The Hindu Editorial Analysis
10 February 2026
A chance for India to polish the Kimberley Process
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition, Page no.-10 )
Topic: GS 2: International Institutions, Global Governance, Human Rights, GS 3: Internal Security, Money Laundering, Resource Governance, Ethics in Mining
Context
India has assumed the chairmanship of the Kimberley Process (KP) for the year 2026. The KP is a global, multilateral certification mechanism created to prevent the trade of “conflict diamonds” — rough diamonds used by rebel groups to finance violence and undermine legitimate governments. While the KP has achieved near-universal coverage of global diamond trade, it faces serious criticisms regarding narrow definitions, weak enforcement, political vetoes, and its inability to address evolving forms of violence and exploitation linked to diamond supply chains. India’s leadership presents a timely opportunity to modernise, reform, and restore credibility to the process.
The Kimberley Process: purpose and limits
Established in 2003, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) regulates the trade of rough diamonds among participant countries through certification and self-reporting. Today, it covers nearly all global rough diamond production.
However, the KP’s core limitation lies in its narrow definition of “conflict diamonds”, which focuses only on diamonds funding rebel movements against legitimate governments. This excludes diamonds linked to:
- State-sponsored violence
- Human rights abuses
- Environmental degradation
- Exploitation in artisanal and small-scale mining
- Illicit trafficking networks
As a result, the KP increasingly appears misaligned with contemporary realities of conflict and exploitation.
Structural weaknesses and political deadlock
The KP operates on a consensus-based decision-making model, giving each participant veto power. While intended to ensure inclusivity, this structure often paralyses reform efforts. Civil society groups argue that under the current system, identifying or penalising conflict diamonds becomes nearly impossible if political interests intervene.
The experience of the Central African Republic, which was suspended in 2013 and readmitted in 2024 despite persistent instability, demonstrates that embargoes without parallel support mechanisms can increase smuggling and violence rather than reduce them.
India’s strategic position
Although India is not a producer of rough diamonds, it plays a central role in the global diamond economy:
- Imports around 40% of global rough diamonds
- Hosts the world’s largest cutting and polishing hub in Surat and Mumbai
- Re-exports polished diamonds to major global markets
This unique position gives India both economic stake and moral leverage to steer meaningful reform without reopening divisive political battles.
Reform pathways for India
India can pursue incremental yet impactful reforms within the existing KP framework:
1. Broadening the scope cautiously
Instead of redefining “conflict diamonds” outright, India can initiate technical working groups on:
- Violence beyond rebel insurgencies
- Human rights risks
- Environmental harm in mining regions
This approach builds consensus before any formal expansion of definitions.
2. Leveraging technology for transparency
India can promote blockchain-based digital certification, creating tamper-proof, time-stamped records for diamond shipments. This would:
- Reduce fraud and smuggling
- Improve traceability
- Modernise KP operations
3. Strengthening audits and data transparency
Independent third-party audits and public release of granular trade data can enhance accountability and trust, while retaining the KP’s tripartite structure.
Focus on Africa and community livelihoods
A reformed KP must move beyond trade restrictions to address development realities in diamond-producing regions, especially in Africa. India can:
- Align KP reforms with Sustainable Development Goals such as poverty reduction and decent work
- Establish regional technical hubs for training, certification support, and IT assistance
- Channel diamond revenues towards health, education, and local infrastructure
This shifts the KP’s narrative from merely blocking “bad diamonds” to enabling responsible and inclusive diamond trade.
Civil society engagement and institutional credibility
The KP’s strength lies in its tripartite design involving governments, industry, and civil society. India can revitalise this by:
- Ensuring open communication channels with civil society organisations
- Preventing political marginalisation of dissenting voices
- Reinforcing transparency as a governance norm rather than an exception
Such steps are essential to restore the KP’s moral authority.
Conclusion
India’s chairmanship of the Kimberley Process comes at a critical juncture. While the KP has succeeded in curbing classic rebel-financed diamond conflicts, it risks irrelevance unless it adapts to modern forms of violence, exploitation, and illicit trade.
By pursuing pragmatic reforms — technological innovation, procedural transparency, community-centric development, and gradual expansion of scope — India can transform the KP into a more inclusive, credible, and future-ready global governance mechanism. This would reinforce India’s leadership in the Global South and demonstrate how reform, not rupture, can revitalise multilateral institutions.