💥UPSC 2026, 2027 UAP Mentorship Aug Batch
Talk to Mentor

Day: September 5, 2025

Bills/Act/LawsDOMREthicsExplainedHistorical SitesIOCRop-ed snapPIBPlaces in newsPrelims OnlySC JudgementsSchemesSpeciesStatesworld map
September 2025
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Goods and Services Tax (GST)

[5th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: GST 2.0 is a landmark in India’s Tax Journey

op-ed snap | Economics | Mains Paper 3: Indian Economy

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2020] Explain the rationale behind the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act of 2017. How has COVID-19 impacted the GST compensation fund and created new federal tensions?

Linkage: The GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 was meant to assure states of revenue stability post-GST rollout, but COVID-19 strained the fund, creating federal tensions over delayed compensation. In contrast, GST 2.0 reflects cooperative federalism, with consensus on slab rationalisation, inverted duty correction, and GSTAT. This marks a shift from fiscal disputes to collaborative reform, strengthening trust in India’s tax federalism.

Mentor’s Comment

The 56th meeting of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council has ushered in a decisive set of reforms, marking a new chapter in India’s fiscal federalism. By moving towards a simplified two-rate structure and addressing long-standing distortions, GST 2.0 promises to reshape consumption patterns, boost competitiveness, and build a fairer system. For UPSC aspirants, this development offers lessons on economic governance, cooperative federalism, social security, and inclusive growth.

Introduction

The 56th GST Council meeting (September 3, 2025) has been hailed as a watershed in India’s taxation history. For the first time since the rollout of GST in 2017, the complex multi-slab structure has been significantly rationalised. The new structure introduces just two core slabs, 18% (Standard Rate) and 5% (Merit Rate), with a 40% demerit rate for a few goods, while several essentials are exempt. These reforms are not limited to technical tax changes; they are a “people’s reform” with direct impact on households, farmers, industries, and the healthcare sector.

The significance of GST 2.0 reforms

  1. Historic simplification: Earlier GST had 5%, 12%, 18%, and 28% slabs. The new 2-rate system with exemptions marks the biggest simplification since 2017.
  2. People-centric relief: Daily-use goods like soap, shampoo, bicycles, and kitchenware now taxed at 5%; essentials like milk, paneer, parathas exempt. This makes taxation citizen-friendly.
  3. Social security boost: All life and health insurance products are exempted from GST for the first time, improving affordability and raising insurance penetration.
  4. Correcting distortions: Long-pending inverted duty structures, particularly in textiles and fertilizers, have been corrected.
  5. Institutional strengthening: The announcement of GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) by year-end promises faster dispute resolution.

Impact of reforms on households and social security

  1. Cheaper essentials: Items like soap, shampoo, toothpaste, bicycles, and kitchenware moved to the 5% slab.
  2. Exemptions on food: UHT milk, paneer, chapatis, and parathas exempt, easing burden on middle and low-income families.
  3. Insurance relief: GST exemption on life and health insurance makes coverage accessible to senior citizens and low-income groups.
  4. Healthcare affordability: Cancer drugs, medicines for rare diseases, and critical devices made cheaper through exemptions and cuts.

Benefits of GST 2.0 for farmers and rural India

  1. Lower cultivation cost: Fertilisers, sulphuric acid, and ammonia shifted from 18% to 5%.
  2. Cheaper farm equipment: Tractors and machinery brought to 5% slab, improving productivity and rural income.
  3. Structural correction: By rationalising inputs and outputs, GST 2.0 reduces price distortions and supports agricultural sustainability.

Implications for industries and employment

  1. Labour-intensive sectors: Handicrafts, marble, granite, and leather goods get rate reductions, boosting employment.
  2. Textile competitiveness: GST on man-made fibres and yarn reduced to 5%, resolving a major inverted duty issue. This is expected to improve exports and domestic value-addition.
  3. Infrastructure multiplier: Cement rate cut from 28% to 18% to spur housing and infrastructure.
  4. Green economy boost: Cuts on renewable energy devices and auto components support sustainable growth.

Institutional reforms under GST 2.0

  1. Operationalisation of GSTAT: To be functional by year-end, ensuring quicker dispute resolution and taxpayer confidence.
  2. Process reforms: Provisional refunds for inverted duty structures, risk-based compliance, and harmonised valuation rules reduce business uncertainty.
  3. Ease of doing business: These reforms align India’s tax system with global best practices and make compliance less cumbersome.

Phased rollout and implementation strategy

  1. Gradual rollout: Effective from September 22, 2025, reforms are phased to balance fiscal stability and consumer benefits.
  2. Revenue neutrality: Phasing prevents sudden fiscal shocks while stimulating demand and investment.
  3. Stakeholder partnership: Council’s decisions reflect responsiveness to industry, consumers, and state governments.

Conclusion

GST 2.0 represents not just a fiscal reform but a societal shift. By rationalising slabs, correcting distortions, and easing compliance, it strengthens the foundation for a Viksit Bharat 2047. The reforms are inclusive, covering farmers, workers, households, and industries alike, while building institutions like GSTAT. The success of these reforms will ultimately depend on smooth implementation and sustained cooperative federalism.

Value Addition

Economic Reforms: GST 2.0 and Global Best Practices

Two-rate model adoption: GST 2.0 moves from a complex four-slab structure (5%, 12%, 18%, 28%) to a simplified two-rate system (5% Merit Rate and 18% Standard Rate), with a 40% demerit rate for select goods. This mirrors global practices where most advanced economies prefer fewer slabs for simplicity.

International parallels:

  1. Canada follows a dual rate Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax model, with exemptions for essentials like food and healthcare.
  2. Australia operates a uniform GST at 10% but exempts basic food, health, and education, similar in spirit to India’s exemptions on milk, paneer, chapati, and healthcare.
  3. Singapore maintains a single GST rate (currently 9%) with targeted exemptions.

Benefits of convergence:

  1. Ease of compliance: Fewer slabs reduce classification disputes and litigation.
  2. Predictability for businesses: Encourages investment by aligning India’s tax structure with global investors’ expectations.
  3. Revenue neutrality with inclusivity: Exemptions for essentials ensure equity while maintaining fiscal stability.

Reform trajectory: GST 2.0 represents a shift towards global standards without fully copying them, adapting the model to India’s socio-economic realities — balancing growth, inclusion, and fiscal prudence.

 

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Freedom of Speech – Defamation, Sedition, etc.

Should Commercial speech on digital platform be regulated

Explained | Governance | Mains Paper 2: Governance, Transparency & Accountability, Citizens Charters

Introduction

On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India asked the Union government to frame guidelines for regulating social media content, noting that influencers often commercialise speech in ways that offend vulnerable groups. The case arose from derogatory remarks made by comedians about persons with Spinal Muscular Atrophy. While well-intentioned, the order has raised concerns about overregulation of free speech.

Why in the news

The Supreme Court of India’s intervention is significant because it directs the executive to draft specific rules for social media despite existing laws such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) already providing mechanisms. For the first time, the Court has nudged the government toward formal regulation triggered by a single incident, raising alarms of censorship and judicial overreach.

The presence or absence of a regulatory vacuum

  1. Existing provisions: FIRs can be filed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The IT Act already empowers courts or the executive to order takedowns.
  2. Opaque enforcement: Takedowns often occur without notifying the affected individual, undermining natural justice.
  3. Critics’ view: No regulatory vacuum exists; additional rules may be an overreaction to a single case.

The question of dignity as a ground for restricting free speech

  1. Constitutional limits: Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India exhaustively lists permissible restrictions, security of the state, public order, decency, morality, etc. Dignity is not among them.
  2. Judicial precedents: In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court of India upheld criminal defamation, indirectly protecting individual dignity, but did not treat dignity as an independent ground.
  3. Slippery slope risk: Recognising dignity as a separate basis for restriction could legitimise expansive censorship.

The risk of silencing uncomfortable speech

  1. Chilling effect: Overbroad regulations may deter comedians, satirists, and artists from bold expression.
  2. Supreme Court stance: In March 2025, in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, the Court quashed charges against a Member of Parliament, reaffirming that Article 19(1)(a) protects even disturbing or offensive views.
  3. Censorship creep: Proposals like the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill may expand state control over independent creators.

The place of commercial speech in free expression

  1. Judicial recognition: In Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1962) and Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (1995), the Supreme Court of India affirmed that commercial speech falls under Article 19(1)(a).
  2. Commerce and speech: Just as newspapers rely on advertisements, comedians and influencers rely on monetisation. Profit motive does not make speech less deserving of protection.
  3. Criticism: Comedy and satire do not neatly fall into the narrow category of “commercial speech,” traditionally reserved for advertisements.

Judicial polyvocality and consistency of precedent

  1. Court’s nature: Divergent views are part of common law, but binding precedent ensures continuity.
  2. Problem here: Directing the executive to draft rules risks giving regulations undue legitimacy and making constitutional challenges harder.
  3. Judicial discipline: When coordinate Benches depart from earlier rulings, proper procedure is referral to a larger Bench.

Safeguards needed in future regulations

  1. Transparent review: Any regulation must ensure robust review mechanisms and fairness in takedown procedures.
  2. Broad consultation: Stakeholder engagement should extend beyond industry associations to include civil society and affected communities.
  3. Opacity concerns: Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its rules (2009) are already opaque; future regulations must not repeat these flaws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intention to protect dignity is laudable, but creating fresh regulations risks undermining the freedom of expression. India already has legal frameworks to tackle offensive content. Expanding restrictions based on vague concepts like dignity may lead to excessive censorship, weaken democratic discourse, and erode artistic freedom.

Value Addition

Social Media Regulation in India

Existing legal framework:

  1. Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) – Section 69A empowers the government to block content in the interest of sovereignty, security, or public order.
  2. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – impose obligations on intermediaries (traceability, grievance redressal, content takedown within 24 hours).
  3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – contains provisions criminalising hate speech, obscenity, and defamation.

Judicial interventions:

  1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and unconstitutional.
  2. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) – upheld criminal defamation, linking dignity and reputation to Article 21.
  3. Concerns: Opaque takedown orders, executive overreach, limited transparency, chilling effect on creators.

Comparative Global Perspective

  • European Union (EU):
    • Digital Services Act (DSA), 2022 – imposes strict obligations on platforms to remove illegal content, ensures algorithmic transparency, and penalises non-compliance heavily.
    • Focus on user rights, platform accountability, and transparency reports.
  • United States:
    • Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 1996 – grants platforms immunity for third-party content but allows them to moderate in “good faith.”
    • Debate ongoing about reforming Section 230 to tackle misinformation and hate speech.
  • United Kingdom: Online Safety Act, 2023 – places a “duty of care” on platforms to protect children and curb illegal content.
  • Australia: Online Safety Act, 2021 – empowers the eSafety Commissioner to order removal of harmful content (cyberbullying, image-based abuse, terrorist material).
  • China: Heavily restrictive model – extensive censorship, mandatory real-name verification, and state monitoring of digital platforms.
  • Global South: Many countries (e.g., Nigeria, Pakistan) have passed restrictive social media laws under the pretext of national security, raising concerns about authoritarian misuse.

International Bodies and Global Norms

  • United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC): Stresses that restrictions on online speech must comply with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – legality, necessity, and proportionality.
  • UNESCO: Advocates for a multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance, focusing on protecting human rights, access to information, and pluralism.
  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development): Encourages transparency and accountability frameworks for digital platforms.
  • Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT): A tech industry-led initiative to remove extremist content online.

Good Examples

  • Germany: Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), 2017 – requires platforms to remove “manifestly unlawful” content (hate speech, fake news) within 24 hours. Criticised for overblocking but effective in quick takedowns.
  • France: Passed “Avia Law” (2020) against online hate but was struck down by the Constitutional Council for disproportionate restrictions. Illustrates the tension between free speech and regulation.
  • EU’s GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) indirectly regulates platforms by holding them accountable for data privacy and targeted advertising.

Way Forward for India

  • Principle-based framework: Regulations should follow constitutional safeguards (Article 19(2)), ensure proportionality, and avoid vague categories like “dignity.”
  • Transparency and due process: Mandatory publication of takedown orders, notice to affected parties, and avenues for appeal.
  • Independent oversight: Instead of executive dominance, an independent regulator (like an ombudsman or tribunal) could review takedown requests.
  • Stakeholder-driven approach: Consultation must involve civil society, creators, tech companies, and vulnerable communities.
  • Digital literacy: Public campaigns to counter hate speech and misinformation organically, rather than relying solely on punitive regulation.
  • Learning from global practices: India could adapt elements of the EU’s Digital Services Act (transparency), US’s Section 230 immunity, and Australia’s safety-first approach, while avoiding China’s over-control.

UPSC Relevance

[UPSC 2013] Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.

Linkage: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) for being vague and violating Article 19(1)(a) beyond the limits of Article 19(2). The present debate on regulating commercial speech on digital platforms raises a similar concern, as introducing “dignity” as a restriction risks the same arbitrariness. Both highlight the constitutional need for clear, proportionate, and narrowly defined limits on free speech in India.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Foreign Policy Watch: India-China

India-China: the making of a border

Explained | International Relations | Mains Paper 2: India & Its Neighborhood - Relations

Introduction

The India–China boundary, stretching for about 3,488 km, is one of the longest disputed borders in the world. Unlike clearly demarcated international frontiers, this boundary runs through the Himalayas and remains unsettled in large parts. The two major areas of dispute are Aksai Chin in the western sector, occupied by China but claimed by India, and Arunachal Pradesh (particularly the Tawang tract) in the eastern sector, claimed by China but under Indian control. Rooted in the legacies of the British and Manchu empires, the boundary was never precisely defined. After independence, India relied on British-era maps while China pressed for historical and strategic claims. This divergence led to the 1962 war and continues to shape relations between the two Asian powers.

Why the India–China border issue matters

The unresolved India–China border remains a major geopolitical challenge in Asia. Unlike other international boundaries, this border runs through inhospitable Himalayan terrain where neither country historically maintained a permanent presence. The 1962 war, following India’s rejection of Chinese proposals, left scars of mistrust. Later attempts, such as Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 Beijing visit, restored engagement but not resolution. The dispute is about sovereignty, strategy, and national prestige, making it a flashpoint with global implications.

The imperial legacy and a contested border

  1. Colonial inheritance: The India–China border was a product of the British and Manchu empires, drawn imprecisely through the Himalayas.
  2. Absence of settlement: After independence, India relied on colonial maps and dismissed Chinese calls for negotiations.
  3. Strategic miscalculation: India’s faith in maps was not supported by control on the ground, leaving space for China’s proactive steps in Aksai Chin.

The emergence of conflict in Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh

  1. Chinese presence in Aksai Chin: China constructed a highway from Xinjiang to Tibet through Aksai Chin, asserting de facto control.
  2. Indian assertion in Tawang: India occupied Tawang citing the 1914 Simla Convention and the McMahon Line signed with an independent Tibet.
  3. Proposals for compromise: In 1959, Beijing suggested a Line of Actual Control (LAC) with a 20 km troop pullback; in 1960, Zhou Enlai proposed a swap—Aksai Chin for Arunachal recognition.
  4. Breakdown and war: India rejected these offers; attempts to reclaim Aksai Chin triggered the 1962 war, where India lost ground in Ladakh but retained the McMahon Line in the east.

Post-war developments and early engagement

  1. Dormancy period: After 1962, both sides avoided border contact for more than a decade.
  2. China Study Group: In 1975, India formed this high-level body to map the border with satellite imagery and direct patrolling.
  3. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s outreach: In 1979, Vajpayee visited Beijing, the first senior Indian leader to do so since 1962, initiating cautious normalisation.
  4. Revival of Chinese proposals: Deng Xiaoping in 1980 reiterated Zhou’s swap idea, but India, led by Indira Gandhi, rejected it due to mistrust.

The stalemate in negotiations during the 1980s

  1. Unproductive talks: From 1981, both sides engaged in negotiations—India sought sector-wise talks, while China insisted on a package deal.
  2. Demand for Tawang: By 1985, Beijing linked concessions in Ladakh with Indian concessions over Tawang, central to China’s Tibet policy.
  3. Operation Falcon: In 1986, India forward-deployed troops at Namka Chu, displaying improved military preparedness since 1962.
  4. De-escalation: Both sides eventually pulled back, but the demand for Tawang revealed fundamental divergence.

Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 visit and a new framework

  1. Strategic reset: Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to Beijing marked a shift from linking normalisation to border resolution.
  2. Framework for dialogue: Both sides agreed to restore relations while deferring the border issue to a Joint Working Group (JWG).
  3. Principle of accommodation: Premier Li Peng emphasised “mutual understanding and mutual accommodation (MUMA),” while Gandhi sought a “fair and reasonable” settlement.
  4. Peace as priority: Peace and tranquillity were prioritised, enabling cooperation in other fields despite the unsettled boundary.

Conclusion

The India–China border dispute is a story of missed chances, mistrust, and strategic recalibration. From Aksai Chin to Tawang, an imperial legacy evolved into a sovereignty dilemma. While Deng Xiaoping and Rajiv Gandhi shifted the relationship towards peace, fundamental differences endure. History shows that strategic patience, military preparedness, and calibrated diplomacy remain the keys to managing this difficult relationship.

Value Addition

Institutional Mechanisms

  1. China Study Group (1975): Established by India to monitor the border with satellite mapping and patrolling points.
  2. Joint Working Group (1988): Created after Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to sustain structured dialogue on the boundary issue.
  3. Later confidence-building agreements (1993, 1996, 2005): Though not in this article, they flowed from this trajectory and institutionalised border management.

Policy Evolution

  1. Jawaharlal Nehru: Over-reliance on colonial maps and dismissal of negotiations.
  2. Atal Bihari Vajpayee: Cautious outreach to normalise ties in 1979 despite tensions.
  3. Indira Gandhi: Strong mistrust post-1962, refusal to accept “territorial swaps.”
  4. Rajiv Gandhi: Pragmatic reset in 1988, separating normalisation from boundary resolution.

Line of Actual Control (LAC)

  1. Definition: The de facto boundary separating Indian and Chinese forces, first formally acknowledged in 1959 by China.
  2. Nature: Not mutually agreed or demarcated on the ground, leading to “differing perceptions.”
  3. Relevance: Key to understanding recurring standoffs such as Galwan (2020), though beyond this article’s timeframe.

Case Study Relevance

  1. Aksai Chin: Illustrates how geography and strategic imperatives (road connectivity to Tibet) drive China’s claims.
  2. Tawang: Demonstrates cultural and religious dimensions (Tibetan Buddhism, Dalai Lama’s birthplace links).
  3. Operation Falcon (1986): A case study in how improved military readiness altered China’s calculus.
  4. Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 visit: A model of pragmatic diplomacy—normalisation without immediate resolution.

Way Forward

  1. Institutional strengthening: Reviving and empowering mechanisms like the Joint Working Group and Special Representatives dialogue.
  2. Confidence-building: Expanding agreements on patrolling norms, hotlines, and disengagement to avoid clashes.
  3. Strategic balance: Maintaining military preparedness (as shown in Operation Falcon) while keeping diplomacy open.
  4. Engagement beyond the border: Deepening cooperation in trade, technology, and multilateral forums to build trust.
  5. Mutual accommodation: Drawing from Deng Xiaoping and Rajiv Gandhi’s vision of a “fair, reasonable, mutually acceptable” settlement to guide long-term resolution.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2017] ‘China is using its economic relations and positive trade surplus as tools to develop potential military power status in Asia’, In the light of this statement, discuss its impact on India as her neighbor.

Linkage: China’s occupation of Aksai Chin and insistence on Tawang show how strategic control is tied to economic leverage, such as road connectivity and infrastructure. Its trade surplus with India fuels military modernisation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). For India, this creates a dual challenge of managing unresolved borders while countering China’s economic–military power projection in Asia.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Tribes in News

Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs)

Prelims Only | Indian Society | Mains Paper 1: Population & Associated Issues

Why in the News?

The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) has written to the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India (RGI) to enumerate PVTGs separately in Census 2027.

Who are the PVTGs?

  • Overview: Sub-category of Scheduled Tribes (STs) marked by stagnant or declining population, geographical isolation, pre-agrarian subsistence, economic backwardness, and very low literacy.
  • Origin: Concept recommended by the Dhebar Commission (1960–61) noting inequalities among STs.
  • Historical Evolution:
    • Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969–74): creation of Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs).
    • Fifth Five-Year Plan (1974–79): 52 groups identified.
    • 2006: PTGs renamed as PVTGs.
  • Present Status: 75 PVTGs recognized across 18 states and 1 UT (Andaman & Nicobar Islands).
  • Characteristics: Small numbers, remote habitation, pre-agricultural practices, hunting and gathering reliance, and in some cases zero or negative population growth.

Enumeration and Population Estimates:

  • 2011 Census Status: PVTGs were NOT separately enumerated, counted under the broader ST category.
  • Special Cases:
    • 2011 Census: Baigas counted separately, while Abujh Marias, Bharias, Hill Korbas, Kamars subsumed under STs.
    • 2013: Abujh Maria and Hill Korba explicitly added to Chhattisgarh’s ST list via legislation.
  • Recent Estimates: 2023 PM JANMAN survey estimated the population at 47.5 lakh.
    • Madhya Pradesh: 13.22 lakh (highest).
    • Maharashtra: about 6.7 lakh.
    • Andhra Pradesh: about 5.18 lakh.
  • Largest and Smallest:
    • Largest: Baiga of Madhya Pradesh with about 4.14 lakh.
    • Smallest: Sentinelese of Andaman & Nicobar Islands with just 15 individuals.
  • Micro Groups: In 2011, 13 PVTGs had populations below 1,000 including Jarawa, Onge, Sentinelese, Shompen (A&N Islands), Raji (Uttarakhand), Kota (Tamil Nadu), Birhor (Odisha/Bihar), Kamar (Madhya Pradesh), and others.
[UPSC 2019] Consider the following statements about Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) in India:

1. PVTGs reside in 18 States and one Union Territory.

2. A stagnant or declining population is one of the criteria for determining PVTG status.

3. There are 95 PVTGs officially notified in the country so far.

4. Irular and Konda Reddi tribes are included in the list of PVTGs.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Options: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 2 and 4* (d) 1, 3 and 4

 

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Foreign Policy Watch: India-ASEAN

In news: Strait of Malacca

Prelims Only | International Relations | Mains Paper 2: India & Its Neighborhood - Relations

Why in the News?

Singapore’s PM has acknowledged India’s intent to join the Malacca Straits Patrol (currently undertaken by Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore).

In news: Strait of Malacca

About Strait of Malacca:

  • Location: Narrow waterway in Southeast Asia, between the Malay Peninsula (northeast) and Sumatra, Indonesia (southwest).
  • Length & Width: Extends about 800–900 km; width varies from 65 km in the south to 250 km in the north.
  • Depth: The southern end is narrow and shallow, usually less than 37 m deep, posing navigational challenges.
  • Geological Setting: Part of the Sunda Shelf formation, created after post-glacial sea level rise around 2.6 million years ago.
  • Key Ports: Hosts major hubs like Singapore, Port Klang, Penang, and Melaka, making it one of the busiest shipping lanes globally.

Strategic and Economic Importance:

  • Global Chokepoint: Links the Indian Ocean (Andaman Sea) with the Pacific Ocean (South China Sea), forming a vital maritime chokepoint.
  • Trade Corridor: The shortest sea route between the Middle East/Africa and East Asia, critical for global commerce.
  • Volume of Trade: Handles about 60% of world maritime trade, including large-scale oil shipments from the Middle East to China, Japan, and Southeast Asia.
  • Economic Impact: Any disruption could severely affect supply chains and energy security worldwide.
  • Geopolitical Significance: Attracts competing interests of India, China, the US, and ASEAN states, making it a hotspot for regional and global strategic rivalry.
[UPSC 2010] Which one of the following can one come across if one travels through the Strait of Malacca ?

Options: (a) Bali (b) Brunei (c) Java (d) Singapore*

 

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Centre approves creation of ‘Environment Auditors’

Prelims Only | Enviro & Biodiversity | Mains Paper 3: Conservation, Environmental Pollution & Degradation, Eia

Why in the News?

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has introduced the Environment Audit Rules, 2025, creating an independent class of Environment Auditors.

Who are the Environment Auditors?

  • Overview: Independent, certified professionals comparable to Chartered Accountants, but for environmental compliance.
  • Accreditation: Certification and registration granted by the Environment Audit Designated Agency (EADA).
  • Responsibilities:
    • Ensure compliance across environmental domains.
    • Conduct project audits and assess performance.
    • Collect and analyze environmental samples.
    • Verify self-reported project data.
    • Check conformity with environmental clearances and consents.
    • Calculate environmental compensation in case of violations.
    • Support implementation of Green Credit Registry, Ecomark Certification, and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) compliance.

About Environment Audit Rules, 2025:

  • Introduced by: MoEFCC in August 2025.
  • Purpose: Establishes independent auditors to assist Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), SPCBs, and Pollution Control Committees facing manpower/resource gaps.
  • Objectives:
    • Strengthen monitoring and compliance.
    • Enhance transparency, accountability, credibility.
    • Promote sustainable governance and stakeholder trust.
  • Scope of Audits: Covers compliance with Green Credit Rules, Ecomark Rules 2024, E-Waste Rules 2022, Plastic Waste Rules 2016, Battery Waste Rules 2022, Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 1980, Wild Life Protection Act 1972 and related rules.
  • Institutional Features:
    • EADA certifies, registers, and monitors auditors.
    • Categories: Certified Environment Auditor (qualified) and Registered Environment Auditor (certified + authorised).
  • Certification Pathways:
    • Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) for experienced professionals.
    • National Certification Examination (NCE) for new entrants.
  • Registration: Valid for 5 years, renewable on review; requires technical proof and clean track record.
  • Oversight: A Steering Committee (chaired by MoEFCC Additional Secretary) supervises; government retains powers to issue guidelines, resolve disputes, and order audits.
[UPSC 2022] Which one of the following has been constituted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ?

Options: (a) Central Water Commission (b) Central Ground Water Board (c) Central Ground Water Authority* (d) National Water Development Agency

 

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Internal Security Architecture Shortcomings – Key Forces, NIA, IB, CCTNS, etc.

What is Free Movement Regime (FMR)?

Prelims Only | Security Issues | Mains Paper 3: External State & Non-State Actors: Challenges To Internal Security.

Why in the News?

Ahead of PM Modi’s Manipur visit, United Naga Council (UNC) has announced a trade embargo from against the India–Myanmar border fence and the suspension of the Free Movement Regime (FMR).

What is Free Movement Regime (FMR)?

About the Free Movement Regime (FMR):

  • Overview: Introduced in the 1970s, FMR allowed residents within 16 km of the India–Myanmar border to travel freely up to 16 km across without visa requirements.
  • Border length: India–Myanmar border stretches 1,643 km across four states: Arunachal Pradesh (520 km), Nagaland (215 km), Manipur (398 km), Mizoram (510 km).
  • Purpose: To recognize ethnic, cultural, and familial ties of communities (Kuki, Naga, Mizo, etc.) living across the unfenced border.
  • Revision: Last revised in 2016 under the Act East Policy.
  • Suspension: On February 8, 2024, MHA formally announced its scrapping, citing:
    • Internal security risks.
    • Illegal immigration and demographic changes in NE states.
    • Cross-border drug trafficking and insurgency links.

Stakeholder Perspectives:

  • Kuki groups: View FMR suspension and fencing as an attack on shared ethnic ties, even comparing it to the Berlin Wall. Recently reached an understanding with MHA negotiators.
  • Naga groups (UNC): Strongly opposed to border fencing and FMR suspension, claiming it undermines homeland, land rights, and identity. Announced a trade embargo in protest.
  • Meiteis (Valley population): Support suspension, arguing that FMR facilitated illegal migration, illicit drug trade, and aggravated ethnic tensions.
  • Government of India: Defends suspension on security and demographic grounds, while attempting to balance peace talks with tribal groups.
[UPSC 2016] Consider the following statements:

I. Assam shares a border with Bhutan and Bangladesh

II. West Bengal shares a border with Bhutan and Nepal

III. Mizoram shares a border with Bangladesh and Myanmar

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Options: (a) I, II and III * (b) I and II only (c) II and III only (d) I and III only

 

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Internal Security Architecture Shortcomings – Key Forces, NIA, IB, CCTNS, etc.

Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025

Prelims Only | Security Issues | Mains Paper 3: External State & Non-State Actors: Challenges To Internal Security.

Why in the News?

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, notified under Section 33 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

What is Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025?

  • Enactment: Passed by Parliament, effective 1 Sept 2025.
  • Objective: Unifies scattered immigration laws into a single framework, balancing national security, demographic protection, humanitarian obligations, and economic openness.
  • Repeals: Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920; Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939; Foreigners Act, 1946; Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000.
  • Key Provisions:
    • All foreigners must enter, stay, exit with valid passport & visa, unless exempted.
    • Digital system with biometrics, AI-based monitoring, and real-time agency coordination.
    • New visa categories: Skilled Talent, Startup, Investor, Digital Nomad, Business Plus.
    • Mandatory reporting by hotels, landlords, universities, hospitals on foreign guests/students/patients.
    • Entry to protected/restricted areas subject to special permits; mountaineering expeditions need prior approval.
  • Penalties: Up to 7 years imprisonment and ₹10 lakh fine for forged documents; detention centres allowed for illegal foreigners till deportation.
  • Institutions:
    • National Immigration Authority for policy and central database.
    • Bureau of Immigration, led by Commissioner, for operations.

About Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025:

  • Overview: Issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on 1 Sept 2025 under Section 33 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
  • Objective: Consolidates earlier scattered exemptions to simplify rules, enable regional mobility with Nepal & Bhutan, extend humanitarian relief to refugees/persecuted minorities, and provide legal clarity to carriers.
  • Replaces: The Registration of Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 1957 and Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Order, 2007.
  • Exemptions:
    • Indian Armed Forces members on duty and families using govt transport.
    • Indian citizens entering via Nepal/Bhutan borders.
    • Nepal & Bhutan citizens (except if entering from China, Hong Kong, Macau, Pakistan).
    • Tibetans registered with India, religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan (who entered before Dec 31, 2024), and Sri Lankan Tamils sheltered till Jan 9, 2015.
    • Diplomats, visa-on-arrival nationals, foreign military personnel on goodwill or exercises.
  • Carriers’ Liability: Rail, road, air, sea operators exempted where forged documents need expert verification or ships/aircraft are diverted.
[UPSC 2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:

1.There is only one citizenship and one domicile.

2.A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State.

3.A foreigner, once granted citizenship, cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Options: (a) 1 only* (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 (d) 2 and 3

 

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Global Implications

Highlights of the Global Peace Index, 2025

IOCR | International Relations | Mains Paper 2: Effect Of Policies & Politics Of World On India'S Interests

Why in the News?

India has ranked 115th in the Global Peace Index, 2025 published by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).

About Global Peace Index (GPI):

  • Publisher: Released annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), Sydney.
  • Coverage: Ranks 163 countries/territories, representing 99.7% of world population.
  • Indicators: Based on 23 metrics grouped under three domains:
    • Societal Safety & Security (crime, terrorism, political stability).
    • Domestic & International Conflicts.
    • Degree of Militarisation (defence spending, arms imports, personnel).
  • Launch: First published in 2007; now a key global benchmark for peace, stability, and security.

Key Highlights of GPI 2025:

  • Top 10: Iceland (1st), Ireland, New Zealand, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Portugal, Denmark, Slovenia.
  • India’s Position: Ranked 115th (score 2.229), an improvement from 116th in 2024 (+0.58%).
  • Neighbour Comparison:
    • Pakistan – 144th (much lower).
    • Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh – higher than India, reflecting stronger peace metrics.
  • Least Peaceful: Russia, Ukraine, Sudan, DR Congo, Yemen, hit by wars, humanitarian crises, and instability.
  • Regional Insights:
    • Europe dominates top ranks.
    • Singapore is only Asian country in top 10.
    • South America shows gains (Argentina, Peru).
    • South Asia, Middle East, Africa remain volatile.
[UPSC 2023] Consider the following pairs:

1. North Kivu and Ituri: War between Armenia and Azerbaijan

2. Nagorno-Karabakh: Insurgency in Mozambique

3. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia: Dispute between Israel and Lebanon

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Options: (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None*

 

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across Social Media platforms.