Archives: Publication

The Malviya Nagar incident prompts reflection not only on enforcement, but on whether India’s legislative framework adequately recognises racial harm.

The recent assault on a young woman from Arunachal Pradesh in Delhi’s Malviya Nagar is not merely another criminal incident. It revives a policy question India formally acknowledged in 2014 but has yet to resolve through legislation. The death of Nido Tania led to the constitution of the Bezbaruah Committee, which recognised what many from the North-East had long asserted: discrimination in metropolitan India often carries a racial dimension rooted in physical features, stereotyping and social bias.

The Committee recommended either a standalone anti-racial discrimination law or targeted amendments to criminal law, including proposed Sections 153C and 509A in the Indian Penal Code to penalise insults and acts targeting individuals on racial grounds. These provisions were never enacted, and no equivalent offences have been introduced in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. More than a decade later, the recommendations remain pending. The Malviya Nagar incident therefore prompts reflection not only on enforcement, but on whether India’s legislative framework adequately recognises racial harm. In practice, incidents involving racial abuse are registered under general provisions relating to causing hurt, criminal intimidation or insult under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. While these provisions punish the immediate act, they do not recognise racial motivation as a distinct or aggravating factor. The prejudice underlying the offence therefore remains legally unnamed.

This structural gap is visible in official data. The National Crime Records Bureau, in its annual Crime in India reports, does not publish a separate category for racially aggravated offences. Cases are recorded under broad heads such as “hurt” or “criminal intimidation,” without identifying racial hostility as a distinct variable. The absence of codification thus affects both prosecution and measurement, limiting policymakers’ ability to track patterns or assess scale. Law performs a signalling function as much as a punitive one. When certain harms lack explicit recognition, they risk appearing incidental rather than structural. India is also a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Aligning domestic criminal law more clearly with these commitments would strengthen clarity and institutional credibility.

Migration and urban mobility

The issue gains urgency when viewed against internal migration patterns. Census 2011 recorded over 9.4 lakh inter-State migrants from the North-East, with Delhi, West Bengal and Maharashtra among major destinations. Though inter-State migration from the region remains lower than the national average, the steady movement of young people for education and

employment reflects aspiration and uneven regional opportunity. North-Eastern youth are visible participants in India’s urban service economy —aviation, hospitality, healthcare and retail. Their integration into metropolitan labour markets demonstrates economic inclusion. Yet episodes of racial hostility reveal that economic participation does not automatically translate into social acceptance.

Mobility without assured dignity can generate insecurity. When individuals relocate across States, they do so expecting equal protection under law. If the legal framework does not clearly acknowledge identity based harm, trust in institutions may weaken. Because racially aggravated offences are not distinctly codified, crime statistics cannot meaningfully capture recurrence or regional patterns. Clearer definitions would enable agencies such as the National Crime Records Bureau to produce more evidence-based insights rather than relying solely on broad offence categories. The Bezbaruah Committee recommended time-bound investigations and designated officers in cases involving racial hostility. While administrative measures — including helplines and sensitisation initiatives — have been introduced, statutory reform remains incomplete.

The economic case for clarity

There is also an economic dimension. Urban growth depends significantly on internal labour mobility. Migrants from the North-East are disproportionately young, and nearly half are women, making perceptions of safety particularly relevant for workforce participation. If mobility is accompanied by insecurity, it can influence career decisions, geographic preferences and remittance flows that support families in the region of origin. Persistent vulnerability may discourage relocation and reduce labour market flexibility. India’s demographic dividend and expanding service sector rely on seamless internal migration supported by institutional trust.

Ensuring dignity in mobility is therefore not only a constitutional concern but also an economic imperative. Public discourse often frames discrimination against North-Eastern communities as cultural misunderstanding. Yet equality requires more than tolerance; it requires enforceable clarity. When law explicitly names a harm, it affirms that the harm matters. The Malviya Nagar incident thus raises a central question: should India’s criminal law explicitly recognise racially aggravated offences? The Bezbaruah Committee offered a legislative blueprint. Parliament retains the option to revisit those proposals, either through targeted amendments or through a narrowly tailored anti-discrimination framework.

From memory to meaning

Each such incident briefly unsettles the national conscience. It recalls reports submitted, recommendations made and assurances offered — and then fades from attention. India’s diversity is celebrated as cultural richness. But diversity also requires institutional vocabulary — legal terms capable of acknowledging specific vulnerabilities. A Constitution may promise equality; a committee may document injustice. Between principle and practice lies the act of naming. The assault in Malviya Nagar is an individual crime. It is also a reminder of deferred reform. The journey from committee to complacency is marked less by rejection than by postponement. And postponement carries its own message: that some harms can remain implicit, some patterns unclassified.

Whether such ambiguity is sustainable in a rapidly integrating India remains an open question. The country does not lack constitutional principles or policy recommendations. What remains is legislative calibration — ensuring that equality guaranteed in principle is reflected with clarity in statutory law. The debate is no longer about whether discrimination exists. It is about whether India’s criminal framework should explicitly acknowledge racially aggravated harm and ensure that dignity accompanies mobility in a diverse and interconnected nation.

The writer is Fellow, National Council of Applied Economic Research. Views are personal.

The year 2025 has become a turning point in the evolution of scholarly publishing; artificial intelligence has begun to transition from experimental add-on to a central component of editorial workflows. In this year alone, journal editors, reviewers, and authors have been confronted with the demands of negotiating a rapidly transforming landscape, in which AI-driven systems increasingly determine the way manuscripts are screened, evaluated, improved, or even conceptualized.

Far from simply automating mundane tasks, the rise of AI tools has started to reshape the norms and expectations of scholarly communication, raising new questions about authenticity, authorship, and the future of peer review. And so, this is a moment to step back: what, precisely, have we learned from this year of accelerated AI adoption, and what does it portend for the integrity and inclusiveness of academic publishing?

Much of the momentum in 2025 has come from the increasing sophistication of AI tools integrated directly into editorial pipelines. Manuscripts now go through automated linguistic checks, citation verifiers, data-screening modules, and image-integrity detectors long before they reach a human editor. These tools have not only reduced the burden of repetitive screening but also enhanced the consistency and pace at which manuscripts are handled. For many journals, especially those with small editorial teams, AI has ensured that faster triaging need not be compromised by initial checks for plagiarism, fabricated data, or manipulated visuals. Yet this efficiency comes with a critical lesson: AI assistance is only as reliable as the human oversight that accompanies it. Editors this year consistently reported that tools can flag false positives, misunderstand disciplinary nuance, or fail to catch more sophisticated forms of misconduct—proving that while AI fortifies editorial work, it cannot replace the judgment, skepticism, and contextual awareness of trained human reviewers. The most successful editorial teams in 2025 have thus adopted a hybrid approach, leveraging AI as a first-pass assistant while refining protocols that prioritize transparency and accountability in the final decisions.

For editors, the most visible shift in 2025 has been the rise of AI tools that quietly absorb much of the manual, repetitive work that once slowed down the editorial cycle. Language-assistance models such as ChatGPT or Gemini are now routinely used by authors to reframe arguments, refine clarity, and elevate academic tone—often narrowing the linguistic gap that previously disadvantaged non-native English speakers. AI-based grammar and structure enhancers, such as Grammarly or DeepL Write, help improve the readability of manuscripts before submission, thereby reducing the time editors spend on preliminary language corrections. On the editorial side, tools such as Turnitin’s AI-writing detection module, iThenticate’s similarity checker, and Proofig’s image forensics software have become integral to the first-stage screening process, enabling the detection of plagiarism, manipulated figures, or duplicated images within seconds. Workflow platforms like ScholarOne and Editorial Manager have also embedded automated triage systems that categorize manuscripts, check reference formatting, and flag missing ethical statements, allowing editors to focus on substantive decision-making rather than administrative checks.

These examples demonstrate how AI is no longer a futuristic promise, but a practical assistant that automates routine tasks, facilitates clearer communication, and enhances the integrity of submissions—all while underscoring the need for human oversight in final judgments.

While this has brought opportunities, it has also presented challenges. On the positive side, authors from non-English-speaking regions have found AI-based writing aids useful for improving clarity and structure, as well as reducing some of the linguistic barriers that have historically disadvantaged researchers from the Global South.

This year has also seen an increase in submissions exhibiting what might be described as AI-inflated writing: fluent but shallow, polished yet lacking in empirical depth. Journals have responded by tightening disclosure policies and educating authors about the responsible use of AI to reinforce the principle that AI should enhance, rather than replace, scholarly expression. Most important, 2025 has surfaced a deeper equity issue: while well-resourced publishers can integrate AI seamlessly, smaller journals—particularly those from the Global South—lack access, furthering the technological divide. This disparity raises a vital question about the future of academic publishing: will AI democratize knowledge production, or will it amplify existing inequalities? Reflections from this year suggest that the answer to this question depends on how the publishing community secures shared access, transparent governance, and inclusive participation in setting norms for AI.

A FUTURE WITH AI AND HUMAN, AND NOT AI OR HUMAN

A critical aspect to note about 2025 is that AI is no longer just a technological upgrade—it marks a structural shift in how scholarship is created, validated, and disseminated. It challenges long-held assumptions about authorship, introduces new competencies that editors must develop, and pushes the publishing ecosystem toward greater accountability. Yet the lesson from this year is not to resist this revolution but to shape it with intention and clarity. For journals, this means investing in AI literacy among editors and reviewers, establishing transparent governance frameworks, and encouraging authors to use AI tools responsibly and declare their use. At the same time, the global publishing community must work to narrow disparities in access to AI, ensuring that innovation does not exacerbate existing inequalities, particularly for researchers and journals in resource-constrained regions. AI is undeniably a transformative force, but using it strategically can create a genuine win-win scenario for both editors and authors. When treated as a compass, AI can reduce repetitive workload, refine language in manuscripts, and support clearer scholarly communication. But once it starts acting as the captain, the sail might get lost in the ocean of competition—drifting away from the stronger research ideas that only human intellect and inquiry can anchor. This year has shown us that the future of peer review and editorial work depends on striking a balance between technological efficiency and human judgment, ethical responsibility, and global equity. AI may be reshaping the machinery of publishing, but what underpins scholarly communication—a commitment to rigor, transparency, and fairness—remains, and must remain, firmly in our hands.

Sanjib Pohit is a Professor, and Sovini Mondal is a Research Associate at the National Council of Applied Economic Research. Views expressed here are personal.