The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 11th June 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

The hazards of going global on India-Pakistan issues

Why is it News?

 India's efforts to combat cross-border terrorism are being hampered by certain controversial ideas within the United Nations. 

Introduction

The recent events surrounding Operation Sindoor highlight the shortcomings of both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in addressing the persistent issues between India and Pakistan. The progress is hindered by a tangle of outdated concepts rooted in Cold War and post-World War II politics. Even genuine diplomatic efforts are constrained by old UN resolutions and global policies. Pakistan’s insistence on Kashmir being the central issue allows it to divert attention from its long-standing use of terms like terrorism, self-determination, and peaceful settlement, which have been in play for over 70 years.

Challenges in Gaining International Support on the Jammu & Kashmir Issue

• Following Operation Sindoor, India dispatched seven teams of special envoys to various countries to emphasize that Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is an integral part of India.
• However, many countries, especially those not closely monitoring the issue, rely on UN maps and documents that reference the India-Pakistan border in J&K.
• These UN maps often state that the dotted line represents the Line of Control (LoC) agreed upon by India and Pakistan, with a disclaimer that the final status of J&K is yet to be agreed upon by the parties.
• Some maps also include a general disclaimer indicating that the boundaries and names shown do not imply official endorsement by the United Nations.
• Due to these disclaimers, most countries refrain from taking a clear stance on the border issue, often suggesting that a bilateral solution, as per the Simla Agreement, is the best way forward.

India’s Stand on Terror

The UN’s Approach

• UNSC Framework on Terrorism: The UN Security Council (UNSC) has established various mechanisms to combat international terrorism through resolutions. These resolutions require member states to implement economic and security measures to prevent terrorist activities, with the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) overseeing compliance.
• Legal Basis for Counter-Terrorist Action: Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for self-defence if a member state suffers an armed attack. Although complex in terrorism contexts, this article can justify actions against terrorist groups responsible for attacks. India's surgical strikes on terror camps will be assessed based on proportionality and adherence to international humanitarian law.
• UNSC’s Holistic Approach: The UNSC promotes a comprehensive approach to counter-terrorism, emphasizing human rights, rule of law, international cooperation, addressing root causes of terrorism, and preventing violent extremism.
• Challenges to India’s Position: Despite raising terrorism issues at the UNSC, India struggles to secure clear international support for its doctrine. The Counter-Terrorism Committee has not endorsed India's view that terrorist attacks are equivalent to acts of war.
• Strategic Restraint and Diplomatic Context: India’s restraint along the Line of Control (LoC) and adherence to the ceasefire agreement during crises influence international perceptions. These actions are significant in UNSC discussions and bilateral talks, including with friendly nations, where India’s strategic choices are scrutinized.

The Issue of Hyphenation

• UN Intervention: When India first raised Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir at the UN, it should have been classified as an act of aggression under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
• Misclassification: Instead, it was categorized under Article VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes), leading Western countries to consistently link India and Pakistan on various issues.
• Nuclear Hotspot: The nuclear capabilities of both India and Pakistan have resulted in Kashmir being labeled a nuclear hotspot.
• Doctrinal Contrast: India follows a "no-first-use" nuclear doctrine, while Pakistan has threatened to escalate its conventional military capabilities.
• Bilateral Focus: India believes that bilateral discussions with Pakistan should only focus on terrorism and the status of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK).
• Diplomatic Futility: Given this, both bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts are expected to be ineffective.
• Avoid External Support: While Pakistan is likely to continue internationalizing the Kashmir issue, India should refrain from seeking international intervention or support.
• Historical Precedent: Past experiences, particularly the history of the "India-Pakistan question" in the Security Council, indicate that such international efforts are unproductive.

Conclusion

Raising concerns at the international level is unlikely to benefit India, as its perspective is ensnared in various controversial notions within the United Nations. India's best course of action is to ensure its security through appropriate military measures while Pakistan continues its strategy of orchestrating repeated attacks aimed at seizing Indian territory.

India’s legal bridge is one of reciprocity, not roadblock

Why in News?

The criticism directed at the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India is unjustified and lacks merit.

Introduction

In May this year, the Bar Council of India (BCI) brought in new rules called the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India. While many people in the legal field praised these rules, some U.S.-based law firms strongly opposed them. They described the rules as a “non-trade barrier” and claimed it was a deliberate attempt to keep U.S. law firms out of the Indian legal system.

However, such criticism shows a poor understanding of the legal powers and responsibilities of the Bar Council of India (BCI). It also reflects a lack of awareness about India’s strong regulatory system that oversees its legal sector. In fact, the new rules aim to create a balanced approach — allowing foreign lawyers and firms to operate in India. At the same time, they ensure that professional standards are maintained and the interests of Indian legal stakeholders are protected.

The criticism

Regulatory and Constitutional Framework

Bar Council of India (BCI):

• Nature: Statutory body (not a trade body)
• Function: Maintains professional conduct standards and protects the interests of legal professionals in India

Legal Practice and Trade Agreements:

• Governed under: Entries 77 & 78 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India)
• Trade Agreements: Legal practice cannot be included in trade agreements, unlike entries related to trade and commerce

Judicial Interpretation

Case: Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs D.K. Gandhi (2024)

• Issue: Whether legal practice is a commercial activity
• Holding: Legal practice is held as a contract of personal service, thus not part of trade or business practices

International Context

India–UK Free Trade Agreement:

• Decision: India excluded legal services from the Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
• Reason: Upholds India's consistent stance that legal services require a distinct regulatory regime, despite external pressure

Foreign Legal Practice in India: BCI Rules

Confidentiality and Disclosures

• Disclosure Requirement:
• Pertains to the nature and scope of legal work
• Ensures compliance with permissible practice boundaries
• Does not compromise client confidentiality

Issue

• India’s Stand / BCI Position:
• Legal profession as trade: Not recognized as trade; has unique constitutional grounding
• Trade pacts: Legal services excluded from trade agreements
• Foreign participation: Allowed under structured, ethical, and reciprocal conditions
• Client confidentiality: Maintained, even with disclosure norms

Conclusion

The criticism regarding the lack of consultations or absence of a transition period before the implementation of the rules is unfounded. For over two decades, there have been extensive debates and discussions, supported by expert committee reports, international consultations, and significant judicial pronouncements such as Lawyers Collective vs Bar Council of India (2009) and Bar Council of India vs A.K. Balaji (2018). These developments have collectively laid the foundation for the current regulatory framework. Rather than serving as a hurdle, the rules are designed to function as a cooperative bridge, facilitating the liberalisation of the Indian legal sector in a measured and structured manner. At the same time, they ensure the protection of professional integrity, client confidentiality, and uphold the essential principles of reciprocity and ethical accountability.