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

Civilsdaily

Login

Search results for: “”

  • [18th July 2026] The Hindu OpED: Promise of Chips: India Semiconductor Mission Phase 2  

    PYQ Linkage[UPSC 2025] India aims to become a semiconductor manufacturing hub. What are the challenges faced by the semiconductor industry in India? Mention the salient features of the Indian Semiconductor Mission.
    Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s semiconductor manufacturing ambitions, the challenges in building the ecosystem, and the key features of the Indian Semiconductor Mission. The article analyses Semiconductor Mission Phase 2, highlighting expanded incentives, indigenous capabilities, talent development, and strategic challenges in making India a global semiconductor hub.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Union government has approved Phase 2 of the India Semiconductor Mission with a ₹1.27 lakh crore outlay, exceeding the first phase’s allocation. The scale-up commits India to a decades-long strategic bet in chipmaking even as returns from Phase 1 remain unproven and frontier fabrication capability stays out of reach for most advanced economies.

    What changes has India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) Phase 2 introduced to the incentive structure for chipmaking?

    1. Larger corpus: The outlay stands at ₹1.27 lakh crore, exceeding the first phase’s allocation by a wide margin.
    2. Reduced capital subsidy share: The government’s contribution to capital subsidy is smaller than Phase 1’s 50%, shifting more upfront investment risk to private players.
    3. Output-linked incentives: Manufacturing-linked incentives are disbursed at a per-unit level only once sales occur, tying public support to actual production rather than capacity creation alone.
    4. Domestic-content boosters: Incremental incentive boosters are promised for products that use domestic capabilities and components, pushing backward integration into the supply chain.
    5. Strategic positioning goal: The scheme aims to make India a destination for the global electronics value chain and to build domestic human capital and intellectual property in areas where a few countries currently dominate.

    Why does the government consider continued public spending justified despite unproven returns and limited employment potential?

    1. Long policy horizon: The government has held that the Semiconductor Mission is a decades-long project; a larger second corpus signals continuity rather than a one-time bet.
    2. Limited job creation: Chipmaking is unlikely to become a mass employer, unlike labour-intensive manufacturing sectors.
    3. Geopolitical justification: In a geopolitically fraught environment, spending on strategic technological capability is treated as justified even without large-scale job creation.
    4. Unproven Phase 1 returns: Most facilities and projects approved in the first phase are yet to begin commercial production, so the actual returns on the initial chipmaking bet remain unknown.
    5. Sequencing risk: Public money for Phase 2 is being committed before performance data from Phase 1 becomes available.

    Can capital outlay alone secure India’s position in frontier chipmaking capability? 

    1. Technology ceiling: Extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines, needed for advanced chip fabrication, remain so complex that even the most advanced economies struggle to master them.
    2. Strategic leverage: Advanced economies treat frontier chipmaking capability as a source of hard strategic leverage over rivals, not merely as an industrial output.
    3. Deliberate resistance: Holding this leverage gives incumbent economies an incentive to resist India’s efforts to attract talent and build matching capability, rather than a neutral market response.
    4. Resource asymmetry: Advanced economies are prepared to draw on deeper pockets to defend their position in the technology hierarchy, an asymmetry that a single corpus does not easily close.
    5. AI dependency link: Artificial intelligence development itself depends on memory and processing infrastructure that India hopes to manufacture domestically, tying the semiconductor bet to a wider technology dependency.

    Does India’s talent ecosystem support or undermine its chipmaking ambitions?

    1. Global demand for Indian talent: Indian semiconductor engineers and designers are sought worldwide amid a looming global talent shortage, indicating a genuine human capital strength.
    2. Retention risk: Without worthwhile domestic work and academic opportunities in highly technical fields, this talent risks moving abroad rather than building capacity at home.
    3. Historical pattern: India has previously developed technical human capital that was absorbed by Western economies rather than retained domestically.
    4. Ecosystem-building requirement: Converting available talent into retained capability requires deliberate provision of high-skill work and research opportunities within India, not funding for fabrication plants alone.

    Conclusion

    India Semiconductor Mission Phase 2 commits significantly larger public funds to chipmaking, but capital alone does not secure India’s place in the global value chain. Frontier technological capability is guarded by incumbent economies as strategic leverage, and these economies have both the incentive and the resources to resist India’s rise. The binding constraint is therefore not the size of the corpus but whether India retains and deploys its technical talent at home instead of repeating its past pattern of exporting human capital to the West. Whether the coming decades produce an Asian Tigers-style economic boom or a repeat of past talent drain depends on this retention question, not on outlay size alone.

  • The Case for Updating the Indus Waters Treaty

    Why in the News?

    India has continued to hold on to the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance, following the terrorist strikes in Pahalgam. This has drawn war threats from Pakistan and revived attention to India’s separate, pending request to renegotiate the 65-year-old treaty. Pakistan has publicly treated the abeyance and the renegotiation notices as a single hostile act. This is despite  India’s actual 2023 and 2024 notices for treaty revision unanswered.

    Why is India’s push to renegotiate the IWT not an unusual or hostile move?

    1. Global norm of treaty revision: At least 250 separate transboundary river-water treaties exist worldwide, covering 113 river systems, as per a 2013 study. Supplementary protocols, amendments and data-sharing arrangements had already taken the total number of agreements to 688 by then.
    2. Continuing growth in revisions: The International Freshwater Treaties database (Oregon State University) now records over 800 such agreements, showing that transboundary treaties are routinely reviewed and updated.
    3. India’s own precedent: India’s 1996 Ganga water-sharing treaty with Bangladesh carries a 30-year validity and is due for renewal this year, showing India itself treats such treaties as time-bound instruments needing renewal.
    4. IWT already permits revision: Article VII allows the Permanent Indus Commissions of both countries to agree on new drainage or engineering works, though this has never been invoked. Article XII allows treaty modification “from time to time” through a fresh government-level treaty: the provision India invoked to serve its 2023 and 2024 notices.
    5. Not a new demand: Pakistani experts and scholars themselves called for review of the IWT well before the present standoff. India’s notices are the first official move by either side, not the first such call.

    What modern water-management elements does the IWT’s design fail to address?

    1. No groundwater provision: The treaty does not mention groundwater resources at all, despite groundwater being connected across borders in the same way as surface water.
    2. No water-quality standards: The treaty sets no requirements for water quality in the shared rivers.
    3. No environmental-flow provision: There is no mechanism to maintain minimum ecological flows in the rivers.
    4. Pakistan’s own grievance illustrates the gap: Pakistan has repeatedly complained that India releases municipal and sewage waste into the eastern rivers, over which India has full control under the treaty, affecting Pakistan’s soil and water health, a complaint the treaty’s silence on water quality leaves unresolved.
    5. Climate change was structurally excluded: No treaty negotiated before the 1990s could have factored in climate change; the IWT (1960) is no exception.
    6. Partition rather than sharing: Most water-sharing treaties guarantee a fixed volume or percentage of flow to each party. The IWT instead allocates entire rivers to one party or the other, making it more a partition agreement than a sharing arrangement, a design that has reduced incentive for joint river-basin management.

    How does the Mekong River Commission show the institutional flexibility the IWT’s commission lacks?

    1. Mekong River Commission (Southeast Asia, established 1995): Functions as a joint river water-management system, not merely a treaty-implementation body.
    2. Power to revise strategies: While it cannot alter the original treaty’s provisions, it is empowered to develop and revise joint basin-management strategies, data-sharing protocols, and water-quality rules.
    3. Contrast with the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC): The PIC, set up under the IWT, functions merely as the treaty’s implementing agency and has so far focused largely on ensuring the treaty’s existing provisions are not violated. It has no comparable mandate to revise or adapt joint management practices.

    Is India’s renegotiation push a technical necessity or an extension of the security standoff?

    1. Pakistan’s conflation: Pakistan organised an “international” conference on the treaty, with ministers and leaders threatening war over any disruption to the Indus basin’s rivers. They treat the abeyance and the renegotiation request as one hostile package.
    2. Selective response: Despite this rhetoric, Pakistan has still not responded to India’s actual 2023 and 2024 notices seeking treaty modification.
    3. Independent climate evidence: A study by researchers Vimal Mishra and Urmin Vegad of IIT Gandhinagar found climate change is affecting the two basins differently.
    4. Divergent basin trends: The eastern river basins have seen a 20% decline in annual rainfall over the last 70 years, while precipitation in the western river basins has remained largely unchanged.
    5. The delinking argument: India’s request to renegotiate the treaty must be seen as separate from its decision to hold it in abeyance. Agreeing to renegotiate, rather than continued brinkmanship, is presented as Pakistan’s most reliable route to ending the abeyance.

    Conclusion

    The Indus Waters Treaty was designed for a 1960 hydrological and political reality. It partitions entire rivers rather than sharing flows, omits groundwater, water-quality and environmental-flow provisions, and gives its joint commission no mandate to revise the treaty. These are the gaps that comparable transboundary arrangements, including the Mekong River Commission, address through built-in review mechanisms. This creates an independent, technical case for updating the IWT. India’s renegotiation request must be evaluated on this basis, delinked from its abeyance decision; Pakistan’s willingness to renegotiate, not further confrontation, is what would end the abeyance.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2026] Present an account of the Indus Water Treaty and examine its ecological, economic and bilateral relation.

    Linkage: The PYQ directly asks for an account of the IWT and its bilateral implications. This article supplies the treaty’s institutional design flaws and the current bilateral context directly answering such a question today.

  • Can Courts Restrain a Film Cleared by the CBFC?

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court declined to permit the release of the CBFC-certified animated film Mahaprabhu Jagannath on its scheduled date, directing the producer to postpone release until after the Rath Yatra in Puri concludes, following an Orissa High Court stay over the film’s depiction of Lord Jagannath. The episode brings into focus the tension between the settled judicial position that certification by an expert statutory body carries a strong presumption of validity immune from apprehensions of public disorder, and the recurring judicial practice of restraining certified films precisely on such grounds.

    What triggered the dispute, and what exactly did the Supreme Court decide?

    1. Origin of the restraint: The Orissa High Court, on July 15, stayed the film’s release over concerns about its depiction of Lord Jagannath and the possible impact of screening it during the Rath Yatra.
    2. Nature of the Supreme Court’s order: The Court did not permit release on the original date. It also did not uphold an indefinite restraint. It directed postponement until after July 27, when the Rath Yatra concludes.
    3. Scope of challenge: The producer contested the High Court’s power to restrain a certified film, and the extent to which such restraint can rest on apprehensions of public disorder rather than an actual legal violation.
    4. High Court’s stated reasoning: The film’s depiction of Lord Jagannath’s childhood and adventures was held “not in tune with the religious texts,” and its release during the Rath Yatra was called “counterproductive.”
    5. Certification status of the film: The film held three separate ‘U’ (universal) certificates from the CBFC for its Hindi, Telugu, and Odia versions, dated May, June, and July respectively.
    6. Territorial overreach in the stay: The restraint stalled the certified Hindi and Telugu versions even in states “where no cause of action existed and no relief was ever sought.

    Why does CBFC certification carry a strong presumption of validity against restraint by apprehension of disorder?

    1. Petitioner’s core argument: Once an expert statutory body certifies a film for unrestricted public exhibition, there is a strong legal presumption of validity. Courts should not substitute their own view for the CBFC’s expert judgment based on unverified apprehensions.
    2. Union of India v K M Shankarappa (2000): The Supreme Court struck down a provision letting the government revise a tribunal’s decision on a certified film. It held that once an expert statutory body certifies a film, that decision cannot be revisited by the executive on the grounds of objections or apprehensions about public reaction.
    3. Allocation of responsibility for law and order: The Court in Shankarappa held that once an expert body clears a film, apprehension of a law-and-order situation is no excuse to restrain it. Maintaining law and order is the concerned state government’s responsibility, not a ground to withhold the certified film.
    4. S Rangarajan v P Jagjivan Ram (1989): The Supreme Court held that if a film is otherwise unobjectionable under Article 19(2), freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threatened demonstrations, processions, or violence.
    5. The anti-heckler’s-veto principle: Yielding to such threats amounts to a “negation of the rule of law.” The state cannot plead inability to handle a hostile audience; it has an obligatory duty to prevent disruption and protect the freedom of expression. Heckler’s veto, suppression of lawful expression to avoid a violent or disruptive reaction from its opponents, rather than because the expression itself is unlawful.

    Does the outcome in this case match the doctrine it invokes, or does it concede ground to the apprehension the doctrine forbids?

    1. Re-adjudication of content already cleared: The High Court’s finding that the depiction was “not in tune with the religious texts” evaluates content on the same grounds the CBFC had already cleared, which the Shankarappa doctrine holds courts should not revisit.
    2. A calibrated restraint, not a vacated one: The Supreme Court did not fully restore the certified release. It replaced an indefinite block with a postponement timed to the Rath Yatra, a decision still shaped by public-sensitivity considerations rather than a finding of unlawful certification.
    3. Restraint exceeding the specific dispute: The stay affected certified versions in states where no cause of action existed and no relief was sought, extending the restraint beyond what the underlying grievance covered.
    4. Net effect on the doctrine: The anti-heckler’s-veto principle is reaffirmed in language but diluted in practice. This is because the timing of a certified film’s release is still being shaped by apprehension of disruption during a religious event.

    Is certification actually beyond interference, or does the law retain other levers over a cleared film?

    1. Certification is not immune from judicial scrutiny: Courts retain the power to examine whether certification was granted in accordance with law, including whether the CBFC relied on statutory grounds, issued reasons, or followed fair procedure.
    2. Deference is conditional: Where the CBFC acts within the framework of the Cinematograph Act, courts usually defer to it. This deference is tied to lawful process, not to certification as such.
    3. Executive power to suspend or revoke: Under the Cinematograph Act, the government may suspend or revoke a certification even after approval.
    4. Power to restrict without prior hearing: The government may, in some cases, temporarily restrict a certified film’s screening without a prior hearing.
    5. Enforcement mechanisms beyond certification: The Act allows criminal liability for violations, and authorities are empowered to enter theatres and seize materials.

    Conclusion

    The doctrine from Shankarappa and Rangarajan holds that CBFC certification is final, and that neither the executive nor the courts may let apprehension of public disorder override a cleared film’s freedom of expression. In practice, both the Orissa High Court’s stay and the Supreme Court’s own decision to postpone release until after the Rath Yatra show that religious and public-order sensitivities continue to shape when and how a certified film is actually screened. Certification functions as a strong but not absolute shield: courts retain review over the legality of the certification process. Also, the executive retains statutory power to suspend, revoke, or temporarily restrict a cleared film. The unresolved question is where deference to apprehension, which the doctrine forbids, ends and legitimate statutory or procedural oversight, which the doctrine permits, begins.

  • Lakhpati Didi Mission: Roadmap for 6 Crore Lakhpati Didis

    Why in News?

    The Ministry of Rural Development, in collaboration with BRLPS-JEEVIKA, organised a two-day Regional Workshop to prepare a strategy and roadmap for achieving the national target of 6 Crore Lakhpati Didis.

    Key Highlights

    • Objective: Formulate a Strategy, Roadmap, and Annual Action Plan (FY 2026–27) for creating 6 Crore Lakhpati Didis.
    • Organised by: Ministry of Rural Development with BRLPS-JEEVIKA at BIPARD, Gaya (Bihar).
    • Key Focus Areas:
      • Farm and non-farm livelihoods.
      • Enterprise promotion and value addition.
      • Digital Management Information System (MIS).
      • Market linkages and convergence.
      • Climate-resilient livelihoods.
    • Major Outcomes:
      • Strategy for sustainable income enhancement.
      • Greater use of digital platforms and data-driven planning.
      • Strengthening community institutions and SHGs.
      • MoU signed between BRLPS-JEEVIKA and Arunachal State Rural Livelihood Mission (ArSRLM) for knowledge sharing.
    • Milestone Achieved: 3 Crore Lakhpati Didis; next target is 6 Crore.

    About Lakhpati Didi Initiative

    • Launched under Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana – National Rural Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NRLM).
    • Aims to enable women Self-Help Group (SHG) members to earn a sustainable annual household income of at least ₹1 lakh through diversified livelihood activities.
    • Focuses on financial inclusion, entrepreneurship, skill development, and market access.

    [2023] Consider the following statements:
    1. The Self-Help Group (SHG) programme was originally initiated by the State Bank of India by providing microcredit to the financially deprived.
    2. In an SHG, all members of a group take responsibility for a loan that an individual member takes.
    3. The Regional Rural Banks and Scheduled Commercial Banks support SHGs.
    How many of the above statements are correct?

    [A] Only one

    [B] Only two

    [C] All three

    [D] None

  • India Secures Three New Codex Standards for Spices

    Why in News?

    The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) adopted global standards for Large Cardamom, Coriander, and Vanilla at its 49th Session (CAC49) in Geneva. India also became Co-Chair of a new Electronic Working Group (EWG) on risk analysis for new food products.

    Key Highlights

    • Three Codex Standards Adopted: Large Cardamom, Coriander, and Vanilla.
    • Codex Commission: Jointly established by FAO and WHO to develop international food safety and quality standards.
    • India’s Role:
      • Hosts the Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH).
      • Spices Board India serves as the Secretariat of CCSCH.
    • Significance:
      • Harmonised global quality standards for spices.
      • Improves market access, fair trade, and export competitiveness.
    • Large Cardamom: Indigenous to the North-Eastern Himalayan region of India.
    • New Leadership Role: India accepted as Co-Chair of the Electronic Working Group (EWG) on risk analysis for new food products.

    Prelims Facts

    • Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC):
      • Established in 1963 by FAO and WHO.
      • Develops science-based international food standards.
      • Protects consumer health and promotes fair practices in food trade.
    • Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH): Hosted by India. Secretariat: Spices Board India.

    [2022] With reference to the “Tea Board” in India, consider the following statements:
    1. The Tea Board is a statutory body.
    2. It is a regulatory body attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
    3. The Tea Board’s Head Office is situated in Bengaluru.
    4. The Board has overseas office at Dubai and Moscow.
    Which of the statements given above are correct?

    [A] 1 and 3

    [B] 2 and 4

    [C] 3 and 4

    [D] 1 and 4

  • CCPA Penalises SpiceJet for Use of Dark Patterns

    Why in News?

    The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty on SpiceJet for using dark patterns on its flight booking platform, violating consumer protection laws.

    Key Highlights

    • Violation: Use of dark patterns that manipulated consumer choices.
    • Dark Patterns Identified:
      • Forced Action: Automatic enrolment into SpiceClub via pre-ticked checkbox.
      • Interface Interference: Default selection of the company’s preferred options.
      • Trick Question: Confusing and negatively worded consent language.
    • Legal Violations:
      • Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
      • Rule 4(9) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
      • Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023.
    • CCPA’s Observation: Consumer consent must be explicit, informed, and voluntary; consent obtained through pre-ticked checkboxes or deceptive interfaces is invalid.

    Prelims Facts

    • Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA):
      • Established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
      • Functions under the Department of Consumer Affairs.
      • Protects consumer rights and regulates unfair trade practices, misleading advertisements, and unfair contracts.
    • Dark Patterns: User interface designs that deceive or manipulate consumers into making unintended choices.

  • Revised Index of Core Industries (ICI) Series (Base Year 2022–23)

    Why in News?

    The Office of Economic Adviser (OEA), DPIIT will release the revised Index of Core Industries (ICI) with base year 2022–23 on 20 July 2026, replacing the 2011–12 series.

    Key Highlights

    • New Base Year: 2022–23 (replaces 2011–12).
    • Compiled by: Office of Economic Adviser (OEA), DPIIT.
    • Frequency: Monthly.
    • Major Change: Iron Ore added as a new core industry, increasing the total from 8 to 9.
    • Steel Index: Compiled using gross production data instead of net production.
    • Coal Sector: Only Raw Coal retained; Coal Middlings and Washed Coal excluded to avoid double counting.
    • Weights: Derived from the Index of Industrial Production (IIP) 2022–23 released by MoSPI.

    Nine Core Industries (2022–23 Series)

    • Coal, Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Refinery Products, Fertilisers, Steel, Cement, Electricity, and Iron Ore (Newly Added)
    • Index of Core Industries (ICI):
      • Measures the performance of core industrial sectors.
      • Represents infrastructure and industrial activity.
      • Forms a key indicator of industrial growth and serves as an input for the Index of Industrial Production (IIP).

    [2015] In the ‘Index of Eight Core Industries’, which one of the following is given the highest weight?

    [A] Coal production

    [B] Electricity generation

    [C] Fertilizer production

    [D] Steel production

  • Ultrafast Organic Anodes for Next-Generation Rechargeable Batteries

    Why in News?

    Researchers from IACS and SNBNCBS have developed a porous organic anode material based on a Covalent Organic Framework (COF) that enables ultrafast charging lithium-ion batteries while maintaining high durability.

    Key Highlights

    • Developed by: Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) and S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (SNBNCBS) under DST.
    • Material Used: Covalent Organic Framework (COF) – a porous crystalline organic material.
    • Major Achievement: Battery reaches 80% charge in just over one minute.
    • Advantages:
      • Faster lithium-ion transport.
      • Higher energy storage capacity.
      • Long cycle life and improved durability.
      • Safer and low-cost organic battery electrodes.
    • Dual-Ion Capability: Can store both lithium ions and sodium ions, paving the way for affordable sodium-ion batteries.
    • Applications: Electric vehicles, smartphones, laptops, grid-scale renewable energy storage.

    What is a Covalent Organic Framework (COF)?

    • A highly porous, crystalline organic material made of light elements (C, H, O, N, B).
    • Features: High surface area. Tunable pore size. Lightweight and chemically stable. Enables rapid ion movement, making it ideal for battery electrodes.

    [2025] In the context of electric vehicle batteries, consider the following elements:
    I. Cobalt
    II. Graphite
    III. Lithium
    IV. Nickel
    How many of the above usually make up battery cathodes?

    [A] Only one

    [B] Only two

    [C] Only three

    [D] All the four

  • Magnetic Trees Help Researchers Unearth Hidden Flow in the Sun’s Upper Atmosphere

    Why in News?

    Scientists from ARIES (DST) and partner institutions have discovered that the Sun’s meridional plasma flow extends into the upper chromosphere, providing the first observational evidence supporting the “Magnetic Tree” hypothesis. The study was published in The Astrophysical Journal.

    Key Highlights

    • Meridional Flow: Slow movement of hot plasma from the Sun’s equator toward the poles, acting as a conveyor belt for magnetic fields and regulating the 11 year solar cycle.
    • Major Discovery: The poleward plasma flow continues up to 3,000 km above the Sun’s visible surface (upper chromosphere), linking the Sun’s surface with its upper atmosphere.
    • Magnetic Tree Hypothesis: Magnetic structures in the upper atmosphere remain connected to deeper layers, similar to branches connected to a tree’s trunk and roots.
    • Technique Used: Researchers analysed 27 years of radio observations from Japan’s Nobeyama Radioheliograph using a novel image correlation technique.
    • Flow Speed: Plasma moves toward the poles at 5 to 15 m/s, comparable to speeds in the Sun’s lower layers.
    • Solar Cycle Link: Flow patterns vary with the Sun’s 11 year solar cycle and differ between hemispheres depending on magnetic activity.
    • Space Weather Significance: Improves understanding of the solar dynamo, solar storms, and space weather affecting satellites, GPS, communication systems, and power grids.

    Key Terms

    • Chromosphere: Layer of the Sun’s atmosphere located above the photosphere and below the corona.
    • Solar Dynamo: Process by which plasma motion generates the Sun’s magnetic field.
    • Space Weather: Conditions caused by solar activity that influence Earth’s technological systems.

    [2022] If a major solar storm (solar flare) reaches the Earth, which of the following are the possible effects on the Earth?:
    1. GPS and navigation systems could fail.
    2. Tsunamis could occur at equatorial regions.
    3. Power grids could be damaged.
    4. Intense auroras could occur over much of the Earth.
    5. Forest fires could take place over much of the planet.
    6. Orbits of the satellites could be disturbed
    7. Shortwave radio communication of the aircraft flying over polar regions could be interrupted.
    Select the correct answer using the code given below;

    [A] 1, 2, 4 and 5 only

    [B] 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 only

    [C] 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 only

    [D] 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and

  • Engineering Biology Roadmap 2035

    Why in News?

    The Government launched the Roadmap: “Building India as a Leading Bioeconomy Powerhouse by 2035” and announced India’s first Engineering Biology undergraduate course to develop a future-ready biotechnology workforce.

    Key Highlights

    • First Engineering Biology Graduation Course to be introduced in India.
    • Objective: Build a sovereign biotechnology ecosystem by integrating engineering, biology, medicine and AI.
    • IITs are preparing interdisciplinary programmes in collaboration with medical institutions.
    • Focus on AI-driven biology, synthetic biology and advanced biomanufacturing.
    • Bioeconomy Growth Fund: Proposed ₹50,000 crore to support innovation and commercialization.
    • Emphasis on industry-academia partnerships, talent development and indigenous biomanufacturing.

    What is Engineering Biology?

    • Engineering Biology is an interdisciplinary field that applies engineering principles to biological systems for designing and modifying organisms to develop useful products and technologies.

    Applications

    • Precision medicine and gene therapies, CAR-T cell therapy, Sustainable biofuels and bio-based chemicals, Climate-resilient agriculture, Alternative proteins and food systems, and Environmental remediation

    India’s Bioeconomy: Key Facts

    • Grew from ~USD 10 billion (2014) to ~USD 95 billion (2026).
    • Expected to reach USD 300 billion by 2030.
    • Roadmap targets USD 700 billion by 2035.
    • Over 11,000 biotechnology startups.
    • Nearly 100 bio-incubators.
    • Annual growth rate: 15 to 18%.
    • Contributes around 4.8% of GDP.

    Government Initiatives

    • BioE3 Policy (Biotechnology for Economy, Employment and Environment)
    • Promotion of AI-enabled biology and synthetic biology.
    • Strengthening bio-manufacturing and biotechnology innovation ecosystem.
    • Expansion of biotechnology education and skilled workforce.

    Prelims Facts

    • Synthetic Biology: Designing or modifying biological systems for useful applications.
    • Biomanufacturing: Using living organisms or biological processes to manufacture products.
    • CAR-T Cell Therapy: Personalized immunotherapy where a patient’s T cells are genetically modified to attack cancer cells.
    • DNA Vaccine: Uses genetically engineered DNA to trigger an immune response.

    [2025] With reference to monoclonal antibodies, often mentioned in news, consider the following statements:
    I. They are man-made proteins.
    II. They stimulate immunological function due to their ability to bind to specific antigens.
    III. They are used in treating viral infections like that of Nipah virus.
    Which of the statements given above are correct?

    [A] I and II only

    [B] II and III only

    [C] I and III only

    [D] 1, II and III

More posts