New Delhi: India’s affirmative action is a lesson for America, writes Sadanand Dhume in his latest column for The Wall Street Journal. Dhume, refers to what author Gurcharan Das said during a public debate in Delhi last month, about contrasting systems put in place by two Asian giants, India and China.

Dhume juxtaposes China’s system of meritocracy with affirmative action in India, and looks at which system has succeeded in producing more growth. For Dhume, the clear winner is China, while India should be seen as a “cautionary tale” for the US. 

China’s gaokao exam for university admissions exemplifies the country’s “brutal meritocracy”. “It enables bright students from poor backgrounds to compete with students who are privileged but less talented,” he writes. While for Dhume, India’s quota system has become merely a tool for Indian politicians to woo voters by using what he calls the “social justice rhetoric”. 

“How India handles affirmative action could determine whether the country emerges as a significant world power or remains a perpetual also-ran. It also matters outside India’s borders. No other country has imposed such wide-ranging quotas for as long as India has,” he adds. 

In May, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) had permanently dropped all criminal charges and the SEC dismissed civil fraud charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar. However, Adani is featuring in the global headlines yet again, and it is about the same cases. 

Santul Nerkar and Nicole Hong of The New York Times report why Adani’s case, even after dismissal, is drawing the attention of America’s judicial system. 

The Adani Group chair, in a legal filing Wednesday, acknowledged that he did offer to invest 10 billion dollars in the US as part of resolution of his criminal case, however it did not play any role in DoJ’s final decision to drop charges against him.  

What led to the filing after the case was dropped in May? As the NYT correspondents note, the statement came in response to a legal filing ordered by a federal judge in Brooklyn, Nicholas G. Garaufis, who raised concerns about the justice department’s request to dismiss the indictment. The report says that it is highly unusual for a judge to probe matters of prosecution dismissal. 

“Wednesday’s filings were the latest twist in a high-profile case that has unraveled in a peculiar way,” they write. After prosecutors moved to dismiss the indictment against Adani and his co-defendants, Garaufis urged them to give a justification for doing so, “leading to a public and occasionally rancorous battle,” says the report. Adani is being represented by Robert J. Giuffra Jr., who is also a personal lawyer for US President Donald Trump. 

Cherylann Mollan and Auqib Javeed of the BBC write about a new “crackdown” in Kashmir. Authorities in Kashmir have ordered all educational institutions to review books for “inappropriate and objectionable” content. 

The order, issued last week, has directed schools, colleges, universities and coaching centres to check all published material—including research papers and academic theses—for content that could violate “religious sentiments, laws, educational values and established norms”. 

According to the report, authorities have clarified that the purpose of the order is not to restrict reading but “removing material they say is factually inaccurate or unlawful”. 

It adds that the intention of the order is to remove any content that “promotes, glorifies, legitimises or justifies terrorism, violent extremism, secessionism, radicalisation”. 

“But opposition parties, academics and students say the move is an attack on academic freedom and an attempt to erase Kashmir’s turbulent history,” the report says. 

The report quotes Naseer Ahmad Wani, Director of School Education in Kashmir, besides political scientist Noor Ahmad Baba, a Kashmir studies teacher and political leaders from across the aisle.

Alan Beattie writes in Financial Times about “ad hoc” deals being signed between countries that are often glorified as major shifts in the global economic order, but are, in reality, relatively “shallow”. He refers to the India-EU deal in particular. 

“When the EU and India agreed a rather shallow trade deal back in January, it supposedly reflected the coming together of two great strategic powers united by a common geoeconomic purpose, and so on. You know the drill,” he writes. 

Beattie also refers to other agreements that have taken place in the last few years which never really had anything to do with trade, and could not perhaps justify the vision several countries have of “of a world order with coalitions of middle powers no longer relying on a US anchor”. He cites the security agreements concluded between the European Union and India recently, arguing they had no relevance to trade deals. Moreover, the Australia-UK-US (Aukus) submarine and technology pact, “announced in 2021 to great fanfare,” had nothing to do with trade as such. 

The author also highlights how many such agreements are “preferential agreements”, which do not breach geopolitical value networks. Trade agreements built around preferential terms are meant for normal economic conditions, covering areas such as tariffs, regulations, and intellectual property. They are far less effective during trade conflicts and have not stopped China from deploying various tools to strengthen its strategic position, he adds. 

“To speak of a new order is itself somewhat misleading. In geopolitically sensitive areas there will be no overarching governance or legal framework, just coalitions or bilaterals of convenience with a bias towards politically friendly countries. This may not sound inspirational. It is, however, much more realistic than imagining that taking the knife of a traditional trade agreement to a critical products gunfight will end up in anything but defeat,” writes Beattie.

(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)

Also Read: ‘Incremental rather than transformational’: Global media’s assessment of India-UK FTA