logo
Our Courses CSAT MAINS Optionals Current Affairs Prelims Videos Study Material Membership Login

The Hindu Editorial Analysis
3rd January 2024


  • With the government refusing to extend the deadline for Aadhaar details of workers under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) to be seeded to their job cards beyond December 31, 2023, to enable payments through an Aadhaar-based payment system (ABPS), the system has now become mandatory. Alarmingly, the decision would now affect nearly 35% of job card holders for this mode of payment and 12.7% of “active” workers (those who have worked at least one day in the last three financial years), thereby putting a dampener on the demand-driven scheme for many.
  • Data analysed by LibTech India suggest that the names of 7.6 crore workers have been deleted over the past 21 months due to discrepancies between the Aadhaar and the job card, among other reasons, with many of these done erroneously.
  • There are other issues with the use of the Aadhaar-based payments — where errors in any step of the process result in payment failures. Apart from the spelling discrepancy issue between the Aadhaar and the job card of the worker, there is also the problem of mapping the Aadhaar to the wrong bank account for many.
  • Conclusion: Without cleaning up Aadhaar seeding and mapping with bank accounts, making the ABPS mandatory will only create further issues. The Union government must revisit this decision, and work out a way to correct the faulty seeding and mapping problems before imposing ABPS.
  • Lessons of the Cold War: The GNO was created in the shadow of the Cold War, with the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., leading the western and the Socialist blocs, respectively. Following the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the two came perilously close to launching a nuclear war, both U.S. President John F. Kennedy and General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev understood two political realities. First, as the two nuclear superpowers, they needed bilateral mechanisms to prevent tensions from escalating to the nuclear level. And, second, nuclear weapons are dangerous and, therefore, their spread should be curbed. This convergence created the GNO.
  • Lessons of the Cold War: To control proliferation, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. initiated multilateral negotiations in Geneva in 1965 on a treaty to curb the spread of nuclear weapons. Three years later, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opened for signature.
  • The third element of the global nuclear order came into existence in 1975. India had chosen not to sign the NPT, and in 1974, stunned the world by conducting an underground peaceful nuclear explosive, or PNE. Seven countries (the U.S., U.S.S.R, U.K., Canada, France, Japan, and West Germany) held a series of meetings in London and concluded that ad hoc export controls were urgently needed to ensure that nuclear technology, transferred for peaceful purposes, not be used for PNEs.
  • The London Club (as it was originally known) sounded inappropriate and later transformed into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, consisting of 48 countries today, came into being.
  • The fact is that humanity has survived 75 years of the nuclear age without blowing itself up.
  • Non-proliferation has been a success. Despite dire predictions of more than 20 countries possessing nuclear weapons by the 1970s, (there were five in 1968 – the U.S., U.S.S.R., U.K., France, and China), only four countries have since gone nuclear, i.e., India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.
  • Changing geopolitics-Today’s nuclear world is no longer a bipolar world. The U.S. faces a more assertive China, determined to regain influence, regionally and globally.
  • Changing geopolitics has taken its toll on the treaties between the U.S. and Russia. In 2002, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and in 2019, from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on grounds that Russia was violating it.
  • Changing geopolitics-Today, domestic compulsions are turning the U.S. inwards, raising questions in the minds of its allies about its ‘extended deterrence’ guarantees, especially in East Asia. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have the technical capabilities to develop an independent nuclear deterrent within a short time, given political will. It is only a matter of time before U.S. pragmatism reaches the inevitable conclusion that more independent nuclear deterrent capabilities may be the best way to handle the rivalry with China.The GNO is looking increasingly shaky.
The recent decision by the Maldives to revoke an agreement with India for joint hydrographic surveys in Maldivian waters has caused considerable dismal in Indian media and strategic circles. Inked during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the islands in 2019, the pact was seen as a symbol of India-Maldives defence ties.

    • The move by Male, in mid-December 2023, came a few weeks after the archipelagic state formally asked New Delhi to withdraw its Indian military presence from its shores.
    • That trust between India and the Maldives is at a low ebb is manifestly evident. Since the election of Mohamed Muizzu as Maldivian President in November 2023, there has been a deliberate, if predictable, attempt by Male to create a distance with New Delhi.
    • Far from balancing ties with India, Male has thrown in its political lot with China.
    • On China’s surveys-Indian observers point out that China’s ocean surveys play an important part in enhancing China’s antisubmarine warfare capabilities.
    • Meanwhile, speculation abounds in New Delhi of a Chinese plan to develop a naval base in the Maldives. In 2018, China planned an ocean observatory in Makunudhoo Atoll, north of Male — not far from India’s Lakshadweep Islands.
    • Conclusion: The most viable solution for the Maldives to enhance its maritime awareness and security is through a strategic partnership with India. Furthermore, the Muizzu administration must realize that it is China, not India, that wishes to weaponize ocean surveys. The eagerness to align with Beijing, fueled by political motivations, could potentially result in negative repercussions for Male.
    • The Governor of Kerala has been in the news for the wrong reasons.
    • In NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court emphasised the need to identify the “moral values of the Constitution” based on a notion of “constitutional culture”.
    • Article 361 of the Constitution provides only a limited and conditional immunity for the Governors. It says that Governors shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of their office or for any act done or purported to be done by them in their official capacity. This does not mean that Governors are not liable for their misbehaviour unconnected with their official duty. In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), after finding that the Governor abused power in recommending Presidential rule in Bihar, the Supreme Court said that the motivated and whimsical conduct of the Governor is amenable to judicial review.
    • Questions relating to disparaging comments by public functionaries came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023). The Court said that the freedom of expression of public functionaries could not be curtailed other than by way of the “reasonable restrictions”, as permitted by Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
    • The Sarkaria Commission Report (1988) lamented that “some Governors have failed to display the qualities of impartiality and sagacity expected of them”. It added that “many Governors, looking forward to further office under the Union or [an] active role in politics after their tenure came to regard themselves as agents of the Union”. Since then, the situation has only worsened.
    • The Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission report (2010) said that “to be able to discharge the constitutional obligations fairly and impartially, the Governor should not be burdened with positions and powers which are not envisaged by the Constitution.”
    • Conclusion: Future regimes at the Centre will have to consider amending Article 155 of the Constitution related to appointment of Governors by ensuring consultation with the Chief Minister, as suggested by the Sarkaria report. An independent body for selecting the Governor with a reasonably significant role for the Chief Justice of India also might improve the quality of the selection process. Also, there needs a legal prohibition against further rehabilitation of Governors in any official capacity. Raj Bhavans require systemic changes.

  • With the general elections fast approaching, the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) government in the State and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government at the Centre are trying to complete projects that were put on the back burner for long. The South Coast Railway (SCoR) Zone project, which was announced in 2019 and forgotten after, is one such project.