Content Sukhatme National Award in Statistics – 2026 Lokpal of India – Foundation Day  Sukhatme National Award in Statistics – 2026 Why in News ? MoSPI invited online nominations for Sukhatme National Award in Statistics – 2026. Last date: 31 January 2026. Relevance GS I (Indian Society / History of Science / Awards) Evolution of scientific and statistical institutions in post-Independence India. Role of eminent Indians (e.g., P.V. Sukhatme) in nation-building through science. About the Award Instituted by: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI). Year of institution: 2000. Frequency: Given biennially (alternate years). Purpose: Recognise exceptional / outstanding contributions in: High-quality statistical research. Improvement of official statistics system in India. Eligibility Criteria Nationality: Indian. Age: 45 years and above. Nature of contribution: Lifetime contributions and achievements. Field: Statistics (especially official statistics). Nomination type: Self-nomination allowed. Nomination by institutions also permitted. Nomination Process Mode: Online. Portal: National Awards Portal (awards.gov.in). Deadline: 31 January 2026. Additional source: MoSPI website (mospi.gov.in). Significance for India Strengthens credibility and quality of official statistics. Encourages rigorous data culture in governance. Supports evidence-based policymaking. Reinforces India’s commitment to statistical transparency and accuracy. About Sukhatme (Static Linkage) Named after P.V. Sukhatme: Eminent Indian statistician. Pioneer in agricultural statistics and sampling theory. Instrumental in strengthening India’s statistical system post-Independence. Prelims Pointers Award by MoSPI, not NSO separately. Given alternate years, not annually. Age criterion: 45+. Presented on Statistics Day (29 June). Focus on official statistics, not general mathematics. Lokpal of India – Foundation Day  Why in News ? Lokpal of India observed its Foundation Day on 16 January 2026. Reaffirmed commitment to integrity, accountability and transparent governance. Relevance GS II (Polity, Governance, Constitution) Anti-corruption institutional framework in India. Lokpal as: Statutory body Accountability mechanism over executive. Issues of: Transparency Checks and balances Democratic oversight. Centre–State dimension (Lokpal–Lokayukta architecture). Statutory & Constitutional Context Established under: Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Date of establishment: 16 January 2014 (Section 3 came into force). Nature of institution: Statutory, not constitutional. Sui generis anti-corruption body. Mandate: Inquiry and investigation into allegations of corruption against public functionaries, including highest executive authorities. Foundation Day 2026 Venue: Lokpal of India Office, New Delhi. Reason for modest in-house celebration: Budgetary austerity and expenditure control. Contrast with 2025: Lokpal Day 2025 was celebrated as a large national event at Manekshaw Centre. Institutional Significance  Lokpal described as: “Body by the people, of the people and for the people.” Core values emphasised: Independence Objectivity Fairness Rule of law Public trust reflected in: Steady rise in complaints over last two years. Projected exponential increase in complaints (2025–26) compared to 2024–25. Increase in bench sittings. Minimal pendency and timely disposal. Democratic & Ethical Dimension Lokpal Day seen as: Moment of institutional introspection. Reaffirmation of ethical governance. Citizen role highlighted: Citizens, NRIs and OCIs termed “ground soldiers against corruption”. Silence against corruption equated to moral failure. Quote used: “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression of the bad people, but the silence of the good people” – Martin Luther King Jr. Historical Linkages Acknowledged contributions of: Anna Hazare – mass anti-corruption movement. Justice N. Santosh Hegde – former Lokayukta of Karnataka. Lokpal emerged from: Sustained public demand for an independent anti-corruption mechanism. Governance & Administrative Developments Inauguration of new IT Infrastructure & Data Centre: End-to-end digitised, paperless complaint processing. Enhances: Efficiency Confidentiality Institutional capacity. Reflects shift towards: Tech-enabled vigilance governance. Social & Institutional Recognition Felicitation of: Winners of competitions held on International Anti-Corruption Day (9 Dec 2025). Longest-serving staff members. Children of Lokpal staff excelling in: Academics Sports Arts and culture. Challenges  High complaint volume may: Strain investigative capacity. Dependence on other agencies for investigation/prosecution. Awareness gap among rural and marginalised citizens. Need to balance: Speed vs due process. Way Forward Strengthen: Institutional manpower and domain expertise. Coordination with CBI and vigilance bodies. Expand: Digital access and multilingual complaint mechanisms. Enhance: Public awareness and whistle-blower protection. Align functioning with: Rule of law Constitutional morality Citizen-centric governance. Prelims Pointers  Lokpal established on 16 Jan 2014, not 2013. Created by Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Lokpal ≠ CBI; Lokpal supervises/inquires. Chairperson must be former CJI / SC Judge or eminent person. Lokpal is statutory, independent, sui generis body.

Content Multilateralism à la carte, the Washington way Budget 2026–27 must keep the growth momentum Multilateralism à la carte, the Washington way Central Argument The US is shifting from rule-based multilateralism to selective, interest-driven engagement. Multilateralism is no longer universal or binding, but “à la carte” — chosen when convenient, bypassed when constraining. Relevance GS II – International Relations Decline of multilateralism. Rise of minilateralism. Rule-based order vs power politics. US foreign policy behaviour. GS III – Economy / Climate / Trade WTO crisis and global trade uncertainty. Climate finance commitments. Global economic governance fragmentation. Practice Question “Multilateralism is increasingly being practised à la carte rather than as a rule-based order.”Examine this statement in the context of recent US foreign policy behaviour.(250 Words) What is “Multilateralism à la carte”? Selective participation in international institutions. Preference for: Informal coalitions Minilateral groupings Ad-hoc arrangements Avoidance of: Binding treaties Legal obligations Independent dispute settlement. Evidence Cited in the Editorial Withdrawal / Bypassing of Institutions US actions: Withdrawal from UNESCO. Exit from UN Human Rights Council. Withdrawal from WHO (Trump era). Indicates discomfort with institutional constraints. Trade & WTO US has: Blocked WTO Appellate Body appointments since 2019. Consequence: Paralysis of global trade dispute settlement. Preference: Bilateral or plurilateral trade arrangements over WTO rules. Climate Change Regime US: Withdrew from Paris Agreement (later rejoined). Resists strong differentiation and climate finance commitments. Impact: Weakens trust in long-term climate cooperation. Security & Strategic Coalitions Shift from alliances to issue-based coalitions: QUAD-type arrangements. Characteristics: No treaty obligations. No permanent secretariats. Flexibility over commitment. Washington’s Strategic Logic Sovereignty-first approach: Avoids external adjudication. Belief that: Institutions constrain US power. Flexibility maximises leverage. Domestic drivers: Congressional resistance. Domestic political polarisation. Skepticism towards global governance. Why This Is Destabilising ? Erosion of Rule-Based Order Predictability replaced by power-based bargaining. Weakens norms, treaties, and enforcement mechanisms. Fragmentation of Global Governance Multiple overlapping coalitions. No universal standards. Increased transaction costs for states. Crisis Management Weakens Global issues need: Binding cooperation Long-term commitments. À la carte multilateralism fails on: Climate change Global health Financial stability. Trust Deficit Frequent exits and re-entries undermine: Credibility Reliability of US commitments. Allies unsure whether agreements will survive domestic political changes. Implications for the World Global System Rise of: Minilateralism Informal power blocs. Decline of: Universal institutions like UN, WTO. Developing Countries Losers in a power-driven system: Less bargaining power. Reduced protection of international law. Increased dependence on major powers. India-Specific Implications Opportunities India benefits from: Flexible coalitions (QUAD, I2U2). Strategic autonomy. Space for issue-based leadership. Risks Weak WTO hurts India’s trade dispute protection. Climate finance uncertainty impacts India’s development needs. Fragmented order increases diplomatic complexity. Way Forward Need to: Reform, not abandon multilateral institutions. Restore dispute settlement mechanisms. Balance flexibility with rule adherence. Middle powers (India, EU): Can act as stabilising anchors. Push for inclusive, predictable multilateralism. Budget 2026–27 must keep the growth momentum Core Thesis Despite global headwinds, India’s growth resilience is policy-driven. Budget 2026–27 must: Strengthen domestic growth levers, Prioritise productive capital expenditure, Maintain fiscal consolidation and debt sustainability, Remove structural bottlenecks. Relevance GS III (Economy) Budget strategy. Capex vs revenue spending. Manufacturing, exports, finance, technology. GS II (Governance) Tax administration reforms. Regulatory simplification. Institutional capacity. Practice Question Why is capital expenditure prioritisation critical for sustaining India’s growth momentum in Budget 2026–27 ? (250 Words) Context & Background 2025 global uncertainty: US tariff threats. Weak global demand. India’s resilience attributed to: Reform continuity (PM’s “Amrit Kaal” vision). Infrastructure-led growth. Budget 2026–27 seen as a critical inflection point. Key Policy Priorities Suggested Defence-led Growth Strategy Continue defence capex focus: Capital outlay in defence to reach 30% of total defence expenditure. Defence R&D: DRDO allocation to increase by ₹10,000 crore. Defence industrial corridors: Existing success: Uttar Pradesh & Tamil Nadu. Proposed expansion: Eastern India defence corridor. Export push: Defence exports already ~65% private sector share (2024–25). Target: ₹50,000 crore defence exports by 2028–29. Institutional reform: Defence export promotion council. Better coordination with: MEA Indian embassies Ministry of Defence. Clean Energy & Advanced Manufacturing Growth drivers identified: Clean energy EVs Semiconductors Strategic technologies. Rising demand for critical minerals. National Critical Mineral Mission (NCMM): Approved in early 2025. Objective: Secure mineral supply chains. Need for: Dedicated financing. Tailing recovery programmes. Export Competitiveness & Trade Policy Current issue: RoDTEP & Exported Products Scheme funding (~₹18,233 crore) insufficient. Recommendation: Significantly raise allocations. Rationale: Offset high logistics and compliance costs. Improve price competitiveness. Global Capability Centres (GCCs) India as a global hub for GCCs. Existing Transfer Pricing (TP) rules are restrictive. Suggested reform: Allow arm’s length margins for different categories of services. Impact: Higher exports of services. Greater FDI inflows. Drone Ecosystem Acceleration Need to: Catalyse scale through targeted finance. Suggestions: Production-linked incentive (PLI) outlay: Increase from ₹120 crore to ₹1,000 crore. Create ₹1,000 crore drone R&D fund. Objective: Boost defence, agriculture, logistics, and exports. Financial Sector Deepening Overdependence on banking credit highlighted. Required reforms: Deepen corporate bond markets. Broaden investor base: Listed & unlisted corporates. Insurance companies (raise 25% cap). Encourage: Infrastructure Investment Trusts (InvITs). Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). Allow provident funds to invest in: Lower-rated but quality bonds. Tax Administration & Dispute Resolution Major bottleneck: Severe pendency at CIT(A) level. Issues: Long delays. High litigation uncertainty. Proposed solution: Dual-track system: Fast-track for low-value disputes. Detailed adjudication for complex cases. Fill ~40% vacancies at CIT(A) level. Customs & Tariff Reforms Persisting problem: Inverted duty structure. Recommendations: Calibrate tariffs across the value chain. Support domestic manufacturing competitiveness. Aim: Reduce cost disadvantages. Promote Make in India. Certification & Regulatory Reforms Issue: New companies of existing AEOs face certification barriers. Proposal: Allow AEO-accredited groups automatic certification. Impact: Faster trade. Reduced compliance burden. Overarching Economic Logic Combine: Fiscal prudence + growth push. Strategy: Capex-led growth. Structural reforms. Policy certainty. Objective: Crowd-in private investment. Enhance global competitiveness. Risks Highlighted Fiscal overstretch if capex not prioritised. Delays in tax dispute resolution eroding investor confidence. Weak export support amid global slowdown. Financing gaps in new-age technologies.

Content Startup India @10 — Highest Annual Spike in Start-up Registrations Expert Panel Sets Norms for Religious Structures in Wildlife Sanctuaries Nobel Prize Debate — Politicisation and Symbolism of the Nobel Peace Prize Kaziranga Elevated Corridor — Eco-Sensitive Infrastructure to Reduce Wildlife Mortality Land Is Power — Women’s Land Rights and Agrarian Gender Inequality in India Drowning in Its Home — Sangai (Dancing Deer) and the Collapse of Floating Wetlands Startup India @10 — Highest Annual Spike in Start-up  Why in News ? Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that ~44,000 start-ups were registered in 2025, the highest annual addition since the launch of Startup India. Statement made during the 10th anniversary of the Startup India Mission. India now positioned as the 3rd largest start-up ecosystem globally. Relevance GS II – Governance Government policies for entrepreneurship promotion. Role of DPIIT, regulatory reforms, ease of doing business. Centre–State competition in start-up ecosystems. GS III – Economy Start-ups as drivers of: Job creation. Innovation-led growth. Capital market deepening (IPOs). MSME–start-up linkage in value chains. Shift from factor-led to innovation-led growth. Startup India: Core Basics Launch date: 16 January 2016. Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Commerce & Industry (DPIIT). Core objectives: Foster innovation. Promote entrepreneurship. Enable investment-led growth. Key instruments: Start-up recognition by DPIIT. Fund of Funds for Start-ups (FFS). Tax exemptions & compliance easing. Key Data & Evidence 2025: ~44,000 new start-ups registered (highest single-year jump). Ecosystem position: India = 3rd largest globally (after US & China). Trend highlighted: Start-ups → Unicorns → IPOs → Job creation. Registration ≠ success; but reflects pipeline depth. Economic Dimension Growth engine: Start-ups driving: Job creation. Capital formation. Productivity gains. Structural shift: From factor-led growth → innovation-led growth. Capital markets linkage: Rising start-up IPOs deepen domestic capital markets. MSME–Start-up continuum: Start-ups complement MSMEs in value chains. Governance & Administrative Dimension Regulatory reforms: Self-certification under labour & environmental laws. Faster incorporation & IPR facilitation. Digital public infrastructure: Aadhaar, UPI, ONDC enabling low-cost scaling. Centre–State role: States competing via start-up policies, incubators. Social Dimension Democratisation of entrepreneurship: Growth beyond metros into Tier-2/Tier-3 cities. Youth dividend utilisation: Converts job-seekers into job-creators. Women entrepreneurship: Rising share, but still underrepresented in funding. Technology & Innovation Dimension Strong presence in: FinTech, EdTech, HealthTech, SaaS, Climate-tech. Leveraging: AI, data analytics, digital platforms. Start-ups as drivers of: Indigenous innovation. Atmanirbhar Bharat goals. Challenges Quality vs quantity: High registrations, but survival rates vary. Funding concentration: Venture capital skewed towards few sectors & cities. Regulatory uncertainty: Taxation (angel tax legacy issues). Compliance burden for scaling firms. Job quality concerns: Informal, gig-based employment dominance. Way Forward  Next phase: Startup India 2.0 Focus on deep-tech & manufacturing start-ups. Credit diversification Beyond VC: development finance, patient capital. Inclusive entrepreneurship Women, SC/ST, rural & agri-start-ups. Outcome-based support Survival, scale, exports—not just registrations. Regulatory predictability Stable tax & compliance regime for scale-ups. Prelims Pointers Startup India launched in 2016, not post-COVID. DPIIT recognises start-ups (not NITI Aayog). Fund of Funds ≠ direct equity funding. Unicorn = private firm valued at $1 billion+. Expert Panel Sets Norms for Religious Structures in Wildlife Sanctuaries Why in News ? The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) has framed guidelines on diversion/regularisation of forest land for religious structures inside Protected Areas (PAs). Triggered by the Balaram–Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat) case, where diversion of forest land for temples was proposed and later revoked. Raises critical issues of encroachment vs faith, forest rights settlement, and precedent-setting in wildlife governance. Relevance GS II – Polity & Governance Balance between Fundamental Rights (Article 25) and DPSPs (Article 48A). Role of statutory bodies: NBWL / SCNBWL. Rule-based governance vs discretionary clearances. GS III – Environment & Biodiversity Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Protected Areas governance and encroachment control. Background & Case Context Balaram–Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary hosts two temples claimed to be “historical”. July 2024: SCNBWL initially cleared 0.35 ha forest land use for a religious trust. October 2024: Clearance revoked after it was found that: Rights of the Trust were not recorded in forest settlement records. December 2025: Draft normative guidelines presented to SCNBWL to avoid ad-hoc decisions in future. Core Guidelines General Principle: Any construction or expansion on forest land after 1980 = encroachment. Exceptional Window: Only if: State issues a reasoned, documented order, and Justifies regularisation on exceptional grounds. Such cases to be referred to the Environment Ministry for case-by-case scrutiny. Key cut-off year: 1980 (linked to Forest (Conservation) Act). Constitutional & Legal Dimension Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Central approval mandatory for diversion of forest land. Post-1980 non-forestry use is presumptively illegal. Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Strong protection regime for National Parks & Sanctuaries. Infrastructure allowed only if non-detrimental to wildlife. Article 25 (Freedom of Religion): Subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. Does not override environmental laws. Article 48A & 51A(g): State and citizen duty to protect environment and wildlife. Governance & Administrative Dimension Problem exposed: Many sanctuaries still have unsettled forest rights and claims. Poor-quality forest settlement records create ambiguity. Risk of precedent: Regularising one religious structure may open floodgates across PAs. Institutional response: Shift from case-by-case discretion → rule-based SOP. Role of SCNBWL: Apex technical-cum-policy filter to balance conservation vs development/faith. Social & Ethical Dimension Faith vs Ecology dilemma: Religious sentiments are socially powerful but ecologically footprint-heavy. Ethical concern: Selective accommodation of religion risks normalising encroachment. Equity issue: If faith-based claims allowed, why deny other community or livelihood claims? Environmental & Wildlife Dimension Protected Areas are: Inviolate cores for biodiversity. Highly sensitive to fragmentation, noise, footfall, waste. Religious infrastructure often leads to: Roads, shops, accommodation, pilgrim influx → secondary impacts. Guidelines aim to: Prevent “incremental degradation” of sanctuaries. Challenges  Implementation gap: States may still push proposals citing “historical existence”. Data deficiency: Lack of authentic records on pre-1980 structures. Political pressure: Religious institutions have high mobilisation capacity. Forest Rights Act overlap: Unsettled FRA claims complicate decision-making. Way Forward  Strict adherence to 1980 cut-off as non-negotiable baseline. Time-bound settlement of forest rights under FRA before considering any diversion. Independent ecological impact assessment even for “small” religious uses. No new construction principle: Only maintenance of genuinely pre-1980, legally recorded structures. National SOP: Uniform criteria to avoid State-level arbitrariness. Public communication: Clarify that conservation is not anti-faith, but pro-intergenerational equity. Prelims Pointers SCNBWL ≠ NBWL (NBWL is chaired by PM; SCNBWL handles clearances). Forest (Conservation) Act operative year: 1980. Post-1980 forest constructions = encroachments (default rule). Religious freedom is not absolute. Nobel Prize with Special Focus on the Nobel Peace Prize  Why is it in News? María Corina Machado publicly presented her Nobel Peace Prize medal to Donald Trump during a recent meeting in the US. The act was described as a symbolic gesture of gratitude for Trump’s past support to Venezuela’s opposition and democratic cause. This has triggered debate because: Nobel medals are personal property of laureates and can legally be gifted or sold under the statutes of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. However, transferring a Peace Prize medal to a political leader raises questions about politicisation of the Nobel Peace Prize. The episode has revived wider discussion on: Whether the Nobel Peace Prize is being used as a political signal rather than a purely humanitarian recognition. The distinction between symbolic diplomacy vs institutional neutrality of global awards. Relevance GS Paper I – World History / Society Global institutions and moral authority. Evolution of international recognition systems. GS Paper II – International Relations Soft power and norm-setting in global politics. Awards as instruments of diplomatic signalling. Institutional neutrality vs political messaging. Nobel Prize: Core Basics Instituted by the will of Alfred Nobel (1895). First awarded: 1901. Original categories: Physics Chemistry Physiology/Medicine Literature Peace Economics added later (1968) → Not part of original Nobel will. Nobel Peace Prize: Unique Institutional Design Awarded by Norwegian Nobel Committee. Ceremony held in Oslo, not Stockholm. Rationale: Norway–Sweden union context at the time of Nobel’s will. Unlike other Nobel Prizes: Awarded to individuals or organisations. Can be given for political processes, activism, conflict resolution, humanitarian work. Eligibility, Nomination & Decision Process Who can nominate? National parliamentarians, ministers. University professors (relevant fields). Previous laureates. International courts & organisations. Key point: Nomination ≠ endorsement. Hundreds nominated annually; only one laureate selected. Deliberations are confidential for 50 years. Ownership of the Nobel Medal Nobel medal, diploma, and prize money: Become personal property of the laureate. Nobel statutes: Do not prohibit selling, donating, or auctioning medals. Important examples: Dmitry Muratov: Auctioned Peace Prize medal (2022). Proceeds (~USD 103.5 million) donated for Ukrainian children affected by war. Carlos Saavedra Lamas: Medal sold in 2014. Insight: Moral authority lies in use of prize, not physical possession. Political Dimension of the Nobel Peace Prize Peace Prize often reflects contemporary global conflicts and moral priorities. Frequently criticised for: Western normative bias. Awarding aspirational peace rather than achieved peace. Examples often debated in UPSC interviews: Awards during ongoing conflicts. Recognition of political opposition figures. However: Nobel Committee defends Peace Prize as a norm-setting instrument, not merely retrospective reward. International Relations Dimension Peace Prize as: Soft power instrument. Moral signalling mechanism in global politics. Can: Legitimize political movements. Increase diplomatic pressure on regimes. Sometimes causes: Diplomatic discomfort. Accusations of interference in domestic affairs. Economic & Institutional Aspect Prize money: Approx. 10 million Swedish Krona (value may vary annually). Nobel Foundation: Manages endowment. Prize money independent of medal ownership. Challenges Politicisation Perception of ideological selectivity. Premature awards Given before outcomes are secured. Eurocentric norms Global South under-representation historically. Symbol vs substance Media focus on personalities rather than peace outcomes. Way Forward  Greater transparency post 50-year disclosure. Broader inclusion of: Grassroots peacebuilders. Community-level conflict resolution. Balanced recognition: Combine moral courage with demonstrable outcomes. Reinforce Peace Prize as: Instrument of conscience, not geopolitics. Prelims Pointers Peace Prize awarded in Norway, others in Sweden. Economics Prize ≠ original Nobel category. Medal ownership lies with laureate. Nobel deliberations sealed for 50 years. Kaziranga Elevated Corridor — Curbing Wildlife Mortality through Eco-Sensitive Infrastructure Why in News ? Prime Minister laid the foundation stone of a 34.5-km elevated corridor along/through Kaziranga National Park. Objective: Reduce animal deaths caused by heavy traffic on NH-715 (formerly NH-37), especially during Brahmaputra floods. Relevance GS III – Environment Human–wildlife conflict mitigation. Wildlife corridors and ecological connectivity. Conservation in flood-prone ecosystems. GS III – Infrastructure Sustainable infrastructure. Disaster-resilient transport planning. Integrating ecology into highway design. Project Snapshot  Length: 34.5 km (elevated corridor). Cost: ~₹6,950 crore. Route: NH-715 connecting Kaziranga–Eastern Assam–Guwahati. Ecological linkage: Kaziranga floodplains ↔ Karbi Anglong hills. Complementary works: Widening of 30.22 km existing roads. 2 km long flyovers near Bokakhat & Jakhalabandha. Ecological & Environmental Dimension Flood-driven migration: Annual Brahmaputra floods submerge low-lying grasslands. Wildlife (rhinos, elephants, deer, predators) migrate to higher grounds of Karbi Anglong plateau. Barrier effect of highways: NH-715 cuts across natural corridors. High vehicle speed = major mortality driver. Scientific evidence: Wildlife Institute of India study: 2016–17: 63 animals killed on NH-715 in one year. Included apex predator (Indian leopard). Elevated corridor benefit: Restores horizontal ecological connectivity. Minimises surface-level human–wildlife interaction. Governance & Administrative Dimension Shift in infrastructure paradigm: From “road through forest” → “road over wildlife landscape”. Inter-agency coordination: MoRTH + Assam Govt + Forest Dept + WII inputs. Eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) logic: Corridor aligns with ESZ norms without halting development. Challenge: Construction-phase disturbance in a sensitive zone. Economic Dimension Trade-off resolution: Maintains Assam’s key arterial connectivity to Guwahati. Avoids economic losses from: Traffic disruptions during floods. Wildlife-vehicle collisions. Cost-effectiveness: High upfront cost but long-term savings in: Wildlife loss. Accident compensation. Road maintenance due to flood damage. Social & Ethical Dimension Ethics of coexistence: Acknowledges wildlife movement as a right, not a nuisance. Local livelihoods: Reduced road closures benefit tourism & transport workers. Cultural value: Kaziranga symbolises India’s conservation ethic (one-horned rhino). Security & Strategic Dimension NH-715 is a strategic connectivity route in eastern Assam. Ensures: All-weather movement. Disaster-resilient infrastructure in flood-prone terrain. Challenges Construction impacts: Noise, vibration, light pollution. Speed management: Elevated roads can encourage overspeeding if not regulated. Habitat compression risk: If feeder roads & urbanisation expand unchecked. Monitoring gap: Need for post-construction ecological audits. Way Forward Design & engineering Wildlife-friendly pillars spacing. Natural vegetation underpasses. Traffic regulation Strict speed limits. AI-enabled animal detection & warning systems. Construction safeguards Seasonal work restrictions during peak migration. Noise & light mitigation protocols. Replication Scale model to: Nilgiris–Bandipur. Pench–Kanha. Eastern Ghats corridors. Institutionalisation Make WII ecological clearance mandatory for highways in protected landscapes. Prelims Pointers NH-715 (old NH-37) skirts Kaziranga NP. Kaziranga = UNESCO World Heritage Site. Karbi Anglong = key highland refuge during floods. Elevated corridors ≠ underpasses; both are wildlife mitigation tools. Kaziranga National Park   Location: Golaghat & Nagaon districts, Assam; south bank of the Brahmaputra River. Status: Declared National Park (1974). UNESCO World Heritage Site (1985). Tiger Reserve (2006) under Project Tiger. Global Significance: Hosts ~2/3rd of the world’s population of the One-horned Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis). Biodiversity Profile: “Big Five” of Kaziranga: Rhino, Tiger, Elephant, Wild Water Buffalo, Swamp Deer. High tiger density (among the highest globally). Land is Power — Women’s Land Rights in India Why in News ? Recent field-based reportage from Uttarakhand highlights feminisation of agriculture without feminisation of land ownership. Despite constitutional and legal reforms, women cultivators remain invisible in land records, excluding them from schemes like PM-KISAN Samman Nidhi. Reinforces long-standing academic evidence (Bina Agarwal) on land as the core determinant of women’s power, security, and autonomy. Relevance GS I – Indian Society Gender inequality in agrarian structures. Feminisation of agriculture. GS II – Governance & Social Justice Implementation gaps in welfare schemes (PM-KISAN, KCC). Land as a State subject; federal challenges. Women empowerment through asset ownership. Core Problem Statement Women do most agricultural work but do not own land → No legal farmer status → No scheme access → Economic disempowerment. Constitutional & Legal Dimension Constitutional backing Article 14: Equality before law. Article 15(3): Affirmative action for women. Article 39(b), (c): Equitable distribution of material resources. Statutory framework Hindu Succession Act, 1956: First recognition of women’s inheritance. 2005 Amendment: Daughters = coparceners by birth (ancestral property incl. agricultural land). Applies irrespective of marital status. Key gap De jure equality ≠ de facto ownership. Land largely transferred to women only as widows, not as daughters. Governance & Administrative Dimension Land records & farmer identity Ownership-based definition of “farmer” excludes women cultivators. Digitisation (DILRMP) replicates patriarchal ownership patterns. Scheme access failure PM-KISAN, KCC, crop insurance → land title mandatory. Result: Women submit affidavits instead of enjoying rights. Federal issue Land = State subject → uneven implementation across states. Economic Dimension Productivity & credit No land title → no collateral → no formal credit. Zero/near-zero women Kisan Credit Cards in many hill districts. Macroeconomic loss FAO estimate (generic): Equal access to productive resources could raise farm output significantly. Migration link Male out-migration → women manage farms → “managerial feminisation without asset control.” Social & Ethical Dimension Patriarchal norms Daughters “given away” at marriage → denied inheritance. Social pressure to relinquish legal share. Intra-household power Land ownership: Enhances bargaining power. Reduces domestic violence risk (Bina Agarwal’s findings). Intersectionality Dalit, Adivasi women face: Poor land quality. No demarcation, water, or extension support. Environmental & Sustainability Dimension Women land managers: Preserve forests, soil fertility, biodiversity. Promote mixed cropping, organic manure. Link to SDGs SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 15 (Life on Land). Data & Evidence National Family Health Survey Women owning land alone: ~7% (2014–15) → ~8% (2019–21). Joint ownership: ~21% → ~23%. PM-KISAN (Rajya Sabha, Dec 2024): ~87 million beneficiaries. <20 million women (~2–3 out of 10). Uttarakhand: ~16% women beneficiaries. UN Women Even where women do >75% farm work, ownership remains male-dominated. Challenges Implementation deficit Laws exist; enforcement weak. Institutional apathy Revenue officials resist joint/matrilineal titles. Awareness gap Women unaware of location/utility of allotted land. Design flaw Land titles without irrigation, extension, or market access = symbolic empowerment. Way Forward Land record reforms Mandatory joint spousal titles in all government land transfers. Scheme redesign PM-KISAN, KCC eligibility based on cultivation + management, not just ownership. Administrative nudges Stamp duty rebates for women land registration (best practices from states). Institutional support Boundary demarcation, water access, extension services post-allotment. Normative change Panchayat-led awareness on daughters’ inheritance rights. Tribal areas Effective implementation of forest & community land rights with women as primary title holders. Drowning in its Home — Sangai (Dancing Deer) & Collapse of Floating Wetlands Why in News ? Recent ecological assessments warn that the Sangai (Dancing Deer) is approaching an extinction-level event due to collapse of floating meadows (phumdis) in Manipur. Wildlife Institute of India (2022–23) conservation plan reports critically low wild population and severe habitat fragmentation. Raises questions on wetland governance, hydropower–ecology conflict, and species-specific conservation failures. Relevance GS III – Environment & Biodiversity Endangered species conservation. Wetland ecology (Ramsar sites). Protected Area management failures. GS I – Geography (India) Loktak Lake. Floating wetlands (phumdis). Species Profile  Common name: Sangai / Dancing Deer Scientific name: Rucervus eldii eldii IUCN status: Endangered State animal: Manipur Habitat specificity: Only wild population confined to floating meadows of Keibul Lamjao National Park Unique feature: Brow tine on forehead (males). Delicate gait over floating vegetation → “dancing” illusion. Geographical & Ecological Context Located in Imphal Valley, south of Loktak Lake. Keibul Lamjao NP: World’s only floating national park. Ramsar Convention site (Wetland of International Importance). Core ecological unit: Phumdis Floating mats of vegetation + organic matter. Must be ≥1 metre thick to support adult Sangai (90–115 kg). Population Status & Data Declared extinct: 1951 → rediscovered later. Apparent recovery till 1984, followed by decline. WII (2022–23) findings: ~64 individuals in the wild. ~200 in captivity (zoos across India). Earlier census (2016) showing 260 individuals now believed to be inflated / methodologically weak. Habitat squeezed to ~10 sq km → severe crowding. Key Threats 1. Habitat Collapse (Primary Driver) Phumdis thinning & fragmentation due to: Altered hydrology. Pollution load. Observed impact: 2023 census: 2 Sangai + 4 hog deer carcasses recovered → probable drowning. 2. Hydropower–Wetland Conflict 1983 downstream multipurpose hydroelectric project: Causes monsoon backflow into Loktak–Keibul system. Leads to: Erosion of phumdis. Delay in regeneration of floating mats. Altered nutrient cycles. 3. Pollution & Urban Pressure Untreated sewage from towns enters lake. Excess nutrients → disrupt endemic plant species anchoring phumdis. 4. Genetic & Demographic Risks Inbreeding depression due to: Extremely small effective population. Habitat confinement. Results: Reduced fertility. Higher disease susceptibility. Lower long-term viability. 5. Institutional Gaps Ramsar status without effective wetland hydrological management. Fragmented responsibility: wildlife, water resources, power departments. Governance & Policy Dimension Protected Area ≠ Protected Ecosystem Focus on species protection, neglect of ecosystem processes. Lack of environmental flow norms for Loktak basin. Absence of integrated lake–river–wetland authority. Environmental & Climate Dimension Phumdis are climate-sensitive: Changing rainfall patterns amplify hydrological stress. Loss of floating wetlands: Carbon sequestration declines. Biodiversity collapse (hog deer, fish, birds affected). Security & Cultural Dimension Sangai = cultural keystone species of Manipur: Embedded in dance, art, sports ethos, and identity. Biodiversity loss risks: Cultural alienation. Local resistance to conservation if livelihoods ignored. Way Forward Ecological Measures Restore minimum phumdi thickness through: Controlled water levels. Nutrient balance restoration. Native vegetation regeneration programs. Hydrological Governance Enforce environmental flow regime downstream of hydropower project. Seasonal water-level modulation aligned with phumdi regeneration cycle. Genetic Conservation Scientific metapopulation strategy: Carefully managed translocations. Genetic exchange between captive and wild populations (where viable). Institutional Reform Loktak–Keibul Integrated Wetland Authority: Wildlife + Water + Urban governance convergence. Community-based wetland stewardship with local fishers. Monitoring & Science Annual independent population audits using modern methods (camera traps, genetic sampling). Long-term ecological research station at Keibul Lamjao. Prelims Pointers Keibul Lamjao NP = only floating national park in the world. Sangai subspecies = Rucervus eldii eldii. Phumdis must be ≥1 m thick to support Sangai. Loktak Lake = Ramsar site + hydropower-linked wetland.