Content
Viksit Bharat – Guarantee For Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill (VB-GRAM Bill)
Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025
One in Six People Exposed to Conflict Worldwide (ACLED Report, 2025)
Biosecurity in India: Risks, Preparedness, and the Need for a Unified Framework
Amicus Suggestions on Disabled Cadets Similar to DMA’s 2022 Plan
GRAP-IV in Delhi–NCR
Viksit Bharat – Guarantee For Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill (VB-GRAM Bill)
Why is this in News?
The Union Government is set to introduce the VB-GRAM Bill in the Lok Sabha to replace MGNREGA, 2005.
The Bill proposes a structural shift:
From demand-driven employment guarantee → supply-driven, budget-capped framework.
Strong Opposition objections on:
Dilution of legal right to work.
Increased State financial burden.
Removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name.
Centralisation of power via area notification by the Union.
Relevance
GS II:
Welfare schemes, rights-based vs executive-driven governance
Federalism, Centre–State fiscal relations
Decentralisation, role of Panchayati Raj Institutions
GS III:
Inclusive growth, rural employment, poverty alleviation
Public finance, fiscal discipline vs social protection
MGNREGA (2005): Core Basics
Legal right to employment under Article 21 (Right to livelihood – judicial interpretation).
Guarantees:
100 days of unskilled manual work per rural household per year.
Work on demand within 15 days, failing which unemployment allowance is payable.
Cost sharing:
Centre: ~90% (wages + material).
States: ~10% (mainly unemployment allowance).
Decentralised:
Gram Panchayat as principal planning and implementing authority.
Key objectives:
Livelihood security.
Creation of durable rural assets.
Strengthening grassroots democracy.
What is VB-GRAM Bill?
Replaces MGNREGA with a new employment and livelihood mission.
Key shifts:
Supply-driven scheme (no statutory demand guarantee).
Fixed annual budget cap decided by Union Government.
Employment only in Centre-notified rural areas.
Guaranteed workdays increased from 100 → 125 days.
State contribution raised to 40% of total expenditure.
Demand-Driven vs Supply-Driven: Conceptual Difference
Demand-Driven (MGNREGA)
Employment is a right, not discretion.
Fiscal outlay expands automatically with demand.
Strong shock absorber during:
Droughts.
Pandemic-like crises.
Agrarian distress.
Supply-Driven (VB-GRAM)
Employment limited by budget ceilings.
Government decides:
Where work is provided.
How much work is available.
Converts entitlement into welfare discretion.
Key Changes at a Glance
Aspect
MGNREGA
VB-GRAM Bill
Nature
Legal right
Welfare scheme
Workdays
100
125
Trigger
Worker demand
Govt allocation
Budget
Demand-responsive
Fixed, capped
Area coverage
All rural India
Centre-notified areas
State share
~10%
~40%
Federal tilt
Decentralised
Centralised
Constitutional & Federalism Concerns
Article 246 + Seventh Schedule:
Rural employment, agriculture, land → State List/Concurrent List orientation.
Increased State share:
Unfunded mandate.
Violates spirit of cooperative federalism.
Central notification of eligible areas:
Weakens Gram Sabha autonomy (Article 243).
Socio-Economic Implications
Positive Arguments (Government’s Likely Rationale)
Fiscal predictability and expenditure control.
Better targeting of backward regions.
Alignment with Viksit Bharat 2047 productivity narrative.
Shift from relief-oriented work to “livelihood mission”.
Negative Implications
Exclusion risk for distress-hit but non-notified areas.
Loss of automatic safety net during economic shocks.
Higher State burden may lead to:
Delays in wage payments.
Reduced work provision.
Weakens women’s participation (MGNREGA had ~55–60% women workers).
Potential rollback of poverty reduction gains:
MGNREGA contributed significantly to fall in rural poverty and distress migration.
Political Economy Dimension
Removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name:
Symbolic break from rights-based welfare architecture.
Shift reflects broader trend:
From rights-based legislations (RTI, MGNREGA, NFSA)
To executive-driven missions.
Raises question: Welfare state → Developmental state with fiscal discipline?
Governance & Accountability Issues
No clarity on:
“Parameters” for budget allocation.
Criteria for area notification.
Reduced legal enforceability:
No unemployment allowance guarantee.
Potential erosion of social audit effectiveness.
Way Forward
Retain statutory demand-based core, even with budget rationalisation.
Transparent, rule-based criteria for area notification.
Restore balanced Centre-State cost sharing.
Strong social audit and grievance redress mechanisms.
Parliamentary scrutiny via Standing Committee.
Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025
Why is this in News?
The Union Government has introduced the VBSA Bill, 2025 to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government has proposed referring the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) amid strong Opposition resistance.
Opposition alleges:
Executive overreach in higher education.
Erosion of federalism and institutional autonomy.
Imposition of Hindi through nomenclature.
Excessive regulatory and penalty powers.
Relevance
GS II:
Governance, regulatory institutions, executive accountability
Federalism (education in Concurrent List)
Parliamentary processes (JPC, legislative scrutiny)
GS I:
Education, linguistic diversity, cultural pluralism
UGC: Background and Role
Established under UGC Act, 1956.
Constitutional basis:
Entry 66, Union List – coordination and determination of standards in higher education.
Core functions:
Funding universities.
Setting minimum standards.
Recognition of institutions.
Criticism of UGC:
Over-centralisation.
One-size-fits-all regulation.
Slow approvals and compliance-heavy culture.
What is the VBSA Bill, 2025?
Proposes creation of Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) as a single, overarching regulator for higher education.
Aligns with NEP 2020 vision of regulatory overhaul and graded autonomy.
Seeks to subsume or replace existing regulatory architecture led by UGC.
Key Features of the VBSA Bill
Regulatory Restructuring
UGC replaced by VBSA with:
Expanded powers over recognition, compliance, penalties, and closure.
Stronger executive involvement in appointments and oversight.
Graded Autonomy Framework
Institutions categorised based on performance.
Autonomy linked to:
Accreditation scores.
Compliance history.
Critics argue autonomy is conditional, not inherent.
Compliance and Penalty Regime
Introduces:
Intrusive inspections.
Heavy financial penalties.
Powers to suspend or shut institutions.
Shift from facilitative regulation → command-and-control oversight.
Language and Nomenclature Issue
Naming the authority and Bill in Hindi.
Opposition from non-Hindi-speaking States:
Seen as cultural centralisation.
Contradicts linguistic pluralism under Articles 29–30.
Federalism Concerns
Education is in the Concurrent List (Entry 25).
VBSA centralises:
Regulatory power.
Norm-setting.
Enforcement mechanisms.
States fear:
Reduced say in higher education governance.
Marginalisation of State universities.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu objections reflect:
Long-standing Centre–State friction in education policy.
Executive Overreach: Core Criticism
Concentration of powers:
Rule-making.
Enforcement.
Penalisation.
Weak parliamentary or independent checks.
Undermines:
Institutional autonomy.
Academic freedom.
Risks politicisation of:
Curriculum.
Appointments.
Institutional functioning.
Implications for Higher Education
Potential Advantages
Uniform national standards.
Faster decision-making.
Alignment with global benchmarks.
Reduced multiplicity of regulators.
Serious Risks
Chilling effect on academic freedom.
Compliance burden on public universities.
Disproportionate impact on State-funded institutions.
Possible decline in diversity of pedagogical models.
Comparison: UGC vs VBSA
Aspect
UGC
VBSA (Proposed)
Nature
Statutory regulator
Statutory super-regulator
Autonomy
Limited but institutional
Conditional, performance-linked
Federal balance
Relatively accommodative
Strong central tilt
Penalty powers
Limited
Extensive, including closure
Language sensitivity
Neutral
Hindi-centric nomenclature
Why JPC Reference Matters
Allows:
Detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny.
Stakeholder consultations (States, universities, faculty).
Signals:
Political sensitivity.
Federal and cultural contestation.
However:
Final outcome still depends on government majority.
Constitutional & Governance Lens
Article 246 + Seventh Schedule: Balance between Centre and States.
Academic freedom as part of:
Article 19(1)(a) (judicial interpretation).
Risk of undermining university autonomy, a core democratic institution.
Way Forward
Clearly demarcate:
Standard-setting vs day-to-day regulation.
Independent appointments mechanism.
Strong appellate and grievance redress bodies.
Linguistically neutral nomenclature.
Formal role for States in regulatory councils.
One in Six People Exposed to Conflict Worldwide (ACLED Report, 2025)
Why is this in News?
ACLED (Armed Conflict Location and Event Data) released its 2025 global conflict assessment.
Key headline:
831 million people exposed to conflict in 2025.
Roughly one in six people globally.
Reveals:
Sharp rise in violent events.
Increasing state involvement in violence, including against civilians.
Changing nature of warfare, especially use of commercial drones by non-state actors.
Relevance
GS II:
International relations, global conflict trends
Role of UN, multilateralism, peacekeeping
GS III:
Internal security: non-state actors, emerging technologies in warfare
What is ACLED?
An independent, globally recognised conflict data collection and analysis organisation.
Tracks:
Political violence.
Armed conflict.
Protest events.
Used by:
UN agencies.
Governments.
Researchers and humanitarian organisations.
Key Global Findings (2025)
Scale of Conflict
~200,000 violent events recorded globally.
Nearly double compared to four years ago.
10% of global population exposed to conflict environments.
Nature of Contemporary Conflicts
1. Increased Violence, Reduced Restraint
Armed actors show:
Higher willingness to use force.
Disregard for civilian harm.
Reflects erosion of:
International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
Norms protecting non-combatants.
2. Rising Role of State Forces
74% of violent events involved state forces in 2025.
State-led violence against civilians:
Increased from 20% (2020) → 35% (2025).
Indicates:
Militarisation of internal conflicts.
Shrinking space for civilian protection.
Civilians at the Centre of Violence
56,000+ incidents of violence directed at civilians.
Highest in the last five years.
Two critical patterns:
States increasingly targeting civilians.
Non-state groups causing the majority of fatalities.
Region-wise Trends
Europe
Largest increase in violence globally.
Driven overwhelmingly by:
Russia–Ukraine war.
Highest number of people affected since 2022 invasion.
West Asia
48% decline in violent events compared to 2024.
Key reasons:
End of Syria’s civil war.
Ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon.
Reduced Israeli and Turkish air campaigns:
Led to 17% global drop in aerial warfare.
Africa
Continues to bear:
High civilian fatalities.
Complex multi-actor conflicts.
Sudan, DRC, Myanmar remain major hotspots.
State vs Non-State Actors: A Nuanced Picture
State Actors
Israel and Russia:
Responsible for ~90% of cross-border state violence targeting civilians.
Myanmar military:
Accounted for ~33% of state violence against its own civilians.
Non-State Armed Groups
Responsible for ~60% of civilian fatalities.
Major perpetrators:
Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Sudan:
4,200 civilians killed.
~11% of all non-state group fatalities globally.
Allied Democratic Forces (ADF):
≥1,370 civilian deaths.
M23 movement (DRC):
1,100 civilian deaths.
Numbers likely undercounted due to reporting gaps.
Technological Shift in Warfare
Weaponisation of Commercial Drones
469 non-state armed groups have used drones at least once in last five years.
14% increase over the previous year.
Significance:
Democratisation of military technology.
Low-cost, high-impact tools bypass traditional state monopoly on force.
Raises challenges for:
Airspace control.
Counter-terrorism.
Civilian safety.
Broader Implications
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Rising civilian targeting signals:
Weak enforcement of Geneva Conventions.
Normalisation of civilian harm.
Global Security
Conflicts are:
More frequent.
More lethal.
More fragmented.
Multi-actor conflicts harder to resolve diplomatically.
Humanitarian Impact
Increased displacement.
Food insecurity.
Collapse of health and education systems in conflict zones.
India and Global Governance Lens
Reinforces need for:
Stronger multilateral conflict prevention.
UN Security Council reform.
Regulation of emerging military technologies (drones, AI).
Relevant for India’s role in:
UN peacekeeping.
Global South diplomacy.
Norm-building on warfare ethics.
Biosecurity in India: Risks, Preparedness, and the Need for a Unified Framework
Why is this in News?
Renewed policy focus following expert commentary highlighting:
Gaps in India’s biosecurity preparedness.
Absence of a unified national biosecurity framework.
Concerns amplified by:
Rapid advances in biotechnology.
Rising role of non-state actors.
India’s low response capacity score on the Global Health Security Index (GHSI) (Rank: 66).
Relevance
GS II:
Governance, institutional coordination, national security architecture
GS III:
Internal security, disaster management, science & technology
Health security, bioterrorism, dual-use technologies
What is Biosecurity?
Biosecurity:
Set of practices, policies, and systems to prevent intentional misuse of:
Biological agents.
Toxins.
Biotechnology.
Covers:
Laboratory security.
Surveillance and early detection.
Containment of deliberate outbreaks.
Protection of human, animal, and plant health.
Biosecurity vs Biosafety:
Biosafety: Prevents accidental release of pathogens.
Biosecurity: Prevents deliberate misuse.
Strong biosafety protocols are a prerequisite for biosecurity.
Global Context: Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)
Adopted in 1975.
First treaty to:
Prohibit development, production, stockpiling of biological weapons.
Mandate destruction of existing stockpiles.
India:
A signatory to the BWC.
Participates in export-control regimes like the Australia Group.
Why Does India Need Robust Biosecurity?
Structural Vulnerabilities
Geography:
Porous borders → cross-border bio-risks.
Ecology:
Biodiversity-rich zones vulnerable to zoonotic spillovers.
Demography:
High population density → rapid transmission potential.
Economy:
Heavy dependence on agriculture and livestock.
Emerging Threat Landscape
Non-state actors exploring biological tools:
Example: Alleged preparation of Ricin toxin for terror use.
Rapid spread of new-age biotechnologies:
Gene editing.
Synthetic biology.
Lower entry barriers:
Dual-use research increasingly accessible.
India’s Existing Biosecurity Architecture
Legal Framework
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Governs hazardous microorganisms and GMOs.
Biosafety Rules, 1989
2017 Guidelines
Recombinant DNA research.
Biocontainment standards.
WMD Act, 2005
Criminalises biological weapons and delivery systems.
Institutional Mechanisms
Department of Biotechnology (DBT):
Research governance and lab safety.
National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC):
Outbreak surveillance and response.
Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying:
Livestock biosecurity, transboundary animal diseases.
Plant Quarantine Organisation of India:
Agricultural import-export regulation.
National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA):
Guidelines on biological disaster management.
Key Gaps in India’s Biosecurity System
Fragmentation
Multiple agencies with overlapping mandates.
Lack of:
Central coordination.
Unified command during bio-emergencies.
Capability Deficits
GHSI Ranking: 66
Detection score: Improved.
Response capacity: Declined.
Indicates:
Surveillance without commensurate response readiness.
Inadequate surge capacity.
Governance Gaps
No dedicated National Biosecurity Policy or Authority.
Limited integration of:
Health.
Agriculture.
Defence.
Internal security.
Risks Ahead if Gaps Persist
High-impact, low-probability events:
Bioterror attacks.
Engineered pandemics.
Massive human cost:
Lives of billions potentially at risk.
Economic consequences:
Food security shocks.
Supply-chain disruptions.
Strategic vulnerability:
Biosecurity as a national security issue, not just public health.
Way Forward: Building a National Biosecurity Framework
Core Elements Needed
Unified National Biosecurity Strategy:
Clear roles and responsibilities.
Central Coordinating Authority:
Inter-ministerial integration.
Capability Mapping:
Identify lab, surveillance, response gaps.
Regulation of Dual-Use Research:
Ethical oversight.
Capacity Building:
Skilled workforce.
Rapid response units.
International Cooperation:
Intelligence-sharing.
Norm-setting on emerging biotechnologies.
Amicus Suggestions on Disabled Cadets Similar to DMA’s 2022 Plan
Why is this in News?
The Supreme Court, in a case concerning medically discharged officer cadets, received amicus curiae recommendations.
The amicus suggested adopting provisions similar to the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) 2022 proposal.
The issue highlights:
Disability rights in armed forces.
Gaps between policy intent and implementation.
Constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
Relevance
GS II:
Welfare of armed forces, role of judiciary
Executive accountability and policy implementation
GS I:
Disability issues, social justice
Who are Medically Discharged Cadets?
Officer cadets discharged due to:
Injuries or disabilities attributable to or aggravated by military training.
Many are released before commissioning, leading to:
Denial of pensions and post-service benefits.
Unequal treatment compared to commissioned officers.
Legal & Constitutional Background
Constitutional Provisions
Article 14: Equality before law.
Article 21: Right to life with dignity.
Article 33: Permits restrictions on armed forces, but not arbitrary discrimination.
Statutory Framework
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act):
Recognises service-related disability.
Mandates non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation.
Judicial trend:
Courts have repeatedly held that training-related injuries are service-related.
What Did the DMA Propose in 2022?
A comprehensive welfare package for disabled officer cadets, including:
Statutory disability pension with parity:
Same benefits as commissioned officers.
Broad-banding of disability percentage:
Prevents denial due to marginal assessment differences.
Family pension provisions.
Healthcare coverage:
Access to Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS).
Rehabilitation support:
Prosthetics.
Physiotherapy.
Mental health care.
Resettlement assistance:
Skill development and alternative employment.
Status:
Proposal approved by Service Headquarters.
Yet to be implemented by the government.
Amicus Curiae’s Key Suggestions
Implement DMA 2022 plan in toto for disabled cadets.
Extend statutory disability pension even if discharge occurs pre-commission.
Apply broad-banding to ensure parity and fairness.
Ensure continuity of medical and rehabilitation support.
Avoid ad hoc, case-by-case relief; adopt a uniform policy.
Core Issues Highlighted
Arbitrary Classification
Cadets injured:
Before commissioning → denied benefits.
After commissioning → eligible.
Violates reasonable classification test under Article 14.
Gap Between Policy and Practice
DMA framework exists.
Non-implementation reflects:
Bureaucratic inertia.
Weak accountability mechanisms.
Dignity and Moral Obligation
Cadets injured while preparing to serve the nation.
Denial of support undermines:
State’s duty of care.
Military morale and ethical governance.
Broader Implications
Military Human Resource Management
Discourages talented youth from joining armed forces.
Weakens trust in institutional fairness.
Disability Rights Discourse
Tests inclusivity within uniformed services.
Aligns with India’s commitments under:
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
Civil-Military Relations
Welfare of soldiers and cadets central to:
Democratic oversight.
Professional armed forces.
Way Forward
Immediate implementation of DMA 2022 proposal.
Statutory backing to avoid executive discretion.
Time-bound decision-making in disability assessment.
Independent medical boards with transparency.
Harmonisation with RPwD Act, 2016.
GRAP-IV in Delhi–NCR
Why is this in News?
On 13 December 2025, air quality in Delhi–NCR deteriorated to ‘Severe+’ levels.
Daily average AQI crossed 450, prompting authorities to invoke GRAP-IV, the strictest stage of India’s air-pollution emergency framework.
Decision taken by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) following an emergency meeting, citing:
Rising AQI trend.
Unfavourable meteorological conditions (low wind speed, temperature inversion).
Relevance
GS III (Environment & Disaster Management)
Air pollution and urban environmental challenges
Public health emergencies due to environmental degradation
Disaster management: response to severe air-quality events
Sustainable urban development
What is GRAP?
GRAP – Graded Response Action Plan:
A pre-defined, stage-wise emergency response framework to tackle air pollution in Delhi–NCR.
Approved by the Supreme Court in 2016 (MC Mehta case).
Statutory backing:
Implemented and enforced by CAQM under the CAQM Act, 2021.
Objective:
Move from ad-hoc bans → predictable, rule-based escalation of actions as pollution worsens.
GRAP Stages and AQI Thresholds
GRAP Stage
AQI Range
Air Quality Category
GRAP-I
201–300
Poor
GRAP-II
301–400
Very Poor
GRAP-III
401–450
Severe
GRAP-IV
>450
Severe+ / Hazardous
What is GRAP-IV?
Emergency pollution control stage activated when:
AQI exceeds 450.
Reflects conditions posing serious health risks, even to healthy individuals.
Focus:
Immediate reduction of pollution sources, regardless of economic disruption.
Measures Enforced Under GRAP-IV
Transport Restrictions
Ban on entry of BS-IV trucks into Delhi.
Exceptions:
Vehicles carrying essential commodities.
Emergency services.
Construction and Infrastructure
Complete ban on:
Construction and demolition (C&D) activities.
Highways, roads, flyovers, overbridges.
Power transmission, pipelines, telecom infrastructure.
Rationale:
C&D dust is a major PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ contributor.
Educational Institutions
Hybrid mode for:
Classes VI–IX and XI.
Objective:
Reduce exposure of children to toxic air.
Lower transport-related emissions.
Offices and Workplaces
50% capacity rule for:
Public, municipal, and private offices.
Remaining staff:
Work From Home (WFH).
Aim:
Curtail vehicular movement and congestion.
Institutional Framework Behind GRAP
Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM)
Statutory body (2021).
Jurisdiction:
Delhi + NCR states (Haryana, UP, Rajasthan).
Powers:
Issue binding directions.
Override State government actions if required.
Addresses:
Fragmentation in air-quality governance.
Why Does Delhi–NCR Repeatedly Enter GRAP-IV?
Structural Causes
Geography & meteorology:
Landlocked region.
Winter temperature inversion.
Emission sources:
Vehicular emissions.
Construction dust.
Biomass and waste burning.
Industrial emissions.
Seasonal factors:
Crop residue burning (October–November).
Low wind speeds in winter.
Critical Evaluation of GRAP-IV
Strengths
Rule-based, predictable response.
Judicial backing ensures compliance.
Region-wide coordination via CAQM.
Immediate health protection focus.
Limitations
Reactive, not preventive:
Triggered after pollution becomes hazardous.
High economic and social cost:
Construction halt.
Disrupted livelihoods.
Weak enforcement at local levels.
Does not address year-round emission sources.
GRAP-IV vs Long-Term Air Pollution Control
Aspect
GRAP-IV
Long-Term Measures
Nature
Emergency response
Structural reform
Time horizon
Short-term
Continuous
Focus
Source suppression
Emission reduction
Examples
Bans, WFH, closures
Clean energy, transport reform, urban planning
Way Forward
Short-Term
Better forecasting and early activation of lower GRAP stages.
Strict enforcement of dust-control norms year-round.
Medium to Long-Term
Shift from seasonal firefighting to:
Clean transport transition.
Industrial emission standards.
Waste management reforms.
Strengthen airshed-based governance beyond NCR.
Integrate GRAP with:
National Clean Air Programme (NCAP).
State-level clean air action plans.