Editorial

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)

Ten days after the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) registered a landslide electoral victory in Kerala, the party’s high command chose V D Satheesan as the state’s new Chief Minister. The uncertainty that prevailed before the high command picked Satheesan did the party no good. The announcement was delayed because the central leadership backed All India Congress Committee (AICC) general secretary K C Venugopal, who did not contest the election, while the people clearly favoured Satheesan, who led the alliance to this resounding victory.  By prioritising a coterie’s interests above the party and the people, the leadership risked serious damage, given that Kerala is one of the Congress’s few remaining pockets of influence. Left to themselves, the leaders would have decided against the overwhelming will and verdict of the people. This lack of political judgment is even more striking because Congress has lost states when it imposed chief ministers on the people or removed them from office against public opinion. Its final decision is being hailed as a victory of consensus and the spirit of internal democracy, but the credit should go to the positions taken by the public and the allied parties, the residual good sense of some leaders, and a media consistently critical of this post-results power play. It must be said that even before the euphoria of a massive victory settles, the Congress leadership has lost some credibility. Satheesan was the face of the party and the UDF in the elections. He is not a dynast and is the first from his family to join politics. A leader who rose from the grassroots, the first-time Chief Minister has about three decades of political experience. He is seen by a large section of the cadre as a principled leader who would not cede space to communal interests. Satheesan is also the unlikely politician with a book: a voracious reader with a range of interests. The new Chief Minister will face multiple challenges in office. Financially, Kerala has just managed to stay afloat, while resisting the Centre’s unfriendly policies. The government will need a substantial revenue thrust to implement the five guarantee schemes announced during the campaign. The Lok Bhavan can be expected to be at odds with the government on many fronts. Satheesan may also face opposition from the party’s MLAs and even ministers, given the circumstances of his appointment. The high command must ensure that he gets the full backing in what could also be a crucial term for the party’s national footprint. (Source: DH)

The country’s Gen Z is outraged. The NEET paper leak has once again shocked the nation. This is not the first time that an examination promising admission to medical colleges has been compromised. A similar incident occurred in 2024 and now again in 2026, which speaks volumes about the audacity of those involved in the leak. The government took the right decision to scrap NEET UG 2026, but that does not redeem the situation, as it has erased the hard work of millions of students who sacrificed everything for this examination. It is merely damage control for a situation that should never have arisen in the first place. NEET is an important examination that carries the hopes and aspirations of the middle class and also provides the nation with the qualified pool of doctors it urgently needs. Parents spend lakhs on coaching and even relocate to help their children prepare for the exam. When a leak destroys those hopes, lives are shattered, leaving families in uncertainty and despair. The emotional trauma is enormous, with students burdened by the prospect of preparing all over again and potentially losing an entire year. Witnessing the same scandal repeat itself has deepened frustration and cynicism. The larger question is unavoidable: why does this keep happening? India has witnessed paper leaks in recruitment tests, state board examinations, police recruitment exams and now repeatedly in national-level entrance examinations. The problem is systemic. Examination mafias have evolved into organised criminal networks with political links, local protectors and insiders within institutions. Using sophisticated digital techniques, they earn crores of rupees. Yet investigations often end with the arrest of minor intermediaries while the masterminds remain untouched. This culture of impunity is even more worrying. While governments routinely promise “zero tolerance”, public confidence is steadily declining because accountability is rarely fixed. Merely making arrests is no solution; the entire ecosystem enabling such leaks must be dismantled. That means identifying officials who failed in supervision, exposing coaching-centre nexuses, tracking money trails and ensuring swift convictions of the real culprits. Unless the kingpins are punished, paper leaks will continue to reappear in new forms. The outrage among Gen Z is therefore understandable. Today’s students are digitally connected, politically aware and far less willing to quietly accept institutional incompetence. Social media has amplified their anger because many believe the system is rigged against sincere candidates.  India cannot aspire to become a ‘Vishwa Guru’ and a global knowledge powerhouse while its examination system repeatedly collapses. Competitive examinations are meant to be the great equaliser in a deeply unequal society. When they lose credibility, social trust itself begins to erode. India urgently needs a complete overhaul of examination security — stronger digital safeguards, encrypted paper distribution, tighter monitoring and a phased transition towards secure computer-based testing. More importantly, the government must instil confidence among young people that it is committed to protecting their interests. (Source: The Pioneer)

The cancellation of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) is another blot on the record of the National Testing Agency (NTA), responsible for the conduct of some of India’s most important examinations. That many questions in a ‘guess paper’ were found among questions in the NEET-UG examination held on May 3 makes it more serious than the partial cancellation of the test in 2024. The handwritten ‘guess paper’ is likely to have reached thousands of candidates. The leak was detected only days after the test, raising the question of whether similar leaks have gone undetected in the past. While the new dates for the test are awaited, the schedules for student counselling, admissions, and the commencement of courses will be impacted. The NEET covers about 1.3 lakh medical course seats. About 22 lakh students took the test after months of preparation, which takes a financial, physical, and psychological toll on them. The cancellation and the subsequent retest will cause trauma to many candidates and involve extensive wastage of resources. When the NTA was created in 2017, it was envisioned to improve the examination system and make it a unified, national platform without the unevenness that marked state-level admission procedures. However, the agency has faced questions regarding its processes, charges of paper leaks, and ranking-related disputes. Though the government has assured that the system would be strengthened and safeguards put in place, the paper leak shows that no lessons have been learnt. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has commenced an investigation, and multiple arrests have been made. Many questions need answering. Where and how did the leak take place? Why did the safeguards fail? After the 2024 incident, an expert committee headed by former ISRO chairman K Radhakrishnan was constituted to reform the NEET system. Were the committee’s recommendations, submitted in October 2024, implemented? Accountability must be established at all levels for this massive institutional failure, and action should be taken against everyone who played a role in it. Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, too, cannot escape responsibility for this debacle. An examination of this scale presents a major challenge because it involves simultaneously holding the test in more than 5,000 centres. But the country has the requisite technical and logistical competence. This failure has occurred at the human level. Fixing the system is crucial to prevent future breaches and restore the credibility of the test. (Source: DH)  

While an intense heat wave is spreading across India, agriculture will be one of the sectors most severely impacted. A report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has warned that heat events have posed a threat to the livelihoods and health of over a billion people worldwide. The impact will be severe in India, with predictions of a likely fall in yields of rice and wheat crops. The country has seen an early incidence of high temperatures in all climatic zones. Agriculture is highly climate-sensitive, and variations in heat levels can badly affect crops. The untimely heat waves are likely to curtail yields in important farming states such as Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. The wheat harvest is already over, and reports from farms are not encouraging. Rice is equally vulnerable. Rice cultivation is about to start, and the dry weather will affect seed germination, nursery preparation, and the growth of plants. Farmers will have to rely more on groundwater or irrigation where available, as higher evaporation will increase water loss. Irrigation facilities are inadequate in many areas of the country. It is not just the existing dry weather or the heat wave conditions in the coming weeks that will challenge agriculture. The entire monsoon season from June to September is likely to see a deficit in rainfall, and that can hurt the whole farming economy. The heat wave is not the only challenge. There is a serious shortfall in the supply of fertilisers. The war in West Asia has dealt a serious blow to the supply of fertilisers and important raw materials such as natural gas and ammonia that are used for fertiliser production. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted a major share of the world’s fertiliser trade. Major producers such as Russia and China have cut down on exports to support domestic demand. China is a major supplier of fertilisers to India. India’s agriculture is likely to face pressure from two sides: heat and fertiliser shortages. Governments at both central and state levels should start taking measures to counter them. These include a focus on heat-resistant crops, counselling farmers, and supporting them in dealing with the impact. India has not made any progress in putting in place a system of climate-resistant agriculture on a permanent basis. Climate change and its challenges are going to be with us. There is a need to protect the country’s agriculture and economy from the impacts of climate change and other pressures more urgently than ever before. (Source: DH)

The swearing-in of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief C Joseph Vijay as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, after a phase of uncertainty, opens a new chapter in the state’s politics. Governor Rajendra Arlekar’s decision to defer his invitation to Vijay – the head of the single-largest party – to form the government, while seeking evidence of the party’s majority in the House, conflicted with the established conventions. This could be indicative of obstructionist actions the actor-turned-politician may have to encounter. The pressures will be substantial, given that the TVK’s majority in the House is thin. It is the first time since 1967 that Tamil Nadu has a government that does not profess the Dravidian ideology. It is also the first time since 1952 that the state has a coalition government. Vijay’s stellar electoral performance has opened up Tamil Nadu’s politics and signals possibilities for non-Dravidian alternatives. It may inspire national parties to expand their space in the state. Vijay has claimed the inheritance of both K Kamaraj and ‘Periyar’ E V Ramaswamy. The Congress will be represented in his ministry. There are indications that he will follow centrist-secular policies. Notably, the support he enjoys from all coalition partners is not unconditional. The Left parties may reconsider their backing if the government deviates from the path it has outlined. These parties, along with the Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi (VCK), proclaimed their support seeking a “stable and secular” government. They also consulted with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) about their move and can still be considered aligned with the DMK. The DMK has reasons to be unhappy with the Congress, which it accused of betrayal for walking out of a decades-old alliance. The Congress has its political objectives and is likely to contest subsequent elections with its new ally. On his first day in office, Vijay announced the setting up of a women’s protection force, anti-drug squads, and free power to consumers who fall under a certain threshold. He said the outgoing DMK government left behind a debt burden of about Rs 10 lakh crore and promised to release a white paper on the state’s finances. High debt is a feature of finances in all states; Vijay may face constraints when he sets out to implement his populist promises. With no experience in politics or governance, the Chief Minister will have to hit the ground running. His challenges will be manifold, and he will particularly feel the pressure while protecting the state’s interests within a strained federal system. (Source: DH)  

The swearing-in of Suvendu Adhikari as West Bengal’s Chief Minister marks a definitive shift in the state’s politics, with implications not only for the state but also for India. West Bengal is a major state that has resisted the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s ideology, politics, and governance model for many years, but has now overwhelmingly shifted its allegiance to the party. The party’s progress from three seats in the 2016 Assembly polls to over 200 now has been consistent and marked by hard work at the ideological, organisational, and leadership levels. Politics and governments in West Bengal have endured for long periods and then undergone sudden shifts. It has happened this time too, though the signs of change have been seen for years. Though the Election Commission of India’s controversial SIR process, which denied voting rights to lakhs of people, and its security and administrative measures during the campaign may have had an impact on the polls, the electorate’s desire for a change cannot be disputed. Mamata Banerjee had thrived on regional identity politics, projecting herself as the defender of the state against an overbearing Centre and a majoritarian ideology. The BJP has offered a new identity framework based on national integrity, border security, citizenship, and demographic anxieties. It used issues such as illegal migration and minority appeasement, and succeeded in effecting religious polarisation to create a popular narrative in its favour. There was an anti-incumbency sentiment against the Trinamool Congress government centring on unemployment, corruption, misgovernance, and law-and-order issues. The political capital Mamata had gained from welfare politics and her standing among women suffered erosion, and the minority votes she had relied on were not enough to sustain her. The BJP secured a mandate for change in this setting. The new government has promised a rejuvenation of the state’s politics, economy, and society, but it faces serious challenges. There are immediate governance challenges, as shown by the killing of Suvendu’s aide. West Bengal has seen ruling parties using violence for domination and oppression, only to later get trapped in the culture of violence. It works against all parties in the course of time. Employment generation, industrialisation, infrastructure development, and economic improvement are major tasks before the government. It will get support from the Union government, but may have to start showing results in quick time. The society’s inclusive nature needs to be preserved, especially because Muslims constitute about 30% of the population. Suvendu is known for his militant Hindutva polemic and polarising rhetoric, like his Assam counterpart Himanta Biswa Sarma. No government can perform or promote people’s welfare in a divisive social and political environment, and in a state of perpetual mobilisation. (Source: DH)    

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)