💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS3

  • Fear revisits residents of Western Ghats

    Why in the News

    The Centre has issued its seventh draft notification proposing to declare 56,825.7 sq km of the Western Ghats an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA). Of that, 29,668 sq km spread across 1,449 villages in ten Karnataka districts falls in the State. Hundreds of farmers in the Malnad region have marched against the draft, and their central demand is not that the notification be dropped. They want the Karnataka government to conduct a physical survey of the land and to exclude human settlements and cultivated areas from the proposed ESA boundary. The tension is that the people most opposed to the notification already live under forest restrictions that deny them roads, schools, electricity and clear title, and they read the ESA as freezing those unsettled claims permanently.

    What is an Ecologically Sensitive Area?

    1. The legal basis: An ESA is an area notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, within which specified activities are prohibited, restricted or made subject to closer scrutiny.
    2. How it is created: The Centre issues a draft notification proposing the boundary and the restrictions, and allows a fixed period for objections before a final notification can issue. The seventh draft allows 60 days.
    3. What it is not: An ESA is a land use regime layered over existing ownership, so it does not by itself transfer land or extinguish a title.

    How did the Western Ghats ESA proposal originate?

    1. A march, not a ministry: On 1 November 1987 two groups of scientists, ecologists, environmentalists and activists began walking simultaneously from Navapur in Maharashtra’s Dhule district and from Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu towards a common meeting point in Goa, documenting the ecological condition of the landscape along the route.
    2. The Goa conference: The effort culminated in a conference in Goa in February 1988, where the ecologist Madhav Gadgil of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru chaired the technical session on the region’s ecological status.
    3. The demand for an expert panel: The group stayed active through a 1998 yatra and meetings in 2009 and on 18 February 2010 at the Keystone Foundation in Kotagiri, Nilgiris, where the then Union Minister for Environment and Forests was asked to constitute an expert panel on the Western Ghats.
    4. The panel: On 4 March 2010 the Ministry of Environment and Forests set up the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) under Gadgil, with nine non-government and five official members, to assess the ecological status of the Ghats, demarcate areas to be notified as ecologically sensitive, and recommend conservation measures through wide consultation.

    What did the WGEEP recommend, and how was its report handled?

    1. A people-oriented model: The report went beyond regulation to propose science-based incentives, including financial rewards for individual farmers and payments for ecosystem services to communities. It cited the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme, under which farmers were paid retrospectively for verified increases in soil carbon on regeneratively managed farmland.
    2. The restrictions it proposed: These included a complete ban on mining and sand extraction with existing operations phased out within five years or on expiry of lease, restrictions on housing and construction projects exceeding 20,000 sq m, a ban on all “red category” highly polluting industries with existing units to close or relocate within five years, encouragement of organic farming, and closer scrutiny of other development activities.
    3. The report was withheld for months: The panel submitted its final report on 31 August 2011. The Ministry resisted disclosure through repeated applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and an order of the Central Information Commission, and approached the Delhi High Court seeking a stay, before uploading the report on its website on 23 May 2012.
    4. Every State government objected: All the States concerned, including Karnataka and Kerala, opposed the recommendations, and elected representatives particularly in Kerala argued they would severely disrupt local livelihoods.

    What did the Kasturirangan High-Level Working Group change?

    1. Why it was constituted: Taking the criticism of the WGEEP report into account, the Union Ministry set up a High-Level Working Group (HLWG) under K. Kasturirangan to prepare a “workable and implementable” report on conserving the Western Ghats.
    2. What it recommended: The panel visited several places, including Sakleshpur in Hassan district, and submitted its report on 15 April 2013. It recommended that about 37 per cent of the Western Ghats, 59,940 sq km forming a continuous band of natural vegetation stretching roughly 1,500 km across six States, be declared an ESA. Karnataka accounted for the largest share, around 20,668 sq km.
    3. The objection from the earlier panel: Gadgil objected strongly in an open letter, stating that the WGEEP had proposed a graded, participatory approach with a major role for grassroots input.
    4. What the letter said the HLWG did instead: It had effectively partitioned the landscape, with roughly a third to be protected by “funds and guards” as natural landscape and the remaining two-thirds labelled cultural landscape and left open to development.

    What does the seventh draft propose for Karnataka?

    1. Seven drafts, none finalised: The Ministry has issued seven draft notifications since 2014. All six earlier drafts were opposed by the States concerned, and residents of the affected regions filed numerous objections against them.
    2. The Karnataka share: The 29,668 sq km proposed in the State is spread across 1,449 villages in Belagavi, Chamarajanagar, Chikkamagaluru, Dakshina Kannada, Hassan, Kodagu, Mysuru, Shivamogga, Udupi and Uttara Kannada districts.
    3. The instrument has not changed: The draft still rests on the boundary the HLWG proposed, which is why the objection filed against it is the same objection filed against the six drafts before it.

    What are the Malnad protests demanding?

    1. The march: On 29 August hundreds of farmers from Hosanagara taluk in Shivamogga district marched about nine kilometres from the Ganesha temple in Karanagiri to Hosanagara town, and farmers across Shivamogga and neighbouring Malnad districts are planning similar protests.
    2. The demand has narrowed: The central demand is a physical survey of the land by the State government and the exclusion of human settlements and cultivated areas from the proposed boundary.
    3. The Kerala model they cite: Kerala reduced its proposed ESA area from 13,108 sq km to 9,937 sq km, comprising 9,107 sq km of forest and 886.7 sq km of non-forest land, after conducting a physical survey. That reduction of more than 3,000 sq km has since been incorporated into the revised notification.
    4. The organising vehicle: A large section of farmers has been brought together under the banner of the Western Ghats Raitha Sahakari Vedike, which has launched a website with a tool to help the public file objections online.
    5. The shift in position: The organisation is not opposing the notification outright this time, and is instead demanding that the State government follow the Kerala model to minimise the impact.

    How has the Karnataka political establishment responded?

    1. The stated concerns: The Member of Parliament from Shivamogga, who joined the protest marches, said restrictions on township projects and the push for organic farming were the primary concerns in the Malnad region.
    2. The plantation economy’s objection: Many farmers in Shivamogga, Uttara Kannada, Chikkamagaluru and Kodagu who grow plantation crops such as coffee and areca use chemical fertilizers to protect their crops from disease, and ask how plantations are to be protected if such inputs are restricted. Restrictions on house construction are the second stated objection.
    3. A legislative airing: The Karnataka Cabinet announced on 3 September 2026 a three-day special session of the legislature from 21 September to discuss drought, which will also take up a detailed discussion on the Kasturirangan report. The Chief Minister agreed to convene it after leaders across parties urged a physical survey, and the decision was welcomed across party lines.
    4. The State’s declared position: The Minister for School Education, who is also in charge of Shivamogga district, has said the State government will oppose the draft notification. A former Minister and Congress leader burnt a copy of the Kasturirangan report at a press conference in Tirthahalli.

    Why is the fear about existing forest rules rather than the ESA?

    1. A displaced village still without power: Uralagallu in Sagar taluk of Shivamogga district houses families displaced by the Linganamakki dam across the Sharavathi river in the 1960s. The village has roughly 50 to 56 families and a population of 150 to 200, with no proper road, school or primary health centre, its nearest bus stop about 10 km away, and no ambulance visit in recent years. It still has no electricity, because the Forest Department has repeatedly denied clearance for road and power-supply works.
    2. Children leave the village to study: A majority of parents there send their children to hostels or to relatives’ homes early. One resident’s two children stay about 50 km away at Mavinagundi, and villagers walk 10 km to Kanuru to catch a bus.
    3. Roads are blocked in conflict-prone stretches: At Byrapura in N.R. Pura taluk of Chikkamagaluru district, schoolchildren recently encountered a leopard on their way home, and stayed away from school for several days. Parents say a proper road would allow safer transport, and forest regulations continue to block it.
    4. Even the local government has no title: In Karimane village of Hosanagara taluk, large parts of the settlement including the gram panchayat building stand on forest land, leaving the panchayat office without an official khata, or title, and the community in administrative limbo.
    5. Unsettled claims are the real anxiety: Bagair hukum, or unauthorised, cultivators and people displaced by dam projects are yet to receive the compensatory land promised to them under existing rules, and they fear that an ESA in force would leave those claims unresolved indefinitely.

    What is the case for the notification?

    1. The rejected report is held to be the better one: Several environmentalists argue that the Kasturirangan report was a “diluted version” of the WGEEP report, which they consider better suited to conserving the Ghats with active local participation.
    2. The argument surfaces only after a disaster: Whenever landslips or flash floods strike Kerala or Kodagu, environmentalists blame policymakers for ignoring the WGEEP recommendations. The debate typically subsides within days, as routine concerns over access, amenities, roads and electricity take over.
    3. Much of the proposed area is already forest: An environmentalist based in Sagar taluk states that a major portion of the area proposed for the ESA in Karnataka is already notified forest, that the remainder is small, and that there should be no opposition to including it.
    4. The restrictions are said to be misread: The same view holds that people with vested interests are misleading the public with false information about the restrictions, that ordinary people have no reason to fear a ban on mining or on red-category industries, and that the push for organic farming benefits everyone.

    Challenges to the Western Ghats ESA notification

    1. A draft that never becomes a notification produces neither protection nor certainty: Each draft lapses and is reissued, so landowners cannot plan and the ecologically sensitive designation has no legal force in the interim. Eg. The proposal has now run through more than a decade of successive drafts without a single final notification issuing.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory outer limit within which a draft issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 must be finalised or formally withdrawn.
    2. ESA status does not stop the land use changes that do the most damage: Large hydel, transmission and road projects are cleared through separate forest and wildlife clearance processes that an ESA notification does not displace. Eg. The Athirappilly hydel project in Kerala’s Chalakudy basin has been proposed and revived repeatedly in a stretch the ecology panel placed in its highest sensitivity zone.
      The Fix: Write the prohibition on new hydel and mining leases into the notification itself, rather than leaving each project to a case-by-case clearance.
    3. Forest rights claims in the same landscape are unsettled: Restricting land use before individual and community claims are decided converts a pending claim into a permanent denial. Eg. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 requires gram sabha verification of every claim, and recognition remains incomplete across the Western Ghats States.
      The Fix: Settle pending claims before the final notification takes effect, and attach the gram sabha resolution to the boundary record for each village.
    4. Tighter protection without habitat management raises human-wildlife conflict: Restricting access and infrastructure inside a landscape does nothing about crop raiding and encounters on the forest edge, which is what residents experience daily. Eg. Kodagu and Hassan districts record repeated elephant crop damage and human casualties, and conflict compensation in Karnataka runs among the highest in the country.
      The Fix: Fund a dedicated conflict mitigation line inside the ESA framework, covering barriers, rapid response teams and time-bound ex gratia payment.

    Conclusion

    The dispute is no longer about whether the Western Ghats need protection. It is about who verifies the boundary, and on what evidence. A line drawn from remote sensing and contested for over a decade has delivered neither conservation on the ground nor certainty for the people living inside it, and each reissued draft resets the argument to where it began. The question that decides the outcome is whether Karnataka answers this draft with a completed ground survey or with another objection.

    Back2Basics: Western Ghats

    1. What it is: The Western Ghats is a chain of hills running parallel to India’s western coast, older than the Himalaya, and it intercepts the south-west monsoon to produce the heavy orographic rainfall of the west coast.
    2. Global recognition: It is one of the world’s recognised biodiversity hotspots, a designation given to regions with exceptional endemism and severe habitat loss.
    3. World Heritage status: UNESCO inscribed a serial property of 39 sites across the Western Ghats on the World Heritage List in 2012.
    4. Why endemism matters here: A large share of its amphibians, fish and flowering plants are found nowhere else, and species such as the lion-tailed macaque and the Nilgiri tahr are restricted to this range.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Gadgil Committee Report’ and ‘Kasturirangan Committee Report’, sometimes seen in the news, are related to (a) constitutional reforms (b) Ganga Action Plan (c) linking of rivers (d) protection of Western Ghats”

  • Why is BRICS exploring cross-border payments?

    Why in the News

    The 18th BRICS summit in New Delhi, with India as Chair, is expected to push for mechanisms to settle payments between members, including links between national digital payment systems and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), which are digital versions of a national currency issued by its central bank. Finance ministry and central bank representatives from member countries met at Jaipur on August 12-13 to discuss financial cooperation, payments and the wider use of national currencies in settling trade between members. The push follows a 2024 BRICS report under Russia’s chairmanship, which argued that this part of the financial system is monopolised by a single institution and that the monopoly raises transaction costs. India has framed its own proposal as a way of cutting costs and speeding settlement rather than as a move away from the dollar. The tension is that every workable alternative needs a critical mass of banks and regulators to join before it saves anyone money, and the members most eager to build one are the members others are most wary of joining.

    How does a cross-border payment move today?

    1. The chain of correspondents: Money does not travel directly between the buyer’s bank and the seller’s bank. It moves through a series of correspondent banks that hold accounts with each other. Eg. An importer in Cape Town paying an exporter in Chennai is routed through a larger international bank typically headquartered in London or New York.
    2. The dollar as a vehicle: Very few banks hold both rupees and rand, so the payment is converted from rand to dollars and then from dollars to rupees, with no American party to the trade.
    3. Messaging is separate from settlement: The instructions travel over SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, a Belgium-based cooperative overseen by the National Bank of Belgium along with the G-10 central banks including the U.S. Federal Reserve. It carries payment instructions; the money is settled separately.
    4. Why the network is hard to displace: SWIFT is used directly by more than 11,000 institutions in over 200 countries, and smaller banks reach it indirectly through larger member banks.

    What does the chain cost?

    1. Foreign exchange margins are paid twice: Every intermediary charges a fee, and the two currency conversions mean the exchange margin is taken on both legs.
    2. The measured margins: A 2019 BRICS survey of cross-border payment systems conducted by Brazil found Brazilian respondents reporting foreign exchange margins of 2.5 per cent, rising to 8.5 per cent for payments into Africa and in some cases as high as 20 per cent.
    3. The network has thinned: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) found active correspondent banking relationships fell by 20 per cent between 2011 and 2018, with regional declines ranging from 12 per cent to 30 per cent and Latin America worst affected. The reasons were largely commercial, since payment volumes kept growing through the same period.
    4. Speed is no longer the binding problem: SWIFT states that its Global Payments Innovation service has cut transaction times substantially, and the remaining delays are structural rather than a function of chain length.

    Why does BRICS want to change this system?

    1. Exposure to other countries’ monetary policy: Settling in a handful of dominant currencies, the U.S. dollar, the euro and the Japanese yen, exposes developing economies to policy decisions taken by the issuing countries.
    2. The stated cost argument: The 2024 BRICS report held that concentration of the messaging layer in one institution raises what every participant pays to transact.
    3. Sanctions are the sharpest driver and the sharpest deterrent: Several Russian banks were cut off from SWIFT in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions-hit Russia has pushed hardest for an alternative, and that is also the reason other members are wary of joining one.
    4. The adoption problem: An alternative rail is useful only once a large number of banks and regulators have joined it, and a bank that uses one to deal with sanctioned entities risks sanctions itself.

    What alternatives are on the table?

    1. Bilateral linkage of national systems: Two countries can connect their domestic payment systems directly, avoiding correspondent banks and dollar conversion. Eg. India and Singapore have linked the Unified Payments Interface with PayNow for remittances. Building such links pair by pair does not scale.
    2. A shared hub: Project Nexus, designed by the BIS and handed to a company set up by six central banks including the Reserve Bank of India, lets each country join one connection rather than many. It goes live only in 2027 and is not a BRICS initiative.
    3. CBDC settlement on a common platform: Central banks issue digital versions of their currencies for use between banks, a settlement asset distinct from the retail digital rupee held by individuals, and exchange them on one platform. Both legs of a currency swap occur at the same instant or not at all, which removes the risk of paying out before the other side pays and cuts the capital banks must set aside.
    4. The one platform running today: mBridge, built by the BIS with the central banks of China, Thailand, Hong Kong and the UAE, was handed to its participants when the BIS left in October 2024. Over 95 per cent of its settlement volume is in China’s digital yuan, according to People’s Bank of China figures.
    5. The BRICS-specific proposal: The Kazan declaration of 2024 agreed to discuss and study the feasibility of an independent settlement system called BRICS Clear. The Rio declaration the following year did not mention it.

    What is India’s position?

    1. The proposal: India has proposed that members link their CBDCs for trade and tourism payments, extending the linkage idea from retail systems to central bank money.
    2. The framing is deliberate: Indian officials have consistently presented the payment systems as a means of cutting transaction costs and speeding settlement, not as an initiative to displace the dollar.
    3. Other members have gone further: Russian proposals, and those of some Brazilian economists, have moved towards alternative financial systems explicitly aimed at reducing dependence on the dollar.
    4. The reason for the caution: In November 2024 the U.S. President threatened 100 per cent tariffs on BRICS countries that moved away from the dollar, and a further 10 per cent on countries aligning with vaguely defined anti-American BRICS policies. The threats were not carried out.

    Challenges to a linked BRICS payment system

    1. Domestic rails are not built alike: Member systems differ in message formats, operating hours and rules on when a payment becomes final, so linking them forces each participant to change domestic infrastructure. Eg. The Unified Payments Interface settles instantly and around the clock. Several member country systems settle in batches on business days only.
      The Fix: Require every participant to migrate to the ISO 20022 messaging standard and extend operating windows so linked systems overlap for a common settlement period.
    2. Most member currency pairs have no liquid market: Settling directly in national currencies needs someone willing to hold and convert the receiving currency, which does not exist for most BRICS pairs. Eg. Indian exporters accumulated rupee balances in special vostro accounts under the rupee trade settlement mechanism that counterparties could not readily deploy.
      The Fix: Establish central bank swap lines and designated market makers for the main pairs, so balances can be converted rather than parked.
    3. One platform needs one rulebook: Customer verification, anti money laundering standards and dispute resolution differ across members, and a shared platform cannot function on several standards at once. Eg. Financial Action Task Force grey listing constrains banks anywhere from dealing with counterparties in a flagged jurisdiction.
      The Fix: Agree a common rulebook and a named dispute resolution seat before the platform carries live value rather than after.
    4. CBDC readiness is uneven across members: A linkage of central bank digital currencies cannot include a member whose currency has not reached production. Eg. India’s wholesale and retail digital rupee pilots began in 2022 and remain pilots.
      The Fix: Sequence the linkage in waves, beginning with members whose wholesale CBDC is already in live operation.

    Conclusion

    The grouping has no shortage of proposals and a shortage of commitment. Every model on the table asks members to surrender something domestically, either control over settlement or their own infrastructure standards, before any of them saves a rupee. The declarations so far have moved in the opposite direction, agreeing to study a settlement system in one year and passing over it the next. The New Delhi summit is where the members either name one model and a date for it or repeat the study language a third time.

    Back2Basics: Bank for International Settlements

    1. Established in 1930 and headquartered at Basel, Switzerland, it is the oldest international financial institution.
    2. It is owned by 63 member central banks, including the Reserve Bank of India, and functions as a bank for central banks rather than for governments or individuals.
    3. It hosts the committees that set global financial standards, including the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
    4. Its Innovation Hub builds payment and settlement prototypes and hands them over to participating central banks, which is how both mBridge and Project Nexus were created.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “With reference to the Central Bank digital currencies, consider the following statements: 1. It is possible to make payments in a digital currency without using US dollar or SWIFT system. 2. A digital currency can be distributed with a condition programmed into it such as time-frame for spending it. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2”

  • The economy, its math and politics

    Why in the News

    A former Economic Affairs Secretary in the Ministry of Finance has claimed that nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the first quarter of 2026-27 was 2.6 per cent, against the 10.3 per cent estimated by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI). Adjusted for inflation of 2 to 2.5 per cent, that arithmetic puts real growth at zero rather than at the official 7.8 per cent. The claim was built by comparing the April-June 2025 GDP level computed on the old 2011-12 base year with the April-June 2026 level computed on the 2022-23 base year that MoSPI adopted in February 2026. Splicing two series produces a growth rate that measures neither of them. The contest is between an official estimate the government spent a week publicly defending and a public mood in which a very low growth number was readily believed.

    What is a base year in GDP computation?

    1. The purpose: A base year fixes the set of prices at which output in every later year is valued, so a change in the measured total reflects a change in volume and not a change in prices.
    2. Nominal against real: Nominal GDP values output at the prices ruling in the year it was produced. Real GDP values that same output at base year prices, which is what makes growth comparable across years.
    3. The worked illustration: A country producing only crude oil sells 10 million barrels at $10 in year 1, giving a GDP of $100 million, then 5 million barrels at $30 in year 2, giving $150 million. Measured at year 1 prices, year 2 output is $50 million, so the economy has contracted by half even though its nominal GDP rose 50 per cent.
    4. What the base year carries: It fixes the relative prices and the weights of the period chosen, and those weights then run through every year of the series.

    Why is the base year revised every five to six years?

    1. Consumption patterns move: What households spend on shifts substantially over a decade, so an old price structure misvalues what the economy now produces. Eg. Telecom tariffs collapsed after 2016 and digital services barely existed as a separate category in 2011-12.
    2. Measurement itself improves: Technology and method allow faster and more precise capture of output and prices than were available when the previous base was set.
    3. Administrative data replaces proxies: The 2022-23 series draws on Goods and Services Tax returns, the Public Financial Management System for central government accounts, e-Vahan for transport spending, and the Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises and the Periodic Labour Force Survey for the informal economy.
    4. Every earlier year is restated: When the base moved from 2011-12 to 2022-23, the GDP values changed for all years from 2011-12 onwards, so growth must be computed between two comparable periods within the new series.

    Where did the disputed calculation go wrong?

    1. The splice: The claim took the April-June 2025 level from the 2011-12 series and the April-June 2026 level from the 2022-23 series, then divided one by the other.
    2. What that number actually measures: A ratio across two series captures the gap between two different valuations of the economy, not the change in output between two quarters.
    3. The office lent the claim weight: The claimant had headed the Department of Economic Affairs and was designated Finance Secretary, which is why the government machinery responded for most of a week rather than ignoring the claim.
    4. The rebuttal crossed party lines: A Congress Rajya Sabha member who is himself critical of the government’s economic management wrote publicly that the arithmetic behind the real growth estimate was not among the things wrong with India’s economy.

    Why did a wrong number travel so far?

    1. Perception ran ahead of the arithmetic: A low growth number was plausible to a section of readers before any of them checked how it was derived.
    2. The protest backdrop: The claim landed during the Jantar Mantar protests, which had already made the government’s economic record a live public argument.
    3. The employability gap: An education system that does not leave its graduates job ready weakens the link between a headline growth number and what people observe.
    4. The demographic pressure: More than a crore young people enter the job market every year, so growth is judged against absorption rather than against output.
    5. Political amplification and its limit: The Congress and several of its leaders amplified the claim. The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, a standing critic of the government’s economic policy, did not comment on it.

    Challenges to the 2022-23 GDP series

    1. The deflator is built for goods: Converting nominal output into real output leans heavily on the Wholesale Price Index, which carries no services component at all. Eg. Services are close to 55 per cent of gross value added and are deflated using price indices constructed for wholesale goods transactions.
      The Fix: Complete the Wholesale Price Index base revision and introduce a Producer Price Index, which is the standard deflator in most large economies.
    2. The corporate database carries inactive firms: Private corporate value added is estimated from company filings, which can include shell and dormant entities. Eg. A National Sample Survey Office technical report on the corporate affairs database found a large share of sampled companies untraceable or wrongly classified.
      The Fix: Publish an annual reconciliation of the active company frame against Goods and Services Tax filings before the frame is used for estimation.
    3. Independent verification lags the release: The detailed sources and methods document that lets researchers reproduce the estimates is published well after the series itself. Eg. After the 2011-12 revision, the back series for years before that base remained contested for years, with a committee estimate and the official estimate disagreeing about growth in the 2000s.
      The Fix: Release the sources and methods volume on the same day as the new series rather than as a follow-up publication.
    4. Growth is not tracked by tax collections: High measured nominal growth that is not matched by proportionate corporate tax receipts leaves the estimate open to challenge. Eg. Direct tax buoyancy has repeatedly diverged from nominal GDP growth in years of strong headline expansion.
      The Fix: Publish the nominal GDP to tax base reconciliation alongside quarterly estimates, so the divergence is explained rather than argued over.

    Conclusion

    The arithmetic is settled and the credibility question is not. Two incompatible growth claims about the same quarter circulated side by side because most readers have no way to adjudicate between them. A statistical office that must be publicly defended each time a headline number is disputed is carrying a trust problem that no revision of the base year resolves. The transition to the 2025 System of National Accounts, due by 2029-30, is the next occasion on which that gap is either closed or carried forward.

    What is National Income Accounting?

    1. About: National income accounting is the set of methods used to measure economic activity across a national economy as a whole, producing indicators such as GDP, Gross National Product and Net National Income.
    2. Rationale: National accounts give fiscal policy, monetary policy, welfare targeting and cross-country comparison a single common measurement base.
    3. Named typology, the three methods: The production method sums value added at each stage across agriculture, industry and services. The income method sums rent, wages, interest, profit, mixed income and net income from abroad. The expenditure method totals consumption, investment, government spending and net exports.
    4. Who compiles it in India: The National Statistical Office under MoSPI prepares the estimates using the benchmark indicator method.

    Laws and Rules Governing National Income Accounting

    1. Collection of Statistics Act, 2008: Empowers the Centre, State governments and local bodies to collect statistics on economic, demographic, social, scientific and environmental matters, and makes furnishing the information a legal obligation.
    2. Collection of Statistics Rules, 2011: Prescribe how a statistical collection is notified and how statistics officers are appointed and their powers exercised.
    3. Collection of Statistics (Amendment) Act, 2017: Extended the parent Act to Jammu and Kashmir, closing a jurisdictional gap in national statistical collection.

    Key Facts about National Income Accounting

    1. National Statistics Day is observed on 29 June, the birth anniversary of P.C. Mahalanobis.
    2. MoSPI was created in 1999 by merging the Department of Statistics with the Department of Programme Implementation.
    3. The National Statistical Commission was set up in 2005 on the recommendation of the Rangarajan Commission and remains a non-statutory advisory body.
    4. The first estimate of India’s national income was made by Dadabhai Naoroji in 1868, and the first official post-Independence estimates came from the National Income Committee of 1949.

    Challenges in National Income Accounting

    1. The unorganised economy resists direct measurement: A large share of output comes from unregistered enterprises that file no accounts, so their contribution is surveyed and then projected forward. Eg. The informal sector contributed roughly 45 per cent of gross value added in 2022-23.
      The Fix: Shorten the interval between unincorporated enterprise surveys so projection periods are measured in months rather than years.
    2. Final and intermediate goods are hard to separate: Counting the same output twice inflates the total, and the distinction depends on who buys the good rather than on the good itself. Eg. Flour bought by a bakery is an intermediate input, and the identical flour bought by a household is final consumption.
      The Fix: Extend the Supply and Use Tables framework, which balances production against consumption and forces the discrepancy to surface.
    3. Non-market work is excluded by construction: Subsistence farming, barter and unpaid care work produce real output that no price attaches to, so they never enter the total. Eg. Time use survey data shows women performing several hours of unpaid domestic and care work daily, none of which is counted.
      The Fix: Publish satellite accounts for household and care production alongside the main accounts, as several statistical systems already do.
    4. Natural capital depletion is treated as income: Resource extraction adds to measured output and the loss of the resource is not netted out anywhere. Eg. Groundwater drawn beyond recharge in Punjab and Haryana raises agricultural value added. The stock that produced it shrinks, and nothing in the accounts records the loss.
      The Fix: Build a Green GDP series that deducts resource depletion and pollution costs, reported as a companion to the headline estimate.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Explain the difference between computing methodology of India’s Gross Domestic Product(GDP) before the year 2015 and after the year 2015.”

  • Geothermal Energy

    Geothermal Energy

    Why in News

    The Press Information Bureau (PIB) published a thematic Backgrounder on Geothermal Energy on 4 September 2026. The piece is a subject explainer written for exam and public awareness value.

    Core facts

    1. Definition: Geothermal energy is heat stored inside the Earth. This heat is tapped through wells at sites with high underground temperature gradients.
    2. Nature of the source: Geothermal power is a renewable and baseload source. It generates around the clock, unlike solar or wind.
    3. Nodal ministry: The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) is the nodal ministry for geothermal energy in India.
    4. Verification note: The release body did not resolve on the source page this run, so release-specific figures are not quoted. The static estimates below come from standard reference data.

    Static Context

    1. India’s first project: India commissioned its first geothermal wells at Puga Valley in the Changthang region of Ladakh. A 1 Megawatt (MW) pilot geothermal plant is planned as the first demonstration scale project.
    2. Implementing agency: The ONGC Energy Centre, a body of the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), leads the Puga project with the Ladakh Administration.
    3. Estimated potential: India’s geothermal potential is estimated at about 10,600 MW (standard reference figure).
    4. Survey base: The Geological Survey of India (GSI) has documented about 381 hot springs. India has ten geothermal provinces, including the Himalayan, Son Narmada Tapi (SONATA), West Coast, Cambay and Godavari belts.
    5. Key sites: Notable geothermal sites include Puga and Chumathang in Ladakh, Manikaran in Himachal Pradesh, Tattapani in Chhattisgarh, and Bakreshwar in West Bengal.
    6. Policy frame: A National Policy on Geothermal Energy was notified in 2025, with the MNRE as the promoting authority.

    Prelims angle

    1. Nodal ministry: MNRE. Lead agency for Puga: ONGC Energy Centre.
    2. First site: Puga Valley, Ladakh. Survey body: GSI, with about 381 hot springs mapped.
    3. Source character: Renewable and baseload, driven by internal Earth heat.
    4. Geothermal provinces: Himalayan, SONATA, West Coast, Cambay, Godavari and others.

    Mains angle

    GS Paper 3, energy and infrastructure. A question can ask how geothermal energy can add firm renewable baseload capacity to India’s energy mix, and can weigh the high exploration cost and site concentration in the Himalayas against the round the clock output advantage.

    “[2013] Consider the following :

    (1). Electromagnetic radiation

    (2). Geothermal energy

    (3). Gravitational force

    (4). Plate movements

    (5). Rotation of the earth

    (6). Revolution of the earth

    Which of the above are responsible for bringing dynamic changes on the surface of the earth?

    (a) 1, 2, 3 and 4 only

    (b) 1, 3, 5 and 6 only

    (c) 2, 4, 5 and 6 only

    (d) 1, 2, 3, 4. 5 and 6.

  • ISRO launches advanced imaging satellite EOS-05

    ISRO launches advanced imaging satellite EOS-05

    Why in the News

    The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has launched the advanced earth observation satellite EOS-05 aboard the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV-F17).

    What is EOS-05?

    1. What makes it a first: It is India’s first dedicated imaging satellite operating from geosynchronous orbit, where a satellite’s orbital period matches the earth’s rotation so it holds position over the same region.
    2. What it carries: The satellite has multi band operating capabilities and an operational life of nine years.
    3. What it replaces: It takes the place of EOS-03, lost in the unsuccessful GSLV-F10 mission of August 2021.
    4. Where it is now: ISRO has confirmed that the valves are operating, the solar panel is deployed and the satellite’s health is intact, and the orbit will be raised over the coming days to place it on the geo platform.

    Why does imaging from geosynchronous orbit matter?

    1. It removes the revisit gap: A low earth orbit imaging satellite passes over a given area only periodically, while a geosynchronous platform holds the same region in view continuously.
    2. The applications are time sensitive: Near real time imagery serves agriculture, environment monitoring and disaster management, where the value of an image collapses if it arrives days after the event.
    3. The data is described as strategic: ISRO has stated that the platform will supply important strategic data supporting “national activities”, which is the standard formulation for defence and security use.
    4. The trade off is resolution: Ground resolution falls as orbital distance rises, so a geosynchronous imager buys persistence at the cost of the fine detail a low orbit satellite returns.

    What does the mission say about the launch vehicle?

    1. It was the heaviest payload the vehicle has carried: The 2,367 kg satellite is the heaviest ISRO has injected using this launch vehicle.
    2. The growth is measurable against the first flight: The first GSLV flight, GSLV-D1, carried a payload of 1,536 kg.
    3. The gain came from two specific changes: ISRO has attributed the improvement to optimising the vehicle’s structural mass and improving its propulsion systems.
    4. The vehicle configuration: The GSLV is a three stage, 51.7 metre vehicle with a lift off mass of 420.5 tonnes, and its third stage is cryogenic (using propellants stored as liquids at extremely low temperatures, which yields higher efficiency than conventional stages).
    5. The mission count: This was the 19th GSLV mission and the 107th launch from Sriharikota.

    Why had ISRO stopped launching?

    1. Two consecutive vehicle failures: The PSLV-C61 mission failed on 18 May 2025, and the PSLV-C62 mission carrying the EOS-N1 earth observation satellite failed on 12 January 2026.
    2. The response was a deliberate halt: ISRO adopted a cautious approach after the back to back failures and refrained from carrying out further launches.
    3. The cost was an entire quarter: Seven missions, including this one, had been scheduled for the first quarter of 2026, and no satellite was launched during the period.

    Challenges to India’s earth observation programme

    1. Launch cadence lags the manifest: A single quarter of stood down launches pushes an entire year’s schedule, and satellites waiting for a slot age against their design windows. Eg. Seven missions planned for the first quarter of 2026 were carried forward without a single flight.
      The Fix: Move routine earth observation payloads onto the Small Satellite Launch Vehicle and commercial providers, so a review of one vehicle does not freeze the whole manifest.
    2. The cryogenic stage remains the vehicle’s hardest element: The GSLV’s performance depends on a stage that took India close to two decades to prove. Eg. The first fully successful flight of the indigenous cryogenic upper stage came only with GSLV-D5 in January 2014.
      The Fix: Sustain a parallel production line and ground test cadence for cryogenic stages, so a flight failure does not idle the vehicle for want of a qualified replacement stage.
    3. Optical imaging fails when it is needed most: An optical imager cannot see through cloud, and India’s worst flood and landslide events occur during the monsoon under continuous cloud cover. Eg. Disaster response during the monsoon depends on radar imaging satellites such as EOS-04 rather than on optical payloads.
      The Fix: Pair the geosynchronous optical platform with a scheduled radar imaging constellation, so persistent coverage survives the cloud season.
    4. Imagery is only as useful as its downstream users: Data value depends on agencies and states being able to ingest and act on it rather than on the satellite alone. Eg. Access to national imagery is routed through the Bhuvan platform and the National Remote Sensing Centre, and uptake varies sharply across state departments.
      The Fix: Fund state level remote sensing application centres with standing analyst posts, so imagery reaches district administrations as advisories rather than as raw files.

    Conclusion

    The satellite is in a transfer orbit and not yet at its station, so the mission’s outcome is settled only once orbit raising is complete and the platform is commissioned. The capability it brings is persistence over one region rather than sharper pictures, which suits warning and monitoring more than reconnaissance. The launch pause has ended on the vehicle that had the weaker record, which is the more demanding of the two returns to flight. What to watch is whether the remaining missions deferred from the first quarter of 2026 now fly on schedule, since a single successful launch does not by itself restore a cadence.

    “[2018] With reference to India’s satellite launch vehicles, consider the following statements :

    1.PSLVs launch the satellites useful for Earth resources monitoring whereas GSLVs are designed mainly to launch communication satellites.

    2.Satellites launched by PSLV appear to remain permanently fixed in the same position in the sky, as viewed from a particular location on Earth.

    3.GSLV Mk III is a four-stage launch vehicle with the first and third stages using solid rocket motors, and the second and fourth stages using liquid rocket engines.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 and 3

    (c) 1 and 2

    (d) 3 only

  • Nepal wants climate compensation, putting major emitters on the hookNepal wants climate compensation, putting major emitters on the hook

    Nepal wants climate compensation, putting major emitters on the hookNepal wants climate compensation, putting major emitters on the hook

    Why in the News

    Nepal has demanded direct climate compensation from the United States, China and India, the world’s three largest emitters. The demand follows the glacial collapse of 26 August on the Nepal China border, which killed over 1,200 people and buried hydropower tunnels and valleys downstream. Nepal’s Foreign Minister has framed the country as paying the ultimate price for a crisis it did not create.

    What is the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage?

    1. What it is for: It is the dedicated financing mechanism for climate damage that has already occurred and can no longer be adapted to, as distinct from funds for mitigation or for adaptation.
    2. How it came about: Vulnerable nations secured its establishment at COP27 in 2022, after decades of resistance from developed countries to any dedicated loss and damage facility.
    3. When it began operating: It was operationalised a year later at COP28.
    4. Where it sits: It is temporarily hosted by the World Bank, which places a development lender at the centre of a compensation mechanism.

    Why does Nepal sit at the centre of climate injustice?

    1. Its own contribution is negligible: Nepal accounts for 0.1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and generates almost all its electricity from renewable hydropower.
    2. Its geography is the exposure: The Hindu Kush Himalayas, described as the “Third Pole”, are warming at nearly twice the global average, and their glaciers are melting at 10 times their historical norms.
    3. The driver is remote, not local: Warming in the North Eurasian Arctic disrupts planetary waves and the stratospheric polar vortex, which in turn destabilises the South Asian monsoon.
    4. The scale was misread: The major powers treated the event as a localised weather emergency manageable with temporary relief, when the cryosphere failure cascaded down into densely populated valleys.

    What did the disaster do to Nepal’s economy?

    1. It struck the sector the country had bet on: Nepal’s strategy for economic sovereignty rested on harnessing 43,000 MW of commercially viable hydropower to become a regional energy exporter, and it had only recently achieved net exporter status.
    2. A tenth of installed capacity is gone: The floods crippled approximately 10 percent of installed capacity, wiping out older surface level plants such as Devighat and burying under construction projects in mud.
    3. The trade position reversed overnight: A country banking on power exports to narrow its trade deficit with India halted exports and began importing power to survive the winter.
    4. Rebuilding costs more than building did: Climate resilient underground engineering will raise future project costs by 10 to 12 percent.
    5. The bill is a tenth of the economy: Total damages are estimated between 4 billion dollars and 7 billion dollars, roughly a tenth of Nepal’s entire gross domestic product.

    Why has Nepal named the United States, China and India?

    1. The case against the United States is cumulative: America accounts for over 20 percent of cumulative global emissions since 1850, which anchors the claim in historical liability rather than current output.
    2. The case against China is proximity and data: China is the current top annual emitter, and Nepali officials had asked at a bilateral meeting in Kathmandu in May 2026 for real time data sharing on glacial lakes and avalanches in the Tibetan region.
    3. What China supplied instead: Beijing provided only heavy rain forecasts, and the absence of transboundary early warning proved fatal when the glacial lake burst.
    4. The case against India inverts India’s own argument: New Delhi has long cited low per capita emissions and demanded “common but differentiated responsibilities” from the West, and Nepal now applies that logic regionally to South Asia’s largest economy and emitter.
    5. India’s regional conduct is part of the charge: India’s refusal to buy power from Nepali projects built by Chinese contractors has complicated Nepal’s recovery and spread the friction horizontally across the region.

    Why can the existing fund not answer the demand?

    1. The fund is smaller than one country’s damage: It holds a mere 700 million dollars in pledges, against a single catastrophe costing several billion.
    2. The grant ceiling makes the arithmetic absurd: Pilot phase rules cap individual grants at between 5 million and 20 million dollars, so the maximum available payout answers a fraction of one percent of the loss.
    3. Speed is the second failure: The mechanism is handicapped by slow moving bureaucracy, and Nepal’s out of cycle demand on 1 September forces its board to decide whether it can respond to a live emergency at all.
    4. Compensation may arrive as debt: Debt saddled developing nations fear that money routed through a development lender converts into loans, turning a liability payment into a further obligation.
    5. The major powers answered with relief, not liability: China and India responded with helicopters, rescue teams and medicines, which supplies assistance while conceding no legal responsibility.

    Challenges to Nepal’s compensation claim

    1. The climate treaty framework expressly rules out liability: The decision adopting the Paris Agreement records that loss and damage provisions do not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation. Eg. Developed countries insisted on that language in 2015 as the price of accepting loss and damage in the text at all.
      The Fix: Pursue the claim through state responsibility and human rights forums in parallel, so the treaty carve out does not extinguish the legal route entirely.
    2. Attributing a single collapse to named emitters is contested: Compensation requires linking one event to specific contributors, and attribution science produces probabilities rather than the causal certainty a liability claim needs. Eg. The International Court of Justice advisory proceedings on climate obligations turned substantially on whether such a link can ground state responsibility.
      The Fix: Commission an independent forensic attribution study of the 26 August collapse before the claim reaches any forum, so the demand rests on published evidence.
    3. Pledged climate money has a record of not arriving: Announced sums and disbursed sums diverge by years in climate finance. Eg. The 100 billion dollar a year promise made for 2020 at Copenhagen in 2009 was reported as met only in 2022.
      The Fix: Attach disbursement deadlines and public tracking to each pledge, so a pledge that is not paid is visible rather than absorbed into a cumulative total.
    4. Upstream data sharing rests on no binding obligation: Early warning for glacial hazards depends on the upstream state volunteering information, and no treaty compels it. Eg. Hydrological data on the Brahmaputra reaches India through renewable memoranda of understanding, and sharing lapsed after the 2017 Doklam standoff.
      The Fix: Negotiate a Hindu Kush Himalaya data protocol with automatic sensor level transmission, so glacial lake readings do not depend on the state of bilateral relations.
    5. Regional politics undercuts regional claims: Nepal is asking India for differentiated responsibility while its recovery is being slowed by an Indian trade restriction. Eg. Power from Nepali projects built by Chinese contractors is refused entry to the Indian market.
      The Fix: Separate the power trade rules from the security screening by publishing objective eligibility criteria, so recovery generation is not blocked by contractor nationality.

    Conclusion

    Nepal’s claim will not be paid, and that was never the whole point of making it. A country responsible for a rounding error in global emissions has converted a disaster into a legal argument, and the argument lands on India rather than only on the West. The precedent it sets is that differentiated responsibility runs downward as well as upward, which is uncomfortable for every middle emitter that has used the doctrine as a shield. What to watch is the fund board’s response to an out of cycle demand, since a refusal establishes that the mechanism handles paperwork rather than emergencies.

    Back2Basics: Common But Differentiated Responsibilities

    1. What the principle holds: All states share responsibility for protecting the global environment, and their obligations differ according to their historical contribution to the problem and their present capacity to act.
    2. Where it is written: It appears as Principle 7 of the 1992 Rio Declaration and in Article 3.1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1992.
    3. How it was first operationalised: The Kyoto Protocol, 1997 split countries into Annex I parties carrying binding emission targets and non Annex I parties carrying none.
    4. How the Paris Agreement restated it: The 2015 text retains the principle “in the light of different national circumstances”, replacing the fixed two group split with nationally determined contributions.

    “[2017, GS3, 15 marks] ‘Climate Change’ is a global problem. How India will be affected by climate change? How Himalayan and coastal states of India will be affected by climate change?

  • [5th September 2026] The Hindu OpED: Warning on warming

    [5th September 2026] The Hindu OpED: Warning on warming

    Question (2025, GS3 – 15 Marks): “Write a review on India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement (2015) and mention how these have been further strengthened in COP26 (2021). In this direction, how has the first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) intended by India been updated in 2022?
    Linkage: This is the most direct conceptual parallel. To analyze the gap between “climate pledges” and “actual policy trajectory” highlighted by the UNEP, candidates must evaluate India’s specific NDCs under the Paris Agreement, how they were upgraded at COP26, and their final 2022 formalization

    Mentor Comment

    The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has found that breaching the 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming limit brings irreversible losses that adaptation cannot undo. Its report, Limiting Overshoot, accepts that the limit has already been breached. Full delivery of every existing national climate pledge still puts the world on course for 1.8 degrees Celsius, and current policies point to 2.6 degrees Celsius. The report’s new emphasis falls on greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, and on methane above all. The disagreement it reopens is between assessments that measure climate progress by mitigation and major developing economies that measure it by the finance and technology they receive. That disagreement now reaches India directly, because a smaller neighbour hit by a glacial disaster has named India among the emitters responsible.

    What is the “overshoot, peak and decline” pathway?

    1. What it describes: Average global temperatures rise above the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit, countries hold that peak as low as they collectively can, and temperatures are brought back below the limit by the end of the century.
    2. Why the peak is the variable that matters: Neutralising the heating effect of even a tenth of a degree is far harder than preventing that rise in the first place, so every fraction avoided at the peak is a fraction that never has to be reversed.
    3. What it refuses to concede: The pathway accepts the scientific reality of a 1.5 degrees Celsius world and rejects the conclusion that nothing further can be done once the threshold is crossed.

    Why has the report shifted attention to gases other than carbon dioxide?

    1. Methane carries a large share of present warming: It is responsible for about 0.5 degrees Celsius of current warming, so cutting it changes the temperature curve within years rather than decades.
    2. It is the fastest available brake: Action on methane is treated as the most effective way to slow warming in the near term, which is precisely the window in which the peak is decided.
    3. The collective instrument already exists: More than 155 countries have joined the Global Methane Pledge, committing to cut anthropogenic methane at least 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.
    4. India stands outside it: India has not joined the Pledge, so the single fastest near term lever is not one the country has committed to pull.

    Why do major developing economies resist a mitigation first framing?

    1. They claim the transition is already under way: These economies argue that they are moving away from fossil fuels and should not be assessed as though they were not.
    2. The damage they face comes from someone else’s stock: Their vulnerability arises from historical accumulations of carbon released by richer developed countries, which is the basis of their claim to greater financial support and affordable technology.
    3. The report is silent where they are loudest: Limiting Overshoot has little to say on adaptation finance, so the question these economies bring to every negotiation goes unanswered in the assessment they are asked to act on.

    How does the Bhotekoshi disaster complicate India’s position?

    1. A vulnerable neighbour has named India: Nepal’s Foreign Affairs Minister has said that major industrial emitters such as China, the United States and India must consider the impact of rising temperatures on small countries such as Nepal.
    2. The victim framing no longer holds unchallenged: India’s per capita emissions remain below the world average, and a section of the world nonetheless now places India within the group causing the problem rather than the group suffering it.
    3. The next negotiation is dated: Countries convene in Turkiye in November for COP31, where the familiar disagreements over mitigation and finance are expected to resurface with this new complication attached.

    Challenges to the overshoot, peak and decline pathway

    1. The return leg depends on removal capacity that does not exist at scale: Bringing temperatures back below the limit assumes large volumes of carbon dioxide will be removed from the atmosphere later in the century. Eg. The direct air capture plants operating in Iceland remove tens of thousands of tonnes a year at most, against annual global emissions measured in tens of billions of tonnes.
      The Fix: Treat removal as a supplement to be verified and funded now, and set peak temperature targets that assume no removal beyond capacity already demonstrated.
    2. Some losses do not reverse when the temperature does: Ice sheets, coral reefs and glaciers respond to the peak rather than to the eventual average, so returning below 1.5 degrees Celsius does not restore what the overshoot destroyed. Eg. The August 2026 glacial collapse on the Nepal China border destroyed valleys that no later cooling will reconstitute.
      The Fix: Attach separate thresholds for irreversible systems to the pathway, so peak height is judged against them rather than against the century end average alone.
    3. The methane lever sits with countries that have not pulled it: The largest sources of anthropogenic methane are concentrated in a handful of economies outside the Pledge. Eg. India’s methane arises chiefly from livestock and paddy cultivation, which are livelihood activities rather than industrial infrastructure that can be shut down.
      The Fix: Fund livestock feed and paddy water management programmes that cut methane without cutting output, so the reduction is not paid for by farm incomes.
    4. The pathway offers nothing to those already past adaptation: A framework organised around peak management assumes adaptation absorbs the interim, and for the most exposed countries it does not. Eg. Nepal contributes a negligible share of global emissions and has lost roughly a tenth of its economy to a single event.
      The Fix: Pair every overshoot pathway with a stated adaptation finance figure, so the interim period carries a costed obligation rather than an assumption.

    Conclusion

    The threshold argument is over and the argument about who pays for its consequences is not. India has spent three decades arguing that historical responsibility sits elsewhere, and that argument is now being made about India by a country downstream of the Himalayas. Refusing the mitigation frame no longer settles the question, because the objection is arriving from the Global South rather than from the West. What to watch is whether India carries a methane position and an adaptation finance demand into COP31 as a single package, or continues to press the second while declining the first.

    Back2Basics: United Nations Environment Programme

    1. What it is: The United Nations body responsible for setting the global environmental agenda and coordinating environmental work across the UN system.
    2. When it was created: It was established in 1972, following the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm that year.
    3. Where it sits: Its headquarters are at Nairobi, making it the first UN agency headquartered in a developing country.
    4. What it publishes: Its recurring assessments include the Emissions Gap Report, the Adaptation Gap Report and the Global Environment Outlook.
  • Focus on the children, not the platform

    Focus on the children, not the platform

    Why in the News

    Meta has settled a $171 billion case with several United States States over allegations about the effect of its apps on children’s mental health. The settlement requires daily usage limits and “nighttime blocks” for teenagers. It requires “enhanced age assurance measures” (checks intended to establish a user’s age before access is granted) to keep children off the apps. It also requires the depersonalisation of feeds, so a child is served random content rather than content matched to that child’s interests. The outcome is being read as a step towards holding platforms accountable. That framing places the platform at the centre of the problem rather than the child, and the two framings do not produce the same policy.

    Why does a platform centric approach to child safety misfire?

    1. The measures are difficult to enforce: An age gate assumes a child will not defeat it, while children are sophisticated and motivated users of technology who find ways around such checks.
    2. It ignores what children need to be safe online: Poorly designed recommendation systems expose children to harmful content, and stripping personalisation replaces that risk with irrelevant or inappropriate material. It also makes it harder for educational and support services to reach the children who need them.
    3. Online spaces are the only support some children have: Children experiencing neglect or abuse, LGBTQIA+ children and socially isolated children use platforms to find information, companionship or help. A child’s participation is not confined to one service, so a platform that becomes too restrictive simply loses them to platforms with weaker protections.
    4. The offline environment is what pushes children online: In India screens fill a vacuum rather than displacing abundant offline opportunities, because many children have no access to safe public spaces or affordable recreational facilities.

    What would a child centred approach ask for instead?

    1. Equip the child, as is done in the physical world: Children are taught what not to share, how to respond to unsolicited contact, how to recognise manipulation, when to block or report someone, and when to seek help.
    2. Treat digital literacy as the instrument, not the afterthought: Digital literacy and sensitisation are what change a child’s behaviour at the moment a technical control fails, and they receive far less policy attention than platform obligations.
    3. Address the whole ecology of childhood: Responsibility sits across platforms, parents, schools, communities, public spaces and children themselves, so a measure aimed at one of the six leaves the other five untouched.

    Why does the harder answer receive less policy attention?

    1. A platform obligation is visible and countable: A regulator can order a control, verify that it shipped, and record compliance, none of which a curriculum or a public playground delivers on the same timescale.
    2. India’s move so far is a recommendation, not a mandate: The 2026 Economic Survey called for a digital wellness curriculum in schools, and whether it is implemented widely and appropriately is untested.
    3. The effective lever sits outside the regulator’s reach: Digital literacy runs through school systems and recreational space runs through municipalities, while enforcement powers sit with technology and data protection regulators.
    4. The argument does not absolve platforms: Platform responsibility survives intact, and the contest is over which lever produces a safer child rather than over whether platforms owe anything at all.

    Conclusion

    Child online safety is presently measured by the number of controls a service ships. The better measure is what a child is able to do when a control fails, and the settlement model produces no information about that at all. The capability side of the problem belongs to schools, parents and municipalities. The enforcement side belongs to a technology regulator, and nobody owns the gap between the two.

    Child Online Safety in India

    1. What the field covers: The rules governing children’s access to online services, the data those services may collect about a child, and the content they may direct at one.
    2. How India regulates it: Through due diligence obligations on intermediaries under technology law and consent rules under data protection law, rather than through a single children’s online safety statute.
    3. Who counts as a child: Indian data protection law treats every person below 18 as a child, a higher threshold than the 13 year line used in United States children’s privacy law.

    Laws and Rules Governing Child Online Safety

    1. Information Technology Act, 2000, amended in 2008: The parent statute for offences committed through a computer resource, carrying Section 66D on cheating by impersonation and Section 69 on interception.
    2. Section 67B separately punishes publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit acts.
    3. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, amended in 2023: Impose due diligence, grievance redressal and content takedown obligations on intermediaries.
    4. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, with the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025: Govern consent, data fiduciary duties, breach notification and the Data Protection Board of India.
    5. Section 9 requires verifiable parental consent before a child’s personal data is processed, and bars tracking, behavioural monitoring and advertising targeted at children.
    6. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Defines and punishes sexual offences against persons below 18, covers offences committed using electronic material, and makes reporting mandatory.

    [2024, GS3, 10 marks] Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

  • Ladakh clears new ‘nautor land’ regularisation rules, paves way for grant of proprietary rights

    Why in the News

    The Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh has approved the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (Nautor Regularisation) Rules, 2026. The Rules create a one time mechanism to grant proprietary rights over nautor land to the people already occupying it, across all seven districts of the Union Territory. Eligibility is pegged to possession taken before 27 October 2020, the date on which the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980 was repealed. The power to allot the land is vested in the elected Hill Councils rather than in the Union Territory administration. The stated aim is to balance the interests of genuine occupants against the protection of public and Council land from encroachment, which is the line the Rules must now hold in a territory where more than 60,000 acres sit in this single revenue category.

    What is nautor land?

    1. The category: Nautor land is barren land or wasteland owned by the government.
    2. How it came to be occupied: Such land was historically allotted to individuals for cultivation or other productive use.
    3. The scale in Ladakh: More than 60,000 acres in Ladakh is presently recorded in revenue records as nautor holdings.
    4. The gap the Rules address: Occupants held and worked the land without proprietary title over it.

    What do the 2026 Rules provide?

    1. A proprietary grant with a ceiling: Proprietary rights may be granted over up to 10 acres of eligible nautor land to the occupant.
    2. A leasehold route above the ceiling: Nautor land beyond the 10 acre limit may be allotted on a leasehold basis.
    3. A single cut off date: Regularisation is available only for land occupied before 27 October 2020, and any possession taken after that date is ineligible.
    4. Uniform application: The framework applies to occupants across all seven districts of Ladakh.
    5. A one time exercise: The mechanism is available once, and does not create a standing route to regularise later occupation.

    Where do the Hill Councils get the power to allot this land?

    1. Transfer of land to the Council: Under Section 42 of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1997, land within a district stands transferred to the Council.
    2. Executive power over allotment: Clause (i) of Section 23 of the same Act vests executive powers in the Council in relation to the allotment, use and occupation of land vested in it.
    3. What this changes in practice: Title over former government wasteland is granted by an elected district body rather than by the Union Territory revenue administration.

    What changes for an occupant once title is granted?

    1. Legal certainty over possession: A recorded proprietary right replaces occupation that rested on an old allotment or on long use.
    2. The land becomes a financial asset: Titled land can be pledged, so an occupant can use it to avail bank loans.
    3. Two grades of right, not one: An occupant above the ceiling receives a lease rather than ownership, so the holding remains Council land.
    4. A boundary against fresh claims: The cut off is what separates a genuine holder from a claim raised after the repeal of the tenancy law.

    Challenges to the nautor regularisation framework

    1. Proving possession before a cut off date: Regularisation turns on documentary proof of occupation before a date five years past, in a territory where much land is recorded simply as government wasteland. Eg. Under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, individual claims were rejected in large numbers across hill States for want of documentary proof of occupation before the statutory cut off.
      The Fix: Allow the Hill Council to accept community verified evidence of possession, including village records and dated satellite imagery of cultivation, in place of a title deed.
    2. Common grazing land can be enclosed as private holdings: High altitude pasture carries no individual title and is recorded in the same wasteland category the Rules open up. Eg. The Changpa herders of Changthang, who rear the goats that supply pashmina, depend on open rangeland held by no individual.
      The Fix: Exclude recorded grazing land and migratory routes from eligibility, and settle common pasture rights in the name of the village before individual titles issue.
    3. Cultivation expands where water does not: Bringing more barren land under the plough in a cold desert raises demand on streams that already run short at sowing time. Eg. Ice stupas were developed in Ladakh to store winter water precisely because glacier fed channels do not deliver water when spring sowing begins.
      The Fix: Condition regularisation of land held for cultivation on a water availability assessment by the district administration.
    4. A safeguard made by rule can be unmade by rule: The eligibility limits and the cut off sit in subordinate rules, so the same executive authority can revise them later. Eg. Ladakh’s demand for constitutional safeguards on land and employment has been under discussion with the Ministry of Home Affairs since 2023.
      The Fix: Carry the ceiling, the cut off and the exclusion of common land into primary legislation, so the terms of allotment are not alterable by executive rule making.

    Conclusion

    The Rules are approved and the allotment power now rests with the Hill Councils in every district of Ladakh. Notification settles the framework but not its outcome, since the exercise runs on claims that must be verified holding by holding. The markers to watch are the district level verification process the Councils adopt, and whether common pasture is fenced off from the exercise before individual titles begin to issue.

    Back2Basics: Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils

    1. What they are: Elected district councils exercising devolved powers over local development and land use in Ladakh.
    2. Their statutory basis: They function under the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1997.
    3. Where they exist: The Leh Council was constituted in 1995 and the Kargil Council in 2003.
    4. Their composition: Each Council has 30 members, of whom 26 are directly elected and four are nominated, with a term of five years.

    [2023, GS3, 10 marks] State the objectives and measures of land reforms in India. Discuss how land ceiling policy on landholding can be considered as an effective reform under economic criteria”

  • A BIT of a reset, with a wider debate

    Why in the News

    India is revising its model bilateral investment treaty (BIT), and the revised text will soon be placed before the Union Cabinet. The Finance Minister signalled the intention to revamp the 2015 Model BIT in the Union Budget speech of 2025. The 2015 model was itself the product of an appraisal launched after several foreign investors sued India for treaty breaches. That appraisal produced two outcomes: unilateral termination of existing treaties, and a new model text as the basis for fresh negotiations. Debate on the current revision has concentrated almost entirely on what the treaty should say. The process by which the text is written has attracted almost no attention, and that is where the democratic deficit sits.

    What is the 2015 Model Bilateral Investment Treaty?

    1. What a model treaty is: A model bilateral investment treaty is the template text a country negotiates from when it concludes investment protection agreements with other countries.
    2. What such a treaty does: It grants legal protections to investors of one country investing in the other. It also gives those investors a route to bring a claim directly against the host state before an international arbitral tribunal.
    3. The two objectives it must balance: Investment treaties sit between investment protection at one end of the spectrum and the state’s right to regulate at the other.
    4. When India adopted it: India circulated a draft in 2015 and adopted the revised version in December 2015.

    Why has the 2015 model produced so few treaties?

    1. The record: India has concluded only a handful of treaties on the basis of the 2015 model in the last decade or so.
    2. The imbalance in the text: The model tilts heavily towards the state’s right to regulate and away from the protection of the investment.
    3. What capital exporting countries read into it: Countries that export capital to India doubt the legal protection available to their investments under such a text.
    4. What compounds the doubt: High regulatory risk, governance models that are not well developed, and a slow judicial system add to that concern.

    What legal changes are being proposed, and what is being left out?

    1. Easier access to arbitration: Experts have argued for making it easier for a foreign investor to take a treaty claim to international arbitration.
    2. Stronger substantive protections: The protections given to foreign investment in the text would be enhanced.
    3. Investment facilitation: The revised model would carry more measures aimed at facilitating investment rather than only protecting it.
    4. The half of the review that is missing: A treaty review has two components, the substantive and procedural changes to the law, and the process followed to make the outcome robust. Only the first has been deliberated.

    What is the democratic deficit in treaty making?

    1. The all-affected principle: International economic treaties have a conspicuous impact on citizens, which raises the question whether those affected should have a right to participate in the decision.
    2. What the term means: Democratic deficit refers to insufficient oversight of the technocrats, bureaucracies and political executive who negotiate treaty frameworks behind closed doors.
    3. Where it originated: The term originated in European debates on the accountability of decision making removed from elected legislatures.
    4. The first form the gap takes: Parliamentary supervision of the treaty making process is absent or inadequate.
    5. The second form: There is no external consultative process with other stakeholders, including subject matter experts and civil society organisations.

    What do other countries do before adopting an investment treaty text?

    1. United Kingdom and Australia: Both mandatorily place the text of a negotiated treaty on the floor of Parliament before ratification, so the legislature can express its views on it.
    2. Norway: Two rounds of public consultation were held on an updated draft model BIT, in 2008 and in 2015.
    3. Colombia: The country released its model BIT for public consultation.
    4. What the set demonstrates collectively: Consultation is applied to the model text itself and not only to a concluded treaty, which means the template a country negotiates from is treated as a public policy document rather than an internal instruction.

    What did India’s own 2015 consultation produce?

    1. The public comment stage: India circulated its draft 2015 model BIT for public comment in March 2015.
    2. The expert study it enabled: That opening allowed the Law Commission of India to assemble a team of experts to study the draft text.
    3. The report: The Law Commission’s 260th report made recommendations on how to improve the draft model treaty.
    4. What was carried through: Not all of the recommended changes were reflected in the version India finally adopted.

    What consultative process is proposed for the revision?

    1. What has presumably already happened: Intra-governmental deliberation on the model text has been undertaken inside government.
    2. A core team of external experts: Form a team outside government of international lawyers and economists drawn from universities, research institutions and think tanks, to act as a sounding board.
    3. Wider stakeholder engagement: Invite industry bodies, arbitrators, law firms and other civil society organisations to offer their views on the model text.
    4. A public draft: Prepare a draft and place it in the public domain, inviting comments from the public at large.
    5. Parliamentary scrutiny: Place the draft model treaty on the floor of Parliament for discussion, and rope in the relevant department related parliamentary committees.
    6. The standard the exercise must meet: The process must engage with dissenting views rather than run as a box ticking formality.

    Challenges to revising the Model Bilateral Investment Treaty

    1. A model text does not bind the counterparty: A model is a negotiating template, so a partner with stronger bargaining power will press its own text and the model’s provisions will be traded away one by one. Eg. Investment provisions have been among the unresolved items in India’s long running negotiations with the European Union.
      The Fix: Publish the provisions treated as non-negotiable separately from those open to trade-off, so a concluded treaty can be judged against a stated position rather than against the template.
    2. The local remedies requirement is long relative to the delay it addresses: The 2015 model requires an investor to pursue domestic remedies for five years before starting international arbitration, in a system whose delay is itself the investor’s complaint. Eg. White Industries Australia v Republic of India (2011), the first adverse award against India, arose from delay in Indian courts enforcing a commercial arbitration award.
      The Fix: Tie the domestic remedies condition to a defined procedural stage being reached rather than to a fixed number of years.
    3. Termination does not end exposure: A terminated treaty carries a survival clause that keeps protections alive for investments made before termination, so liability continues for years after the instrument goes. Eg. The 2020 Vodafone award was rendered under the India-Netherlands treaty after India had begun issuing termination notices in 2016.
      The Fix: Negotiate replacement treaties with express provisions displacing the survival clauses of the instruments they replace.
    4. Taxation is carved out of the model’s scope: The 2015 model excludes taxation measures from treaty protection, which removes the very category of dispute that produced India’s largest awards. Eg. The 2020 Cairn Energy award, made under the India-United Kingdom treaty, concerned a retrospective tax demand.
      The Fix: Bring expropriatory tax measures within the treaty’s scope while keeping bona fide tax policy outside it.
    5. Consultation without a legal basis is discretionary: No Indian law requires the executive to lay a treaty text before Parliament, so every consultation depends on the willingness of the government of the day. Eg. Treaties are concluded under executive power and reach Parliament only where implementing them requires a change in domestic law.
      The Fix: Enact a treaty scrutiny statute setting out which categories of treaty must be laid before Parliament and for how long before ratification.

    Conclusion

    The revision is being handled as a drafting exercise. The gap it does not close is that India has no settled procedure for producing a treaty text at all, so the quality of the next model rests on the discretion of whoever drafts it. A text written without external scrutiny will attract the same legitimacy objection whichever direction it moves the balance in. What to watch is whether the draft reaches the public domain and the floor of Parliament before the Union Cabinet clears it, or only after.

    Bilateral Investment Treaties in India

    1. What they are: A bilateral investment treaty is an agreement between two countries setting the terms on which each protects investors from the other in its own territory.
    2. How disputes under them are settled: Most such treaties allow an investor to bring a claim directly against the host state before an international arbitral tribunal, without routing it through its own government.
    3. India’s treaty stock: India signed its first such treaty with the United Kingdom in 1994 and went on to sign more than 80. From 2016 it began terminating them and moved to renegotiate on the 2015 model.
    4. What has been concluded since: Treaties concluded on the newer template include those signed with the United Arab Emirates and with Uzbekistan in 2024.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Treaty Making

    1. Article 246 with Entry 14 of the Union List: Places entering into treaties and agreements with foreign countries, and implementing them, within Parliament’s exclusive legislative field.
    2. Entry 13 of the Union List: Covers participation in international conferences and associations, and the implementing of decisions taken at them.
    3. Article 253: Empowers Parliament to make law for the whole or any part of India to implement any treaty, agreement or convention with another country.
    4. Article 73: Extends the Union executive’s power to every matter on which Parliament may legislate, which is the basis on which the executive concludes a treaty without prior legislative approval.

    Back2Basics: Law Commission of India

    1. What it is: A non-statutory executive body constituted by the Government of India to advise on law reform.
    2. How it is constituted: It is set up for a fixed term by an order of the Ministry of Law and Justice, and is chaired by a retired judge.
    3. What it does: It examines existing laws and specific references made by the government, and submits reports carrying recommendations.
    4. The weight its reports carry: Its recommendations are not binding, and a change in law follows only where the government accepts them.

    [2010] A great deal of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to India comes from Mauritius than from many major and mature economies like UK and France. Why?

    (a) India has preference, for certain countries as regards receiving FDI

    (b) India has double taxation avoidance agreement with Mauritius

    (c) Most citizens of Mauritius have ethnic identity with India and so they feel secure to invest in India

    (d) Impending dangers of global climate change prompt Mauritius to make huge investments in India