💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • [23rd October 2025] The Hindu Oped: Immigration and the politics of fear

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] Indian diaspora has a decisive role to play in the politics and economy of America and European Countries.” Comment with examples.

    Linkage: This article explores how anti-immigration politics in the West, particularly in the UK and US, are reshaping narratives around migrants and minorities, directly affecting the Indian diaspora’s political influence, integration, and image abroad. It also relates to how domestic nativism in developed nations influences India’s soft power and global engagement strategy.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The debate on immigration has taken a darker turn across the Western world, shifting from managing illegal immigration to rejecting legal migrants on cultural or racial grounds. This piece examines the rise of fear-driven politics in the United Kingdom and the United States, where populist leaders exploit insecurities about identity and belonging. It connects these global trends to India’s own discourse on “infiltrators,” highlighting how such politics corrodes the moral and spiritual foundation of nationhood. For UPSC aspirants, this article is a rich resource for themes under GS Paper 2 (Polity & Governance, International Relations) and GS Paper 4 (Ethics & Society).

    Introduction: The New Politics of Immigration

    Immigration has always been an emotionally charged issue, balancing national security, cultural identity, and humanitarian values. But the tone of the conversation has changed drastically. Once focused on border control and illegal entry, the global discourse, led by figures like Donald Trump and echoed by British leaders, is now turning against legal migrants themselves. The recent developments in the United Kingdom, coupled with populist rhetoric in the U.S., mark a disturbing shift from policy debates to identity-based fear-mongering. It signals a new era where politics thrives on division, and where the very definition of nationhood is under siege.

    Why in the News?

    At the UN General Assembly, U.S. President Donald Trump openly urged Europe to “end the failed experiment of open borders,” marking the first time an American leader exported his anti-immigrant ideology so aggressively to other nations. The U.K. soon reflected similar sentiments, not just against illegal immigrants but against those living legally under Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). The political shift shows how nativist populism has evolved from fringe rhetoric to mainstream governance, posing moral and democratic questions for societies that once celebrated diversity.

    How Has Immigration Politics Shifted in the UK?

    1. Shift from legality to identity: The focus has moved from illegal immigration control to questioning legal migrants’ right to belong.
    2. Historic continuity: Britain has witnessed recurring anti-immigrant waves, from Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech to Brexit’s “Take Back Control” slogan.
    3. Turning point: Trump’s UN speech and UK’s Reform Party rhetoric signify a pivot, from economic capability to cultural exclusion.

    What Recent Events Sparked the Debate?

    1. Mass rallies: Far-right leader Tommy Robinson led a 1,50,000-strong “Unite the Kingdom” rally, posing as a free speech movement but fuelled by anti-immigration anger.
    2. Imported ideology: French politician Eric Zemmour warned of the “great replacement”, the idea that European people are being replaced by immigrants from Muslim-majority regions.
    3. Policy proposal: Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party proposed scrapping Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) and replacing it with stricter five-year visas.
    4. Consequences: Even current ILR holders and retirees would face uncertainty, eroding the social contract between the state and its residents.

    How Has the Labour Government Responded?

    1. Raising the bar: New Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood extended ILR eligibility from 5 to 10 years, with higher English proficiency, employment verification, and volunteering requirements.
    2. Moral hierarchy: This creates a two-tier society, citizens who live freely and migrants forced to constantly prove their worth.
    3. Political motive: Labour’s move reflects a competitive hardline stance to match Reform UK’s popularity and counter populist fear politics.

    How Is Race Re-entering the Immigration Discourse?

    1. Racial undertones: Conservative politician Robert Jenrick’s remark about “not seeing another white face” reveals how immigration rhetoric is slipping into racial anxiety.
    2. From migrants to race: The debate is no longer about work permits or visas; it’s now about who belongs and who looks British.
    3. American parallels: Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship and the spectacle of deporting Indian immigrants in shackles echo the same moral crisis, dehumanisation of the “other.”

    What Lessons Does This Hold for India?

    1. Mirroring patterns: In India too, discourse on “infiltrators” and “termites” has been used for populist mobilisation.
    2. Ernest Renan’s vision: The 19th-century philosopher described a nation as a “spiritual principle”, based on shared memories and mutual consent, not race or religion.
    3. Moral erosion: When “present consent”, the will to live together, is weakened, nations lose their moral foundation.
    4. Performative cruelty: Treating migration as a threat rather than a socio-economic phenomenon serves political ends, not human progress.

    Conclusion

    The politics of fear around immigration reflects a deeper crisis, of identity, belonging, and moral leadership. When democratic societies redefine “worthiness” in racial or cultural terms, they betray the inclusive principles that built them. In both the West and India, the challenge is not just managing immigration but reaffirming what it means to be a nation. As Renan reminded us, a nation exists not by blood or border, but by the desire to live together. Upholding that desire, amid fear and division, is the true test of our times.

  • Labelling of AI-Generated Content on Social Media

    Why in the News?

    The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology proposed mandatory labelling of Artificial Intelligence–generated synthetic content on social media to curb deepfakes, under draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

    2025 Draft Amendment on AI Content:

    • AI Regulation: Introduced by MeitY to address synthetic and AI-generated media such as deepfakes.
    • Mandatory Disclosure: Users must self-declare AI-generated content; platforms must detect and label undeclared synthetic material.
    • Labelling Standards: Labels to cover 10% of image/video area or duration (audio); applies to text, audio, and video formats.
    • Platform Obligations: Ensure metadata embedding and automated verification of user declarations.
    • Legal Liability: Non-compliance leads to loss of “safe harbour” protection under Section 79(1), making intermediaries liable for hosted content.
    • Public Consultation: Comments open till 6 November 2025.

    Back2Basics: IT Rules, 2021:

    • Legal Basis: Framed under Sections 87(2)(z) and 87(2)(zg) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to regulate social media, digital news, and OTT platforms.
    • Objective: To ensure accountability, transparency, and user protection in India’s digital ecosystem while balancing free speech with responsible governance.
    • Evolution: Replaced the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, expanding obligations for intermediaries like Facebook, X (Twitter), YouTube, and Instagram.
    • Scope: Applies to social media intermediaries, messaging services, digital news publishers, and OTT streaming platforms.
    • Compliance Framework: Platforms must appoint Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), Nodal Contact Person, and Resident Grievance Officer (RGO),  all based in India.
    • Traceability Clause (Rule 4(2)): Mandates messaging services to identify the “first originator” of unlawful content, raising privacy and surveillance concerns.

    Regulation of Social Media Content in India:

    • Legislative Basis: Governed by the IT Act, 2000, notably Section 69A (blocking powers) and Section 79(1) (safe harbour for intermediaries).
    • Obligations: Intermediaries must remove unlawful content within 36 hours of a government or court order.
    • 2023 Amendment: Proposed removal of false content about the government; implementation stayed by Supreme Court.
    • Judicial Context:
      • Shreya Singhal (2015): Struck down Section 66A, upholding free speech.
      • K.S. Puttaswamy (2017):  Recognised privacy as a fundamental right influencing digital governance.

  • International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT)

    Why in the News?

    Iran has officially ratified the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), signalling a major policy shift toward international financial reintegration.

    Why such move by Iran?

    • Economic Isolation: Iran’s blacklisting by FATF in 2020 and U.S.-led sanctions have severely restricted its banking access, trade, and foreign investment.
    • Reformist Agenda: President Pezeshkian’s government seeks economic stabilization through engagement, not confrontation, with Western institutions.
    • Trade Barriers: Even traditional allies like Russia and China face difficulty trading with Iran due to its non-compliance with FATF norms.
    • Diplomatic Leverage: CFT accession signals willingness to reform and could help Tehran negotiate sanction relief or trade facilitation.
    • Political Balance: The government faces domestic opposition from hardliners who fear the law will expose Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, but reformists view it as essential for economic recovery.

    About the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT):

    • Adopted: 1999 by the UN General Assembly; entered into force in 2002.
    • Parties: Ratified by 188 countries including India, making it one of the most widely accepted anti-terror treaties.
    • Objective: To criminalize, prevent, and punish the financing of terrorism and enhance international cooperation against terror-linked financial networks.
    • Definition: Financing terrorism includes collecting or providing funds—directly or indirectly—with intent or knowledge that they will be used for terrorist acts causing death or injury to civilians or non-combatants.
    • Key Provisions:
      • States must criminalize terror financing in domestic law.
      • Freeze, seize, and confiscate assets linked to terrorism.
      • Ban misuse of banking secrecy to block investigations.
      • Facilitate extradition, legal cooperation, and mutual assistance.
      • Ensure political or ideological motives cannot justify terrorist financing.
    • Legal Mechanism: Creates obligations for states to report suspicious transactions and cooperate across jurisdictions for enforcement.

    FATF and CFT: Complementary Global Frameworks

    • CFT (1999): Provides the legal foundation, obligating states to define and criminalize terror financing under international law.
    • FATF (1989): Provides the operational and policy framework, setting 40 detailed recommendations for implementation, monitoring, and compliance.
    • Interaction:
      • FATF requires its members to implement CFT obligations in national systems.
      • CFT establishes criminalization and cooperation, while FATF ensures compliance, enforcement, and evaluation.
    • Iran’s Case:
      • FATF blacklisted Iran for failure to adopt CFT and AML standards.
      • Ratification of CFT is Iran’s first step toward FATF re-evaluation and possible removal from the blacklist.
      • Compliance would enable Iranian banks to restore correspondent relations and resume limited international transactions.

  • Turning Tides: Pakistan-Afghanistan Tensions

    Introduction

    When the Taliban recaptured Kabul in August 2021, Pakistan perceived it as a strategic victory after two decades of covert support to the insurgents. However, the celebration was short-lived. Four years later, Pakistan faces an unprecedented internal security crisis, with over 2,400 people killed in militancy-related violence in 2025 alone. The rise of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and recent Pakistani airstrikes on Kabul (October 2025) signal a dangerous escalation — and a stark reversal of the country’s long-standing policy of using non-state actors as strategic assets.

    Why in the News?

    For the first time, Pakistan bombed Kabul, directly targeting militants across the Afghan border. This marks a major policy shift, as Islamabad traditionally treated the Taliban as an ally and buffer against India. The strikes came while Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi was visiting India, adding a symbolic twist to regional alignments. The scale of violence, with over 2,414 deaths this year, underscores the depth of Pakistan’s internal crisis and its failure to control militancy in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This development has drawn comparisons to India’s own doctrine of cross-border strikes, raising questions about whether Pakistan is now borrowing from a playbook it once condemned.

    The Illusion of Strategic Depth

    1. Taliban Patronage: Pakistan’s military establishment nurtured the Afghan Taliban for decades, offering refuge and logistical support during their insurgency against the U.S.-backed Afghan government.
    2. Strategic Depth Doctrine: Islamabad’s rationale was to create a friendly regime in Kabul that could serve as a buffer against India and offer “strategic depth” in case of war.
    3. Backfiring Reality: Instead, the Taliban’s rise empowered the TTP, an ideologically aligned but operationally separate entity, turning Pakistan’s proxy into its nemesis.

    How the Taliban’s Return Changed the Equation

    1. End of Patron-Client Relationship: Once in power, the Taliban sought state-to-state relations, not subservience to Pakistan’s military agenda.
    2. Durand Line Dispute: Kabul never recognized the Durand Line, reigniting border tensions that colonial history had left unresolved.
    3. TTP Empowerment: Inspired by the Afghan Taliban’s triumph, the TTP now demands enforcement of strict Islamic law and reversal of the merger of tribal areas with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
    4. Refugee Crisis: Pakistan’s decision to deport thousands of Afghan refugees further worsened ties, adding a humanitarian dimension to political hostility.

    Pakistan’s New Doctrine: Borrowing from India?

    1. Airstrikes as Deterrence: By bombing Kabul, Pakistan appears to be testing a new counter-terrorism strategy, directly holding Afghanistan responsible for cross-border militant attacks.
    2. India Parallel: The move is reminiscent of India’s 2016 and 2019 strikes on Pakistani territory after terror attacks in Uri and Pulwama.
    3. Diplomatic Irony: The timing, coinciding with the Afghan FM’s India visit, highlights shifting regional equations where India engages diplomatically, and Pakistan responds militarily.

    The Security Crisis within Pakistan

    1. Rising Violence: The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province has become the epicenter of TTP-led insurgency.
    2. Contradictory Policy: Pakistan’s dual policy of fighting terrorism while nurturing militants targeting its neighbors has eroded domestic stability.
    3. Blowback Effect: Militancy now threatens Pakistan’s political order, economic recovery, and regional credibility.
    4. Qatar-Brokered Ceasefire: A fragile truce mediated by Qatar hints at the international community’s anxiety over a new South Asian flashpoint.

    Why Pakistan’s Strategy is Self-Defeating

    1. Cycle of Violence: Airstrikes may offer short-term political gains but deepen long-term instability.
    2. Internal vs External Conflict: Pakistan’s greatest threat now emanates from within its borders, not across them.
    3. Loss of Moral Credibility: Its past of backing non-state actors undercuts its legitimacy when accusing others of the same.
    4. Strategic Isolation: Continued conflict risks alienating even traditional allies like China and Gulf states, who seek regional stability.

    Conclusion

    Pakistan’s experiment with militant patronage has collapsed under its own contradictions. The strategic depth doctrine that once defined its Afghan policy has morphed into a strategic liability. Peace in Pakistan cannot be achieved through bombs over Kabul, but through a coherent internal reform of its security, political, and ideological ecosystem. As the editorial aptly concludes, “Pakistan cannot ensure internal security by bombing Afghanistan.”

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] The proposed withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from Afghanistan in 2014 is fraught with major security implications for the countries of the region. Examine in light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.

    Linkage: The 2013 PYQ and this 2025 editorial both explore the Afghan theatre as a pivot of regional security, then, in anticipation of instability; now, in its full manifestation. Both are invaluable for analysing India’s neighbourhood policy, counter-terror strategy, and regional diplomacy in the post-US Afghanistan order.

  • [18th October 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Better global governance led by China and India

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Virus of Conflict is affecting the functioning of the SCO.” In the light of the above statement, point out the role of India in mitigating problems.

    Linkage: This PYQ is important as it tests India’s diplomatic balance within the SCO, amid regional rivalries. The article connects by showing how the Xi–Modi meeting and Global Governance Initiative reflect India’s role in restoring trust and strengthening multilateralism within the SCO framework.

    Mentor’s Comment

    As the world enters a phase of geopolitical churn and institutional fatigue, the call for a reformed, people-centric global governance system grows louder. The 75th anniversary of India-China diplomatic ties and the 80th year of the UN offer a historical moment: two Asian giants, once colonised, now rising powers, can redefine global order. For UPSC aspirants, this theme bridges multilateral diplomacy, global reforms, and India’s evolving foreign policy—key areas across GS Paper 2 and IR essays.

    Introduction

    The year 2025 marks a milestone in both bilateral and global history. India and China, home to over 2.8 billion people, commemorate 75 years of diplomatic relations, even as the United Nations celebrates its 80th anniversary. Against the backdrop of unilateralism and weakening multilateralism, the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) proposed by China, with India’s cooperation, offers a blueprint for a more equitable international order. As Asia’s two leading powers move from rivalry to partnership, their convergence could transform the world’s governance architecture, symbolising a decisive shift toward multipolarity and shared prosperity.

    Why is the India-China cooperation in 2025 a landmark moment?

    1. Historical Context: The two leaders, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, have met 18 times since 2014, an unprecedented frequency symbolising sustained engagement despite border tensions.
    2. Symbolic Restoration: The bilateral meeting at the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan (2024) and now at the 25th SCO Summit in Tianjin (2025) reflects a conscious reset in relations.
    3. Global Expectation: Their 19th meeting during the Tianjin Summit is being seen globally as a moment to restore balance to multilateral decision-making, especially amid Western dominance fatigue.
    4. Public Diplomacy: Both sides emphasise “partners, not rivals,” signaling a shift from competition to cooperation.

    What is changing in the global governance discourse?

    1. Erosion of Trust: The early 21st century witnessed rising unilateralism, protectionism, and hegemonism, eroding faith in international institutions.
    2. UN at 80: The UN system, though foundational, now faces criticism for its limited representation of developing nations and sluggish response to global crises.
    3. Reform Imperative: The question before humanity is not just “who governs” but “how governance is shared.” The article highlights the need for reform without rupture, evolving existing systems rather than replacing them.
    4. Asia’s Moment: The decline of Western dominance and the rise of Asia and Eurasia are redefining the rules of the game, with India and China at the center.

    What is the Global Governance Initiative (GGI)?

    1. New Vision: The GGI, announced by President Xi at the Tianjin SCO Summit, aims to correct the deficit in global governance by promoting a fair, inclusive order.
    • Five Core Principles:
      1. Sovereign Equality: Respect for all nations’ independence and dignity; greater democracy in international relations.
      2. Rule of Law: Equal application of international law and rejection of double standards.
      3. Multilateralism: Strengthening the UN as the core platform for global decision-making.
      4. People-Centric Approach: Governance should prioritise well-being, safety, and fulfillment of citizens globally.
      5. Real Results Orientation: Developed nations must shoulder more responsibility, while developing nations must cooperate for shared solutions.
      6. Essence: The GGI is not about creating parallel institutions but reforming and improving existing ones to respond effectively to modern challenges.

    How can India-China cooperation strengthen multilateralism?

    1. Shared Responsibilities: Both countries, as major developing economies and SCO/BRICS members, bear the responsibility to defend international fairness and justice.
    2. Strategic Coordination: The leaders’ dialogue stresses communication on major international and regional issues to bridge divides in the Global South.

    Complementary Visions:

    1. China’s “community of shared future for mankind”
    2. India’s “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (One Earth, One Family, One Future)
    3. Together, they embody the moral and developmental leadership needed for a post-Western global order.
    4. Practical Gains: Resumption of direct flights, maintenance of border stability, and enhanced trade cooperation show concrete steps toward normalisation.

    What challenges lie ahead for India-China collaboration?

    1. Trust Deficit: Lingering border disputes and differing political models may slow strategic trust-building.
    2. Competing Ambitions: While both aspire to leadership in the Global South, perception management and narrative balance will be crucial.
    3. Western Reaction: The West may perceive India-China cooperation as a counterweight to transatlantic power, potentially complicating India’s strategic autonomy.
    4. Need for Institutionalisation: Long-term progress demands institutional mechanisms, track-II dialogues, multilateral coordination cells, and joint UN reform working groups.

    Conclusion

    The India-China partnership in 2025 signals more than a diplomatic milestone, it represents a potential rebalancing of world order. As the UN turns 80, the call for shared leadership between emerging powers grows urgent. If pursued with mutual trust and strategic maturity, the GGI-led collaboration can make the 21st century truly an Asian century rooted in equity, inclusivity, and sustainability. In a fractured world, cooperation, not competition, may be the only path to survival and progress.

  • Gorkhaland statehood, Government names ex-DY NSA as interlocutor

    Introduction

    India’s federal architecture is unique: it allows the creation of new states to accommodate cultural, linguistic, administrative, or developmental aspirations under Article 3 of the Constitution. Yet, every statehood movement also reflects deeper struggles over identity, representation, and development.

    The Gorkhaland issue, revived by the Centre’s recent move to appoint an interlocutor, is one of the oldest and most persistent among these. While it directly concerns the Darjeeling hills and adjoining areas of West Bengal, it mirrors similar aspirations voiced across India, from Vidarbha to Bodoland, Harit Pradesh, and Kukiland.

    The Gorkhaland Appointment: Why is this news significant?

    The Centre’s decision to name ex-Dy NSA Pankaj Kumar Singh as interlocutor for Gorkha talks is a politically charged step:

    1. First formal engagement in years: It revives official talks after a long hiatus, moving beyond ad hoc arrangements like the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA).
    2. High-level signalling: The appointment of a senior security expert signals that the government sees the issue as sensitive, with implications for internal security and electoral politics.
    3. Identity at stake: It concerns recognition of the Gorkha community’s distinct identity, and a permanent political solution to decades of protests and autonomy struggles.
    4. Pre-election dimension: With West Bengal Assembly elections approaching, the move is seen as an attempt to politically engage the hill electorate, which has historically swung between national and regional parties.
    5. Potential precedent: Success in structured dialogue may offer a model for addressing other regional aspirations through negotiation instead of agitation.

    Understanding the Gorkhaland Issue

    Historical Context

    1. Origins: The demand for Gorkhaland dates back to 1907, when the Hillmen’s Association first sought a separate administrative unit for the Nepali-speaking people of Darjeeling under British rule.
    2. Post-Independence Phase: With linguistic reorganisation (1950s), Nepali-speaking Gorkhas felt their identity was inadequately represented in Bengali-dominated West Bengal.
    3. 1980s Uprising: The movement, led by Subhash Ghising’s Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF), turned violent; it led to the creation of the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (DGHC) in 1988 as a compromise.
    4. Second Wave: In 2007, Bimal Gurung formed the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM), renewing the demand; this led to the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA) in 2011, but unrest persisted.
    5. Present Phase: The latest talks under an interlocutor aim to find a “permanent political solution” and recognition of 11 sub-tribes as Scheduled Tribes.

    Key Demands

    1. Separate Gorkhaland State: Carved out of Darjeeling and parts of Kalimpong, to ensure administrative autonomy and cultural recognition.
    2. Scheduled Tribe Status: For 11 Gorkha sub-tribes to ensure constitutional protections and socio-economic inclusion.
    3. Constitutional Recognition: Safeguards for the political identity and rights of the Gorkha people under the Indian Constitution.

    Statehood Demands in India: The Bigger Picture

    India has witnessed over 30 major statehood demands since Independence. While the Constitution empowers Parliament to reorganize states under Article 3, these movements have tested the balance between administrative efficiency, cultural autonomy, and political representation.

    Why Do Statehood Demands Arise?

    • Cultural & Linguistic Identity:
        1. Key reason: Desire for recognition of unique language, ethnicity, or cultural practices.
        2. Examples: Gorkhaland (Nepali-speaking identity), Bodoland (Bodo tribes), Vidarbha (Marathi dialect and identity).
    • Developmental Disparities:
        1. Economic neglect and poor resource distribution often drive demands.
        2. Example: Telangana’s movement was anchored in perceived neglect by Andhra’s political elite.
    • Administrative Efficiency:
        1. Smaller states are believed to ensure better governance and resource management.
        2. Example: Creation of Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand in 2000.
    • Political Representation & Power-sharing:
        1. Regional elites demand greater political space or autonomy to reflect local aspirations.
    • Ethnic Security and Integration:
      1. Fear of cultural assimilation or discrimination by dominant groups drives ethnic-based mobilisation (e.g., Bodoland, Kukiland, Karbi Anglong).
    Year Movement Outcome
    1953 Andhra State (Potti Sriramulu movement) First linguistic state formed
    1960 Maharashtra & Gujarat Bombay Reorganisation Act
    1972 Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura New northeastern states created
    1987 Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh Granted full statehood
    2000 Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand Created for administrative and developmental reasons
    2014 Telangana Result of sustained agitation
    Ongoing Gorkhaland, Bodoland, Vidarbha, Bundelkhand Unresolved, periodic agitations

    Constitutional Mechanism for Creating New States

    Article 3 empowers Parliament to form new states by altering the boundaries or names of existing ones.

    Procedure:

    1. Process: Bill introduced in Parliament → Referred to State Legislature for views (not consent) Passed by simple majority.
    2. Centre’s Discretion: State opinion is advisory, not binding — ensuring national flexibility but sometimes triggering discontent.
    3. Examples:
      • Telangana was created despite Andhra Pradesh’s legislature opposing it.
      • Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar through a parliamentary process.

    Challenges and Implications of Statehood Movements

    1. Political Fragmentation: Multiplying small states may weaken national coherence and increase Centre-State friction.
    2. Administrative Burden: Creating new bureaucratic structures increases fiscal costs.
    3. Resource Distribution Issues: Conflicts over rivers, minerals, and forest resources (e.g., Telangana-Andhra).
    4. Ethnic Competition: One community’s recognition can fuel new demands from others.
    5. Positive Outcomes: Improved local governance, targeted development, and better representation when well-implemented (e.g., Chhattisgarh’s success in rural health and PDS).

    Lessons from Gorkhaland and Other Movements

    1. Need for Institutional Dialogue: Interlocutors and commissions reduce the risk of violent agitation by creating formal channels for negotiation.
    2. Multi-stakeholder Approach: Engagement should include Centre, State, local bodies, and civil society, not just political parties.
    3. Development-Based Solutions: Autonomy and identity must align with socio-economic development for long-term peace.
    4. Model for Others: If successful, the Gorkhaland dialogue could serve as a precedent for resolving other autonomy demands peacefully.

    Conclusion

    The Gorkhaland issue is not merely a regional agitation; it is part of India’s broader story of balancing unity with diversity, integration with autonomy, and identity with development. The Centre’s interlocutor initiative provides a constitutional, consultative path forward, one that aligns with India’s ethos of resolving internal aspirations democratically.

    As India continues to evolve, the challenge will be to ensure that new demands for statehood or autonomy are addressed through dialogue, data, and development, not through division or delay.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] Creation of a large number of smaller States would bring in effective governance at the State level. Discuss.

    Linkage: This PYQ links directly with Gorkhaland and other statehood demands, testing ideas of better governance and federal balance. The article helps students with examples, chronology, and constitutional context to write precise GS II answers.

  • UN Global Geospatial Information Management for Asia and the Pacific (UN-GGIM-AP)

    Why in the News?

    India has been elected as Co-Chair of the Regional Committee of the United Nations Global Geospatial Information Management for Asia and the Pacific (UN-GGIM-AP) for a three-year term till 2028.

    About UN-GGIM-Asia and the Pacific (UN-GGIM-AP):

    • Objective: Maximises social, economic, and environmental benefits of geospatial data through regional collaboration, innovation, and policy harmonisation.
    • Overview: It is one of the five regional committees under the UN Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM).
    • Function: Serves as the highest inter-governmental platform in the region for joint decision-making on geospatial data generation, governance, and utilisation.
    • Mandate: Coordinates geospatial policy, promotes data standardisation, and supports applications in sustainable development, disaster management, and environmental monitoring.
    • Establishment: Formed in 1995 as the Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and the Pacific (PCGIAP); rebranded in 2012 following UN-GGIM’s global launch in 2011.
    • Membership: Comprises 56 national geospatial agencies from across the Asia-Pacific region.
    • Secretariat: Hosted by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP) since 2018, providing institutional and technical support.

    India’s Role and Significance:

    • Leadership Role: India elected Co-Chair (2025–2028), reflecting global recognition of its geospatial governance and digital mapping expertise.
    • Strategic Influence: Strengthens India’s position in regional policy formation, data ethics, and standardisation frameworks.
    • Policy Alignment: Complements India’s National Geospatial Policy 2022, Digital India, and PM GatiShakti National Master Plan initiatives.
    • Regional Contribution: India to lead capacity-building, data interoperability, and open-access frameworks for disaster management and climate resilience.
    • Institutional Integration: Links ISRO’s remote sensing and Survey of India’s ground mapping to regional development goals.
    • Global Impact: Positions India as a knowledge hub in geospatial innovation and ensures its active role in defining global spatial data standards for sustainable growth.
    [UPSC 2023]  Consider the following infrastructure sectors :

    1. Affordable housing 2. Mass rapid transport 3. Health care 4. Renewable energy

    On how many of the above does UNOPS Sustainable Investments in Infrastructure and Innovation (S3i) initiative focus for its investments?

    Options: (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three* (d) All four

     

  • Restoring fiscal space for the states

    Introduction

    India’s fiscal federalism has long been guided by the principle of cooperative balance, where both the Centre and States share resources, responsibilities, and accountability. However, the post-GST era has altered this equilibrium. The recent merger of the GST compensation cess with regular tax marks a watershed moment, ending an era of fiscal cushioning for States and raising pressing questions about States’ financial independence.

    With rising public aspirations, widening service delivery gaps, and increased welfare commitments, States are grappling with constrained fiscal space. The centralisation of taxation powers, growing dependence on Central transfers, and the limited flexibility to raise revenue are redefining India’s fiscal federalism.

    Why in the News?

    The abolition of the GST compensation cess, after five years of implementation, marks a turning point in India’s fiscal framework. For the first time since GST’s rollout in 2017, the compensation mechanism, which assured States 14% annual revenue growth, has ended.

    This is significant because:

    • The cess previously cushioned States from revenue shortfalls during GST transition.
    • Its removal exposes the true fiscal capacity of States, revealing wide disparities in revenue generation.
    • The Centre’s growing use of cesses and surcharges, which are not shareable with States, has further squeezed State finances.
    • The resulting imbalance has rekindled the debate on “fiscal autonomy versus fiscal efficiency.”

    Evolving Fiscal Architecture

    How has GST altered India’s tax landscape?

    1. Shift from origin-based to destination-based taxation: GST replaced multiple State taxes with a unified structure, eroding the States’ control over indirect taxes.
    2. Shared tax base: Both Centre and States levy GST, but decision-making lies with the GST Council, where the Centre has a dominant role.
    3. Erosion of fiscal autonomy: States lost independent authority to adjust tax rates or design fiscal responses tailored to their economies.
    4. Cess and surcharge dominance: These have become a parallel fiscal instrument for the Centre, bypassing the divisible tax pool.

    Changing Centre–State Financial Relations

    How have constitutional mechanisms evolved over time?

    1. Articles 268–293 define the fiscal relationship between Centre and States.
    2. The Finance Commission (Article 280) determines devolution, but several States allege that the criteria penalise progressive, industrial States.
    3. With the abolition of the Planning Commission in 2014, only two main transfer channels remain, Finance Commission grants and Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS).
    4. Article 282 allows discretionary Central grants, often perceived as politically influenced, affecting opposition-ruled States disproportionately.

    Declining Devolution and Fiscal Dependence

    How serious is the resource imbalance between Centre and States?

    1. Despite recommendations of 42% devolution (14th Finance Commission), actual transfers as a share of gross tax revenue have declined.
    2. Cesses and surcharges, which are non-shareable, reached ₹3.86 lakh crore (RE 2024–25) and are projected at ₹4.23 lakh crore (BE 2025–26).
    3. Central transfers still account for 44% of States’ revenue receipts, ranging from 72% for Bihar to 20% for Haryana, highlighting the uneven dependency landscape.
    4. The Centre collects 67% of total tax revenue, while States handle over 52% of total expenditure, particularly in health, education, and agriculture.
    5. This structural mismatch constrains States’ fiscal flexibility and deepens intergovernmental friction.

    Emerging Demands for Fiscal Reforms

    What are States and experts proposing for fiscal autonomy?

    1. Restructuring tax-sharing principles: Revisiting Finance Commission formulas to reflect true expenditure needs and reward performance equitably.
    2. Personal Income Tax sharing: Proposal to share or allow States to “top up” the personal income tax base to reduce fiscal dependence.
    3. Learning from Canada: Canadian provinces collect 54% of taxes and spend 60%, offering a model of greater subnational flexibility.
    4. Transparent devolution: Merging cesses and surcharges into the divisible pool could enhance transparency and equity.
    5. Independent fiscal oversight: Establishing a permanent intergovernmental fiscal council for mediation and coordination.

    The Way Forward: Towards Cooperative Fiscal Federalism

    How can fiscal space be restored to States?

    1. Revisit GST architecture: Grant States limited powers to vary tax rates within a band for specific commodities or services.
    2. Rationalise CSS schemes: Allow greater flexibility for States to design locally suited welfare interventions.
    3. Enhance fiscal responsibility: Encourage States to improve tax compliance, widen base, and adopt technology-driven revenue administration.
    4. Periodic fiscal reviews: Institutionalise data-based monitoring to balance efficiency with equity.
    5. Political cooperation: Encourage a non-partisan GST Council model where fiscal debates remain guided by economic logic, not politics.

    Conclusion

    India’s growth story is fundamentally federal. The vitality of its States determines the resilience of its economy. As the GST compensation era ends and States’ expenditure responsibilities rise, restoring their fiscal autonomy is essential for sustainable growth. True cooperative federalism demands not just consultation but real power-sharing in fiscal decision-making. Empowering States fiscally is not a concession — it is a constitutional necessity for a balanced and vibrant India.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism.

    Linkage: The phasing out of the GST compensation cess and rising use of non-shareable cesses and surcharges reflect the Centre’s growing fiscal dominance, compelling States to seek reforms in tax devolution to rebuild trust and uphold true cooperative federalism.

  • Empower ASI to do its job

    Introduction 

    The government’s move to allow private oversight of protected monuments is a watershed moment. For decades, ASI has been the statutory guardian of India’s tangible past, born in the colonial era and burdened by bureaucracy, underfunding and a shrinking sense of mission. Simultaneously, private actors and civic organisations have shown how resources, managerial skill and community energy can revive museums and sites. The question is not whether to choose one side; it is how to combine ASI’s technical authority with the creativity, funds and operational capability that partnerships bring, without commodifying culture.

    The Human Cost of Institutional Drift

    The shrinking imagination of public stewardship

    1. Institutional fatigue: ASI carries a legacy of scholarship but suffers from low morale and an inward-looking culture that treats conservation as paperwork rather than cultural care.
    2. Loss of interpretive vision: When custodians stop telling stories, monuments become inert props rather than living places of memory and identity.
    3. Urban neglect: Historic neighbourhoods, bazaars and ritual spaces around monuments decay when site management ignores everyday people.

    The emotional stakes for communities

    1. Cultural dislocation: For villagers, priests and artisans, monuments are part of life, losing access or ritual meaning severs social ties.
    2. Livelihoods at risk: When heritage is mismanaged, local guides, craftspeople and small vendors lose incomes tied to respectful tourism.

    The Promise of Partnerships and PPPs

    Partnerships as custodianship boosters

    1. Financial rescue: PPPs can create endowments and recurring funding streams for long-term maintenance, freeing conservation from short political cycles.
    2. Example: Museum restorations in Mumbai combined corporate funding, municipal support and conservation expertise to revive institutions.
    3. Operational professionalism: Private sector expertise in project management, visitor services and marketing improves site upkeep and interpretive programming.
    4. New experiences, same respect: Thoughtful PPPs design museum displays, lighting, interpretation centres and guided routes that invite learning, not spectacle.

    PPPs and local empowerment

    1. Livelihood integration: PPP projects that hire local artisans and vendors create shared incentives for conservation.
    2. Example: Community-run craft stalls and guided-walk programs increase earnings and local ownership.
    3. Skill-building: Partnerships can fund training for conservators, guides, and site managers, expanding the conservation workforce.

    When PPPs get it right: conditions of success

    1. ASI oversight: Technical conservation plans must be approved and monitored by ASI or accredited conservation experts.
    2. Community clauses: Contracts should guarantee access, rituals and a share of revenue for local stakeholders.
    3. Transparent accountability: Public dashboards, audited accounts and sunset clauses prevent permanent privatization.

    The Risks of Commercialisation and How to Guard Against Them

    Commodification and loss of sacredness

    1. Over-entertainment danger: Turning a temple or tomb into a stage for events can strip its sanctity and alienate devotees.
    2. Tourist-first trap: If revenue becomes the sole metric, conservation values degrade.
    3. Equity and access concerns
    4. Paywall problem: Higher fees and exclusive events can exclude local communities; safeguards must keep access affordable and meaningful.

    Technical and ethical lapses

    1. Skill imbalance: Corporates without heritage expertise may favour cosmetic changes over reversible, scientifically sound conservation.
    2. Short-termism: Event-driven models can fund repairs but not create long-term technical capacity for conservation.

    A Practical, Human-Centred Roadmap

    Reinventing ASI as knowledge steward and regulator

    1. Autonomy with accountability: Grant ASI managerial freedom and stable budgets while insisting on transparency and citizen oversight.
    2. Specialist cadres: Create conservation architect and urban heritage cadres, fellowships and cross-disciplinary teams (historians, anthropologists, conservators).

    Designing PPPs for people and preservation

    1. Model MoU essentials: ASI-approved conservation plan, community benefit clause, revenue-sharing mechanism, independent monitoring, exit/sunset clause.
    2. Performance metrics: Conservation integrity, community welfare indicators, visitor-impact thresholds, financial sustainability.
    3. Phased pilots: Start with clearly defined pilot projects (museums, small sites) before scaling to larger or sacred monuments.

    Community as co-custodians

    1. Local governance: Empower panchayats, municipal trusts and temple committees in day-to-day stewardship with technical backup from ASI.
    2. Benefit linking: Ensure training, employment and revenue-sharing for local craftspeople and service providers.

    Modern tools for timeless care

    1. Digital records: 3D scans, GIS mapping and condition-monitoring dashboards to track deterioration and plan interventions.
    2. Public access to data: Open reports and accessible interpretive material strengthen democratic stewardship.

    Conclusion — A human promise, not a transaction

    Heritage is ethical work: it asks us to keep memory alive while serving the living. The ASI must be renewed into a vibrant, expert body that sets standards and guarantees access. PPPs — when framed by clear agreements, community rights and technical oversight — can supply funds, skills and fresh ideas. The aim is not to monetise memory but to steward it: to ensure that stones continue to tell stories, and that those stories remain deeply, unmistakably, Indian.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Public charitable trusts have the potential to make India’s development more inclusive as they relate to certain vital public issues. Comment.

    Linkage: This PYQ highlights how non-state actors and philanthropic trusts can complement government efforts in addressing public issues. It is linked to the article as PPPs and heritage trusts similarly expand conservation beyond ASI’s limited capacity, ensuring inclusive and sustainable preservation of cultural assets.

  • Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

    Why in the News?

    The 19th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Mid-Term Ministerial Meeting was recently held in Kampala, Uganda.

    About the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

    • Overview: A grouping of states not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc, established to uphold sovereignty, independence, and neutrality during the Cold War.
    • Formation: Founded in 1961 at Belgrade, Yugoslavia, emerging from the 1955 Bandung Conference (Indonesia) which laid down the Ten Principles of Bandung as its ideological foundation.
    • Founding Leaders:
      1. Jawaharlal Nehru (India)
      2. Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt)
      3. Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia)
      4. Ahmed Sukarno (Indonesia)
      5. Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana)
    • Membership:
      • 120 countries: 53 from Africa, 39 from Asia, 26 from Latin America & the Caribbean, and 2 from Europe.
      • Includes Palestine as a member and 17 observer nations with 10 observer organisations.
      • Represents nearly 60% of UN membership, making it the second-largest intergovernmental bloc after the UN.
    • Structure: NAM functions without a permanent secretariat, charter, or budget, relying on rotational leadership and consensus-driven decision-making.

    Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

    India’s Contemporary Role in NAM:

    • India advocates for reinvigorating NAM as a platform for South-South cooperation in technology, trade, and climate resilience.
    • It seeks to make NAM relevant in a multipolar world, focusing on digital equity, global governance reforms, and sustainable development.
    • India views NAM not as an anti-West bloc but as a forum of balanced autonomy, promoting strategic non-alignment and global partnership in the 21st century.
    [UPSC 2009] Among the following Presidents of India, who was also the Secretary General of Non-Aligned Movement for some period ?

    Options: (a) Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (b) Varahairi Venkatagiri (c) Giani Zail Singh * (d) Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma