Legacy IAS
UPSC Civil Services Coaching — Bengaluru
The Hindu — UPSC News Analysis
Bengaluru City Edition
Thursday, February 19, 2026
Curated & analysed for UPSC Prelims, Mains (GS I–IV), Essay & Interview preparation. Focus on issues, dimensions, linkages & exam-ready content.
📋 Table of Contents
- DGCA Proposes Swift Ban on Disruptive Passengers GS-II | Governance
- SC Asks Government to Consider ‘Racial Slur’ as Hate Crime GS-II | Polity & Social Justice
- Constitution Must Be More Federal: Tamil Nadu CM GS-II | Federalism
- SC Panel to Guide Judges on Sensitivity & Compassion GS-II | Judiciary
- India Stays Out of Statement Criticising Israel’s Actions GS-II | International Relations
- Nvidia & OpenAI Partnerships with Indian Firms & Academia GS-III | Science & Tech
- Sarvam AI Unveils Two Indian Language Models (‘Vikram’) GS-III | Science & Tech
- India’s Copyright Law & AI Training — Need for Reform GS-III | IPR & Tech
- Military AI & the Urgency of Guardrails GS-III | Security & Tech
- AI, Creativity & the Future of Thought GS-IV | Ethics & Essay
- India’s ‘Third Way’ for AI Governance GS-II & III | Governance
- Simultaneous Elections — JPC Mulling Curbs on No-Trust Motion GS-II | Polity
- Great Nicobar Project — Development vs. Environment GS-III | Environment
- Kashmir Tourism Revival Post Pahalgam Attack GS-I & III | Security & Economy
- CRPF Anti-Maoist Operations & Decline of LWE GS-III | Internal Security
- U.S. Tariff Reduction on India — Trade Relations Update GS-II & III | IR & Economy
GS-II: Governance
1. DGCA Proposes Swift Ban on Disruptive Airline Passengers
A. Issue in Brief
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has proposed amendments to the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) that would empower airlines to directly impose a flying ban of up to 30 days on unruly passengers without referral to an independent committee. Currently, airlines must refer all cases to a committee which has 45 days to decide.
B. Static Background
- Rule 133A, Aircraft Rules, 1937 — governs handling of unruly passengers
- DGCA — statutory body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation; regulates civil aviation in India
- No Fly List — maintained by DGCA; airlines’ 30-day bans will not add passengers to this list
- Tokyo Convention (1963) — international framework on offences aboard aircraft
- India saw a sharp rise in unruly passenger incidents post-COVID; 2023 guidelines were earlier strengthened after high-profile incidents
C. Key Dimensions
| Aspect | Current System | Proposed System |
|---|---|---|
| Decision Authority | Independent Committee | Airline itself (up to 30 days) |
| Timeline | Up to 45 days for decision | Immediate enforcement |
| No Fly List | Committee can recommend DGCA list | Airline ban only; not on official list |
| Scope of Acts | Narrow definition | Expanded: smoking, sloganeering, kicking seats, intoxication, etc. |
| Database | Not mandatory | Airlines must maintain database & inform DGCA |
D. Critical Analysis
- Faster response: Streamlines the process; enhances in-flight safety and crew confidence
- Risk of arbitrary action: Airlines acting as judge & jury raises concerns about natural justice (no hearing before ban)
- Consumer protection gaps: No clear grievance redressal mechanism for wrongly banned passengers
- Power asymmetry: Low-cost carriers may misuse the provision against vocal but non-disruptive passengers
- Definitional overreach: “Causing annoyance” is vague; risks suppression of legitimate grievances
- Positive aspect: Expanded definition covers modern disruptions (e.g., sloganeering, social media-induced disruptions)
E. Way Forward
- Introduce a post-ban review mechanism — an independent appellate process within 7 days
- Ensure proportionality — graded penalties based on severity of offence
- Mandate CCTV evidence and crew testimony before ban imposition
- Global best practices: ICAO guidelines emphasise balanced approach between safety and passenger rights
- Link to Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for grievance redressal
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- DGCA — statutory body under Ministry of Civil Aviation
- Rule 133A — Aircraft Rules, 1937
- Tokyo Convention, 1963 — offences on aircraft
- No Fly List vs. airline-specific ban
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-II, 10 marks)
“Analyse the DGCA’s proposal to empower airlines to directly ban disruptive passengers. Does it balance aviation safety with principles of natural justice? Suggest safeguards.”
GS-II: Polity & Social Justice
2. SC Asks Government to Consider Plea to Treat ‘Racial Slur’ as Hate Crime
A. Issue in Brief
The Supreme Court, hearing a petition following the fatal attack on Anjel Chakma (a 24-year-old from Tripura attacked in Uttarakhand), has asked the Attorney-General to consider the plea seeking recognition of ‘racial slur’ as a separate category of hate crime. The CJI noted that pigeonholing crime by race/region could fuel polarisation, but acknowledged the need for action.
B. Static Background
- Article 15 — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of race, religion, caste, sex, or place of birth
- Article 21 — Right to Life and Dignity
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — new criminal law; petitioner argued it does not adequately address hate crime
- Bezbaruah Committee (2014) — recommended dedicated legislation to address racial discrimination against NE citizens
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — model for targeted protection; no equivalent for NE/tribal communities outside scheduled categories
- Precedent: Death of Nido Taniam (2014) in Delhi — similarly motivated racial attack
C. Key Dimensions
Hate Crime Against NE Citizens — Key Dimensions
Legal Gaps
- No dedicated hate crime law in India
- BNS does not define ‘hate crime’ separately
- IPC/BNS treat it as ordinary assault/murder
Social Dimension
- Racial profiling of NE citizens in metros
- Stereotyping and ‘othering’
- Lack of fraternity (Art. 51A)
Constitutional Values
- Art. 15 (non-discrimination)
- Art. 21 (dignity)
- Art. 29 (cultural protection)
- Fraternity in Preamble
Global Comparison
- UK — Hate Crime Act with enhanced sentencing
- USA — Hate Crime Statistics Act
- EU — Framework Decision on Racism
D. Critical Analysis
- CJI’s caution is valid: Identity-based classification of crime could lead to legal fragmentation and competitive victimhood
- But the gap is real: Pattern of racial violence against NE citizens acknowledged even in Parliament
- Bezbaruah Committee’s recommendations remain unimplemented — no dedicated law enacted
- Fraternity deficit: The Preamble’s vision of fraternity remains aspirational; systemic bias exists in metro cities
- Ethical dimension: Anjel Chakma’s words — “We are Indians. What certificate should we show?” — reflect deeper crisis of national unity
E. Way Forward
- Implement Bezbaruah Committee recommendations — special cells in police, fast-track courts
- Introduce enhanced sentencing provisions for hate-motivated crimes within BNS framework
- Nationwide awareness campaigns on NE culture and integration (existing programs are inadequate)
- Link to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) & SDG 16 (Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions)
- Strengthen National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and create a nodal anti-discrimination body
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Bezbaruah Committee (2014) — racial discrimination against NE people
- Articles 15, 21, 29, 51A(e) — non-discrimination, dignity, fraternity
- BNS replaced IPC from July 2024
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“India lacks a dedicated hate crime law. In light of recurring racial attacks on citizens from the North-Eastern states, critically evaluate the need for recognising ‘racial slur’ as a separate legal category. What constitutional and legislative safeguards can be adopted?”
GS-II: Federalism
3. Constitution Must Be More Federal: Tamil Nadu CM Stalin
A. Issue in Brief
Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin tabled the first part of the Justice Kurian Joseph High-Level Committee Report on Union-State Relations in the Assembly, demanding constitutional amendments to make India more federal. He asserted this would not weaken the Union but empower States.
B. Static Background
- Sarkaria Commission (1988) — first major review of Centre-State relations; recommended cooperative federalism
- Punchhi Commission (2010) — reviewed Sarkaria findings; recommended restraint in use of Article 356
- Article 246 — Union, State, Concurrent Lists (7th Schedule)
- Article 356 — President’s Rule; often criticised as a tool for central overreach
- DMK’s historic position — long-standing advocate of State autonomy since the Annadurai era
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — landmark SC judgment limiting misuse of Art. 356
C. Key Dimensions
| Issue | Centre’s Position | States’ Grievance |
|---|---|---|
| Fiscal federalism | Finance Commission recommendations followed | Developed states penalised; share of divisible pool declining |
| Legislative encroachment | Concurrent List subjects need national uniformity | Centre converting State subjects to Concurrent/Union (e.g., education, agriculture) |
| Role of Governors | Constitutional head; serves national interest | Governors acting as Centre’s agents; withholding assent to State Bills |
| Delimitation | Democratic representation based on population | Southern states penalised for successful population control |
| Hindi imposition | Constitutional mandate (Art. 351) | Violates linguistic diversity; anti-federal |
D. Critical Analysis
- Legitimate concern: Trend of centralisation — GST reducing state fiscal autonomy, central agencies’ overreach, Governor activism
- Counter-argument: India’s quasi-federal structure (K.C. Wheare) was designed intentionally; strong Centre needed for unity in diversity
- Political context: Non-BJP states pushing federalism narrative also has electoral motivations
- Key insight: True federalism requires both structural reforms (fiscal, legislative) and cooperative spirit (NITI Aayog, ISC)
- Constitutional design: India is “Union of States” (Art. 1) — not a federation by compact; but federal principles are part of basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati)
E. Way Forward
- Revitalise Inter-State Council (Art. 263) — make it a regular forum for dialogue, not ad hoc
- Implement Punchhi Commission recommendations on Governor’s role
- Ensure fiscal autonomy — increase untied grants, reduce cess/surcharges not shared with states
- Build cooperative federalism culture — more lateral consultations before central legislation on concurrent subjects
- “Strong States = Strong India” — federalism as a basic structure feature must be operationalised, not just declared
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Sarkaria Commission (1988), Punchhi Commission (2010)
- Art. 246, 7th Schedule (3 Lists), Art. 263 (ISC), Art. 356
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
- Justice Kurian Joseph Committee — TN’s new panel on Union-State Relations
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“Is the Indian federal structure tilting towards centralisation? Critically examine with reference to recent trends in fiscal federalism, legislative encroachment and the role of Governors.”
GS-II: Judiciary
4. SC Forms Panel to Guide Judges on Sensitivity & Compassion
A. Issue in Brief
Over a year after an Allahabad HC judge used explicit language to narrate a sexual assault on a minor in a judicial order, the SC has assigned Justice Aniruddha Bose (retd), Director of the National Judicial Academy, to draw guidelines for judicial sensitivity, especially in vulnerable cases involving minors and sexual offences.
B. Static Background
- POCSO Act, 2012 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences; mandates child-friendly procedures
- National Judicial Academy (NJA), Bhopal — trains judicial officers
- Victim-centric jurisprudence — SC has emphasised this in several judgments (e.g., Nipun Saxena v. UOI, 2018 — victim identity protection)
- Gender sensitisation — Vishaka Guidelines (1997) & subsequent judicial training mandates
- The HC order had set aside the POCSO summons, saying “pulling down pyjama string” did not amount to attempt to rape — SC reversed this
C. Key Dimensions
Allahabad HC uses explicit language in POCSO case order
→
SC takes suo motu cognisance
→
Justice Bose (retd) assigned to draft sensitivity guidelines
→
Committee to include lawyers, academics, social workers
→
Report in simple language; translated into regional languages
D. Critical Analysis
- Systemic issue: Insensitive judicial language in sexual offence cases is not isolated — reflects inadequate training
- Victim re-traumatisation: Explicit descriptions in orders can cause secondary victimisation
- SC’s directive is welcome: Mandating simple language and regional translations ensures wider impact
- Challenge: Attitudinal change among judges requires sustained training, not just guidelines
- Compilation of offensive words in local dialects — innovative and practical step
- Ethical angle (GS-IV): Compassion and empathy as essential qualities for public servants; duty of care towards vulnerable sections
E. Way Forward
- Integrate gender and child sensitisation modules into all judicial training at state judicial academies
- Mandate periodic refresher courses for sitting judges on vulnerable victim handling
- Use of anonymised, coded language in orders involving sexual offences and minors
- Establish judicial audit mechanisms for language in sensitive case orders
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- POCSO Act, 2012 — child sexual offence law
- National Judicial Academy — Bhopal
- Suo motu cognisance by SC
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-II, 10 marks)
“Judicial sensitivity in cases involving sexual offences against minors is crucial for victim-centric justice. Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court’s recent initiative to frame guidelines for compassionate judicial conduct.”
GS-II: International Relations
5. India Stays Out of Joint Statement Criticising Israel’s West Bank Actions
A. Issue in Brief
India did not join a statement signed by 85 countries at the UN criticising Israel’s plans to tighten control over the West Bank. This is a departure from India’s recent positions — it voted at the UN in October 2025 against Israel’s annexation, and the Delhi Declaration (Jan 2026) supported a Palestinian state on 1967 borders. The decision is linked to PM Modi’s upcoming visit to Israel (Feb 25-26).
B. Static Background
- India-Israel relations — upgraded after 1992 (full diplomatic ties); strategic partnership in defence, agriculture, tech
- India-Palestine position — historically supportive of Palestinian statehood; voted for Palestine’s UN observer state status (2012)
- Oslo Accords (1993-95) — divided West Bank into Areas A, B, C under varying Israeli-Palestinian control
- De-hyphenation policy — India has pursued separate bilateral tracks with Israel and Palestine since ~2017
- Delhi Declaration, Jan 2026 — India supported Palestinian state based on “1967 borders”
C. Key Dimensions
| Factor | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Strategic calculus | Modi’s Israel visit (Feb 25-26) makes open criticism diplomatically costly |
| BRICS partners | Russia, China, Brazil, South Africa all signed — India is the outlier among BRICS founders |
| Quad partners | Australia and Japan signed; India did not — limits on strategic autonomy narrative |
| U.S. factor | Decision may also be linked to warming India-U.S. ties under Trump administration |
| Consistency issue | Contradicts Delhi Declaration (Jan 2026) and Oct 2025 UN vote |
D. Critical Analysis
- Strategic autonomy vs. strategic hedging: As former FS Nirupama Rao noted, autonomy should not mean “avoidance of normative positions”
- Pragmatism over principle: India is balancing its Israel strategic partnership with historical Palestine support — but inconsistency erodes credibility
- Neighbourhood perception: Bangladesh, Maldives, Pakistan — all neighbours signed; India’s absence is noticed
- International law dimension: Israel’s settlements in West Bank are considered illegal under the 4th Geneva Convention and ICJ advisory opinion (2004)
E. Way Forward
- India should maintain principled consistency — de-hyphenation should not mean abandoning Palestinian cause
- Continue bilateral engagement with Israel on tech, defence while maintaining multilateral positions on international law
- Leverage India’s unique position — trusted by both sides — to play a constructive mediator role
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Oslo Accords (1993-95) — Areas A, B, C in West Bank
- India-Israel full relations: 1992
- De-hyphenation policy — separate Israel & Palestine tracks
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“India’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict has evolved from ideological solidarity to strategic pragmatism. Critically examine India’s de-hyphenation policy and its implications for India’s credibility in multilateral forums.”
GS-III: Science & Technology
6. Nvidia & OpenAI Announce Partnerships with Indian Firms & Academia
A. Issue in Brief
At the AI Impact Summit, New Delhi, U.S. tech giants Nvidia (partnering with Yotta, L&T, E2E Networks for AI cloud infrastructure) and OpenAI (partnering with IIT-Delhi, IIM-A, AIIMS, Manipal, etc. for AI education) announced major collaborations with Indian industry and academia.
B. Static Background
- IndiaAI Mission — govt. initiative for AI compute, datasets, skilling; ₹10,372 crore allocated
- Nvidia — world’s leading GPU manufacturer; GPUs are critical for AI model training
- Nemotron & NeMo — Nvidia’s open-source LLM family and AI agent management suite
- OpenAI — maker of ChatGPT; expanding educational access globally
- National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 — emphasises technology integration in education
C. Key Dimensions
- AI Infrastructure: India building domestic AI cloud capacity — reducing dependence on foreign data centres
- Education integration: 1 lakh students and staff to benefit from OpenAI’s ed-tech partnerships
- Open-source access: Nvidia providing Indian partners access to open-source LLMs — democratises AI development
- Strategic significance: AI data centres in India = data sovereignty + job creation + research ecosystem
D. Critical Analysis
- Dependency risk: Heavy reliance on U.S. firms (Nvidia, OpenAI) for foundational AI infrastructure
- Compute gap: India lacks domestic GPU manufacturing capacity — chips still imported
- Skilling challenge: Partnerships with elite institutions (IITs, IIMs) may not trickle down to Tier-2/3 cities
- Positive: Strategic alignment with global AI leaders while building domestic capacity
E. Way Forward
- Develop indigenous AI chip capability under Semiconductor Mission
- Expand AI education partnerships beyond elite institutions to state universities and polytechnics
- Ensure data localisation norms for AI workloads processed in Indian data centres
- Build India AI Compute Programme as a public utility — subsidised access for startups and researchers
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- IndiaAI Mission — ₹10,372 crore; AI compute, datasets, skilling
- GPU — Graphics Processing Unit; essential for AI training
- LLM — Large Language Model (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini)
- India Semiconductor Mission — for chip design & fabrication
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-III, 10 marks)
“Examine the significance of recent AI partnerships between India and global tech giants. How can India balance leveraging foreign AI expertise with building indigenous AI capabilities?”
GS-III: Science & Technology
7. Sarvam AI Unveils Two Indian Language Models — ‘Vikram’
A. Issue in Brief
Bengaluru-based Sarvam AI launched two open-source LLMs named ‘Vikram’ (35-billion and 105-billion parameter models) at the AI Impact Summit. These are India’s first major homegrown LLMs, designed to be better at Indian languages. Backed by Peak XV and Khosla Ventures ($50 million+), and supported by IndiaAI Mission’s compute program.
B. Static Background
- LLM (Large Language Model) — AI model trained on vast text data to understand and generate language
- DeepSeek R1 (China) — demonstrated that non-U.S. firms can build competitive LLMs at lower cost
- India’s linguistic diversity — 22 scheduled languages, 100+ spoken; most AI models poor at Indian languages due to limited training data
- Open-source AI — models freely available for anyone to use, modify, deploy
- IndiaAI Mission — provides subsidised GPU access to Indian AI firms
C. Key Dimensions
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Models | 35B & 105B parameter; open-source |
| Key advantage | Superior Indian language support |
| Benchmark performance | Claims to beat global comparable models |
| Funding | $50 million+ (Peak XV, Khosla Ventures) |
| Government support | Subsidised GPU access under IndiaAI Mission |
| Significance | First major Indian-origin LLM; milestone for digital sovereignty |
D. Critical Analysis
- Milestone for India: Proves Indian firms can train competitive LLMs — reduces AI dependency
- Indian language focus: Addresses the critical gap — most global LLMs perform poorly in Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, etc.
- Challenge: Indian language training data remains scarce; quality of outputs needs rigorous testing
- Open-source = strategic: Enables Indian startups, government to build on top without licensing costs
- But: Still dependent on Nvidia GPUs for training — no indigenous chip capacity yet
- Digital inclusion angle: Indian-language AI can bridge the digital divide for 90%+ non-English population
E. Way Forward
- Government should commission Indian-language datasets at scale — partner with Prasar Bharati, NPTEL, universities
- Create Indian AI benchmarks for language quality evaluation
- Integrate Indian LLMs into government services — e-governance, Aadhaar helpline, Kisan Call Centre
- Link to BharatNet, Digital India for last-mile AI access
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Sarvam AI — Bengaluru; India’s first major LLM developer
- Parameter count indicates model complexity (35B, 105B)
- Open-source AI vs. proprietary AI (ChatGPT is proprietary)
- IndiaAI Mission — common compute program
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-III, 10 marks)
“Discuss the significance of developing indigenous Large Language Models (LLMs) for India’s digital sovereignty and linguistic inclusion. What challenges need to be addressed?”
GS-III: IPR & Technology
8. India’s Copyright Law & AI Training — Need for Reform
A. Issue in Brief
An editorial argues that India’s copyright law is outdated and creates legal uncertainty over AI training data collection. Unlike the EU, Japan, and Singapore (which have ‘text and data mining’ exceptions), India’s copyright regime effectively makes AI training and even web search engines technically illegal in most scenarios. The article calls for flexible copyright exceptions to foster innovation.
B. Static Background
- Indian Copyright Act, 1957 — current law; amended in 2012 to add ‘transient or incidental storage’ exception
- Statute of Anne (1710) — world’s first copyright law; original term was 14 years
- Current duration: Author’s lifetime + 60 years (India) / + 70 years (many Western countries)
- Marrakesh Treaty (2013) — allows cross-border exchange of accessible-format books for visually impaired
- Fair use doctrine — exists in U.S., Philippines, Sri Lanka; India has limited ‘fair dealing’ exception
- EU Text & Data Mining exception — allows AI training on copyrighted material for research
- Japan — explicit exception for “exploitations not for enjoying ideas” — covers machine use
C. Key Dimensions
| Country/Region | Approach to AI & Copyright |
|---|---|
| USA | Flexible ‘fair use’ doctrine; courts deciding AI training cases |
| EU | Text & Data Mining exception for research; opt-out for commercial use |
| Japan | Broad exception for machine-use of copyrighted content |
| Singapore | Flexible fair use + specific computational analysis exceptions |
| India | Limited ‘fair dealing’ + 2012 ‘transient storage’ exception — insufficient for AI |
D. Critical Analysis
- Copyright maximalism hurts innovation: Nearly perpetual copyright (lifetime + 60 years) locks up knowledge
- AI training ≠ human consumption: Machines process data statistically, not as creative works — copyright was not designed for this
- India’s ambiguity is harmful: Creates legal risk for Indian AI firms; advantage to firms in countries with clear exceptions
- Separate concern — AI outputs: Generative AI may substitute creative labour; but this is a labour/economics issue, not a copyright issue
- Open-source contributions: Open-licensed AI models add to the commons; copyright law should encourage, not hinder them
- Government role: Curate high-quality, locally-relevant public datasets with safe harbour provisions
E. Way Forward
- Adopt a broad Text & Data Mining exception in the Copyright Act, 1957 — modelled on EU/Japan
- Introduce a flexible ‘fair use’ provision (replacing limited ‘fair dealing’) — future-proof for technology
- Create government-curated public datasets with safe harbour from copyright claims for open-source AI training
- Use the AI Impact Summit as a platform to lead global reforms on copyright and AI
- Separate the copyright issue from labour displacement — address the latter through reskilling, grants, cooperative models
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Copyright Act, 1957 — governs copyright in India; 2012 amendment
- Marrakesh Treaty (2013) — accessible books for visually impaired
- Fair dealing (India) vs. Fair use (USA) — scope difference
- Text and Data Mining exception — EU, Japan, Singapore
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-III, 15 marks)
“India’s copyright regime creates legal uncertainty for AI development. Analyse the need for introducing a ‘text and data mining’ exception in Indian copyright law, drawing from global best practices. How can India balance creator rights with technological innovation?”
GS-III: Security & Technology
9. Military AI & the Urgency of Guardrails
A. Issue in Brief
India abstained from signing the ‘Pathways to Action’ declaration at the 3rd REAIM Summit (Responsible AI in the Military Domain) — along with the U.S. and China. Only 35 of 85 countries signed, down from 60 previously. India has called a legally binding instrument on LAWS “premature”, citing security concerns and the evolving nature of military AI.
B. Static Background
- LAWS — Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems; weapons that can select and engage targets without human intervention
- REAIM Summit — global forum on responsible military AI
- UN CCW (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) — Group of Governmental Experts on LAWS met twice in 2025 without conclusions
- India’s position: Supports ‘responsible’ use; opposes binding frameworks as “premature”; maintains strategic ambiguity
- Dual-use nature of AI: Same technology has civilian and military applications — hard to verify compliance
C. Key Dimensions
Challenges in Governing Military AI
Technical
- AI is dual-use — civilian R&D feeds military use
- Verification of compliance near-impossible
- No consensus on ‘autonomy’ definition
Strategic
- Perceived military advantage discourages regulation
- Heavy investors (US, China, India) reluctant to limit options
- India’s neighbourhood security concerns
Legal/Normative
- No international definition of LAWS
- Accountability gap — who is responsible for autonomous kills?
- International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applicability unclear
Ethical
- Should machines decide life/death?
- Loss of meaningful human control
- Discomfort with delegating lethal force to algorithms
D. Critical Analysis
- India’s pragmatism is understandable — binding commitments could limit indigenous military AI development needed for border security
- But inaction is risky: Without even non-binding norms, an arms race in military AI could destabilise South Asia
- Three practical proposals by the author: (1) No AI in nuclear forces, (2) Voluntary confidence-building mechanisms, (3) Risk hierarchy of military AI use cases
- India’s opportunity: As both a major AI developer and a leader of the Global South, India can push for a non-binding framework
E. Way Forward
- India should push for a non-binding framework on military AI — rooted in accountability & transparency
- Red line: No AI-augmented autonomous decision-making alongside nuclear forces
- Voluntary confidence-building measures on military AI development among major powers
- Create an accepted risk hierarchy of military AI use cases as a starting point for national frameworks
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- LAWS — Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
- REAIM — Responsible AI in Military Domain summit
- UN CCW — Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
- Dual-use technology — civilian and military applications
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-III, 15 marks)
“The governance of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) poses unique challenges due to the dual-use nature of AI. Examine India’s position on military AI governance and suggest a framework that balances national security with international accountability.”
GS-IV: Ethics & Essay
10. At the Last Frontier of Thought — Will AI Kill Creativity?
A. Issue in Brief
An opinion piece argues that AI threatens not creativity itself, but our willingness to think. It warns of cognitive atrophy, “phantom citations” in academic papers, and the death of language as a tool of democracy. The author argues that universities must safeguard the humanities as the bedrock of critical thought.
B. Key Arguments (Exam-Relevant)
- AI produces a fallacy: Writing is treated as a product, not as an act of understanding and imagination
- Cognitive outsourcing: Students/professionals outsource thinking — not due to lack of intelligence but due to the cult of speed
- Scholarly erosion: AI-generated papers with “phantom citations” overwhelm peer review systems
- LLM “hallucinations” ≠ imagination: Machines predict; they do not imagine — reducing imagination to probability strips humanity
- “Death of language = death of democracy”: AI-driven propaganda, deepfakes, algorithmic targeting erode capacity for free thought
- Humanities under attack: Universities being remodelled into “corporate skills factories” — STEM prioritised at expense of critical thinking
C. Critical Analysis — UPSC Relevance
- GS-IV Ethics angle: Intellectual honesty, integrity in research, role of empathy & imagination in governance
- Essay value: “Access without engagement creates only the illusion of knowledge” — powerful essay line
- Denmark model: Schools restricting digital devices and returning to traditional learning — relevant example
- Balanced view needed: AI can augment creativity (healthcare, accessibility) — it is not inherently the villain
- Key UPSC insight: “It is not AI that threatens creativity because it thinks too much; it threatens creativity because it allows us to think less”
D. Way Forward
- Protect humanities education — not as ornamental but as the bedrock of democratic citizenship
- Regulate AI in academic publishing — mandatory disclosure of AI use in research papers
- Promote human-AI collaboration, not substitution — AI as tool, not replacement for thought
- Democratic systems must protect freedom of speech AND intellectual labour of independent inquiry
E. Exam Orientation
📌 Essay & GS-IV Value
- Excellent content for essays on AI, education, creativity, democracy
- Ethics paper: Intellectual honesty, role of empathy, integrity in research
- Quotable lines for answer enrichment
📝 Essay Topic Idea
“The danger is not that AI is becoming human. The danger is that our definition of humanity is shrinking to resemble the logic of AI.” — Discuss.
GS-II & III: Governance & Technology
11. India’s ‘Third Way’ for AI Governance
A. Issue in Brief
India positions itself as offering a “Third Way” for AI governance — distinct from the EU’s compliance-heavy model, the U.S.’s hands-off approach, and China’s state-controlled model. In November 2025, India released AI governance guidelines emphasising adoption, diffusion, diplomacy, and capacity-building. On February 10, 2026, India became the first country to mandate AI-generation disclosure via IT Rules amendments.
B. Static Background
- IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules — amended Feb 10, 2026: mandatory labelling of AI-generated content + 3-hour takedown for harmful content
- EU AI Act (2024) — world’s first comprehensive AI law; risk-based classification
- U.S. approach: Executive Orders; sector-specific; largely self-regulatory
- China: Deep Synthesis Regulations (2023); state-controlled, censorship-integrated
- India’s Nov 2025 guidelines: Not merely regulatory but a governance framework — adoption, diffusion, diplomacy, capacity-building
C. Key Dimensions
| Model | Key Feature | Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| EU | Risk-based classification; comprehensive | Compliance-heavy; may stifle innovation |
| USA | Market-driven; sector-specific | Insufficient oversight; corporate capture risk |
| China | State control; rapid deployment | Censorship; human rights concerns |
| India (Third Way) | Agile; adoption-focused; context-sensitive | Gaps in worker protection; enforcement challenges |
D. Critical Analysis
- AI disclosure mandate (Feb 10): First-of-its-kind globally; but enforcement against global tech firms will be challenging
- Critical gap: No protection framework for workers displaced by AI — an accelerated adoption model without safety net is incomplete
- Global South appeal: India’s model emphasises strategic autonomy and local context — attractive for developing countries
- Need: Transparency mandates, whistleblower protections, public awareness mechanisms
E. Way Forward
- Complement AI adoption acceleration with a worker protection framework — reskilling, social safety nets
- Strengthen international AI governance coordination among middle powers
- Build shared safety evaluation frameworks — collaborative research networks across Global South
- The next 12 months are critical for proving the “Third Way” can integrate innovation, security, and human welfare
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- EU AI Act (2024) — risk-based classification
- India’s AI governance guidelines — November 2025
- IT Rules amendment (Feb 2026) — mandatory AI content labelling
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-II/III, 15 marks)
“India’s ‘Third Way’ of AI governance seeks to balance innovation with regulation. Compare India’s approach with the EU and U.S. models. What gaps must be addressed for it to serve as a model for the Global South?”
GS-II: Polity
12. Simultaneous Elections — JPC Mulling Curbs on No-Confidence Motion
A. Issue in Brief
The JPC examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 for simultaneous elections is considering a provision to bar no-confidence motions if only one year of the government’s term remains. The panel has held 16 meetings. If enacted before 2029, the first sitting of the new Lok Sabha would be the “appointed date” and State Assembly terms would be truncated to align with 2034 Lok Sabha polls.
B. Static Background
- Article 75(3) — Council of Ministers collectively responsible to Lok Sabha
- Article 83/172 — 5-year terms for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies
- High-Level Committee (2018) — Ram Nath Kovind panel recommended simultaneous elections
- Law Commission (1999) — had recommended exploring simultaneous polls
- Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 — bars no-confidence motion in last year for panchayat office-bearers
- Karnataka HC ruling (Feb 2026) — ruled against such embargo, emphasising accountability
C. Key Dimensions
| Arguments For | Arguments Against |
|---|---|
| Reduces election expenditure & policy disruption | Undermines parliamentary accountability (Art. 75) |
| Prevents frequent model code imposition | Truncating state assembly terms violates federal spirit |
| Enables governance continuity | Advantages ruling party at centre (national issues dominate) |
| Panchayat-level precedent exists | Karnataka HC rejected such curbs; local body ≠ Parliament |
| EC gets more planning time | EC given “unfettered powers” — needs oversight mechanism |
D. Critical Analysis
- No-confidence bar is constitutionally problematic: It weakens the essence of parliamentary democracy — executive accountability to legislature
- Truncating state assembly terms violates the principle of popular mandate and federalism
- Panchayat analogy is weak: Local bodies ≠ sovereign legislatures; comparing them undermines constitutional hierarchy
- Positive aspect: JPC chairman acknowledges “infirmities” in the Bill — open to amendments
- Political reality: Requires broad consensus; Opposition parties uniformly oppose it as centralising power
E. Way Forward
- Build political consensus — no constitutional amendment of this magnitude should be forced through
- Address federal concerns of States whose terms will be truncated
- Explore constructive no-confidence motion (German model) as an alternative — government can be defeated only if successor is simultaneously elected
- Ensure EC oversight mechanisms are built into the law
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 — simultaneous elections
- Art. 75(3), 83, 172 — collective responsibility, tenure of Houses
- Constructive vote of no-confidence — German Bundestag model
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“Critically examine the proposal for simultaneous elections in India. Does barring no-confidence motions in the final year of a government’s term strengthen governance or undermine parliamentary democracy?”
GS-III: Environment
13. Great Nicobar Island Project — Development vs. Environment
A. Issue in Brief
The NGT (Kolkata bench) has ruled that all environmental safeguards for the Great Nicobar Island Project (GNIP) are in place, citing “strategic utility.” Critics argue the project — a trans-shipment port, airport, township, and power plant — will devastate 9 lakh trees, leatherback turtle nesting grounds, coral reefs, and the rights of Shompen and Nicobarese tribes.
B. Static Background
- GNIP — trans-shipment port, international airport, township, 450 MVA power plant on Great Nicobar Island
- Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) — requires settlement of community rights before forest diversion
- Shompen — one of the most isolated indigenous tribes; Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG)
- Leatherback turtles — Schedule I species; Great Nicobar is a key nesting site
- Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 — governs clearance process
- Historical parallel: Nauru island — devastated by phosphate mining; Banabans displaced to Fiji
C. Critical Analysis
- Strategic importance: Location near Malacca Strait gives GNIP geopolitical value — monitoring Chinese naval activity
- But environmental cost is severe: ~9 lakh trees, 130 sq.km of pristine forest; irreversible biodiversity loss
- Tribal rights: Allegations of coercion — “surrender certificates” implying consent; FRA compliance questionable
- NGT order is problematic: Rubber-stamps government appraisal without independent assessment of concerns
- Transparency deficit: NGT accepted that “strategic utility” justifies limiting public information — sets dangerous precedent
- Precautionary principle: Should apply in cases of irreversible environmental harm
E. Way Forward
- Conduct a truly independent EIA by a body without conflict of interest
- Ensure free, prior, informed consent (FPIC) of Shompen and Nicobarese — as per FRA and UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
- Apply precautionary principle and explore phased development with environmental milestones
- Explore alternative locations for port/airport that minimise ecological impact
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Great Nicobar — southernmost of Andaman & Nicobar Islands
- Shompen — PVTG; hunter-gatherer tribe
- Leatherback turtle — Schedule I; largest sea turtle
- Forest Rights Act, 2006 — community rights
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-III, 15 marks)
“The Great Nicobar Island Project exemplifies the classic tension between strategic development and environmental conservation. Critically evaluate the project’s environmental and social implications. Suggest a balanced approach.”
GS-I & III: Security & Economy
14. Kashmir Tourism Revival Post Pahalgam Attack
A. Issue in Brief
Following the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, 48 tourist sites in Kashmir were closed. Sites are being reopened in phases (14 reopened on Feb 16). The editorial argues that tourism revival needs three prongs: institutional capacity building, trail/heritage development, and environmental governance with local employment to counter the terrorist ecosystem.
B. Key Dimensions
- Security-tourism nexus: Tourism recovers only when visitors can predict safety outcomes
- Budget 2026-27: Two-pronged plan — institutional capacity building + ecologically sustainable mountain trails in J&K
- Third prong needed: Environmental governance with paid civic roles (trail maintenance, waste management, fire watch) for locals
- Counter-terrorism through economics: More families benefiting from tourism = more voices against terrorism that suppresses tourism
- Youth employment: Tourism and allied services can skill/reskill young people — real path into economy
C. Way Forward
- Create paid civic roles for locals in tourism management — not just volunteer campaigns
- Develop formal, managed trails with ticketing, permits, medical facilities
- Ensure clear rules, reliable permits, fast emergency response for all open sites
- Tourism as soft counter-terrorism — fostering cross-India contact and business ties
D. Exam Orientation
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-III, 10 marks)
“Tourism can serve as a tool for both economic development and counter-terrorism in conflict-affected regions. Discuss with reference to the Kashmir Valley’s post-Pahalgam attack recovery strategy.”
GS-III: Internal Security
15. CRPF Anti-Maoist Operations — Decline of Left-Wing Extremism
A. Issue in Brief
~2,000 CRPF personnel launched Operation KGH-2 along the Chhattisgarh-Telangana border to track senior Maoist commanders. The government aims to eradicate LWE by March 2026. Politburo/central committee members of CPI(Maoist) have fallen from 20 to 4 in one year. Maoist-affected districts dropped from 18 to 8 in 2025.
B. Key Data Points
| Metric | 2025 Data |
|---|---|
| Senior Maoist leaders neutralised | 12 |
| Maoists killed in operations | 370 |
| Maoists/sympathisers apprehended | 1,175 |
| Extremists surrendered | 2,391 |
| Forward operating bases established | 61 (32 in Chhattisgarh alone) |
| Affected districts (start of 2025) | 18 → 8 (by year-end) |
| Politburo/CC members | 20 → 4 |
C. Critical Analysis
- Security-first approach showing results: Targeted leadership decimation + forward operating bases disrupting supply chains
- Niyad Nellanar Yojna (Chhattisgarh): Multi-dimensional development initiative — CRPF bases doubling as integrated development centres
- But: Eradication of LWE requires addressing root causes — tribal land rights, forest rights, displacement, developmental deficits
- Surrenders (2,391) are positive — indicates weakening morale; but rehabilitation must be genuine
D. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- CRPF — Central Reserve Police Force; lead force in LWE areas
- CPI(Maoist) — banned organisation
- Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) — temporary bases in core Maoist areas
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-III, 10 marks)
“Evaluate the effectiveness of India’s security-centric approach to combating Left-Wing Extremism. Is a purely kinetic strategy sufficient, or must it be complemented by developmental interventions?”
GS-II & III: IR & Economy
16. U.S. Tariff Reduction on India — ‘Order Likely in 3-4 Days’
A. Issue in Brief
The U.S. agreed (Feb 6 joint statement) to cut reciprocal tariffs on Indian imports from 25% to 18%. Trump’s Executive Order 14384 already removed the 25% penal tariff (linked to India’s Russian oil imports) from Feb 7. The remaining reduction from 25% to 18% is pending — expected in 3-4 days via Federal Register update, without needing a fresh Executive Order.
B. Static Background
- Reciprocal tariffs: U.S. imposed 25% tariff on Indian goods (July 2025) citing trade imbalance
- Penal tariff: Additional 25% (Aug 2025) due to India’s energy trade with Russia — total became 50%
- Feb 6, 2026: Joint statement — U.S. agreed to reduce reciprocal tariff to 18%; penal tariff removed immediately
- India-U.S. trade: India is a significant trading partner; trade deficit with U.S. has been a point of friction under Trump administration
- India-EU FTA — also referenced by PM Modi as ushering in a “golden era” in India-Europe relations
C. Critical Analysis
- Positive signal: Reduction from 50% to 18% is significant — restores near-normal trade conditions
- Delay concern: 18% tariff still not operational despite Feb 6 agreement — U.S. bureaucratic processes are slow
- India’s concessions: Commerce Minister claims no trade deal without private sector approval — but specifics of India’s concessions are unclear
- Structural issue: India remains vulnerable to unilateral U.S. tariff actions — need for diversified trade partnerships
- Russia factor: The penal tariff for India’s Russian oil trade shows how third-party geopolitics can impact bilateral trade
D. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Reciprocal tariffs — tariffs imposed to match trade partner’s duties
- Executive Order — Presidential directive (U.S.); does not need Congressional approval
- Federal Register — U.S. government’s official daily journal for rules, orders, notices
📝 Mains Model Question (GS-II, 10 marks)
“Examine the impact of reciprocal tariff policies on India-U.S. trade relations. How should India navigate the challenges of unilateral trade actions by major partners while pursuing its own economic interests?”
Legacy IAS — UPSC Civil Services Coaching, Bengaluru
The Hindu UPSC News Analysis — February 19, 2026
For internal academic use only. Content curated for exam preparation.
The Hindu UPSC News Analysis — February 19, 2026
For internal academic use only. Content curated for exam preparation.


