Best of BS Opinion: Systems earn trust by holding up when tested

From US tariffs and exam reforms to welfare, governance and democracy, today's editorials examine how institutions earn public trust by adapting under pressure

Institutions begin with frameworks: Trade laws, testing agencies, welfare schemes, board structures and constitutions. But frameworks do not sustain trust just by existing. They are judged in the face of pressures — when tariff rules are bent for politics, exams lose credibility, welfare programmes outgrow their original purpose, boards face risks that move faster than manuals, and democracies confront the strain between popular will and institutional restraint.

 

Our first editorial today, “Trump’s tariff playbook”, looks at the uncertainty created by the US administration’s use of tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The new tariffs have replaced the earlier levy imposed under Section 122, after the reciprocal tariffs introduced last year were ruled illegal. Imports from India will face a 10 per cent tariff over and above the most-favoured-nation rate, and another investigation on excess capacity could push rates higher. For India, the editorial argues, the answer is continued engagement with Washington without ignoring the larger lesson. The US tariff regime has become too fluid to rely on one negotiation alone. India must protect its interests, diversify trade, fully use agreements with the UK and EU, and improve competitiveness.

 

 

The second editorial, “A fresh slate”, applies the same test to India’s examination system. The resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan as Union education minister and the withdrawal of cases against student protestors might have lowered the political temperature, but they do not restore trust by themselves. The National Testing Agency, created to make high-stakes examinations credible, appears under-resourced for the role it now performs. Paper leaks, vendor-dependent logistics and glitches in evaluation systems have exposed structural weaknesses. Fast-track courts may punish offenders, but credibility will return only if the system is redesigned around security, technology, transparency and capacity. The new task force headed by Nandan Nilekani must be followed by urgent implementation.

 

Ramesh Chand’s column, “Reorienting PDS”, asks whether India’s food-security architecture still matches the country’s needs. The Public Distribution System and the National Food Security Act were built to address hunger and poverty through subsidised cereals. But incomes have risen, poverty has declined, and the number of people unable to afford a healthy diet has fallen. Chand argues that the PDS must now move from calorie security to nutrition security. Coverage should be rationalised, and savings should be used to provide nutrient-rich foods and address anaemia, stunting, wasting and underweight among children.

 

Amit Tandon’s column, “What makes a board tick”, makes the governance point directly. Board effectiveness is not guaranteed by size, committees or compliance structures. It depends on how boards work: The quality of information, the culture of discussion, the ability to ask difficult questions, and the judgement brought to fast-moving risks like artificial intelligence, talent and geopolitics.

 

Claire Rydell Arcenas’ review of Jesse Wegman’s The Lost Founder and Thomas F Madden’s The Fall of Republics, titled “Founding faiths of American democracy”, extends the theme to constitutional democracy. The US was built on the promise of “We the People”, but also on institutional checks shaped by a fear of instability.

 

Systems, as these pieces show, do not earn trust by intent or inheritance. They do so by adapting, delivering and holding up when tested.