The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 18th August 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

New Start

 Why in News?

 The recent summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, although not resulting in a breakthrough regarding the Ukraine war, indicated a cautious step towards narrowing the differences between the two leaders. The relationship between these two nuclear powers has been fraught with hostility and distrust for a long time. However, the potential for a new arms control agreement and a revived diplomatic pathway highlights the significance of this summit for Eastern Europe and global stability. 

 Context and Significance of the Summit 

• Location: Anchorage, Alaska. 
• Leaders: Donald Trump (U.S.) and Vladimir Putin (Russia). 
• Main issue: Ukraine war – the most contentious agenda point. 
• Significance: Relations between the U.S. and Russia have been marked by hostility and distrust. There is a pressing need for stability and predictability between these two nuclear powers. The summit hinted at the possibility of a new arms control pact, which is crucial for rebuilding ties. However, achieving this is inconceivable without first addressing the issue of peace in Ukraine. 

 Positions on Ukraine Conflict 

• Ukraine & Europe’s stance: They demand an immediate ceasefire in the conflict. President Trump had echoed this demand before the summit. 
• Russia’s stance: Russia rejects the idea of an immediate ceasefire. Instead, it prefers a comprehensive peace agreement that addresses the “root causes” of the conflict. 
• Trump’s stance at the summit: President Trump shifted towards a position more in line with Russia’s, suggesting that the best way forward is a direct peace agreement between the parties involved. He claimed to have found “agreement on many points” with President Putin during the discussions. 

 Outcomes and Diplomatic Path Ahead 

• Positive takeaways: While there was no breakthrough at the summit, there was a noticeable narrowing of differences between the two sides. This opening suggests a potential diplomatic pathway for future resolution of the conflict. 
• Follow-up actions: Following the summit, President Trump consulted with European, NATO, and Ukrainian leaders to discuss the outcomes. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy was invited to the White House for further discussions. President Trump indicated that it would be “up to Zelenskyy” to strike a deal with Russia regarding the conflict. 
• Russia’s demands: Russia’s demands for a settlement include the recognition of annexed territories, Ukrainian neutrality, and demilitarisation. 
• Settlement hints: Possible hints for a settlement include a freeze along southern frontlines (such as Zaporizhzhia and Kherson), Russia retaining control over Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk), and a possible withdrawal from Kharkiv in the northeast. 
• Ukraine’s stance: Ukraine firmly rejects the idea of ceding land in exchange for peace. 

 Challenges and Way Forward 

• Sustaining Talks: President Trump needs to continue discussions to narrow the existing gaps between the parties involved in the Ukraine conflict. 
• Respecting Kyiv’s Autonomy: Any potential settlement should not be imposed on Kyiv. It is crucial to ensure that Ukraine’s security concerns are adequately addressed. 
• Credible Assurances: Any agreement must provide credible assurances against future aggression, safeguarding Ukraine’s sovereignty and security. 
• Balancing Practicality and Justice: Achieving sustainable peace in Eastern Europe requires a balance between practical compromise and justice. It is essential to consider the principles of sovereignty and fairness in the resolution process. 

 Conclusion 

 Although the summit between Trump and Putin did not yield an immediate peace agreement, it opened avenues for dialogue and potential conflict resolution in the future. Any enduring settlement must prioritize Ukraine’s security concerns, offer credible guarantees, and prevent future acts of aggression. President Trump’s challenge lies in facilitating discussions without imposing conditions on Kyiv. Genuine peace in Eastern Europe necessitates a careful balance between pragmatic compromises and the principles of justice and sovereignty. 

Roll Recall

Why is it News?

The Supreme Court's involvement in Bihar's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll has highlighted significant issues within the process managed by the Election Commission of India (ECI). 

•  The Court's directive to publish the names of 65 lakh excluded voters, along with the reasons for their exclusion, has brought to light concerns regarding transparency, fairness, and adherence to natural justice in the voter roll process. 
•  This case emphasizes the critical need to protect the universal adult franchise, which is fundamental to the democracy of India. 

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s intervention in Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll has shed light on significant flaws in the process carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI). By directing the publication of 65 lakh excluded names along with the reasons for their exclusion, the Court has exposed serious lapses in transparency, fairness, and adherence to natural justice. This case underscores the critical importance of safeguarding the universal adult franchise, which is the cornerstone of Indian democracy.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

• The Supreme Court of India has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish the names of 65 lakh excluded voters from Bihar’s draft electoral roll, along with the reasons for their exclusion.
• This order serves as a rebuke to the ECI for its failure to uphold principles of natural justice during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
• The Court’s intervention highlights the ECI’s implementation of the SIR as hasty and presumptuous, lacking in transparency and due process.

Gaps and Anomalies in the SIR Process

• There was no consolidated list of excluded voters, and the reasons for exclusion were not specified on a name-wise basis.
• The ECI claimed that deletions were due to death, migration, or duplicate entries, but the details were missing.
• Data analysis revealed that more women (32 lakh) were excluded than men (25 lakh), despite higher migration and death rates among men.
• Many citizens were wrongly marked as dead or excluded despite having valid voter IDs and proof of residence.
• The Court’s action allows voters to file objections before the September 1 deadline.

Legal and Procedural Issues

• The Court will further examine the constitutionality of the SIR process, especially since a summary revision had already taken place in January.
• The ECI requires one of 11 documents for verification, excluding widely available documents like Aadhaar and ration cards.
• The Supreme Court has directed the ECI to accept Aadhaar for objections and has suggested its inclusion in earlier hearings.

Transparency and Democratic Concerns

• The ECI’s process has been criticized for being non-transparent, making it difficult for civil society to scrutinize the electoral rolls.
• The refusal to publish a full list of excluded voters with reasons in a single document has deepened public mistrust.
• The universal adult franchise, which is a fundamental aspect of Indian democracy, is under threat.
• Future hearings and the ECI’s corrective measures will play a crucial role in restoring trust in voter enrollment and the integrity of the democratic process.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Bihar’s draft electoral roll highlights serious concerns regarding the accountability of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the integrity of its procedures, and the rights of citizens. To rebuild trust, it is essential to ensure accurate electoral rolls, accept Aadhaar as a valid proof of identity, and publish a transparent list of excluded voters. The ongoing scrutiny by the Supreme Court can help restore confidence in the electoral processes and uphold the democratic principle of equal participation for all eligible voters.