Editorial

UNICEF’s Children’s Climate Risk Report 2026, released recently, carries a stark warning about the growing impact of climate change on children, with India figuring among the most vulnerable regions. The report estimates that 1.1 billion children – nearly half the world’s child population – are exposed to at least three overlapping climate hazards: drought, extreme heat, and heatwaves. It emphasises the fallout on children’s health, education, and survival. No child is entirely free from climate risk, while around four million of them face as many as six climate-related threats. These primary threats are compounded by secondary impacts, including air pollution and vector-borne diseases. UNICEF has mapped these risks in detail, providing a template for governments to design child-centric climate frameworks. It has called for strategies to improve education, healthcare, sanitation, and other essential infrastructure to help children withstand the impact of climate change. The report also underscores the need to integrate child-critical social services into national adaptation plans. Children in India are significantly impacted, with nearly every child exposed to at least one climate hazard. Alarmingly, 97% face two or more risks, while 55% – over 234 million children – confront three or more such risks. These statistics need to be seen in a larger context for what they represent as real-world consequences: widespread malnutrition, disease, disrupted schooling, and denied development opportunities. Climate manifestations such as droughts, extreme heat, floods, and storms devastate agriculture, livelihoods, and broader economic stability. As society’s most vulnerable members, children suffer the heaviest toll during environmental crises. Although public rhetoric claims that the safety and welfare of women and children receive top priority during disasters, actual practice tells a different story. In 2024, climate-related disruptions affected nearly 54 million students in India. India’s massive child population may have contributed to this statistic, but it still highlights a failure to shield children from such events. Climate change affects societies differently, with social inequalities considerably influencing the outcomes. The UNICEF report notes that 40% of children in the country experience food poverty, and almost half of those aged under 15 years lack access to social security programmes. Despite years of warnings regarding these environmental impacts, effective action has remained elusive. The report is yet another call for the world, and India, to step up with informed policies that keep pace with the evolving crisis. Systemic interventions to safeguard the youngest – and most vulnerable – citizens must be integral to the country’s climate strategy. (Source: DH)

The police rescue of 12 bonded labourers from a factory in Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh starkly reminds us of India’s persistent, shameful system of forced labour. Hailing from Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Bihar, Uttarakhand, and Nepal, the labourers were lured by false promises of decent wages, food, and accommodation for working in the manufacturing unit. The victims’ identity documents were taken away, and they were forced to work gruelling, day-long shifts. They were under constant surveillance in the premises guarded by pit bulls. Some of them reportedly endured this ordeal for over 18 months. Their demands for wages were met with severe beatings and torture. Police and government officials acted on a tip-off and raided the unit, rescuing the workers. However, some of the culprits involved in the operation are still at large. Bonded labour was abolished by law in 1976, but cases continue to surface across the country, exposing an unaddressed systemic failure in enforcing the ban. The Muzaffarnagar incident highlights administrative shortfalls in monitoring for possible violations. It is alarming that an industrial unit was allowed to exploit workers undetected for months. This incident also reflects the desperation of job-seekers and growing vulnerabilities that push them into exploitative workplaces. Most of the victims were picked up from railway stations and public places while they were looking for work. A substantial segment of work-related migration in India is tied to the informal and unorganised sectors, exposing many to deceptive offers of employment. Once trapped in these abusive setups and the documents seized, escape becomes extremely difficult. That many of these captive workers are unaware of their legal and human rights further complicates redress. Weak enforcement, despite strong criminal laws, enables such informal workplaces to function outside the regulatory scope. For the administrators, rehabilitating the rescued workers remains one of the toughest challenges. Many survivors require medical treatment and psychological counselling, apart from fair compensation and sustainable livelihoods to rebuild their lives. The onus is on the state to provide these; its role extends beyond legal obligations to ensuring justice and dignity for the victims. The persistence of bonded labour and manual scavenging raises deeper moral questions for society. Oppressive labour practices adopted on farms, in factories, and at other workplaces reflect not only a failure of law enforcement but also a disregard for human dignity. The continued existence of practices that violate individuals’ fundamental rights and honour reminds us simultaneously of institutional gaps and society’s collective inability to eliminate such exploitation. (Source: DH)

As Artificial Intelligence expands into all areas of life, UN Women has made an important call for wider adoption of gender-sensitive AI. The appeal goes beyond general caution; it stems from a study revealing that algorithmic bias is reinforcing systemic gender inequalities, leaving women increasingly vulnerable to discrimination and violence. The problem has been built into the technology. When systems learn from historical, flawed data, they tend to replicate and amplify societal prejudices. An analysis of 133 generative AI systems found that 44% demonstrated clear gender bias, while 26% exhibited a combination of both gender and racial bias. The study found that AI actively absorbs human prejudices, racial biases, and tendencies to discriminate based on gender. These biases are not mere algorithmic glitches; they are systemic patterns reflecting deep-seated societal flaws. Large Language models (LLMs) routinely perpetuate stereotypes, linking women with home, family, and children, and men with careers, business, executive roles, and salaries. Many systems have also been seen as exhibiting sexist or misogynistic attitudes, reducing women to sex objects or the property of their husbands. UN Women noted that these toxic outputs are the natural outcome of training AI on decades of unequal data. Global policy has failed to keep pace with these emerging realities. Out of the 138 countries assessed in the analysis, only 24 referenced gender in their national AI strategies, and only 18 adopted substantive gender-responsive measures. UN Women sees this as a choice made “over and over” in training data, design rooms, and policy documents “that stay silent on half of the population”. Under-representation of women across the AI ecosystem, particularly in decision-making roles managing core technology and product development, has been cited as a key reason for AI systems inheriting gender bias. UN Women notes that women risk bearing higher costs of AI adoption, as they face a bigger threat of losing jobs to automation and are more vulnerable to AI-enabled abuse. Addressing these inequities requires systematic gender- and race-based audits of AI models and the output they generate. Investment must be enhanced towards equipping women with AI skills; their representation in leadership roles is critical in shaping gender-sensitive technological decisions. UN Women has urged governments, companies, and experts researching and developing AI to integrate gender equality throughout the AI life cycle, from design and development to deployment and governance. The group has rightly noted that “when designed with safety and used with intention,” AI can help detect stereotypes, broaden representation, and improve accessibility at scale. (Source: DH)

The Bombay High Court recently reaffirmed that peaceful protest is a constitutional right for every Indian. This is a vital democratic truth delivered at a time when basic rights are increasingly under strain. The court also underscored the self-evident principle that the police are servants of the people, not of top government authorities. It issued the ruling after hearing a case of petitioner Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). Chaudhary had organised protests, allegedly without police permission, against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government’s decisions regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Gyanvapi mosque. In response, Mumbai Police filed FIRs and issued an externment order against him in December 2025. The court questioned these actions and ruled that slapping FIRs and debarring a citizen from entering a city merely for criticising the government is unjustified. Since there was no evidence of a threat to public safety or property, the order infringed upon his fundamental rights. Justice Madhav Jamdar quashed the externment, holding that the order is a severe measure that cannot be arbitrarily invoked simply because a citizen holds public protests. Raising slogans like “government murdabad” cannot be legal grounds to file criminal cases or banish individuals from a city. The court affirmed that dissent and protests are legitimate responses of citizens to the government’s actions, protected by the right to free speech and expression under Article 19. Treating such protests as threats to public order without credible evidence erodes the very freedom that distinguishes a democracy from an authoritarian state. The judge’s suggestion that the petitioner should consider switching political affiliations to get the FIRs quashed through the ruling party’s “washing machine” was made in a lighter vein, but it shows how judicial minds are concerned over trends that pose a threat to democratic and constitutional ideals. While the Bombay High Court’s ruling should resonate beyond the immediate context of the case, its democratic spirit is frequently violated in cases where victims find no judicial relief. Two days after the ruling, a Delhi court rejected the bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both accused in the larger conspiracy case in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots. They have been incarcerated for over five years, and their bail pleas have been repeatedly dismissed by various courts, including the Supreme Court. Their prolonged imprisonment further reveals a contradiction in the legal landscape. The judicial protection of dissent, underlined in Justice Jamdar’s judgment, has failed to reach everyone. (Source: DH)

Recently, the United States announced that it was renaming the US Indo-Pacific Command back to its original US Pacific Command. William Shakespeare, who asked ‘What’s in a name?’, might not have thought much of it, but in diplomacy, optics are often as decisive as substance. This is bad news for India as it is yet another sign of New Delhi being pushed to the periphery of Washington’s vision. The US’ claim that there would be no change in the geographic jurisdiction and mission is hard to believe. This move underscores that Washington no longer sees New Delhi as a counterweight to an aggressive Beijing in the region. In September 2018, when then US Defence Secretary James Mattis announced the USINDOPACOM, geopolitical equations were very different: Washington championed a free and open rules-based international order. It focused on containing Beijing’s influence, and India-US ties were riding high on the personal rapport between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump. Today, Sino-US ties are undergoing a cautious recalibration, with Trump even seeing a ‘G2’ (Group of Two). This shift spells trouble for the US’ allies in the region and puts the Quad’s future in uncertainty. The renaming signals that the US no longer considers India central to its South Asian calculus. From regime change in Bangladesh to its policies in Myanmar, recent US actions have cut against India’s interests. Above all, the current Washington-Islamabad bonhomie has come at New Delhi’s expense. Sergio Gor, the US Ambassador to India, downplayed the renaming, saying he didn’t “care what name is on the letterhead”. It would appear that Gor is a fan of Shakespeare. Yet, his appointment as ambassador was a clear sign of Washington downgrading its ties with India – not because of his lack of diplomatic chops, but because of his dual role as both ambassador to India and Special Envoy for South and Central Asian Affairs, with 12 other countries on his roster. This is the latest in a string of anti-India actions by Washington: from terminating duty-free access to many Indian goods to imposing exorbitant tariffs and penalties, and from interfering in India’s energy policies to hosting Pakistani leaders while both neighbours were at heightened hostilities. Though it cannot stand up to the US like China, by now it must be clear to New Delhi that Washington is not a reliable ally. Towards that end, India’s trade deals with various countries and blocs are steps in the right direction. Strategic autonomy must be safeguarded, along with geopolitical and defence interests. (Source: DH)

America turned 250 this weekend, and the birthday came wrapped in fireworks, heat warnings, and a president who could not resist turning it into his own campaign. That combination — genuine national milestone, genuine logistical chaos, and unmistakable self-promotion — tells you almost everything about where the country stands as it enters its next quarter-millennium. The official festivities were real enough. Crowds gathered on the National Mall after it reopened despite a punishing heatwave. But the anniversary’s defining image came a day earlier at Mount Rushmore, where Donald Trump delivered a speech billed as a tribute to American exceptionalism that veered, as several outlets noted, into warnings that communism poses a “mortal threat” to American liberty — an odd note of menace for a birthday toast. It fit a pattern: at an earlier Freedom 250 kickoff in Iowa, Trump told supporters of his political opponents, “I hate them. I cannot stand them because I really believe they hate our country.” Trump has been building a parallel apparatus — Freedom 250, a White House-created entity he personally chairs — that sits awkwardly alongside the congressionally chartered America250 commission. The Interior Department funneled at least $68.3 million in taxpayer money to the effort, while Freedom 250 solicited corporate sponsorships up to $10 million from companies like Palantir, Boeing, and United Airlines — firms that also hold hefty federal contracts. House Democrats have called it a “hotbed of corruption”; Freedom 250 calls the charge false. Either way, a shared national anniversary has been split into two competing brands, one of them built around a single man. Which raises the harder question the fireworks can’t hide: is any of this evidence of a country still capable of running the world, or of one too distracted by its own internal fights to notice it’s slipping? The honest answer is that both camps have real evidence. Beijing’s leadership calls America a “fading giant,” and there’s no shortage of American commentators cataloguing debt, dysfunction, and eroding alliances to match. But the counterargument is equally solid: no rival, China included, has matched America’s combination of military reach, financial centrality, and technological depth, and polling shows Americans themselves remain divided rather than resigned about their country’s trajectory. What’s genuinely new isn’t decline — it’s the spectacle of a leader treating a shared civic milestone as personal marketing. Empires have survived worse than a gaudy sponsor list. Whether they survive a citizenry that no longer agrees on what the anniversary is for is a different, and much older, American question. (Source: DH)

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)