Daily Newspaper Notes: March 14, 2026

Participatory Governance In Artificial Intelligence

Limits of Traditional AI Governance

• Historically, technology governance has been state-centric, with regulators setting standards and overseeing implementation.
• The rise of artificial intelligence challenges this model because AI systems are largely developed and controlled by private firms.
• Technical expertise remains concentrated within companies, while the risks and consequences of AI deployment are experienced by the public.
• Machine-learning systems can evolve after deployment, making regulation difficult for static legal frameworks.
• As a result, governance structures remain fragmented, with uneven distribution of knowledge, regulation and risk.

Expanding Societal Impact of AI

• AI-enabled systems increasingly influence multiple sectors including labour markets, education, healthcare, finance and democratic processes.
• The widespread deployment of AI amplifies the scale of potential risks and societal consequences.
• This expansion creates governance challenges because public exposure to risk grows even though oversight mechanisms remain limited.

Participatory Approach to AI Governance

• A participatory governance framework involves citizens, civil society organisations, independent researchers and academic institutions in oversight processes.
• Such engagement enables detection of harms that developers or technical experts may overlook.
• It is particularly relevant for identifying biases related to language, culture, regional practices or local traditions.
• Participatory mechanisms incorporate experiential knowledge, allowing audits to reveal contextual shortcomings in AI systems.
• Community-led audits can improve transparency and accountability by testing systems in real-world environments.
• However, participatory governance can be effective only when embedded within formal institutional structures.

Institutional Requirements for Participatory Governance

• Effective AI governance requires structures that integrate the state, private sector and civil society rather than operating in isolated silos.
• Intersectional coordination depends on appropriate institutional infrastructure.
• Deliberative governance requires accessible reporting platforms and open datasets.
• Targeted literacy programmes are necessary to reduce barriers to participation and democratise knowledge related to AI systems.

Risks of Technocratic Governance

• Governance processes limited to technical experts and closed institutional settings may deepen social inequalities.
• Lack of broader oversight can weaken democratic accountability in the deployment of AI technologies.
• Institutionalised participatory mechanisms for AI audits can help align technological systems with public values rather than narrow organisational priorities.
• Effective governance must redistribute power more equitably and build public trust in AI systems.

The “Social Black Box” in AI Governance

• Discussions on AI governance often focus on technical opacity arising from complex algorithms and model architectures.
• However, opacity also exists in the social and institutional processes that shape AI systems.
• Decisions regarding which problems should be automated, which datasets are used, and which errors or harms are acceptable are influenced by commercial interests, strategic priorities and social factors.
• When these upstream choices remain opaque, even technically transparent models may generate unjust outcomes.
• Participatory governance mechanisms can help expose these hidden decision-making processes and strengthen democratic oversight of AI systems.

Ladakh’s Demand For Sixth Schedule Status

Administrative Changes after 2019

• In 2019, Article 370 was repealed and the former state of Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir with a legislature and Ladakh without one.
• Ladakh therefore came under direct central administration due to the absence of a legislative assembly.
• Earlier, the region had four MLAs in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly.
• Governance is now largely carried out by bureaucratic administration, which has led to concerns regarding reduced political representation.

Key Concerns in Ladakh

• Local groups argue that the reorganisation resulted in the loss of certain powers earlier exercised through local autonomous institutions.
• The region also faced concerns about employment after being delinked from Jammu and Kashmir’s recruitment boards.
• Changes in domicile policy in Jammu and Kashmir have raised apprehensions regarding land ownership, employment opportunities, demographic changes and cultural identity in Ladakh.

Demand for Sixth Schedule Protection

• More than 90% of Ladakh’s population belongs to Scheduled Tribes, leading to sustained demands for Sixth Schedule protections.
• The demand is particularly strong in Leh district, where Buddhists form the majority.
• The objective is to obtain greater administrative autonomy and safeguards for tribal communities, land and cultural identity.

Autonomous Councils in Ladakh

• Ladakh currently has two autonomous hill councils:
  • Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) Leh
  • Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) Kargil
• These councils are not included under the Sixth Schedule.
• Their powers are limited, mainly involving collection of some local taxes and management of land allotted by the Centre.

Feasibility of Extending Sixth Schedule to Ladakh

• In September 2019, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes recommended inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule.
• The recommendation noted that the Union Territory is predominantly tribal and has a distinct cultural heritage.
• At present, no region outside the Northeast is covered under the Sixth Schedule.
• Even in states like Manipur, some autonomous councils in tribal areas are not included in the Sixth Schedule.
• Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, despite having predominantly tribal populations, are also outside the Sixth Schedule framework.
• According to government officials, the Constitution limits the Sixth Schedule to the Northeast, while the Fifth Schedule applies to tribal areas in the rest of the country.
• However, the government can amend the Constitution through legislation if it decides to extend Sixth Schedule provisions to Ladakh.

Kharg Island And Its Strategic Importance In Iran’s Oil Exports

Geographical Location of Kharg Island

• Kharg Island is an approximately 8-km-long coral island located in the Persian Gulf.
• It lies about 50 km off the Iranian mainland.
• The island is positioned close to the Strait of Hormuz, a major global maritime chokepoint for oil trade.

Strategic Geographical Advantages

• Pipelines from oil fields in central and western Iran terminate at Kharg Island, making it a key export terminal.
• The island is located near deep waters, allowing very large crude carriers (VLCCs) to dock easily.
• Most of Iran’s coastline is too shallow for large oil tankers, making Kharg one of the few suitable export points.
• Specialised jetties on the eastern shore facilitate docking and loading of large oil tankers.

Role in Iran’s Oil Export Infrastructure

• Kharg Island handles almost all of Iran’s oil exports, making it the country’s most critical energy export hub.
• Around 1.5 million barrels of oil pass through the island daily on average.
• Export volumes had reportedly increased to around 3 million barrels per day in anticipation of possible military attacks.
• The island also stores about 18 million barrels of crude oil as backup reserves.

Energy Infrastructure on the Island

• Kharg Island hosts major facilities belonging to the Iranian oil ministry.
• Key installations include:
  • Falat Iran Oil Company, producing about 500,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
  • Kharg Petrochemical Company.
  • A major storage and export terminal for oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG).