Content : North East India’s SDG Progress (2023–24) A Decade of Building Skills & Empowering Dreams North East India’s SDG Progress (2023–24) Overview & Coverage 121 out of 131 NE districts assessed — expanded from 103 (2021–22). Tracks 15 out of 17 SDGs using 84 indicators (41 from central, 43 from state sources). SDG 11 included only for 79 urban districts; SDG 14 excluded; SDG 17 minimally relevant. Classification: Achiever (Score = 100) Front Runner (65–99.99) Performer (50–64.99) Aspirant (<50) Relevance : GS 2(Governance) Key Outcomes 103 districts (85%) are now Front Runners (vs 62% in 2021–22). Top Scoring District: Hnahthial (Mizoram) – 81.43 All districts in Mizoram, Sikkim, and Tripura are Front Runners. SDG-Wise Progress (2021–22 → 2023–24) SDG Goal Front Runners Aspirants Key Insights 1 No Poverty 21 → 36 20 → 3 Targeted poverty schemes impactful 2 Zero Hunger 49 → 83 21 → 1 Nutrition missions gaining ground 3 Health & Well-being 14 → 48 18 → 6 Better access & infrastructure 4 Quality Education 36 → 80 – Education-focused schemes succeeding 5 Gender Equality 71 → 112 1 One of strongest performing goals 6 Water & Sanitation 81 → 114 – Driven by Jal Jeevan & Swachh Bharat 7 Clean Energy 7 → 14 (Achievers) – LPG & electrification improving access 8 Decent Work 69 → 111 – Economic activity expanding 9 Infrastructure 55 → 92 – Road, connectivity improved 10 Inequality 59 → 43 12 → 33 Major concern – rising gaps 12 Consumption 67 → 51 18 steady Calls for sustainability awareness 13 Climate Action 36 → 59 49 Weakest performing area 15 Life on Land 12 → 26 (Achievers) – Forest & biodiversity gains 16 Justice & Institutions 64 → 90 1 → 5 Governance improving but mixed Top 10 Performing Districts (NER) Mizoram: Hnahthial, Champhai, Kolasib Tripura: Gomati, West Tripura, South Tripura Nagaland: Mokokchung, Kohima, Dimapur Sikkim: Gangtok State-wise Highlights Mizoram 100% districts Front Runners Best: Hnahthial (NER’s highest score) Strong in SDGs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16 Sikkim All 6 districts Front Runners Smallest intra-state gap (5.5 pts) Best: Gangtok | Balanced across SDGs Tripura All 8 districts Front Runners Top: Gomati | Strong across 9 SDGs Low disparity (6.5 pts between best-worst) Nagaland 9 of 11 districts Front Runners Wide performance gap (15.07 pts) Strong in SDGs 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15 Assam 89% districts are Front Runners Best: Dibrugarh | Needs work in justice systems Arunachal Pradesh Only 59% Front Runners Best: Lower Dibang Valley | Worst: Longding (NER’s lowest score – 58.71) Challenges in SDGs 9, 13 Manipur 75% Front Runners Top: Imphal West | Weak in SDG 10 (Inequality) Meghalaya 84% Front Runners Top: East Khasi Hills | Weak in Education (SDG 4) Key Takeaways High Performers: Health, Education, Water, Gender Equality, Economic Growth. Lagging Areas: Climate Action (SDG 13), Inequality (SDG 10), Responsible Consumption (SDG 12). Flagship Schemes: Jal Jeevan Mission, Swachh Bharat, Aspirational Districts Programme contributed strongly. Disparities Persist: Nagaland: 15.07 pt gap between best-worst districts Sikkim & Tripura: Least disparities, highest uniformity Governance & Systemic Impact Data Systems: Significant improvements in district-level data reporting. Localisation: Strong correlation between state-driven planning and SDG performance. Peer Learning: Index fosters competitive federalism & inter-district collaboration. Conclusion The NER SDG Index 2023–24 marks major progress in NE India’s sustainable development landscape. 85% of districts now Front Runners, up from 62% in 2021–22. Balanced progress across most SDGs, but climate resilience and inequality remain critical challenges. The Index stands out as a planning, performance, and policy tool — not just a ranking mechanism. A Decade of Building Skills & Empowering Dreams Macro Achievements (2015–2025) 6+ crore Indians empowered through skill development schemes since 2014. 1.63 crore+ candidates trained under PMKVY alone across four phases. Over 25 lakh candidates trained under PMKVY 4.0 (as of July 11, 2025). Training expanded to futuristic domains: AI, Robotics, IoT, Drones, Mechatronics. 45% of PMKVY trainees are women, with significant SC/ST/OBC representation. Relevance : GS 2(Schemes , Governance) Skill India Mission (SIM) – Structural Integration (2022–26) Unified under a single Central Sector Scheme approved in 2025. Schemes merged:  PMKVY 4.0 (Short-term skill training & RPL)  PM-NAPS (Apprenticeship & industry engagement)  JSS (Literacy-focused vocational training) Two new Centres of Excellence set up at NSTIs (Hyderabad & Chennai) for high-quality skilling. PMKVY: Phased Evolution & Milestones Phase Year(s) Key Milestones Candidates Trained 1.0 2015–16 Pilot phase, monetary reward (₹500), free certification 19.85 lakh 2.0 2016–20 Scaled across sectors/states; aligned with Make in India, Digital India 1.10 crore 3.0 2020–22 Introduced: COVID Crash Courses (1.2L), Skill Hub (1.8L), Traditional craft focus 7.37 lakh 4.0 2022–26 Digital reforms (SIDH), Academic Credit Transfer, Future skills 25+ lakh (till Jul ’25) STT placement rate till PMKVY 3.0: 42.8%. PMKVY 4.0: New Features & Focus (2022–2026) Skill India Digital Hub (SIDH): end-to-end digital integration of skilling, employment, and entrepreneurship. Academic Bank of Credits: Transferable skill credits to bridge education–vocational divide. Rs. 1244.52 crore utilized across states/UTs by Dec 2024. Encourages career-oriented skilling, not just placement tracking.   Innovative & Inclusive Initiatives Special Projects: Bru-tribe training in Tripura (2,500+) Jail inmates in Assam, Manipur PANKH project: 13,834 trained (70% women) Traditional Skills: 2,243 women trained in Namda craft (J&K) 9,605 artisans skilled via RPL (J&K, Nagaland) COVID-19 Response: 1.2 lakh healthcare workers trained as COVID Warriors. Skill Hub Initiative: 1.23 lakh trained through school/college-based hubs (aligned with NEP 2020). Mainstreaming with National Missions: Skills integrated into: PM Surya Ghar Vibrant Villages Programme Jal Jeevan Mission Green Hydrogen Mission Supporting Schemes in the Skilling Ecosystem Jan Shikshan Sansthan (JSS) Focused on non-literates, school dropouts (15–45 yrs). 26+ lakh trained from FY 2018–19 to 2023–24. Emphasis on women, SC/ST/OBC, minorities in rural & low-income urban areas. PM-NAPS (Apprenticeship) 43.47 lakh apprentices engaged as of May 2025. Over 51,000 establishments participating. PM Vishwakarma Yojana Launched: Sept 2023 | Budget: ₹13,000 crore Supports 18 traditional trades (e.g. blacksmiths, cobblers, potters). As of July 2025: 2.7 crore+ applications submitted 29 lakh+ registrations completed Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) Launched: 2014 | Target: rural youth Till Nov 2024: 16.9 lakh trained 10.97 lakh placed (~65% placement) Rural Self Employment & Training Institutes (RSETIs) Bank-led residential entrepreneurial training. Candidates trained: 2016–17: 22.89 lakh2025–26 (till Jun): 56.69 lakh   Thematic Impact Focus Area Progress Inclusivity 45% women; large SC/ST/OBC share Sectoral Spread Manufacturing, construction, IT, healthcare, retail, crafts Rural Reach Skilling penetrated remote regions Future Skills AI, IoT, Robotics, Drones, Green Hydrogen Digital Governance Aadhaar-linked validation, performance-based payments Academic Integration Credit-based skilling via ABC  Conclusion PMKVY = Backbone of India’s short-term skilling ecosystem over the past decade. Transformed from placement-linked certification to flexible, future-ready career empowerment. Integrated with national missions, NEP 2020, and digital governance frameworks. PMKVY stands as a cornerstone of Atmanirbhar Bharat and Viksit Bharat, ensuring India’s youth are not only employable, but also entrepreneurial and globally competitive.

Content : Secularism — Implicit from Day One, Explicit in 1976 Assessing India’s Carbon Market Targets: Why Aggregate Emissions Matter More Smoke and Sulphur: Why There Cannot Be Different Environmental Standards Within India Secularism — implicit from day one, explicit in 1976 Why the Debate on Secularism Matters Secularism in India has long been a subject of legal, philosophical, and political discourse. With rising public interest in the constitutional origins and present interpretations of secularism, Faizan Mustafa’s article presents a historical and comparative exploration of how secular values have evolved in India. The piece seeks to clarify whether secularism was a post-1976 insertion or a foundational principle embedded in India’s constitutional and civilisational ethos. The article’s central argument is that secularism in India is deeply rooted not only in modern constitutionalism but also in ancient traditions of tolerance, coexistence, and pluralism. Relevance : GS 2(Polity ,Constitution ) Practice Question : “Secularism in India was not merely a constitutional insertion in 1976, but a civilizational ethos and a foundational principle of the Republic.” Critically examine with reference to historical precedents and constitutional interpretation.(250 Words) Historical Foundations of Indian Secularism Ashokan Edicts as Early Precursors: Rock Edict 7: Encouraged all religions to coexist and emphasised self-restraint and purity of heart. Rock Edict 12: Opposed the glorification of one’s religion and condemnation of others, promoting mutual respect. Ashoka’s dhamma was not religion-specific but a governance code based on ethical conduct and coexistence. Motilal Nehru Report (1928): Clause 4(11): Proposed that the Commonwealth of India shall have no state religion and the state should not favour or discriminate on religious grounds. Karachi Resolution (1931): Explicitly stated that the state would remain neutral toward all religions. Hindu Mahasabha Draft Constitution (1944): Included a clause rejecting any state religion at the Centre or in the provinces. These pre-Constitutional documents show that various political and ideological groups envisioned a secular framework even before India’s independence. The Constituent Assembly Debates and the 1976 Amendment In the Constituent Assembly (1949), a proposal to begin the Preamble with“In the name of God” was debated and rejected by a vote of 68 to 41. The word “secular” was not included in the original Preamble, but members agreed that secularism was consistent with democratic ideals and the goals of the freedom struggle. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held secularism as part of the basic structure of the Constitution—before the word was inserted via the 42nd Amendment (1976). Several key terms like “federal,” “rule of law,” and “judicial review” are also not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but have been interpreted as implicit principles. International Models of Secularism: Comparative Insights Mustafa points out that secularism has different expressions across democracies. A few models include: Country Key Features United Kingdom Anglican Church is the official church; monarchy is religiously symbolic, but equal rights are guaranteed. Ireland Preamble refers to the “Most Holy Trinity,” but Article 44 ensures religious equality and prohibits state endowment. Greece Declares Orthodox Christianity as dominant but protects individual freedom of religion. These comparisons suggest that secularism can take varied forms, balancing national traditions with commitments to religious freedom and equality. Key Constitutional Concepts: Explicit and Implicit Explicit Values: Articles 14–18 (equality), Articles 25–28 (freedom of religion), and Preamble (justice, liberty, equality, fraternity). Implicit Principles: Secularism, rule of law, federalism—recognized through judicial interpretation and legal practice. The article stresses that absence of a word does not imply absence of the idea, reinforcing that constitutional secularism was intended from inception. Present-Day Relevance and Models of Interpretation Mustafa suggests exploring alternate secular models like the “jurisdiction model”, where a dominant cultural heritage is acknowledged without compromising religious equality—similar to the UK or Ireland. The article argues that India’s secularism is unique: inspired by historical coexistence (Ashoka), shaped by modern constitutionalism (Nehru), and refined through judicial interpretation (Supreme Court rulings). Assessing India’s carbon credit trading scheme targets The Shift to Market-Based Climate Policy With the introduction of India’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) compliance mechanism, the government has announced greenhouse gas emissions intensity targets for eight industrial sectors. This marks a significant milestone in operationalizing market instruments for emissions reduction. However, as discussions grow around the ambition of these targets, a critical question arises: How should we assess the ambition—entity-wise, sector-wise, or economy-wide? Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology) Practice Question : “In designing emissions trading systems like the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), ambition must be judged at the aggregate level, not at the entity or sectoral level.” Examine this statement in light of India’s climate targets.(250 Words) Key Premise: Aggregate Targets Matter More Than Entity-Level Goals The authors argue that economy-wide impact is the correct lens for assessing ambition—not individual firm or sectoral performance. Drawing lessons from India’s Perform, Achieve, and Trade (PAT) scheme (2012–14 onwards), they show that while some sectors improved efficiency and others did not, overall energy intensity declined, proving the efficacy of market-based mechanisms at scale. Market Mechanisms in Practice: Lessons from PAT Mixed Sectoral Performance: Energy intensity rose in paper and chlor-alkali, but fell in aluminium and cement. Economy-Wide Efficiency: Despite individual variations, combined analysis (adjusted for inflation, output, and price) showed net energy savings. Policy Insight: The market allowed firms with lower abatement costs to generate efficiency certificates, while others purchased them—leading to cost-effective decarbonisation. Why Not Focus on Sectoral Targets? Sector/entity-level targets enable financial transfers (through credit trading), but do not determine net emissions reduction. Comparing CCTS targets to historic sectoral performance under PAT is flawed because: Past performance may not reflect future potential. Future-oriented benchmarking aligned with India’s NDC (2030) and Net Zero (2070) goals is more meaningful. Benchmarking Ambition: Data from Economy-Wide Modelling Indicator Value Expected annual decline in CO₂ emissions intensity (energy sector) 3.44% (2025–2030) Expected annual decline in emissions intensity of value added (manufacturing sector) ≥ 2.53% Average EIVA decline in 8 CCTS sectors (based on current targets) ~1.68% (2023–24 to 2026–27) Inference: Industry sector decarbonisation is slower compared to the power sector. Current industrial targets may lack ambition relative to modeled pathways aligned with NDCs. Conclusion: Calibrating India’s Climate Ambition The early design of India’s carbon trading framework rightly introduces flexibility and market efficiency, allowing cost-effective pathways to emissions reduction. However, while sectoral participation is crucial, measuring ambition solely through industrial targets may understate or misrepresent national progress. To ensure alignment with India’s global commitments under the Paris Agreement and its Net Zero 2070 goal, aggregate modelling and monitoring should guide course correction. Future policy must ensure that ambition grows progressively—across all sectors, but especially in hard-to-abate industries. Smoke and Sulphur In a surprising reversal of its own 2015 directive, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has exempted the majority of India’s coal-fired power plants from mandatory installation of Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) systems, which are designed to curb sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions. This decision raises pressing concerns around regulatory coherence, regional equity in environmental standards, and India’s public health commitments. Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology) Practice Question : “India’s selective exemption of Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) norms weakens its commitment to uniform environmental standards and public health.” Do you agree? Substantiate your answer.(250 Words) Background: 2015 Norms: All coal plants (≈180 plants, 600 units) were mandated to install FGDs by 2017 to reduce SO₂ emissions. Current Status: Only ~8% of units (mostly by NTPC) have complied. Recent Policy Change (2024): Majority exempted from FGD installation; only ~20% (in high-population or high-pollution zones like NCR) are now required to comply — by 2028. Justifications Cited by the Government: Reason Explanation New Scientific Assessments Studies claim no major SO₂ level differences between plants with or without FGD Low-Sulphur Indian Coal Coal burned domestically has relatively lower sulphur content Economic Burden High FGD installation costs and fear of increased electricity tariffs Sulfates as Climate Coolants Sulphate aerosols may help offset global warming effects — hence, reducing them could undermine climate goals  COVID-19 Disruption Pandemic-related delays cited for past non-compliance Scientific and Ethical Concerns: Partial Scientific Basis: IPCC does acknowledge sulfate cooling effects, but does not endorse SO₂ as a net positive — due to its harm to human health and contribution to PM2.5 pollution. Air Quality Standards: Average SO₂ levels in India may be below CPCB thresholds, but localised exposure risks and long-term particulate formation remain concerns. Inconsistent Policy Logic: Requiring FGDs only in select zones implies: Environmental protection is location-dependent, not health-outcome-based. A fragmentation of national environmental standards for a transboundary pollutant. Implications for Governance: Issue Implication  Policy Reversal Without Public Debate Undermines transparency and scientific deliberation Undermining Uniform Standards Breaks precedent of “One Nation, One Environmental Standard” Public Health Risk Weakens pollution safeguards for populations outside “priority zones” Climate Goals vs. Health Goals Conflict Raises a false binary between climate mitigation and air quality protection Policy Recommendations: Reinstate a Nationwide SO₂ Abatement Standard, with flexibility in compliance timelines, not in scope. Broader Stakeholder Consultation before revising critical pollution control policies. Invest in Domestic FGD Technology Ecosystem to reduce costs and reliance on limited vendors. Independent Health Impact Assessments of SO₂ and PM2.5 in exempted zones. Conclusion: While cost-effectiveness and evidence-based policy revisions are valid governance goals, the recent MoEFCC decision risks creating a regulatory patchwork in environmental standards. A pollutant like sulphur dioxide cannot be geographically neutralized — it demands a uniform, precautionary approach. Any exemptions, if scientifically valid, must pass the test of transparency, equity, and public health prioritization.

Content : The Changing Landscape of Employment Climate Change and Rural India: A Silent Displacement Crisis India’s Open Ecosystems: Rethinking ‘Wastelands’ India’s Opportunity to Repay Green Revolution Debt How is Mizoram Handling the Refugee Crisis? India’s FGD Rollback: Implications of Exempting 78% of Thermal Power Plants The changing landscape of employment Core Insight: India’s demographic dividend risks turning into a disaster as lakhs of graduates enter the job market without being job-ready, amidst rising automation and a shrinking formal job base. Relevance : GS-3 (Indian Economy) – Issues related to employment, skill development, and job market reforms. Alarming Statistics Indicator Data Youth Share in Unemployment 83% of unemployed are youth – India Employment Report 2024 (ILO + IHD) Formal Workforce (EPFO) >7 crore members; 18–25 age group = 18–22% of new additions Informal Workforce 90% of total employment remains informal Digital Illiteracy Among Youth – 75% can’t send email with attachment – 60% can’t copy-paste files – 90% lack basic spreadsheet skills Job Displacement vs. Creation (2030) – 170M new jobs to be created (14%) – 92M jobs displaced (8%) ➡ Net gain = 78M jobs (7%) – Future of Jobs Report 2025, WEF Core Challenges Unemployability > Unemployment Only 50% of Indian graduates are job-ready – Economic Survey 2023–24 Skill mismatch in digital, professional, and interpersonal domains AI and Automation Threat AI adoption is putting low-to-mid-level IT roles at risk Traditional service jobs in India may not survive next-gen tech transitions Job Quality Crisis Surge in contractual and gig employment without security or benefits Lack of long-term wage growth and poor financial security Skill Infrastructure Deficit Higher education and vocational institutes not aligned with job market needs Few formal linkages between academia and industry Strategic Policy Recommendations Pillar Action Needed Education-Industry Link – Mandatory partnerships for colleges with industry – Accountability for placements, not just degrees Skill-First Curriculum – Universal presence of Idea Labs & Tinker Labs – Compulsory digital + soft skill + foreign language training at all levels Global Skilling Strategy – Design courses aligned with ageing workforce needs in EU, Japan, etc. – Align with initiatives like EU’s Link4Skills, tapping migration corridors Institutional Reform – Create Indian Education Services (IES), equivalent to IAS, to attract top talent into education leadership Open Education Ecosystem – Invite industry professionals to teach/mentor in institutions to bridge theory-practice divide EPFO Data: Formalisation vs. Stability Rise in 18–25 age group enrolments in EPFO indicates push for formal employment. But unclear if these jobs are: Secure Well-paying Long-term Job creation ≠ job quality. The data must be paired with studies on job retention and income growth. The Cost of Inaction Wasted potential: India produces millions of graduates annually, many unemployable. Rising frustration: Educated youth without jobs fuels social unrest, migration, and mental health issues. Lost opportunity: Without global skill alignment, India risks missing out on exporting talent to ageing nations. Vicious cycle: Lack of jobs ➝ underemployment ➝ informal work ➝ no savings ➝ no upward mobility Conclusion India’s employment problem is not just about creating more jobs — it’s about creating relevant, high-quality, future-proof employment. Climate Change and Rural India: A Silent Displacement Crisis Key Observation: Climate change is no longer a future threat — it is actively transforming where and how millions of Indians live, work, and survive. Relevance : GS-1 & GS-3 – Geography (climate impact) and Economy (migration, livelihoods). Bundelkhand: Droughts, Heat, and Exodus Parameter Status Location 13 districts in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh Climate Impact 🔻 Rainfall, 🔺 Temperature (+2 to +3.5°C by 2100) Drought Frequency 9 droughts (Datia, 1998–2009); 8 in Lalitpur, Mahoba Result Massive male-dominated migration to cities like Delhi, Surat, Bengaluru Impacts: Agricultural failure and indebtedness Occupational shift: from farming to mining & construction Family separation and rising vulnerability of women and children Erosion of village social fabric and school dropout rates “Migration in Bundelkhand is not adaptation — it is a form of crisis-induced displacement.” – Dr. S.S. Jatav, BBAU Charpauli, Bangladesh: Floods and Erosion Parameter Status Location Along the Jamuna river Climate Impact 🔺 Floods & erosion due to rising river discharge Riverbank Erosion Left bank: -12m/year; Right bank: -52m/year (1990–2020) Migration Pattern Permanent displacement to Dhaka, nearby towns Impacts: Entire villages vanish annually into the Jamuna Families move first inland, then migrate completely Shift to agriculture in new villages or informal jobs in cities “Migration becomes the last-resort adaptation when resilience fails.” – Jan Freihardt, ETH Zürich Vidarbha & Marathwada: Heat Stress and Debt Cycles Parameter Status Region Rain shadow zone of the Western Ghats Temperature >50°C in peak May months (Satellite data, 2024) Rainfall Erratic: fewer rainy days, intense bursts, long dry gaps Livelihood Impact Seasonal migration to sugar cane farms in Western Maharashtra & Karnataka Cane Cutter Migrant Life: 4–6 month migration, hired as “koita” couples (husband: cutter, wife: stacker) Advance wage: ₹50,000–₹5 lakh (debt cycle begins) Output requirement: ₹50,000 ÷ ₹367/tonne = 136 tonnes sugar cane to cut Live in makeshift plastic tents, with no water, sanitation, or electricity Seniors (70+) now migrate due to labour shortages “Climate change is pushing people into debt bondage and worsening intergenerational precarity.” – Ankita Bhatkhande, Asar Scale of the Crisis Indicator Data Global Climate Migrants (2022) ~20 million/year (Internal migration) – International Refugee Assistance Project India’s Sugarcane Production (2021) 50 crore tonnes, ₹20,000+ crore revenue Protection for Migrants Weak; migrants face wage theft, health crises, and legal invisibility India lacks a dedicated legal framework for climate-induced internal migration. Adaptation or Displacement? Adaptation (Ideal Scenario): Diversified livelihoods Climate-resilient cropping Social security safety nets Displacement (Current Reality): Loss of land + livelihoods = forced migration Women and elderly disproportionately burdened Children drop out of school or face malnutrition “Migration may appear adaptive, but for many in India, it reflects a collapse of resilience.” — Sayantan Datta Policy Recommendations Area Action Needed Legal Framework Recognize climate migrants as a vulnerable group under national policy Housing & Rights Ensure safe shelters, portable social security, and labour protections Livelihood Resilience Invest in climate-smart agriculture, water access, and MGNREGA coverage Data & Planning Real-time climate–migration data to inform policy at district/state levels Interstate Coordination Protect rights of migrants across source and destination states Bottom Line India is living through a rural climate migration crisis — slow, silent, and scattered. Without urgent legal and policy recognition, millions risk falling into permanent precarity. India’s Open Ecosystems: Rethinking ‘Wastelands’ What Are Open Ecosystems? Open ecosystems refer to grasslands, deserts, scrublands, savannas, and open woodlands — landscapes characterized by low tree cover but high ecological and cultural value. These areas naturally support sparse vegetation due to arid climates or seasonal rainfall patterns. Unlike forests, they are not degraded forests, but distinct biomes with unique ecological functions. Relevance : GS-3 – Environment and Ecology; Land degradation, biodiversity, and sustainable land use. The ‘Wasteland’ Misclassification: A Colonial Legacy Official Label Ecological Reality “Wasteland” (as per Wasteland Atlas of India) Functional ecosystems with biodiversity, soil carbon, and pastoralist activity ~55.76 million hectares (16.96% of India’s land) Includes deserts, grasslands, scrub, coastal sand dunes Wastelands = ‘land to be fixed’ Actually = land to be preserved and stewarded Policy contradiction: While private real estate glorifies open green spaces (e.g., “Savana Villas”), India’s natural open landscapes are ignored or targeted for conversion. Why Deserts and Open Lands Matter Global Significance: Deserts cover ~33% of Earth’s land area. Host ancient civilizations (e.g., Indus Valley, Mesopotamia). Enable climate resilience through adapted flora and fauna. India-Specific Examples: Thar Desert (Rajasthan): Indigenous species like the Great Indian Bustard, caracal, desert fox. Banni Grasslands (Gujarat): Among Asia’s largest, now degraded by afforestation and invasive species. Pastoralist Communities: Stewards of Open Lands Community Region Dhangars Maharashtra Rabaris Gujarat Kurubas Karnataka Raikas Rajasthan Over 13 million pastoralists in India depend on open ecosystems for seasonal grazing. Their mobility and grazing cycles contribute to regenerative land use, seed dispersal, and biodiversity conservation. Afforestation on grasslands and fencing off commons disrupts both ecology and livelihoods. Greenwashing Concerns: Tree Planting ≠ Restoration Risks of Monoculture Afforestation: Reduces native biodiversity Alters hydrology and groundwater Converts carbon-rich soil systems into carbon-poor plantation zones Promotes Prosopis juliflora and eucalyptus, which degrade open biomes Instead, Promote: Rotational grazing Natural regeneration Check dams & water harvesting Pastoralist land governance Policy Roadmap: Recognising Open Ecosystems Priority Recommendation Reclassify lands Replace “wasteland” with “open ecosystem” in land-use maps Protect rights Recognize community tenure of pastoralist groups Incentivize carbon Reward soil carbon storage over tree carbon Embrace traditional knowledge Promote indigenous water and land management Reframe global language Change “World Day to Combat Desertification” to “World Day to Combat Land Degradation” Bottom Line “Deserts are not empty — they are alive, thriving, and culturally rich. Preserving them is not anti-development, but a climate-smart, justice-based environmental policy.” India’s Opportunity to Repay Green Revolution Debt From Recipient to Contributor India, once a major beneficiary of foreign agricultural assistance during the 1960s Green Revolution, now possesses the institutional and technological capacity to become a global contributor in agricultural R&D. With self-sufficiency achieved in wheat production, India is in a position to support international efforts—especially in developing countries facing similar challenges. Relevance : GS-2 & GS-3 – International Relations (South-South cooperation) and Agriculture R&D. Leadership in Wheat Innovation Indian agricultural research institutions have developed and scaled multiple high-yielding wheat varieties. Varieties like DBW187, DBW303, HD2967, HD3086 now dominate cultivation across millions of hectares. Research hubs such as IIWBR (Karnal), PAU (Ludhiana), and ICAR institutes play a leading role in this transformation. Strategic Opportunity for India As global funding for agricultural research declines, India has an opportunity to: Strengthen partnerships with international institutions like CIMMYT and IRRI Support research on climate-resilient crops and food security in the Global South Expand its soft power through agri-diplomacy and development cooperation Key Implications Transitioning from aid recipient to knowledge donor improves India’s global development profile. Agricultural assistance programs can be an extension of India’s South-South cooperation model. Investment in global research ensures preparedness against future food and climate crises. Policy Recommendations Create a formal International Agricultural R&D Support Mission led by Indian institutions. Allocate strategic funding to global wheat and rice research, especially in Africa and South Asia. Leverage public-private partnerships to commercialize and share India-developed crop innovations globally. How is Mizoram Handling the Refugee Crisis? Context: Refugee Influx from Myanmar Since February 2021, Myanmar has witnessed a military coup, triggering a civil war and ethnic conflicts. Over 40,000 refugees have crossed into Mizoram, especially from the Chin State of Myanmar, with recent influxes seen in Champhai district. The latest wave (July 2025) brought ~4,000 more refugees due to clashes between two anti-junta armed groups: Chin National Defence Force (CNDF) Chinland Defence Force-Hualngohm (CDF-H) Relevance : GS-2 – Polity and Governance; refugee management, Centre-State relations, and internal security. Why Mizoram? Ethnic Affinity: The refugees (Chins) share ethnic ties with Mizos; culturally and linguistically similar. Geographic Proximity: Chin State borders Mizoram; proximity to the conflict zones enables easier crossing. Humanitarian Tradition: Mizoram has historically sheltered fleeing ethnic groups from Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Manipur (Kuki-Zos). Timeline of Refugee Movements & Policy Evolution 1. Historic Background 1968–2004: Free Movement Regime (FMR) allowed cross-border travel up to 16 km; it was reduced from 40 km in 2004. 2016: FMR regulated; further restrictions imposed. 2024: MHA announced FMR suspension citing security concerns. 2. Post-2021 Influx Massive inflow post-coup; Chin National Army lost ground to pro-democracy forces → civilians fled. As of July 6, 2025: 3,890 Myanmar nationals recorded in Zokhawthar Spread across Zokhawthar, Khawmawi, Saisihnuam Central vs State Dynamics Aspect Mizoram Government Central Government Position Pro-refugee, citing ethnic and humanitarian grounds Restrictive, citing national security Actions Cash, relief camps, housing, refusal to evict refugees 28 crore aid, warning to stop refugee intake Conflict Ignored MHA order to evict refugees Accused Mizoram of altering demographics Civil society and organisations like Young Mizo Association (YMA), Churches, and student bodies have provided significant ground-level support. Refugee management is mostly local, decentralized, and supported by donations and voluntary contributions. Legal and Administrative Framework India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. No national refugee law — refugees are treated under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Lack of clear refugee identification and rights creates legal ambiguity. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) retains control over international migration; states have limited jurisdiction. Ground-Level Realities in Mizoram Displacement hubs: Champhai, Zokhawthar, and border towns have seen the highest numbers. Living conditions: Improvised shelters, local integration, school access (in some cases), but high dependency on aid. Security risks: Intelligence reports warn about armed groups’ presence. Border militarisation may affect India-Myanmar ties. Broader Strategic Implications Domestic Strains Centre-State relations on federal responsibilities in managing cross-border migration. Highlights need for refugee protection law balancing national security and humanitarian obligations. Regional Border policy inconsistency impacts ties with Myanmar, especially with changes in junta control. Rising refugee influx from Bangladesh (Rohingyas), Myanmar (Chins), and Manipur (Kuki-Zos) reflects worsening stability in the Eastern neighborhood. Key Policy Recommendations Codify a National Refugee Law: Define refugee status Lay down rights and responsibilities Establish standard operating procedures Institutional Coordination: Create joint task forces between MHA and northeastern states for managing cross-border flows. Reinstate a Humanitarian FMR-lite: Controlled, tech-monitored travel for cross-border ethnic kin during crises. Leverage International Aid: Coordinate with UNHCR/ASEAN for refugee assistance, without compromising sovereignty Invest in Border State Capacities: Infrastructure, healthcare, digital ID systems for refugees, and local employment schemes. Key Numbers (as of July 2025) Indicator Value Total Refugees (post-2021) ~40,000 Latest influx (July 2025) ~4,000 Myanmar nationals in Zokhawthar (Champhai) 3,890 Government relief fund ₹28 crore Official camps with FGDs Very few – mostly informal, community-led India’s FGD Rollback: Implications of Exempting 78% of Thermal Power Plants Context The Union Environment Ministry has exempted 78% of India’s 600 thermal power plant (TPP) units from installing Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) systems. FGD systems are critical for reducing sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions, a precursor to acid rain and particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution. Only about 11% of thermal plants — those in high-density/population areas — are still mandated to install FGD systems. Relevance : GS-3 – Environment and Energy; air pollution, public health, and emission standards. What are FGDs and Why Do They Matter? Feature Description Purpose Reduces SO₂ emissions by up to 95% from coal combustion Mechanism Uses limestone slurry or seawater to scrub sulphur oxides from flue gas Relevance SO₂ contributes to PM2.5 formation, acid rain, respiratory and cardiac diseases Global Practice Mandatory in China, US, EU for all coal-fired plants since early 2000s India’s Thermal Power Pollution Profile Indicator Value Total TPPs ~180 (comprising 600+ units) Share in electricity ~72% of total generation (as of 2025) Share in SO₂ emissions ~51% of all industrial SO₂ Plants with FGD installed Only 8% (mostly NTPC-run) Exempted units post-policy ~468 units (78%) Key Policy Update (July 2025) Category Criteria FGD Mandate Category A Within 10 km of NCR or Tier-1 cities Mandatory Category B Within 10 km of Critically Polluted Areas (CPAs) or Non-Attainment Cities (NACs) Case-by-case Category C All others Exempted Result: Only ~11% (Category A) will remain under FGD norms. Basis for Exemption: What Experts Said The government relied on recommendations of a scientific panel led by Principal Scientific Adviser Ajay Sood: Claimed Indian coal has low sulphur content Found no major SO₂ difference in areas with or without FGDs Argued that sulphates suppress warming, so removing SO₂ may increase net radiative forcing Counterarguments by Public Health & Environmental Experts Argument Response “Indian coal is low in sulphur” But still emits enough SO₂ to drive PM2.5 in hotspots “FGDs don’t improve local air quality” Air quality impact depends on meteorology; long-range transport of SO₂ is well documented “Sulphates cool the planet” True — but co-benefits of SO₂ do not outweigh public health costs (respiratory illness, strokes) “FGDs are costly” Health costs of SO₂ are 5x higher than installation costs (per WHO/ICMR studies) Global Standards vs India’s Position Country FGD Mandate Implementation  China Mandatory since 2005 95%+ compliance  USA Under Clean Air Act Applied to >90% of coal plants  Germany FGD since 1983 Complete compliance  India First mandated in 2015, now diluted in 2025 78% exempted Implications of the Decision Environmental: Higher SO₂ emissions → elevated secondary particulate matter (sulphates) Weakens India’s commitment to air quality improvement under NCAP Potential rise in acid rain impacting crops, soil, monuments Public Health: Risk of increased respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses Higher disease burden in rural areas near exempted plants Economic: Disincentivises green tech investment in the power sector Short-term relief for discoms & thermal producers, but long-term cost-shifting to health sector Global Commitments: May impact India’s COP pledges on emissions intensity Could weaken diplomatic stance on climate finance and clean tech if domestic credibility erodes Way Forward: Balancing Power and Pollution Reprioritise Targeted FGDs: Mandate for plants near dense populations, agricultural belts, and ecological hotspots. Subsidised Technology Deployment: Viability gap funding for older plants; tie to ESG-linked financing. Integrated Emissions Tracking: Mandatory online SO₂, NOx, PM reporting on public dashboard. Health Cost Valuation: Incorporate externalities into tariff-setting by CERC. Accelerate Renewables: Reduce dependence on coal by scaling solar-wind-battery hybrids.