Content :

1. Armed insurrection to parliamentary politics
2. Census 2025 as a comprehensive citizen registry
3. Do new schemes ahead of elections amount to ‘voter bribes’?

Armed Insurrection to Parliamentary Politics

Relevance: GS 2 (Indian Polity ), GS 3 (Internal Security )

Practice Question: Explain why there is an ideological shift among many left-wing insurgent groups from armed revolution to democracy. Explain its potential implications. (250 Words )

Context:

• Left-wing insurgent groups are increasingly engaging in democratic politics who once committed to armed rebellion and revolution.

• Example: India’s CPI (M-L) Liberation.

Case Studies

• Nepal: Maoists shifted to a federal democratic republic after signing a peace accord in 2006.

• El Salvador: FMLN transitioned from armed insurgents to a legitimate political party, winning elections post-1992 peace accords.

• Sri Lanka: The JVP, after failed uprisings in the 1970s-80s, adopted parliamentary politics from the 1990s onwards.

• Challenges of Armed Insurgency: Violence is costly, loses public support, and often fails.

• Political Engagement: Considered a Pragmatic Shift due to emphasis on parliamentary politics by insurgents to attain social justice without violence.

• Ideological Evolution: Former insurgents adapt their revolutionary ideologies to democratic frameworks (e.g., JVP’s shift from Marxism to social justice), seen as pragmatism, not betrayal.

• Effects of Democracy: Democracy helps insurgents to gain a voice and representation for the marginalised but may risk ideological dilution.

• Driving Factors for the Shift
  • Practicality: Insurgencies are unsustainable.
  • Public Sentiment: Prolonged violence weakens public support.
  • International Pressure: Global push for peace encourages political participation

Conclusion: The ideological shift from a violent armed revolution to a pragmatic democracy is considered a significant step. Various key measures are to be taken to provide representation to the marginalised.

Census 2025 as a Comprehensive Citizen Registry

Relevance : GS 2(Governance )

Practice Question: Discuss the Difference between Aadhar and the National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC). Provide key measures to solve privacy challenges. (250 words )

Overview

• The 2025 Census includes updating the National Population Register (NPR) to create the National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC).
• Aim: Enhance national security, streamline welfare, and reduce identity fraud.
• Mandate: Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Historical Background

• Conceptualised post-1951 Census.
• Recommended post-Kargil War by the Subrahmanyam Committee.
• Section 14A added to the Citizenship Act for compulsory citizen registration.

Objectives and Benefits

• Primary: Distinguish citizens from non-citizens for national security.
• Additional: Streamline identity verification, reduce fraud, and improve welfare targeting.

NPR Process

• Demographic and biometric data collection.
• Public claims and objections for transparency.
• Citizenship verification and identity card issuance.

NRIC vs. Aadhaar

• Aadhaar: A 12-digit Biometric identity issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) for all residents.
• NRIC: Citizenship verification registry.

Biometric Data in the 2025 Census

• Excluded, using existing Aadhaar database for efficiency.

Assam NRIC Lessons

• The only state where the National Register of Citizens (NRC) has been updated (2019 )
• Focused on identifying illegal immigrants.
• Challenges: Accuracy, documentation requirements, exclusion of marginalised groups.

Privacy and Data Protection

• Concerns: Privacy, misuse of data.
• Need for robust data protection measures.

Exclusion and Administrative Challenges

• Risks: Exclusion of disadvantaged groups, logistical complexity.
• Requires accurate data management and transparency.

Public Awareness

• Citizens need to stay informed and actively participate.
• Public awareness campaigns necessary.

Conclusion

• The NRIC aims to enhance security and governance but raises concerns over privacy and inclusivity. Ensuring accuracy and fairness in the process are keys to success.

Do New Schemes Ahead of Elections Amount to ‘Voter Bribes’?

Relevance: GS 2 (Polity )

Practice Question: Discuss the importance of long-term policy measures to address issues like poverty and health compared to cash transfer schemes. (150 words )

Context :

• Direct cash transfer schemes, like the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana in Maharashtra, provide ₹1,500/month to low-income women to support economic independence, improve health, and recognize unpaid domestic labour.

Do These Schemes Amount to ‘Voter Bribes’?

• Electoral Promises: Designed to address immediate needs, not just bribes. Targets vulnerable groups.
• Electoral Timing: Concerns about genuineness and opportunistic moves before elections.

Effectiveness of Cash Transfers vs. Long-Term Welfare

• Immediate Benefits: Quick relief for marginalised communities.
• Sustainability issue: Not a replacement for systemic policies in healthcare, education, and employment.
• Fiscal Impact: May divert resources from other welfare initiatives, raising budget priorities questions.

Cash Transfers and the Welfare State

• Role in Welfare: Fill gaps but not the sole focus. Part of a broader strategy including public goods and services.
• Evaluation and Oversight: Need strong evaluation mechanisms and accountability to avoid inefficiency.

Public Response and Voter Behaviour

• Voter Preferences: Influence behaviour but not the sole factor. Voters consider long-term issues.
• Perceived Need: Tangible benefits for marginalised voters, addressing neglect.

Challenges with Cash Transfers

• Implementation Issues: Challenges like middlemen, poor banking infrastructure, and targeting.
• Corruption Risks: Prone to leakages and corruption without strong mechanisms.

Comparisons with Other Welfare Programs

• MNREGA: More successful in providing sustained economic support.
• Structural Change vs. Quick Fixes: Cash transfers offer short-term relief but not deeper structural solutions.

Conclusion

• Though cash transfer schemes provide quick relief, they cannot act as substitutes for long-term solutions to poverty, employment, and public welfare.