The Union Home Ministry directed all states and Union Territories to conduct a Civil Defence Mock Drill, aimed at assessing and enhancing the readiness of India’s civil defence mechanisms.
About Civil Defence under the Civil Defence Act, 1968
The Civil Defence Act, 1968 was enacted to ensure measures for civil defence to protect citizens, properties, and establishments from hostile attacks or natural disasters.
It aims to prepare the population to respond to emergencies such as military attacks, terrorist activities, and natural calamities.
Civil Defence Corps is formed at both national and state levels. Volunteers from various sectors are enlisted and trained.
The corps operates under the Central Government’s rules for civil defence.
Key functions include- Evacuation of civilians; Protection from danger and destruction; Salvage of property; Managing hazardous materials.
The Central Government has the authority to:
Make rules for civil defence across India.
Enforce evacuation procedures, control over dangerous substances, and manage disaster relief.
Penaltiesfor non-compliance with the civil defence regulations.
Recent Context: Civil Defence Mock Drill on 7th May
This exercise assesses and enhances the readiness of India’s civil defence systems to respond promptly during emergencies.
The drills will occur across nearly 300 civil defence districts, including sensitive locations like Mumbai, Uran (Jawaharlal Nehru Port), and Tarapur (nuclear power plant).
The mock drill aims to improve response time for rescue and relief operations, focusing on critical situations in the first few minutes of an emergency.
[UPSC 2010] With reference to the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007, consider the following statements:
1. This policy is applicable only to the persons affected by the acquisition of land for projects and not to the involuntary displacement due to any other reason.
2. This policy has been formulated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2*
Recent research has uncovered evidence of ancient wildfires (palaeofires) in the Godavari Basin, shedding light on Earth’s geological and climatic history from over 250 million years ago.
What are Palaeofires?
Palaeofires refer to ancient wildfires that occurred in the Earth’s past, influencing the vegetation, climate, and even the formation of coal.
These fires, spanning from the Late Silurian (419.2 to 443.8 million years ago) to the Quaternary (2.58 million years ago), left their mark across various landscapes.
Ancient Palaeofires in the Godavari Basin:
Palaeofires, traced back to the Permian period, provide evidence of how fires influenced prehistoric landscapes.
Advanced techniques like Raman Spectroscopy and FTIR Spectroscopy were used to differentiate between in situ (on-site) and ex situ (transported) charcoal.
The research also highlighted how sea level changes impacted charcoal deposition, with well-preserved fire signatures during regressive phases and more oxidized charcoal during transgressive phases.
These findings contribute to understanding carbon storage in the Earth’s crust and provide insights into past climate dynamics and fire behavior.
Role of Palaeofires in Earth’s Past:
Palaeofires were crucial in shaping Earth’s climate, vegetation, and contributing to coal formation across various geological periods.
During the Permian period, palaeofires were widespread in Gondwana, affecting plant life and coal deposits.
Fossil charcoal found in coal-bearing formations like the Raniganj Coalfield suggested a connection between seasonal droughts and wildfires.
These wildfires influenced vegetation patterns and led to the accumulation of carbon-rich deposits.
High atmospheric oxygen levels likely intensified these wildfires, significantly affecting both climate and ecosystem changes.
Understanding palaeofires helps in grasping long-term carbon sequestration processes.
[UPSC 2001] The approximate age of the Aravalli range is:
Options: (a) 370 million years (b) 470 million years (c) 570 million years* (d) 670 million years
India ranks 130th out of 193 countries in the 2025 Human Development Report (HDR), marking continued progress in human development according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
About Human Development Index (HDI):
HDR has been published by UNDP since 1990, exploring various human development themes.
HDI is a composite index that measures the average achievement in human development based on 3 key indicators:
Life expectancy at birth (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being).
Expected years of schooling and Mean years of schooling (SDG 4: Quality Education).
Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (SDG 8: Economic Growth).
India’s Progress on HDI:
India ranks 130th, improving from 133rd in 2022.
India’s HDI value increased from 0.676 in 2022 to 0.685 in 2023, remaining in the medium human development category.
Life expectancy in India reached 72 years in 2023, the highest recorded since the inception of the index, reflecting recovery post-pandemic.
Children in India now stay in school for 13 years on average, up from 8.2 years in 1990, driven by initiatives like the Right to Education Act and National Education Policy (2020).
India’s Gross National Income (GNI) per capita is $2,230 in 2023, reflecting moderate economic growth.
Among BRICS members, India trailed Brazil (89th), Russia (59th), China (75th), and South Africa (110th).
Regionally, Sri Lanka led while Nepal and Bhutan lagged.
[UPSC 2003] As per the Human Development Index given by UNDP, which one of the following sequences of South Asian countries is correct, in the order of higher to lower development?
A recent legal dispute between the US and Russia has brought the issue of Total Allowable Catch (TAC) into the spotlight.
About Total Allowable Catch (TAC):
TAC refers to the maximum quantity of a specific fish species that can be legally harvested in a defined period.
It is established to prevent overfishing and ensure sustainable fish populations.
These limits are essential for maintaining ecological balance and supporting long-term fishing industries.
Various Laws Governing TAC:
TACs are set by international fisheries management organizations like:
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization).
RFMOs (Regional Fisheries Management Organizations) for shared or migratory fish stocks.
European Union (EU): TACs are managed under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which sets quotas for member states based on scientific advice. Landing obligations ensure that all catches are counted against quotas, preventing waste.
India: India enforces a seasonal fishing ban in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) for 61 days to protect breeding fish. This ban serves as a TAC equivalent of zero for specific periods, supporting fish stock regeneration.
New Zealand: The Fisheries Act sets TACs for various stocks and specifies catch limits in terms of weight or numbers, updated by official notices.
[UPSC 2013] The most important fishing grounds of the world are found in the regions where:
Options: (a) Warm and cold atmospheric currents meet (b) Rivers drain out large amounts of freshwater into the sea (c) Warm and cold oceanic currents meet* (d) continental shelf is undulating.
[UPSC 2016] Present an account of the Indus Water Treaty and examine its ecological, economic and political implications in the context of changing bilateral relations.
Linkage: The decision to put the IWT in ‘abeyance’ is discussed in the article within the context of changing bilateral relations between India and Pakistan following a terror attack. The article highlights the political implications and the strategic considerations behind the decision, which aligns with examining the treaty’s implications in changing bilateral relations.
Mentor’s Comment: On April 24, India declared that it would temporarily suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 until Pakistan stops supporting cross-border terrorism. The term “abeyance” means a temporary pause, with the possibility of restarting the treaty if Pakistan takes real actions to stop terrorism, especially following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22.
Today’s editorial discusses India’s temporary suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960. This topic is relevant for GS Paper II (International Relations).
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
Using water resources as a strategic tool may offer short-term gains, but it could ultimately harm India in the long run.
Why has India placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance?
Response to Cross-Border Terrorism: India used the IWT as a strategic pressure tool following the Pahalgam terror attack (April 22, 2024), holding Pakistan accountable for supporting terrorism. Eg: Similar to the 2016 Uri attack response (surgical strikes), this move sends a message of zero tolerance.
Political Messaging and Public Sentiment: The decision caters to domestic outrage and shows a firm stance, particularly after recurring terror incidents. It helps the government project decisive action without immediate military escalation. Eg: After the Pulwama attack in 2019, India took firm actions like revoking Article 370 — a similar pattern of assertiveness is evident.
Leverage to Expedite Infrastructure Projects: India aims to use this pause to accelerate stalled or disputed hydropower and irrigation projects like Ratle and Tulbul Navigation on western rivers. Eg: Pakistan’s objections delayed the Kishenganga and Baglihar projects — abeyance reduces procedural hurdles temporarily.
Legal Dispute over Treaty Mechanism: India had already accused Pakistan of violating dispute resolution provisions of the IWT by unilaterally approaching the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2023. Eg: India considers this a material breach and is using “abeyance” as a middle path instead of outright termination.
Strategic Signalling Amid Regional Instability: Given Pakistan’s current political and economic instability, India sees an opportunity to reshape the narrative and strengthen its own water security posture. Eg: With Pakistan’s military losing public support and the government under pressure, India is testing diplomatic leverage.
Can using water resources strategically bring short-term gains but harm India long-term?
Diplomatic Strain: Using water as a tool for leverage can strain diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries, potentially leading to prolonged conflicts. Eg: If India disrupts water-sharing agreements under the Indus Waters Treaty, it could escalate tensions with Pakistan, affecting regional stability.
International Reputation: Strategic manipulation of water resources may damage India’s global image as a responsible water-sharing partner, undermining trust in future agreements. Eg: India’s suspension of the IWT may invite international criticism for violating treaty obligations, harming its reputation in the international community.
What are the legal limitations under the IWT and international law regarding unilateral suspension or abeyance of a treaty?
Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda: Under international law, treaties must be honored in good faith. This principle (pacta sunt servanda) ensures that once a treaty is ratified, it cannot be unilaterally suspended or abrogated without serious justification. Eg: In the IWT, India and Pakistan are obligated to maintain water-sharing arrangements despite political tensions.
Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A treaty can only be suspended or terminated unilaterally if there is a “material breach” or a fundamental change in circumstances (rebus sic stantibus), and this must be declared after due process. Eg: If one party to a treaty deliberately violates its terms, the other party might argue that the treaty is no longer binding.
Specific Treaty Provisions: Many treaties, including the IWT, include specific provisions about suspension, termination, or modification in certain circumstances. These provisions must be followed. Eg: In the IWT, disputes are to be resolved through a permanent commission rather than unilateral suspension of obligations.
Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Most treaties include mechanisms for resolving disputes rather than allowing unilateral suspension, reinforcing the need for cooperation and dialogue. Eg: The IWT mandates the use of a Permanent Indus Commission to address any disputes regarding the water-sharing arrangement.
How might India use the term “abeyance” to affect procedural cooperation mechanisms under the Indus Waters Treaty?
Suspension of Dispute Resolution Mechanism: The term “abeyance” suggests temporarily putting something on hold rather than full termination, which could lead to the suspension of mechanisms like the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) for resolving water-sharing disputes. Eg: If India places certain provisions of the IWT in abeyance, it could halt the regular meetings and communication under the PIC, leading to delayed resolutions.
Impact on Technical Cooperation: The IWT relies on continuous technical cooperation to monitor water flows and manage the shared river systems. “Abeyance” may disrupt such technical collaboration, affecting data sharing and joint assessments. Eg: India’s use of “abeyance” could delay joint inspections or data exchange related to water quality or infrastructure projects, impacting the treaty’s smooth functioning.
Erosion of Trust: Using “abeyance” could signal a lack of commitment to the treaty, potentially undermining trust between India and Pakistan and hindering future cooperation under the IWT. Eg: If India temporarily halts cooperation on the IWT, Pakistan may view it as a breach of good faith, weakening the foundation of trust that is critical for long-term collaboration.
Escalation of Diplomatic Tensions: The term could be interpreted as a politically motivated pause, which may lead to diplomatic tensions between the two countries. This would make it harder to revive procedural cooperation when needed. Eg: India’s declaration of “abeyance” after the 2019 Pulwama attack could escalate tensions and make it more difficult to resume dialogue on water-related issues, as the diplomatic focus shifts to security concerns.
Way forward:
Engage in Diplomatic Dialogue: India and Pakistan should prioritize re-engaging through the Permanent Indus Commission to address grievances and resume cooperation on water-sharing, ensuring that the IWT remains intact while managing political tensions.
Strengthen Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Both countries should strengthen the dispute resolution mechanisms under the IWT, ensuring that any concerns over violations are addressed through legal channels rather than unilateral actions, preserving long-term stability and trust.
Assam’s immigration detention system not only harms the freedom and well-being of the people held there, but also raises serious questions about whether it follows the basic rules and values of the Constitution.
What laws are used to detain non-citizens in India?
Foreigners Act, 1946: Allows the government to detain and deport individuals deemed as foreigners without valid documents. Eg: In Assam, many people declared as “foreigners” by Foreigners Tribunals were detained under this Act.
National Security Act (NSA), 1980: Permits preventive detention of individuals if they pose a threat to national security or public order. Eg: Non-citizens suspected of disturbing public order can be detained for up to 12 months without trial.
Passports Act, 1967: Penalizes entry or stay in India without valid passport or travel documents; used in conjunction with the above laws. Eg: A person found without a passport may be prosecuted and detained before deportation proceedings begin.
How do they impact detainees?
Indefinite and Arbitrary Detention: Many non-citizens are detained for years without trial or clear deportation prospects. Eg: In Assam, over 1.5 lakh people declared foreigners, but only a few dozen have actually been deported.
Lack of Legal Safeguards and Due Process: Detainees are often denied proper legal representation, and decisions are based on minor discrepancies in documents. Eg: Variations in spelling or lack of pre-1971 documentation have led to detention, despite lifelong residence in India.
Harsh Living Conditions and Psychological Distress: Detention camps have been criticised for overcrowding, poor facilities, and causing mental trauma. Eg: Many families are separated and live in uncertainty for years in Assam’s detention centres.
Why have many people in Assam been stripped of citizenship through the NRC process?
Stringent Documentation Requirements: Applicants had to prove ancestry from before March 24, 1971, using official documents. Eg: Many rural residents could not furnish land or birth records from that period due to illiteracy or displacement.
Loss or Inaccessibility of Records: Natural disasters, especially floods, led to the destruction or loss of vital documents. Eg: In flood-prone areas of Assam, many families lost old records multiple times over decades.
Minor Discrepancies Rejected: Minor differences in names or spelling between documents led to rejection. Eg: A person listed as “Rafiqul” in one document and “Rafiqul Islam” in another was flagged as suspicious.
Exclusion of Marginalised Communities: The verification process disproportionately affected Bengali Muslims, women, and tribal groups who lacked formal documentation. Eg: Women often lacked independent proof of lineage due to patriarchal registration systems.
Unfair and Opaque Procedures: Many claims were rejected by Foreigners Tribunals without transparent reasoning or opportunity for appeal. Eg: Individuals were declared foreigners without being adequately notified or heard by the tribunal.
How does the detention of non-citizens in Assam violate constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and 22?
Violation of Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): Detention without fair reason or legal justification breaches the fundamental right to life and liberty. Eg: People who have committed no crime are detained for years without any realistic prospect of deportation.
Absence of Procedural Safeguards (Article 22): Article 22 requires clear legal procedures and rights during preventive detention, such as being informed of grounds and access to legal counsel. Eg: Many detainees in Assam are not told why they’re detained or given timely legal aid.
Detention Without Conviction or Trial: Under Indian law, liberty can be curtailed mostly through judicial sanction, such as after conviction or during trial — not arbitrarily. Eg: People declared “foreigners” by tribunals (quasi-judicial bodies) are detained despite not being criminals or facing trial.
Detention Without Legitimate Preventive Purpose: Preventive detention must be for a specific, imminent threat — not indefinite holding due to lack of documents. Eg: Detainees are held even when deportation is not possible, making the detention purposeless.
Executive Overreach Undermines Judicial Role: Detention decisions are taken by the executive or tribunals without proper judicial oversight, undermining separation of powers. Eg: Tribunals and officials act without court direction, limiting detainees’ access to judicial remedy.
Way forward:
Ensure due process and legal aid: Establish transparent procedures with timely legal representation for those declared non-citizens, ensuring compliance with Articles 21 and 22.
Pursue humane alternatives to detention: Introduce community release programs or supervised residency for non-deportable individuals instead of indefinite detention.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2017] Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.
Linkage: The scope of fundamental rights, including Article 21, which is central to the discussion on the legality of detention in the article.
In India, a study published in The Lancet found that between 2008 and 2019, breathing in high levels of PM2.5 air pollution for short periods caused around 30,000 deaths each year in 10 major cities—making up about 7.2% of all deaths in those areas.
What are the major health impacts of urbanisation-related air pollution in Indian cities, as reported by the Lancet study?
High Mortality Due to PM2.5 Exposure: Short-term exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) caused nearly 30,000 deaths annually across 10 major Indian cities from 2008 to 2019.
Significant Share of Urban Deaths: These pollution-related deaths represented about 7.2% of all deaths in these cities, indicating a severe public health burden directly linked to air quality.
City-Specific Impact – Mumbai: Mumbai recorded the highest number of annual deaths due to PM2.5, with approximately 5,100 deaths each year attributed to air pollution.
Severe Effects in Eastern and Southern Metropolises: Kolkata and Chennai also showed worrying trends, with 4,678 deaths/year in Kolkata and 2,870 deaths/year in Chennai due to polluted air.
Urbanisation Intensifies Health Risks: Rapid urban growth increases traffic congestion and emissions, compounding the effects of air pollution and increasing the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
Why are Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) considered more suitable for long-distance travel and extreme conditions despite their low adoption?
Longer Driving Range: FCEVs offer greater range than battery electric vehicles (BEVs) due to the higher energy density of hydrogen fuel. Eg: Hydrogen-powered vehicles can travel 500–700 km on a single tank, ideal for intercity transport.
Quick Refuelling Time: FCEVs can be refuelled in just 5–15 minutes, similar to petrol or diesel vehicles, unlike BEVs which may take hours to recharge. Eg: Hydrogen buses can be quickly refuelled during breaks, making them suitable for continuous long-haul operations.
Better Performance in Cold Weather: FCEVs are less affected by cold temperatures, which often reduce the efficiency and range of battery-powered vehicles. Eg: FCEVs are more reliable in regions with harsh winters like high-altitude or Himalayan areas.
Lighter Vehicle Weight: Hydrogen fuel cells are generally lighter than large lithium-ion battery packs, improving efficiency and payload capacity. Eg: Fuel cell trucks can carry more cargo weight over rugged terrain compared to heavier BEVs.
Ideal for Heavy-Duty and Rugged Use: Due to their durability and efficiency, FCEVs are well-suited for buses, trucks, and long-range vehicles on varied terrains. Eg: Countries like Japan and South Korea are deploying hydrogen buses for public transport in hilly and industrial regions.
Which countries and regions are leading in global electric car sales and how does India compare?
Country/Region
2023 EV Sales
Market Share
Key Highlights
China
9.05 million
37% of total car sales
World’s largest EV market; accounts for ~58% of global EV consumption
Europe
3.02 million
24% of total car sales
Strong adoption in countries like Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands
United States
1.39 million
9.5% of total car sales
Third-largest EV market globally
India
80,000
~5% of total car sales
Rapid growth; EV sales nearly doubled in 2023; leading in electric three-wheeler sales
When will hydrogen vehicle costs match battery-electric vehicles?
Cost Convergence Expected by 2030: Experts predict that the initial purchase cost of hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) will match that of BEVs by around 2030, due to advancements in hydrogen fuel cell technology and mass production. Eg: A hydrogen-powered bus may cost the same as a battery-electric bus by 2030, narrowing today’s 20–30% cost gap.
Technology and Manufacturing Scale-Up: As production scales up, the cost of fuel cells, hydrogen storage systems, and related components is expected to fall significantly. Eg: Mass production of hydrogen tanks and cheaper catalysts could lower vehicle costs similar to how lithium-ion battery costs declined over time.
Infrastructure Development and Government Support: Increased investment in hydrogen refuelling infrastructure and government subsidies are crucial for cost parity. Eg: Japan and South Korea are funding hydrogen highways and offering tax incentives to make hydrogen cars more affordable.
Operational Costs to Remain High: While initial costs may match BEVs by 2030, running costs are expected to remain significantly higher beyond that due to fuel prices. Eg: Operating a green hydrogen bus currently costs around $0.91/km, compared to $0.17/km for electric buses.
Limited Market Segments for Parity: Cost matching is likely only in specific segments like heavy-duty transport, not across all vehicle categories. Eg: Long-haul hydrogen trucks may achieve cost parity with electric trucks sooner than passenger cars due to their high utility.
What are the steps taken by the Indian Government?
FAME India Scheme: Launched in 2015, it offers financial incentives for EV adoption and charging infrastructure development. Phase II (2019) focuses on public transport EVs and charging stations.
PLI Scheme: A ₹26,000 crore initiative to boost domestic EV and hydrogen vehicle manufacturing, reduce imports, create jobs, and support ‘Make in India.’
Customs Duty Reduction: Import duties on EVs above $35,000 have been reduced from up to 100% to 15%, with a cap of 8,000 vehicles annually for five years, provided manufacturers commit to local production.
NEMMP: The 2013 National Electric Mobility Mission Plan aims to boost EV and hybrid vehicle adoption through technology, infrastructure, and demand generation.
State-Level Initiatives: States like Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Delhi have implemented various EV policies, including subsidies, tax waivers, and electric auto rickshaw programs to promote adoption.
Way forward:
Enhance R&D and Subsidies: Support innovation and provide financial incentives to reduce the cost of hydrogen vehicles and fuel.
Build Targeted Infrastructure: Develop hydrogen refuelling stations along key freight corridors and urban hubs.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2024] How do electric vehicles contribute to reducing carbon emissions and what are the key benefits they offer compared to traditional combustion engine vehicles?
Linkage: Electric vehicles (which often implies BEVs) and their role in reducing carbon emissions, aligning with the “clean public transport”.
UPSC focuses on treaties like the Indus Water Treaty in two ways—historical context and contemporary disputes. Questions often require an analysis of ecological, economic, and geopolitical dimensions, as seen in the 2016 PYQ. The exam tests both conceptual understanding and current affairs relevance. Many of you may study the broad topics(map, water sharing, dispute resolution etc) but fail to link them with sub-themes like “Water Management.” You may tend to over-emphasize legal aspects but miss climate impact, infrastructure concerns, and trust deficits in Indo-Pak relations. This article provides a structured analysis of the dispute(including timeline) and a breakdown of breakdown of procedural, environmental, and strategic challenges. It goes beyond factual reporting to highlight how international water laws shape treaty interpretations – a crucial but often ignored aspect in preparation.
PYQ ANCHORING & MICROTHEMES:
GS 1: Present an account of the Indus Water Treaty and examine its ecological, economic and political implications in the context of changing bilateral relations.[2016]
Microthemes: Water Management
Michel Lino, the Neutral Expert appointed by the World Bank, stated that he has the authority to resolve disagreements over hydroelectric projects under the 1960 Indus Water Treaty. India supported this, affirming that all technical issues fall under its jurisdiction.
THE CURRENT DISPUTE
India has suspended the Indus Water Treaty in response to the Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack in Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam.
Timeline of Dispute Development
The following table outlines the timeline of the current disputes over hydroelectric projects under the Indus Water Treaty and the way it has evolved over the years:
Year/Date
Event
2015
Pakistan raised objections to the projects and initially requested the appointment of a Neutral Expert.
2016
Pakistan unilaterally withdrew its Neutral Expert request and directly sought adjudication by the CoA, bypassing the treaty’s prescribed process. India requested that the dispute be referred back to a Neutral Expert, adhering to the treaty’s provisions.
2022
The World Bank facilitated the simultaneous functioning of both a Neutral Expert and a CoA. India rejected the CoA as “illegally constituted” and inconsistent with the treaty.
January 2023
India formally issued a notice to Pakistan for reviewing and modifying the treaty under Article XII (3).
August 30, 2024
India sent another formal notice for treaty review, but Pakistan did not respond despite receiving four reminders.
2024
The World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert, Michel Lino, upheld India’s stance, affirmed his jurisdiction under Paragraph 7 of Annexure F of the IWT, and recognized the Neutral Expert as the competent authority to resolve the seven disputed issues.
2024
India welcomed the ruling, criticized the legitimacy of the CoA, and reiterated that the treaty does not allow parallel proceedings. The Ministry of External Affairs reaffirmed that the Neutral Expert is the appropriate authority to resolve the technical disputes, including those concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle projects.
2025
The Indus Water Treaty has been officially suspended on the aftermath of a terrorist attack in Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam.
ISSUES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TREATY
Water wars aren’t just a dystopian sci-fi concept—they’re playing out in real-time! The current dispute is just another chapter. The Indus Water Treaty, often cited as a symbol of cooperation, has faced several implementation hurdles over the years. These include:
Broad Issue
Specific Challenge
Example
Legal and Procedural Disputes
Dispute Over Project Designs
Pakistan objected to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, citing treaty violations.
Parallel Legal Mechanisms
In 2022, the World Bank allowed both a Neutral Expert and a Court of Arbitration (CoA) to function simultaneously, which India opposed.
Delays in Treaty Review and Modification
India issued formal notices in January 2023 and August 2024 for treaty modification, but Pakistan did not respond.
Environmental and Hydrological Challenges
Climate Change and Glacial Melt
Glacier retreat in the Himalayas is altering the flow patterns of the Indus River system.
Water Pollution and Quality Issues
Pakistan has raised concerns about pollution from Indian industries affecting Sutlej and Ravi Rivers.
Infrastructure and Water Management Issues
Infrastructure Development Concerns
Pakistan has raised objections to multiple projects, including Pakal Dul, Lower Kalnai, and Bursar Dams.
Data Sharing and Transparency Issues
In 2021, Pakistan accused India of delayed flood data sharing, leading to concerns about unanticipated water releases.
Geopolitical and Strategic Tensions
Political and Strategic Tensions
Following the Pulwama attack (2019), India considered stopping excess water flow to Pakistan.
Third-Party Mediation and External Influence
The appointment of a Neutral Expert and a CoA in 2022 led to India rejecting the CoA’s legitimacy.
Growing Water Demand and Resource Strain
Population Growth and Rising Demand
Both India’s Punjab and Pakistan’s Punjab face acute water shortages due to rising agricultural needs.
IMPACT: Stalled Development and Rising Costs (e.g., Kishenganga and Ratle projects)
Eroding Trust in Dispute Resolution (e.g., India rejecting CoA in 2022)
Escalating Water Conflicts – Mistrust and lack of cooperation heighten the risk of diplomatic standoffs and potential treaty breakdown.
Data Gaps Fueling Misinformation (e.g., Pakistan’s 2021 flood data concerns)
Recurring Infrastructure Disputes(e.g., Pakal Dul and Bursar Dams)
Growing Resource Pressure. (e.g., water shortages in Punjab on both sides)
#BACK2BASICS: INDUS WATER TREATY
Indus Water Treaty: Overview and Key Provisions
The Indus Water Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, governed the water-sharing arrangements between India and Pakistan over the Indus River system. The Treaty emerged as a solution to water disputes following the partition of India in 1947, which divided the river system between the two nations.
Key Provisions of the Indus Water Treaty
Water Sharing Arrangement:
The six rivers in the Indus Basin were divided as follows:
Western Rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab were allocated to Pakistan for unrestricted use, except for specified uses by India (e.g., non-consumptive, agricultural, and domestic uses).
Eastern Rivers: Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej were allocated to India for unrestricted use.
Approximately 80% of the water flow was allocated to Pakistan and 20% to India.
Specific Rights for India on Western Rivers:
Annexure C: Grants India rights for limited agricultural usage of waters from the western rivers.
Annexure D: Allows India to build ‘run-of-the-river’ hydropower projects (HEPs), which do not involve live water storage.
India must adhere to detailed design specifications.
Pakistan must be informed about project designs and can raise objections within three months.
Storage Provisions: India is permitted minimal storage on the western rivers for conservation and flood control purposes.
Permanent Indus Commission
A Permanent Indus Commission was established under the Treaty, comprising representatives from both nations.
Functions: Act as the first step in resolving water-related conflicts and Mandate at least one annual meeting.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism: The IWT outlines a three-step graded dispute resolution mechanism:
Permanent Indus Commission/Inter-government Talks: Initial disputes should be resolved through the Commission or inter-government dialogues.
Neutral Expert (NE): Unresolved disputes may be referred to the World Bank, which can appoint a Neutral Expert to resolve specific issues.
Court of Arbitration (CoA): If disputes involve treaty interpretation or dissatisfaction with the NE’s decision, they may be referred to a Court of Arbitration.
Understanding International Water Laws
When countries share rivers, lakes, or other water sources, they need clear rules to avoid conflicts, make the best use of resources, and protect nature. That’s where international water laws come in—they create guidelines for cooperation and fair use of water.
Even though these laws mainly deal with agreements between countries, they also influence national laws. To make these laws work, countries need to officially accept (ratify) them and follow them within their own borders.
Key Agreements Governing Shared Waters
There are over 400 agreements worldwide that regulate how countries cooperate over shared water. Some of the most important ones include:
Helsinki Rules, 1966
Regulates how rivers and their connected groundwaters that cross national boundaries can be used.
Includes principles for resolving issues through negotiations, arbitration, tribunals, or the International Court of Justice.
Helsinki Convention, 1992
Provides a legal framework for preventing and controlling water pollution across national borders.
Requires parties to apply the precautionary principle.
UN Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, 1997
Also referred to as the UN Watercourses Convention, it is a flexible and overarching global legal framework that establishes basic standards and rules for cooperation between watercourse states on the use, management, and protection of international watercourses.
Established two key principles: “equitable and reasonable use” and “the obligation not to cause significant harm” to neighbouring states.
UNECE Water Convention (1992) – Originally meant for Europe, this treaty was later opened to all UN countries in 2016.
Core Principles of International Water Law
Fair and Reasonable Use – Every country sharing a water source has equal rights and should use it without harming others. This ensures that both upstream and downstream nations get a fair share.
No Significant Harm – Countries must avoid actions that negatively impact others, like polluting or diverting too much water.
Cooperation & Communication – Countries must notify and consult each other before making changes that could affect shared waters. This helps prevent disputes.
Protecting the Environment – Water laws emphasize keeping ecosystems healthy by preventing pollution and maintaining the balance of natural water systems.
By following these principles, countries can share water peacefully, avoid disputes, and ensure long-term sustainability.
The National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) has reported major structural and operational defects in Telangana’s Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (KLIP), citing “irreparable damage” to three key barrages, including Medigadda.
About Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (KLIP)
KLIP, located on the Godavari River in Telangana, is the world’s largestmulti-stage lift irrigation project, inaugurated on June 21, 2019.
The project aims to irrigate 45 lakh acres, supply drinking water to Hyderabad, and support industrial use.
It plans to lift 240 TMC of water, with 195 TMC from Medigadda, 20 TMC from Sripada Yellampalli, and 25 TMC from groundwater.
The infrastructure includes 7 links, 28 packages, a 500 km span, 1,800+ km canal network, 20 reservoirs, and Asia’s largest pump house at Ramadugu.
Estimated cost: ₹80,000 crore to ₹1.2 lakh crore.
Issues with the Project
In October 2023, Pillar No. 20 of the Medigadda barrage sank, causing flood-related damages.
NDSA’s April 2024 report identified structural distressin all3 barrages (Medigadda, Annaram, Sundilla) due to poor design, lack of geotechnical studies, and inadequate safety protocols.
Overloading of barrages (10 TMC water stored instead of 2 TMC) caused foundation damage.
The state incurs ₹16,000 crore annually in loan and interest repayments, despite the project being criticized as a “man-made disaster.”
Back2Basics: Godavari River
The Godavari, also known as Dakshin Ganga, is the largest peninsular river in India.
Originates from Trimbakeshwar in Maharashtra, flowing 1465 km to the Bay of Bengal.
Its basin spans: Maharashtra, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and parts of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Puducherry.
Right bank tributaries include Pravara, Manjira, and Maner; Left bank tributaries include Purna, Pranhita, Indravati, and Sabari.
[UPSC 2024] Recently, the term “pumped-storage hydropower” is actually and appropriately discussed in the context of which one of the following?
Options: (a) Irrigation of terraced crop fields (b) Lift irrigation of cereal crops (c) Long duration energy storage* (d) Rainwater harvesting system
India’s SVAMITVA Scheme will be showcased at the World Bank Land Conference, highlighting its role in land governance reform, climate action, and rural empowerment.
About SVAMITVA (Survey of Villages and Mapping with Improvised Technology in Village Areas):
Launched on 24th April 2020 by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, the SVAMITVA Scheme aims to provide legal ownership of residential properties in rural areas using drone and geospatial technology.
It is a Central Sector Scheme, fully funded by the Centre.
It involves the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Revenue Departments at the state level, and the Survey of India as the technical partner.
The scheme issues property cards to rural households, reducing land disputes and enhancing financial inclusion.
These cards serve as legally valid ownership documents (e.g., Gharauni in Uttar Pradesh, Adhikar Abhilekh in Madhya Pradesh), and the scheme aims to formalize property rightsin rural India.
Key Features:
Drone-based technology ensures high-resolution mapping of village areas for transparency and accuracy.
Uses Continuous Operating Reference System (CORS) to achieve mapping precision up to 5 cm.
The Gram Manchitra platform helps in village-level development planning, disaster risk mitigation, and infrastructure management.
Aims to unlock land value estimated at USD 1.162 trillion, formalizing property ownership and enabling its use as a financial asset.
Promotes collaboration between central and state governments and aims to reduce litigation and improve rural governance.
[UPSC 2024] With reference to the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme, consider the following statements:
1. To implement the scheme, the Central Government provides 100% funding.
2. Under the Scheme, Cadastral Maps are digitised.
3. An initiative has been undertaken to transliterate the Records of Rights from local language to any of the languages recognized by the Constitution of India.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3*
