Editorial

After the fiasco of a paper leak in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) examination conducted by the National Testing Agency, the large-scale bungling of the evaluation of answer sheets of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Class 12 exam has raised serious questions about the ability of educational authorities to conduct examinations. The On-Screen Marking (OSM) system, which was introduced with fanfare as a high-tech system, more efficient and transparent than the earlier one, turned out to be a flop, and has created anxiety and uncertainty for about 1.8 million students. The pass percentage was the lowest in recent years, and when students sought re-evaluation of their papers, it was found that the evaluation was done badly. Poor scanning left the answer scripts blurred. Some were mixed up and left unmarked. Some answer sheets were missing, and correct answers were not marked. The CBSE first tried to cover up the bungling. The student who first made the problem public faced online hostility and abuse. The Class 12 examination is very important, and the results define the careers of many students. Lakhs of students are now unsure of their results and marks. According to reports, four lakh students applied for the revaluation of their papers. It has now come to be known that the agency which was entrusted with implementing the system did not have the right credentials, and has been involved in controversies earlier. Adequate preparations were not made, and teachers were not trained before rolling out the system. The CBSE ignored warnings from teachers and others against its hasty deployment. It is now trying to defend the system. Its offices have sent unsigned messages to school principals telling them to make social media posts defending the system. IIT Madras has been asked to correct the technical problems in the OSM. There are demands for an independent investigation, and there is a case for it. On Saturday, another national examination, the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) UG 2026, faced disruption at many centres because of a technical glitch. Mismanagement of so many consequential exams has affected the students’ faith in the examination system. Hearing a petition on the NEET paper leakage, the Supreme Court said that responsibility for it must be fixed. The government told the court that the prime minister was himself monitoring the matter. Does that mean there was a lack of effective monitoring till now? It is unfortunate that the person at the top of the examination system, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, continues to be at its helm, even though he has said that he accepted responsibility for the failures. Democracy demands accountability in deeds, not in words. (Source: DH)

There is something arresting about the world’s most influential spiritual leader reaching back four millennia to a myth about bricks and hubris to make sense of the age of algorithms. Yet Pope Leo XIV’s instinct is sound. In his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, released on May 25, he warned humanity of a pivotal choice — “either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together.” Strip away the theology, and what remains is a political and moral argument of urgent force. The Pope’s central warning is that control of artificial intelligence must not remain in the hands “of a few”. This is not a niche religious concern; it is a diagnosis of a crisis already unfolding. A small constellation of American technology corporations — armed with vast capital, proprietary data, and lobbying influence — is effectively writing the rules of the most transformative technology in human history. Pope Leo criticised the immense power concentrated within a handful of private technology companies, and rightly so. When the architects of a technology are also its regulators, something has gone badly wrong. The Babel metaphor is apt precisely because it captures the paradox of AI power. In the biblical narrative, Babel represents human hubris — humanity’s attempt to reach the heavens through its own power, resulting ultimately in confusion and fragmentation. Today’s AI ecosystem mirrors this dynamic: a dominant technological culture, monolithic in values and driven by profit, building upwards at immense speed while treating the human cost as an afterthought. Pope Leo warned that a singular, totalising technological culture risks becoming a new form of oppression. For the United States, the encyclical arrives at an awkward moment. Last week, President Donald Trump delayed an executive order that would have created a voluntary process for testing AI models — retreating even from the mildest gesture towards oversight. Washington remains consumed by geopolitical competition: deploy AI faster than China, weaponise it sooner, regulate it later — if at all. Pope Leo’s emphasis on human dignity and his opposition to autonomous weapons place him in direct contrast with techno-optimists who argue that the United States must militarise AI advances before its rivals do. The Pope does not oppose technological progress. Rather, he argues that calling for prudence — even for a slower pace in adopting AI — is not resistance to progress but an act of responsible care for humanity. That is a distinction that Washington, Brussels, and Beijing alike seem increasingly reluctant to acknowledge. Pope Leo has called for robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users, and political systems that do not abdicate responsibility. These are not radical demands. They are the essential architecture of democratic accountability applied to a domain where accountability has been dangerously absent. The Tower of Babel collapsed not because its builders lacked intelligence, but because they lacked wisdom. That is Pope Leo’s warning. Whether world governments will heed it remains uncertain. History, as he reminds us, has seen this before — and it did not end well. (Source: The Pioneer)

Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution with the aim of delivering “complete justice”, the Supreme Court has directed all high courts to curb delays in the pronouncement of judgments. The timeline spelt out for verdicts — within three months from the date of reserving the order — is a step in the right direction. The Court has yet again acknowledged a troubling reality: delayed judgments are not merely administrative lapses but a denial of justice itself. It was in the Anil Rai case (2001) that the SC observed the worrisome practice among HC judges of first reserving verdicts and then failing to pronounce judgments for months or even years — or delivering only operative parts of the verdict with a promise to provide detailed reasons later, which in some cases was not done. Litigants suffer when cases are “reserved for judgment” indefinitely. Undertrials continue to languish in jail despite hearings being completed, while victims and their families remain gripped by uncertainty. The Court’s insistence that bail orders be issued on the same day — or at the latest, the next day — is therefore both humane and constitutionally necessary. The SC’s focus on transparency is also welcome. By directing high courts to upload judgments within 24 hours and disclose timelines relating to reservation, pronouncement and uploading of verdicts, the judiciary is embracing greater accountability. Public confidence in courts depends not only on the quality of judgments but also on their timely delivery. The apex court would also do well to ensure that its own judges don’t err on this front. It’s lamentable that the SC has to repeatedly remind high courts to do the needful. The figures are stark: over 64 lakh cases are pending in HCs across the country (around three-fourths are more than a year old). The latest directions are an attempt to institutionalise discipline within the judicial process. At the same time, judicial delays cannot be viewed solely as the failure of individual judges. Timelines must be accompanied by broader reforms, including expedited judicial appointments, better technological support and efficient case management systems. (Source: The Tribune)

In the Central government’s decision not to permit new hydro-electricity projects in the upper reaches of the river Ganga, there is a welcome recognition of ecological realities in the Himalayas. Three central ministries – handling environment, water, and power – told the Supreme Court, in an affidavit, that the government was not in favour of sanctioning new projects on the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi rivers in Uttarakhand. They cited the region’s ecological vulnerabilities, disaster risks, and religious significance as reasons that prompted the decision. However, the government proposes to complete the seven ongoing projects in the region. So far, it has backed multiple infrastructure projects while ignoring credible ecological concerns. Some of them, including the Char Dham project, have run into opposition over their adverse impact on the terrain. Infrastructure projects in the region have been defended on the grounds of national security requirements, promotion of pilgrimage and tourism, power production, and flood control. Now, after multiple disasters, the government appears to have partially acknowledged the urgency in securing the region’s ecological balance. In 2013, the Kedarnath floods showed the world the pent-up, destructive force of Himalayan nature. Since then, the region has experienced multiple landslides, cloudbursts, and subsidence in both urban and rural areas, and on highways. Glacial retreats, caused mainly by climate change but also aggravated by human intervention in nature, have led to major disasters and altered the topography of many areas along the Himalayan stretch. In 2023, a glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) in north Sikkim washed away a hydroelectric project on the river Teesta. Apprehensions regarding hydropower projects underway on the Ganga basin have been placed before the Supreme Court since the 2013 flash floods. The government’s affidavit was in response to a Court directive seeking a status report of the projects. The principle behind the Central government’s change in stance should apply to other projects under construction or consideration in the Himalayan states. The projects being planned in the eastern Himalayan region on the rivers Teesta, Siang, and Dibang have attracted criticism. India has proposed a mega hydroelectricity transmission plan centred on the strategically critical Brahmaputra. Geologists and environmentalists have repeatedly expressed concern not only over the massive construction activity but also over the expansion of human settlements. Notably, this is a region that lacks a comprehensive ecological plan. It should be prioritised, ensuring that its framework covers all construction activity, both in the fragile ranges and the lower regions. (Source: DH)    

West Bengal’s new Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, led by Suvendu Adhikari, has started with a series of contentious administrative decisions. It has renamed or repackaged some of the welfare schemes launched by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government and introduced central schemes that the previous government had kept at bay. It has also resumed the stalled national census exercise. Governments reversing and revising the decisions of outgoing administrations is not unusual practice. But the divisive tones in some of the other moves are striking. The new government has directed district authorities to set up “holding centres” for apprehended foreign nationals and released foreign prisoners. It argues that the move aligns with its promise to identify and deport illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Some of these centres have started functioning. Adhikari said Bangladeshi immigrants detained in the state would be handed directly to the Border Security Force (BSF) for deportation, instead of being produced before courts. This is considered adherence to the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which imposes penalties on illegal immigrants and other offenders. However, handing over suspected immigrants to the BSF without following due process raises legal and humanitarian concerns. Assam Police has deported bona fide citizens to Bangladesh in a similar fashion. Stripped of the officialese of “deportation,” the process involves pushing people across the border. Notably, Bangladeshi authorities have also pushed many of these people back into India. Such arbitrary actions may find endorsement among some sections, but they go against the basic principles of law and humanity. There seems to be a contest among BJP chief ministers, especially the converted ones like Adhikari and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, regarding anti-Muslim actions and rhetoric. The government has stopped all welfare assistance based on religious classification and allowances managed by the Minority Affairs and Madrasah Education Department. It has mandated the rendition of Vande Mataram during morning assemblies at madrasas. No one should be forced into acts that are against their religious beliefs. The government should not act like unruly elements imposing religious symbolism and practices on other communities. Celebrations following the BJP’s electoral win saw some meat shops in the New Market area of Kolkata being razed down. On May 15, the Calcutta High Court stayed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC)’s bulldozer action on allegedly illegal structures in the city’s Muslim-majority Topsia neighbourhood. From Adhikari’s words, before and after his party’s historic mandate in the state, what is seen now may only be the beginning. (Source: DH)  

The Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) recent directive to schools on the mandatory introduction of a third language in the curriculum is poorly conceived and difficult to implement. In a May 15 circular, the Board told over 33,000 schools to initiate steps to teach a third language in Class 9, starting July 1. It stipulates that at least two of the three languages students learn under the three-language formula must be native Indian languages; the options include Hindi and Sanskrit. This order, issued at the beginning of the school year, will disrupt the academic programme and greatly inconvenience students, teachers, parents, and schools. Requiring students to learn what is essentially a new subject at an advanced stage of schooling can cause poor learning outcomes. It is difficult to imagine how the CBSE could take such an arbitrary decision that has serious consequences for the students. The move is particularly harsh on those who have been learning foreign languages and are now expected to start afresh with another language. It will place a burden on the students, which will reflect on their overall performance, given the additional time the new subject demands. Most schools lack the infrastructure to ensure that the new subject is taught well. Textbooks are unavailable, and schools lack trained teachers. The CBSE has told schools to make temporary arrangements, such as assigning the work to teachers in other subjects who have “functional proficiency” in the additional language. It also recommended Class 6 textbooks, supplemented with local material, to be used in Class 9. The Board is reported to have stated, on April 9, that the compulsory three-language requirement for Class 9 would not be implemented until the 2029-30 academic year. What pushed it to reverse this decision, in just over a month? The move is also seen as going against the NEP (National Education Policy)’s position on teaching of languages and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2023. The CBSE held no consultations before taking this critical decision. The haste defies logic. Hindi is obviously the main beneficiary of the directive. Any move to teach Hindi in schools is likely to become contentious in non-Hindi states, and the manner in which it is sought to be done is particularly so. The Board has stuck to its position despite credible apprehensions and protests. It cannot lose sight of its primary concern – the students and their interests – and must withdraw this directive. (Source: DH)

India is in the grip of an unprecedented heat wave, with many parts of the country reeling under high temperatures. Fifty of the world’s 50 hottest cities were reported to be in the country two days ago, and the wave is still sweeping across much of the country, especially in the north, central, and eastern regions. Temperatures have soared above 45 degrees Celsius in many places. It has even touched 48 degrees. More than half of the hottest cities are in Uttar Pradesh. The summer has been longer this year, with the hot conditions setting in early. The high heat has implications for individual health, livelihood, and the economy. Many deaths and hundreds of heatstroke cases have been reported. According to the India Meteorological Department (IMD), India’s average night-time temperatures are rising by around 0.21 degrees per decade. Farmers have started working at night in some areas. Schools have changed their vacation schedules, and some offices and factories have changed their timings. Along with farmers, labourers, construction workers, street vendors, delivery agents, and others who have to work or move in the open have been badly affected. The poor are the most vulnerable, because shortage of water, lack of electricity, inadequate housing and shelter, and difficult living conditions accentuate the impact of heat. Animals, birds, plants, and trees suffer even more than humans. The World Bank had said in 2022 that about three-fourths of India’s labour force worked in heat-exposed sectors, and the country may account for nearly half of the world’s projected job losses caused by heat stress. The economic impact will be high. It had warned that heat waves can cost the country about 4.5% of its GDP by 2030. There are also warnings that the heat wave and a below-par monsoon can, by themselves, contribute to inflation in a major way. It is not India’s geographical position or any special climatic situation that has made the country the world’s heat capital. Denudation of forests, destruction of vegetation in cities and towns, and degradation of lakes and other water bodies have contributed significantly to the change in climatic and weather conditions. The forces of climate change have added to it. The localised weather prediction system is still inadequate. India has not developed effective heat action programmes for regions, states, and smaller areas. The programmes that exist are disaster relief plans for emergency response and not long-term plans that address the root causes of the worsening heat wave conditions. Heat waves are not just about temperature. They are about the environment and the relation between human lives and nature. (Source: DH)

In the online republic that has suddenly emerged in India, the cockroach is the national insect, outshining the tiger, the peacock, and other worthy beings that stand for its identity, culture, and values. The Supreme Court is India’s highest seat of justice and wisdom, and so it was no surprise that a description made there of some of the country’s citizens assumed a local habitation and a name in an instant and moved millions, outnumbering the world’s biggest formation that puts the cow at the heart of its politics. If the unseen and the unwashed out there suddenly found resonance in a meme, the fault lies not with them, nor with the rival banners of the cockroach and the parasite. The words were seeds that sprouted in laughter, which cannot be banned or arrested even by the ED. Who’s afraid of the lowly cockroach? The withholding of the emblematic cockroach collective’s social media accounts is both ridiculous and dangerous. What is online is at the same time real and unreal — real enough to be felt and unreal enough to be missed. It is comic to land a legal blow on an idea that is expressed so absurdly and so jokingly. Therein also lies the danger of the State turning intolerant, oppressive, and foolish. The cockroach became a sudden symbol that attracted concerns and anxieties, mostly of the young, perhaps because they are impatient and respond quickly. But to think of it as a Gen Z wave out to uproot the pillars of the State is to overreact. The agencies that found the meme platform a threat to national sovereignty have demeaned themselves. A State that considers humour or satire subversive undermines its own democracy. The Cockroach Janata Party cannot yet be called a party, or even a movement. It is a mood against politics as it is practised now, and is not just against the ruling party. It is chaotic, perhaps even anarchic, unhampered by ideology, steeped in meme culture, and above all, anti-establishment. It is simple to a fault. India has seen such moods guiding campaigns against governments during the JP movement and the Anna Hazare agitation. But they had some leadership, organisation, and goals. This is an online crowd with slogans without grammar, and an idea without a definition. But when it is suppressed, it justifies its existence, and validates its legitimacy. Ideas are difficult to exterminate. They go underground, evolve, and survive, like cockroaches. The insect insurgency is a warning to those who hold that the end of history is near and that the future is an unwinding of the past. It tells us there are other futures, other possibilities, and other imaginations. (Source: DH)

There is a certain theatre to summitry, and Beijing staged it masterfully. First, Donald Trump arrived, then Vladimir Putin – each travelling thousands of miles to sit across from Xi Jinping in Beijing, now at the centre of geopolitics. The optics were unmistakable: China is now the world’s indispensable interlocutor, and Xi its undisputed convener-in-chief. The agenda of the Xi-Putin summit, held on Wednesday, was broad in scope and strategic in intent. The two leaders signed documents spanning trade, technology, scientific research and intellectual property, while extending their foundational treaty of “good neighbourliness and friendly cooperation” – first inked a quarter of a century ago. They spoke warmly of cooperation in artificial intelligence and even the conservation of rare tigers and pandas. But beneath the ceremonial warmth lay substance that matters greatly for the rest of the world. “The global agenda of peace and development is facing new risks and challenges, with the danger of fragmentation of the international community,” the Xi-Putin joint declaration stated in clear terms. The centrepiece of their joint statement was a pointed condemnation of United States. Both leaders warned of a world drifting back towards the “law of the jungle” — a deliberate rebuke of American foreign policy, directed squarely at the Trump administration’s unilateralism, its pursuit of a “golden dome” missile defence system, and its decision to allow a nuclear arms treaty to lapse in February. Whatever the diplomatic niceties, this amounted to a declaration of an alternative world order — one centred on Beijing. Yet the summit also revealed limits. Russia and China failed to finalise a long-anticipated gas pipeline agreement that would have doubled Moscow’s fossil fuel exports eastward. Pricing disagreements reportedly blocked a deal – a reminder that even the warmest partnerships have hard commercial edges. Currently, China sits at the forefront of global geopolitics. It can pick and choose partners and dictate the terms of engagement. Putin needs China far more than China needs Russia, and Beijing knows how to use that leverage quietly. However, it is unmistakable that the two powers are drawing closer, and the synergy is evident. First, the Russia-China axis has deepened beyond rhetoric: from military exercises to — according to European intelligence agencies — covert training of Russian soldiers, Beijing’s “official neutrality” on Ukraine is increasingly difficult to sustain as credible. Second, Xi’s carefully choreographed reception of both Trump and Putin in the same week underlines China’s rare position as a power that neither the United States nor Russia can afford to alienate. Third, and perhaps most consequentially, the joint warning against American “unilateral bullying” signals that Beijing and Moscow intend to shape the architecture of whatever post-American international order may be emerging together. Whether the world should find that prospect stabilising or alarming is, perhaps, the defining geopolitical question of our era. (Source: The Pioneer)  

While the Coronavirus remains fresh in public memory, two other viruses with varying threat indicators have appeared in different parts of the world. They remain active, but their scope is largely localised. Hantavirus, which was recently discovered on a Dutch cruise ship in the South Atlantic, caused the death of three people on board. The risk from the virus has been categorised as low – the virus causes a zoonotic disease that spreads mainly through the inhalation of rodent saliva, urine or droppings. Human-to-human transmission is uncommon but not impossible. The ship started its voyage from Argentina, where the virus is endemic. Failing to detect its presence in time allowed it to circulate for weeks. The threat from Ebola is more serious. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared its spread in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Uganda a “public health emergency of international concern.” This marks the outbreak as a serious threat, just below the level of a pandemic. WHO has confirmed 246 suspected cases and 80 suspected deaths in the DRC as of last week. Ebola’s presence has been reported in parts of Africa for over a decade, and the virus has caused over 11,000 deaths. It can spread from person to person and has a high fatality rate. No known vaccines are effective against the strain currently circulating – Bundibugyo – and no treatment protocols are currently available. The strain is not easily detected through tests, limiting the options of scientists and doctors in developing treatment strategies. WHO has indicated that the virus’s potency and transmission trends may point to a bigger outbreak. Ongoing conflicts in the affected regions, coupled with the migration and displacement of people, risk spreading of the disease. The countries affected by the outbreak are hampered in the fight to contain it. WHO’s operations have been hit by the cessation of funding by the United States and other constraints. African countries remain extremely vulnerable to such threats because their mitigation efforts hinge on the import of vaccines, medicines, and medical equipment. India has postponed two events scheduled in Delhi following the Ebola outbreak: the India-Africa Forum Summit (May 28-31) and the International Big Cat Alliance summit (June 1). Passengers from the affected countries are being tested. The WHO alert is significant as an early call for preparedness. Though the virus has not reached the proportions of a global threat, the need for caution cannot be overstated. (Source: DH)