Editorial

The optics were carefully choreographed — a ceremonial reception at Rashtrapati Bhavan, a santoor session recalling Takaichi’s days as a college drummer, and Modi’s warm invocation of her as “meri chhoti behen.” But beneath the pageantry lay a substantive recalibration. The two prime ministers stressed the strategic salience of the India-Japan partnership in an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment and agreed to advance cooperation in three priority areas: economic security, energy resilience and technology. That framing is telling. This is no longer a relationship built primarily on Japanese aid and infrastructure financing, the template of the past two decades. Both governments are now working to reduce vulnerabilities in global supply chains, particularly in semiconductors, critical minerals and advanced manufacturing, and — perhaps most significantly — they signed an agreement on their first joint defence co-development project, the naval radio antenna effort dubbed “Unicorn.” For two countries that have historically kept defence cooperation at arm’s length compared to their economic ties, this is a genuine step-change, one Modi framed as opening a new chapter in defence technology partnership. The China factor hovers over all of it, even if never named outright in the joint statements. Modi and Takaichi discussed the situation in the Indo-Pacific, a region that has witnessed growing Chinese military muscle-flexing, and the drive toward resilient supply chains is explicitly aimed at reducing dependence on China for critical minerals and active pharmaceutical ingredients. Add to this the disruption from West Asia’s conflict — which has exposed vulnerabilities in the movement of critical goods and energy — and the summit reads less like a ceremony and more like risk management between two trading nations trying to insulate themselves from a world of choke points. On technology, the two sides leaned into complementarity rather than competition. Modi’s formulation — that the convergence of Japan’s precision technology and India’s software capabilities would impart new momentum to global AI development — captures the pitch both governments are making to investors: Japan brings hardware and industrial discipline, India brings scale and digital talent. The Japan-India Economic Forum pulled in over 150 Japanese companies and produced 120 fresh business agreements, alongside pacts spanning clean energy, healthcare and biotechnology. Three takeaways stand out. First, defence cooperation has crossed a symbolic threshold, with Tokyo’s review of its arms-transfer principles opening the door to deeper co-development beyond token gestures. Second, “economic security” has replaced “connectivity” as the organising vocabulary of the relationship — a shift that mirrors how both nations now think about China and West Asia simultaneously. Third, the personal rapport between Modi and Takaichi, still new to her role, suggests continuity of India-Japan warmth across a change of Japanese leadership. The biggest takeaway, however, is that Delhi and Tokyo intend to be each other’s hedge against an unpredictable world — this maiden visit has done its job. (Source: DH)

India and Japan have further strengthened their decades-long bilateral relations following the visit of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. Economic and technological cooperation remain the core dimensions of the relationship, marked by billions of dollars in Japanese investments. Now, there is a growing emphasis on cooperation in defence and security. The visit yielded 16 major outcomes, emphasising the deepening mutual connection. Notably, Indian and Japanese companies signed 129 memorandums of understanding spanning technology, investment, and artificial intelligence. Japan is expected to invest $1 trillion in India. The two nations have adopted a roadmap for economic security, focusing on critical minerals and semiconductors. To further boost bilateral trade, they have also agreed to review their 15-year-old Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). One of the key outcomes of the three-day visit was Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement of the first co-development defence project involving the two countries: the Unified Complex Radio Antenna (UNICORN). Modi noted that the new collaboration would help build defence technologies supporting regional peace, maritime security, and a rules-based order. Prime Minister Takaichi highlighted maritime security as central to stability in the Indo-Pacific region, noting that Japan’s vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) aligns with India’s belief that the ocean is a shared space vital for sustaining growth and sovereignty. The two sides also committed to deepening defence ties, agreeing to expand cooperation through joint military exercises, along with the transfer and sale of defence equipment and technology, reinforcing a broader strategic partnership. The renewed focus on the India-Japan relationship must be seen in the context  of a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific. The region is witnessing growing uncertainty over the direction of the United States’ policy, particularly its approach to China and the future of security commitments to its allies. Washington’s decision to rename the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) back to Pacific Command (PACOM), coupled with perceptions that the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) has received less strategic attention, has raised questions about the durability of the existing regional security architecture. President Donald Trump’s recent visit to China has heightened speculation about possible shifts in US priorities. For countries such as Japan, whose security has long depended on the US alliance, these developments have revived concerns about strategic reliability. India also faces challenges from China’s assertions. Stronger India-Japan ties present the two Asian powers an opportunity to enhance regional stability, while strengthening strategic autonomy and shared security interests. (Source: DH)

The disclosure of the names of six soldiers who were killed during last year’s Operation Sindoor – recently inscribed on the National War Memorial – ironically underlines the Union government’s failure to uphold the democratic norms of transparency. While India rightly honours the ultimate sacrifices of Subedar Major Pawan Kumar, Rifleman Sunil Kumar, Lance Naik Dinesh Kumar, Havildar Sunil Kumar Singh, Sergeant Surendra Kumar, and Agniveer Mood Muralinaik, the delay in a ceremonial announcement formally recording their identities has led to scrutiny. These revelations have emerged more than a year after the operation, raising critical questions about accountability. The government’s subsequent explanations regarding the delay have not been convincing. Important questions on the credibility of official positions now cloud what should have been a time for remembering the fallen. In May 2025, then Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai acknowledged that the operation had resulted in casualties but did not reveal the identities or the number of soldiers who had died. Air Chief Marshal A P Singh visited the family of Sergeant Surendra Kumar, and the families of the fallen personnel were honoured with gallantry awards, in acknowledgment of the fact that military losses had occurred. Yet, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh told the Lok Sabha that no Indian soldiers were harmed during the operation. The government has since argued that the minister was responding specifically to reports concerning the deaths of fighter pilots. That explanation, however, has failed to blunt the questions. The opposition Congress has sought a privilege motion against the minister, arguing that Parliament was misled. The episode adds to a pattern of contradictory official narratives regarding the losses sustained during Operation Sindoor, undermining public confidence in these accounts. No one expects the government or the armed forces to reveal operational details of the conflict or sensitive information that could compromise national security. However, in a democracy, transparency about casualties, setbacks, and the operational costs of military action is important. Public confidence cannot be ensured through selective disclosure, suppression, or exaggeration of facts. A government’s credibility rests not on projecting a face of invincibility but on demonstrating honesty and accountability to the citizens. When official statements are perceived as evasive or inconsistent, they risk creating doubts regarding the government’s claims in other domains as well. Democracies derive strength from their openness, not the illusion of perfection and infallibility. Military operations involve human action and carry the risk of failure. Acknowledging failures does not signal weakness. Concealing truths undermines democratic values. (Source: PTI)

Two bills passed this week by the West Bengal Assembly – the Public Safety and Control of Anti-Social Activities Bill, 2026, and the Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Bill, 2026 – risk arbitrary application of state powers. While the first bill expands powers to combat crime and “anti-social activities”, the second allows the state government to recover compensation for property damage caused during riots and violent protests. Both pieces of legislation contain stringent provisions that bypass standard democratic procedures. Notably, the Public Safety Bill authorises the government to enforce preventive detention for up to 12 months without trial. The Bill’s broad use of terms such as “anti-social activity” and “goonda” makes it vulnerable to potential misuse against political dissenters or others targeted for government action. Additionally, it empowers the state to attach properties allegedly linked to these activities, raising concerns over civil liberties. The Bill explicitly names several activities while leaving room for many more to fall under its purview. This may encourage defining dissent and protests as anti-social behaviour. While it proposes advisory boards to review applications of the detainees, it bars access to legal counsel without the board’s approval and mandates confidential proceedings, making the process opaque and undermining due process. Critics have drawn sharp comparisons with the National Security Act, 1980, and the colonial-era Bengal Regulation III of 1818, under which freedom fighters were indefinitely detained or deported. Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari has assured that the Bill will not be misused. However, such assurances ring hollow given the government’s record of weaponising existing laws against political opponents. The Maintenance of Public Order Bill seeks to establish a statutory claims commission to assess and recover compensation for damage to public and private property during riots, unlawful assemblies, and violent protests. Its powers extend beyond those directly involved in the violence to organisers, financiers, and others who may be held financially liable. While framed as a mechanism to fix responsibility, these provisions raise concerns about potential misuse against politicians in the opposition ranks, activists, and citizens protesting government policies. The broad wording of the Bill enables arbitrary action, with limited safeguards or effective redress systems. The provisions on preventive detention may facilitate executive overreach at the expense of civil liberties. Preventive detention has long been viewed with constitutional scepticism, and courts have cautioned against its misuse. By proposing a stronger statutory basis to exercise such powers, the West Bengal government has invited legal scrutiny, making constitutional challenges to the legislation almost inevitable. (Source: DH)  

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s strategic three-day visit to Seychelles has reinforced India’s relations with the Indian Ocean archipelago. Despite its small size, Seychelles occupies a crucial geopolitical position near critical sea lanes that connect Asia and Africa. While India’s ties with its immediate neighbours remain fraught, its diplomatic and economic relations with Seychelles have stood out as robust and stable. Modi, as the Guest of Honour at the country’s 50th Independence Day celebrations alongside President Patrick Herminie, underscored the significance of this partnership. The bilateral talks and the subsequent agreements focused on elevating economic and strategic cooperation between the two countries. Given Seychelles’ expansive Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), enhanced marine cooperation may emerge as a pivotal, mutually beneficial outcome. India handed over a patrol vessel and additional equipment to the Seychelles Coast Guard, sharpening its capabilities in ocean surveillance. This extends a series of Indian deliveries of patrol and interceptor vessels and maritime surveillance aircraft to the Seychelles defence force, alongside assistance in installing coastal surveillance radars. India also feeds Seychelles real-time intelligence on threats, such as narcotics trafficking, and trains its forces to counter them. The economic partnership also runs deep. Discussions are progressing on India’s $175-million aid and economic package, which was announced earlier this year. The two sides inked agreements spanning multiple areas: from healthcare and agriculture to digital payment systems and space cooperation. India will also station four defence advisors in Seychelles under a fresh bilateral agreement, signalling intent for a deeper strategic collaboration. As an island nation, Seychelles is acutely vulnerable to the impact of climate change. Prime Minister Modi and President Herminie noted that small island states and the wider Global South will bear a disproportionate share of the costs of global warming. India has reaffirmed its commitment to supporting Seychelles through cooperation in sustainable marine development, renewable energy and coastal management, and capacity-building efforts to confront climate risks. This partnership assumes greater strategic significance as the Indian Ocean becomes an arena of growing geopolitical competition, as China expands its influence across the region through infrastructure investments and financial assistance. India’s engagement with Seychelles becomes vital against this backdrop. As Prime Minister Modi observed, the next fifty years of cooperation should be shaped by innovation, sustainability, and shared prosperity. (Source: DH)

As the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) – VB-G RAM G – gets set for a rollout on July 1, the scheme has drawn criticism even from states governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Its predecessor, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme, implemented by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, even with some implementation challenges, effectively addressed rural joblessness. The Narendra Modi government reduced financial allocations to the scheme but retained it, given its proven value and public support. Last year, the programme was overhauled and rebranded, a restructuring that has curtailed its scale and utility. The scheme has undergone a structural shift, from a fully centrally funded wage guarantee programme to a 60:40 Centre-state cost-sharing model, placing a significant financial burden on states, many of which are already struggling with constrained budgets. This shift also marks a departure from the scheme’s original rights-based, demand-driven character, raising concerns that increased centralisation and conditional funding could undermine its core objective of guaranteeing employment. Although the Centre highlights the provision for a higher number of statutory wage employment days, there is scepticism over whether this promise will translate into practice. The introduction of a 60-day pause during the agricultural season and other procedural restrictions may reduce the scheme’s flexibility and responsiveness to local employment needs. These changes threaten a larger impact amid projections of deficient rainfall and drought conditions. Rural distress may significantly increase the demand for employment across large parts of the country. Ironically, at a time when the scheme’s relevance as a social guarantee is most critical, its redesigned funding structure and operational constraints threaten to reduce it to a shadow of its original promise. States, including those governed by the BJP, have expressed concerns. Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Jharkhand have appealed to the Centre to reconsider the proposed changes in the funding pattern. Sikkim and Uttarakhand, which have to bear only 10% of the programme’s cost, being hill states, have also sought a review of the funding model. Some states have sought higher wages for workers and the withdrawal of the 60-day blackout period. While Karnataka has agreed to implement the revised scheme, it plans to challenge the changes in the Supreme Court, alongside Telangana. The Centre should engage with these concerns, review the new framework, and restore the scheme’s effectiveness. At a time of deepening rural distress and employment insecurity, weakening a crucial social safety net risks leaving millions of vulnerable workers without adequate support. (Source: DH)  

The statement made by an official of the Ministry of External Affairs that a passport is only a travel document and not conclusive proof of Indian citizenship has raised questions and created confusion. Strictly speaking, the statement is not news. It does not lay down any new policy. Passports are issued under the Passports Act, and citizenship is governed by the Citizenship Act,1955. Although passports are generally issued after confirming citizenship, in special cases, they can be issued to non-citizens. The courts have also affirmed that it is a travel document. The Constitution defines citizenship, but does not mention a document that conclusively establishes it. Even procedures for obtaining voter IDs or PAN cards do not demand proof of citizenship. The statement about the passport may, therefore, not be about it, but about citizenship. It might be meant to create uncertainties about citizenship, and to show that citizenship needs to be proved afresh. By law, citizenship may be acquired through birth, descent, registration, naturalisation or incorporation of territory. The citizenship of all those who are now citizens, or deem themselves to be citizens, may be seen as valid only on any of those grounds. The MEA statement on the passport’s inadequacy suggests that citizenship must be established in the way the government wants it to be proved. The situation could be like the demand made by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to the voters that they prove their status as voters. Millions of names have been removed from the voters’ rolls, and lakhs of people are waiting for a decision on their voting status. The ECI asked for a clutch of documents to prove that a person is a voter. Many could not provide them because it was practically not possible for them to procure them. The names of many who produced the documents were also removed. It could be much worse in the case of citizenship. The only document that could prove citizenship is the birth certificate, that too with conditions relating to the year of birth or parentage attached to it. Many people do not have it and can’t get it even if they try because the original records may not exist. So, the situation in India will be much worse than the SIR of the electoral rolls if there is a special intensive revision of citizenship. There has been talk about a National Register of Citizens (NRC) and a Citizenship (Amendment) Bill. The reference to passports has caused concern that it might lead to a citizenship survey, with all its consequences. (Source: DH)  

For most Indians, the passport has long stood as the gold standard of identity — a document issued only after police verification, address checks and a government attestation that its holder is a citizen. So when the MEA declared on Passport Seva Divas that the passport does not, by itself, establish citizenship, the reaction was less legal nuance and more public alarm. If a document obtained through months of scrutiny under the Passports Act, 1967 — which explicitly bars issuance to non-citizens — isn’t proof enough, citizens are entitled to ask what is. The trouble is, no one in government has been willing to answer that. The Union home ministry has twice declined in Parliament to specify which documents count as valid proof of citizenship, instead pointing vaguely to the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls — which has already led to the deletion of crores of names from voter lists — initially listed eleven documents for citizenship verification, excluding Aadhaar, voter ID, ration cards and PAN cards, before the Supreme Court forced Aadhaar’s grudging inclusion as proof of identity alone. The Supreme Court itself has said the EC cannot adjudicate citizenship, even as it allows the EC to set the very documentary bar by which citizenship gets tested. Into this already murky picture, the MEA has now placed the passport itself in doubt. This is not merely a semantic dispute. Opposition leaders, lawyers and ordinary citizens have a legitimate practical worry: in a country with no citizenship card and a growing machinery of exclusion-by-document, ambiguity is not a neutral, technical gap — it is a lever. A booth-level officer empowered to doubt a passport-holder’s citizenship, with no clear standard to apply, is a recipe for arbitrary disenfranchisement, particularly for the poor, the rural, and those without the resources to fight a bureaucratic challenge. The legal point being made is not wrong: a passport, like Aadhaar or a ration card, is evidence that authorities once believed something about a person, not a permanent judicial finding. India genuinely lacks a single, conclusive “citizenship certificate” for most of its 1.4 billion people, and the law was never designed to require one for daily life. But that is precisely why the way out cannot be more disclaimers. It requires the government to do three things it has so far avoided. First, define — in law, not in anonymous official remarks — a clear hierarchy of documents, with birth and parentage records treated as primary, and widely-held IDs like passports and long-held Aadhaar enrolment treated as strong corroborative evidence that shifts the burden of proof onto the state, not the citizen. Second, codify the principle several courts have already endorsed: that a person should be presumed a citizen unless the state proves otherwise, rather than the reverse. Third, build fast, accessible appeal mechanisms before any document-based exclusion — from voter rolls or anywhere else — takes effect, not after. The government is entitled to draw fine legal distinctions. It is not entitled to draw them and then walk away, leaving citizens to discover, document in hand, is no good  to prove  their citizenship. (Source: The Pioneer)

The amendment to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act [FCRA] rules, notified by the Union government this week, has made the law’s provisions more stringent, constraining the activities of NGOs and other organisations that fall under the law’s purview. This is the 10th amendment to these rules since 2011. Questions arise on the risks of repeated amendments altering the law’s character and eventually diluting its original purpose. Earlier this year, the government brought forward an FCRA Amendment Bill ahead of Assembly elections in some states, but shelved it following public criticism, especially from minorities groups. The question of legislative propriety is relevant, given that the latest amendment is seen as a revival of this aborted intent. According to the new rules, all associations seeking foreign funding must register for a specific field of work, ending the broad permissions previously available under the law. NGOs are now required to disclose their social media accounts, websites, publications, and other activities, significantly expanding the obligations of compliance. While foreign contributions may still support social, educational, religious, economic, and cultural programmes, organisations must clearly specify both the purpose and location of fund utilisation; violations attract penalties. The rules identify 105 permitted activities but do not specifically include health, despite it being a major area of work for many NGOs. While religious education, documentation of faith traditions, and preservation of indigenous beliefs remain permissible, proselytisation is prohibited. Minority organisations fear that legitimate religious or cultural activities could nevertheless be interpreted as attempts at conversion, exposing them to scrutiny. By confining organisations to narrowly defined fields, the regulations may force many to curtail their work or seek multiple registrations, increasing costs without guaranteeing approval. Mandatory disclosure of publications is seen as restricting freedom of expression and undermining an organisation’s right to communicate its work. The cumulative impact of these restrictions is to shrink the operational space of NGOs while raising the risk of penalties for actions that authorities may interpret as rule violations. The regulations also grant the government greater scope to monitor, influence, and potentially control the functioning of civil society organisations. Critics fear the rules could extend beyond minority organisations to target citizen rights groups, environmental organisations, research institutions, and other bodies that challenge official policies. The broad scope for interpretation raises concerns that dissent and criticism may be selectively suppressed. Reflecting these anxieties over the amended rules, some Christian organisations have called for June 28 to be observed as a Day of Prayer. (Source: DH)

With the preliminary report of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) reportedly confirming irregularities in the management of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, the temple’s functioning has come under the scanner.  The temple’s administrators – the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust – face a tough task explaining the alleged embezzlement involving jewellery and crores of rupees. After the charges became public, ornaments and cash valued at about Rs 2 crore have been reportedly recovered. The final report of the three-member SIT, set up by the Uttar Pradesh government, is expected to reveal the real scale of the misappropriation. The disclosures carry significant political implications because the Ram Temple has been integral to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s ideological and electoral narratives, with its construction framed by leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as an act of nation-building. Allegations of financial misappropriation and administrative lapses, therefore, risk tarnishing not only the temple’s management but also those politically associated with it. With Uttar Pradesh heading into Assembly elections next year, the controversy is particularly uncomfortable for the ruling party. While Opposition leaders have accused the establishment of shielding the culprits, the BJP has dismissed the allegations as an attempt to defame the temple and hurt religious sentiments. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has urged devotees to await the SIT’s findings. Yet questions have been raised about the credibility and scope of the ongoing inquiry. Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Akhilesh Yadav questioned the rationale of an SIT investigation in the absence of a First Information Report (FIR). On Thursday, two days after the preliminary report, an FIR was registered against eight people in connection with the allegations. The concerns are compounded by the composition of the investigation team. The SIT is headed by Lucknow Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant. Its preliminary report was submitted to Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sanjay Prasad, who also serves as the state government’s ex officio representative on the temple trust. This official structuring of the probe has invited allegations of a conflict of interest. The charges call for a credible and independent investigation that must lead to a full public disclosure of the temple’s accounts. Built through donations from the devotees, the temple owes its supporters complete transparency. The issue extends far beyond allegations of theft or administrative lapses. It concerns the integrity, accountability, and sanctity of one of the country’s most revered religious institutions. (Source: DH)