Content :
U.S. will impose reciprocal tariffs from April 2: Trump
Little progress in centralising administration of Eklavya schools
Who will apologise to the ‘Himalayans’?
A brief history of the Russia-Ukraine war
CAG, Finance Commission hold consultation on public finances, fiscal challenges
When debris from space crashes to the earth, who is responsible?
U.S. will impose reciprocal tariffs from April 2
Context and Background
U.S. President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs from April 2, targeting countries imposing high tariffs on American goods.
This move aligns with his long-standing economic nationalism and “America First” policy.
Focus on key trading partners like India, China, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)
Rationale Behind the Tariffs
Perceived Unfair Tariff Structure:
Trump highlighted that countries like India impose excessively high tariffs, citing India’s auto tariffs exceeding 100%.
China and South Korea’s tariffs on U.S. products are allegedly much higher than what the U.S. imposes.
Economic Protectionism:
U.S. aims to reduce trade deficits and promote domestic manufacturing.
Reciprocal tariffs aim to counter non-monetary trade barriers that restrict U.S. market access.
Geopolitical Considerations:
Trump emphasized that even U.S. allies (South Korea, Canada, Mexico) impose higher tariffs while benefiting from U.S. military and economic support.
This policy could be a pressure tactic to negotiate better trade terms.
Impact on India and Other Countries
India:
Will face retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports, affecting auto, pharmaceutical, and IT sectors.
Could escalate trade tensions, impacting bilateral relations and India-U.S. trade balance.
China:
Faces additional 10% tariffs on exports to the U.S. while imposing retaliatory 15% tariffs on American farm products.
May intensify the ongoing U.S.-China trade war.
Canada & Mexico:
Both countries are imposing 25% retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods.
Potential impact on NAFTA/USMCA framework and supply chains.
Economic and Political Implications
For the U.S.:
Short-term gains in revenue from import tariffs but risk of inflation due to higher import costs.
Potential job creation in some domestic sectors but negative impact on industries dependent on imported raw materials.
Possible WTO disputes and diplomatic strain with allies.
For Global Trade:
Rising protectionism could lead to a trade war affecting global supply chains.
Emerging economies (like India and Brazil) may diversify trade partners to reduce dependence on the U.S. market.
Potential impact on WTO norms and global tariff negotiations.
Future Outlook
Countries may enter negotiations to lower tariffs and avoid prolonged trade disputes.
U.S. businesses relying on imports may seek exemptions or supply chain adjustments.
Potential shifts in global trade alliances, with affected nations deepening economic cooperation with China, EU, or regional blocs.
Little progress in centralising administration of Eklavya schools
Background of EMRS Centralisation Efforts
Objective: Elevate EMRS to the standards of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs).
Key Announcements:
Finance Minister’s 2023-24 Budget speech emphasized centralised recruitment of 38,000 staff over three years.
NESTS (National Education Society for Tribal Students) was set up to oversee EMRS administration.
Relevance : GS 2(Education ,Schemes , Social Issues)
Current Status and Challenges
Slow Progress on Centralisation:
Second phase of recruitment (6,000 staff) stalled for over three months.
Proposal for regional offices under NESTS still awaiting approval since December 2024.
Proposal to raise per-child recurring cost pending with the Department of Expenditure since November 2024.
Weak Administrative Authority of NESTS:
Lacks mandated control over State societies running schools.
Unable to enforce inspections and oversight.
State societies operate autonomously, often bypassing NESTS directives.
Staffing and Recruitment Issues:
Severe manpower shortage: NESTS operates with only 34 sanctioned staff, while JNV administration has 491 personnel.
Hindi competency requirement led to difficulties in teacher placements, especially in non-Hindi-speaking states.
Recruitment for NESTS posts remains unfulfilled due to low pay and no promotion opportunities.
Financial and Operational Concerns
Budgetary Issues:
Financial irregularities found in State societies.
Schools not purchasing essential items (e.g., uniforms, books) but transferring funds to parents instead.
Governance Gaps:
NESTS issued circulars reinforcing its authority, but lacks enforcement mechanisms.
December 2024 circular warned new recruits against challenging NESTS authority.
Comparison with Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs)
JNVs’ Stronger Administrative Structure:
Managed by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti under a centralised system.
661 JNVs with structured administration through eight regional offices.
Sufficient staffing (491 personnel at HQ and regional levels).
EMRS Lags Behind in Infrastructure and Funding:
728 EMRS sanctioned, but only 477 functional.
Funding disparity: Per-student expenditure ₹1.09 lakh (EMRS) vs ₹1.70 lakh (JNVs).
Way Forward
Fast-track Centralised Recruitment: Expedite the approval of the second phase of 6,000 staff hiring.
Structural Empowerment of NESTS: Grant statutory powers for direct oversight and inspections.
Increase Financial Allocation: Approve the proposed hike in recurring per-student expenditure.
Address Recruitment Barriers: Improve pay scales and career prospects for NESTS officials.
Resolve Governance Gaps: Strengthen accountability of State societies under NESTS control.
Who will apologise to the ‘Himalayans’?
Context : Norway’s Apology and Recognition of Historical Wrongs
Norway’s Parliament issued a formal apology for past assimilation policies targeting indigenous groups like the Sami, Kven, and Forest Finns.
Norwegianisation (1850s–1960s) aimed to suppress indigenous languages and cultures, leading to systemic discrimination.
The Norwegian government has taken measures such as indigenous language protection and inclusion monitoring (starting 2027).
Despite progress, Sami languages remain endangered, and indigenous communities still face inequities in healthcare, education, and land rights.
Relevance :GS 1(Society),GS 3(Environment)
Parallels Between Nordic and Himalayan Indigenous Communities
The Himalayas, spanning 2,500 km from Afghanistan to Northeast India, hold the world’s largest ice reserves outside the poles.
Like the Nordics, Himalayan communities face climate change, resource exploitation, and cultural erosion.
Home to 52 million people from diverse ethnicities (e.g., Gaddis, Kinnauras, Lepchas, Bhutiyas, Apatanis, and Khas communities).
These groups have experienced assimilation through colonialism, post-independence policies, and neoliberal economic frameworks.
Colonial Policies and Their Impact on Himalayan Communities
British trade laws disrupted traditional economies (e.g., coerced participation in tea, gold, silk, and opium trade).
Trade blockades in the Northeast caused economic crises, halting agricultural production and even marriages due to silk shortages.
Forest laws in Himachal and Uttarakhand led to massive deforestation (e.g., 80,000 km of railway track construction destroyed forests).
Sal forests in Garhwal and Kumaon were devastated for timber extraction.
Post-Independence Policies and the Shift Towards Exploitation
Nehru’s humanistic approach (initial 15 years post-independence) promoted respect for tribal autonomy and culture.
By the 5th and 6th Five-Year Plans, state-led development prioritized resource extraction over indigenous rights.
The 1990s marked a shift towards economic self-sufficiency, forcing Himalayan states to rely on tourism and hydropower.
Unlike other Indian states with an industrial base, Himalayan states were pressured to generate revenue via environmental exploitation.
Hydropower Projects: A Case of Economic Exploitation
Hydropower became a key revenue source (e.g., Arunachal Pradesh projected₹445 crore annually from three projects).
Despite economic promises, projects often bypass local laws and undermine tribal land ownership.
Customary land rights and traditional governance structures are frequently ignored.
“Hydro-criminality” – a term used by civil society groups – describes the corrupt nexus of bureaucrats, politicians, and corporations facilitating large-scale land acquisition.
The result: cultural displacement, environmental degradation, and the marginalization of traditional livelihoods.
Lessons from Norway: The Need for Accountability
Norway’s recognition of historical injustices sets a precedent for state accountability.
The Himalayan region has yet to receive an acknowledgment or apology for centuries of systemic exploitation.
Sustainable, inclusive development models are needed to protect both environmental resources and cultural heritage.
A brief history of the Russia-Ukraine war
Background of the Conflict
Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, expecting a quick victory.
Initial Russian advances met stiff Ukrainian resistance, supported by U.S. and NATO military aid.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)
The Biden administration’s approach:
Economic sanctions to cripple Russia’s war effort.
Heavy military aid to Ukraine, ensuring prolonged resistance.
Key events in the initial war phase:
September 2022: Russia lost Kharkiv Oblast.
November 2022: Russia retreated from Kherson.
October 2022: Putin annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, signaling a long war strategy.
Current War Status (2023-2025)
Russia reversed its battlefield setbacks:
Captured Soledar (January 2023), Bakhmut (May 2023), Avdiivka (February 2024), Vuhledar (October 2024).
Ukraine’s counteroffensive (June 2023) failed due to Russian defensive fortifications.
2024 developments:
Ukraine’s surprise attack (August 2024) in Kursk Region.
Russia captured 4,168 sq. km of Ukrainian territory.
January 2025: Russia seized Velyka Novosilka and Toretsk, pressing towards Pokrovsk.
Ukraine’s battlefield challenges:
Manpower shortage (as admitted by U.S. officials).
Dependence on Western arms and aid.
Increasing attacks inside Russia to offset battlefield losses.
U.S. Policy Shift Under Trump
Trump administration’s shift (2025):
Direct talks with Russia, sidelining Ukraine and Europe.
Ukraine will not become a NATO member (announced by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth).
No American security guarantees to Ukraine.
Rationale behind Trump’s approach:
Strategic realignment: Views China as the primary threat, not Russia.
Geopolitical realism: Believes Ukraine cannot win the war even with U.S. aid.
Pre-World War I offshore balancing: The U.S. prefers not to entangle itself in European conflicts.
European Response
Europe caught off guard by Trump’s abrupt policy shift.
Historical reluctance:
Germany and France opposed Ukraine’s NATO membership in 2008.
Minsk agreements (2014-15) failed due to lack of commitment from all sides.
Economic impact on Europe:
Energy crisis after the destruction of Nord Stream pipeline.
Recession in Germany (third consecutive year).
Rise of far-right political forces due to economic hardships.
Limited strategic options:
Europe lacks the military capability to support Ukraine without U.S. backing.
NATO’s future uncertain as Trump questions its relevance.
Ukraine’s Dilemma
Severe losses:
Over 20% of its territory under Russian control.
Millions displaced, economic collapse, and infrastructure devastation.
Weapons and manpower shortage limiting further resistance.
Uncertain future:
Continued war = further territorial losses.
Negotiations = unfavorable peace dictated by Russia and the U.S..
Geopolitical reality:
Ukraine has been a pawn in great power politics.
The U.S.-Russia reset could force Ukraine into an unfavorable settlement.
CAG, Finance Commission hold consultation on public finances, fiscal challenges
Context and Significance
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) met with the 16th Finance Commission in Bhopal, marking a crucial phase in assessing India’s financial landscape.
The consultation was aimed at addressing fiscal challenges and enhancing financial transparency across Union, State, and local government levels.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity)
Key Focus Areas of Deliberation
Union and State Finances: Examined expenditure trends, non-debt receipts, and fiscal stress points.
Local Bodies: Emphasis on harmonization of accounting practices and fund transfers.
Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs): Addressed financial viability and performance challenges.
Major Fiscal Challenges Identified
Revenue Gaps: A significant mismatch between expenditure and non-debt receipts at both Union and State levels.
State Own Tax Revenue (SOTR) Decline: Varying levels of SOTR across States and reduced revenue buoyancy impacting fiscal stability.
Off-Budget Borrowings: Need for greater transparency and regular reporting to prevent fiscal mismanagement.
FRBM Act Compliance: Ensuring adherence to fiscal deficit targets and addressing post-audit liabilities.
Technology-Driven Revenue Optimization
Enhancing Stamp Duty & Excise Collections:
Regular updates to market value guidelines.
Improved classification of property types.
Adoption of sensor-based systems and QR codes to minimize leakages.
GST Administration Reforms:
Expanding the tax base by integrating unregistered goods and service providers into the formal economy.
Automated data collection and real-time monitoring to enhance transparency.
Strengthening taxpayer verification mechanisms to curb tax evasion.
Strengthening Financial Management at the Local Level
Harmonization of Local Body Accounts:
Standardizing accounting practices across Central, State, and local governments.
Immediate implementation in the top 100 cities to streamline financial reporting.
Use of Integrated Financial Management System (IFSM):
Onboarding local bodies to ensure efficient fund transfers.
Enhanced accountability and financial discipline in urban and rural governance.
Strategic Implications and Way Forward
Improved Fiscal Prudence: Strengthening reporting mechanisms and compliance frameworks.
Increased Revenue Mobilization: Leveraging technology for better tax collection and reducing leakages.
Local Governance Strengthening: Enhancing financial autonomy and transparency in local body operations.
Aligning with Long-Term Fiscal Goals: Ensuring that revenue growth aligns with developmental priorities without exacerbating fiscal deficits.
When debris from space crashes to the earth, who is responsible?
Defining Space Debris and Legal Ambiguities
Lack of universal legal definition: Space debris remains undefined in binding international treaties.
Common working definitions:
Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) and UN COPUOS define space debris as non-functional man-made objects in orbit or re-entering Earth’s atmosphere.
Legal classification challenge: Disputes hinge on whether debris qualifies as a “space object” under the 1972 Liability Convention.
Relevance : GS 3(Science)
International Legal Framework Governing Space Debris
Outer Space Treaty (1967) – Article VI:
States bear responsibility for all national space activities, including those conducted by private entities.
1972 Liability Convention:
Absolute liability applies to damage caused by space objects on Earth (no proof of negligence required).
Challenge: When debris is no longer under a state’s jurisdiction, enforcement becomes difficult.
Challenges in Enforcing Liability
Diplomatic settlements are slow and inadequate:
Example: Canada recovered only $3 million of the $6 million spent cleaning up after the Soviet Cosmos 954 satellite crash in 1978.
Attribution difficulties:
Advanced tracking helps identify some debris, but older and highly fragmented objects are difficult to trace.
Timeframe limitations:
Can a launching state still be liable decades later if a defunct satellite fragment causes damage?
Growing Risks of Uncontrolled Reentries
Increased space activity → Higher frequency of falling debris.
Major incidents:
Dec 2024, Kenya: 500 kg separation ring crashed.
July 2024, China: Long March 5B rocket stage uncontrolled reentry into the Pacific.
2022, Australia: SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule debris crash.
Case of SpaceX Falcon 9 in Poland (2024):
The FAA disclaimed responsibility once SpaceX lost control of the rocket.
Lack of binding rules: No penalties for uncontrolled reentries unless damage occurs.
Gaps in Governance and Accountability
No clear international enforcement mechanism for post-launch debris.
Most countries have voluntary compliance:
UN’s 25-year deorbit rule sees only 30% compliance.
Mega-constellations (Starlink, Kuiper, OneWeb) worsening the problem:
100,000+ satellites projected by 2030 → More debris accumulation & reentry risks.
What Needs to Change?
Mandatory international regulations for controlled reentries.
COPUOS must push for legally binding global agreements.
National-level policies:
Enforce debris mitigation as a condition for launch licenses.
Stronger tracking systems:
Expand systems like U.S. Space Fence to improve monitoring and debris attribution.
Sustainable space practices:
Incentivize reusable rockets and debris-neutral technologies.
Modernizing the 1972 Liability Convention:
Create an independent international tribunal with binding enforcement powers.
