Editorial

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement of fast-track courts for examination paper-leak cases is, technically, a way forward. However, to say it will pacify the protesters, the short answer is no. The Government’s response has arrived 45 days into a sit-in at Jantar Mantar, three days after a “Chalo Sansad” march on Parliament ended in lathi charges, and a day before a nationwide strike called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), the youth outfit leading the agitation. The demand on the street was never primarily about court speed. It was – and remains – the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. That mismatch explains why the announcement has, if anything, hardened the standoff rather than softened it. CJP’s national spokesperson dismissed it as a fix for the wrong fracture. Having said that, fast-track courts are still worth having: certain, swift punishment beats the slow cases that previously allowed leak networks to regroup. They can act as a deterrent and dissuade perpetrators from such adventurism. It may not be a remedy for paper leaks, but it is certainly one of the many steps required to fix the problem. Parliament’s Monsoon Session, which opened the same day the march was blocked, remains deadlocked over the issue. None of this looks like a movement preparing to stand down – CJP called another round of strikes explicitly to protest the police crackdown, not to welcome the court announcement. There is also a credibility problem no single X post can fix. This is not India’s first paper-leak reckoning. The 2024 NEET-UG leak produced near-identical protests, an identical resignation demand, a new central law criminalising exam fraud, and a seven-member expert panel under former ISRO chief K. Radhakrishnan that filed roughly sixty recommendations. Two years and one more compromised exam later – the same racket, investigators say, also breached the 2025 paper – the cycle repeated. Fast-track courts prosecute a leak after it happens. They do nothing to stop the next one. That is the more useful question buried under the resignation politics: what actually stops a paper from leaking? The evidence points to an insider problem, not a punishment gap: leaks trace back to the question-setting, printing and transport chain, where coaching-linked intermediaries buy access – not outside hackers. The Radhakrishnan committee’s central recommendation – which the Supreme Court is now pressing the ministry to implement – was structural: replace the National Testing Agency’s dependence on contractual staff with permanent, professional staffing, and build identity-linked custody records for every hand a paper passes through. Separately, the ministry’s own plan to shift NEET to a computer-based, possibly multi-stage format from 2027 would shrink the payoff of any single leak, but that does not happen overnight. CJP’s demands now include compensation for the families of a dozen-plus students it says have died by suicide since the exam was scrapped and re-run – a grief no courtroom timeline addresses. Pacifying this protest will likely require visible proof that the Government is willing to listen to them and has a plan to fix the problem once and for all. (Source: The Pioneer)

The tunnel — part of NHPC’s 500 MW Teesta Stage-VI hydropower project, built by contractor Patel Engineering – caved in on July 20 after workers reportedly tried to vent a pocket of naturally occurring methane gas trapped in the rock. That attempt is suspected to have triggered an explosion, which set off a landslide, sealing the tunnel’s mouth. Of the 27 people inside, only two could escape. Days on, NDRF, SDRF and mine-safety teams are still fighting low oxygen, carbon monoxide and blocked debris to reach those unaccounted for, as the confirmed toll keeps climbing. What makes this tragedy so hard to accept is how familiar the warning signs look in hindsight. Methane pockets trapped in young Himalayan rock are a known hazard in this terrain, and standard practice calls for careful monitoring and controlled release — not an on-the-spot venting attempt near a live worksite. That such an attempt could trigger an explosion powerful enough to bring down the tunnel roof points to a breakdown in monitoring, ventilation or protocol — questions the promised inquiry must answer honestly, not defensively. This is not an isolated failure. In 2023, all 41 workers trapped in Uttarakhand’s Silkyara tunnel were pulled out alive after a globally watched 17-day rescue. In 2025, a similar collapse at Telangana’s SLBC tunnel ended far worse, with most trapped workers never recovered alive. Each time, officials promise inquiries and stricter norms; each time, the cycle repeats at the next site, and another list of names is read into a moment of silence — as Sikkim’s Assembly did this week for the Samardung victims. Preventing a repeat needs more than compensation cheques, necessary as those are for grieving families. India needs mandatory, real-time gas monitoring and ventilation on every underground worksite, not only coal mines; independent safety clearances that precede construction rather than follow disaster; enforceable protocols for handling suspected gas pockets; and public, time-bound accounting of past inquiries, so contractors understand negligence carries consequences beyond a bad headline. Migrant workers — Samardung’s victims came from West Bengal, Assam, Punjab and Uttarakhand, and Sikkim itself — deserve written safety briefings, accident insurance and enforced contracts, not just an ex-gratia cheque after they are gone. The men who died at Samardung were building the power lines meant to light homes hundreds of kilometres away —infrastructure the rest of the country will use without a second thought. They deserved a worksite built with the same urgency now spent on their rescue. Until India treats tunnel safety as non-negotiable rather than an afterthought, the next collapse isn’t a possibility. It’s a schedule. (Source: The Pioneer)  

With the second phase of the India Semiconductor Mission securing the Union cabinet’s clearance, the country is set for a global race with fresh impetus. The government envisions the mission, planned at a total budget outlay of Rs 1.27 lakh crore, to attract investment of around Rs 4 lakh crore, leading to production worth Rs 2 lakh crore. The cabinet has also approved a Rs 62,500-crore mobile phone manufacturing scheme, which is expected to complement Semicon 2.0. Targeted measures will drive the semiconductor mission across broad domains such as chip design, fabrication plants, research and development (R&D), intellectual property ownership, and talent development. The mission is well-timed, as India can no longer defer a strong presence in the field of semiconductors – a critical foundational technology with applications in diverse industries. Self-reliance has become imperative following events in recent years, particularly the supply-chain disruptions during the pandemic years that exposed the country’s vulnerabilities. Geopolitical conflicts such as the ongoing war in West Asia serve as a reminder of the persistent threat of larger disruptions. Over-dependence on a small group of nations – the United States, Japan, China, and South Korea – presents a critical constraint. A supply bottleneck originating from these countries due to political, economic or unforeseen events can have a debilitating effect on multiple domestic industries in India. A nation of India’s scale cannot be dependent on other countries in sectors vital to the economy and national security. India has a marginal footprint on the global semiconductor map. In 2024-25, its domestic market was estimated at $50 billion. The global market is projected to reach $1 trillion this year. This gap makes a case for India to urgently augment its capabilities. Developing a semiconductor ecosystem is extremely demanding, requiring massive and steady investment. This also needs to be complemented with technology upgrades and intellectual expertise. A large section of top-class Indian professionals in the field is based outside the country. This is where a targeted, comprehensive strategy to groom and retain domestic talent becomes crucial. Policy must also be directed towards shaping vibrant R&D spaces. This can be a structural shift that elevates the semiconductor sector and benefits the broader landscape of science and technology. At an operational level, the industry will require extensive infrastructure; this includes uninterrupted power supply and logistics at the highest levels of efficiency. Navigating these challenges on the technology and skill sides and reimagining innovation frameworks to meet global standards will determine the outcomes of India’s ambitious semiconductor mission. (Source: DH)  

As the Parliament’s monsoon session begins, the Union government faces one of its biggest challenges in recent times, from the streets rather than the House. Violence erupted during student protests in Delhi demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan when police deployed tear-gas and lathicharged the demonstrators, injuring several of them. While activist Sonam Wangchuk – on a hunger strike for three weeks – was forcibly hospitalised, Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke concluded his fast on Monday. What began as student unrest over a NEET paper leak has steadily gathered momentum to assume larger proportions. The rising participation in the street demonstrations and the support they have found among the civil society emphasise resistance no longer limited to a compromised examination. These protests are now a larger platform for dissent, questioning recurring failures in the education system. Thousands from different parts of the country have taken to the streets of Delhi. Their numbers are expected to grow. The demonstrations are centred on two critical issues: a lack of democratic accountability from the government and the fallout of systemic lapses on higher education. Repeated paper leaks – including the recent one ahead of NEET, which led to the suicide of at least 12 students – expose a deepening crisis. The government has responded citing the arrests of culprits behind the leak. However, arrests only address criminal liability. The moral responsibility for lapses that threaten to derail the futures of thousands of students rests with the Education Minister. Institutional accountability is at the core of democracy. When Pradhan called the protesters the “B-team of terrorists”, he discarded that fundamental principle. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is yet to make a public statement on the issue against the backdrop of the escalated protests. The anger over the paper leak is palpable, but beyond one instance of administrative failure, the students are also expressing anxieties over employment and life after college. When they voice these concerns and demand reform, the government needs to listen. Attempts to delegitimise the protests and vilify the students must stop. The detention of activists and Opposition leaders including Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday highlights the growing restrictions on democratic dissent in the country. The space for disagreement has shrunk under the Modi government. It has met agitations by students, farmers, activists, critics, dissenters, and opposition leaders with force, often branding the protesters anti-nationals. A government unwilling to engage in dialogue with the citizens cannot be regarded as truly democratic in spirit or practice. (Source: DH)

The office memorandum issued by the Department of Space (DoS) in response to the mass resignation of scientists and engineers from the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) leaves many questions unanswered. While the Centre underplayed the order’s significance, ISRO has taken an opaque position on the matter. The chairman offered no clarity on how many people left, what led them to take such a step, or what measures the space agency plans to take in addressing this trend. According to the memo, voluntary retirement and requests for resignation from scientists and technical staff associated with Gaganyaan and other “important” missions may no longer be routinely accepted. Since “important” missions are left undefined, this restriction could apply to all projects undertaken by DoS institutions. The memo revokes a previous order that empowered institution directors and unit heads to approve these requests. It instead centralises all decisions at the ISRO headquarters. ISRO has not denied reports of 100-120 scientists and technical staff leaving the department over the past year. This coincides with the rise of a private sector boasting over 400 startups. Skyroot Aerospace’s successful launch of Vikram-1, India’s first privately developed space vehicle, underscores this upswing. A growing commercial industry offers better pay and greater work flexibility. The DoS should have anticipated this market dynamic when the sector was opened for private participation in 2020, and advised the government on a proactive talent retention strategy. This line of thinking was noticeably absent. India’s technological growth is also a story of professionals shifting from public institutions such as DRDO, ECIL, ISRO, and BARC into private companies. The DoS order adds a layer to this story. Neither the government nor ISRO has demonstrated a strong intent to resolve the challenges this shift poses. As private players expand their footprint in the business of space, their demand for trained talent was inevitable, and ISRO was always going to be the first and natural source. The agency, however, did not have a comprehensive strategy in place to retain its workforce in the face of competition from the private sector. The solution does not lie in restricting employees from leaving. A few years ago, the Indian Air Force (IAF) faced a similar situation when it tried to prevent pilots from exiting before completing their service period. Then, an IAF Chief took a more pragmatic position, as he recognised that demoralised personnel are of little value to the force. ISRO would do well to learn from that episode and introspect on its career frameworks. (Source: DH)  

On July 18, a rocket that owed nothing to the Indian Space Research Organisation raced through the sky over Sriharikota and did what no Indian company had ever done: it reached orbit. Skyroot Aerospace’s Vikram-1, flying under the mission name Aagaman — Sanskrit for “arrival” — made India only the third country after the United States and China to host a privately built orbital launch vehicle. It is a genuine milestone. It also lands amid the loudest talent crisis ISRO has faced in years, and the timing is not a coincidence. The scale of Saturday’s achievement is easy to understate. For six decades, reaching orbit from Indian soil has meant one thing: ISRO. Vikram-1 breaks that monopoly, built by a company founded only eight years ago by two former ISRO engineers who started with a team of ten in Hyderabad and first touched space with a smaller suborbital rocket back in 2022. That the rocket flew customer payloads on its very first attempt, rather than merely proving instruments, suggests Skyroot is not just demonstrating a capability but opening for business. That matters because it validates a bet New Delhi placed in 2020, when it opened spaceflight to private capital after decades of treating it as an exclusively sovereign function. The reasoning was that ISRO, superb at frugal science missions, was never built to chase the fast-growing small-satellite launch market. Vikram-1 is the first hard proof that reasoning held: India can now offer commercial customers a private alternative to the PSLV and GSLV, edging toward the model in which NASA shares American skies with SpaceX and Rocket Lab rather than flying every mission itself. But the same fortnight that proved the private-space bet also exposed its price. More than a hundred ISRO scientists have resigned or taken voluntary retirement in recent months — enough that the Department of Space, just four days before Vikram-1 lifted off, moved to block routine exits of scientists working on Gaganyaan and other flagship missions. The pull is not mysterious: start-ups founded largely by ISRO alumni offer two to three times government pay, equity, flat hierarchies, and freedom from layered bureaucracy. Those leaving are not junior hires; many carry specialised experience from missions such as Chandrayaan-3 and SpaDeX, and they are exiting a public agency already facing missed deadlines on some of its own flagship launches — for a private sector that, not incidentally, just launched India’s first private orbital rocket. Optimists call this redistribution rather than drain, likening it to how engineers cycle between NASA and SpaceX in a maturing market. That comparison could prove right — but only if India’s space ecosystem grows large enough to absorb the churn, keeping ISRO staffed for the missions only a state agency can run even as it keeps seeding the companies extending India’s reach commercially. Vikram-1 shows what that ecosystem is capable of when it works. Whether ISRO stays intact enough to keep supplying it, mission after mission, decade after decade, is now the harder question hanging over India’s space programme. (Source: The Pioneer)

On July 12, the Philippines, the United States, Japan, and 11 other countries reaffirmed their “unwavering commitment” to a “free and open Indo-Pacific” through a joint statement commemorating the 10th anniversary of the South China Sea arbitration ruling. In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ruled that Beijing’s maritime claims to economic and historical rights over the South China Sea had no legal basis. On July 11, the European Union released a statement reminding both Manila and Beijing – but more directed towards Beijing – that the ruling must be “respected and fully implemented”. In response, Beijing asked the US and others not to ‘fan the flames’, reiterated that the ruling was a “worthless piece of paper, that is illegal, null, and void”, and repeated that it would like to settle the dispute with the Philippines bilaterally. While the arbitral tribunal’s ruling does not directly reference India, New Delhi’s larger interests are intertwined with many nations at the receiving end of Beijing’s high-handedness in the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific Region. The joint statement and EU’s stance point to wide international support against China’s unilateral actions in the region. Control over the South China Sea will enable power projection across the Indo-Pacific. Over the years, China has gotten into multiple maritime disputes with the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Heightening tensions, on July 6, it fired an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from a nuclear-powered submarine in the South China Sea, inviting criticism by many nations over the threat to regional stability. New Delhi must take note of Beijing’s ICBM test and reflect on what it needs to do to close the operational and strategic gap this opens. This has the potential to heighten competition in the Indian Ocean Region and reshape the nuclear balance in the Indo-Pacific. The reaction to the missile test and the 10th anniversary statements, when read together, show that an increasingly aggressive Beijing is inadvertently bringing other nations in the region together. As China was testing its nuclear capabilities, Australia and Fiji were signing a defence treaty. Recently, New Delhi enhanced its defence cooperation with Tokyo, Jakarta, Manila, and Hanoi. India must focus on improving defence, trade, and diplomatic ties with Southeast Asian and Oceanic nations intimidated by a hostile China. New Delhi’s call for freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and its backing of the 2016 ruling are steps in that direction. (Source: DH)  

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday, affirming that the status of an individual’s citizenship must rest on a “fair, lawful, and reasoned process”, is a welcome intervention at a time when the criteria and methods used to determine citizenship remain unclear and contentious. It set aside verdicts by the Gauhati High Court that upheld foreigners tribunals’ rulings branding 27 Assam residents as foreign nationals. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that decisions on citizenship and foreigner status hold significant constitutional weight, and that the state’s objective of preventing illegal immigration must not come at the cost of procedural fairness. The apex court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the tribunals were right to rule against the appellants simply because they failed to appear despite being served notices. The High Court had relied on Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, which places the onus of proving citizenship on the individual concerned. How does a person prove her citizenship when the concept is not clearly defined, and the required documents are unspecified? The petitioners argued that they were unaware of the tribunal’s proceedings, which relied on an Enquiry Officer’s hearsay rather than substantive proof. This raises a critical question: can individuals be declared foreigners and stripped of their fundamental rights through ex parte proceedings solely due to their absence from court, especially when they possess official documents that support their claim to Indian citizenship? Foreigners’ tribunals have been criticised earlier for arbitrariness and bias, stripping individuals of their citizenship over issues such as minor spelling discrepancies or brief memory lapses. Even a war veteran who served the nation for decades has been declared a foreigner. The Citizenship Act defines national identity, but its practical execution remains obscure to the public. Notably, the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls employs a similarly exclusionary mechanism. By shifting the burden of proof onto the individual, the Commission now requires new voters to produce documents proving their parents were part of the previous SIR before they are allowed to enrol as voters. In both voter registration and citizenship determination, the state’s focus has shifted from inclusion to exclusion, making bureaucratic processes more protracted. The Supreme Court, regrettably, allowed the ECI to proceed with this undemocratic exercise. Given the procedural barriers and complexities, it is unlikely that there will be consensus on what constitutes a truly “fair, lawful, and reasoned” process to resolve citizenship issues. (Source: DH)  

Despite deteriorating health and appeals from multiple quarters, Sonam Wangchuk has refused to end his hunger strike. Amid legal pleas that seek to hospitalise and force-feed him, the activist has maintained that ending the agitation without a response from the Union government would undermine the purpose of the protest. He has urged people to participate in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)’s proposed Chalo Sansad march to Parliament on July 20, and called on educational institutions to dedicate that day for experiential education. Wangchuk’s fast signifies more than an act of defiance; it is more than an attempt to exert pressure on Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan to resign over the mismanagement of examinations and paper leaks. It strikes one as an assertion of moral resolve, seeking accountability and integrity in public life and office. Wangchuk’s fast has drawn nationwide attention because of the moral authority he enjoys and his reputation as a non-partisan figure above political affiliations. The government has consistently attempted to project him as an Opposition proxy whenever he has voiced his opinion on social or developmental issues. However, these accusations have failed to diminish his credibility. In a broader sense, every moral or social act is political. Wangchuk’s agitation has revived a form of politics that has been losing ground in the recent past. It is the first major strike with a national resonance since the demonstrations against the Citizenship [Amendment] Act (CAA). It has also invited comparisons with Anna Hazare’s 2011 fast. However, given the massive shifts in the country’s socio-political landscape over the past decade, comparisons in terms of outcomes can be unwieldy. While the reasons to protest have not come down, the space for expressing such dissent has been steadily shrinking. This shift can be traced to a government that has been insensitive, and even hostile, to assertions of free, democratic expression. This raises a crucial question: is satyagraha still a viable tool of protest against an indifferent dispensation? Wangchuk may be providing the answer here. An act of satyagraha that transcends the individual to address a broader social or moral failing can never be futile. Fasting was also a self-cleansing act for Mahatma Gandhi, who remained unconcerned if a protest failed to meet its immediate objective. Every principled action that moves minds and hearts has a social utility. Even in the face of a hostile, unresponsive system, such action can serve as proof that society retains an alive and resilient conscience. (Source: DH)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent diplomatic tour of Indonesia, Australia, and New Zealand came against the backdrop of a perceived shift in the United States’ strategic position regarding the Indo-Pacific region. The deliberations and the subsequent signing of agreements underscore India’s policy of strengthening key bilateral partnerships across the increasingly vital region. In Indonesia, Modi was conferred with the nation’s highest civilian honour, the Bintang Adipurna, while signing major strategic, defence, and trade agreements. These included deals for BrahMos and Astra missiles. The talks formalised a commitment to enhance maritime connectivity by jointly developing ports in Aceh and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, alongside collaborative Coast Guard initiatives in the regional waters. The agreement to jointly develop Sabang port near the Strait of Malacca gives India a strategic edge in countering China’s expanding footprint in the Indian Ocean. Both countries have committed to fostering a region that promotes unimpeded commerce and adheres to a rules-based order. Among the major outcomes from the bilateral talks with Australia is the agreement to supply Australia’s uranium for India’s civilian nuclear energy programme. Australia holds about 28% the world’s uranium reserves. The agreement ends uncertainty following Australia’s reluctance to export uranium over concerns that it would be used for weapons. Geopolitical shifts and India’s assurance that the uranium would be used exclusively for peaceful purposes have led Australia to reverse its policy. The two countries have agreed to deepen defence cooperation and build robust supply chains for critical minerals. Australia will support India’s spaceflight missions through space-tracking capabilities from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Both sides have also agreed to begin negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA). As a major Pacific power, Australia offers India an opportunity to leverage a key strategic partnership. Closer ties across the domains of trade, energy, security, and space would be mutually beneficial for both nations. The Prime Minister’s visit to New Zealand carried symbolic and substantive import. It was the first visit by an Indian prime minister in 40 years to the nation which has a sizeable Indian diaspora. In line with a changing regional scenario and strategic realignments, the two countries have elevated bilateral ties to a comprehensive strategic partnership. Building upon the recently signed FTA, India and New Zealand are set to enhance cooperation across diverse sectors, including trade, defence, and education. Major outcomes of Modi’s multi-nation visit underline an emerging consensus among regional players to expand bilateral ties to achieve the larger objective of stability within the Indo-Pacific. (Source: DH)