Editorial

It is one year since India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, in retaliation for the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, where 26 innocent people were massacred, creating outrage across the country. The nation, in one voice, demanded action to show resolve and teach the perpetrators a lesson so that they would not dare commit such a heinous crime in the future. The action was swift and precise, and the result was astonishing. It decimated nine terror camps belonging to Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, whose outfits had executed the terrorist act. One year on, India continues to reflect on a military operation that was a turning point in the country’s security doctrine and strategic posturing — the resolve of a New India, which will not tolerate terrorism and will go all out to protect and secure its people. The operation was conducted between May 7 and 10, 2025, by the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Border Security Force along the western frontier, targeting terrorist infrastructure and military facilities in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message on the anniversary was important as it reflected how Operation Sindoor has come to represent national resolve, military preparedness and coordinated statecraft. The foremost takeaway was coordination and seamless jointness among India’s armed forces. It also instilled a sense of relief that the country was no longer going to tolerate such acts and had the mettle to retaliate rather than plead for relief. India’s response was calibrated, targeted and time-bound, aimed at neutralising threats without triggering uncontrolled escalation. What was a major military success was ably backed by diplomacy, as India was able to convince the world that it had retaliated militarily only to destroy terror camps without causing harm to civilians in Pakistan. In this respect, Operation Sindoor reflected India’s evolving diplomatic maturity. The operation also highlighted the significance of self-reliance in defence production. Indigenous technologies, surveillance systems and defence platforms reportedly played a critical role during the operation. In recent years, India’s push for Atmanirbhar Bharat in defence manufacturing has often been viewed through an economic lens. Operation Sindoor demonstrated that self-reliance is equally a strategic necessity. At the diplomatic level, the operation underlined the importance of narrative management and international outreach. India successfully portrayed the operation as a counter-terror measure rather than an act of aggression, thereby maintaining its diplomatic credibility. However, Operation Sindoor also offers sobering lessons. Military success cannot become a substitute for long-term political and diplomatic engagement. While deterrence is essential, sustainable peace requires addressing the issues of extremism, cross-border terrorism and regional instability diplomatically. The operation reaffirmed that India possesses both the capability and the will to defend its interests decisively. But its deeper lesson lies in balancing strength with restraint — a hallmark of a responsible and confident power. (Source: The Pioneer)

Political uncertainty prevails in Tamil Nadu regarding the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) forming the new government in the state. Governor Rajendra Arlekar’s insistence that the TVK – the single-largest party after the April elections – produce evidence for its majority in the Assembly lacks constitutional grounding and may have set a wrong precedent. By Friday, when the TVK mustered more support from other parties, including the Congress, TVK chief Vijay had already visited the Lok Bhavan three times to stake his claim. Instead of stalling the TVK, Arlekar could have followed examples set by the nation’s presidents and governors of other states. The assumption behind requiring evidence of a majority is that the Governor must be satisfied with the government’s support in the House. However, this assumption lacks legal or constitutional merit. When no other party has staked its claim, the Governor is incumbent to invite the leader of the largest party to form the government. Precedents support this, including the case of Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the national level in 1996, and cases involving B S Yediyurappa in Karnataka, Devendra Fadnavis in Maharashtra, and leaders in other states. In constitutional terms, the stability of the incoming government should not concern the Governor – a minority government under P V Narasimha Rao went on to complete its full 1991-96 term. Article 164(1) states that the chief minister shall be appointed by the Governor, and Article 164(2) mandates that the “council of ministers shall be collectively responsible to the legislative assembly.” There is no implicit or explicit condition of majority support. Courts have ruled in several cases that the “pleasure” of the Governor is not subjective. Arlekar’s actions amounted to testing the support of a government in the Lok Bhavan. Courts have ruled that such tests should only be held on the floor of the House. The convention is for the Governor to swear the chief minister in and demand that the majority be proved within a stipulated time. The script may have followed a political direction. For the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Centre, a state government led by alliance partner All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) may hold appeal. However, such a move would have been unethical. Constitutional and political justice demand that Vijay be invited to form the government, regardless of whether he secures the necessary support in the House. (Source: DH)

In its observation that India’s existing legal frameworks are adequate to handle hate speech, the Supreme Court may have taken a credible position, but it still does not offer solutions to the problem. The Court noted that it is not the absence of laws but the failure in their implementation that has aggravated the issue and held the executive responsible for the gaps in enforcement. While hearing multiple petitions seeking separate laws to adjudicate hate speech and related crimes, it asserted that hate speech is “fundamentally antithetical” to the constitutional value of fraternity. Pointing out relevant provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that cover hate crimes, the Court said they were designed for sufficient remedial action, including investigation and prosecution. There is no denying that poor enforcement of the law has further enabled a culture of hate in public discourse. The Court reminded public figures of their duty to exercise restraint in their speech. It reiterated its earlier judgments, which directed police officers to register FIRs immediately on receiving complaints about hate speech. It has been stated that prior sanction is not necessary for a magistrate to take cognisance of a complaint on the matter. The Court said the “constitutional role of the judiciary is primarily to interpret and apply the law, and not to legislate”; therefore, attempts by the courts to prescribe statutory schemes or frame provisions akin to legislation would amount to judicial law-making. While all this is true, it is notable that the Court’s past orders have not helped curb hate speech. Not many cases have been filed in connection with incidents of hate speech. Even when cases were registered—some involving brazenly divisive utterances—they resulted in acquittal. While the Court has stated its position, some issues stand out. It has directed the states to register cases against those indulging in hate speech, but the directive is largely ignored. Should the Court not take action on this? The inadequacy is systemic: when the offenders are people in positions of power, the complaints do not go anywhere. Though courts have stated what constitutes hate speech, there is still a lack of clarity. A legal definition may not be possible, given that at times, speech is defined by context. This leaves governments and the police with considerable latitude. Very often, courts also fail to see hate in speech, even when it is clear and unmistakable. (Source: DH)

There is much pique in Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee’s response to the defeat of her party in the West Bengal Assembly elections, and extends an acrimonious poll campaign beyond the results. She has refused to accept defeat and step down as Chief Minister, claiming the elections were unfair and alleging conspiracy in their conduct. A chief minister’s refusal to resign after an electoral defeat presents an entirely new situation; this is uncharted constitutional territory. Implicit in this is a divergence between constitutional intent and democratic convention. The Constitution does not clearly demand the resignation of a defeated chief minister. The incumbent can hold office until a new chief minister is sworn in. So, Mamata’s refusal is not legally wrong, but it is democratically improper. Legality is only the alphabet of the democratic process; its meaning reflects in actions that comply with the spirit of the mandate, expressed formally through elections, and informally through multiple ways of popular engagement and conventions. There is no doubt where propriety lies, and if Mamata sticks to her decision, the Constitution has its ways to assert itself. Her dismissal from office and even more severe actions can be contemplated. The resulting drama will be more political than legal, and Mamata would rather flaunt herself in rebellious political colours than present herself as someone following process and procedure. Mamata’s stance shows that politics is moving away from its known paths of assertion, resistance, and established means of remediation and relief. The democratic process is under stress in the country. Serious questions about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) procedures, which impacted elections in West Bengal at least in terms of inclusion and participation, have not been answered. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is under a shadow; doubts exist about the judiciary’s ability to provide remedies and guidance. The government has long ceased to be fair; it has used instruments at its disposal to politically perpetuate itself and weaken the Opposition. Mamata has thrived on rebellion and drama, but her present defiance does not stem from mere personal desperation. It also signals a crisis inflicted on Opposition parties and a larger crisis of politics as such. This does not augur well. Through her actions, Mamata may be mimicking those who seize power unfairly and refuse to quit. The symbolism is striking and unnerving. As in governance, politics has due processes; when these fail, the system comes under undue attack. (Source: DH)

In the Supreme Court’s ruling that a minor rape survivor cannot be forced to complete her pregnancy against her will, there is a welcome affirmation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom of individuals that existing laws do not fully recognise. The Court’s ruling came in a case involving a 15-year-old survivor of rape and the plea to terminate her pregnancy in its 30th week. Notably, the Court also recommended an amendment to the law to remove the time limit on terminating unwanted pregnancies when it involves minor rape victims. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi refused to entertain a petition filed by the government against the Court’s recent decision to allow the termination of the pregnancy. The government and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) had argued that the pregnancy was advanced, making its termination illegal and raising safety concerns. The apex court said the decision regarding the termination of pregnancy was for the survivor and her parents to take, not the doctors or the government. It said the government could help the survivor by providing her counsellors. While ruling that unwanted pregnancies cannot be burdened on survivors, the Court underlined the “citizen’s autonomy of choice,” which the State must respect. In its original form, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act prescribed a gestational time limit for conducting abortions. This was done in the interest of the pregnant women’s health. Subsequent amendments extended this time limit – now it is at 24 weeks of gestation – and increased the number of categories under which women could seek abortion. However, opposition to abortions and these amendments has persisted; some of this resistance comes from entrenched societal attitudes. With its ruling, the Court has emphatically rejected these attitudes. Its message is clear: “Law needs to be organic and in sync with evolving times.” A progressive society cannot base its laws on outdated ideas and attitudes. The legal framework must factor in the complex lived realities of an unwed, minor mother and her child in a patriarchal society. Amending the law will be a critical step towards ensuring real autonomy of choice for her. The law should accommodate her and protect her dignity as an individual; it cannot be used as a tool to restrict her choices. By prioritising her interests, the Supreme Court has made an important call to abide by constitutional morality, which puts the right to choice of individuals at its centre. (Source: DH)

The Assembly elections in four states and one Union Territory saw a big vote for change in three states and a mandate for continuity in one state and the UT. West Bengal and Tamil Nadu saw tectonic political shifts, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) poised for power in the former and the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), led by actor Vijay, set to dethrone the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in the latter. Kerala will see the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) return to power on a bumper vote and a sweeping rejection of the CPM-led Left Democratic Front (LDF). The victory of the BJP-led coalition in Assam and the NDA coalition (comprising the BJP and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) in Puducherry was expected, and the incumbents improved their positions. For the BJP, West Bengal has been a final frontier among the major states, where it has crossed the two-thirds majority. The party was nowhere in the state’s electoral landscape in 2011, but has steadily improved its position since then, using a combination of political nous and assertions of power. It attracted leaders from other parties, used its power at the Centre  effectively, and successfully adopted social engineering as a political strategy. Polarising narratives have also been part of the playbook, placed as a counter to the Trinamool Congress (TMC)’s traditional Muslim vote base. The BJP gained from branding the TMC as anti-Hindu and supportive of illegal immigrants. Its campaign was largely pegged to issues such as undocumented migration, corruption, unemployment, and lack of women’s safety. The Election Commission of India (ECI)’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls may have hit the TMC’s numbers. However, none of these factors would have affected the TMC if there were no strong resentment against the party, which has ruled the state for three terms. Among the youth, the anxieties over the lack of opportunities are palpable. Mamata Banerjee’s support among women seems to have waned. Her loss in Bhabanipur reflects a collective shift in the voters’ mood. The RG Kar Medical College rape and murder dented the government’s image among women, especially among urban women. It is in this climate of discontent that the BJP made promises of development, good governance, and secure borders. This message of change, delivered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, appears to have found takers across sections. A Hindu consolidation in many constituencies is also likely to have helped the party. Tamil Nadu has witnessed electoral history, with the DMK led by M K Stalin losing heavily to a party formed two years ago and considered capable only of a marginal impact. This stunning defeat shows that the sentiments against the government were strong over issues such as corruption, nepotism, and misgovernance. Stalin’s defeat in his stronghold in Kolathur best exemplifies the trend. Support for the DMK appears to be eroding significantly across all sections, especially among Dalit and minority groups. In a significant turnaround, a new party riding on the charisma and mass appeal of its leader has toppled a government and a political model built on the Dravidian identity. Tamil Nadu has always had strong links between its politics and its cinema. Vijay was at the right place to seize the moment. Notably, this is for the first time in six decades that a party and a leader without any stated credentials of the Dravidian ideology is rising to power in the state. The AIADMK, which has been grappling with a leadership crisis and political setbacks since J Jayalalitha’s death in 2016, has lost further ground. For the Congress, there is relief in the big win in Kerala, where the UDF led by the party registered a victory with two-thirds majority. The LDF government, in power for 10 years in a state that has historically seen rival alliances alternating every five years, has been hit by a strong wave of anti-government sentiment. The ruling front suffered heavy reverses, with many of its ministers and senior leaders losing their seats. A consolidation of votes in the Muslim and Christian communities appears to have pushed the mood further towards the UDF, leading to a sweep for the opposition bloc. For the first time, the BJP won three seats in the state – a commendable show, even though the party had hoped for bigger numbers. In Assam, the electorate has extended its endorsement of the incumbent BJP, which has been in power in the state for 10 years. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sharma has followed a policy of polarisation, both in governance and stated political positions. The no-holds-barred approach has helped the BJP to improve its position in a state that is already divided along communal lines. On the national stage, the poll results point to a weakening Opposition. Both the TMC and the DMK have been pillars of the opposition grouping, with Mamata and Stalin among the staunchest of critics of the BJP and its allies. They stand diminished now. Their defeat also signals the enfeeblement of regional political forces that were considered capable of resisting the BJP onslaught. States such as Maharashtra and Bihar have already witnessed the decline and fragmentation of regional parties. The 2026 results risk extending this pattern. In the Left’s defeat in Kerala, there is another blow to the larger national opposition: for the first time in five decades, no government in India will have a Communist presence. (Source: DH)

Stampedes happen in India with alarming frequency, and they continue to be seen as accidents, like the ones that happen on our roads. But stampedes are not accidental and are caused by predictable, controllable factors, like many road accidents are. The stampede at a temple in Srikakulam, in Andhra Pradesh, which led to the death of at least nine people, mostly women and children, was also preventable. This year, India has lost scores of lives in stampedes – from the Kumbh tragedy through incidents at the New Delhi railway station, the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru, and a political rally in Karur. There have been other incidents that claimed fewer lives or were not reported. Stampedes are invariably traced to overcrowding, poor preparedness, inadequate infrastructure, and lapses in safety and security arrangements, though the triggers could be different in each case. The Srikakulam incident is reported to have happened when a railing erected for crowd control collapsed. It caused people to fall off stairs, leading to chaos and trampling. The newly built, privately-owned temple received on Saturday five times the number of devotees it receives on a normal day – the railings and barricades in place were not enough to control the movement of people. The administration and the police have said they were not informed of the event, but it is their responsibility to take note of unusual crowding and ensure that order is maintained. The statement of the owner of the temple that it was “an act of God” shows how such incidents are viewed by many. Guidelines issued by the National Disaster Management Authority and in the National Building Code comprise norms and courses of action to prevent stampedes and to handle them if they occur. Law enforcement personnel undergo training to tackle such situations. Still, these incidents keep occurring. Most of the stampedes happen in religious congregations, political rallies, and entertainment venues. The organisers often fail to assess the crowd volume, and even when they do, facilities to ensure orderly movement fall short. Crowd control is often left to untrained volunteers, and the authorities are found wanting in discharging their responsibilities. After every major stampede, inquiries are instituted, but punishment for lapses is rare. The fallout does not inform preparedness, lessons are not learnt, and the cycle of mishaps continues. Investigations are also found to be politicised, as in the case of the Karur stampede, failing to fix accountability and delaying the truth. Deterrence is key – the approach has to shift from an acceptance of inevitability to strong preventive measures backed up by quick follow-through action against the offenders. (Source: DH)