Content National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) Agricultural Education & Training in India National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) Why in News ? Rs. 49,799.06 crore disbursed by NCDC as of October 2025 (FY 2025–26). Rs. 95,182.88 crore disbursed in FY 2024–25 — a 16.5× rise from Rs. 5,735.51 crore in FY 2014–15. New Central Sector “Grant-in-Aid to NCDC Scheme” (2025–29) approved —₹2,000 crore outlay, leveraging ₹20,000 crore market funding. Launch of National Cooperation Policy 2025, aligning with Viksit Bharat 2047 and Sahkar se Samriddhi vision. Relevance : GS-3 (Economy): Strengthens cooperative-based rural credit, enterprise formation, and value chains; aligns with Atmanirbhar Bharat & Viksit Bharat 2047. GS-2 (Governance): Implements National Cooperation Policy 2025 for transparency, professionalism & digital cooperatives. GS-3 (Inclusive Growth): Focus on SC/ST/Women cooperatives, job creation, and decentralized development through “Sahkar se Samriddhi.” GS-3 (Agriculture): Expands financing for dairy, fisheries, sugar, and allied sectors via modernized cooperative structures. NCDC – The Backbone of India’s Cooperative Economy Statutory body, established in 1963 under the National Cooperative Development Corporation Act, 1962. Administrative Ministry: Ministry of Cooperation. Mandate: Promote, strengthen & develop cooperatives in agriculture, allied, and non-farm sectors via financial & technical support. Key Objectives Financing cooperatives in production, processing, storage, marketing, cold chains, and input supply. Supporting non-farm cooperative activities – dairy, poultry, fishery, handloom, SC/ST & women cooperatives. Strengthening value chains & post-harvest infrastructure for rural development. India’s Cooperative Landscape Total cooperatives: 8.44 lakh Membership: >30 crore individuals Farmer linkage: 94% of Indian farmers associated with cooperatives (credit, dairy, sugar, etc.) Economic sectors: Credit, sugar, dairy, fertilizers, textiles, marketing, housing, fishery, handicrafts. NCDC’s Financial Growth Year Financial Assistance (₹ crore) Growth 2014–15 5,735.51 Base Year 2024–25 95,182.88 +1,560% rise 2025–26 (till Oct 2025) 49,799.06 52% of previous FY achieved mid-year Sectoral Focus Sugar sector: ₹33,311.79 crore cumulative (as of Mar 2025) Women cooperatives: ₹4,823.68 crore (FY 2021–25) SC/ST cooperatives: ₹57.78 crore (FY 2021–25) Flagship Schemes of NCDC Yuva Sahakar (2019–20) Promotes start-up cooperatives and innovation-driven youth entrepreneurship. Focus: Aspirational districts, NER, women, SC/ST/PwD cooperatives. Support: Cooperative Start-up & Innovation Fund. Performance: 32 cooperatives supported ₹49.35 crore sanctioned; ₹3.71 crore released Ayushman Sahakar (2020–21) Cooperative model for holistic healthcare and AYUSH promotion. Supports hospital infrastructure, digital health, and health education. Performance (till FY 2024–25): 9 cooperatives ₹161.90 crore sanctioned; ₹43.19 crore released Dairy Sahakar (2021–22) Strengthens dairy cooperatives; covers procurement, processing, value addition, export. Also supports ICT, renewable energy, R&D, veterinary services. Performance: 16 cooperatives ₹162.28 crore sanctioned; ₹177.72 crore released Digital Sahakar (2021–22) Aligns with DigitalIndia. Promotes digitally enabled cooperatives, improved credit access, transparency, and integration with e-governance schemes. Eligible entities: Cooperatives, FPOs, FFPOs, SHG federations. Deerghavadhi Krishak Punji Sahakar Yojana (2022–23) Long-term capital support for agricultural credit cooperatives. Targets PACS, DCCBs, StCBs, PCARDBs, SCARDBs. Performance: 5 cooperatives ₹5,400.76 crore sanctioned; ₹2,137 crore released Women-centric Schemes Swayam Shakti Sahakar Yojana (2022–23) Extends loans via cooperative banks to Women SHGs & federations for rural enterprise creation. Nandini Sahakar (2020–21) Empowers women-led cooperatives via business planning, credit, and training. Performance (FY 2021–25): 34 cooperatives assisted ₹6,283.71 crore sanctioned; ₹4,823.68 crore released ₹2.37 crore for infrastructure (2022–25) Cooperative Sugar Mills Assistance Grant-in-Aid Scheme: ₹1,000 crore (2022–23 to 2024–25) Enables loans up to ₹10,000 crore for ethanol/cogeneration plants & working capital. Funding pattern revised: 90:10 (society: NCDC). Interest: 8.5% term loan rate. Outcome: ₹10,005 crore to 56 sugar mills. Recent Developments Grant-in-Aid Scheme (2025–26 to 2028–29) Outlay: ₹2,000 crore (₹500 crore annually). Leverage potential: ₹20,000 crore from open market. Coverage: ~13,288 cooperatives; 2.9 crore members. Target sectors: Dairy, fisheries, textiles, sugar, storage, women cooperatives, etc. National Cooperation Policy (NCP) 2025 Vision: “Sahkar se Samriddhi” – cooperatives as drivers of Viksit Bharat 2047. Focus areas: Legal reforms for transparency and professionalism Technology-driven and market-linked cooperatives Collaboration with IFFCO, NAFED, KRIBHCO, AMUL, NDDB, NCEL & NABARD Promoting “Cooperation among Cooperatives” model Significance & Impact Economic Impact Enhances rural credit and enterprise formation. Boosts value-added agriculture and farm-to-market linkages. Generates employment and local entrepreneurship. Social Impact Empowers marginalized groups (SC/ST/Women) through inclusive finance. Strengthens social capital via participatory governance. Strategic Impact Reduces dependence on state subsidies by fostering self-sustaining cooperatives. Aligns with Atmanirbhar Bharat and Vocal for Local missions. Critical Analysis Parameter Achievement Challenge Credit Growth 16× growth in disbursement (2014–25) Uneven access across states Inclusivity Dedicated schemes for women, SC/ST Limited scale of disbursement to marginalized groups Digitalization Launch of Digital Sahakar Digital literacy & infra gaps in PACS Health Sector Expansion Ayushman Sahakar model Low adoption rate Policy Support National Cooperation Policy 2025 State-level cooperative law fragmentation Way Forward Uniform Cooperative Legal Framework across states for ease of operation. Stronger credit monitoring to reduce NPAs in cooperative banks. Skill & capacity building through cooperative training institutes. Technology infusion: Blockchain, AI-driven traceability, digital payments. Women & youth-focused financial instruments for social inclusion. Conclusion The National Cooperative Development Corporation has emerged as a key financial and institutional pillar of India’s cooperative resurgence. With record disbursements, targeted social schemes, and integration under National Cooperation Policy 2025, NCDC is central to realizing a “Self-reliant and Inclusive Cooperative India” by 2047. Its sustained focus on credit expansion, inclusivity, and modernization positions cooperatives as engines of rural prosperity and equitable growth. Agricultural Education & Training in India Why in News ? PIB release highlights India’s integrated approach toward agricultural education, research, and farmer training under the vision “One Nation – One Agriculture – One Team.” Focus: Strengthening agricultural human capital, digital technologies (AI, IoT), and farmer skilling to achieve “Viksit Krishi aur Samruddh Kisan” — a pillar of Viksit Bharat 2047. Relevance : GS-2 (Education & Governance): Strengthens institutional capacity through ICAR, CAUs, KVKs; aligns with NEP 2020 and DARE-led reforms. GS-3 (Agriculture): Integrates AI, IoT, and digital skilling for climate-smart, precision-based agriculture. GS-3 (Science & Tech): Promotes AgriTech innovation via Technology Innovation Hubs and startup incubation under RKVY. GS-3 (Rural Development): Enhances farmer training, mechanization, and human capital for “Viksit Krishi aur Samruddh Kisan.” Importance of Agricultural Education Economic significance: Agriculture supports ~50% of India’s work force and contributes ~18% of GDP. Objective: Build a scientifically trained, tech-enabled workforce for 5% annual agri growth. Three Pillars: Education, Research, and Extension — interlinked to raise productivity, reduce costs, and enhance sustainability. Institutional Framework — ICAR System Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Established: 1929; under Department of Agricultural Research & Education (DARE), MoA&FW. Mandate: Apex body for agricultural education, research, and extension. Network: 113 National Research Institutes 74 Agricultural Universities (State, Central, Deemed, and ICAR-affiliated) 731 Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) — frontline extension units. Major Achievements: Led the Green Revolution; now drives climate-resilient crop and livestock innovations. ICAR Model Act (Revised 2023): Standardized academic & governance norms. Accreditation: Through National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board (NAEAB). University Ecosystem in Agriculture Category No. of Institutions Key Highlights State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) 63 Mainstream under state governments Central Agricultural Universities (CAUs) 3 Pusa (Bihar), Imphal (Manipur), Jhansi (UP) Deemed Universities (ICAR) 4 IARI (Delhi), NDRI (Karnal), IVRI (Izatnagar), CIFE (Mumbai) Central Universities with Agri Faculties 4 Offer agriculture and allied science programs Private ICAR-accredited Colleges 22 (up from 5 in 2020–21) Reflects growing private participation Central Agricultural Universities — Regional Impact (a) Dr. Rajendra Prasad CAU, Pusa (Bihar) Converted from State Univ. (2016); 8 constituent colleges, 18 KVKs. Offers UG, PG, PhD + short-term industry-linked diplomas. Focus: Eastern India agrarian upliftment. (b) CAU, Imphal (Manipur) Established 1993; serves 7 NE hill states. 13 constituent colleges, 10 UG + 48 PG + 34 PhD programs. Enrolment 2024–25: 2,982 students. (c) Rani Lakshmi Bai CAU, Jhansi (UP) Established 2014; national importance. Focus: Dryland farming, veterinary, horticulture, agri-engineering. Colleges across UP & MP. Digital & Technological Transformation AI & IoT in Agriculture Applications: Precision farming (smart irrigation, pest prediction, drone spraying, livestock monitoring). Innovation Hubs: 25 Technology Innovation Hubs (TIHs) under DST’s NM-ICPS (2022). IIT Ropar (IoT for saffron), IIT Bombay (IoE Hub), IIT Kharagpur (AI4ICPS). Digital Centres: IoT Centres of Excellence — Bengaluru, Gurugram, Gandhinagar, Visakhapatnam (AgriTech hub). e-Governance Plan for Agriculture: States funded to deploy AI/ML, IoT, blockchain solutions. Start-up Promotion (RKVY-Agripreneurship): Launched 2018–19. Supports startups in agro-processing, AI, IoT, blockchain, food tech. Farmer Skilling & Vocational Training (a) Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) Frontline ICAR training units. Farmers trained: 2021–22 to 2023–24 → 58.02 lakh Apr–Oct 2024–25 → 18.56 lakh Focus: Agronomy, livestock, soil health, post-harvest tech. (b) ATMA (Agricultural Technology Management Agency) Decentralised extension scheme. Farmers trained: 2021–22: 32.38 lakh 2022–23: 40.11 lakh 2023–24: 36.60 lakh Jan 2025 cumulative: 1.27 crore Focus: Integrated local training + agri-business linkages. (c) Skill Training of Rural Youth (STRY) Short-term (7-day) vocational training in horticulture, dairy, fisheries. Trained: 2021–22: 10,456 2022–23: 11,634 2023–24: 20,940 Total till Dec 2024 → ~51,000 rural youth. (d) Sub-Mission on Agricultural Mechanization (SMAM) Promotes mechanization via training/demonstrations. Farmers trained (2021–25): 57,139 Focus: Efficient machinery use, custom hiring. (e) Soil Health Card Scheme Promotes balanced nutrient management. By July 2025: 25.17 crore cards issued, 93,000+ trainings, 6.8 lakh demonstrations. (f) Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) >10,000 FPOs registered. Trained in business management, digital marketing, and collective procurement. Emerging Trends Shift from degree-centric to skill-centric and tech-based learning. NEP 2020 integration: Multi-disciplinary courses, short-term diplomas, employability focus. PPP in agri-education: Rise of private colleges and industry-academia linkages. Digital inclusion: Smart classrooms, agri-data platforms, AI-based curricula. Challenges Regional disparities in institutional capacity (esp. Eastern & NE India). Low employability among graduates due to theoretical-heavy curricula. Need for AI-ready, climate-smart pedagogy. Limited private investment in agricultural R&D. Policy Implications Strengthen synergy of ICAR–SAUs–KVKs–ATMA–FPOs. Institutionalize agri-tech incubation and digital learning ecosystems. Expand international collaborations for advanced agri-research. Align education reforms with Viksit Bharat 2047 agricultural goals. Conclusion India’s agricultural education ecosystem — 113 ICAR institutes, 74 universities, 731 KVKs, 1.27 crore farmers trained (2021–25) — reflects a robust national capacity-building effort. Integration of AI, IoT, start-ups, and skilling is bridging research-to-field gaps. As agriculture evolves from subsistence to knowledge-driven enterprise, the synergy between education, research, and farmer training will determine India’s agri-future and rural prosperity.

Content Death on the Move: India’s Road Safety Crisis COP30 & The Belém Summit: The “COP of Truth Death on the Move: India’s Road Safety Crisis Why in News ? On November 3, 2025, a major accident near Chevella (Hyderabad) killed 19 people when a truck swerved to avoid a pothole and hit a bus on NH-163. The stretch lacked dividers, signages, and streetlights — reflecting India’s chronic road infrastructure and enforcement deficits. Relevance   GS 2 (Governance): Administrative and institutional reforms, citizen-centric governance (RTO reforms). GS 3 (Infrastructure & Internal Security): Road infrastructure, technological safety, disaster management, and resilience. GS 4 (Ethics): Ethical duty of state and engineers in ensuring public safety. Practice Question Despite several policy initiatives, India continues to record one of the world’s highest numbers of road fatalities. Examine the structural causes and suggest a comprehensive multi-level reform strategy.(250 Words) The Scale of India’s Road Safety Crisis India tops the world in road fatalities. Source: MoRTH, Road Accidents in India Report 2023 1.68 lakh deaths in 2022 (highest ever). 53 road crashes and 19 deaths every hour. Global comparison: India accounts for ~11% of global road deaths, with just 1% of the world’s vehicles. Source: WHO Global Status Report on Road Safety 2023 Economic cost: Road accidents cost India 3.14% of GDP annually (World Bank, 2020). Among victims, 70% are aged 18–45, the productive demographic. Structural Causes Infrastructure Deficits Poor road design and maintenance: 40% of accidents linked to defective road conditions (NCRB 2023). Absence of crash barriers, signage, lighting, and drainage systems. Non-adherence to Indian Roads Congress (IRC) standards: Many NHs/SHs lack mandated median dividers and shoulders. Urban-rural divide: 53% of road deaths occur on rural roads with inadequate visibility and enforcement. Human Error & Licensing Failure Government attributes ~80% accidents to driver fault, but: Licensing tests focus on vehicle control, not defensive driving or risk awareness. No standardized training module for new drivers. RTO corruption and fake licences: SaveLIFE Foundation (2022): ~30% licences in some states issued without a test. World Bank (2020): 40% of Indian drivers learn driving informally. Vehicular Safety Low adoption of safety technologies: Until 2022, airbags were optional for many vehicle models. Lack of collision-risk warning systems in commercial vehicles. Crashworthiness: Global NCAP scores for several Indian cars failed minimum safety benchmarks. Enforcement Deficit Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 aimed to tighten penalties, but: Many States diluted or delayed implementation (e.g., Tamil Nadu, Gujarat). Weak enforcement of speed, helmet, seatbelt norms. Post-Crash Care Golden Hour loss: Only 8–10% victims receive care within the critical hour. WHO: Delays in trauma care increase fatality risk by 30–40%. Regional disparity: States like Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha have fatality rates 2× national average due to poor trauma infrastructure. Only ~600 trauma centres operational under the National Highway Accident Relief Service Scheme (NHARSS). Dimensions of Impact Dimension Impact Economic Annual loss of ₹7.5 lakh crore (MoRTH); reduces GDP growth by 1–1.5%. Social Majority of victims are low-income pedestrians, riders, and informal workers. Public Health India’s 8th leading cause of death (IHME 2022); burden on overstretched health systems. Governance Fragmented accountability between Centre, States, and local bodies. Urban Planning Poor integration of road design with pedestrian mobility and public transport. Government Initiatives & Reforms Legislative Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 ↑ Penalties for traffic violations. Mandatory road safety audits for NH projects. Provision for Good Samaritan protection. Institutional National Road Safety Board (NRSB) (under MV Act 2019) – yet to be fully functional. National Road Safety Policy (2010) – outdated; revision pending. Infrastructure & Technology Black Spot Identification Programme: 7,000+ accident-prone zones identified (MoRTH 2023). Integrated Road Accident Database (iRAD): Digitises crash data for targeted interventions. Bharatmala & PM Gati Shakti: Incorporating road safety audits into design stage. e-DAR (Detailed Accident Report) — online platform for quicker insurance and compensation. Awareness & Capacity Building SaveLIFE Foundation initiatives: Proposal for License Seva Kendras — modelled on Passport Seva Kendras for transparent, standardised licensing. iSAFE Challenge by MoRTH: promoting youth engagement in safety awareness. International Best Practices Country Model Learning for India Sweden Vision Zero (no road deaths target) Integrate safety in design, not just enforcement. Japan Driver Re-certification every 5 years Continuous driver education and skill audits. UK Graduated Licensing System Stage-wise driving rights based on experience. Australia Black Spot Funding Programme Dedicated funding for accident-prone zones. Way Forward: Multi-Dimensional Reform Blueprint Policy & Institutional Reform Update National Road Safety Policy (2010) to align with SDG 3.6 (halve road deaths by 2030). Operationalise National Road Safety Board as an independent statutory body. Set annual state-wise targets for reduction in fatalities. Licensing & Driver Education Adopt SaveLIFE Foundation’s License Seva Kendra model. Introduce mandatory driver education modules (simulation-based tests). Digitise all RTO functions to eliminate corruption. Infrastructure Overhaul Ensure strict compliance with IRC standards on all NH/SH projects. Mandate road safety audits pre- and post-construction. Prioritise pedestrian and cyclist safety infrastructure (footpaths, crossings). Vehicle & Technology Integration Make ADAS, collision warning, and lane departure systems mandatory in commercial vehicles. Incentivise scrapping of unsafe vehicles and NCAP-rated models. Emergency & Health Systems Expand Golden Hour Trauma Network via PPP. Integrate 108 ambulance services with highway patrols. Strengthen AIIMS-level trauma centres across NH corridors. COP30 & The Belém Summit: The “COP of Truth” Why in News  ? Belém Summit (Nov 2025) opened in the Brazilian Amazon, ahead of COP30 (to be hosted in Belém, Brazil, in 2025). Leaders from across the globe gathered to renew political momentum for climate justice, energy transition, and protection of tropical forests. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called it the “COP of Truth” — urging real action over rhetoric and proposing new global climate governance. Relevance GS 2 (International Relations): Multilateralism, international institutions, and global governance reform. India’s role in climate diplomacy (BASIC, G-77). GS 3 (Environment ): Climate change, sustainable development, and energy transition. Forest conservation mechanisms and carbon finance. GS 4 (Ethics): Climate ethics: Responsibility of developed nations, intergenerational justice. Practice Question The Belém Summit and Brazil’s “COP of Truth” call mark a shift from climate diplomacy to climate accountability. Discuss the significance of this shift for global climate governance and the Global South.(250 Words) The Road to COP30 Key Milestones Year Significance Earth Summit (Rio de Janeiro) 1992 Birth of UNFCCC, CBD, and UNCCD; foundation of global environmental governance. Paris Agreement (COP21) 2015 Legally binding framework to limit global temperature rise below 2°C. COP28 (Dubai) 2023 First Global Stocktake revealed world is off-track for 1.5°C target. Belém Summit (Brazil) 2025 Precursor to COP30; focus on climate finance, forests, and just transition. Brazil’s Climate Role and the Amazon Context Amazon = 60% of Brazil’s territory; world’s largest rainforest, absorbing ~2 billion tonnes CO₂ annually (UNEP 2024). Deforestation: Peaked at 13,000 sq km in 2021 under Bolsonaro. Under Lula: ↓ 50% by 2024 (INPE data). Significance: Amazon generates 20% of world’s freshwater and regulates global carbon and rainfall cycles. Loss may trigger “tipping point” → irreversible savannisation (Science Advances, 2023). The Belém Vision: Key Announcements Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) New global fund model — not a donation mechanism but an investment fund. Reward-based approach: Incentivises countries for keeping forests standing. Attracts investors via carbon credit-based returns. Brazil’s initial pledge: $1 billion. Aims to correct “climate finance inequity” by valuing ecosystem services. Ambitious Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Brazil: 59–67% emission reduction target by 2030 (covering all GHGs and sectors). Second country globally (after UAE) to submit updated NDC under the Paris framework. Energy transition goal: 88% electricity from renewables (hydro, solar, wind, biofuels). Green hydrogen investments: $10 bn pipeline projects (IBRD, 2024). Declaration on Hunger, Poverty & Climate Links climate justice with social justice: 673 million hungry; 2 billion lack clean cooking fuel (FAO & IEA 2024). Advocates Just Transition — balancing emission cuts with livelihood protection. Proposal for a UN Climate Change Council Linked to UN General Assembly, not UNSC. Aim: Overcome current multilateral paralysis and ensure binding accountability for climate pledges. Addresses global governance deficit highlighted in IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023). Underlying Issues Lula Targets Climate Injustice Global North emits 10× more per capita than Global South (WRI 2024). Yet, 90% of climate-related deaths occur in developing countries (UNDP 2023). $100 billion/year finance goal (Copenhagen 2009) — still unmet. Broken Climate Finance Architecture OECD 2023: Only $89.6 billion delivered in 2022; adaptation share <30%. Lula demands justice, not charity — fulfilling “common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR-RC)” under UNFCCC Article 3. Multilateral Fatigue Frequent pledge–delivery gap at COPs has eroded trust. Lula’s “COP of Truth” = call for measurable, accountable, transparent climate governance. Brazil’s Model of Climate Leadership Sector Action Data/Outcome Deforestation Control Amazon Fund revived (with Norway & Germany support) 50% fall in Amazon deforestation (INPE 2024). Renewable Energy 88% electricity from renewables; 47% total energy mix (IEA 2024). Among cleanest energy systems globally. Agriculture & Land Use ABC+ Programme (Low-Carbon Agriculture) 53 million ha under sustainable practices. Urban Climate Action Net-zero urban plan for 2035 (São Paulo) Green hydrogen buses, electrified transit. Global Significance of the Belém Summit For Climate Governance Potential turning point in post-Paris momentum. Push for binding accountability via Climate Council. For Global South Strengthens South–South solidarity for climate justice and finance equity. Promotes a “development + decarbonisation” narrative rather than a Western mitigation-only agenda. For Forest Economies TFFF could become a new financial model beyond REDD+, ensuring continuous incentives for conservation. For COP30 (Brazil 2025) Sets stage for: Operationalising Loss & Damage Fund (COP28 outcome). Doubling adaptation finance and scaling forest-positive investments. Stocktaking of NDCs and 1.5°C progress. Challenges & Critiques Financing Doubt: Unclear global buy-in for TFFF; risk of greenwashing via voluntary offsets. Governance Feasibility: Creating a UN Climate Council may face opposition from major powers. Implementation Gap: Ambitious NDCs but insufficient domestic enforcement in forest peripheries. Oil Transition Contradiction: Brazil still expanding offshore drilling via Petrobras. Way Forward: Translating Belém Vision into Action Global Level Operationalise Loss & Damage Fund with clear contribution metrics. Enforce accountability metrics for NDC delivery (through proposed UN Climate Council). Link SDGs–Paris–Biodiversity frameworks under a unified implementation platform. National/Regional Level Integrate Just Transition Plans within NDCs. Scale up climate adaptation funding (currently only 20–25% of total). Prioritise forest-based carbon markets with strict MRV systems. India’s Relevance Similar goals in LiFE Mission (Lifestyle for Environment). Shared advocacy with Brazil, South Africa (BASIC) for climate equity and CBDR. Opportunity for India–Brazil collaboration in bioenergy, green hydrogen, and South–South climate finance.

Content Household Income Survey, 2026 Contempt of Court and Judicial Authority The Forgotten Internationalists India among countries with highest yield loss due to human-induced land degradation 3rd Home for Cheetahs in India – Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh India’s 2024 Road Accident Report Household Income Survey, 2026  Why in News? The Government of India is set to conduct the first-ever Household Income Survey (HIS) in 2026 to directly capture income data from Indian households — unlike previous surveys which relied on proxies like consumption or employment data. It aims to provide granular, policy-relevant details into income levels, distribution, class dynamics, and livelihood patterns across India. Relevance: • GS-3 (Economy): Enhances precision in income-based poverty estimation, inequality mapping, and welfare targeting through direct household income data. • GS-2 (Governance): Strengthens evidence-based policy formulation and social sector planning under MoSPI and NSO. • GS-3 (Inclusive Growth): Facilitates better DBT targeting, financial inclusion, and income-linked welfare metrics. • GS-3 (Statistics & Data Governance): Modernises India’s statistical architecture by integrating HIS with HCES and NDAP for data transparency. Context & Need Data gap: India lacks a comprehensive, nationally representative dataset on household income. Existing surveys’ limitations: Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) – focuses on wages & employment, not household-level income. Household Consumption Expenditure Survey (HCES) – infers income via expenditure; less accurate for inequality or savings estimation. RBI Consumer Confidence Survey – measures sentiment on income trends, not actual data. Policy vacuum: Reliable income data are vital for designing targeted welfare schemes, poverty estimates, and inequality mapping. Objectives of the 2026 Survey To directly measure household income — from all sources (salaries, self-employment, agriculture, pensions, transfers, etc.). To map the relationship between income and household characteristics — occupation, caste, gender, region, and assets. To understand income volatility, indebtedness, and loan repayment burden in an EMI-driven economy. To test claims like “Doubling Farmers’ Income” and evaluate outcomes of state and central welfare schemes. Survey Design & Methodology Conducted by: National Statistical Office (NSO) under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI). Scope: Urban & rural households across all states/UTs. Data modules: Income – Salaries, allowances (bonus, overtime, stock options, leave encashment), self-employment earnings, crop sales, etc. Expenses – Seeds, raw materials, rents, repairs, and maintenance (mirroring HCES structure). Transfers & Support – Pensions, remittances, alimony, and welfare receipts (e.g., Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam in Tamil Nadu). Assets & Liabilities – Property ownership, landholding, dwelling size/type, loans, interest payments. Pilot Survey Insights (August 2025) Pilot coverage: Randomly selected households nationwide. Key findings: ~95% respondents found questions on income “sensitive.” Refusal rate highest for income-tax related questions. Affluent households more reluctant; rural households needed fewer clarifications. Respondents often overstated expenditure or underestimated savings/interest income. Government response: Awareness drives, media outreach, and local-language enumerators. Considering self-compilation forms for gated and affluent communities. Expected Outputs  Granular income mapping by: Sector – agriculture, manufacturing, services. Region – urban vs rural, state-level disparities. Social group – caste, religion, occupation. Economic indicators generated: Gini coefficient for income inequality. Income-to-loan repayment ratio. Income–consumption correlation and profit margins for self-employed. Gender gap in income by employment category. Enables micro-level poverty mapping beyond consumption-based estimates. Policy Significance For Government: Empirical foundation for Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) targeting, tax reform, and social security design. Enables district-level income data, improving NITI Aayog’s SDG localization and state welfare prioritization. For Researchers: Fills critical data gap for income inequality studies (replacing proxy datasets like CMIE-CPHS). Allows integration with HCES for comprehensive welfare analysis. Challenges & Limitations Privacy concerns: Reluctance to share income/tax details. Recall bias: Respondents unable to remember exact income sources or asset returns. Data accuracy: Misreporting, underestimation of informal sector income. Enumerator training: Ensuring sensitivity, accuracy, and uniformity across diverse contexts. Affluent households’ participation: Requires alternative digital/self-reporting mechanisms. Way Forward Strengthen trust via local enumerators, digital anonymity, and awareness on data use. Triangulate data with tax, EPFO, PM-KISAN, and GSTN databases. Synchronize HIS with HCES (2025–26) to cross-verify consumption–income dynamics. Institutionalize periodic surveys (every 3–5 years) for trend monitoring. Integrate with National Data & Analytics Platform (NDAP) for open-access insights. Key Takeaway The Household Income Survey, 2026 marks a paradigm shift from proxy-based welfare estimation to direct income measurement, aiming to equip India with the most precise picture of household economics since Independence — vital for inclusive, data-led governance. Contempt of Court and Judicial Authority  Why in News? A recent controversy arose over alleged derogatory remarks made against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Supreme Court, sparking debate on whether such statements amount to criminal contempt of court. The remarks, widely circulated on media and social media, are being viewed as potentially obstructing the administration of justice and eroding the judiciary’s institutional authority. Relevance: • GS-2 (Polity): Pertains to constitutional provisions under Articles 129, 215 and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; upholds judicial independence. • GS-2 (Governance): Balances freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) with institutional accountability and rule of law. • GS-2 (Judiciary): Demonstrates the evolving judicial stance on fair criticism, media conduct, and protection of judicial dignity. Constitutional & Legal Basis Article 19(2): Allows “reasonable restrictions” on the freedom of speech for, among other grounds, contempt of court. Article 129: Declares the Supreme Court a Court of Record with inherent power to punish for its contempt. Article 215: Grants the same power to High Courts. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Provides statutory clarity and procedure for contempt proceedings. Types of Contempt (as per the 1971 Act) Civil Contempt (Section 2(b)) Definition: Wilful disobedience of any judgment, order, direction, writ, or undertaking given to a court. Example: Non-compliance with a court order to pay maintenance or reinstate employment. Criminal Contempt (Section 2(c)) Definition: Publication or act that — i) Scandalises or lowers the authority of any court, ii) Prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings, or iii) Interferes with administration of justice. Scope: Goes beyond disobedience — covers speech, writing, signs, or conduct that damages judicial credibility. Key Judicial Interpretations Fair criticism ≠ Contempt: Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose (1952) – Fair and reasoned criticism of a judgment is permissible; personal attacks are not. Exercise with restraint: Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (2002) – Contempt power must be used sparingly and only in clear cases of violation. Public speech as criminal contempt: M.V. Jayarajan v. High Court of Kerala (2015) – Use of abusive language against the judiciary in public constitutes criminal contempt. Recent reaffirmation: Shanmugam @ Lakshminarayanan v. High Court of Madras (2025) – Purpose of contempt law is to uphold the administration of justice, not to suppress legitimate dissent. Procedure for Initiating Contempt Suo motu action: Courts (SC or HC) can initiate proceedings themselves. Third-party initiation: Requires consent of: Attorney General (AGI) – for Supreme Court. Advocate General (AG) – for respective High Court. Punishments (under Section 12 of the Act): Simple imprisonment up to 6 months, or Fine up to ₹2,000, or both (with possibility of discharge on apology). Rationale & Relevance Protects judicial independence: Maintains public confidence in the justice system. Ensures effective administration of justice: Prevents disruptions or undue influence during proceedings. Preserves constitutional morality: Judiciary’s authority is central to checks and balances in a democracy. Contempt vs. Freedom of Speech Balance of rights: While free expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, must remain insulated from malicious or false attacks that weaken institutional trust. Law Commission (274th Report, 2018): Retaining criminal contempt provisions is essential to preserve respect for judicial authority and rule of law. Comparative perspective: UK abolished “scandalising the court” in 2013; India retains it due to the higher public trust placed in the judiciary and the fragile rule-of-law ecosystem. Contemporary Concerns Social media amplification: Digital platforms can spread defamatory or misleading content rapidly, intensifying contemptuous impact. Public misperception: Criticism often crosses into vilification, confusing accountability with contempt. Institutional legitimacy: Repeated public disparagement can erode faith in judicial impartiality and weaken constitutional governance. Balancing Critique & Contempt Permissible Criticism Contemptuous Expression Academic/legal critique of a judgment Personal attacks on judges Highlighting judicial errors or bias through evidence Accusations of corruption without proof Debating judicial philosophy Mocking or demeaning the judiciary’s authority Advocacy for reform Campaigns that obstruct ongoing cases Way Forward Promote judicial literacy: Public understanding of judicial processes can prevent uninformed criticism. Encourage responsible media conduct: Enforce ethical reporting codes for judiciary-related matters. Develop social media protocols for contempt and misinformation. Codify fair criticism standards to demarcate dissent from defamation. Regular review of contempt powers to align with evolving democratic norms. Key Takeaway The Contempt of Court mechanism is not meant to shield the judiciary from scrutiny but to safeguard the integrity of justice delivery. In an era of digital expression, freedom with responsibility is vital to maintain the balance between democratic dissent and judicial dignity. The Forgotten Internationalists   Context The 2026 election for the next UN Secretary-General (UNSG) comes at a time when the UN faces a crisis of credibility and relevance. Rise of populist, ultra-nationalist governments worldwide is undermining multilateralism and the rules-based global order. Reflection on figures like U Thant (Burma) and K.M. Panikkar (India) highlights the role of the Global South in shaping internationalism during the Cold War and decolonisation era. Relevance: • GS-2 (International Relations): Analyses UN reforms, Global South diplomacy, and India’s historical role in shaping postcolonial internationalism. • GS-1 (Modern History): Examines figures like U Thant and K.M. Panikkar in Cold War and decolonisation contexts. The UN’s Current Crisis Erosion of Multilateralism: Populist leaders prioritise national sovereignty over collective global solutions, weakening cooperation in areas like climate change, migration, and conflict resolution. Power Imbalance: UNSC remains dominated by the P5 (US, UK, France, Russia, China) — representing the 1945 world order, not the 21st-century realities. Legitimacy Deficit: Growing disillusionment due to UN inaction on conflicts (Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan) and failure to reform veto and membership structures. Funding Constraints: Over 75% of the UN’s budget comes from less than 10 countries, allowing political leverage over UN operations. U Thant’s Legacy: Global South Diplomacy Tenure: 1961–1971 (First Asian and non-European UNSG). Crisis Management: Cuban Missile Crisis (1962): Brokered backchannel diplomacy between the US and USSR, averting nuclear war. Indo-Pak War (1965): Facilitated ceasefire and supported the Tashkent Agreement (1966). Congo Crisis: Ensured UN intervention supported decolonisation efforts. Institutional Reforms: Advocated financial autonomy for the UN; urged big powers to share the fiscal burden. Championed Afro-Asian solidarity and supported anti-colonial movements. Ideological Position: Argued for “world citizenship” over narrow nationalism — “Patriotism is good, but allegiance to the world community is essential.” Supported recognition of People’s Republic of China in 1971, showing foresight in global power balance. Challenges: US opposition during Vietnam War; accused of bias for criticising American aggression. Faced Western backlash for ordering UN peacekeepers to withdraw in the 1967 Six-Day War. K.M. Panikkar’s Vision: India’s Civilisational Diplomacy Background: Historian, freedom fighter, and diplomat; served as Ambassador to China (1948–55) and Egypt. Worldview: Advocated an “Asian Resurgence” based on shared civilisational heritage and anti-colonial solidarity. Coined the idea of India’s maritime power as a determinant of strategic autonomy — precursor to India’s Indo-Pacific policy. Diplomatic Contributions: Supported recognition of Communist China (1949) much before the West. Shaped India’s role during Suez Canal Crisis (1956) — upholding anti-imperialism. Opposed creation of Israel at the UNGA (1948) but later urged India to establish relations pragmatically. Criticisms: Misjudged China’s Tibet occupation (1950), leading to Sardar Patel’s reprimand. Accused of being overly conciliatory (“gone native”) — yet represented India’s non-aligned realism. Comparative Overview Aspect U Thant (UNSG) K.M. Panikkar (India’s Diplomat) Origin Burma (Myanmar), Global South India, Postcolonial Civilisational State Role Multilateral leadership National diplomacy within global framework Approach Peace diplomacy, decolonisation, moral persuasion Realist diplomacy rooted in Asian identity Conflict Mediation Cuban Missile Crisis, Indo-Pak War Tibet issue, Suez, recognition of China Legacy UN reformer and symbol of Global South assertion Architect of India’s strategic thought and maritime doctrine Relevance Today Resurgence of Nationalism: Echoes Thant’s warning — “My country, right or wrong” mindset is replacing international solidarity. Reclaiming Global South Voices: G-77 and BRICS+ are modern successors to the Afro-Asian internationalism Thant envisioned. India’s “Voice of the Global South Summit” (2023) mirrors Panikkar’s civilisational outreach. UN Reform Debate: Need for expansion of UNSC membership (India, Japan, Brazil, African Union). Calls for veto reform, financial independence, and revitalisation of UNGA authority. Lessons for Future UNSG (2026): Must blend moral authority (like Thant) with strategic pragmatism (like Panikkar). Reorient the UN toward equitable multipolarity rather than P5 dominance. India among countries with highest yield loss due to human-induced land degradation  Why in News ? FAO’s “State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) 2025” report (Nov 3, 2025) warns of a global land degradation crisis affecting 1.7 billion people. India is among the countries with the highest agricultural yield losses due to human-induced land degradation — a major threat to food security, ecosystem stability, and poverty alleviation. Relevance: • GS-3 (Environment): Relates to land degradation, desertification, and India’s commitments under UNCCD and SDG 15.3. • GS-3 (Agriculture): Examines yield loss, soil fertility decline, and sustainable land management practices. • GS-3 (Economy): Links degradation with reduced productivity, rural distress, and food security threats. Key Global Findings Land degradation has reduced agricultural productivity across 1.7 billion people globally. 90% of global deforestation driven by agricultural expansion — mainly cropland conversion and grazing expansion. Between 2001–2023: Total agricultural land area fell by 78 million hectares (mha) (−2%). Cropland expanded by 78 mha, while meadows/pastures shrank by 151 mha. Regional patterns: Sub-Saharan Africa: +69 mha cropland, −72 mha forest. Latin America: +25 mha cropland, −85 mha forest. 3.6 mha of croplands are abandoned annually, largely due to soil degradation and unsustainable farming. India-Specific Insights India among the worst-hit nations in yield loss due to anthropogenic (human-induced) land degradation. High population density + intensive agriculture (Punjab, Haryana, UP plains) → rapid soil organic carbon loss, nutrient depletion, and salinisation. Desertification Atlas (ISRO 2021): 29.7% of India’s total land (≈ 97.8 mha) degraded. Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Jharkhand — major contributors. Wheat yield loss projected to be 6–9% by 2040 due to combined soil and climate stress. Land degradation linked to water overuse — India extracts ~230 billion m³ groundwater annually, the world’s highest. Drivers of Human-Induced Land Degradation Agricultural Expansion: Conversion of forests to croplands; intensive monocropping. Responsible for ~90% of deforestation globally. Unsustainable Input Use: Overuse of fertilisers (India: ~165 kg/ha vs. global avg 120 kg/ha). Decline in soil organic carbon (SOC) by up to 40% in Indo-Gangetic belt. Overgrazing and Pasture Decline: Global pasture loss: 151 mha since 2001. Urbanisation and Infrastructure: In India, ~1.2 mha agricultural land lost yearly to non-farm use. Economic and Food Security Impact Degraded croplands = reduced productivity, lower farm income, and greater food insecurity. Reversing 10% of human-induced degradation can restore production to feed 154 million people/year globally. Restoring abandoned croplands could feed 292–476 million people. FAO identifies 47 million stunted children under age 5 living in degradation hotspots (mostly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa). Inequality in Land Use and Resource Access Farm size disparities amplify degradation and adaptation gaps: 85% of global farms <2 ha, cultivating just 9% of farmland. 0.1% of large farms (>1000 ha) control ~50% of farmland. Large farms: High-tech input use maintains yields but masks degradation. Example: Europe, North America — productivity maintained at rising ecological cost. Small farms: Struggle with degraded soils, low technology, and limited capital. Yet supply 16% of global calories, 12% of protein, 9% of fats — crucial for local food diversity. India’s Policy Response National Action Plan on Desertification and Drought (NAPDD) – aligns with UNCCD goals. India’s Commitment: Restore 26 million ha degraded land by 2030 (UNCCD COP14, New Delhi 2019). Integrate Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) in agriculture, forestry, and watershed programmes. Flagship Initiatives: Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) – water-use efficiency. Soil Health Card Scheme – nutrient balance. National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) – soil organic matter management. Green India Mission – forest restoration for ecosystem balance. Private-sector participation emerging in soil carbon markets and regenerative agriculture pilots. Global and Multilateral Linkages UNCCD (1994): Framework for combating desertification and promoting sustainable land use. FAO, UNEP, and IPBES assessments: Link land degradation to biodiversity loss and climate vulnerability. SDG 15.3: Target to achieve Land Degradation Neutral World (LDNW) by 2030. FAO warns global land productivity is declining on 25% of agricultural land, threatening SDG 2 (Zero Hunger). Way Forward Integrated Land-Use Planning: Balance agriculture, forestry, and water use. Agroecological Practices: Crop rotation, conservation tillage, bio-fertilisers. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES): Incentivise soil and forest conservation. Tech-enabled Monitoring: Remote sensing (ISRO’s Bhuvan platform) and AI-based soil diagnostics. South-South Cooperation: India can lead Global South collaboration under UNCCD and FAO platforms. 3rd Home for Cheetahs in India – Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary, Madhya Pradesh Why in News ? Madhya Pradesh government is preparing Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary (Sagar–Damoh–Narsinghpur belt) as India’s third cheetah site after Kuno National Park and Gandhi Sagar Sanctuary. The first batch of cheetahs to Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary is expected in 2026, but the major challenge is presence of ~25 tigers already in Nauradehi, posing risks to cheetah adaptation and survival. Relevance: • GS-3 (Environment & Biodiversity): Concerns species reintroduction, habitat restoration, and India’s cheetah meta-population model. • GS-3 (Conservation): Aligns with Green India Mission and UNCCD land restoration goals. • GS-3 (Geography): Studies central Indian landscape connectivity — Satpura–Panna–Bandhavgarh corridor. • GS-3 (Ecology & Sustainable Development): Promotes eco-tourism and community-led conservation for livelihood diversification. Background: Project Cheetah Launched: 2022; world’s first intercontinental large carnivore reintroduction project. Objective: Reintroduce Asiatic cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus venaticus) to India after their extinction in 1952. Implementation: Led by National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), MoEFCC, and WII in collaboration with Cheetah Conservation Fund (Namibia). Import sources: Namibia (2022, 8 cheetahs) and South Africa (2023, 12 cheetahs). Sites: Kuno National Park (Sheopur, MP) – 748 sq km Gandhi Sagar Sanctuary (Mandsaur–Neemuch, MP) – under preparation Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary (Sagar, Damoh, Narsinghpur, MP) – proposed new site About Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary Established: 1975; located between Satpura and Vindhya ranges. Area: ~1,197 sq km (core), part of a 5500 sq km landscape including buffer and corridors. Eco-significance: Forms a corridor between Panna Tiger Reserve and Satpura Tiger Reserve, and indirectly connects Bandhavgarh–Rani Durgavati–Satpura landscape. Potential “stepping stone” for meta-population connectivity across central India. Habitat: Dry deciduous forests, grasslands, scrub, rivers (Bewa, Kopra). Wildlife: Tiger (~25 individuals), leopard, chital, chinkara, nilgai, wild boar, hyena, crocodile. Prey base (2020 census): 4,788 nilgai, 1,796 chital, 1,556 chinkara. Average prey density: ~15.8 animals/sq km, comparable to Kuno’s carrying capacity. Cheetah Reintroduction Plan in Nauradehi Aim: Establish a viable third cheetah population in central India to reduce overdependence on Kuno. Habitat readiness: Good grassland quality (crucial for cheetah hunting). Existing infrastructure and staff from tiger management. Challenges: Presence of 25 tigers – potential predator conflict and competition. Relocation of local villages: 93 identified; 44 already shifted. Need for ₹8 crore (₹5.2 crore sanctioned) for habitat preparation and fencing. Water scarcity, dry deciduous habitat limit prey in dry months. Mitigation: Create large enclosures (50–52 sq km) for soft release. Strengthen prey density and water availability. Relocate remaining human settlements before cheetah arrival (by 2026). Ecological & Administrative Significance Acts as a biological corridor within the Satpura–Panna–Bandhavgarh landscape, strengthening genetic flow. Opportunity to convert a neglected sanctuary into a global conservation site. Provides habitat redundancy – critical after cheetah mortalities in Kuno (9 deaths in 2023). May promote eco-tourism and conservation-linked livelihood for 50+ surrounding villages. Challenges & Concerns Predator coexistence: Cheetahs vulnerable to tiger and leopard attacks — need isolation enclosures. Human–wildlife conflict: Local grazing and fuelwood dependence persists. Climate & resource stress: Dry zones face summer prey depletion and fire risk. Connectivity vs. safety trade-off: Corridors beneficial for genetics but increase predator overlap. Financial & administrative delays: State demand for additional funding from NTCA. Comparative Data Parameter Kuno NP Gandhi Sagar Sanctuary Nauradehi WLS Area (sq km) 748 368 (core) 1,197 Apex predators None initially Few leopards 25 tigers Villages relocated 24 19 (in process) 44 done, 49 pending Habitat type Grassland–deciduous Semi-arid scrub Dry deciduous grassland Prey base ~3,500 ungulates Moderate ~8,000 ungulates Way Forward Habitat zoning: Demarcate cheetah-exclusive and tiger-dominant zones. Soft-release strategy: Gradual acclimatisation of cheetahs in fenced areas. Community-based conservation: Compensation, eco-tourism jobs, and grazing alternatives. Integrated landscape management: Link Satpura–Panna–Bandhavgarh corridor under a single conservation cluster. Monitoring via e-surveillance: Use drones, camera traps, and satellite collars. Broader Context India aims for a self-sustaining population of ~50 cheetahs across multiple sites by 2035. The meta-population model (similar to South Africa’s system) will ensure genetic exchange and species viability. Rewilding degraded grasslands aligns with India’s UNCCD land restoration target (26 mha by 2030). India’s 2024 Road Accident Report  Why in News? Provisional 2024 report by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) indicates that India’s crash toll may surpass 2023 once West Bengal data is added. Despite declines in nine states, national road fatalities remain among the highest globally. Relevance: • GS-3 (Infrastructure & Transport): Evaluates safety performance under MoRTH, Motor Vehicles Act, and blackspot rectification policy. • GS-2 (Governance): Reflects Centre–State coordination and institutional accountability in road safety management. • GS-3 (Disaster Management): Links accident prevention, emergency response, and trauma care with SDG 3.6 (reduce deaths by 50% by 2030). National Overview (2024 vs 2023) 2024 (Provisional): 4.73 lakh accidents, 1.70 lakh deaths. 2023: 4.80 lakh accidents, 1.73 lakh deaths. Trend: National totals appear slightly lower, but inclusion of West Bengal (13,795 accidents, 6,027 deaths in 2023) will likely push 2024 above 2023. Long-term trend: Year-on-year increase in crashes since 2022, except during COVID-19 years (2020–21). Global context: India ranks #1 worldwide in road deaths, ahead of China and the US (World Road Statistics, IRF). State-wise Highlights (2024) Top 5 States by Road Accidents Rank State Accidents (2023) Accidents (2024*) Change 1 Tamil Nadu 67,213 67,526 ↑ 0.5% 2 Madhya Pradesh 55,327 56,669 ↑ 2.4% 3 Kerala 48,091 48,789 ↑ 1.4% 4 Uttar Pradesh 44,534 46,052 ↑ 3.4% 5 Karnataka 43,440 43,062 ↓ 0.9% Top 5 States by Road Fatalities Rank State Fatalities (2023) Fatalities (2024*) Change 1 Uttar Pradesh 23,652 24,118 ↑ 2.0% 2 Tamil Nadu 18,347 18,449 ↑ 0.6% 3 Maharashtra 15,366 15,715 ↑ 2.3% 4 Madhya Pradesh 13,798 14,791 ↑ 7.2% 5 Karnataka 12,321 12,390 ↑ 0.6% Positive Performers – States Showing Dual Decline 9 States/UTs recorded fall in both accidents & fatalities: Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, J&K, Manipur, Nagaland. Examples: Gujarat: Accidents ↓ 4.6% (16,349→15,588); Fatalities ↓ 1.7% (7,854→7,717). Haryana: Accidents ↓ 6.3%; Fatalities ↓ 5.6%. Punjab: Accidents ↓ 3.3%; Fatalities ↓ 1.4%. Nagaland: Accidents ↓ 57% (303→129). Mixed Trends – Fall in One Metric, Rise in Another State Accidents Fatalities Observation Andhra Pradesh ↓ (19,949→19,557) ↑ (8,137→8,346) Higher severity Karnataka ↓ ↑ Severity rise Kerala ↑ ↓ Better post-crash response Tripura ↑ marginally ↓ Improved safety Delhi ↓ ↑ Rising fatal crashes Ladakh ↓ ↑ High-altitude risk profile Accident Severity (Fatalities per 100 Accidents) Uttar Pradesh: Highest severity – 52.37% (1 death in 2 accidents). Kerala: Lowest severity – ~7.6% (1 death in 13 accidents). Rajasthan: Third highest severity – 47.47%. Gujarat: Slight rise from 48.04% to 49.51%. Telangana: Largest improvement – severity dropped from 33.4% to 30.6%. Structural Insights Over 60% of fatalities occur on National & State Highways. Human error contributes to ~70% of accidents (speeding, distraction, fatigue). 2-wheeler riders account for ~44% of deaths, pedestrians ~19%, cyclists ~4%. Seatbelt & helmet non-compliance remain the biggest risk multipliers. Rural roads: ~60% of total crashes but only ~45% of registered vehicles. Road Safety Interventions (MoRTH & States) Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019: Stricter penalties, hit-and-run compensation (₹2 lakh). National Road Safety Policy: 4Es – Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency care. Blackspot Rectification Programme: 789 blackspots identified; 60% under correction (2024). Good Samaritan Guidelines (2022): Legal protection to helpers of crash victims. Integrated Road Accident Database (iRAD): Data-driven interventions rolled out in 28 states. Swachhata Pakhwada–Road Safety Week 2024: Behavioural campaigns on helmets, seatbelts, and drink-driving. Global & Comparative Context India accounts for 11% of global road deaths, despite having only 1% of global vehicle population. WHO Global Status Report (2023): India’s fatality rate – 12.1 deaths per 1 lakh population (global avg ~9). UN Target: Reduce road deaths by 50% by 2030 (SDG 3.6) – India far off-track. Key Concerns Persisting urban–rural divide in enforcement and emergency response. Underreporting by states (~15–20% gap vs NCRB data). Delayed trauma care: 30–40% deaths occur within 1 hour (“golden hour loss”). Low deterrence: Poor conviction rate in traffic offences. Funding gaps in State Road Safety Funds (utilisation <60%). Way Forward Engineering: Crash barriers, rumble strips, lane segregation, better signage. Enforcement: AI-driven e-challan, speed cameras, night patrols. Education: Behavioural change campaigns, school road safety curriculum. Emergency Response: Expand NHAI’s 1033 helpline, integrate with eSanjeevani & 108 ambulance network. Accountability: Annual State Road Safety Index to link fund allocation with performance. Urban Mobility Planning: Safer pedestrian & cyclist infrastructure under Gati Shakti.