Agrivoltaics and the Next Phase of India’s Solar Ambition: Building on PM-KUSUM
Editorial
Israel’s Moment of Reckoning
Today, Israelis cast ballots in the first Knesset election since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks that shattered the nation’s sense of security. For the 120 seats of the 26th Knesset, voters confront not merely a choice of parties but a profound referendum on leadership, accountability, and the country’s direction after three years of war, trauma, and division.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving leader, seeks another term. His campaign emphasizes wartime resolve, the elimination of Hamas as a governing force in Gaza, confrontation with Iran, and a close partnership with the United States. Supporters credit him with restoring deterrence and navigating existential threats. Critics, however, hold him responsible for the intelligence and operational failures of October 7, prolonged conflict without clear strategic endpoints, deepening international isolation, and domestic polarization over judicial reform and the ultra-Orthodox draft exemption.
Challenging him is Gadi Eisenkot, former IDF Chief of Staff, whose Yashar party has edged ahead of Likud in final pre-election polls. Eisenkot presents himself as a security professional promising competence, an independent inquiry into October 7, universal military service, and a more inclusive governing approach. Other figures, notably Naftali Bennett, compete for the center-right space, while Arab parties remain significant though outside the main Zionist blocs.
Final surveys paint a tight and inconclusive picture. Neither the pro-Netanyahu camp nor the anti-Netanyahu “change” bloc is projected to secure the 61 seats required for a stable majority. The outcome may hinge on smaller parties and turnout, raising the prospect of prolonged negotiations, a minority government, or even another election. Israel has lived through such deadlocks before; the difference now is the weight of unresolved trauma and ongoing security challenges.
At stake is more than who occupies the Prime Minister’s office. Israel must decide how to balance military strength with diplomatic recovery, how to share the burdens of defense more equitably across society, and whether its democratic institutions can absorb intense political conflict without further erosion of trust. The cost-of-living crisis and the human toll of repeated reserve mobilizations add urgency for ordinary citizens.
Whatever the result, the election underscores a basic truth: even in wartime, Israel’s democracy endures. Citizens who have endured rockets, hostages, and grief still queue to vote. That act itself is an assertion of agency. The challenge for the next government will be to convert electoral legitimacy into coherent strategy—one that prioritizes security without sacrificing the social cohesion and international standing Israel needs to thrive in a hostile region. The voters’ judgment today will shape that path.
A Verdict, and the Politics of Attrition
The acquittal of Rahul Gandhi by a special MP/MLA court in Sultanpur on Monday brings an eight-year-old defamation case to a quiet close. The Congress leader had been accused of defaming Amit Shah by referring to him as a “murder accused” during the 2018 Karnataka election campaign — a reference to the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case from which Shah was discharged in 2014. The court found the complaint deficient on multiple counts: the complainant was not an aggrieved person under the law, the remarks did not meet the higher threshold required for political speech, and the case itself appeared motivated.
On the surface, this is a straightforward judicial outcome. In substance, it invites a larger reflection on how India’s legal system is increasingly drawn into political combat.
Criminal defamation has long been a weapon of choice in Indian politics. Leaders across parties have used it, and been targeted by it. What distinguishes many recent cases involving opposition figures is their duration and cumulative effect. Cases filed years earlier continue to demand personal appearances, generate headlines, and consume time and energy. Even when they end in acquittal, the process itself extracts a cost. In that sense, the Sultanpur case fits a familiar pattern: not necessarily designed for conviction, but capable of sustained pressure.
The court’s observation that the complaint appeared “motivated for political purpose” is significant. It underscores a wider concern — that the criminal process is sometimes activated less to protect reputation than to pin down political adversaries. When a local party functionary becomes the formal complainant in a high-profile national case, questions of institutional independence and selective enforcement inevitably arise. Democracies require robust free speech protections precisely because political contestation is noisy, harsh, and often unfair. Raising the bar for criminal defamation in political discourse, as the court effectively did, is a necessary safeguard.
Yet the larger problem remains structural. India’s legal system moves slowly, and political actors on all sides exploit that delay. Opposition leaders face a battery of cases; ruling party figures have historically enjoyed greater insulation. The result is a politics of attrition in which courts become secondary battlegrounds. Acquittals, when they finally come, rarely restore the time lost or the narrative damage inflicted along the way.
Rahul Gandhi’s acquittal is a personal relief and a legal vindication. It should also serve as a reminder. A healthy democracy does not weaponise process. The strength of institutions is measured not only by the verdicts they deliver, but by their ability to resist becoming instruments of political demoralisation.
SAS Kirmani
Most Popular
Speed of light: The cosmic limit that shapes our universe
September 17, 2025
Beats did announce something, after all
September 17, 2025
