Content :
How is global shipping trying to decarbonise?
The need to protect India’s linguistic secularism
How vulnerable are Delhi citizens to cybercrime?
Govt. data show fall in women at work in rural, urban areas
97% ‘untouchability’ cases pending in courts: govt. report
Searching for extraterrestrial life means asking the right questions first
How is global shipping trying to decarbonise?
Global Context: Decarbonising Shipping
IMO Target: Net-zero emissions from global shipping by 2050.
Current fuels: VLSFO, diesel, LNG.
Transition fuels: LNG (↑ 5% efficiency).
Final green fuels: Green methanol, ammonia, biofuels.
Relevance : GS 3(Infrastructure , Environment and Ecology)
Green Fuels: Production & Properties
Green Hydrogen: Via electrolysis of water using renewable power.
Green Ammonia: From hydrogen + nitrogen; more stable than H₂.
Green Methanol: From green hydrogen + captured industrial CO₂.
Fuel Preferences & Industry Trends
Shipping industry is technology-conservative.
First phase: Methanol (10% CO₂ emissions of VLSFO); easier integration.
Next phase: Ammonia (zero GHG) but complex onboard processes.
Over 360 methanol-ready ships are in operation/order.
Leaders: Maersk, CMA CGM, Evergreen.
Financial Viability & Price Gap
E-methanol cost (Feb 2024): $1,950/tonne vs. VLSFO $560/tonne.
Cost drivers: Renewable power (10–11 MWh/tonne) + electrolyser capex.
Projected demand by 2028: 14 million tonnes vs. supply of 11 million tonnes → price pressures.
India’s Strategic Leverage
Solar capacity: 2.82 GW (2014) → 105 GW (2025).
Electrolyser PLI scheme + 1.5 GW local capacity by GoI.
India has land, sunlight, and industrial CO₂ sources → ideal for green fuel hubs.
Tuticorin & Kandla: Green fuel bunkering ports under development.
Policy & Institutional Support
$10 billion fund to acquire 110 ships — 10–20% to be green-fuel-capable, Indian-flagged, Indian-built.
De-risking via sovereign guarantees → ↓ capital costs, ↑ global financing.
Production-Linked Incentives (PLIs): For electrolysers to localise green hydrogen value chain.
CCUS incentives: To scale green methanol via industrial CO₂ capture.
Shipbuilding Revival & Geoeconomic Potential
Demand-side incentives for domestic shipbuilding.
Tie-ups with South Korea, Japan for tech & retrofitting support.
Goal: Restart Indian ship-owning and build green-capable vessels at scale.
Export Potential & Global Integration
Singapore: Global bunkering hub (¼ of global marine fuel) needs large-scale green fuel imports.
India’s goal: Become green fuel supplier to Singapore and global ports.
Challenges
Dependence on imported solar panels & electrolysers.
High initial green fuel costs.
Need for scale, global tie-ups, and strong policy alignment.
Conclusion
India stands at a pivotal moment to lead the global green shipping revolution by leveraging its solar dominance, industrial base, and policy innovation. By converting its maritime aspirations into a clean energy leadership model, India can decarbonise transport, boost shipbuilding, and gain strategic geoeconomic leverage in a low-carbon future.
The need to protect India’s linguistic secularism
India’s Linguistic Diversity: Facts First
2011 Census:
121 languages, 270 mother tongues.
96.71% of the population speaks one of the 22 scheduled languages.
99 languages not included in the Eighth Schedule.
Relevance : GS 1(Indian Society ) , GS 2(Polity and Constitution )
Constitutional Safeguards
Article 29: Right to conserve distinct language, script, or culture for any section of Indian citizens, including minorities.
Article 343: Hindi (Devanagari script) is the official language of the Union, not the national language.
Eighth Schedule: Protects 22 languages; promotes linguistic pluralism under state policy.
Unique Model of Indian Secularism
Western secularism = state–religion separation.
Indian secularism = state neutrality + affirmative protection for religious and linguistic diversity.
State is not pro-religion/language, but empowered to act against communalism, including linguistic chauvinism.
Emerging Threats to Linguistic Harmony
Resistance to Hindi imposition:
Historic in Tamil Nadu (Dravidian movement).
Seen in many Southern and Northeastern states.
Recent incidents in Maharashtra: Violence against non-Marathi speakers = manifestation of linguistic identity politics.
Why Linguistic Tolerance Matters
Language and religion: Both cultural markers and sources of exclusion.
Conservative assertions of language = risk of fragmentation, damaging national unity.
India’s unity in diversity relies on liberality and tolerance across linguistic lines.
Role of Political Leadership
Political parties must prevent linguistic polarisation.
Must uphold constitutional morality over regional chauvinism.
Language-based discrimination contradicts the spirit of federalism and violates constitutional values.
Globalisation vs Identity Assertion
In an interconnected world, rigid linguistic nationalism can isolate communities.
Need to promote multilingualism, not majoritarian language dominance.
Conclusion
India’s linguistic secularism is foundational to its democracy. Protecting every language — big or small — equally is not merely a cultural concern but a constitutional necessity. As India moves forward, it must uphold inclusive federalism and safeguard its plural linguistic heritage against rising linguistic nationalism.
How vulnerable are Delhi citizens to cybercrime?
Context and Scale
Delhi cybercrime losses (2024): Over ₹700 crore — highest among Indian cities.
Despite rising digital adoption (banking, UPI, social media), institutional response lags.
IT Act, 2000 provision: Only Inspectors or above can investigate cybercrimes — but most cyber police stations lack such officers.
Relevance : GS 3(Cyber Security)
Public Awareness: High but Uneven
93% aware of cybercrime reporting possibility.
Awareness of common scams:
OTP scams, reward frauds, fake banking calls: >90%
‘Digital arrest’ scams: Only 61% aware (emerging threat).
Gaps in reporting literacy:
Only 42% aware of helpline 1930
Just 25% aware of cyber police stations
30% know about the cybercrime.gov.in portal
Government Initiatives: Mixed Perception
72% recalled mass messages & calls as awareness campaigns.
Only 19% aware of Cyber Swachhta Kendra.
Perception of effectiveness:
Only 16% rated govt response as “very effective”
55% said “somewhat effective”, and 24% saw it as inadequate
Citizen Practices & Digital Divide
Common preventive actions:
Avoid suspicious links (87%)
Download trusted apps (85%)
Use strong passwords (79%)
Advanced measures lag:
Regular password changes: 50%
Antivirus use: 50%
Income-wise digital safety gap:
Antivirus: High-income 73% vs. Low-income 20%
Two-factor authentication: High-income 75% vs. Low-income 31%
Confidence in Protection
Overall belief in precautions: 80% trust them to a “great or some extent”
Confidence levels vary by income:
High-income: 89% confident
Low-income: 61% confident
Reporting Behaviour: Worryingly Low
Cybercrime awareness: 96% have heard of online scams.
Sources of awareness:
Social media (38%), media (37%), friends/family (36%)
Banks: Only 8%
Only 21% of victims formally reported incidents.
Why not? Mistrust, unawareness, or procedural complexity.
Reporting channels used:
Local police (29%), cyber cells (26%), banks (24%)
Website (20%), helpline 1930 (15%)
Redressal & Recovery: Institutional Apathy
Perception of recovery:
48% believe money once lost is gone
Only 33% hopeful of recovery
Actual recovery (among victims):
70% recovered nothing
17% full recovery, 6% partial
Complaint Process Experience
Ease of filing complaints:
35%: “Very easy”
24%: “Somewhat easy”
37% found it difficult
Satisfaction with institutional support:
Only 27% satisfied
48% fully dissatisfied
Satisfaction lower in low-income groups
Nature of Cybercrime Impact
Financial loss:
27% lost ₹10,001–₹50,000
14% lost over ₹50,000
Mental stress: Reported by 26%
Trust in Digital Ecosystem
High trust in digital payment apps despite institutional weaknesses.
Preferred government action:
40% prioritised awareness campaigns over technical/legal fixes.
Policy Way Forward
Institutional reforms:
Adequate staffing of cyber police stations
Decentralised grievance redressal with trained officers
Digital equity: Targeted digital literacy for low-income & elderly groups
Recovery framework: Mandate banks/platforms to aid fund recovery
Awareness scale-up: Focus on helplines, real-time alerts, and multilingual campaigns
Behavioral nudges: Gamified learning on scams in schools & apps
Govt. data show fall in women at work in rural, urban areas
Unemployment Rate: Flatlining
Overall unemployment rate (15+ age group): 5.6% in both May and June 2025.
Male unemployment (15+ years): No change at 5.6%.
Female unemployment: Slight improvement from 5.7% → 5.6%.
Relevance : GS 1(Society ) ,GS 2(Social Justice)
Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR): Declining
Total LFPR (15+ years):
June 2025: 54.2%
May 2025: 54.8%
Rural LFPR: 56.1% (↓)
Urban LFPR: 50.4% (↓)
Factors cited:
Seasonal agricultural slowdown
Extreme summer heat affecting physical work
Shift of unpaid helpers, especially rural women, to domestic chores
Women’s Workforce Participation: Falling Sharply
Rural female LFPR (15+ years):
June: 35.2%
May: 36.9%
April: 38.2%
Urban female LFPR (15+ years):
June: 25.0%
May: 25.3%
All-age female LFPR (rural + urban):
June: 24.5%
May: 25.5%
Indicates a consistent and concerning decline in women’s labour participation.
Sectoral Insights: Agriculture and Gender
Rural women in agriculture:
June: 69.8%
May: 70.2%
Shows slight withdrawal from farm-based work, possibly due to:
Reduced inflation-driven household need
Seasonal decline in demand for female labour
Worker-Population Ratio (WPR): Not Explicitly Released
But inferred decline in WPR parallels LFPR drop.
Suggests fewer working-age individuals actually engaged in work.
Broader Implications
Employment recovery plateauing after post-COVID rebound.
Female LFPR trend highlights deep structural and patriarchal constraints in India’s labour market.
Climate and seasonality-sensitive jobs make informal/rural workers more vulnerable.
Unpaid domestic and care work continues to limit formal workforce inclusion, especially for women.
Policy Way Forward
Enhance gender-responsive public employment: Expand MGNREGA and urban jobs schemes.
Invest in care infrastructure: Reduce unpaid domestic burden on women.
Skill development: Especially for climate-resilient jobs and digital economy.
Improve labour data granularity: Disaggregate by caste, age, and region for targeted policies.
Address seasonal distress: Timely agricultural interventions and alternate livelihood generation.
Conclusion
The static unemployment rate masks deeper vulnerabilities, especially among women and rural populations. Declining LFPR is a bigger concern than open unemployment — it reflects economic distress, social barriers, and invisible work. A shift from job-counting to quality and inclusion-focused employment policies is the need of the hour.
97% ‘untouchability’ cases pending in courts: govt. report
Background: Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
Enacted to abolish and penalise practices of untouchability.
Covers social and religious discrimination (e.g., denial of access to public places, temples, water sources).
Mandates annual implementation reports by the Union govt based on State/UT inputs.
Relevance : GS 2(Social Issues ,Judiciary)
Dismal Trends in Case Registration
Only 13 cases registered nationwide under PCR Act in 2022:
Down from 24 (2021) and 25 (2020).
States: J&K (5), Karnataka (5), Maharashtra (2), Himachal Pradesh (1).
Reflects severe under-reporting and poor utilisation of the Act.
Alarming Judicial Pendency and Acquittal Rate
Total pending trial cases (2022): 1,242 under the PCR Act.
Cases disposed (2022): 31
Convictions: 1
Acquittals: 30
From 2019–2021: All 37 cases disposed ended in acquittals.
Pendency Rate: Over 97%.
Indicates ineffectiveness in prosecution, possible systemic bias, or weak case-building.
Policing and Prosecution Gaps
51 cases were under investigation in 2022 (including past years).
Chargesheets filed: Only in 12 cases.
No State/UT declared any area as “untouchability-prone” — despite ground-level reports of caste-based exclusions in water access, temples, dining, etc.
Absence of special courts or dedicated police units in most States despite mandate.
Contrast with SC/ST Atrocities Act (1989)
Steady rise in cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Indicates that while atrocity reporting is increasing under newer legal frameworks, older laws like the PCR Act are being sidelined or underutilised.
Structural & Legal Challenges
Outdated definitions in the PCR Act may limit relevance.
Overlaps with the PoA Act but lacks stronger provisions (e.g., witness protection, relief, special courts).
Implementation hurdles:
Lack of awareness among officials and citizens.
Weak monitoring by District Vigilance Committees.
Social stigma discourages reporting.
The Way Forward
Review and update the PCR Act for present-day contexts.
Integrate with digital grievance redressal and monitoring platforms.
Capacity-building of police and judiciary to sensitively handle untouchability-related cases.
Promote community-based monitoring and Dalit rights literacy.
Ensure funding and autonomy for Special Courts and public prosecutors.
Searching for extraterrestrial life means asking the right questions first
Context & Recent Development
Since the 1990s, over 5,000 exoplanets (planets outside the solar system) have been discovered.
Despite technological progress, no direct evidence of extraterrestrial life has been found.
A new study (2025) by researchers at ETH Zurich, published in The Astronomical Journal, reframes null findings as scientifically valuable.
Relevance : GS 3(Science and Technology)
Key Finding: “Absence of Evidence ≠ Evidence of Absence”
Bayesian Analysis used to assess how probable life is, even when no signs are detected.
Suggests that null results (no detection) still provide statistical insight into the rarity or commonality of life.
Simulated Findings from the Study
Researchers simulated observation of 100 exoplanets:
If life exists on 10–20% of planets, it is plausible to find no evidence in a sample of 40–80.
But if life is more common, some positive signs should appear in that sample.
Thus, the absence of detection can help define an upper limit on life’s prevalence.
The Core Argument: Better Questions, Not Just Better Telescopes
Current searches often ask: “Does this planet have life?” → prone to false positives/negatives.
Better question: “Does this planet show signs like water vapour, oxygen, methane, at detectable levels?”
This shift improves:
Scientific precision
Observational efficiency
Interpretation clarity
Technological Outlook: Next-Gen Missions
Upcoming missions like:
LIFE (Large Interferometer for Exoplanets)
HWO (Habitable Worlds Observatory)
Aim: Study dozens of Earth-like planets for biosignatures (water, oxygen, methane, etc.).
Angerhausen: These may mark the first systematic search for life in human history.
Uncertainty in Observation: Acknowledging Limitations
Every observation has uncertainty:
False negatives (e.g., biosphere too small to alter atmosphere)
Detection limits of instruments
Implication: Even with large telescopes, ambiguous signals can mislead unless guided by clear hypotheses.
Broader Significance for Science and Policy
Reinforces need for:
Interdisciplinary frameworks — physics, biology, planetary science.
Global cooperation on data interpretation and space science missions.
Raises ethical and philosophical questions on how humanity prepares for potential discovery of alien life.
Conclusion: A Shift in Scientific Mindset
The study signals a paradigm shift — from chasing definitive proof to building probabilistic knowledge frameworks.
Strategic takeaway: Clarity of questions is more important than the quantity of observations in the search for life.
Future efforts must blend technological innovation with theoretical refinement for effective results.
