CURRENT-AFFAIRS

Context:

The Israel-Hamas conflict, which began in October 2023, has reached an extremely complex turning point by January 2026. Although an unstable ceasefire became effective three months ago, the humanitarian crisis and sporadic violence in Gaza still continue. Gaza's infrastructure has been completely destroyed, and nearly 2 million people are homeless. Amidst this chaos, US President Donald Trump has announced the 'second phase' of his 20-point peace plan, which aims to hand over the administration of Gaza to an apolitical 'technocratic committee' (NCAG) and undertake its complete reconstruction.

'Board of Peace' and Primary Reasons for Discussion:

On January 18, 2026, Trump invited approximately 60 countries, including India, to join this 'Board of Peace' (BoP). This body will oversee the governance and reconstruction of Gaza. It is currently at the center of global discussion because:

• Parallel International Order: Critics are calling it 'Trump's own United Nations.' This board claims to intervene directly in global conflicts by bypassing the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
• Lifelong Leadership: According to the proposed charter of the 'Board of Peace', Donald Trump will be its inaugural chairman. Most importantly, this role is not linked to his presidency; meaning he can remain its chairman even after leaving the office of the President.
• Financial Constraints: Reportedly, an 'entrance fee' of $1 billion has been sought for permanent membership, making it an exclusive club of wealthy nations.

Another Step Towards American Hegemony:

This policy of Trump appears to be moving beyond 'America First' towards 'America Alone' and 'Trump Alone.'

• Institutional Fragmentation: Efforts to bypass the WHO, UNESCO, and now the UN show that the US is now prioritizing 'transactional' (exchange-based) forums under its control instead of multilateral institutions.
• Military and Economic Pressure: While on one hand there is a proposal for 'peace,' on the other hand, threats of tariffs against Europe over the Greenland issue and military intervention in Venezuela prove America's aggressive 'hegemonic' attitude.

India's Position: A Tricky Diplomatic Dilemma:

For India, Trump's invitation has brought both 'honor' and 'crisis':

• Invitation vs. Aggression: Recently, Trump threatened India with an additional 25% tariff for continuing trade with Russia and Iran. On one side is the fear of economic penalty and on the other is the invitation to share a stake in the global peace board; this is testing India's 'Strategic Autonomy.'
• Impact on Palestine Policy: India has traditionally been a supporter of the 'Two-State Solution.' Joining this board could be seen as supporting an American agenda that limits Palestinian sovereignty.
• Leadership of the Global South: India considers itself the voice of developing nations. In such a situation, becoming part of a US-dominated body that weakens the United Nations could affect India's image.

Dimensions:

• Judicial vs. Political Diplomacy: Can international disputes be resolved by a 'Board' instead of the United Nations Charter? This is a strike at the very foundation of international law.
• Realism: Trump's policy is purely realistic, where peace is being viewed as a 'deal.' India will have to decide whether this 'deal' is compatible with its long-term national interests.

Way Forward:

• Calibrated Engagement: India should consider joining this board as an 'observer' rather than as an immediate permanent member, so that it can keep an eye on the process without compromising its policies.
• Protection of Multilateralism: India should use forums like BRICS and G-20 to emphasize reforms in the United Nations, rather than becoming part of efforts that completely bypass it.
• Balance: Maintaining a balance between security relations with the US and energy interests with Russia-Iran should be India's priority.

Conclusion:

The 'Board of Peace' is a new and controversial experiment in global diplomacy. It is an attempt to institutionalize American influence in the name of peace-building. Instead of rushing to join this 'Peace Board,' India must conduct a subtle analysis of its historical foreign policy principles and emerging global equations. Ultimately, peace is only sustainable when it is just and inclusive, not merely based on a display of power.

Context

In recent weeks, unprecedented instability has been observed in global politics, beginning with the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela and the dramatic arrest of President Nicolás Maduro. Immediately following this event, the Trump administration, expanding its 'America First' agenda and demonstrating economic aggression against eight major European countries including Denmark, announced the imposition of a 10% tariff on all imported goods starting February 1, 2026, which could be increased to 25% by June. The primary objective of this pressure is to establish American control over Greenland, an autonomous territory under Denmark. This move is not only giving rise to a trade war but is also shaking the foundation of the Western alliance formed after World War II.

Strategic Importance of Greenland

Greenland is not merely an ice-covered island; there are deep strategic interests hidden behind it:

• Resource Abundance: There are vast reserves of rare earth elements and minerals here, which are essential for modern technology.
• Arctic Control: Due to climate change, Arctic ice is melting, opening new trade routes. Control over Greenland provides the U.S. an edge in this region against Russia and China.
• Military Location: The U.S. 'Thule Air Base' is located here, which is critical for the North American defense system.

Key Issues and Violations

Several legal and ethical questions arise from this 'bullying tactics' of the Trump administration:

• Violation of International Law: The attempt to seize the territory of a sovereign nation (Denmark) through economic pressure is against the UN Charter and the principles of international sovereignty.
• Centralization of Power: The unilateral use of the 'International Emergency Economic Powers Act' by the U.S. President is being done without legislative (Congressional) support, which weakens democratic institutions.
• Neo-imperialism: The recent developments with the President of Venezuela and now the pressure on Europe reflect the resurgence of America's 'interventionist' foreign policy.

Europe's Response and 'Anti-Coercion Instrument'

The European Union (EU) has not just offered verbal opposition this time but has prepared for concrete retaliatory action:

• Counter-Tariffs: The EU can strike back by imposing taxes on U.S. tech giants (Google, Apple, Meta, etc.).
• Defense of Autonomy: Countries like France and Germany believe that dependence on the U.S. for security should be reduced and 'European Strategic Autonomy' should be enhanced.

Impact on Global Security and NATO

• Rift in NATO: If the trade war between the U.S. and Europe escalates, the unity of NATO will be fragmented.
• Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Russia will directly benefit from internal strife within NATO. The weakening of assistance to Ukraine and military strength on the eastern front could disturb the global security balance.

Potential Impact on India

For India, this situation is like a 'double-edged sword':

• Trade Challenges: If the U.S. increases tariffs on all countries, Indian exports could also be affected.
• Strategic Opportunity: A rift in the Western bloc will provide India an opportunity to strengthen its 'multi-alignment' policy and accelerate the pace of Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with Europe.
• Arctic Council: India is an observer member of the Arctic Council; increasing tension here could affect India’s scientific research interests.

Analysis

This incident signals the decline of the 'Democratic Peace Theory' and the 'Liberal International Order.' The 'America First' policy now seems to be turning into 'America Alone,' which is a major threat to multilateralism.

Conclusion

The current policies of Washington reflect a lack of enlightened leadership. Using economic weapons to seize Greenland will not only push trans-Atlantic relations back by decades but will also start a new era of instability in the global economy. The need of the hour is cooperation and diplomacy, not economic bullying.

Context

On January 13, 2026, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan) delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the case of 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation' (CPIL) vs. Union of India. This split verdict has once again brought the conflict between the accountability of public servants and their protection into discussion.

What is the Case?

• An organization named 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation' (CPIL) had challenged Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the Supreme Court.
• Both judges expressed different opinions on the matter, resulting in a 1-1 tie in the decision.
• Since the decision was equal, the matter will now be referred to a larger bench of three or more judges.

What is Section 17A?

Modified by the Central Government in 2018, the main provisions of this section are as follows:

• Prior Sanction: It is mandatory for any police officer to obtain prior permission from the competent authority (Government) before conducting any inquiry or investigation into decisions taken or recommendations made by a public servant in the discharge of their official duties.
• Exception: This permission is not required in cases where a person is caught red-handed while accepting a bribe (Trapping).
• Time Limit: The government is given a period of 3 months (4 months in special circumstances) to decide on such permission.

Basis of the Split Verdict

Since the views of the two judges were different, the matter will now be sent to a larger bench. The potential arguments from both sides are as follows:

Arguments in Favor (Protection of Public Servants):

• Prevention of Policy Paralysis: Freeing honest officers from the fear that difficult decisions taken by them might later be subjected to malicious investigations.
• Stopping Unnecessary Harassment: To maintain administrative efficiency, it is necessary that investigations are not initiated based on frivolous complaints.

Arguments Against (Accountability and Equality):

• Violation of Article 14: Critics argue that this section acts as a 'protective shield' for corrupt officers and creates unfair discrimination between ordinary citizens and public servants.
• Delay in Investigation: The process of obtaining permission from the government often gets dragged out, giving corrupt elements time to destroy evidence.
• Infringement of Independence: It limits the autonomy of investigative agencies (CBI/Police).

Historical Background and Judicial Decisions

• Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, CBI (2014): In this case, the Supreme Court declared Section 6A unconstitutional, which provided similar protection to officers of Joint Secretary level and above. The Court stated that discrimination cannot be made on the basis of rank in cases of corruption.
• Rise of Section 17A: Following the 2014 decision, the government implemented Section 17A for all levels of public servants through the 2018 amendment.

Analytical Dimensions

• Rule of Law: Corruption is like a cancer to the system of governance. If administrative hurdles arise in the investigation process, the concept of the 'Rule of Law' is weakened.
• Administrative Ethics: A public servant should be impartial and fearless. The objective of Section 17A is to promote this fearlessness, but accountability cannot be sacrificed under its guise.
• Cooperative Federalism and Corruption: Since in many cases permission has to be obtained from state governments, political rivalry between the Center and States can affect the investigation process.

Way Forward

• Need for Balance: The larger bench of the Court will have to decide how to strike a balance between providing protection to public servants and ensuring swift action against corruption.
• Time-bound Permission: The government should make the process of granting or denying permission more transparent and digital to reduce human intervention.
• Independent Review Body: Should the power to grant permission rest with an independent body (such as the Lokpal or a special judicial committee) instead of the government? This needs consideration.

Conclusion

The division of the Supreme Court on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act reflects the complexity of this issue. It is not merely a legal question, but a deep struggle between the integrity of India's governance system and the morale of public servants. Whatever the final decision may be, it must strengthen the 'Right to Equality' and the resolve for a 'Corruption-Free India.'

Context

In January 2026, the Supreme Court of India took serious cognizance of the increasing student suicides in the country's Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the case of 'Amit Kumar vs. Union of India' (2026). The Court observed that the 'massification' of higher education—meaning the rapid increase in privatization and enrollment without commensurate improvement in quality and infrastructure—has become a serious threat to the mental health of students. Against this backdrop, the Court has issued 9 important directions to the Center and the States.

Crisis in Education

Currently, the Indian higher education system is grappling with a 'systemic' crisis. According to data:

• Mental Health:
  • In the year 2023, approximately 13,892 students committed suicide. This number was about 8.1% of the total suicides. This figure is nearly 6.5% higher compared to 2022.
  • This data reflects an alarming increase over the last decade (about a 65% increase from 2013 to 2023).
  • Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and recent research papers show that students are in crisis not only due to academic pressure but also due to financial crisis, caste discrimination, and social injustice.
• Faculty Shortage:
  • Nearly 50% of academic posts in many public universities are vacant. For instance, in prestigious institutions like the University of Madras, there has been a sharp decline in the quality of research and teaching due to the absence of new appointments over the last decade.
• Administrative Vacuum: The posts of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) and Registrars have been vacant for a long time or are stuck due to political stalemate (Governor vs. State Government).

Why in Discussion?

The Court intervened by describing this issue as a "National Crisis." Key points of the orders issued on January 15, 2026:

• Use of Article 142: The Court used its plenary judicial power to issue binding (mandatory) directions.
• Mandatory Reporting: It has been made mandatory to maintain separate records and tracking of student suicides in higher education institutions and to immediately inform the police and regulatory bodies (UGC, AICTE) of any student's suicide or unnatural death.
• Time Limit: A strict order has been given to fill all vacant posts (VC, Faculty, etc.) within 4 months.

Major Challenges Facing Higher Education

• Quality vs. Quantity: The number of institutions has increased, but they have become limited to being 'degree-distribution centers.'
• Financial Constraints: Delays in the distribution of scholarships increase extreme stress on students from underprivileged sections.
• Corruption and Politics: Corruption in appointments and ideology-based selection have affected academic autonomy and quality.
• Opaque Regulation: The UGC's long recruitment process (at least 6 months) and lack of budget are hurdles in achieving goals.

Constitutional and Legal Provisions

The following are some key constitutional bases related to education:

• Article 21A: Right to Education (although it is for 6-14 years, higher education is seen as an extension of a 'dignified life' under Article 21).
• Article 41 (DPSP): The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity, strive to secure the right to education.
• Article 46: Special care for the educational interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and weaker sections.
• Article 142: Orders passed by the Supreme Court in the interest of justice, which are applicable throughout India.
• UGC Act, 1956: Coordination and determination of standards in higher education.

Analytical Dimensions

This intervention by the Court is an excellent example of 'Judicial Activism,' where an attempt has been made to rectify the failure of governance (the failure of the executive to fill vacant posts).

• Social Impact: Student suicides are not just individual failures but "institutional failures."
• Administrative Ethics: The duty of higher education institutions is not just to impart knowledge but to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for students.
• Economic Impact: If the quality of higher education falls, India's 'demographic dividend' could turn into a burden.

Way Forward

• Transparent Recruitment: A centralized but time-bound mechanism should be developed for appointments.
• Mental Health Infrastructure: 24/7 medical assistance and professional counseling centers should be mandatory on every campus.
• Scholarship Security: According to the Court, no student should be deprived of exams or facilities due to a delay in scholarship.
• Political Consensus: Governors and State governments should prioritize 'academic merit' instead of making the appointment of Vice-Chancellors a political battlefield.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's directive is a necessary "Call to Action" for achieving the goal of 'Viksit Bharat.' Improving the higher education system is not just an administrative reform, but it is our moral responsibility toward the future of the country, i.e., the younger generation. There is a need to make the education system not just worthy of employment, but worthy of living life.