Content
End of 10-Minute Delivery: Gig Workers’ Safety vs Platform Capitalism
Source Code Disclosure Debate: Cybersecurity vs Digital Rights
Urbanisation of Small Towns: India’s Silent Urban Transition
Passive Euthanasia and the Right to Die with Dignity: Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Shaksgam Valley: Sovereignty, Illegality and the China–Pakistan Axis
Why Buddhism Went Global and Jainism Did Not: Doctrine, Patronage and Diffusion
End of 10-Minute Delivery — Gig Workers’ Safety vs Platform Capitalism
Why in News ?
Major delivery platforms (Blinkit, Zepto, Zomato, Swiggy) decided to remove 10-minute delivery branding after intervention by the Union Labour Minister.
Triggered by:
One-day strike by gig/platform workers (Dec 31).
Demands citing accidents, health stress, and unsafe working conditions.
Marks a policy-relevant moment in India’s evolving gig economy governance.
Relevance
GS I (Society)
Changing nature of work, informalisation, urban labour precarity
Platform economy & “invisible urban workers”
GS II (Social Justice & Governance)
Labour welfare, unorganised sector, State intervention
Code on Social Security, 2020; labour as Concurrent List
Vulnerable Workforce Category
Gig workers fall under informal, unorganised, and non-standard employment.
Characteristics:
No fixed employer–employee relationship.
Absence of minimum wages, social security, paid leave.
Algorithmic control without human accountability.
10-minute delivery intensified precarity and risk, deepening social injustice.
Changing Nature of Work
Shift from traditional employment → platform-mediated work.
Speed-based service models:
Normalise hyper-productivity culture.
Transfer business risk (time pressure, road safety) to workers.
Social Impact
Accident-prone urban delivery ecosystem.
Health issues:
Stress, fatigue, unsafe driving.
Creates a class of “invisible urban workers” sustaining middle-class convenience.
Constitutional Ethos
Article 21: Right to life → includes right to safe and dignified working conditions.
Article 23: Prohibition of forced labour → economic compulsion + unsafe mandates raise ethical concerns.
Directive Principles:
Article 39(e): Health and strength of workers must not be abused.
Article 42: Just and humane conditions of work.
10-minute delivery model arguably conflicted with constitutional morality.
Governance & State Intervention
Labour Minister’s intervention shows:
Soft regulation through persuasion, not coercion.
Recognition that branding and algorithms shape work intensity.
Shift from:
“Consumer-first convenience”
to “worker-first safety framing”.
Gig Economy Regulation: Static Linkage
Existing Framework
Code on Social Security, 2020:
Recognises gig & platform workers.
Enables social security schemes (insurance, maternity, old age).
Gaps:
Codes not fully operational.
No regulation of algorithmic management, delivery timelines, or work intensity.
Ethical Dimension
Utilitarian consumer logic: Faster delivery = better service.
Rights-based ethics: Worker safety > marginal consumer convenience.
Corporate ethics issue:
Is speed-driven branding ethical if it externalises risk onto workers?
Government action reflects ethics of care and dignity of labour.
Economic & Urban Governance Angle
Hyper-speed delivery:
Encourages unsafe driving → public safety issue.
Externalises costs (accidents, healthcare) to society.
Sustainable platform economy requires:
Balancing efficiency with human costs.
Significance of the Decision
Symbolic but important:
Removes normative pressure of “10 minutes”.
Acknowledges worker voices & collective action.
Signals:
Beginning of labour-sensitive platform governance.
Precedent for regulating algorithm-driven work practices.
Challenges
Removal of branding ≠ end of implicit performance pressure.
Warehousing logic may still incentivise speed.
Weak collective bargaining power of gig workers.
Absence of enforceable workplace safety standards for platforms.
Way Forward
Regulatory
Notify and operationalise Social Security Code provisions for gig workers.
Define reasonable delivery timelines as part of labour standards.
Mandate accident insurance & health coverage funded by platforms.
Institutional
Establish Gig Workers Welfare Boards at State level.
Enable platform worker unions/associations.
Technological Governance
Audit algorithms for:
Work intensity
Penalty systems
Incentive structures
Transparency in ratings & delivery metrics.
Social Justice Lens
Recognise gig workers as workers, not mere service providers.
Shift discourse from convenience to dignity of labour.
Prelims Pointers
Gig workers are recognised under Code on Social Security, 2020.
They are part of unorganised workforce, not regular employees.
Labour is a Concurrent List subject.
Source Code Disclosure Debate — Cybersecurity vs Digital Rights
Why in News ?
Reports (Reuters) suggested the Indian government was considering mandating smartphone manufacturers to:
Disclose source code to third-party testing agencies.
Notify the government before rolling out major software updates.
Government has officially denied any finalised demand, stating discussions are exploratory.
Triggered concerns over cybersecurity, privacy, transparency, and regulatory overreach.
Relevance
GS II (Polity & Governance)
Right to Privacy (Art. 21), proportionality doctrine (Puttaswamy)
Transparency, stakeholder consultation
GS III (Internal Security & S&T)
Cybersecurity, critical digital infrastructure
Supply-chain risks, state-sponsored cyber threats
What is Source Code?
The core human-readable instructions that define how software functions.
Includes:
Algorithms
Security architecture
System design logic
Kept confidential because:
Commercial IP protection
Cybersecurity (prevents attackers from identifying vulnerabilities).
Why Source Code Disclosure Is Risky ?
Security-by-obscurity vs Security-by-design:
Full disclosure increases attack surface.
Risks include:
Easier identification of zero-day vulnerabilities.
Supply-chain attacks via testing agencies.
Potential state or non-state cyber exploitation.
Smartphones = critical digital infrastructure:
Banking, Aadhaar, health, communications.
Paradox: A measure meant to enhance security may weaken systemic cyber resilience.
Internal Security Dimension
Smartphones are gateways to:
Personal data
Critical communications
Location and biometric-linked services
Any compromise affects:
Individual security
National cyber posture
India already faces:
Rising cybercrime
State-sponsored cyber threats
Source code exposure magnifies internal security vulnerabilities.
Governance & Regulatory Dimension
Existing Regulatory Framework
Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2017
MTCTE (Mandatory Testing & Certification of Telecom Equipment):
Includes Indian Telecom Security Assurance Requirements (ITSAR).
Telecommunications Act, 2023:
Shifted regulatory approach.
Smartphones already undergo:
BIS certification for India.
Institutional Overlap
Earlier: DoT → MTCTE & ITSARs.
Now: MeitY assumes lead role.
Raises issues of:
Regulatory clarity
Jurisdictional overlap
Polity & Constitutional Dimension
Article 21 – Right to Privacy
Source code access could:
Enable mass surveillance (directly or indirectly).
Undermine data security guarantees.
Puttaswamy judgment (2017):
Any intrusion must satisfy:
Legality
Necessity
Proportionality
Procedural safeguards
Blanket source code access fails proportionality test.
Transparency & Democratic Governance
Civil Society Concerns
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) flagged:
Closed-door consultations.
Lack of public disclosure of draft ITSARs.
Governance issue:
Stakeholder consultation ≠ Big Tech consultation alone.
Democratic regulation requires public scrutiny.
Comparative Global Practice
China:
Heavy state control, but even China does not mandate Apple to share full source code.
EU / US:
Focus on:
Security audits
Vulnerability disclosure programmes
Standards-based compliance
Not source code handover.
India’s reported approach would be globally atypical.
Technology & Innovation Impact
Risks:
Discouraging foreign investment.
Undermining India’s image as a trusted digital market.
Potential chilling effect on:
Innovation
Startup ecosystem
Global supply chains.
Ethical Dimension
Competing Ethical Claims
State ethics: Protect citizens from insecure devices.
Rights ethics: Protect users from overreach & surveillance.
Corporate ethics: Duty to protect users’ data and systems.
Ethical governance demands least intrusive means.
Way Forward
Regulatory Design
Prefer:
Black-box security audits
Penetration testing
Bug bounty programmes
Avoid:
Blanket source code access.
Institutional
Clear division of roles:
DoT vs MeitY vs CERT-In.
Strengthen:
CERT-In
National cyber testing labs.
Governance
Publish draft ITSARs.
Open public consultation.
Parliamentary oversight of digital security norms.
Rights Protection
Embed privacy-by-design and security-by-design.
Align with Digital Personal Data Protection Act principles.
Challenges
Balancing:
National security
Cyber resilience
Privacy & trust
Rapid technological change outpacing regulation.
Capacity constraints in indigenous testing infrastructure.
Prelims Pointers
Source code ≠ executable code.
Smartphones already certified by BIS.
MTCTE stems from Indian Telegraph Rules, 2017.
Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Urbanisation of Small Towns — India’s Silent Urban Transition
Why in News ?
India’s urban debate remains metro-centric, while the most significant urbanisation is occurring in small towns (population <1 lakh).
Of ~9,000 census/statutory towns, only ~500 are large cities.
Editorial argues that small-town urbanisation is a structural outcome of capitalist development under stress, not a benign decentralisation.
Relevance
GS I (Society & Urbanisation)
Urbanisation patterns, migration, informal labour
Urbanisation without industrialisation
GS II (Governance & Local Government)
Municipal capacity, decentralisation vs devolution
Metro-centric bias in AMRUT
Core Argument
India is witnessing urbanisation without urban prosperity.
Small towns are not “alternatives” to metros; they are new frontiers absorbing surplus labour and capital displaced from over-saturated cities, often under weaker regulation and governance.
Nature of India’s Urban Transition
From Metropolisation (1970s–1990s):
Large cities as centres of industry, state investment, labour absorption.
“Spatial fixes” for capitalism.
To Small-Town Urbanisation (Present):
Driven by:
High land costs in metros
Infrastructure saturation
Rising cost of living
Small towns emerge as:
Logistics hubs
Agro-processing centres
Warehousing & construction economies
Service & consumption markets
Social Composition
Migrant workers pushed out of metros.
Rural youth with declining agrarian options.
Dominance of informal labour:
Contract-less construction workers
Women in home-based piecework
Youth in platform/gig work without security
Urbanisation of rural poverty, not inclusive urban growth.
Municipal Weakness
Small-town municipalities:
Understaffed
Underfunded
Low technical capacity
Planning deficits:
Outsourced to consultants
Minimal local participation
Procedural rather than deliberative governance
Policy Bias
Metro-centric urban missions:
AMRUT (even expanded) largely excludes small towns from meaningful investments.
Infrastructure design (water, sewerage) tailored to large cities.
Consequences:
Tanker economies
Groundwater over-extraction
Ecological stress
Decentralisation without devolution.
Economic Dimension
Small towns as:
Low-cost accumulation zones (cheap land, pliable labour).
Sites for informal capitalism.
New power hierarchies:
Real estate brokers
Local contractors
Micro-financiers
Political intermediaries
Capital relocates, but labour precarity persists.
Infrastructure Stress
Fragmented schemes instead of integrated systems.
Absence of long-term urban services planning.
Environmental Dimension
Unregulated groundwater extraction.
Absence of sewage and solid waste systems.
Ecological degradation without institutional safeguards.
Social Justice Angle
Who Loses?
Informal workers without:
Job security
Social protection
Collective bargaining
Women workers concentrated in low-paid, invisible labour.
Migrants lacking urban entitlements.
Structural Injustice
Benefits of urbanisation accrue to:
Local elites
Land intermediaries
Platform corporations
Costs borne by:
Workers
Urban poor
Local ecology
Unequal urban citizenship in small towns.
Ethical & Political Economy Perspective
Urban growth without dignity violates:
Justice
Equity
Human-centred development
Planning reduced to technocracy, not democracy.
Way Forward
1. Political Recognition
Acknowledge small towns as India’s primary urban frontier, not peripheral spaces.
2. Reimagined Planning
Town-specific plans integrating:
Housing
Livelihoods
Transport
Ecology
Avoid replication of metro templates.
3. Empowered Local Governments
Fiscal devolution to municipalities.
Transparent budgeting.
Capacity-building of local cadres.
4. Labour & Social Justice
Space for:
Workers’ collectives
Cooperatives
Women’s groups
Extend urban social protection to migrants and informal workers.
5. Discipline Capital & Platforms
Regulate:
Platform economies
Digital infrastructures
Ensure:
Labour rights
Local value retention
Data accountability
Prelims Pointers
Majority of India’s towns are small towns (<1 lakh population).
Urbanisation ≠ industrialisation or formalisation.
AMRUT primarily targets larger urban centres.
Takeaway
India’s future urban crisis will not be written in its megacities, but in its small towns—where capital has moved faster than planning, governance, and social justice.
Passive Euthanasia, Right to Life & Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Core Issue
Family of a man in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) met Supreme Court of India judges seeking permission for euthanasia.
The patient has been in a vegetative state for over 13 years.
Judges sought views of primary and secondary medical boards on whether continuation of treatment is in the patient’s best interest.
Relevance
GS II (Polity & Constitution)
Article 21, judicial interpretation of dignity
Supreme Court role in rights expansion
GS IV (Ethics)
Autonomy vs sanctity of life
Medical ethics: beneficence, non-maleficence
What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia: Intentional act/omission to end life to relieve suffering.
Types:
Active Euthanasia: Direct act to cause death (e.g., lethal injection) → Illegal in India.
Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal/withholding of life-sustaining treatment → Legal under conditions.
Assisted Suicide: Providing means to commit suicide → Illegal.
Article 21 – Right to Life
Interpreted as Right to live with dignity, not mere animal existence.
Includes:
Right to privacy
Bodily autonomy
Right to refuse medical treatment
Key question: Does dignity extend to the end of life?
SC answer: Yes, in limited circumstances.
Supreme Court Jurisprudence
1. Aruna Shanbaug Case
First legal recognition of passive euthanasia in India.
Allowed withdrawal of life support for patients in PVS.
Required:
Approval of High Court.
Medical opinion.
Laid foundation but procedure was cumbersome.
2. Common Cause v. Union of India
Landmark Constitution Bench judgment.
Held:
Passive euthanasia is legal.
Living Will / Advance Directive recognised.
Established:
Right to die with dignity as part of Article 21.
Replaced HC approval with medical boards.
Legal Framework for Passive Euthanasia
Who can decide?
Competent patient → Through Living Will / Advance Directive.
Incompetent patient (PVS/coma) → Family + Doctors + Medical Boards.
Safeguards:
Opinion of:
Primary Medical Board.
Secondary Medical Board.
Certification that:
Treatment is futile.
Continuation not in best interest of patient.
No criminal liability if procedure followed.
Medical Boards – Role Explained
Primary Board: Treating doctors, hospital specialists.
Secondary Board: Independent experts, acts as safeguard.
Purpose:
Prevent misuse.
Ensure decision is medical, not emotional or economic.
Ethical Dimension
Competing Ethical Principles
Autonomy: Respecting patient’s will/dignity.
Beneficence: Acting in patient’s best interest.
Non-maleficence: Avoiding prolonged suffering.
Sanctity of life vs Quality of life debate.
Indian approach: Middle path – no active killing, but dignity-preserving withdrawal.
Social & Governance Concerns
Fear of misuse against:
Elderly
Disabled
Economically dependent patients
Indian society:
Strong family involvement.
Limited palliative care infrastructure.
Hence emphasis on procedural safeguards.
Relevance of Current Case
Tests implementation of SC guidelines in real-life scenarios.
Shows shift from judicial approval to medical ethics-based governance.
Reinforces:
Family’s role.
Medical board centrality.
Highlights growing acceptance of end-of-life dignity.
International Context
Many countries allow:
Passive euthanasia (UK, India).
Some allow active euthanasia (Netherlands, Belgium).
India follows conservative, dignity-based model.
Challenges
Low awareness of Living Wills.
Hospital-level hesitation due to fear of litigation.
Uneven capacity of medical boards across States.
Emotional burden on families.
Way Forward
Standardise hospital protocols for end-of-life care.
Public awareness on Advance Directives.
Strengthen palliative care services.
Periodic training of doctors on legal safeguards.
Ethical committees at hospital level.
India’s Assertion, Pakistan’s Cession — How China Took Shaksgam Valley
Core Issue
India has reiterated its sovereignty claim over Shaksgam Valley, after China referred to infrastructure activity in the region.
The issue revives debates around the 1963 China–Pakistan Boundary Agreement, legality of territorial cession, and implications for India’s territorial integrity.
Relevance
GS I (Geography)
Strategic location: Karakoram, Siachen region
GS II (International Relations)
Sovereignty, boundary agreements, international law
India–China–Pakistan relations
Location & Geography
Shaksgam Valley (Trans-Karakoram Tract):
Lies north of the Shaksgam River, north of the Siachen Glacier.
Part of the larger Ladakh region of J&K claimed by India.
Area: ~5,000 sq km.
Strategically located between Xinjiang (China) and PoK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir).
Historical Background
Pre-1963:
Region historically linked to Jammu & Kashmir; never legally ceded by India.
China began asserting control post-1962 India–China war.
1963 Boundary Agreement:
Signed between China and Pakistan.
Pakistan illegally ceded ~5,180 sq km of Indian-claimed territory to China.
India not a party → Agreement void ab initio under international law (no third-party territorial transfer).
India’s Official Position
Reiterated by Ministry of External Affairs:
Shaksgam Valley is Indian territory.
1963 agreement has no legal validity.
China’s presence is based on illegal occupation facilitated by Pakistan.
Consistent stance since 1960s, including Parliamentary statements by Jawaharlal Nehru.
China’s Position
Claims Shaksgam based on 1963 agreement with Pakistan.
Built infrastructure linking Xinjiang–Tibet through the area.
Treats region as settled boundary, despite India’s objections.
Pakistan’s Role
Pakistan lacks locus standi to cede territory of J&K (disputed under UNSC resolutions).
Pattern of territorial concessions to China for strategic & economic support.
Weakens its own Kashmir position internationally.
Strategic & Security Dimension
Shaksgam Valley forms a critical Sino-Pak strategic link.
Enhances China–Pakistan military coordination near Siachen–Ladakh sector.
Raises concerns for India’s northern front security.
CPEC Angle
Region’s proximity to China–Pakistan Economic Corridor:
Alternative routes connecting Xinjiang to Gwadar.
Part of China’s strategy to reduce dependence on Malacca Strait.
India’s objection:
CPEC passes through Indian-claimed PoK → violation of sovereignty.
International Law Perspective
Principle violated: Nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what they don’t own).
Boundary agreements involving disputed territories lack legitimacy without consent of all claimants.
Reinforces India’s argument against third-party legitimisation of PoK.
Political & Diplomatic Dimension
India maintained claims despite pressures during Cold War era, including from John F. Kennedy to compromise on Kashmir talks.
Demonstrates continuity in India’s territorial claims irrespective of regime or global alignments.
Implications for India
Territorial Integrity: Sets precedent against legitimising illegal occupations.
India–China Relations: Adds another layer to boundary disputes (LAC, Aksai Chin).
India–Pakistan Relations: Highlights Pakistan’s inconsistent Kashmir stance.
Strategic Autonomy: Reinforces India’s refusal to accept faits accomplis.
Challenges
De facto Chinese control since 1960s → difficult on-ground reversal.
Growing China–Pakistan strategic convergence.
Limited international awareness of Shaksgam issue compared to Aksai Chin.
Way Forward
Persistent diplomatic articulation of India’s legal position.
Integrate Shaksgam issue within broader boundary negotiations with China.
Highlight illegality of 1963 agreement in international forums.
Strengthen infrastructure & security posture in eastern Ladakh.
Strategic communication distinguishing PoK, Aksai Chin, Shaksgam in public discourse.
Why Buddhism Went Global and Jainism Did Not ?
Context
Article explains divergent historical trajectories of Buddhism and Jainism, despite:
Common origin in Śramaṇa tradition
Similar period of emergence (6th century BCE)
Shared opposition to Vedic ritualism
Core question: Why did Buddhism become a world religion, while Jainism remained largely India-centric?
Relevance
GS I (Ancient History & Culture)
Śramaṇa tradition, heterodox philosophies
Role of doctrine, patronage, trade routes
Indian Thought: Two Broad Traditions
Brahmanical tradition
Authority of Vedas
Emphasis on ritual, sacrifice, social order
Śramaṇa tradition
Rejection of Vedic authority
Emphasis on renunciation (tyāga), moksha
Included Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivikas
Both Buddhism and Jainism belong to the Śramaṇa stream
Buddhism (Middle Path)
Rejects extremes of:
Self-indulgence
Severe asceticism
Key doctrines:
Four Noble Truths
Eightfold Path
Impermanence (anicca), non-self (anatta)
Flexible ethics → adaptable across cultures
Jainism (Ascetic Rigour)
Core doctrines:
Ahimsa (absolute non-violence)
Anekantavada (multiplicity of truths)
Aparigraha (non-possession)
Strict code:
Mahavratas for monks
Extreme ascetic practices
Doctrinal rigidity vs flexibility is central to divergent spread
Role of Royal Patronage
Buddhism
Received imperial backing from:
Ashoka
Kanishka
Effects:
State-sponsored missions
Monasteries (viharas) along trade routes
Diplomatic-cum-religious outreach to:
Central Asia
Sri Lanka
Southeast Asia
Jainism
Patronage from:
Chandragupta Maurya
Kharavela
Later regional rulers
Limitations:
Patronage remained regional
No organised missionary state support
Empire-backed Buddhism vs regionally-supported Jainism
Approach
Buddhism
Actively proselytising
Monks:
Travelled widely
Interacted with local cultures
Adapted practices without diluting core tenets
Monastic code (Vinaya) allowed:
Flexibility in food
Cultural accommodation
Jainism
Non-proselytising
Jain monks:
Travel on foot only
Avoid interaction with other belief systems
Strong inward focus → community preservation, not expansion
Outreach vs inward preservation
Social Accessibility
Buddhism
Simple ethical code
Use of local languages (Pali, Prakrit)
Open to:
Women (bhikkhunis)
Lower social groups
Compatible with urbanisation & trade networks
Jainism
Highly demanding ascetic ideals
Monastic life difficult to replicate outside Indian socio-cultural context
Better suited to:
Mercantile communities
Urban elites within India
Historical Turning Point (~1200 CE)
Buddhism in India
Decline due to:
Loss of royal patronage
Revival of Brahmanism
Turkish invasions (monastic destruction)
But: Buddhism already global → survived abroad
Jainism in India
Continued to flourish within India
Strong community institutions
No equivalent global footprint
Geographical diversification ensured Buddhism’s survival
Ethical Philosophy & Global Reception
Buddhism
Universal ethics:
Compassion
Moderation
Mindfulness
Easily integrated with foreign belief systems
Jainism
Anekantavada promotes tolerance
But doctrinal position:
Truth is multi-faceted
No need to convert others
Mahavira’s teaching (Sutrakritanga):
Respect other ideologies, do not impose
Ethical universalism vs ethical exclusivity
Summary
Dimension
Buddhism
Jainism
Asceticism
Moderate
Extreme
Patronage
Imperial
Regional
Missionary zeal
Strong
Absent
Cultural adaptability
High
Low
Global spread
Extensive
Limited
Survival outside India
Yes
No