Content :
- Missed Opportunity: India’s Withdrawal from SCO Defence Ministers’ Communiqué
- No Time to Rest: India’s Progress and Gaps in the SDG Rankings
- Practising Equality in Constitutional Courts: The Jitender Judgment and the Legal Oligarchy
- A China-led Trilateral Nexus: Strategic Challenge for India in South Asia
Missed opportunity
Concerns Raised at SCO Defence Ministers’ Meet
- No joint communiqué due to lack of consensus on mentioning terrorism.
- India withdrew support as terrorism (esp. cross-border) was omitted, allegedly due to Pakistan’s objection.
- India expected support post-Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)
Practice Question : “India’s position in multilateral forums is often constrained by strategic divergence with member states.” Examine this statement in the context of India’s recent experience at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Defence Ministers’ meeting.(250Words)
Contradictions Within SCO
- SCO’s founding charter (2002) emphasizes combating terrorism, separatism, and extremism.
- Yet, the current outcome avoided these terms — even considered including “Balochistan disturbances” (Pakistan’s line).
- Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) was present, making omission more striking.
China’s Role as Chair Disappoints
- China didn’t support India’s concerns, despite recent signs of improved ties.
- Both China and Russia leaned towards maintaining neutrality, avoiding contentious issues.
India’s Diplomatic Misses
- No parliamentary outreach to SCO nations post-Operation Sindoor, despite delegations to 32 other countries.
- India’s disassociation from SCO statement on Iran-Israel conflict further isolated its stance.
- Skipping the in-person SCO Summit during India’s presidency in 2023 may have reduced diplomatic capital.
Strategic Takeaways
- Unlike SAARC, India has less sway in SCO, which is dominated by founders China, Russia, and Central Asian states.
- Walking away from SCO weakens India’s regional voice and gives space to Pakistan.
- India must actively engage members and diplomatically build consensus for counter-terrorism cooperation.
Way Forward
- Focus on convincing SCO members that combating terrorism aligns with collective regional interests.
- Reinforce India’s three-pronged “new normal” post-Sindoor with clear messaging and strategic outreach.
- Ensure a strong presence at the upcoming SCO Foreign Ministers’ and Summit meetings.
SCO:
- Established: 2001 (evolved from the Shanghai Five, 1996)
- Headquarters: Beijing, China
- Members (9): China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan
Objectives
- Promote regional security, stability, and economic cooperation
- Combat terrorism, separatism, and extremism
- Strengthen mutual trust among member states
Key Bodies
- SCO Secretariat – Administrative arm (Beijing)
- RATS (Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure) – Based in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, focuses on security and counter-terrorism
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
No time to rest
Progress in SDG Rankings
- India ranked 99th out of 167 countries in the 2024 Sustainable Development Report — its first time in the top 100.
- In 2016, India was 110th out of 157, indicating steady but slow progress over 8 years.
- The SDSN report is published by an independent UN-affiliated body and closely tracked by global policymakers.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations , Governance)
Practice Question : India’s entry into the top 100 of the Sustainable Development Goals Index reflects progress in development indicators but highlights persistent governance deficits. Discuss.(250 Words)
Successes
- SDG 1 (No Poverty): Strong gains in poverty reduction, with poverty halving from 22% (2012) to 12% (2023, World Bank est.).
- SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): Near-universal household electrification; India is now 4th globally in renewable capacity (esp. solar & wind).
- SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure): Significant growth in mobile penetration and digital finance (e.g., UPI adoption).
Challenges
- Data Gaps: No official consumption expenditure data since 2018; outdated poverty lines weaken measurement accuracy.
- SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Malnutrition persists — 35.5% stunted, 19.3% wasted (NFHS-5); slow improvement since 2015-16.
- Obesity rising among urban rich; coexists with undernutrition, reflecting inequality in diet and healthcare access.
Urban-Rural Disparities
- Electricity & Internet Access: Universal access claimed, but quality and duration of power varies regionally.
- COVID-19 exposed deep digital divides affecting education (SDG 4) and service delivery.
Lagging in Governance (SDG 16)
- Rule of law, press freedom, and institutional independence remain areas of concern throughout recent years.
- Despite development gains, governance-related indicators continue to drag down India’s overall SDG performance.
Way Forward
- Need for timely, transparent data and updated poverty benchmarks.
- Address nutritional inequality, digital gaps, and quality of services, not just access.
- Strengthen democratic institutions and governance metrics to achieve balanced progress across all SDGs.
SDG report
- Published annually by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) since 2016.
- Tracks global progress on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the UN in 2015.
- Uses a composite SDG Index to rank countries based on goal-wise performance.
Coverage
- 2024 Report ranks 167 countries.
- Evaluates indicators like poverty, health, education, inequality, environment, and governance.
- Countries scored on a scale from 0 (worst) to 100 (goal achieved).
Notable Global Trends
- No country is currently on track to achieve all SDGs by 2030.
- SDG progress slowed or reversed during COVID-19, especially in education and inequality.
- Calls for stronger international cooperation and local implementation.
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
Practising equality in constitutional courts
Background
- In Jitender @ Kalla vs State (2025), the Supreme Court revisited its 2017 and 2023 judgments in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court.
- Directed High Courts to frame new rules for designating senior advocates.
- Public largely overlooked the case, wrongly seeing it as a judiciary-internal matter.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary)
Practice Question: The continuing hierarchical classification of lawyers by constitutional courts contradicts India’s commitment to equality before law. Critically evaluate in light of the 2025 Jitender judgment.(250Words)
Core Issues Highlighted
- Legal profession has a public character; inequality within affects judicial and political democracy.
- Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 legally entrenches a hierarchy — senior advocates vs. others.
- This legal oligarchy fosters elitism and potentially undermines justice delivery.
Systemic Concerns
- The senior designation system reinforces elitism, gender imbalance, and exclusion of marginalised lawyers.
- Court’s own acknowledgment: the point-based system is subjective and flawed, yet it chose not to strike it down.
- Key constitutional questions on equality (Article 14) and rationality of classification remain unaddressed.
U.S. Parallel
- In the U.S., a tiny elite of corporate lawyers dominate Supreme Court litigation.
- A Reuters report (2014) found <1% lawyers handled 43% of SC appeals.
- India risks drifting towards similar legal plutocracy if disparities continue.
Contradictions in the Judgment
- 2025 ruling admits flaws in existing norms, yet upholds the same classification without deeper scrutiny.
- Did not refer constitutional challenges to a larger bench despite compelling arguments.
- Cited foreign practices (e.g., Nigeria, Australia) without contextualising India’s constitutional vision of egalitarianism.
Scholarly Critique
- F.S. Nariman: India has created a “caste system among lawyers.”
- Academic critique: “Homo-social morphing” — designations reflect judges’ personal biases and networks.
- Results in exclusion of women, rural, and non-English-speaking advocates.
Key Implications
- Judicial diversity suffers — elite “star lawyers” dominate litigation space, leaving thousands of capable lawyers invisible.
- Democratization of legal representation is hindered.
- Litigation becomes the privilege of the rich, undermining the constitutional mandate of access to justice for all.
What Needs to Change
- Rethink or abolish hierarchical classifications within the Bar.
- Ensure objective, transparent, and equitable mechanisms for recognition.
- Uphold the spirit of constitutional equality (Articles 14–16) in professional practice.
- Embrace historical context — legal profession as a tool of social justice, not privilege.
Value addition
What is a Senior Advocate?
- A designation given under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
- Conferred by the Supreme Court or High Courts based on an advocate’s ability, standing at the Bar, and special knowledge/experience in law.
- Senior advocates follow specific court etiquettes (e.g., can’t file vakalatnamas or directly interact with clients; must act through a junior).
Section 16 – Advocates Act, 1961
- Classifies advocates into two categories:
- Senior advocates – designated by constitutional courts.
- Other advocates – regular practicing lawyers.
- Controversial for allegedly institutionalizing inequality among equals in the legal profession.
Indira Jaising Case (2017)
- A seminal case where SC laid down guidelines for the designation of senior advocates:
- Point-based system (publications, pro bono work, interviews, etc.).
- Transparent procedure involving a Permanent Committee in each court.
- Later criticized as being subjective and prone to bias.
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
A China-led trilateral nexus as India’s new challenge
Strategic Context
- China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh held their first trilateral meeting in Kunming, June 2025.
- Follows a similar China–Pakistan–Afghanistan trilateral in May, signaling a new regional outreach pattern by Beijing.
- Aims: Extend CPEC, deepen strategic cooperation, and counterbalance India’s rising regional stature.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)
Practice Question : The China–Pakistan–Plus-One trilateral format signals a strategic shift in South Asia’s regional order. How should India recalibrate its neighbourhood policy in response?(150Words)
China’s Strategic Objectives
- Make Pakistan regionally relevant despite its economic and diplomatic decline.
- Preoccupy India with regional tensions and security threats to curb its influence.
- Reinforce China’s leadership role in South Asia, using trilateral diplomacy as a tool.
The China–Pakistan Nexus
- 1962 war laid the foundation of China–Pakistan alignment to contain India.
- China provides economic lifelines and arms to Pakistan:
- ~$29 billion in loans (by 2024),
- ~80% of Pakistan’s arms imports.
- In forums like the UNSC, China shields Pakistan from terror-related sanctions.
Recent Developments
- Operation Sindoor (May 2025): India’s response to Pahalgam terror attack, backed by intelligence pointing to Pakistan.
- China called India’s response “regrettable”, echoing Pakistan’s narrative.
- Pakistan deployed Chinese-origin weaponry, showing tight military links.
Geopolitical Echoes
- Strategy resembles 1965 attempt by Pakistan to encircle India using East Pakistan, China, and Nepal.
- China–Pakistan–Plus-One diplomacy is resurfacing amid:
- India’s assertive diplomacy and economic rise,
- Growing defence assertiveness (e.g., Doklam, Galwan),
- Isolation of Pakistan through diplomatic and economic measures.
Regional Responses and Limits to China
- Maldives: Initially anti-India, now turned to India due to economic woes.
- Nepal: BRI progress is slow; funding and implementation issues persist.
- Sri Lanka: President Dissanayake is prioritizing ties with India over China.
- Bangladesh and Afghanistan: Once aligned with India; recent regime changes have opened doors to China–Pakistan engagement.
Emerging Concerns for India
- China’s use of trilaterals could:
- Increase terror and security risks via Pakistan’s expanded influence.
- Disrupt India’s neighborhood-first policy.
- Facilitate BRI expansion through political entry points.
- Afghanistan and Bangladesh could become platforms for proxy influence if India’s outreach weakens.
India’s Strategic Response
- Continue assertive redline diplomacy to deter misadventures.
- Deepen engagement with neighbours via economic aid, infrastructure, and energy diplomacy.
- Promote regional counter-terrorism efforts and push back against China-backed narratives.
Bottom Line
- China’s trilateral strategy aims to reshape South Asia’s power dynamics.
- India must sustain pressure on Pakistan, reinforce its neighborhood ties, and guard against encirclement via multilateral counterbalances and regional coalitions.
Value additions
What is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)?
- Flagship project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
- Runs from Gwadar Port (Pakistan) to Xinjiang (China).
- India opposes CPEC as it passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), infringing sovereignty.
- Estimated cost: ~$60 billion; currently facing delays and security issues.
Bangladesh’s Strategic Importance
- Geographic proximity to India’s vulnerable “Chicken’s Neck” (Siliguri Corridor).
- Critical to India’s Act East Policy, transit connectivity, and maritime strategy.
- Strong historical ties with India, but recent strained relations (border killings, NRC/CAA concerns) are being exploited by China-Pak.
Afghanistan’s New Dynamics
- Post-2021 Taliban regime: Pakistan’s influence has waned due to Taliban’s assertiveness.
- India maintains quiet diplomatic engagement — opened a technical mission in Kabul (2022).
- China aims to link Afghanistan with BRI through Pakistan, potentially bypassing India.
Trilateral Diplomacy: What Does It Mean?
- China-led “2+1 format” seen as a geopolitical maneuver to:
- Undermine India’s bilateral influence.
- Promote BRI projects.
- Build alternate coalitions within South Asia.
Strategic Tools India is Using
- Neighborhood First + SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region).
- Infrastructure Diplomacy (e.g., Kaladan Project, Chabahar Port).
- Energy Cooperation (e.g., BBIN Grid, Trilateral Energy Trade).
- Military Diplomacy (e.g., joint exercises with Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh).
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
