Content Gyan Bharatam Initiative STEPS TO CHECK GROUND LEVEL OZONE Gyan Bharatam Initiative Why in News? Written reply in Lok Sabha by Gajendra Singh Shekhawat Update on: Progress of digitisation (3.5 lakh manuscripts) Funding approval of ₹491.66 crore MoUs with 31 institutions Launch of Gyan Bharatam Digital Web Portal Adoption of Delhi Declaration (Gyan Bharatam Sankalp Patra) Relevance GS I – Indian Culture & Heritage Conservation of ancient manuscripts as tangible heritage Transmission of: Vedic knowledge Ayurveda Philosophy Astronomy & mathematics Integration of tangible + intangible heritage (manuscripts + performing arts like Odissi, Sambalpuri) What is the Gyan Bharatam Initiative? Flagship mission of the Ministry of Culture Announced in Union Budget 2025 (Para 84) Objective: Survey Document Conserve Digitize Disseminate India’s manuscript heritage Target Coverage: Over 1 crore manuscripts Core Output: Creation of a National Digital Repository Powered by AI and advanced digital technologies Financial & Administrative Framework Approved Outlay: ₹491.66 crore Time Period: 2025–2031 Approved by Standing Finance Committee (SFC) Pan-India implementation model Institutional Structure & Implementation Architecture Total MoUs Signed: 31 institutions 19 Cluster Centres 12 Independent Centres Technology partners finalized nationwide Example: MoU with Dr. Harisingh Gour University, Sagar (MP) Five Core Verticals of Gyan Bharatam Survey & Cataloguing Identification and metadata mapping of manuscripts Conservation & Capacity Building Physical preservation + training of conservators Technology & Digitization High-resolution scanning + AI tagging Linguistics & Translation Multi-script deciphering and translations Research, Publication & Outreach Academic integration and public dissemination Progress Achieved  Manuscripts digitized so far: ~3.5 lakh National Digital Web Portal launched by the Prime Minister Technology deployment underway across all centres Delhi Declaration (Gyan Bharatam Sankalp Patra ) Recognizes manuscripts as: “Living memory of Indian civilization” Key Commitments: Large-scale digital public access Modern conservation practices Revival of traditional knowledge systems People-centric approach: Converts heritage preservation into a Jan Andolan Global ambition: Positions India as a global hub for manuscript-based learning Cultural Ecosystem Linkages (Odisha Example) Sangeet Natak Akademi Promotes Odissi Dance, Odissi Music, Sambalpuri Dance Confers: Sangeet Natak Akademi Award Ustad Bismillah Khan Yuva Puraskar Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre (EZCC), Kolkata Promotes folk traditions of eastern India Regular showcasing of Sambalpuri Dance This highlights integration of tangible (manuscripts) and intangible (performing arts) heritage under MoC’s broader cultural strategy. Significance of Gyan Bharatam Civilizational & Knowledge Impact Preserves: Vedas, Smritis, medical texts (Ayurveda), astronomy, mathematics, philosophy Counters: Knowledge erosion due to decay, neglect, and private hoarding Digital India & AI Synergy AI-based: Script recognition Translation Metadata tagging Aligns with: Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) vision Soft Power & Global Scholarship Strengthens: India’s civilizational diplomacy Global Indology and Indic studies ecosystem Employment & Skill Building Creates demand for: Archivists Linguists Conservators Digital curators Challenges & Limitations Fragmented private ownership of manuscripts Multilingual script complexity (Sharada, Grantha, Bhojpuri, Modi, etc.) Shortage of trained conservators Risk of digitisation without contextual interpretation Cybersecurity of heritage data Way Forward Standardized national manuscript metadata framework AI + Human expert hybrid translation models Stronger: Copyright safeguards Community participation Integration with: National Education Policy (NEP 2020) Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) mission Prelims Facts Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Culture Launch Year: 2025 Budget: ₹491.66 crore Target: 1+ crore manuscripts Digitised so far: ~3.5 lakh Centres: 31 (19 Cluster + 12 Independent) Portal: Gyan Bharatam Digital Web Portal Vision Document: Delhi Declaration (Sankalp Patra) STEPS TO CHECK GROUND LEVEL OZONE Why in News? Written reply in Lok Sabha by Kirti Vardhan Singh Issue addressed: Control of Ground-Level Ozone (O₃) pollution Compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Data source: Real-time air quality monitoring from Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Portal Relevance GS I – Human Geography & Environment Impact of: Urbanisation Heat waves Industrial clusters Link between: Climate change and ozone intensification Crop damage and public health vulnerability GS III – Environment, Technology & Internal Policy Emission control through: BS VI norms Thermal power plant NOx standards Vapour Recovery Systems (VRS) Electric mobility push: PM E-DRIVE PM e-Bus Sewa Waste management as air pollution control VOC regulation in: Paint, pharma, fertilizer industries What is Ground-Level Ozone? Type: Secondary air pollutant Not emitted directly Formed by photochemical reaction between: NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) In the presence of sunlight Health & Environmental Impact Triggers: Asthma, bronchitis, lung inflammation Damages: Crops, forests, and materials Unlike stratospheric ozone: Ground-level ozone is harmful Sources of Ozone Precursors (A) NOx Sources Coal, petrol, diesel combustion Power plants Motor vehicles Industrial furnaces & boilers (B) VOC Sources Fuel evaporation Solvents, paints Oil & gas production Biomass and wood burning Regulatory Framework NAAQS covers 12 pollutants including O₃ Monitoring through: CPCB’s Central Control Room Portal Ozone precursor control under: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Key Government Measures to Control Ground-Level Ozone Vehicle Emission Control – BS VI Norms (Since April 2020) Vehicle Type NOx Reduction 2-wheelers 70–85% 4-wheelers 25–68% Heavy vehicles ~87%   Transition from BS-IV to BS-VI is one of the most decisive ozone-control interventions Electric Mobility Push PM Electric Drive Revolution (PM E-DRIVE) PM e-Bus Sewa Impact: Zero tailpipe NOx & VOC emissions Direct reduction in urban ozone formation National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) – 2019 Target: 130 non-attainment & million-plus cities Coverage: 24 States/UTs Each city has: City-Specific Clean Air Action Plan Sources targeted: Road dust Vehicle emissions Waste burning Construction & demolition Industrial pollution Industrial Emission Standards for NOx & VOCs Revised/introduced for: Man-made fibre Fertiliser industry Pharmaceuticals Paints & coatings Special focus on: Coal/lignite-based thermal power plants Cement plants Industrial boilers & furnaces Standalone clinker grinding units Vapour Recovery System (VRS) at Petrol Pumps 100% coverage in Delhi-NCR Other cities: 100 KL/month sales → million-plus cities   300 KL/month sales → cities above 1 lakh population   Prevents: Fuel evaporation = VOC reduction Transport & Urban Measures Promotion of: Public transport Road infrastructure Strengthening of: Pollution Under Control (PUC) certification regime Waste & Biomass Burning Control Complete ban on: Biomass burning Garbage burning Enforcement of: Solid waste rules Bio-medical waste rules Hazardous waste management rules Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS) Control (Global Link) ODS Rules, 2000 notified by MoEF&CC Controls: Use Import Export of ODS Aligns India with: Montreal Protocol obligations Though ODS affects stratospheric ozone, it strengthens India’s overall ozone governance framework. Why Ground-Level Ozone is a Rising Policy Challenge ? Climate change increases: Heat waves → faster ozone formation Urbanization: Vehicle density → NOx surge Industrial VOC overload in: Paint, pharma, chemical clusters Poor compliance in: Smaller non-attainment cities Effectiveness Assessment (Critical Analysis) Strengths BS VI norms → Structural emission shift NCAP → National coordination for cities VRS → Direct VOC leakage control Power plant NOx standards → Base-load emission control Gaps Poor VOC emission inventory at city level Limited real-time ozone forecasting Weak enforcement in Tier-2 & Tier-3 cities Inadequate public awareness of ozone as a pollutant Way Forward City-level: Ozone Action Plans Expand: Continuous O₃ monitoring stations Strengthen: VOC-specific compliance audits Integrate: Urban heat mitigation with ozone control Promote: Low-VOC industrial materials Prelims Facts Ground-level ozone → Secondary pollutant Precursors → NOx + VOC + Sunlight BS VI rollout → April 2020 NOx cut: Heavy vehicles → ~87% NCAP launch → 2019 NCAP cities → 130 VRS → Petrol vapor VOC control ODS Rules → 2000

Content IndiGo crisis is a classic case of corporate negligence Democracy’s Paradox & the “Chosen” People of the State IndiGo crisis is a classic case of corporate negligence Why in News? Widespread flight delays, cancellations, and network collapse across IndiGo’s domestic operations. Triggered by Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) rule changes effective June 1, aimed at pilot fatigue mitigation. Exposed systemic failures in airline scheduling, crew management, and accountability. Brought back focus on: Corporate governance in private airlines Passenger rights Regulatory enforcement by DGCA. Relevance GS II – Governance & Regulation Role of aviation regulator (DGCA) Regulatory compliance and enforcement deficit Consumer protection and passenger rights Executive accountability in infrastructure services GS IV – Ethics (Applied Ethics & Corporate Governance) Corporate negligence vs duty of care Automation vs human accountability Ethics of apology without compensation Public trust and institutional credibility Practice Question   Market leadership increases responsibility, not immunity. In this context, critically analyze the corporate governance failures exposed by the IndiGo crisis. (250 words) What Is the IndiGo Crisis? IndiGo: India’s largest airline with ~60% domestic market share. FDTL Rules: Safety regulations defining: Maximum flying hours for pilots Mandatory rest periods New FDTL reduced: Daily flight times Back-to-back duty windows IndiGo continued operating with old, overstretched scheduling models, assuming pilots would “adjust”. Result: Crew shortages Crew going “out of compliance” mid-operations Last-minute flight cancellations System-wide cascading failures. Core Reason: Not Regulation, But Corporate Negligence 1. Failure of Advance Preparedness DGCA gave 1-year notice before FDTL implementation. Other airlines adjusted: Hiring Simulator capacity Rostering systems IndiGo failed to: Expand training infrastructure Build backup crew reserves Upgrade scheduling algorithms. 2. Digital Over-Reliance Without Human Safeguards Heavy dependence on: AI-driven crew rostering Automated pairing systems No adequate: Standby buffers Manual override capacity. Once a few pilots went “out of FDTL”, the entire network fractured algorithmically. 3. Operational Overstretch Network already flagged as: “Over-scheduled” Operating at peak load with minimal redundancy FDTL rules exposed hidden inefficiencies, not created new ones. 4. Communication and Passenger Management Failure Instead of real-time human engagement: Automated apology messages No on-ground crisis resolution Passengers forced into: 200–300% costlier last-minute alternatives Missed weddings, interviews, medical travel. Economic & Social Cost (Beyond Ticket Refunds) Aviation failures impose: Loss of productivity Business opportunity losses Medical risks Irrecoverable emotional distress Not measurable merely in: Refund amounts Travel credits. Regulatory Dimension (Governance Angle) IndiGo’s behavior highlights: Weak ex-ante compliance culture Overconfidence due to: Market dominance Oligopolistic power Raises questions on: DGCA’s predictive enforcement Penalty sufficiency vs airline size. Corporate Governance & Ethical Failure Dimension Failure Risk Management Ignored predictable regulatory impact Accountability Shifted blame post-crisis Consumer Ethics Automated apologies instead of restitution Business Continuity No operational buffers Transparency Poor passenger communication Structural Issues in Indian Aviation  Ultra-thin profit margins Aggressive capacity expansion without HR depth Shortage of: Trained pilots Simulator infrastructure Algorithm-driven aviation without human redundancy Weak passenger compensation norms compared to EU/UK. Larger Governance Message Automation cannot substitute institutional responsibility. Scale without safety buffers creates systemic fragility. Market leadership increases duty of care, not reduces it. What Should Have Been Done? Phased crew expansion aligned with FDTL Simulator capacity scaling Excess standby crew pools Manual scheduling backups Proactive passenger re-routing partnerships with other airlines Institutional apology + monetary compensation. Conclusion The IndiGo crisis is not a failure of regulation but a failure of compliance culture, corporate ethics, and anticipatory governance in India’s aviation sector. Democracy’s Paradox & the “Chosen” People of the State Why in News? Renewed controversy around: Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls Citizenship verification practices Linkages with NRC–CAA framework Administrative demand for proof of citizenship from voters has revived: Constitutional debate on who decides citizenship The paradox between popular sovereignty and bureaucratic sovereignty. Relevance GS II – Polity & Governance Citizenship law Electoral reforms Role of Election Commission Executive vs judicial power GS IV – Ethics Presumption of innocence Administrative morality Dignity vs procedural rigidity GS I – Society Exclusion, identity, documentation politics Practice Question Critically examine how large-scale citizenship verification exercises challenge the foundational principles of Indian democracy. (250 words) Core Idea in One Line Indian democracy is facing a structural paradox where the sovereign people are being asked to prove their legitimacy to the state they themselves constitutionally created. Basics What Is Citizenship? Legal status that determines: Political rights (voting, contesting elections) Civil rights (equality, protection of law) Indian citizenship is governed by: Articles 5–11 of the Constitution Citizenship Act, 1955 What Is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)? A house-to-house verification of electoral rolls Originally meant for: Removing duplicates Correcting errors Now expanding into: Demand for documentary proof of citizenship Why Is This Constitutionally Sensitive? Right to vote ≠ Fundamental Right, but: It is the bedrock of democracy Electoral inclusion is tied to: Equality (Article 14) Democratic participation Central Paradox Classical Democratic Theory People are sovereign State derives authority from: Popular consent Government = trustee of the people Present Administrative Reality Bureaucracy now: Demands proof of citizenship Decides who qualifies as “Indian” Result: State judges the people Instead of people judging the state The Paradox Principle Reality People create the State State now verifies the people Citizens are sovereign Bureaucracy exercises final discretion Democracy is inclusive Documentation-driven exclusion emerges Citizenship Adjudication: Legal Problem   No Central Judicial Mechanism for Citizenship India lacks: A national judicial authority to determine citizenship for all Existing mechanisms are: Fragmented Executive-driven Citizenship Act, 1955 – Limitation Empowers government to frame rules But: Does not create mass adjudication procedures Was never designed for: Population-scale verification exercises NRC & CAA Shift the Burden of Proof Citizen now must prove inclusion Failure leads to: Doubtful citizen Foreigner classification Possible detention/exclusion Assam is the Laboratory Key Features NRC updated with: Multiple cut-off dates Complex ancestry documentation Result: Legal insecurity for millions Families split by documentary classification Deeper Issue Citizenship reduced to: Documentary pedigree Instead of: Lived social-political membership Electoral Rolls VS Citizenship Rolls   Dangerous Institutional Conflation Electoral Roll Citizenship Register For voting rights For national membership Administrative list Civil status determination Flexible correction High-risk exclusion   Using electoral rolls to infer citizenship: Collapses two constitutionally distinct domains Democracy VS Bureaucratic Sovereignty  Administrative Power Expansion Lower-level officials effectively decide: Who votes Who belongs This creates: Street-level constitutional authority Consequences Selective exclusion risk Political profiling risk Erosion of: Universal adult franchise Procedural equality Ethical Dimension Core Ethical Conflict Presumption of citizenship vs presumption of suspicion Indian constitutional morality favours: Inclusion Dignity Non-arbitrariness Ethical Failure Points Treating poverty as documentary guilt Converting administrative convenience into: Existential insecurity for citizens Implications for Indian Democracy 1. Political Shrinks the voter base indirectly Weakens mass participation 2. Constitutional Undermines: Article 14 (Equality) Popular sovereignty Expands executive dominance 3. Social Disproportionate impact on: Migrants Poor Illiterate populations Constitutional Balance Citizenship determination must be: Judicially insulated Procedurally humane Electoral inclusion should operate on: Presumption of citizenship unless proven otherwise Bureaucracy should be: An administrator, not a sovereign adjudicator Conclusion When the state begins to question the citizenship of its own electorate at scale, democracy risks transforming from a system of popular sovereignty to one of bureaucratic certification.

Content How can India benefit from neurotechnology? DHRUVA framework Crypto transactions crossed ₹51,000 cr. in 2024-25 in India Nahargarh Biological Park Gallbladder cancer How can India benefit from neurotechnology?  Why in News? May 2024: Neuralink received US FDA approval for first in-human BCI trials. Demonstrated: Thought-controlled cursor movement Prosthetic-enabled motor function in paralysed patients Renewed global debate on: Human enhancement Brain data privacy Military uses of BCIs Parallel developments: China Brain Project (2016–2030) EU & Chile enacting “Neurorights” laws In India: IIT Kanpur developed BCI-driven robotic hand for stroke patients New focus on health-tech + neuro-AI convergence Relevance GS 2 – Governance & Social Justice Health governance and regulation of emerging medical technologies Data privacy, informed consent, and human rights (brain data) International cooperation on tech ethics (neurorights, global regulations) GS 3 – Science & Technology + Internal Security Emerging technologies: Neuro-AI, BCIs, assistive technologies Dual-use technology risks (civil–military fusion, neuro-weapons) Strategic technology competition (US–China–EU) What is Neurotechnology? Neurotechnology = technologies that: Record Monitor Stimulate Modify brain activity directly. Works at the intersection of: Neuroscience Artificial Intelligence Biomedical Engineering Signal Processing Core Technology: Brain–Computer Interface (BCI) BCI = Direct communication pathway between brain and external device Three functional layers: Signal acquisition → EEG or implanted electrodes Signal decoding → AI/ML algorithms Command execution → Prosthetics, cursors, wheelchairs Types of BCIs Non-invasive EEG headsets Safer, less precise Invasive Implanted electrodes High precision, surgical risk What Can BCIs Do? (A) Therapeutic Uses (Current Reality) Paralysis → Neuroprosthetic limb control Parkinson’s → Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) Depression → Targeted neural stimulation Stroke → Motor rehabilitation Epilepsy → Seizure detection & suppression (B) Diagnostic Uses Brain disorder mapping Cognitive decline tracking (Alzheimer’s, dementia) (C) Emerging Uses Gaming & immersive VR Cognitive performance tracking Human–AI interaction Global Landscape (A) United States Global leader via NIH – BRAIN Initiative (launched 2013) Focus: High-resolution brain mapping Neuro-AI interfaces Private sector: Neuralink BrainGate Synchron (B) China China Brain Project (2016–2030): Understanding human cognition Brain-inspired AI Neurological disease treatment Strong civil–military fusion angle (C) Europe & Chile First movers in “Neurorights” laws Legal protection for: Mental privacy Cognitive liberty Psychological integrity Why Does India Need Neurotechnology? (A) Public Health Imperative India has one of the world’s largest neurological disease burdens 1990–2019: Stroke became the largest contributor among neurological disorders Major disease load: Stroke Spinal cord injuries Parkinson’s Depression (B) Economic & Strategic Opportunity Neurotechnology sits at convergence of: Biotech AI Medical devices High potential for: Export-oriented med-tech Defence applications Assistive devices market Where Does India Stand Today? (A) Research Institutions National Brain Research Centre Indian Institute of Science – Brain Research Centre (B) Academic Innovation IIT Kanpur: Developed BCI-based robotic hand Target group: Stroke survivors (C) Start-up Ecosystem Dognosis: Uses canine neural signals to detect cancer scent recognition Neuro-AI applied to animal cognition for human diagnostics Strategic Advantages for India Large and genetically diverse population → better clinical datasets Strong base in: AI Electronics Biomedical engineering Expanding: Health-tech startups Make-in-India medical devices Bottom-Line Assessment Neurotechnology is: No longer speculative Clinically viable Strategically sensitive For India: Healthcare transformation tool Next frontier of strategic tech competition Without regulation: Risk of ethical disaster With regulation: Potential global leadership in affordable neuro-health solutions DHRUVA framework Why in News? May 2025: Department of Posts proposed DHRUVA (Digital Hub for Reference and Unique Virtual Address). Government released: Draft amendment to the Post Office Act, 2023 to legally enable DHRUVA. Follows the launch of DIGIPIN (geo-coded location pin system). Policy concerns raised by: Dvara Research on privacy, consent, and urban governance limitations. Relevance GS 2 – Governance E-governance, Digital Public Infrastructure Consent-based data sharing and privacy Urban governance and service delivery Legal gaps in data regulation GS 3 – Infrastructure & Digital Economy Logistics efficiency Platform economy Last-mile service delivery Smart cities and geospatial governance What is DHRUVA? DHRUVA = a proposed Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) for standardised digital addresses. It converts physical addresses into virtual “labels”, similar to: Email IDs UPI IDs Example: Instead of writing a long address → user shares something like amit@dhruva. Core Objective of DHRUVA Standardisation of addresses across platforms Consent-based sharing of address data Service discovery: Identifying what doorstep services are available at a user’s location Improve: Governance Logistics E-commerce delivery Emergency services What is DIGIPIN? Developed in-house by India Post. 10-digit alphanumeric, geo-coded digital pin Coverage: Every 12 square metre block in India Use-case: Rural areas with weak descriptive addressing Precise fallback for: Postal delivery Emergency response How Will DHRUVA Work? DHRUVA ecosystem includes: Address Service Providers (ASPs) Generate proxy address labels Address Validation Agencies (AVAs) Authenticate address authenticity Address Information Agents (AIAs) Handle user consent management Central Governance Entity On the lines of National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) How Will DHRUVA Be Used? (A) Consent-Based Address Sharing Users tokenise addresses, like: UPI tokenises bank accounts User controls: Who can access For how long For what purpose (B) Seamless Address Updating When a person shifts residence: All linked platforms automatically update delivery location. (C) Logistics & Platform Integration Supported platforms: Amazon Uber India Post Gig economy & food delivery platforms Why is DHRUVA Being Framed as DPI? DHRUVA is aligned with India’s DPI model like: Aadhaar → Identity UPI → Payments DigiLocker → Documents DHRUVA → Addresses Features: Public ownership Interoperable Platform-neutral Consent-based data flows Will It Help Urban Governance? (A) Key Concern Highlighted by Dvara Research Addresses in DHRUVA are linked to people, not independently mapped physical structures. Implication: Urban planning requires structure-based data, not merely person-based data. (B) Consent Paradox Since personal data is collected: User consent becomes mandatory. If citizens refuse consent: Datasets become incomplete Result: Weak urban planning Faulty population projections Inaccurate infrastructure mapping (C) Global Best Practice Contrast In most advanced economies: Digital addresses are linked to surveyed buildings Not tied to personal identity This: Eliminates consent dependency Enables richer governance datasets Governance & Legal Challenges No standalone law yet authorising large-scale address data collection Dvara recommendation: Dedicated draft legislation required Key risks: Surveillance through address linkage Profiling via location-based service history Function creep across welfare, policing, taxation Benefits of DHRUVA (If Designed Safely) Faster emergency response Seamless service discovery Reduced address fraud Lower logistics costs Inclusion of rural habitations without formal addresses Key Risks Privacy erosion State surveillance potential Market monopolisation by large platforms Weak anonymisation of geospatial data Exclusion if digital consent infrastructure fails Strategic Bottom Line DHRUVA represents: Next frontier of India’s DPI stack Digital control layer for geography + service delivery However: Without clear legal backing, anonymised structure-mapping, and privacy-by-design: It risks becoming a surveillance-grade address infrastructure Success hinges on: Independent structure mapping Firewalls between identity and location Strong statutory oversight Crypto transactions crossed ₹51,000 cr. in 2024-25 in India’ Why in News? 2024–25: Crypto transaction value in India crossed ₹51,000 crore, registering 41% year-on-year growth. Data shared by the Ministry of Finance in the Rajya Sabha. Government collected ₹511.8 crore as 1% TDS on crypto transactions. Growth trajectory: 2022–23: ₹22,130 crore 2023–24: ₹36,270 crore 2024–25: ₹51,180 crore Relevance GS 3 – Economy Digital economy and fintech expansion Taxation of new asset classes Black money, money laundering, FEMA risks Financial stability and speculative markets GS 2 – Governance & Regulation Regulatory vacuum in crypto-assets Institutional responsibility of the state Global financial governance coordination What is Cryptocurrency? Cryptocurrency = a digital asset based on: Blockchain technology Cryptographic security Decentralised ledger system In Indian law, crypto is classified as: Virtual Digital Asset (VDA) Not legal tender Treated as a taxable asset, not currency What are Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs)? Defined under the Income Tax Act as: Cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ether) Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) Other cryptographic tokens Excludes: Indian digital rupee (e₹) issued by RBI How is Crypto Taxed in India? Legal Basis Introduced under the Finance Act, 2022 Continued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (retained in I-T Act 2025 framework) Tax Structure 30% flat tax on profits from VDAs No loss set-off allowed 1% TDS on every transaction Deducted at the time of transfer Applies irrespective of profit or loss How Was ₹51,180 Crore Estimated? Government collected ₹511.8 crore as 1% TDS Since: 1% TDS = Total Transaction Value × 0.01 Therefore: Total crypto transaction value = ₹511.8 crore × 100 = ₹51,180 crore What Does the Growth Indicate? Mass retail participation despite: High volatility Strict taxation Indicates: Rising financialisation among youth Shift towards alternative assets Platform-driven crypto trading boom Why Is Crypto Growing Despite Heavy Taxation? Frictions like: 30% flat tax 1% TDS per transaction Yet growth due to: Bull cycles in global crypto markets Ease of app-based crypto trading Narrative of crypto as: Inflation hedge High-risk, high-return instrument Economic Implications for India (A) Revenue Mobilisation Stable non-traditional tax base Predictable TDS inflows (B) Capital Flight Risk Unregulated cross-border transfers Potential FEMA violations (C) Financial Stability Risk High retail exposure to volatile assets No deposit insurance or investor protection Key Policy Challenges Absence of: Dedicated crypto regulator Consumer protection framework Risks: Money laundering Terror financing Tax evasion via foreign wallets Market manipulation Takeaways Crypto in India has moved from: Grey-zone experiment → High-volume taxable asset class The surge to ₹51,000+ crore shows: Effective tax collection But also deep systemic exposure to an unregulated financial instrument Nahargarh Biological Park Why in News? December 8, 2025: A safari vehicle caught fire inside Nahargarh Biological Park, leading to a narrow escape of 15 tourists. The fire started in the engine compartment and spread rapidly. All tourists were evacuated safely by the driver and forest rescue teams. The incident was reported in The Indian Express. It renewed public debate on: Eco-tourism safety Vehicle maintenance accountability Forest fire risks linked with mechanised tourism Relevance GS 2 – Governance Public safety in tourism State accountability Forest department administration Private contractor regulation GS 3 – Environment & Disaster Management Forest fire risks Sustainable eco-tourism Wildlife conservation vs commercial tourism Climate–fire linkages What is a Biological Park & Safari? Biological Park: A protected forest area focused on: Wildlife conservation Environmental education Regulated tourism Wildlife Safari: Controlled movement of tourists via: Buses Open jeeps Supervised by: State Forest Department Legal backing: Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 State eco-tourism rules Nahargarh Biological Park: Located in Jaipur district, Rajasthan, along the Aravalli hill range. Established in 2016 as part of the larger Nahargarh forest landscape. Functions as a biological conservation and eco-tourism park. Developed to: Reduce pressure on city zoos Promote semi-natural habitat-based conservation Falls under the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Forest Department. What Exactly Happened? A safari bus carrying 15 tourists: Detected smoke while moving inside the park Within minutes, it burst into flames Immediate response: Driver evacuated tourists Forest department rescue team arrived quickly Outcome: Tourists unharmed Vehicle completely destroyed Governance & Regulatory Gaps Exposed No nationally uniform safari vehicle safety code Absence of mandatory: Fire suppression systems Automatic engine cut-off Periodic third-party fitness audits Many safari vehicles: Operated through private contractors Weak maintenance accountability Legal & Judicial Context Forest tourism operates under: Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 State forest rules The Supreme Court of India, in the T.N. Godavarman forest conservation case series, has repeatedly emphasised: Controlled tourism Vehicle regulation in forest zones Prevention of ecological degradation Eco-tourism vs Conservation: The Core Tension States promote safari tourism for: Revenue Employment But unchecked tourism leads to: Infrastructure stress Safety dilution Wildlife disturbance The Nahargarh incident shows: Commercial incentives overtaking precautionary principles Conclusion The Nahargarh safari fire exposes the safety and regulatory vacuum in India’s rapidly commercialising eco-tourism sector, where infrastructure growth has outpaced environmental risk governance. Gallbladder cancer Why in News? December 2025: Investigative public health report highlighted Gallbladder Cancer (GBC) as an “invisible epidemic” in India’s Gangetic belt. Key triggers for national attention: India contributes ~10% of global GBC burden ~70% of patients are women Heavy clustering in: Uttar Pradesh Bihar West Bengal Assam Strong links established with: River pollution Arsenic & heavy metal contamination Weak cancer surveillance Governance issues flagged: Poor environmental enforcement by Central Pollution Control Board Weak monitoring by Central Ground Water Board Limited rural reach of the National Cancer Registry Programme Relevance GS 2 – Governance Public health surveillance failure Environmental governance Cancer as a non-notifiable disease Policy neglect of preventable disease clusters GS 3 – Environment & Health River pollution Heavy metal contamination Environmental cancers Industrial regulation failures Groundwater contamination What is Gallbladder Cancer?  A highly aggressive cancer of the gallbladder Often asymptomatic in early stages Detected mostly at Stage III or IV Medical characteristics: Rapid local spread Early liver and lymph node metastasis Survival: 5-year survival < 10% in advanced disease Why is GBC Concentrated in the Gangetic Belt? Geographic clustering along the Ganga River basin Primary environmental drivers: Arsenic contamination in groundwater Cadmium and lead from industrial effluents Pesticide residues in agriculture Adulterated mustard oil Daily exposure routes: Drinking contaminated groundwater Consuming polluted river fish Cooking with unsafe oils Long latency: Carcinogenic exposure accumulates silently over decades Gendered Burden: Why Women are Disproportionately Affected ~70% of GBC patients are women Contributing factors: Reuse of cooking oil Storage of leftover food without refrigeration Daily exposure to contaminated water during household chores Nutritional deficiencies Delayed health seeking due to: Poverty Patriarchy Limited access to diagnostics Hospital-stage data: At Tata Memorial Hospital, >80% of women present at Stage III/IV Economic & Social Impact Treatment cost: ₹8–12 lakh per patient Consequences: Medical impoverishment Discontinuation of treatment Intergenerational poverty cycles Geographic overlap with: High multidimensional poverty Poor sanitation Gender inequality Governance Failures at the Core (A) Environmental Governance Weak enforcement of: Water pollution laws Industrial effluent norms Continued discharge into rivers Poor remediation of contaminated aquifers (B) Health Surveillance Failure Cancer registries cover <10% of India’s population NCRP relies heavily on: Hospital-based reporting Rural poor remain statistically invisible Why GBC Remains “Invisible” Cancer is not a notifiable disease in India No mandatory cluster reporting Result: Delayed detection of regional spikes No targeted prevention strategy Low political salience despite high mortality What Needs to Change? Make cancer a legally notifiable disease Integrate: Health surveillance with National Clean Ganga Mission Strengthen: Groundwater testing Industrial discharge audits Community-level interventions: Low-cost screening through district hospitals Routine water testing Women-focused awareness campaigns Develop: Gender-sensitive cancer policy Learning from Global Best Practices Bangladesh: National Residue Control Program for seafood Vietnam: Coastal heavy-metal monitoring Philippines: National Residue Monitoring Plan for aquaculture India’s gap: Marine Products Export Development Authority residue control applies only to exports, not domestic fish consumption Public Health Interpretation GBC in the Gangetic belt represents: An environmental cancer epidemic Driven by: Pollution Gender disadvantage Surveillance failure It is: Preventable Detectable early with proper systems Politically neglected Takeaway Gallbladder cancer in the Gangetic belt is: Not a medical mystery It is a governance failure in slow motion The epidemic survives because: Pollution is tolerated Women’s health is deprioritised Cancer is statistically invisible Declaring cancer notifiable is the single most powerful trigger for reform, as: What gets counted → gets governed → gets prevented Conclusion Gallbladder cancer in the Gangetic belt is an environmental, gendered and governance-driven epidemic — not of biological inevitability, but of regulatory neglect.