The Hindu Gist - 30th September, 2026
1 . The United Nations’ Long Road to Restoring Trust
The 81st UN General Assembly’s theme of “Restoring Trust, Advancing Global Transformation: a UN that delivers for all” comes amid a deeper crisis of confidence in the UN. The organisation was created to make international relations more predictable through dialogue and rules, but persistent conflicts, institutional weaknesses and unequal representation have increasingly eroded that trust.
Eroding Trust
- Declining public confidence: Surveys cited in the piece show weakening faith in the UN. A non-profit UN Foundation survey found 52% felt the UN was struggling to deliver results and needed deep structural reform, while over half believed it was struggling to enforce international law and protect human rights.
- UNSC paralysis: Persistent deadlock in the UN Security Council has damaged confidence in the UN system. The General Assembly’s resolution A/76/262, requiring the UNSC’s permanent members to explain each new veto, reflects this concern.
- Weak internal accountability: Controversies involving procurement, recruitment and resource allocation have exposed weaknesses in internal oversight. Examples cited include the 2013 Afghanistan procurement scandal, 2017 sexual-exploitation cases and non-existent housing projects in Ghana and India.
Representation and Delivery Gap
- Global South–UN disconnect: While trust in the UN is reportedly higher in the Global South and among Global South civil-society organisations, institutional representation remains unequal.
- Representation imbalance: Countries constituting 84% of the world’s population hold only 44% of UN civil-service leadership positions.
- Geographical concentration: Only about one-third of UN leadership is from Africa, despite its large representation in the UN membership. Most UN entities are also headquartered outside the Global South.
- Cost of centralisation: The concentration of headquarters in cities such as New York and Geneva creates substantial operating costs, with thousands of posts being moved out of New York in 2025.
Restoring Trust
- Reverse the shrinking space: The UN needs to strengthen its presence and effectiveness where conflicts and humanitarian crises are unfolding, rather than becoming increasingly centralised.
- The UN commendably delivered global humanitarian assistance and protection in 2025-26 to 98 million people or roughly 1.1% of the world population.
- Conflict prevention: In conflicts such as Ukraine, Gaza and Iran, the UN must strengthen mechanisms for dialogue, mediation and preventive diplomacy, rather than allowing humanitarian crises to deepen unchecked.
- Preventive action: In the Black Sea, for instance, humanitarian initiatives could help prevent oil spills and environmental damage while creating space for belligerents to engage.
- Representation: Greater representation of the Global South in leadership and decision-making is necessary to make the organisation more reflective of the people it claims to serve.
- Resource decentralisation: Greater resources should reach local actors, particularly in humanitarian operations, rather than remaining concentrated within central UN structures.
The 81st General Assembly’s ambition of “transforming” the UN ultimately begins with restoring credibility, accountability, representation and effective delivery.
2. AFSPA: Provisions, Application and the Debate over Its Continuation
The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 was enacted to give the armed forces special powers in areas declared “disturbed” because of insurgency or serious internal-security problems. The present debate centres on its exceptional powers, periodic extension, gradual withdrawal in parts of the Northeast, and the continuing security conditions in Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
What AFSPA Provides?
- Special powers in disturbed areas: Once an area is notified as “disturbed” under Section 3, armed forces personnel can operate with powers that ordinary police forces do not possess.
- Use of force: Personnel may use force, including force leading to death, against persons acting in contravention of prohibitory orders or where necessary under the Act.
- Arrest without warrant: Armed forces personnel can arrest without warrant a person suspected of certain offences.
- Search without warrant: They can enter and search premises without a warrant to make arrests or recover persons/property.
- Legal protection: Section 6 provides protection to personnel acting under the Act by requiring prior sanction of the Central government before prosecution or other legal proceedings for acts done under AFSPA.
- Who declares a disturbed area? Both the Central and State governments have the power to declare an area “disturbed”. The geographical application is therefore not determined solely by the MHA.
- Periodic renewal: In Manipur, the disturbed-area notification has historically been renewed periodically, with the MHA having largely retained the power to renew it for decades. The notification can cover the entire State or specified areas.
Why AFSPA Continues?
- Insurgency and internal security: AFSPA continues where the government considers the security environment sufficiently serious that ordinary policing mechanisms are inadequate.
- Manipur’s security challenge: The post-2023 ethnic conflict and continuing security concerns have complicated the process of further withdrawal.
- Nagaland’s unresolved conflict: The continuation of AFSPA is closely linked to the long-running Naga insurgency and the unresolved political settlement.
- Arunachal Pradesh: Its application remains concentrated in districts affected by insurgent activity and areas adjoining Assam.
- Exceptional powers: The ability to use force, arrest and search without warrant gives the armed forces substantial operational powers in disturbed areas.
- Accountability concern: The combination of exceptional operational powers and the prior Central sanction requirement for prosecution creates an important debate over accountability for alleged excesses.
- Security vs civilian concerns: AFSPA seeks to provide operational freedom to the armed forces, but its continuation also raises concerns regarding civil liberties, civilian protection and public trust.
- Dynamic application: The withdrawal from several areas demonstrates that AFSPA is not necessarily permanent; its continuation should correspond to the actual security situation.
The challenge is to maintain the operational capacity required for genuine security threats while ensuring accountability and creating conditions for eventual withdrawal where normal policing becomes sufficient.
The Indian Express Gist - 30th September, 2026
1 . J&K’s Evolving Status: From Article 370 to Union Territory
Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional relationship with India evolved through the Instrument of Accession, Article 370, the Delhi Agreement, Article 35A and subsequent constitutional changes. The trajectory eventually culminated in the 2019 reorganisation of the State into Union Territories, fundamentally altering its constitutional and administrative status.
From Accession to Special Constitutional Status
- Accession in 1947: After Partition, Maharaja Hari Singh initially sought to remain independent. Pakistan, citing J&K’s Muslim-majority population, supported the entry of irregular forces/Kabailis into Kashmir in October 1947. Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, after which Indian troops entered to push back the invaders.
- Limited accession: The Instrument of Accession initially covered defence, foreign affairs and communications. This became the basis for the distinctive constitutional relationship between J&K and India.
- UN intervention: India took the Kashmir issue to the UN Security Council in January 1948. UNSC Resolution 47 called for demilitarisation so that a plebiscite could determine the wishes of the people. Since demilitarisation was never completed by either side, the resolution remained a “dead letter.”
- Article 370: Adopted by the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949, Article 370 gave J&K special status. Parliament could legislate for the State initially only on the three subjects connected with the accession.
- Constitutional distinctiveness: While Article 1 defined J&K as part of India, Article 370 restricted the extension of other constitutional provisions to the State. J&K was also allowed to have its own Constitution, unlike other States.
- Why a special arrangement? Gopalaswami Ayyangar argued during the Constituent Assembly debate that J&K was “not yet ripe” for full integration, given the continuing conflict, the presence of rebels and enemies, and the unresolved international dimension. The expectation was that integration would occur when circumstances became more conducive.
- Distinctive restrictions: People from outside J&K required a permit to visit the State and were barred from buying land there, reflecting the distinctive status that had developed around the State.
From Special Status to Progressive Integration
- Opposition to Article 370: Opposition emerged soon after its introduction. Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mukherjee pressed for complete integration, while the Jana Sangh and Jammu’s Praja Parishad adopted the slogan: “Ek desh mein do vidhan, do pradhan aur do nishan nahin ho sakte.”
- Delhi Agreement, 1952: The Nehru–J&K government agreement represented an important stage in defining the relationship. J&K accepted the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the supremacy of the Indian national flag, while retaining the State flag.
- Emergency provision: The State also accepted the President’s power to declare an Emergency under Article 352, subject to the concurrence of the State in the case of internal disturbances.
- Competing visions: While these measures strengthened integration, sections in Jammu demanded complete integration with India, with the Praja Parishad and Jana Sangh pushing this position.
- 1953 political crisis: Sheikh Abdullah, then Prime Minister of J&K, was arrested in August 1953. Nehru subsequently stated that while talks of a “merger” going beyond existing agreements were improper, a “weaker association” of the State with India was also undesirable.
- Governance breakdown: The article highlights that differences between advocates of the two positions had created a situation in which the State government was “divided and ceased to function effectively.”
- Shift towards integration: Sheikh Abdullah was succeeded by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, under whose leadership the State moved closer towards integration with India.
- Article 35A: A 1954 Presidential Order, issued under Article 370, inserted Article 35A as an annexure to the Constitution’s official text.
- Permanent residents: Article 35A empowered the J&K legislature to define “permanent residents” and extend special rights and privileges to them.
- Nature of privileges: These included rights concerning ownership of property, government employment and scholarships, restricted to residents so defined.
2019 Abrogation, Reorganisation and the New Constitutional Status
- August 5, 2019: The Union government rendered Article 370 inoperative through the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019, which superseded the 1954 Presidential Order.
- End of the separate constitutional framework: The change rendered the separate Constitution of J&K null and void and extended the provisions of the Indian Constitution to the region.
- Use of Article 370(3): The process relied upon Clause 3 of Article 370, which permitted the President, by public notification, to declare the provision inoperative or operative with specified exceptions and modifications.
- The Constituent Assembly problem: Article 370(3) originally required the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of J&K. Since that Assembly had ceased to exist, the 2019 process used Article 370(1) to modify the constitutional reference to the “Constituent Assembly” and replace it with the “Legislative Assembly of the State” under Article 367.
- Reorganisation: The former State was subsequently reorganised into two Union Territories:
- Jammu and Kashmir — Union Territory with a legislature.
- Ladakh — Union Territory without a legislature.
- Constitutional impact: The change ended the earlier arrangement of special constitutional status, separate Constitution and special permanent-resident framework, bringing J&K under the constitutional framework applicable to the Union.
- Federalism challenge: The transformation also raised questions about the constitutional relationship between the Union and States, particularly the circumstances in which a State’s constitutional status can be fundamentally altered.
- Supreme Court, 2023: The Supreme Court upheld the 2019 constitutional changes and held that Article 370 was intended to enhance integration between the Indian Union and J&K, not cause disintegration.
