Mains Practice Questions for the Day
- Q. The debate over formal elections to Nicobarese tribal councils reflects the challenge of balancing democratic accountability with customary self-governance. Discuss.
- Q. India’s nuclear modernisation reflects the changing nature of strategic security in South Asia. Discuss with reference to SIPRI Yearbook 2026.
Q. The debate over formal elections to Nicobarese tribal councils reflects the challenge of balancing democratic accountability with customary self-governance. Discuss.
(GS Paper II – Governance, Decentralisation, Local Self-Government, Rights of Vulnerable Sections.)
Introduction:
The administration of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands has proposed draft rules to introduce formal elections for Nicobarese Village Councils and Tribal Councils. The proposal has created debate because the Nicobarese community has traditionally followed a consensus-based system of self-governance. The issue reflects a larger challenge in Indian governance: how to promote democracy and accountability without weakening indigenous institutions.
Body
Traditional Governance System
- The Nicobarese community has a long tradition of customary self-governance.
- Village and tribal leaders are usually selected through community meetings, consultation and consensus.
- Leadership is based on trust, experience, local acceptance and ability to represent community interests.
- This system gives importance to social harmony rather than electoral competition.
Need for Formal Elections
- The administration argues that formal elections can bring clear procedures for choosing council members.
- Preparation of electoral rolls and constituencies may improve transparency.
- Reservation for women can strengthen gender representation in tribal institutions.
- Formal rules may also make tribal councils more accountable in dealing with administration and development projects.
Concerns of Nicobarese Leaders
- Tribal leaders fear that formal elections may bureaucratise their traditional governance system.
- Competitive elections may introduce political divisions within close-knit tribal communities.
- The proposed system may reduce the importance of customary decision-making.
- Some leaders also fear that formalised councils may become more vulnerable to administrative pressure in matters related to development projects, especially in Great Nicobar.
- Lack of adequate consultation has increased mistrust among the tribal community.
Larger Governance Challenge
- India’s tribal governance must respect both constitutional values and customary practices.
- Democratic reforms should not be imposed in a uniform manner on culturally distinct communities.
- Institutions dealing with tribal communities must follow the principles of participation, consultation and informed consent.
Way Forward
- The draft rules should be translated and explained in local languages.
- Wider consultations must be held with village captains, tribal councils, elders, women and youth.
- A hybrid model may be considered, combining traditional consensus with democratic safeguards.
- Women’s participation should be increased in a culturally sensitive manner.
- Tribal autonomy must be protected in all development-related decisions.
Conclusion:
The Nicobar debate is not merely about elections. It is about protecting tribal self-governance, cultural autonomy and democratic accountability together. A balanced approach based on trust, consultation and respect for indigenous traditions will strengthen both governance and national interest.
Q. India–Nepal relations are entering a more pragmatic phase, but unresolved boundary disputes and strategic concerns continue to test bilateral trust. Discuss.
( GS Paper II – India and its Neighbourhood, Bilateral Relations)
Introduction:
India and Nepal share a unique relationship based on geography, culture, open borders, trade, security and people-to-people ties. Recent remarks by Nepal’s leadership on resolving the Kalapani-Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura boundary dispute through facts and friendly dialogue indicate a more pragmatic phase in bilateral ties. At the same time, challenges such as boundary disputes, China’s growing influence, open-border security and water-sharing issues remain important.
Body
Historical and Strategic Background
- India and Nepal’s boundary dispute is linked to the Treaty of Sugauli, 1816.
- The treaty identified the Kali/Mahakali River as Nepal’s western boundary but did not clearly define its source.
- Nepal claims that the river originates from Limpiyadhura, placing Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura within Nepal.
- India maintains that the river originates near Kalapani, and considers the area part of Pithoragarh district, Uttarakhand.
- The region has strategic importance because Lipulekh Pass is linked with trade and the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, and lies close to China.
Signs of Pragmatism in Nepal’s Approach
- Nepal is moving from ideological politics towards economic pragmatism.
- The agreement to export 10,000 MW of hydropower to India over ten years shows a development-oriented approach.
- Nepal is seeking sovereign equality rather than only a traditional “special relationship”.
- Boundary issues are increasingly being viewed as technical and diplomatic matters, not merely nationalist issues.
- Greater focus is being placed on connectivity, trade, digital payments and infrastructure cooperation.
Areas of Strong Cooperation
- India remains Nepal’s largest trading partner and a major export destination.
- Defence ties are supported by the Gorkha Regiment and annual joint exercise Surya Kiran.
- Connectivity is expanding through rail links such as Jayanagar–Bijalpura–Bardibas and projects like the Motihari–Amlekhgunj petroleum pipeline.
- Digital cooperation has improved through UPI–NPI linkage for cross-border payments.
- India has supported Nepal through disaster relief, including after the 2015 earthquake.
Key Challenges
- Boundary dispute: Kalapani-Lipulekh-Limpiyadhura remains politically sensitive.
- China factor: Nepal’s engagement with China through BRI and infrastructure projects creates strategic concerns for India.
- Open border risks: The 1,751-km open border supports people-to-people ties but also enables smuggling, illegal migration and cross-border crimes.
- Water-sharing issues: Disputes over Kosi, Gandak, Mahakali and delays in the Pancheshwar Multipurpose Project affect trust.
- Media-driven nationalism: Emotional narratives in both countries often worsen diplomatic tensions.
Way Forward
- Empower the Boundary Working Group and Foreign Secretary-level mechanisms for technical resolution.
- Review and modernise the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship in a mutually acceptable manner.
- Fast-track hydropower, rail, petroleum pipeline and digital connectivity projects.
- Improve flood management and water-sharing cooperation.
- Respect Nepal’s sovereign sensitivities while maintaining close strategic engagement.
- Counter external influence through connectivity and development partnership, not coercive diplomacy.
Conclusion:
India–Nepal relations must move towards a modern partnership based on mutual respect, sovereign equality, economic integration and strategic trust. A pragmatic approach can help both countries resolve disputes, deepen connectivity and strengthen Himalayan stability in the larger interest of South Asian regional cooperation.
