Editorial

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)

Are populous nations better off than those with a smaller population is a question that is not easy to answer. Generally speaking, a large population is difficult to manage and has its downsides, as it puts pressure on resources, the environment and governance. As more people compete for limited resources, conflict is inevitable. However, on the other hand, many nations are struggling with sluggish or negative population growth and are even inviting people from outside to settle. Even China, which we have replaced as the most populous nation, is reeling under the negative impacts of pursuing an aggressive population control regime. In India, we have charted a cautious course. While public campaigns like ‘Hum Do Hamare Do’ and many incentives for having small families have been offered, it has never been coerced, and the choice has by and large remained voluntary, except for a brief period during the Emergency in the 1970s when it was aggressively pursued by Indira Gandhi’s government. The result was resentment, and the government fell. However, now it appears that views on population growth have come full circle, and Andhra Pradesh is now actively promoting larger families. The Andhra Pradesh government’s decision to incentivise larger families marks a sharp shift in India’s long-standing population policy. With the State’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) falling to 1.5 — well below the replacement level of 2.1 — concerns are growing over an ageing population and a declining young workforce. Under the proposed “Pillale Sampada” initiative, families opting for a third and fourth child may receive financial incentives.  The concern is not merely statistical. Falling fertility rates eventually reshape economies, labour markets and social structures. A shrinking young population means fewer workers, lower productivity, reduced tax revenues and increasing pressure on welfare systems. As elderly populations grow, governments face mounting healthcare and pension burdens without a sufficiently large workforce to sustain them. This is precisely the demographic trap confronting countries such as Japan, South Korea, Italy and Germany. Even China, once synonymous with strict population control through its one-child policy, is now struggling with rapid ageing and declining productivity. However, what is right for Andhra Pradesh at the moment may not be suitable for the rest of the country. India has a largely unemployed population, and pressure on resources is immense. It would be difficult to join the club of developed nations if population growth is not checked. Encouraging larger families without simultaneously expanding social infrastructure could deepen economic inequalities. Moreover, demographic realities differ sharply across India. Northern States such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar continue to record relatively high fertility rates, while southern States are ageing faster due to better literacy, urbanisation and healthcare outcomes. The larger lesson is that population is neither a burden nor an asset in isolation. Its value depends on how effectively governments invest in education, healthcare, skill development and employment generation. (Source: The Pioneer)

Upholding its 2025 ruling on removing stray dogs from public spaces, the Supreme Court of India has now allowed euthanasia of rabid and dangerous dogs in the interest of public health and safety. The original judgment was seen as unrealistic given the massive investment and logistics involved in removing the dogs from spaces such as railway stations, hospitals, and highways, and rehabilitating them. In its latest order, the Court said the dogs picked up from these locations should not be released there even after vaccination and sterilisation. Municipal authorities in the country do not have the personnel for the job or the infrastructure to house these dogs. The Court has told the authorities to adopt legally permissible measures, including euthanasia, in cases of “rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous or aggressive dogs.” This is effectively a prescription to cull the dogs without discrimination because the Court’s condition that the decision should align with the assessment of qualified veterinary experts is likely to be observed in the breach. It risks entrusting the municipal staff with powers to act as the judge, jury, and executioner – killing the dogs will be seen as a convenient, legitimate response. Notably, the Court observed that there is a “discernible absence of sustained, systematic and incremental efforts to expand and strengthen the infrastructure to manage the dog population.” This situation is likely to remain. The Court ordered the setting up of a fully functional birth control centre in every district, equipped with the requisite infrastructure, trained personnel, and surgical facilities, and proposed an expansion of this setup. There is no clarity on timelines or other details in the directive. But what is certain is that most of the dogs around us will not live to see these centres. In its latest ruling, the apex court seeks to solve a problem created by people and civic authorities. Stray dogs have proliferated because of conditions caused by administrative failings. An effective implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, with a firm focus on vaccination and sterilisation, remains the most viable solution to the problem. Public policy should, no doubt, prioritise human health and welfare, but it must also be humane and kind. It should not be hostile to life. It cannot breach the fundamental principle that the earth does not belong to human beings alone. Law and policy, designed around human existence, must not become tools to deny other living beings their rights. (Source: DH)

The Supreme Court’s questioning of its earlier verdict denying bail to Umar Khalid, in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, exposes judicial mishandling that also extended the injustice the State meted out to him. Khalid and co-accused Sharjeel Imam have been in jail for over five years. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have rejected multiple pleas for bail.  On Monday, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made it clear, while hearing another bail case, that an earlier rejection of bail by a two-judge bench violated principles laid down by a three-judge bench of the Court in Union of India vs. K A Najeeb (2021). In that case, the bench affirmed that bail is the rule and jail the exception, even in cases under the draconian Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act (UAPA), if the trial is delayed. Pointing to earlier rulings that established the primacy of individual rights, the Court underlined the importance of compliance with these precedents. It observed that smaller benches have hollowed out the reasoning of larger benches without expressly disagreeing with them. These are strong comments that should guide the Court, especially its smaller benches, while hearing such cases. The continued incarceration of Khalid – accused of conspiracy in connection with the riots – defies reason and principles of justice, while the Union government appears determined to keep him in jail. The Court noted that pre-trial incarceration would begin to acquire a post-trial punitive character if prima facie accusations made by the investigating agency were accepted as true to deny bail. This happened in Khalid’s case, where the process became punishment. In a striking validation, a day after the apex court’s critique, a Delhi court dismissed Khalid’s interim plea for bail to take part in his uncle’s post-death rituals and to take care of his ailing mother. The Court did well to reiterate that the basic principle about bail also applies to UAPA cases. It said the right to personal liberty and speedy trial cannot be subordinate to the stringent bail provision laid down by Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. It also pointed out that the conviction rate in UAPA cases is a low 2-6%. These observations are important in an environment where the State wields tools that can place fundamental rights under strain. The Umar Khalid case is a telling example of oppressive State conduct. It is rare that the Supreme Court questions its own judgment. These questions, raised on both technical and substantive grounds, must be heard and answered. (Source:  DH)  

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is on a whirlwind tour of five nations. He is visiting the United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Italy. These are difficult times for the world, as supply lines are disrupted and energy uncertainties are playing havoc with the planning of emerging economies. This is not just a regular seasonal disruption, but the cumulative effect of the world economy undergoing a seismic change. Powerful nations such as the USA, China and Russia are busy establishing their respective hegemonies and working overtime to ensure that their national interests are best served. However, this has unleashed uncertainty, as no one knows for sure what comes next — Trump tariffs, the Ukraine war, or Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. In this scenario, a country like ours has to chart its own course. Modi’s international doctrine seems to stem from the erstwhile principles of non-alignment and neutrality, while staying out of power politics and, at the same time, connecting with countries that can not only provide what India needs but also offer markets for Indian goods and services. Prime Minister Modi has taken up the cudgels to spearhead the national campaign for self-sufficiency beyond borders. India is seeking investments, technology partnerships and greater strategic influence as it attempts to transform itself into a global manufacturing and innovation hub. Modi’s five-nation tour, is an exercise in diversifying imports and opening up to new avenues. The approach has found a ready partner in the Netherlands, where India and the Dutch government elevated bilateral ties to the level of a strategic partnership. The talks between Modi and Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten paved the way for cooperation and synergy on various issues. This move reflects the growing importance of the relationship beyond traditional trade. The partnership now extends into semiconductors, maritime security, renewable energy, artificial intelligence, defence cooperation and resilient supply chains. India’s efforts to build a domestic semiconductor ecosystem cannot succeed without partnerships of this nature. Modi’s pitch to Dutch companies to “design, innovate and manufacture in India” aligns directly with New Delhi’s broader ambition to reduce dependence on imports and integrate India into trusted global technology chains. The Scandinavian leg of the tour — particularly Sweden — was equally strategic. Nordic countries are global leaders in green technologies, sustainable urban planning, innovation ecosystems and clean energy transitions. India’s engagement with them is rooted in its need for advanced technological collaboration in areas such as hydrogen energy, climate resilience, smart manufacturing and digital governance. Sweden’s strong innovation-driven economy and Norway’s expertise in energy and maritime sectors make them natural partners for India’s developmental priorities. As India expands economic relations with European nations, it is also subtly balancing geopolitical equations by building diversified partnerships across the continent, reducing its dependence on the US and China. (Source: The Pioneer)

The visit of US President Donald Trump to China was closely watched by the world. The three-day visit during which Trump met Xi Jinping was laden with symbolism and expectations but ended with piecemeal declarations and no breakthroughs in bilateral relations or convergence on the major geopolitical issues confronting the world. The Trump visit at least reassured the world that the dialogue was still possible and that both nations had shown diplomatic courtesy to hear each other’s viewpoint. In recent times, the US-China relations have deteriorated sharply over trade disputes, Taiwan, and competing geopolitical ambitions. The Trump-Xi meeting was less about dramatic breakthroughs and more about restoring the diplomatic channels open at the highest level, should a need arise. The immediate outcome of the summit was the strengthening of the fragile trade truce reached earlier. The agreement to maintain lower tariffs and continue easing restrictions on critical sectors such as rare earth exports suggests that both sides are interdependent. Yet another major takeaway from the meeting was Trump’s invitation to Xi for another summit in the United States later this year, which indicates that both countries value continuous dialogue. This is a good sign, as the flash points in the world are many, and the world sits on a nuclear pile. But beneath diplomacy was economic brinkmanship at work.  Trump announced that China would purchase Boeing aircraft. This could be both an economic and a political glue.  The presence of major American business leaders—including executives from Boeing, Nvidia, Apple, and Tesla—shows that despite political rivalry, economic interdependence between the two powers remains intact. Yet the summit’s significance extended beyond commerce. Xi Jinping’s warning that mishandling Taiwan could place bilateral relations in “great jeopardy” reaffirmed Beijing’s hegemony in the South China Sea. Trump avoided public escalation on the issue during the visit. This restraint itself was meaningful. Both leaders appeared to realise that their tensions could destabilise not just Asia but the world order. The discussions on Iran were equally revealing. Trump claimed that China would assist diplomatic efforts and expand energy cooperation with the United States. In a world order that is volatile and fragmented, even limited cooperation between the two powers carries global importance. Perhaps the most important takeaway from the visit is the emergence of what Beijing described as a framework of “strategic stability.” Trump’s visit is a recognition that there are limits to how much you can afford to ignore China, and complete disengagement with the dragon is neither realistic nor desirable. The message to the world is therefore both reassuring and cautionary. While the structural tensions over technology, military influence, trade dominance, and Taiwan remain unresolved, the diplomatic channels are still open. The Trump-Xi summit was not a breakthrough in the diplomatic sense but an assurance that there is hope after all and that both powerful nations are willing to manage their rivalries with dialogue. (Source: The Pioneer)

With the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) deferring Vinesh Phogat’s comeback to competitive events, the stand-off between the ace wrestler and the sport’s apex governing body in the country has taken a bitter turn. The WFI has issued a show-cause notice to the wrestler citing multiple grounds for her ineligibility including her alleged failure, as a retired athlete, to inform the United World Wrestling (UWW) six months ahead of her intended comeback. While Phogat has dismissed the charges raised in the notice, the WFI’s objectives will be under scrutiny, given that she has in the past questioned the functioning of the federation and its former chief and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. A double World Championships bronze medallist, Phogat is preparing for a strong return to the sport and reportedly has the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics in her plans. In its notice, the WFI also noted her disqualification from the final at the Paris Olympics in 2024, following a discrepancy related to her weight category. Phogat and her supporters see the show-cause notice as the WFI’s attempt to stop her from participating in the senior open ranking tournament in Gonda (May 10-12). The WFI is headed by Sanjay Singh, an aide of Brij Bhushan Singh, against whom Phogat and other women wrestlers had raised sexual harassment charges, in 2023. Recently, she also identified herself as one of Brij Bhushan Singh’s six victims. This raises questions about the timing of the federation’s move. Phogat is preparing to legally challenge the action against her. Some athletes have sought the Union government’s intervention in the matter. But nothing is likely to come out of that call – the former WFI boss prevailed at the height of the controversy, even when women wrestlers were staging protests against him on the streets. The controversy centres on a champion wrestler who has represented India on the global stage and brought multiple laurels to the country. An athlete of her stature deserves all the institutional support as she makes a comeback bid. It was upon the federation to provide Phogat this backing. Instead, it chose to invoke rules and raise unconvincing charges to make her return difficult. It must be noted that Phogat is also a Congress MLA from Haryana. Professionalism and transparency are non-negotiables in the administration of sport. When a high-performing world-class athlete faces such treatment from the administrators, it is a statement on how the system handles the sport and the sportsperson. (Source: DH)