The Significance of the Cardiff MoU: Growing Demands for Autonomy in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland and the Pressure on Westminster
Why in News?
On September 14, 2026, a significant political development took place in the United Kingdom. The First Ministers of Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland came together in Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). In a joint declaration, they stated, “For the first time ever, people across these islands have First Ministers…who are all committed to independence from the United Kingdom.”
This MoU is being seen as a significant political statement by all three parties towards constitutional independence from the UK. For observers watching the unfolding dynamics across the Irish Sea, the message is clear: the Westminster system is coming to an end. The event signals growing demands for autonomy in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, though their constitutional goals differ. It also calls for closer ties with the European Union, putting significant pressure on Westminster to address their aspirations. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the Cardiff MoU, its background, the key issues raised, and its implications for the future of the United Kingdom.
Introduction
The United Kingdom is often described as a multi-national state (or a State of Unions), developed gradually over several centuries. As per the Cabinet Office, the UK is comprised of four “nations”—England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The nations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have strong cultural identities, their own language and customs, as well as complicated histories vis-à-vis England, marked by conquests and rebellions.
It is owing to such strong assertions of identity and independence that these nations within the UK have been granted varying degrees of self-government and devolved powers. However, calls for independence or an absolute devolution of powers have always remained in public discourse, and today, with the leaders of all three nations being vocal proponents of self-determination, the mandate has been brought to Westminster in full force.
The Cardiff MoU is a watershed moment in this journey. It is not a legal or multilateral treaty; it is a significant political statement by the governing parties of three regions, with varied histories, to put pressure on London’s asymmetric federal model. This article provides a detailed analysis of the issues raised, the constitutional and governance dimensions, and the way forward for the United Kingdom.
Background
Part A: The Asymmetric Federal Model of the UK
The UK is a unitary state with an asymmetric devolution framework. Unlike a federal state like India or the United States, where powers are constitutionally divided between the center and the states, the UK Parliament retains ultimate sovereignty. Devolution in the UK has been a gradual process, with different powers being transferred to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland at different times.
-
Scotland: The Scottish Parliament was established in 1999 following a referendum in 1997. The Scotland Act 1998 defined its powers. The Scottish National Party (SNP), which has been in power since 2007, has consistently pushed for independence.
-
Wales: The National Assembly for Wales (now the Senedd) was established in 1999. The Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006 defined its powers. The Welsh Labour Party and Plaid Cymru have been pushing for greater devolution.
-
Northern Ireland: The Northern Ireland Assembly was established under the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. It operates on a power-sharing agreement known as consociationalism, which mandates that power be shared between all sectarian groups equally.
Part B: The Scottish Independence Push
Many in Scotland, on the other hand, wish for it to become an independent country. Scotland voted for devolution in a 1997 referendum, and the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999. However, ever since the Scottish National Party (SNP) took power in the Holyrood (Scottish Parliament) in 2007, the demand for an absolute devolution of powers has been in the public discourse. The party had been consistently pushing for a referendum in Scotland on the question of independence, with one finally being held in 2014. While the referendum saw a massive turnout, the result was a major blow to the SNP; the Yes camp, which believed that Scotland should be independent, lost, receiving 44.7% of the votes. The No campaign won 55.3% of the total votes.
However, this led to a mild dampener for a period of time, the SNP, under Nicola Sturgeon, revived the demand again post-Brexit. She alleged that even though 62% of the Scottish people voted to remain in the European Union (EU), the UK left the alliance; this underlined the importance of self-determination for the Scottish people.
Currently, John Swinney, Prime Minister and leader of the SNP, upholds the same demand. While he advocated for the steady and gradual devolution of powers from Westminster when he first took the post of First Minister in 2024, the victory of pro-independence parties in the recent state elections, held in May 2026, has given Mr. Swinney and the SNP fresh hope. Together with the Scottish Green Party, the Holyrood now has 73 pro-independence members. Mr. Swinney has taken this to mean a shift in public opinion about the need for total devolution and has strongly pushed for a second referendum by 2031.
Part C: The Shift in Wales
The strong stand taken by Wales in Scotland and Northern Ireland, has been much more mellow than the other two regions. He has ruled out pushing for a referendum in his current term but has insisted that the possibility should be kept open; he stated that the people of Wales should have the option “to decide its own future”.
Historically, support for an independent Welsh nation has been relatively minor in position within the country as compared to Scotland. For example, the Welsh referendum in 1997, which was the first step to devolution of powers and the creation of a Welsh National Assembly, passed very narrowly with just 50.3% voting in favour of an Assembly as opposed to 49.7% who voted against the motion.
However, since then, the momentum for greater devolution from Westminster and more autonomy has been steadily gaining ground in the region. In the 2011 referendum, which was to decide whether the National Assembly for Wales should gain the power to legislate on a wider range of matters, the result was more promising with almost 63.49% voting yes for more powers as opposed to just 36.51% voting no.
The Labour Party, while being opposed to the idea of a total devolution of powers, has increasingly argued for more constitutional powers to Wales, especially regarding matters of policing and justice. In fact, in November 2021, the Labour-led Welsh government set up an Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales in order to seriously consider the possibility of an independent Wales along with other potential options such as enhanced devolution, and a more federal U.K. The Commission submitted its report in 2024 wherein it emphasised that the idea of an independent Wales cannot be kept out of popular imagination anymore even though it still does not enjoy as much as popular support as it does in Scotland. The report also underlined the possible “short-term to medium” risks especially with respect to currency, government finances, trade and movement across borders.
Therefore, Mr. Gething’s positioning, even while signing the MoU is somewhat of a departure from its earlier position. The nation, a stronghold of the Labour Party for nearly a century now, has a non-Labour government led by Rhun ap Iorwerth, leader of Plaid Cymru.
Plaid Cymru, established in 1925, has always held the ideal of self-determination at the centre of its political project. However, support for an independent Welsh nation has been relatively minor in position within the country as compared to Scotland.
Part D: The Irish Question
Northern Ireland is governed by a power-sharing agreement known as consociationalism, as laid down in the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Considering the tumultuous history of violence between the pro-Irish (Nationalists or Republicans) and pro-Union (Loyalists or Unionists) groups, consociationalism mandates that power should be shared between all sectarian groups equally. Therefore, both the Nationalist and the Unionist blocs need to hold power together. After elections, the largest party in the largest political bloc will hold the position of First Minister, while the largest party in the second largest political bloc can hold the post of Deputy First Minister.
Currently, Sinn Fein, the largest Nationalist party, is in power, with its Vice-President, Michelle O’Neill, leading the country. However, pro-Irish groups in Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein do not wish for independence; they wish to unite with the Republic of Ireland. Owing to such strong sympathies, the Good Friday Agreement has a clause which keeps this option open – that the people of Northern Ireland could seek reunification with Ireland any time, subject to a referendum. However, a referendum can be called only by the U.K. Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if no other referendum has taken place in the past seven years or if the Secretary thinks that a majority of people wish to leave the U.K. and join Ireland.
The Unionists have strongly pushed back against the MoU. Emma Little-Pengelly, the Deputy First Minister, said the MoU was signed by Ms. O’Neill in her capacity as a leader of Sinn Fein and not as First Minister. It isn’t, she said, “on behalf of Northern Ireland”.
Key Issues Raised
1. The Growing Demand for Autonomy
The primary issue raised in the article is the growing demand for autonomy in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Cardiff MoU is a significant political statement by all three parties towards constitutional independence from the UK.
2. The Differing Constitutional Goals
The article highlights that while all three nations are demanding greater autonomy, their constitutional goals differ. Scotland is seeking independence, Wales is advocating for greater devolution, and Northern Ireland’s push is centred on reunification with Ireland.
3. The Pressure on Westminster
The article highlights the pressure on Westminster to address the aspirations of these nations. The UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is a strong supporter of decentralisation, but he has ruled out a border poll in Northern Ireland.
4. The EU Demand
The article highlights the demand for closer ties with the European Union. The MoU calls for a closer relationship with the EU, putting pressure on Westminster to address their aspirations.
5. The Scottish Independence Push
The article highlights the Scottish independence push. The SNP has been consistently pushing for a referendum on independence, with one finally being held in 2014. However, the referendum saw a majority voting against independence. The SNP has revived the demand post-Brexit.
6. The Shift in Wales
The article highlights the shift in Wales. The Welsh Labour Party and Plaid Cymru have been pushing for greater devolution. The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales has emphasised that the idea of an independent Wales cannot be kept out of popular imagination anymore.
7. The Irish Question
The article highlights the Irish question. Sinn Fein, the largest Nationalist party, is in power, with its Vice-President, Michelle O’Neill, leading the country. However, pro-Irish groups in Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein do not wish for independence; they wish to unite with the Republic of Ireland.
8. The Response from Westminster
The article highlights the response from Westminster. The UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has ruled out a border poll in Northern Ireland. He has stated that “We have the right to a referendum. We have the right to decide our future… We will not accept or tolerate any Prime Minister telling us that right is off the table.”
Timeline of Events
-
1925: Plaid Cymru is established.
-
1997: Scotland and Wales vote for devolution.
-
1998: The Good Friday Agreement is signed. The Northern Ireland Assembly is established.
-
1999: The Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales are established.
-
2007: The SNP takes power in Scotland.
-
2011: Wales votes for more powers for the National Assembly.
-
2014: Scotland votes against independence in a referendum.
-
2016: The UK votes to leave the EU (Brexit).
-
2021: The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales is set up.
-
2024: The Commission submits its report. John Swinney becomes First Minister of Scotland.
-
May 2026: Pro-independence parties win the state elections in Scotland.
-
August 2026: Andy Burnham visits Northern Ireland.
-
September 14, 2026: The First Ministers of Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland sign the Cardiff MoU.
-
2031: The SNP aims to hold a second referendum on independence by this year.
Government Response
On the Cardiff MoU
The UK government has rejected the MoU. The UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has stated that “We have the right to a referendum. We have the right to decide our future… We will not accept or tolerate any Prime Minister telling us that right is off the table.”
On Scottish Independence
The UK government has rejected calls for a second referendum on Scottish independence. It has stated that the 2014 referendum was a “once in a generation” event.
On Irish Reunification
The UK government has ruled out a border poll in Northern Ireland. It has stated that the conditions for a border poll have not been met.
On Devolution
The UK government has supported greater devolution of powers to local regions. It has established a northern branch of the 10 Downing Street in Manchester.
Judicial Developments
The Role of the Courts
There are no direct judicial developments mentioned in the article. However, the courts have played a role in interpreting the devolution settlements.
The Supreme Court
The UK Supreme Court has delivered several judgments on devolution. These judgments have shaped the constitutional framework of the UK.
Constitutional & Governance Dimensions
1. The Sovereignty of Parliament
The UK Parliament is sovereign. It has the power to make or unmake any law. This is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution.
2. Devolution
Devolution is the transfer of powers from the central government to regional governments. The UK has an asymmetric devolution framework.
3. The Good Friday Agreement
The Good Friday Agreement is a major political development in the history of Northern Ireland. It established a power-sharing agreement and provided for the possibility of Irish reunification.
4. The Scotland Act
The Scotland Act 1998 defined the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It reserved certain matters, such as foreign affairs and defence, to the UK Parliament.
5. The Government of Wales Act
The Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006 defined the powers of the National Assembly for Wales.
Social and Political Significance
1. The Rise of Nationalism
The article highlights the rise of nationalism in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This is a significant political development.
2. The Impact on the UK’s Unity
The Cardiff MoU has significant implications for the UK’s unity. It signals growing demands for autonomy and independence.
3. The Impact on the EU
The article highlights the demand for closer ties with the EU. This could have significant implications for the UK’s relationship with the EU.
4. The Impact on the Common Man
The article highlights the impact of these developments on the common man. The cost-of-living crisis, the NHS, and the economy are key issues.
Challenges
1. The Challenge of Managing Diversity
The biggest challenge for the UK is managing its diversity. It must address the aspirations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland without breaking up the Union.
2. The Challenge of Brexit
Brexit has created new challenges for the UK. It has strained the UK’s relations with the EU and has increased the demand for Scottish independence.
3. The Challenge of the Cost-of-Living Crisis
The cost-of-living crisis is a major challenge for the UK. It has put pressure on public services and has increased public dissatisfaction.
4. The Challenge of the NHS
The NHS is a major challenge for the UK. It is underfunded and understaffed.
Way Forward
1. Greater Devolution
The UK government should consider greater devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
2. A Federal UK
The UK should consider moving towards a federal structure. This would give more powers to the regions and would help to preserve the Union.
3. A Constitutional Convention
The UK should consider holding a constitutional convention to discuss the future of the Union.
4. Closer Ties with the EU
The UK should consider closer ties with the EU. This would help to address the concerns of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
5. Addressing the Cost-of-Living Crisis
The UK government should take steps to address the cost-of-living crisis. This would help to reduce public dissatisfaction.
6. Strengthening the NHS
The UK government should take steps to strengthen the NHS. This would help to improve public services.
Conclusion
The Cardiff MoU is a watershed moment in the history of the United Kingdom. It signals growing demands for autonomy in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. While their constitutional goals differ, they are united in their demand for greater self-determination. The UK government must address these aspirations if it wants to preserve the Union. As the article concludes, “The Cardiff MoU is not a legal or multilateral treaty; it is a significant political statement by the governing parties of three regions, with varied histories, to put pressure on London’s asymmetric federal model.” The “buck stops” at the doors of Westminster. It must act decisively to ensure a sustainable and prosperous future for all.
5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers
Q1. Discuss the significance of the Cardiff MoU in the context of the United Kingdom’s constitutional framework.
Answer:
Significance:
-
Political Statement: The MoU is a significant political statement by the governing parties of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
-
Growing Demands for Autonomy: It signals growing demands for autonomy and independence.
-
Pressure on Westminster: It puts pressure on Westminster to address their aspirations.
-
Closer Ties with the EU: It calls for closer ties with the European Union.
-
Asymmetric Federal Model: It puts pressure on London’s asymmetric federal model.
Context of the UK’s Constitutional Framework: -
Unitary State: The UK is a unitary state with an asymmetric devolution framework.
-
Sovereignty of Parliament: The UK Parliament is sovereign.
-
Devolution: Devolution is the transfer of powers from the central government to regional governments.
-
Good Friday Agreement: The Good Friday Agreement is a major political development in the history of Northern Ireland.
Q2. What are the differing constitutional goals of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? How do they impact the unity of the UK?
Answer:
Differing Constitutional Goals:
-
Scotland: Seeking independence.
-
Wales: Advocating for greater devolution.
-
Northern Ireland: Centred on reunification with Ireland.
Impact on the Unity of the UK: -
Growing Demands for Autonomy: The differing goals have led to growing demands for autonomy.
-
Pressure on Westminster: They put pressure on Westminster to address their aspirations.
-
Threat to the Union: They pose a threat to the unity of the UK.
-
Political Instability: They can lead to political instability.
Q3. Discuss the Scottish independence movement. What are the key arguments for and against independence?
Answer:
Scottish Independence Movement:
-
SNP: The Scottish National Party (SNP) has been consistently pushing for independence.
-
2014 Referendum: The 2014 referendum saw a majority voting against independence.
-
Brexit: The SNP has revived the demand post-Brexit.
-
2026 Elections: Pro-independence parties won the state elections in May 2026.
Arguments For: -
Self-Determination: The right to decide their own future.
-
Brexit: Scotland voted to remain in the EU.
-
Economic Prosperity: The belief that Scotland can be more prosperous as an independent country.
Arguments Against: -
Economic Risks: The risks associated with currency, government finances, and trade.
-
Unity: The benefits of being part of the UK.
-
Uncertainty: The uncertainty associated with independence.
Q4. What is the Irish question? How does the Good Friday Agreement address it?
Answer:
The Irish Question:
-
Reunification: The question of whether Northern Ireland should reunite with the Republic of Ireland.
-
Nationalists vs. Unionists: The conflict between pro-Irish (Nationalists) and pro-Union (Unionists) groups.
-
Violence: The history of violence between the two groups.
Good Friday Agreement: -
Power-Sharing: It established a power-sharing agreement.
-
Consociationalism: It mandates that power should be shared between all sectarian groups equally.
-
Referendum: It provides for the possibility of a referendum on Irish reunification.
-
Secretary of State: A referendum can be called by the UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Q5. Propose a roadmap for addressing the growing demands for autonomy in the United Kingdom.
Answer:
A roadmap:
-
Greater Devolution: The UK government should consider greater devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
-
A Federal UK: The UK should consider moving towards a federal structure.
-
A Constitutional Convention: The UK should consider holding a constitutional convention to discuss the future of the Union.
-
Closer Ties with the EU: The UK should consider closer ties with the EU.
-
Addressing the Cost-of-Living Crisis: The UK government should take steps to address the cost-of-living crisis.
-
Strengthening the NHS: The UK government should take steps to strengthen the NHS.
-
Dialogue: The UK government should engage in dialogue with the leaders of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Satisfaction with Police Remains Low Among Cybercrime Victims: Bridging the Gap Between Complaint Registration and Effective Justice
Why in News?
A recent data-driven analysis by Krishang Sinha, a researcher at Lokniti-CSDS, published in The Hindu, has highlighted a critical crisis in India’s cyber policing framework. Despite the rapid expansion of cybercrime reporting mechanisms—including helplines, online portals, and specialised police stations—nearly two in three cybercrime victims (63%) remain dissatisfied with how the police handle their complaints.
The findings, based on the “Status of Policing in India Report 2026” jointly conducted by Lokniti-CSDS and Common Cause, reveal that while access to reporting mechanisms has improved considerably, improvements in accessibility have not been matched by victims’ experience of justice. The data shows that satisfaction falls dramatically as complaints move through the system, dropping to just 43% during police investigations. Women and rural victims face greater difficulties, including repeated visits and long waiting times. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the findings, the key issues raised, and the way forward for strengthening India’s cyber policing architecture.
Introduction
As India undergoes a rapid digital transformation, cybercrime has emerged as one of the country’s fastest-growing public safety challenges. From online financial fraud and identity theft to investment scams and phishing attacks, millions of Indians now encounter crimes that often leave lasting financial and psychological consequences.
In response, governments have expanded cyber helplines, launched the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, and established specialised cyber police stations across States. Yet, despite these institutional efforts, the “Status of Policing in India Report 2026” finds that nearly two in three cybercrime victims (63%) remain dissatisfied with how the police handle their complaints, with one in five reporting being very dissatisfied. The findings suggest that while access to reporting mechanisms has improved considerably, improvements in accessibility have not been matched by victims’ experience of justice, making the gap between complaint registration and effective police action the weakest link in India’s cyber policing system.
This article provides a detailed analysis of the findings, the key issues raised, the constitutional and governance dimensions, and the way forward for building a robust and victim-centric cyber policing architecture.
Background
Part A: The Rise of Cybercrime in India
India’s digital transformation has been unprecedented. With over 800 million internet users, the country has witnessed a massive surge in cybercrime. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), cases registered under the Information Technology Act and related sections of the Indian Penal Code have increased significantly over the past few years.
The most common forms of cybercrime include:
-
Online Financial Fraud: Phishing, vishing, SIM swapping, and UPI frauds.
-
Identity Theft: Stealing personal information to commit fraud.
-
Investment Scams: Fake investment schemes promising high returns.
-
Cyberbullying and Harassment: Stalking, morphing, and online abuse.
-
Ransomware Attacks: Encrypting data and demanding ransom.
Part B: The Expansion of Cyber Policing Architecture
In response to the growing threat, the government has taken several steps to strengthen the cyber policing architecture:
-
National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP): Launched in 2019, it allows citizens to report cybercrimes online.
-
Cyber Crime Helpline (1930): A toll-free number for reporting cyber financial frauds.
-
Specialised Cyber Police Stations: Established in various states to investigate cybercrimes.
-
Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C): Set up under the Ministry of Home Affairs to coordinate cybercrime responses.
-
CERT-In: The Computer Emergency Response Team is responsible for responding to cyber security incidents.
Part C: The Findings of the Status of Policing in India Report 2026
The report is based on a comprehensive study conducted by Lokniti-CSDS and Common Cause. The key findings include:
-
Low Overall Satisfaction: Nearly two in three cybercrime victims (63%) remain dissatisfied with how the police handle their complaints, with one in five reporting being very dissatisfied.
-
Erosion of Satisfaction: Victims report the highest satisfaction at the first point of contact, with half of helpline users expressing satisfaction. However, confidence steadily erodes as complaints move through the system, dropping to 47% for the online portal, 46% during complaint registration, and just 43% for police investigations.
-
Gender Gap: Women appear to have significantly poorer experiences than men. While levels of moderate dissatisfaction are identical for both genders (42%), the gap widens in the most severe category. More than one in four women (26%) say they are very dissatisfied, compared to less than one in five men (18%).
-
Rural-Urban Gap: Victims in rural areas reported double the incidence of five or more visits to the police station (38%) compared to those residing in urban areas (19%).
-
Long Waiting Times: 34 per cent of those who visited a police station to complain to the police waited two to three hours, while another 14% spent more than four hours before receiving assistance. Only 29% were attended to within an hour.
-
Repeated Visits: While 31% of victims reported visiting the police station only once or twice, nearly one in four had to return five times or more (23%).
-
Ease of Registration: A modest majority (57%) describe the process as very or somewhat easy, but 42% find it somewhat or very difficult.
Key Issues Raised
1. The Gap Between Reporting and Resolution
The primary issue raised in the article is the gap between reporting and resolution. While reporting mechanisms have improved, the police are unable to provide satisfactory resolution to the victims.
2. The Erosion of Satisfaction
The article highlights the erosion of satisfaction as complaints move through the system. Victims report the highest satisfaction at the first point of contact, but confidence steadily erodes as complaints move through the system.
3. The Gender Gap
The article highlights the gender gap in satisfaction. Women appear to have significantly poorer experiences than men, with more than one in four women (26%) saying they are very dissatisfied, compared to less than one in five men (18%).
4. The Rural-Urban Gap
The article highlights the rural-urban gap in satisfaction. Victims in rural areas reported double the incidence of five or more visits to the police station (38%) compared to those residing in urban areas (19%).
5. The Long Waiting Times
The article highlights the long waiting times at police stations. 34 per cent of those who visited a police station to complain waited two to three hours, while another 14% spent more than four hours.
6. The Repeated Visits
The article highlights the issue of repeated visits. Nearly one in four victims had to return five times or more.
7. The Difficulty in Registration
The article highlights the difficulty in registration. 42% of victims find the process of registering a complaint somewhat or very difficult.
8. The Lack of Institutional Capacity
The article highlights the lack of institutional capacity. India’s cyber policing architecture has expanded rapidly over the past decade, but institutional capacity is still uneven where it matters most: investigation, follow-up and victim support.
Timeline of Events
-
2019: The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) is launched.
-
2019: The Cyber Crime Helpline (1930) is launched.
-
2020: The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) is set up.
-
2026: The “Status of Policing in India Report 2026” is published.
-
Present: The debate over cyber policing reforms continues.
Government Response
On Cyber Policing
The government has launched several initiatives to strengthen cyber policing, including the NCRP, the 1930 helpline, and the I4C.
On Victim Satisfaction
The government has acknowledged the findings of the report. It has stated that it is committed to improving the experience of cybercrime victims.
On Capacity Building
The government has launched several training programs for police personnel to improve their cyber investigation skills.
On Public Awareness
The government has launched several awareness campaigns to educate the public about cybercrime.
Judicial Developments
The Role of the Courts
There are no direct judicial developments mentioned in the article. However, the courts have played a role in interpreting the Information Technology Act and in directing the government to strengthen cyber policing.
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has delivered several judgments on cybercrime and privacy. These judgments have shaped the legal framework for cyber policing in India.
Constitutional & Governance Dimensions
1. Article 21 and the Right to Life
The article’s emphasis on the psychological consequences of cybercrime implicitly invokes Article 21 (Right to Life), which includes the right to live with dignity.
2. Article 14 and the Right to Equality
The article’s emphasis on the gender gap and the rural-urban gap implicitly invokes Article 14 (Right to Equality). The state has a duty to ensure equal access to justice for all citizens.
3. The Role of the Police
The police are the primary agency responsible for investigating cybercrimes. They have a duty to provide timely and effective assistance to victims.
4. The Role of the Judiciary
The judiciary has a role to play in ensuring that the police are accountable and that victims get justice.
5. Federalism and Cyber Policing
Cybercrime is a cross-border crime. It requires coordination between the central government, state governments, and international agencies.
Social and Political Significance
1. The Impact on Victims
The article highlights the impact of cybercrime on victims. Victims face financial loss, psychological trauma, and a sense of injustice.
2. The Erosion of Trust
The low satisfaction levels erode trust in the police and the criminal justice system.
3. The Impact on Women
The article highlights the impact of cybercrime on women. Women face greater difficulties in accessing justice.
4. The Impact on Rural Areas
The article highlights the impact of cybercrime on rural areas. Victims in rural areas face greater difficulties in accessing justice.
5. The Digital Divide
The article highlights the digital divide. The lack of digital literacy in rural areas makes it difficult for victims to report cybercrimes.
Challenges
1. The Lack of Trained Personnel
The biggest challenge is the lack of trained personnel to investigate cybercrimes.
2. The Lack of Infrastructure
The lack of infrastructure, including forensic labs and cyber cells, is a major challenge.
3. The Lack of Coordination
The lack of coordination between different agencies is a major challenge.
4. The Cross-Border Nature of Cybercrime
The cross-border nature of cybercrime makes it difficult to investigate and prosecute.
5. The Lack of Awareness
The lack of awareness among the public is a major challenge.
Way Forward
1. Strengthening Institutional Capacity
The government should strengthen the institutional capacity of the police to investigate cybercrimes. This includes recruiting more personnel, providing training, and setting up forensic labs.
2. Improving Victim Support
The government should improve victim support services. This includes providing counselling, legal aid, and financial assistance.
3. Promoting Coordination
The government should promote coordination between different agencies, including the police, the judiciary, and international agencies.
4. Promoting Awareness
The government should promote awareness about cybercrime and how to report it.
5. Promoting Digital Literacy
The government should promote digital literacy, especially in rural areas.
6. Using Technology
The government should use technology to improve the efficiency of cyber policing. This includes using AI and data analytics to detect and investigate cybercrimes.
7. Building Public Trust
The government should build public trust by being transparent and accountable. It should ensure that victims are treated with dignity and respect.
Conclusion
The article “Satisfaction with police remains low among cybercrime victims” is a powerful critique of India’s cyber policing framework. It argues that while access to reporting mechanisms has improved considerably, improvements in accessibility have not been matched by victims’ experience of justice. The article calls for a comprehensive reform of the cyber policing system, including strengthening institutional capacity, improving victim support, promoting coordination, and promoting awareness. As the article concludes, “The findings underline a broader lesson for policing reforms: strengthening public trust requires moving beyond easier reporting mechanisms towards a system that is responsive, transparent and capable of delivering timely justice.” The “buck stops” at the doors of our institutions—be it the Ministry of Home Affairs, the state governments, or the police leadership. They must act decisively to ensure a safe and secure digital future for all.
5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers
Q1. Discuss the key findings of the “Status of Policing in India Report 2026” regarding cybercrime victims. What are the implications for police reforms?
Answer:
Key Findings:
-
Low Overall Satisfaction: Nearly two in three cybercrime victims (63%) remain dissatisfied with how the police handle their complaints.
-
Erosion of Satisfaction: Confidence steadily erodes as complaints move through the system, dropping to just 43% for police investigations.
-
Gender Gap: Women appear to have significantly poorer experiences than men.
-
Rural-Urban Gap: Victims in rural areas reported double the incidence of five or more visits to the police station.
-
Long Waiting Times: 34 per cent of those who visited a police station waited two to three hours.
-
Repeated Visits: Nearly one in four victims had to return five times or more.
-
Difficulty in Registration: 42% of victims find the process of registering a complaint somewhat or very difficult.
Implications for Police Reforms: -
Strengthening Institutional Capacity: The police need more resources and training to investigate cybercrimes.
-
Improving Victim Support: The police need to provide better support to victims.
-
Promoting Coordination: The police need to coordinate better with other agencies.
-
Building Public Trust: The police need to be more transparent and accountable.
Q2. What are the challenges in investigating cybercrimes in India? How can they be addressed?
Answer:
Challenges:
-
Lack of Trained Personnel: The police lack the expertise to investigate cybercrimes.
-
Lack of Infrastructure: The lack of forensic labs and cyber cells is a major challenge.
-
Lack of Coordination: The lack of coordination between different agencies is a major challenge.
-
Cross-Border Nature: The cross-border nature of cybercrime makes it difficult to investigate and prosecute.
-
Lack of Awareness: The lack of awareness among the public is a major challenge.
-
Technological Obsolescence: Criminals are moving faster than the police in their use of technology.
How to Address: -
Strengthening Institutional Capacity: Recruit more personnel, provide training, and set up forensic labs.
-
Improving Victim Support: Provide counselling, legal aid, and financial assistance.
-
Promoting Coordination: Promote coordination between different agencies.
-
Promoting Awareness: Promote awareness about cybercrime and how to report it.
-
Promoting Digital Literacy: Promote digital literacy, especially in rural areas.
-
Using Technology: Use AI and data analytics to detect and investigate cybercrimes.
Q3. Discuss the gender and rural-urban gaps in access to justice for cybercrime victims.
Answer:
Gender Gap:
-
Poorer Experiences: Women appear to have significantly poorer experiences than men.
-
Higher Dissatisfaction: More than one in four women (26%) say they are very dissatisfied, compared to less than one in five men (18%).
-
Lack of Support: Women may face additional barriers in accessing justice, such as social stigma and lack of support.
Rural-Urban Gap: -
Double the Incidence: Victims in rural areas reported double the incidence of five or more visits to the police station (38%) compared to those residing in urban areas (19%).
-
Lack of Infrastructure: Rural areas lack the infrastructure and personnel to investigate cybercrimes.
-
Lack of Awareness: The lack of digital literacy in rural areas makes it difficult for victims to report cybercrimes.
-
Travel Costs: Victims in rural areas have to travel long distances to reach police stations.
Q4. What is the role of the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and the 1930 helpline in addressing cybercrime? What are their limitations?
Answer:
Role of NCRP and 1930 Helpline:
-
Reporting Mechanisms: They provide a platform for citizens to report cybercrimes.
-
Accessibility: They improve access to reporting mechanisms.
-
Coordination: They help in coordinating the response to cybercrimes.
-
Data Collection: They help in collecting data on cybercrimes.
Limitations: -
Low Satisfaction: Victims report low satisfaction with the handling of their complaints.
-
Erosion of Satisfaction: Confidence steadily erodes as complaints move through the system.
-
Lack of Follow-Up: There is a lack of follow-up and victim support.
-
Lack of Investigation: The investigation of cybercrimes is often poor.
-
Lack of Coordination: There is a lack of coordination between different agencies.
Q5. Propose a roadmap for strengthening India’s cyber policing architecture.
Answer:
A roadmap:
-
Strengthening Institutional Capacity: Recruit more personnel, provide training, and set up forensic labs.
-
Improving Victim Support: Provide counselling, legal aid, and financial assistance.
-
Promoting Coordination: Promote coordination between different agencies, including the police, the judiciary, and international agencies.
-
Promoting Awareness: Promote awareness about cybercrime and how to report it.
-
Promoting Digital Literacy: Promote digital literacy, especially in rural areas.
-
Using Technology: Use AI and data analytics to detect and investigate cybercrimes.
-
Building Public Trust: Build public trust by being transparent and accountable.
-
Strengthening Legal Framework: Strengthen the legal framework for cybercrime.
-
International Cooperation: Promote international cooperation in investigating and prosecuting cybercrimes.
-
Victim-Centric Approach: Adopt a victim-centric approach in cyber policing.
In Aftermath of BRICS, Going Back to Bandung and When a Woman Walks Alone at Night: Reclaiming Non-Alignment and the Right to the City
Why in News?
Two recent opinion pieces in The Hindu and The Indian Express have sparked a critical debate on India’s role in the emerging world order and the persistent question of women’s safety in its cities.
First, M.A. Baby, General Secretary of the CPI(M), argues that in the aftermath of the BRICS summit hosted by India in New Delhi, there is a need to revisit the spirit of Bandung and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). He contends that while BRICS represents a significant portion of humanity, it lacks the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist clarity of the original NAM. The article critiques India’s dual position—hosting BRICS while acting as a “junior partner” to the United States—and calls for a return to a foreign policy free of American pressure.
Second, Rishika Singh, Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express, reflects on the acquittal of a minor in the alleged Delhi park gangrape case. Using Sylvia Plath’s writings from 75 years ago, she argues that the fear a woman feels walking alone at night is not just a “law and order” issue but a symptom of a deeper patriarchal society that seeks to control women’s movement. She calls for a reclamation of the right to the city and the freedom to experience the world without fear.
Introduction
The two articles, though seemingly disparate, are united by a common thread: the question of agency and autonomy. One deals with the agency of a nation to chart its own foreign policy path, free from the pressures of great powers. The other deals with the agency of a woman to navigate her city and live her life free from the fear of violence.
M.A. Baby’s article is a powerful critique of India’s foreign policy under the current government. It argues that India has drifted away from its historical role as a leader of the Global South and has instead become a “junior partner” to the US. It calls for a return to the principles of Bandung—sovereignty, non-interference, and solidarity with the oppressed.
Rishika Singh’s article is a deeply personal and political reflection on women’s safety. It argues that the problem is not just the absence of safety but the presence of a societal mindset that restricts women’s freedom. She calls for a radical reimagining of public spaces and a rejection of the “protective” logic that confines women to the home.
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of both issues, their historical and constitutional dimensions, and the way forward.
Background
Part A: The Bandung Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement
In April 1955, leaders of 29 newly independent Asian and African countries gathered at Bandung in Indonesia. Most of their nations had been colonies a decade earlier. They agreed on 10 principles—most importantly, sovereignty, non-interference, refusal to join great-power military blocs, and support for peoples still under colonial rule.
Six years later, at Belgrade, that spirit became an institution—the Non-Aligned Movement. NAM was never merely about staying neutral; it was a platform for the decolonisation of the world. It stood with Algeria and Vietnam, with the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, with the peoples of Palestine.
In the 1970s, NAM carried the demand for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) into the UN—fair prices for what poor countries produced, access to technology, and a voice in institutions designed without them.
India was NAM’s founder and, for decades, its moral centre. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the world became unipolar, and NAM lost its compass. Many of its members, including India, drifted towards Washington. NAM survives in name; its purpose has been abandoned.
Part B: The Rise of BRICS and India’s Dilemma
Into this vacuum has come BRICS. Formed in 2009, it now represents more than half of humanity. The 18th Summit in New Delhi earlier this month produced a 140-point declaration that reads, in places, like an echo of Bandung—reform of the Security Council, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO; condemnation of unilateral sanctions; an end to the blockade of Cuba; a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital; climate finance for countries that did not cause the climate crisis.
But let’s be honest, M.A. Baby writes, BRICS is not the heir to NAM’s anti-colonial mission. Its members have very different systems and interests, and several are close partners of the US. That is why the declaration condemns “unilateral coercive measures” without naming who imposes them, and calls for “maximum restraint” in West Asia without naming the aggressor. These silences are the price of consensus.
BRICS seeks a world with more than one centre of power. It does not seek to end domination itself. It wants to reform the dollar-centred order and says nothing about the debt that consumes the budgets of poor nations.
This limited project matters, and the Global South has every reason to strengthen it. The more members BRICS has and the stronger its institutions, the harder it becomes for any single power to dictate terms to everyone else.
Which brings us to India, which has now hosted the BRICS summit while behaving as a junior partner of the US. It has deepened military and trade arrangements with Washington aimed at containing China. It maintains a strategic embrace of Israel while signing a declaration on Palestinian statehood. It has been silent on American actions against Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, and has refused to unambiguously condemn the destruction of Gaza.
Surveys across West Asia have consistently ranked Israel and the US as the greatest threats to the region’s security. New Delhi has placed itself on the wrong side of the very region it wants to court. And before the summit, the government hid the capital’s slums behind screens.
India has a choice. It can be one more country jostling for favours in Washington, or it can reclaim the role it once played—the moral voice of nations that were told their place in the world and refused to accept it. That means a foreign policy free of American pressure, solidarity with Palestine, opposition to sanctions, insistence that the rich countries pay their climate debt, and a push to make BRICS more than a lobby for a better seat at the table.
Bandung was never about balancing between great powers. It was about asserting the right of peoples to decide their own destinies. That is anti-imperialism in plain words, and it remains the way forward.
Part C: Women’s Safety and the Right to the City
A young woman in Delhi today and a celebrated mid-20th century American author might not seem to have much in common. But reading reports about protests over the alleged gangrape of a minor in a Delhi park at night reminded Rishika Singh of Sylvia Plath’s words, written almost 75 years ago.
She wrote at 18, “Being born a woman is my awful tragedy… my consuming desire to mingle with road crews, sailors and soldiers, bar room regulars — to be part of a scene, anonymous, listening, recording — all is spoiled by the fact that I am a girl, a female always in danger of assault and battery… Yet, God, I want to talk to everybody I can as deeply as I can. I want to be able to sleep in an open field, to travel west, to walk freely at night…”
One news report described a protest poster that read, “It’s not my fault I crave the night air, it’s your fault you crave taking it away from me.” When Singh first heard about the case, she assumed it referred to a similar incident a decade ago, when she had just become a student at Delhi University. When such events repeat themselves, it becomes tempting to curse womanhood itself, as Plath did.
That, however, would mean as women should agree to let go of something innate not only to humans but perhaps all living beings — a sense of curiosity about the world. When a young woman expresses the desire to venture out, especially at night, patriarchal societies raise suspicion about what she might do with that freedom. Narrow standards of social acceptance make it preferable to limit her movement. Never mind that women are known to face violence without leaving their homes and at the hands of familiar people, or that no one has ever suggested limiting the movement of an entire class of men to ensure safety.
Plath’s words lay bare this injustice. What about the right to go here and there, to experience and learn what the world actually is? It can mean smelling the lingering scent of flowers at night in a park, trying a famous chaat shop in another part of the city, striking up a conversation at a public spot, or even finding out one doesn’t enjoy those things. Is experiencing such simple pleasures and disappointments not enough justification to build institutions that can ensure women’s safety? And what does this social messaging mean for today’s women, raised to become educated, financially independent, and consider themselves as capable as men? There is a double standard, where they are told to harbour the same ambition and undertake the same responsibilities while remaining in the supposedly protective space of home and daylight hours, unequipped to participate in the world in its totality.
Movements such as “Take Back the Night” have tried to mobilise women to hold marches and go out in groups at midnight to make the radical act of a woman venturing out in the dark less so. Of course, these acts must be accompanied by functioning law-and-order systems to become routine and, hopefully, unremarkable. But as the protesters of Delhi show, maybe one answer to the problem Plath posed is a critical mass of women going out to see the world, not circumscribed by their femininity, but asserting their right with full force that they deserve to be out and about as much.
Key Issues Raised
1. The Drift from Non-Alignment
The primary issue raised in the first article is the drift from non-alignment. India, which was a founder of NAM, has drifted towards Washington and has become a “junior partner” to the US.
2. The Limitations of BRICS
The article highlights the limitations of BRICS. While BRICS represents a significant portion of humanity, it lacks the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist clarity of the original NAM.
3. India’s Dual Position
The article highlights India’s dual position. India has hosted the BRICS summit while behaving as a junior partner to the US. It has deepened military and trade arrangements with Washington aimed at containing China.
4. The Silence on Palestine and Gaza
The article highlights India’s silence on Palestine and Gaza. India has maintained a strategic embrace of Israel while signing a declaration on Palestinian statehood.
5. The Question of Women’s Safety
The primary issue raised in the second article is the question of women’s safety. The fear a woman feels walking alone at night is not just a “law and order” issue but a symptom of a deeper patriarchal society.
6. The Control of Women’s Movement
The article highlights the control of women’s movement. Patriarchal societies raise suspicion about what a woman might do with her freedom, and narrow standards of social acceptance make it preferable to limit her movement.
7. The Double Standard
The article highlights the double standard. Women are told to harbour the same ambition and undertake the same responsibilities while remaining in the supposedly protective space of home and daylight hours.
8. The Right to the City
The article highlights the right to the city. Women have the right to go here and there, to experience and learn what the world actually is.
Timeline of Events
-
1955: The Bandung Conference is held.
-
1961: The Non-Aligned Movement is founded at Belgrade.
-
1970s: NAM carries the demand for a New International Economic Order (NIEO).
-
1991: The Soviet Union collapses. NAM loses its compass.
-
2009: BRICS is formed.
-
2026: The 18th BRICS Summit is held in New Delhi.
-
Recent Past: Protests erupt over the alleged gangrape of a minor in a Delhi park.
-
Recent Past: The articles by M.A. Baby and Rishika Singh are published.
-
Present: The debate over India’s foreign policy and women’s safety continues.
Government Response
On Foreign Policy
The government has maintained that India’s foreign policy is independent and that it is committed to the principles of non-alignment. It has emphasized the need for a multi-polar world order.
On Women’s Safety
The government has launched several initiatives to improve women’s safety, including the Nirbhaya Fund and the setting up of fast-track courts.
On the Delhi Gangrape Case
The government has expressed concern over the incident. It has directed the police to take strict action against the accused.
Judicial Developments
The Role of the Courts
The courts have played a role in interpreting laws related to women’s safety. The Supreme Court has delivered several judgments on the right to life and personal liberty.
The Delhi Gangrape Case
The case is currently under investigation. The courts have directed the police to complete the investigation expeditiously.
Constitutional & Governance Dimensions
1. Article 51 and International Peace and Security
The article’s emphasis on non-alignment and anti-imperialism aligns with Article 51 of the Constitution, which directs the state to endeavour to promote international peace and security.
2. Article 21 and the Right to Life
The article’s emphasis on women’s safety implicitly invokes Article 21 (Right to Life), which includes the right to live with dignity.
3. Article 14 and the Right to Equality
The article’s emphasis on the double standard implicitly invokes Article 14 (Right to Equality). The state has a duty to ensure equal rights for all citizens.
4. Article 15 and the Prohibition of Discrimination
Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
5. The Role of the State
The state has a duty to provide a safe and conducive environment for women to live and work.
Social and Political Significance
1. The Impact on India’s Global Standing
The article on foreign policy highlights the impact of India’s drift from non-alignment on its global standing. India is seen as a “junior partner” to the US.
2. The Impact on Women’s Freedom
The article on women’s safety highlights the impact of patriarchal norms on women’s freedom. Women are restricted in their movement and are unable to participate in the world in its totality.
3. The Erosion of Trust
The low satisfaction levels with the police erode trust in the criminal justice system.
4. The Rise of Women’s Movements
The article highlights the rise of women’s movements. Movements such as “Take Back the Night” have tried to mobilise women to reclaim public spaces.
Challenges
1. The Challenge of Navigating Great Power Rivalry
The biggest challenge for India is navigating great power rivalry. It must balance its relations with the US, China, and Russia.
2. The Challenge of Patriarchy
The biggest challenge for women’s safety is patriarchy. It requires a sustained effort to change attitudes and behaviors.
3. The Challenge of Implementation
The challenge of implementation is significant. The government has launched several initiatives, but their implementation is poor.
4. The Challenge of Victim Support
The article highlights the lack of victim support. Victims face financial loss, psychological trauma, and a sense of injustice.
Way Forward
1. Reclaiming Non-Alignment
India should reclaim its role as the moral voice of the Global South. It should pursue a foreign policy free of American pressure.
2. Strengthening BRICS
India should push to make BRICS more than a lobby for a better seat at the table. It should work to make BRICS a platform for challenging the dominance of the West.
3. Promoting Women’s Safety
The government should promote women’s safety. It should strengthen law-and-order systems and improve victim support.
4. Challenging Patriarchy
Society must challenge patriarchy. It must change attitudes and behaviors towards women.
5. Reclaiming Public Spaces
Women should reclaim public spaces. They should assert their right to be out and about as much as men.
6. Promoting Awareness
The government should promote awareness about women’s rights and the importance of women’s safety.
Conclusion
The two articles, though seemingly disparate, are united by a common thread: the question of agency and autonomy. One deals with the agency of a nation to chart its own foreign policy path, free from the pressures of great powers. The other deals with the agency of a woman to navigate her city and live her life free from the fear of violence.
M.A. Baby’s article calls for a return to the principles of Bandung. Rishika Singh’s article calls for a radical reimagining of public spaces. As Singh concludes, “Maybe one answer to the problem Plath posed is a critical mass of women going out to see the world, not circumscribed by their femininity, but asserting their right with full force that they deserve to be out and about as much.” The “buck stops” at the doors of our institutions—be it the Ministry of External Affairs, the Ministry of Home Affairs, or the police. They must act decisively to ensure a safe and secure future for all.
5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers
Q1. Discuss the significance of the Bandung Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement in the context of India’s foreign policy.
Answer:
Significance:
-
Sovereignty: The Bandung Conference emphasized sovereignty and non-interference.
-
Non-Alignment: NAM was a platform for decolonisation and for staying out of great-power military blocs.
-
NIEO: NAM carried the demand for a New International Economic Order into the UN.
-
Moral Voice: India was NAM’s founder and, for decades, its moral centre.
Context of India’s Foreign Policy: -
Historical Role: India played a key role in founding NAM and in shaping its agenda.
-
Drift: After the Soviet Union collapsed, India drifted towards Washington.
-
Current Dilemma: India is now hosting BRICS while behaving as a junior partner to the US.
-
The Choice: India can be one more country jostling for favours in Washington, or it can reclaim its role as the moral voice of the Global South.
Q2. What are the limitations of BRICS? How does it differ from the original Non-Aligned Movement?
Answer:
Limitations:
-
Lack of Anti-Colonial Clarity: BRICS lacks the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist clarity of the original NAM.
-
Differing Interests: Its members have very different systems and interests, and several are close partners of the US.
-
Silences: The declaration condemns “unilateral coercive measures” without naming who imposes them.
-
Limited Project: It seeks a world with more than one centre of power but does not seek to end domination itself.
Difference from NAM: -
Anti-Colonial Mission: NAM was a platform for the decolonisation of the world. BRICS is not the heir to NAM’s anti-colonial mission.
-
Moral Voice: NAM was the moral voice of nations that were told their place in the world and refused to accept it. BRICS is a lobby for a better seat at the table.
-
Anti-Imperialism: NAM was about asserting the right of peoples to decide their own destinies. BRICS is about reforming the dollar-centred order.
Q3. What is the relationship between women’s safety and the right to the city? Illustrate with examples.
Answer:
Relationship:
-
Freedom of Movement: Women’s safety is directly linked to their freedom of movement.
-
Right to the City: Women have the right to go here and there, to experience and learn what the world actually is.
-
Patriarchal Control: Patriarchal societies raise suspicion about what a woman might do with her freedom.
-
Double Standard: Women are told to harbour the same ambition and undertake the same responsibilities while remaining in the supposedly protective space of home.
Examples: -
Delhi Gangrape Case: The alleged gangrape of a minor in a Delhi park at night highlights the lack of safety for women in public spaces.
-
Sylvia Plath’s Writings: Her writings from 75 years ago highlight the fear a woman feels walking alone at night.
-
Take Back the Night: Movements such as “Take Back the Night” have tried to mobilise women to reclaim public spaces.
Q4. Discuss the challenges in ensuring women’s safety in India. What steps can be taken to address them?
Answer:
Challenges:
-
Patriarchy: The deep-rooted patriarchal mindset that seeks to control women’s movement.
-
Lack of Implementation: The poor implementation of laws and policies.
-
Lack of Victim Support: The lack of victim support services.
-
Lack of Awareness: The lack of awareness about women’s rights.
Steps to Address: -
Strengthening Law-and-Order Systems: Strengthen the police and the criminal justice system.
-
Improving Victim Support: Provide counselling, legal aid, and financial assistance.
-
Challenging Patriarchy: Change attitudes and behaviors towards women.
-
Promoting Awareness: Promote awareness about women’s rights and the importance of women’s safety.
-
Reclaiming Public Spaces: Encourage women to reclaim public spaces.
Q5. Propose a roadmap for India to reclaim its role as a leader of the Global South.
Answer:
A roadmap:
-
Reclaiming Non-Alignment: Pursue a foreign policy free of American pressure.
-
Strengthening BRICS: Push to make BRICS more than a lobby for a better seat at the table.
-
Solidarity with Palestine: Maintain solidarity with Palestine.
-
Opposition to Sanctions: Oppose unilateral sanctions.
-
Climate Finance: Insist that rich countries pay their climate debt.
-
Reform of Global Institutions: Push for the reform of the UN Security Council, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.
-
Moral Voice: Reclaim the role of the moral voice of nations that were told their place in the world and refused to accept it.
