Editorials, Opinions & Explained2 Items

Core TopicImportantConcise

OpinionsGS Paper II · III · IV

01Children and Political Campaigning — Law and Ethics02Fossil Fuel in the Farm, Food as Fuel — Agriculture’s Double Bind

OpinionsSigned op-eds and debates — arguments to weigh, not facts to memorise

01

Children and Political Campaigning: Undue Influence, Child Rights and the Limits of Electoral Law

Core TopicOpinionGS-II · Polity — Representation of the People Act; Rights of ChildrenGS-IV · Ethics — Manipulation, Agency, Probity in Public LifePrelims + MainsThe Hindu · Parley (Debate)

During the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election, a campaign appeal encouraging children to persuade their parents to vote for a party’s symbol became the subject of an election petition alleging undue influence. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition for want of evidence, while expressing reservations about involving children in campaigns and observing that it was for Parliament to consider whether such conduct should be a ground for setting aside an election. A two-member panel examines the legal and ethical questions involved.

◈ From Basics — The Law on Electoral Malpractice

India’s elections are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). Section 123 lists “corrupt practices” — among them bribery, undue influence, appeals on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, and promoting enmity between classes.

• Undue influence — Section 123(2): any direct or indirect interference, or attempt to interfere, with the free exercise of any electoral right. Courts have read it narrowly — the pressure must amount to a “tyranny over the mind” that overpowers the voter’s will.
• Election petitions: filed before the High Court, which alone tries them (Section 80A); appeal lies to the Supreme Court.
• Consequences: a proven corrupt practice can make the election void (Section 100) and lead to disqualification for up to six years (Section 8A).
• Voting age: 18 years under Article 326, lowered from 21 by the 61st Constitutional Amendment (1988) — children have no vote, which is why using them as messengers raises distinct questions.

▤ Rights of the Child — Static Anchors

• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989: ratified by India in 1992. Article 12 gives a child the right to express views on matters affecting them; Article 16 protects privacy; the guiding principle is the best interests of the child.
• Election Commission advisory (February 2024): “zero tolerance” for using children in election campaigning — no rallies, slogans, posters or songs; a child merely accompanying a parent is not a violation.
• Child labour law: the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (amended 2016) — cited by the ECI in its advisory.
• Digital protection: the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 requires verifiable parental consent to process a child’s data and bars behavioural tracking and targeted advertising directed at children.

Arguments in the debate

• Children’s political voice: both panellists accept that, under the UNCRC, children may hold and express views; the question they raise is whether the views expressed are the child’s own.
• The legal standard: the court found no evidence that the election outcome was affected and held that adult voters retained a free choice.
• The developmental concern: one panellist argues that, irrespective of electoral effect, assigning children a persuasive role is not consistent with accepted practice in child development, particularly where the child already has an emotional attachment to a public figure.
• Agency: the panel distinguishes adults, who exercise independent agency and often vote differently within a family, from children, whose appeals rest primarily on emotional ties rather than an assessment of candidates.
• Regulatory options: the panellists favour a narrowly drawn legal provision that addresses the use of children as campaign messengers while protecting children’s own expression, drawing an analogy with child labour regulation.
• Counter-considerations: family discussion of politics is a normal part of political socialisation; appeals to emotion are common across campaigns; and the court’s finding that adults retained their choice limits the case for treating such appeals as a corrupt practice.

Figure 1 — The “pester power” pathway, from consumer marketing to electoral marketing

1. Attachmentto a public figure2. Enthusiasmsongs, reels, slogans3. Pester powerrepeated requests4. Influenceon the adult’s voteIndirect persuasion: the appeal reaches the voter through a family memberLegal question (RPA S. 123):was the voter’s will overpowered?Court: no evidence of this.Ethical question:is the child’s role appropriate?Panel’s view: it raises concerns.Marketing literature describes the same mechanism in advertising to children (the “nag factor”)

Conduct may meet the legal standard while still raising ethical questions — the gap the High Court referred to Parliament.

Participation or manipulation? Hart’s Ladder

The panel draws on the distinction, used by UNICEF, between genuine participation and manipulation or tokenism. The best-known model is Roger Hart’s “Ladder of Children’s Participation” (1992, UNICEF Innocenti), whose lowest three rungs are not participation at all.

Figure 2 — Hart’s Ladder of Children’s Participation

8. Child-initiated, shared decisions with adults7. Child-initiated and directed6. Adult-initiated, shared decisions with children5. Consulted and informed4. Assigned but informed3. Tokenism — a voice with no real influence2. Decoration — children used to bolster a cause1. Manipulation — children carry adults’ messagesDegrees ofparticipationNon-participation

In this framework, children conveying messages framed entirely by adults fall under “manipulation”; the panel uses the distinction to separate participation from instrumental use.

The ethics dimension (GS-IV)

• Kantian perspective: the question is whether a child’s affection is being treated merely as a means to an electoral end rather than respecting the child as an end.
• Agency and informed choice: democratic theory emphasises reasoned choice; appeals routed through family members raise questions about the voter’s independent judgement.
• Legality and propriety: the case illustrates the distinction between what the law permits and standards of propriety in public life.
• Digital permanence: campaign content featuring a child may remain online indefinitely, a consideration relevant to the right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017).

Issues in framing a legal response

• Line-drawing: a ban must separate manipulation from a child’s genuine expression or from family discussion of politics.
• Free speech: restrictions on campaign speech must meet the test of Article 19(2); vague rules risk misuse against rivals.
• Enforceability: much of the effect happens at home and on social media, beyond the reach of rally-based rules.
• Possible approaches: stronger enforcement of the ECI’s 2024 advisory under the Model Code of Conduct, platform guidelines on campaign content featuring children, and civic education.

✎ Mains Practice Questions

GS-II: “Undue influence under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has been interpreted narrowly.” Discuss whether the use of children in election campaigns calls for a specific legal prohibition, keeping in mind the right of children to express their views. 15 marks · 250 words

GS-IV: An election campaign asks children to persuade their parents to vote for a candidate. Identify the ethical issues involved and suggest how political communication can respect the agency of both children and voters. 10 marks · 150 words

02

Fossil Fuel in the Farm, Food as Fuel: How War and Weather Expose Indian Agriculture’s Double Bind

Core TopicOpinionGS-III · Agriculture — Inputs, Fertilisers, SubsidiesGS-III · Energy Security; Biofuels; ClimatePrelims + MainsThe Indian Express · Opinion

The author argues that Indian farming faces a squeeze from two sides: the “fossilisation” of farming — its deep dependence on oil and gas for machinery, fertilisers and pesticides — and the “fuelisation” of food, as high crude prices pull crops into biofuels. Wars in West Asia and around the Black Sea, and a possible strong El Niño, are testing both at once.

◈ From Basics — Why Farming Runs on Fossil Fuels

• Nitrogen fertilisers: made through the Haber–Bosch process, which combines atmospheric nitrogen with hydrogen taken from natural gas to form ammonia; ammonia is then converted into urea (46% N). Gas (often imported as LNG) is the main feedstock.
• Phosphatic fertilisers: rock phosphate is treated with sulphuric acid. The sulphur comes as a by-product of oil refining and gas processing — so no DAP or SSP can be made without the hydrocarbon industry.
• Pesticides: active ingredients are built from benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylene and propylene, all derived from naphtha; solvents and emulsifiers in sprays are petroleum-based too.
• Machines: tractors, combine harvesters and diesel pumps have replaced bullocks and the rahat (Persian wheel).

8,500 → 1.2 cr+

Tractors, 1950–51 to today (11.6 lakh sold in 2025–26)

0.07 → 33.5 MT

Fertiliser use (N+P+K), 1950–51 to 2025–26

67.5%

Share of nutrients supplied by urea and DAP

$100 → $1,000+

Sulphur import price per tonne, 2019–20 to now (approx.)

Figure 3 — The double bind: fossil fuel into farms, food into fuel

Oil & gasLNG → ammonia → urearefinery sulphur → DAP, SSPnaphtha → pesticidesdiesel → tractors, pumpsAgriculturecane, rice, maize,vegetable oilsBiofuelsethanol (E20) fromcane, rice, maizebiodiesel (FAME) fromvegetable oilsFossilisationFuelisationShock 1 — wars raise oil, gas & sulphur prices → costlier inputsHigh crude ($100+) → more incentive to turn crops into fuelShock 2 — a strong El Niño weakens the monsoon → less food to spareWhen both shocks combine, agriculture bears the brunt (last seen in 1979–80)

Agriculture is squeezed from both ends — as a consumer of fossil inputs and as a supplier of fuel feedstock.

Static anchors — fertilisers and the Green Revolution

• Green Revolution (mid-1960s): high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice, assured irrigation and chemical fertilisers — the start of farming’s dependence on hydrocarbons.
• Nutrient content: urea 46% N; DAP 18% N and 46% P₂O₅; MOP 60% K₂O; SSP about 16% P₂O₅ plus 11% sulphur. The agronomic ideal N:P:K ratio is about 4:2:1.
• Subsidy regimes: urea is sold at a Government-fixed price; P and K fertilisers come under the Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) scheme since 2010 — keeping urea artificially cheap and skewing use towards nitrogen.
• Import dependence: India imports much of its LNG, ammonia, rock phosphate and sulphur, and virtually all its potash (MOP).
• Irrigation: about 56% of gross cropped area is now irrigated, against 29% in 1979–80 and 17.1% in 1950–51 (as cited by the author) — a buffer against drought.

Static anchors — the biofuel side

• Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme (started 2003); the National Policy on Biofuels, 2018 (amended 2022) advanced the 20% blending (E20) target, achieved in 2025. Feedstocks include cane juice, B-heavy and C-heavy molasses, surplus rice and maize.
• Biodiesel: vegetable oils are converted into fatty acid methyl esters (FAME); Indonesia has mandated 50% palm-based biodiesel (B50) in all diesel from July 2026.
• Food vs fuel: the 2007–08 global food crisis showed how biofuel demand can raise food prices; the Centre has now barred cane juice and B-heavy molasses for ethanol, and grains may follow if El Niño hits output.
• El Niño: the warm phase of ENSO in the central and eastern Pacific, often linked to a weaker Indian monsoon (a positive Indian Ocean Dipole can offset it).

Figure 4 — How much of the applied nutrient the crop actually uses

Urea — nitrogen~1/3 absorbed~2/3 lost — ammonia gas, nitrate leachingDAP — phosphorus~1/4 available~3/4 “locked up” (fixed) in the soilLow nutrient-use efficiency means India imports feedstock that largely ends up in the air, water or soil

Lost nitrogen also escapes as nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, and pollutes groundwater as nitrate.

The author’s prescription

• Use less urea and DAP: shift gradually to ammonium sulphate and complex fertilisers with balanced nutrients, lower nitrogen losses and less phosphorus lock-up.
• Biostimulants: products that enlarge root surface and improve plant metabolism to raise nutrient uptake; similar “plant vaccine” approaches can cut pesticide use.
• Solar and drip irrigation: move pumps off diesel and grid power (e.g. PM-KUSUM) and save water.
• Watch fuelisation: prioritise food security over blending targets when the monsoon fails.

Related policy anchors

• Neem-coated urea (100% mandated from 2015) slows nitrogen release and curbs diversion; nano urea (launched 2021) is another efficiency tool.
• Soil Health Card scheme (2015) for crop-specific fertiliser advice; PM-PRANAM (2023) rewards States that reduce chemical fertiliser use.
• Biostimulants are regulated under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 since 2021; the National Mission on Natural Farming was approved in 2024.

Evaluating the argument

• Strength: it links energy security, fertiliser policy and food security — issues usually discussed separately.
• Reassurance: the author himself notes that diversification (dairy, poultry, fisheries, horticulture) and wider irrigation make a 1979–80-type collapse unlikely.
• Missing piece: without reforming the urea price regime, farmers have little reason to switch to costlier balanced fertilisers.
• Trade-off: biofuels also cut crude imports and raise farm incomes — the policy task is flexible blending, not abandoning it.

✎ Mains Practice Question

“Indian agriculture is caught between the fossilisation of farming and the fuelisation of food.” Examine this statement in the context of India’s import dependence for fertiliser raw materials and its biofuel policy, and suggest measures to strengthen the resilience of the farm sector. 15 marks · 250 words