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

 

Article 1: Back on track

Why in news: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Malaysia made headlines for resetting strained ties, signing MoUs, strengthening counter-terrorism cooperation, and reaffirming India’s commitment to ASEAN.

Key Details

PM Modi’s 24-hour Kuala Lumpur visit aimed to reset India–Malaysia ties after cancelling his 2025 trip.

Talks with PM Anwar Ibrahim led to MoUs and a renewed push to strengthen bilateral cooperation.

Despite past strains over terrorism-related remarks and Pakistan, both sides unequivocally condemned cross-border terrorism.

Key focus areas included counter-terrorism cooperation, semiconductors, and trade, defence, energy, and digital ties.

The visit reaffirmed India’s commitment to ASEAN and set the stage for closer regional coordination.

Purpose of the Visit: Resetting Ties

Making amends was the central aim of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 24-hour visit to Kuala Lumpur, following the cancellation of his Malaysia trip in 2025 due to the ASEAN summit.

Mr. Modi stated that this was why Malaysia became his first foreign destination in the new year.

High-Level Engagements and Outcomes

Talks with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who had visited India in 2024, resulted in the signing of multiple MoUs.

Both sides agreed to strengthen bilateral cooperation across key sectors.

Background Tensions in 2025

India–Malaysia relations saw some strain in 2025 despite Malaysia condemning the Pahalgam terror attacks.

Mr. Ibrahim’s call for a “full and thorough enquiry”, along with appeals for India–Pakistan de-escalation and offers of mediation, caused unease in New Delhi.

Malaysia also hosted Pakistan Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif in October 2025, adding to sensitivities.

Renewed Consensus on Terrorism

Mr. Modi chose to set aside past differences, signalling a diplomatic reset.

The joint statement unequivocally condemned terrorism, including cross-border terrorism.

Both countries agreed to enhance counter-terrorism cooperation, intelligence sharing, and coordination at the UN and FATF.

Economic and Technological Cooperation

A key outcome was an MoU on semiconductors, building on collaboration between IIT Madras Global and the Advanced Semiconductor Academy of Malaysia.

The two sides highlighted cooperation in trade, defence, energy, and digital technologies.

Contentious issues, such as the continued stay of Zakir Naik in Malaysia, were deliberately avoided in public discussions.

Multilateral and Trade Issues

Differences over ASEAN-related matters were tactfully side-stepped.

Mr. Modi’s earlier decision to skip the ASEAN summit had slowed talks on reviewing the ASEAN–India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA).

Past critical remarks by India’s Commerce Minister on the FTA and ASEAN countries had left lingering discontent.

Strategic Significance of the Visit

The visit reaffirmed India’s commitment to ASEAN, even as New Delhi pursues FTAs with Europe and the U.S.

On BRICS, India merely noted Malaysia’s aspiration for membership, while confirming Mr. Ibrahim’s invitation as Malaysia is a BRICS partner country.

With Indonesia already a BRICS member, the visit may pave the way for closer regional coordination.

Broader Implications

Mr. Modi’s warmly received visit could deepen India–Malaysia ties.

It also helps lay the groundwork for stronger India–ASEAN engagement, reflecting shared geography and common responses to global strategic shifts.

Conclusion
The visit marked a diplomatic reset, reaffirming mutual trust and strategic engagement between India and Malaysia. By prioritising counter-terrorism, economic cooperation, and regional commitment to ASEAN, the engagement laid a constructive foundation for deeper bilateral ties and enhanced regional coordination amid evolving global geopolitical challenges.

Descriptive question:

1. Critically analyse how Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Malaysia helped reset strained bilateral relations, and assess its significance and limitations for India’s ASEAN engagement and regional diplomacy. (250 words, 15 marks)

 

Article 2: Stifling ideas

Why in news: The Uttar Pradesh government ordered an FIR against a film’s makers over its title, reviving debate on free speech, criminalisation of expression, and the constitutional limits of executive power in regulating art.

Key Details

Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath ordered filing of an FIR against the makers of a film over its title Ghooskhor Pandat.

The title was alleged to hurt religious or caste sentiments and disturb social harmony.

The producer withdrew promotional material following the threat of criminal action.

A matter of artistic expression was quickly turned into a law-and-order issue.

Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech, even when it is offensive or unpopular.

Restrictions under Article 19(2) must be specific, proportionate, and justified.

Courts distinguish offensive speech from speech inciting violence or disorder.

Using criminal law to curb expression creates a chilling effect on art and debate.

Past instances show a pattern of executive restrictions on films and documentaries.

The state is expected to ensure public order without suppressing free expression.

Trigger for Controversy

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath directed filing an FIR against the makers of a film over its title Ghooskhor Pandat.

He alleged the title disrupts social harmony and hurts religious or caste sentiments.

The producer removed promotional material, showing how quickly criminal process compelled compliance.

From Expression to Policing

What began as a speech dispute was swiftly converted into a law-and-order issue.

Executive threat of criminal law, even before judicial scrutiny, signalled intolerance of dissenting expression.

The FIR acted as a coercive warning, not a reasoned legal response.

Constitutional Protection of Speech

Article 19(1)(a) protects speech precisely because it may be unwelcome or offensive to powerful groups.

Article 19(2) permits restrictions only on specific grounds and requires proportionality.

Courts have clearly distinguished offensive speech from speech inciting violence or disorder.

Pattern of State Restrictions on Art

Visual arts have increasingly faced executive censorship.

Examples include bans or removals of The Kerala Story (2023), India: The Modi Question, Kaum De Heere, India’s Daughter, Padmaavat, and recent documentaries in 2024.

Many actions were taken without prior judicial findings.

Problems with ‘Hurt Sentiments’ Standard

In a diverse society, claims of being hurt are subjective and limitless.

Sentiments alone are an unreliable basis for criminal prosecution.

Chilling Effect on Free Expression

When creators self-censor to avoid trouble, public access to art is lost.

Courts lose opportunities to clarify legal standards, and society loses democratic responses like debate, satire, or boycott.

Over time, the marketplace of ideas weakens.

Proper Constitutional Approach

The state bears the burden to examine speech carefully and specifically.

If unlawfulness is alleged, the remedy lies in judicial review, not executive fiat.

Authorities must adopt the least restrictive measure, with recorded reasons.

Role of the State

It is the Chief Minister’s duty to maintain public order while protecting expression.

Curtailing speech to preserve order undermines the constitutional balance between authority and liberty.

Conclusion

The episode highlights a growing tendency to criminalise dissenting expression, undermining Article 19(1)(a)protections. By bypassing judicial scrutiny and invoking executive coercion, the state risks creating a chilling effect on art and debate. Upholding constitutional proportionality and relying on courts rather than policing are essential to balance public order with freedom of expression.

EXPECTED DQUESTION FOR PRELIMS:

Which of the following statements are correct in respect of Article 19 of the Constitution of India?

Article 19 guarantees six fundamental freedoms to all citizens of India.

Reasonable restrictions on these freedoms can be imposed by the State.

Foreign nationals are also entitled to the freedoms under Article 19.

Select the answer using the code given below:

1 and 2 only

2 and 3 only

1 and 3 only

1, 2 and 3

Answer: a

 

Article 3: Question and answer

Why in news: The Lok Sabha passed the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address without the Prime Minister’s reply, citing alleged security concerns. This unprecedented move raised questions about parliamentary convention, Opposition rights, and the erosion of democratic accountability.

Key Details

Lok Sabha adopted the Motion of Thanks without the Prime Minister’s reply, breaking convention

Speaker Om Birla cited security concerns and possible “unexpected” actions by Opposition MPs

Claim that the Prime Minister feared harm inside Parliament appeared implausible

Rahul Gandhi (LoP) was disallowed from citing a book by former Army Chief Gen. M.M. Naravane

Both the LoP being silenced and the PM not replying violate parliamentary norms

PM’s reply is mandatory to conclude the debate unless a special resolution is passed

No such resolution was moved or adopted

Issues raised involved national security, making denial of discussion unjustified

Skipping the reply weakened executive accountability and strengthened criticism of evasion

Unprecedented Parliamentary Departure

The Lok Sabha adopted the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address without the Prime Minister’s reply on February 5

This marked a clear break from established parliamentary convention

Speaker’s Explanation Raises Concerns

Speaker Om Birla claimed there were credible inputs about Opposition MPs planning something “unexpected”

He indirectly suggested a security threat to the Prime Minister inside the House

Such an assertion is bizarre, implying the Leader of the House feared harm from fellow MPs

More Plausible Context Inside the House

Earlier developments offer a more convincing explanation for the Prime Minister’s absence

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi attempted to cite excerpts from a book by former Army Chief Gen. M.M. Naravane

The Chair disallowed the reference, preventing the LoP from fully speaking

Violation of Parliamentary Norms

On one hand, the LoP was restricted from speaking

On the other, the Prime Minister chose not to reply

Both actions undermine parliamentary norms and reflect a serious erosion of democratic accountability

Importance of Debate and Reply

The debate and Prime Minister’s reply are key tools to hold the executive accountable to Parliament

Speaker Birla said he requested the Prime Minister not to attend due to possible disruption near his seat

However, this does not override established rules

Rules Ignored

As noted by Congress MP K.C. Venugopal, parliamentary rules require the Prime Minister’s reply to conclude the debate

To end the discussion without it, a specific resolution must be moved and adopted

No such resolution was passed.

Suppression of National Security Discussion

Even if disputed, Rahul Gandhi was willing to authenticate the book’s contents and place them before the Chair

The book raises serious national security concerns

Denying discussion on these issues is indefensible

Missed Opportunity for Accountability

The excerpts cited outside the House suggest evasion of responsibility by the political executive

A full debate ending with the Prime Minister’s reply could have disproved this charge

By skipping the reply, Prime Minister Narendra Modi instead reinforced the criticism

Conclusion

The episode highlights a serious departure from parliamentary norms, where both the Opposition’s right to speakand the Prime Minister’s duty to reply were curtailed. By bypassing debate and accountability mechanisms, the Lok Sabha weakened its own democratic role, setting a troubling precedent that risks normalising executive avoidance and undermining Parliament’s authority.

EXPECTED QUESTION FOR PRELIMS:

Which principle of democracy is most directly affected by the Prime Minister not replying to the debate?

Federalism

Judicial review

Executive accountability to Parliament

Separation of powers

Answer: C