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

Editorial 1 : No to regression: on protests in Nepal, pro-monarchy sentiment

Introduction

The violent protests that erupted in Kathmandu on Friday, which resulted in fatalities, injuries, and widespread destruction, have drawn attention to an alarming resurgence of pro-monarchist sentiment in Nepal. The unrest, fueled by fringe political forces like the royalist Rastriya Prajatantra Party, signifies a shift in public mood and a growing disillusionment with the current democratic establishment. This wave of pro-monarchy rallies and demonstrations, surprising to many, reflects a deeper undercurrent of dissatisfaction with Nepal’s republican experiment—an experiment that broke decisively with monarchy nearly two decades ago.

Key Notes

1. Recent Protests and Violence: The violent protests in Kathmandu, led by fringe royalist forces, led to the deaths of two individuals and left dozens injured. Arson and looting were also reported, intensifying concerns over the political climate in Nepal.
2. Rastriya Prajatantra Party's Role: The Rastriya Prajatantra Party, a royalist faction, has played a key role in stirring unrest. Although traditionally marginalized, the party has tapped into growing discontent with the political system, pushing for a return to monarchy.
3. The Decline of the Monarchy: Nepal’s monarchy, which had been an integral part of the country’s identity for over 240 years, was abolished in 2008 after a long struggle. The monarchy’s fall followed several defining events, notably the royal massacre in 2001, which irreparably damaged the monarchy’s reputation.
4. The Maoist Rebellion and the Shift to Democracy: The Maoist rebels, who once sought to overthrow the monarchy through armed struggle, shifted toward the mainstream political process. Their integration into democratic politics, coupled with a lack of international support for the monarchy, sealed the fate of the royal institution.
5. Political Instability: Despite the formation of a federal democratic republic and the drafting of a new constitution in 2015, Nepal has been plagued by political volatility. Governments have alternated between parties like the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), and the Maoists, but chronic instability, poor governance, and self-serving leadership have prevented meaningful progress.
6. Pro-Monarchy Sentiment and Regressive Forces: The recent increase in pro-monarchy sentiment is largely seen as a response to the failures of Nepal’s republican government. This shift is considered regressive, with some citizens longing for the perceived stability of the monarchy despite its authoritarian history.
7. The Role of Government and Political Leadership: The government must act swiftly to hold those responsible for the recent violence accountable. At the same time, both the ruling party and the opposition must work to restore public trust in the parliamentary system, ensuring that democratic processes are more responsive and inclusive.

Conclusion

The resurgence of pro-monarchy sentiment in Nepal represents a critical moment in the country’s democratic journey. It signals the growing frustration with the current political system, which has struggled to deliver on the promises of democracy, inclusive development, and justice. The recent violence should serve as a wake-up call for the government to demonstrate its commitment to democratic values and to confront the challenges of poor governance and instability. By doing so, it can reaffirm the public’s faith in the republican system and prevent any backward slide into the autocratic era of monarchy.

Editorial 2 : Alarming shift: on the U.S. government and free speech rights

Introduction

Recent developments in U.S. immigration policy have raised significant concerns about the balance between national security and the protection of fundamental civil liberties, particularly the right to free speech. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s confirmation of an ongoing program to revoke visas from foreign students engaged in activities deemed counter to U.S. national interests or foreign policy has drawn widespread attention. This initiative, reportedly based on surveillance of social media activities, has affected several hundred students, including many from India. This move has sparked debates about the limits of free speech rights for foreign nationals legally residing in the United States, challenging the very principles upon which American democracy is built.

Key Notes

1. Visa Revocations Based on National Interest
   1. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that the U.S. government is revoking visas from foreign students involved in activities that contradict U.S. national interests or foreign policy.
   2. Reports suggest that hundreds of visas have been revoked, with Indian students among those affected.
2. Use of Social Media Surveillance
   1. The U.S. government is reportedly using social media activity as a key factor in determining which visas to revoke.
   2. This raises concerns about the extent of government surveillance and its implications for privacy and free expression.
3. Context of Gaza War Protests
   1. Rubio highlighted incidents related to Gaza war protests, where Jewish students were allegedly harassed, and university buildings were occupied.
   2. He argues that actions that would justify denying a visa at the application stage should also serve as grounds for revocation after issuance.
4. Free Speech Rights of Foreign Nationals
   1. The U.S. First Amendment protects the right to free speech, explicitly restricting Congress from curtailing it.
   2. While the amendment mentions “people” rather than “citizens,” its application to foreign nationals remains a grey area.
   3. Historically, foreign students have expressed criticism of U.S. policies without facing punitive measures.
5. The Role of University Administrations
   1. U.S. universities have traditionally defended the free speech rights of students and academics, fostering an environment of open debate and critical thought.
   2. This tradition is under threat with the new visa revocation policies.
6. The U.S. as a Beacon of Liberal Values
   1. Despite historical flaws like Japanese-American internment during WWII and ongoing systemic racial issues, the U.S. has been admired for its commitment to liberal values and due process.
   2. The nation’s reputation as a defender of free speech and democratic ideals has inspired people worldwide.
7. Concerns Over Government Overreach
   1. Critics argue that the visa revocation program represents an overreach of executive power, potentially undermining constitutional freedoms.
   2. There is a call for judicial intervention to uphold the system of checks and balances that protects against abuse of power.

Conclusion

The U.S. has long been seen as a symbol of freedom and democracy, with the First Amendment serving as a cornerstone of its identity. However, the recent program to revoke visas based on political activities raises serious concerns about the erosion of these values. While national security is a legitimate concern, it should not come at the expense of fundamental rights, especially for individuals who are legally present in the country. The U.S. system of checks and balances must assert itself to prevent potential overreach, ensuring that the freedoms that define American democracy are preserved for all, regardless of their nationality.