The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 21st February 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

The long and winding road of India-China relations

Why in News?

India and China have taken steps to improve their bilateral relationship, including cultural exchanges and travel, after a period of tension that began in 2020.

Recent Developments in India-China Relations

• India and China have announced plans to restore various aspects of their bilateral relationship.
• These plans include resuming media and think tank exchanges, the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, and bilateral flights by the summer of 2025.
• These efforts come after more than four years of strained relations following clashes in June 2020.

Possible Reasons for This Agreement

• Both nations understand that prolonged tensions are unsustainable.
• The recent election of a new U.S. president, known for unpredictable policies, may have influenced this agreement.
• Economic concerns in both India and China could have encouraged cooperation.
• Historically, China has sought diplomatic normalization when facing external pressures, as seen in past events.

Status of De-escalation at the LAC

• There is limited official information regarding the status of de-escalation and demobilization at the border.
• Troops from both countries were mobilized in large numbers at several tension points, including Galwan, Depsang Bulge, and Pangong Lake.
• It remains unclear whether Chinese troops have returned to their bases, which is crucial for confirming full de-escalation.
• The lack of clarity raises concerns about the effective implementation of earlier agreements.

India’s Position on Border Stability

• India has consistently argued that restoring stability on the border is a prerequisite for advancing other areas of cooperation.
• China, on the other hand, has insisted that border issues should not impede economic, political, and social engagements.
• A cautious approach is necessary to ensure that India’s position is not weakened in future negotiations.

The Need for Transparency and Clarity

• The lack of detailed government briefings on de-escalation raises questions about the firmness of India’s position.
• Without clear updates, it seems that China’s strategy of moving forward without resolving border tensions is succeeding.
• Given the history of fluctuating relations, maintaining a well-informed and cautious strategy is crucial.
• Transparency regarding the actual status of disengagement and border stability would enhance confidence in India’s diplomatic stance.

Way Forward

• The long-term stability of India-China relations will hinge on clear communication and strategic caution.
• It is vital to resolve territorial disputes before expanding bilateral cooperation.
•  India should maintain a firm stance while engaging in diplomatic negotiations to safeguard its interests.

Is there a right to take offence?

Why in News?

A popular YouTube show is facing controversy after criminal proceedings were initiated against its creators and participants due to allegedly obscene remarks.

The Supreme Court has granted interim protection from arrest to one of the participants involved in the incident. This incident has sparked discussions on whether stringent criminal sanctions are justified for contentious speech.

Is There a Right to Take Offence?

• There is no explicit right to take offense at any speech under the Constitution of India.
• The Constitution permits reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2), but offensive speech is not recognized as a separate category for restriction.
• Restrictions on speech can be based on grounds such as national security, public order, decency, and morality, among others.
• While the language used in the show may be objectionable to some, it does not necessarily violate the legal standards of decency or morality.

Should Laws Be Paternalistic or Restrict Speech Only in Cases of Public Disorder?

• Speech should generally remain unrestricted unless it incites violence or is seditious in nature.
• There was significant opposition to restricting free speech during the debates of the Constituent Assembly, indicating a strong preference for protecting this right.
• Although some restrictions were deemed necessary for national interest, they were intended to be narrowly defined and limited in scope.
• Despite existing restrictions on speech, instances of hate speech by politicians often go unchecked, raising concerns about selective enforcement of these laws.
• The government is bound by constitutional limits and cannot impose restrictions beyond what is permitted. Any restriction on speech must be grounded in legislation and constitutional provisions.

Constitutional Morality vs. Public Morality

• Constitutional morality encompasses the principles of social justice and equality, but it does not directly dictate the regulations governing speech.
• Restrictions on speech should be based on statutory law rather than public opinion or sentiment.
• Society has the right to criticize or boycott content that is deemed offensive, but imposing criminal penalties for such content is not justified.
• Filing multiple complaints regarding the same issue can lead to harassment and may impede a fair legal process, undermining the principles of justice.
• The concept of constitutional morality is not static; it evolves over time, and its role in regulating speech is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion.

Is Profane Speech Considered Obscene?

• Profane language does not automatically fall under the category of obscenity. Judicial interpretations of what constitutes obscenity have changed over time.
• The Supreme Court previously applied the strict Hicklin test, which deemed anything that could corrupt the public mind as obscene.
• However, the community standards test was later adopted, taking into account the evolving moral values of society. Historical works of art and literature, once considered obscene, are now recognized as culturally significant.
• Obscenity is not precisely defined in legal terms and is assessed based on prevailing societal norms and standards.

Selective Targeting of Comedians vs. Political Hate Speech

• A study observed a significant increase in hate speech against minorities by politicians in 2024, highlighting the divisive rhetoric used by some political figures.
• While politicians often make controversial and divisive remarks, enforcement agencies rarely take action against them for such speech.
• On the other hand, comedians are frequently targeted for their content, especially when they critique political and social issues through satire.
• Hate speech by politicians during election periods is often overlooked, whereas comedians face legal repercussions for their satirical takes on political matters.
• The practice of silencing criticism through legal means can lead to authoritarian tendencies, undermining the democratic principle of tolerating differing views and opinions.

Concerns Over Regulation of Digital Content

• There is an increasing push to regulate digital content through proposed laws, raising concerns about potential overreach and censorship.
• Regulation of online speech has the potential to stifle diverse perspectives and limit the range of viewpoints expressed in the digital space.
• Censorship can create an environment where only approved narratives are allowed to flourish, suppressing dissenting or alternative views.
• Selective enforcement of regulatory laws often targets opposition voices and critics of the government, raising issues of fairness and impartiality in the application of such laws.
•  Protecting free speech is crucial for maintaining a vibrant and inclusive democracy, where a variety of perspectives and opinions can coexist and be expressed freely.