OIE) and WHO-aligned approaches treat dog-population management as integral to rabies control and public health. The global evidence base shows that sterilisation + high (>70%) rabies-vaccination coverage reduces free-roaming dog populations, rabies incidence and dog-human conflict over time. Mass culling or indefinite removal without release typically fails (vacuum effect, repopulation) and raises serious animal-welfare and operational problems. Bhutan’s nationwide CNVR program — sterilising and vaccinating tens of thousands and declaring full coverage in recent years — is often cited as a success story.

Points of analytical tension between the Court’s order and policy/science:

• Release vs permanent removal:ABC/CNVR prescribes return to original location so sterilised, vaccinated dogs continue to occupy territory—preventing new dogs moving in. Orders calling for “removal without re-release” conflict with this operational logic and risk new animals filling the vacuum.
• Shelter capacity and feasibility:The scale of India’s free-roaming dog population and paucity of functional ABC centres/shelters implies massive infrastructure, manpower and budget needs. Without these, removal orders may be impossible to implement humanely. Government advisories repeatedly instruct ULBs to ramp up ABC services, but gaps persist.
• Public health vs rights/welfare balance:The Court prioritises immediate public safety; policy and science stress long-term rabies control, requiring sustained vaccination coverage and community participation. Short-term eviction can worsen risks (unvaccinated dogs wandering into sensitive areas) if not carefully managed.

Implementation hurdles:

• Human resources:Trained vets, dog-catchers, mobile clinics and monitoring teams are inadequate across many municipalities.
• Financing:ABC/CNVR at scale requires recurring funds (sterilisation, vaccine cold chain, shelter maintenance) often not budgeted.
• Social behaviour:Feeding by communities, cultural attitudes and urban ecology (food waste, construction) sustain dog populations unless coupled with public awareness, waste management and responsible pet ownership policies.
• Inter-agency coordination:Health, municipal, veterinary, and animal-welfare agencies must coordinate; lapses impede outcomes.

Policy recommendations — pragmatic, humane, evidence-based:

• Follow OIE/WHO CNVR principlesas the default national strategy; judicial directives should be harmonised with these rules, not substitute operational policy.
• Immediate triage approach for public premises:For high-risk sites (ICUs, ORs), implement short-term holding/temporary fencing plus accelerated CNVR drives targeted to surrounding localities, rather than mass, permanent removal.
• Scale up ABC infrastructure and finance:Central & state allocations, performance-linked grants to ULBs, and PPPs with welfare NGOs to expand sterilisation, vaccination and shelter capacity.
• Integrated public health strategy:Link dog-management to city rabies plans, ensure 70%+ vaccination coverage, improve bite-victim PEP access and surveillance (NCDC operational guidance).
• Community engagement & waste management:Reduce food-sources through solid waste reforms and public awareness on responsible feeding/ownership.
• Judicial-executive consultation mechanism:Courts should invite technical input from AWBI, veterinary councils, public-health agencies and the OIE/WHO when framing operational directions to ensure orders are implementable and humane.

Conclusion:

The core policy choice is not between dogs and people but between short-term administrative fixes and long-term, science-based public-health solutions. India’s statutory framework already endorses CNVR and humane DPM; scaling that approach, with targeted safeguards for sensitive public sites, offers the dual dividend of safeguarding human health while respecting animal welfare. Judicial concern for safety is legitimate, but practicable solutions require evidence, budgets and institutional coordination — not simply removal mandates that outpace ground realities.

 

Editorial 2 : Red Fort blast reminds us that war against terror will never end

Context:

The Red Fort explosion exposes the persistent and evolving threat of terrorism in India’s cities and highlights the need for a constantly adapting, whole-of-nation security response.

What the article argues:

• Urban terrorism is not dead; it mutates, goes latent and resurfaces via new modalities (IEDs, small teams, local sympathisers).
• India has reduced the footprint of organised terrorist groups in Jammu & Kashmir, yet the ideological-financial ecosystems that sustain violence (financers, radicalisers, online networks) remain resilient.
• Responses must combine intelligence, law enforcement, technology, public preparedness and international cooperation — not panic or knee-jerk measures.

Situational analysis — why urban terrorism is distinct now:

• Psychological aim:Urban attacks aim to shatter a sense of safety that underpins commerce, mobility and normal life; hence even small-scale strikes deliver outsized political impact.
• Operational evolution:Terror networks now rely more on decentralised cells, lone-actors, and hybrid tactics (IEDs, small arms, incendiaries) rather than mass complex attacks.
• Enablers:Social media, encrypted messaging, cross-border logistics and petty criminal networks help radical elements recruit and procure material; illicit finance and narcotics channels also persist.
• Geography and symbolism:Attacks at symbolic public spaces (metro stations, monuments) are meant to undermine civic confidence and provoke polarisation.

What India has achieved and where gaps persist

• Achievements:
  • Dramatic decline in large-scale terror enclaves in many regions; effective disruption of several organised groups; stronger prosecution (NIA) and enhanced counter-radicalisation drives.
• Gaps:
  • Urban counter-terror preparedness: many cities lack rapid-response capabilities, specialized EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) capacity, forensic readiness and integrated public-alert systems.
  • Intelligence fusion: collection is strong, but real-time integration across Centre, states, and municipal agencies needs strengthening to convert data into actionable interdictions.
  • Legal and prosecution bottlenecks: evidence collection, witness protection and speedy trial remain challenges in terror cases.
  • Socio-political vulnerabilities: alienation, economic grievance and online radical content continue to feed recruitment.

Strategic and operational implications:

• Integrated urban security architecture:Cities should institutionalise an Urban Security Cell — fusing local police, traffic, city planners, public transport authorities, and intelligence inputs for layered protection of critical nodes (stations, markets, monuments).
• Enhance forensic & EOD capacity:Rapid deployment forensic labs, mobile EOD teams and a national registry of trained specialists are essential; invest in regional hubs to cut response times.
• Intelligence fusion and predictive analytics:Create secure, interoperable platforms (with strict privacy safeguards) where intelligence, CCTV feeds, transit metadata and financial red-flags are correlated using AI to detect threat patterns.
• Community policing & societal resilience:Promote citizen vigilance without profiling; public awareness campaigns on suspicious indicators and first-response behaviour reduce panic and improve early detection.
• Legal & prosecutorial strengthening:Fast-track special courts for terror cases, robust witness protection schemes, and improved forensic evidence rules to secure convictions.
• Counter-radicalisation & online governance:Tackle online grooming, de-radicalisation programmes, counter-narratives in regional languages and rehabilitation pathways for low-level foot soldiers.
• Border and regional diplomacy:Intensify intelligence sharing, border surveillance and diplomatic pressure on states that enable extremist logistics; strengthen cooperation with neighbours and multilateral bodies on terrorism finance.
• Whole-of-government contingency planning:NDMA/State DM machinery must be integrated into counter-terror contingency plans for mass casualty management, hospital surge capacity and media messaging.

Measures that pay high dividends

• Soft infrastructure:Urban design that reduces targetability (standoff zones, hardened utility rooms, screened entry points) alongside keeping public spaces welcoming.
• Public-private partnership:Engage metros, railways, malls and event managers in mandatory security audits; incentivise private investment in surveillance and trained rapid-response teams.
• Research & training:Establish a national Centre for Urban Terrorism Studies (multi-disciplinary) to train police, first responders, judges and media on evidence-based responses.
• Resilience metrics:Develop city-level indices (response time, forensic turnaround, vaccination of first responders) to monitor preparedness.

Conclusion:

The Red Fort incident is a reminder that terrorism is an adaptive, enduring challenge. The solution is not only forceful counter-terror operations but building societal and institutional resilience — from intelligence fusion and urban preparedness to legal reforms and community trust. A calm, systematic, and rights-respecting approach that marries technology, diplomacy, and human capital will weaken the terror ecosystem more effectively than reactive postures or polarising rhetoric.