Content
Telangana likely to get five more Geographical Indication (GI) tags soon
Why manufacturing has lagged in India
What is the Bureau of Port Security and its role?
Did an ancient flood contribute to Keezhadi’s abandonment?
ISRO rocket LVM-3 places 6000-kg US satellite — its heaviest — into orbit
Only 1 in 4 marginal farmers in India linked to cooperatives, report finds
Large share of India’s PM2.5 not emitted directly, but chemically formed in the atmosphere: CREA Study
Telangana likely to get five more Geographical Indication (GI) tags soon
Why is it in news?
Telangana is close to securing five new Geographical Indication (GI) tags — Narayanpet jewellery making, Hyderabad pearls, Banjara tribal jewellery, Banjara needle craft, and Batik paintings — after completion of field studies and documentation.
Additional GI applications are pending for Armoor turmeric, Nalgonda chitti dosakai, Kollapur Benishan mango, Mahadevpur tussar silk, Jagtial sesame, and Nayakpod masks.
In the last two years, the State obtained two new GI tags — Hyderabad lac bangles (2024) and Warangal chapata chilli (2025) — taking the total to 18 GI-tagged products.
Relevance
GS-III: Economy — Inclusive Growth, MSMEs, Rural Development
GI-linked value addition, craft-cluster livelihoods, FPO linkages, women-led enterprises
GS-I: Indian Culture & Heritage
Protection of traditional crafts, tribal art, cultural identity
Telangana GI Ecosystem
Total GI-tagged products (current): 18
Includes: Pochampally Ikat, Adilabad Dokra, Warangal Durries, Hyderabad Haleem, etc.
GI Authority: Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai (under DPIIT).
Legal Basis: Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
Ownership & Value Effects
Protects place-linked identity & brand premium
Ensures exclusive usage rights to local producers
Enables authentication & traceability
Economic Linkages
GI clusters typically show
Price premium: 10–30% (avg. Indian handicrafts/food GIs)
Higher rural employment multipliers in craft-based economies
Cultural Impact
Safeguards intangible heritage, artisanal skills, tribal crafts
Strengthens community identity & transmission of traditional knowledge
Sectoral Significance of the Proposed GI Tags
Banjara crafts (jewellery + needlework) → protects tribal livelihood chains, encourages women-led craft enterprises.
Hyderabad pearls → reinforces historic trade heritage, boosts export-tourism branding.
Narayanpet jewellery making → formal recognition to regional artisanal metalwork traditions.
Batik paintings → strengthens handloom-art crossover markets and design innovation.
Takeaways
GI = place-specific, collective intellectual property (not individual trademark).
Registered under DPIIT; validity: 10 years; renewable.
Pre-eminent Telangana GIs: Pochampally Ikat, Adilabad Dokra, Warangal Durries, Hyderabad Haleem.
Recent additions: Hyderabad lac bangles (2024), Warangal chapata chilli (2025).
Upcoming pipeline: Armoor turmeric, Kollapur Benishan mango, Mahadevpur tussar silk, etc.
Why manufacturing has lagged in India ?
Why is it in news?
A recent discussion on A Sixth of Humanity by economist Arvind Subramanian revisits why India has lagged behind China and South Korea in industrialisation despite comparable starting points.
The argument applies the ‘Dutch Disease’ framework to India — suggesting that high public-sector wages distorted labour markets, pulled workers away from manufacturing, raised domestic prices, appreciated the real exchange rate, and weakened manufacturing competitiveness.
The debate reopens larger questions on technological upgradation, wage dynamics, inequality, and structural transformation in India’s growth model.
Relevance
GS-III: Economy — Growth, Structural Transformation, Employment
Manufacturing stagnation, wage–productivity dynamics, inequality
GS-III: Industry & Infrastructure / Industrial Policy
Technology adoption, export orientation, PLI, R&D ecosystem
Key Facts & Data
Manufacturing share in GDP
India: broadly 15–17% for three decades, declining recently relative to services
China: rose from ~25% (1990s) to 28–30%+ during industrial boom
South Korea: sustained 25–27% during export-led industrialisation
Employment structure
India: manufacturing employs ~11–12% of workforce; large informal share
China/South Korea: manufacturing central to productivity & wage gains
Wage dynamics in India
Entry-level IT wages stagnant since early 2000s (real terms barely improved)
Platform firms (Swiggy, Zomato, Ola, Blinkit) rely on labour-intensive, low-productivity models rather than technology-deepening
Inequality signal
Top-end wealth and corporate profits grew faster than median wage/productivity, indicating lop-sided growth.
Dutch Disease
Originally used to study Netherlands’ 1959 Groningen gas discovery.
Mechanism:
Resource boom → higher wages & capital shift into booming sector
Currency appreciation / price rise → imports cheaper, exports costlier
Manufacturing becomes uncompetitive → stagnation or decline
Extension to India (policy variant):
Expansion of high-wage government sector → manufacturing cannot match wages at existing productivity
Higher incomes raise domestic prices → real exchange-rate appreciation even without nominal rupee change
Demand tilts toward cheaper imports, hurting local manufacturing.
Critical Interpretation of the Argument
Strengths of the hypothesis
Explains factor-market distortion: skilled labour moves to safer, better-paid government jobs
Clarifies link between wages, prices, competitiveness, and structural transformation
Limitations
Classic Dutch-disease arises from natural-resource windfalls, not deliberate wage policy
Ignores why firms did not upgrade technology over time to sustain higher wages
Public sector wages may be symptom, not core cause, of weak industrial policy and ecosystem gaps.
Technology & Wage Question
Induced-innovation theory (Habakkuk, Allen, Acemoglu)
High wages → firms invest in automation, capital-biased technology → productivity & wage growth
Seen in Germany, Japan, South Korea with labour scarcity
India’s contrast
Large labour reserves reduced incentive to automate
Manufacturing became labour-absorbing but low-productivity, limiting wage growth
Services growth did not diffuse productivity economy-wide.
Structural Bottlenecks Beyond Wages
Shallow export orientation vs. East Asian export discipline
Weak firm size-upgrading (missing middle; dominance of micro-units)
Patchy industrial policy and cluster-level support
Low R&D intensity and technology adoption
Logistics, power, and compliance frictions historically higher than peers.
Policy Implications
Shift from labour-abundance reliance to technology-deep manufacturing
Strengthen export-linked manufacturing clusters and scale-up pathways
Invest in skills, automation readiness, design & R&D
Reform wage-productivity linkages: raise productivity alongside wages, not suppress wages
Leverage PLIs, supply-chain localisation, semiconductors, electronics, green manufacturing with stronger technology absorption.
What is the Bureau of Port Security and its role?
Why is it in news?
The Centre has constituted the Bureau of Port Security (BoPS) as a statutory body under Section 13 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 to strengthen port and coastal security amid rising maritime, smuggling, piracy, and cybersecurity threats.
The move coincides with major reforms in India’s maritime governance — including the Indian Ports Act, 2025, Coastal Shipping Act, 2025, and Modernised Merchant Shipping Legislation, 2025 — aimed at modernising port regulation, improving security oversight, and supporting trade efficiency.
Relevance
GS-III: Internal Security & Infrastructure
Port security architecture, cyber-maritime threats, anti-smuggling, trafficking control
GS-II: Federalism & Regulation
Centre–State powers, regulation of non-major ports, governance reforms
What is the Bureau of Port Security (BoPS) and what is its role?
Institutional design
Statutory body under the Ministry of Ports, Shipping & Waterways
Modelled on the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS)
Legal mandate to enforce International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code and global security standards
Core functions
Single-point regulatory oversight & coordination across ports and ships
Standardised security audits, risk assessments, certification & compliance
CISF designated as Recognised Security Organisation (RSO) → prepares security plans, trains private & State port agencies
Graded security implementation across major and non-major ports
Cyber & intelligence role
Dedicated division for cybersecurity of port IT/OT systems
Collection & exchange of security intelligence; coordination with national cyber agencies
Scope of threat coverage
Maritime terrorism, smuggling (arms/drugs), human trafficking, illegal migration, poaching, piracy
Digital intrusions & cyber-sabotage in port operations
What challenges in coastal and port security does India face, and how will BoPS address them?
Multi-agency fragmentation
Roles split across Coast Guard, Navy, CISF, State Marine Police, Customs, Port Authorities → gaps in coordination
Non-uniform standards
Varied security protocols across major vs. non-major ports
Rising maritime-crime footprint
Increased drug & arms smuggling via sea routes, illegal migration, and grey-zone activities
Cyber-vulnerability
Growing digitisation of ports → exposure to ransomware, data breaches, navigation system tampering
Trade scale-risk mismatch
Rapid growth in cargo & port capacity outpacing legacy security frameworks
How BoPS mitigates these ?
Unifies command & oversight → reduces duplication and response delays
Standardises security architecture across all ports via CISF-led plans
Integrates intelligence & cyber defence within port systems
Ensures continuous compliance with ISPS & international benchmarks
Creates nationwide port-security ecosystem supporting trade + safety together
Key Legislative Reforms (2025)
Indian Ports Act, 2025 → replaces 1908 Act
Modernises regulation, safety, environmental norms, port conservancy
Aims to improve ease of doing business & sustainability
Coastal Shipping Act, 2025
Simplifies licensing, boosts domestic coastal trade & Indian-flagged vessels
Modernised Merchant Shipping Legislation, 2025
Aligns India with global maritime safety & operational standards
BoPS Act / provisions (2025)
Establishes statutory port-security regulator
Maritime Growth — Data Signals
Cargo handled: ↑ from 974 MMT (2014) → 1,594 MMT (2025)
Port capacity: ↑ 57% (last decade)
Ship turnaround time: ↓ to ~48 hours (≈ global benchmarks)
Coastal shipping volumes: ↑ 118%
Inland waterways cargo: ↑ from 18.1 MMT (2014) → 145.5 MMT (2025) (≈ 8x rise)
Global recognition: 9 Indian ports in World Bank Container Port Performance Index
What criticisms exist?
Centralisation concerns
Greater Union control over non-major (State-run) ports → termed a “silent cost to maritime federalism” by some States
Procedural safeguards
Powers of port, conservancy, and health officers for entry/inspection seen as broad, with unclear judicial guardrails
Note: Critiques target the legislation & governance design, not the BoPS institution per se.
Keezhadi — Flood-Burial & OSL Dating Study
Why is it in news?
A new study by researchers from the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL), Ahmedabad and the Tamil Nadu Department of Archaeology has used Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating to determine when flood sediments buried parts of the Keezhadi settlement along the Vaigai river.
The findings suggest that portions of the site were covered by flood-borne sediments roughly ~1,000 years ago, helping distinguish when people lived there from when nature buried the remains.
The study was published in Current Science (October 25) and strengthens efforts to build a scientific timeline for the Keezhadi cultural landscape beyond literary references from the Sangam corpus.
Relevance
GS-I: Indian Culture / Archaeology
Urban settlement archaeology, Sangam-era material culture
GS-I & GS-III: Geography–Environment Interface
River dynamics, floods, settlement relocation, late-Holocene climate context
Facts & Data — Keezhadi Excavation Context
Location: Keezhadi, Sivaganga district, Tamil Nadu — on the Vaigai floodplain.
Excavations have revealed:
Brick walls, channel-like drains, fine clay floors, pottery fragments
Settlement layout suggesting urban planning, craft activity, and trade linkages
Key research challenge:
Sangam poems mention towns & trade, but lack precise chronology → archaeology + geoscience used to build timelines.
What did the new study examine?
Focus: Sediment layers covering the archaeological structures, not the bricks themselves.
Hypothesis: Flooding events of the Vaigai deposited sand–silt–clay layers that buried the settlement remains.
Goal: Date when burial occurred → infer damage/abandonment phases of the settlement.
Method: Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL)
Quartz grains accumulate energy from natural radiation while buried.
Sunlight resets this clock when grains are exposed at the surface.
In the lab, grains are stimulated with light → measured luminescence = time since last exposure → approximates time of burial.
Study details:
Four sediment samples from two pits (KDI-1, KDI-2)
Samples extracted using light-tight metal tubes to prevent exposure.
Result: OSL dates indicate flood-deposit burial ~1,000 years ago (late Holocene phase).
Climate & River Dynamics
The late Holocene climate in South India shows wet–dry fluctuations and river course shifts.
The Vaigai today flows a few kilometres away from the mound → supports long-term channel migration.
Implication: Floods + course shifts may have
damaged infrastructure
disrupted water access
triggered abandonment or relocation of settlements.
Why the finding matters (Archaeological Significance)?
Differentiates two timelines:
Period of habitation vs. period of environmental burial
Provides a process-based narrative: settlements respond to hydrological hazards, not only political decline.
Guides future excavations: variable sediment thickness across pits suggests differential preservation of older layers.
Limits & Scope of Interpretation
OSL dates the burial sediments, not the construction age of structures.
Does not prove modern-type climate change → indicates long-term fluvial processes.
Requires integration with ceramic typology, carbon dates, cultural layers, and stratigraphy.
ISRO LVM-3 — 6-tonne US Satellite Launch
Why is it in news?
ISRO’s LVM-3 (Launch Vehicle Mark-3) successfully placed the 6,000-kg US communications satellite “BlueBird Block-2” into orbit — the heaviest foreign satellite ever launched by India.
This was LVM-3’s third consecutive commercial mission under NewSpace India Ltd (NSIL), reinforcing India’s position in the global heavy-lift launch market and demonstrating reliability after its role in Chandrayaan-3.
Relevance
GS-III: Science & Technology / Space Sector
Heavy-lift capability, cryogenic tech, commercial launch ecosystem
Core Facts & Data
Launch vehicle: LVM-3 (GSLV-Mk III) – India’s heavy-lift rocket
Payload mass: ~6,000 kg (heaviest satellite launched by ISRO to date)
Payload customer: U.S. AST SpaceMobile
Orbit: Near-equatorial LEO for direct-to-mobile broadband constellation
Mission profile:
Satellite released ~21 km lower than target orbit → onboard propulsion to raise orbit
Commercial arm involved: NSIL
Earlier LVM-3 high-value missions:
Chandrayaan-3 (2023)
OneWeb constellation launches — 72 satellites placed in orbit across two missions
About LVM-3
Class: Heavy-lift, 3-stage launcher
Stage 1: Two S200 solid strap-on boosters
Stage 2: L110 liquid core stage
Stage 3: C25 cryogenic upper stage (LOX + LH₂)
Lift capability
GTO: ~4–5 tonnes
LEO: 8–10 tonnes (mission-dependent)
Designed as India’s workhorse for deep-space & heavy satellites
What makes this mission significant?
Market Positioning
Demonstrates India’s entry into the heavy-satellite launch segment, competing with
SpaceX Falcon-9, Ariane-5/6
Cost-competitiveness advantage
LVM-3 offers lower launch costs than Western providers → boosts commercial demand
Technology credibility
Repeated success = higher global customer confidence in ISRO/NSIL
Strategic signalling
Enhances India’s role in satellite broadband constellations & dual-use space markets
About the Payload — BlueBird Block-2
Purpose: Direct-to-mobile satellite broadband connectivity (no ground towers needed)
Use-cases
Remote-area coverage, disaster communications, maritime connectivity
Constellation vision: Global space-based mobile network (competes with Starlink variants)
India’s Commercial Launch Trajectory — Evidence
ISRO commercial launches (last decade): ~45 missions
Shift toward LEO broadband constellations — OneWeb + BlueBird
NSIL contract portfolio expanding → growth in global launch services exports
Broader Strategic Relevance
Space economy expansion → supports Make in India + export revenues
Private–public ecosystem integration (NSIL, IN-SPACe, startups)
Strengthens technological sovereignty in heavy-lift & cryogenic capability
Supports ambitions in Gaganyaan crewed missions & deep-space exploration
Challenges & Next-Step Priorities
Fleet cadence & capacity — increase launch frequency for competitiveness
Reusability roadmap — RLV/Next-gen launchers to cut costs further
Global competition pressure from SpaceX rideshare pricing
Supply-chain deepening — domestic ecosystem for engines, avionics, composites
Only 1 in 4 marginal farmers in India linked to cooperatives, report finds
Why is it in news?
The State of Marginal Farmers in India 2025 report by the Forum of Enterprises for Equitable Development (FEED) — released on Kisan Diwas (Dec 23, 2025) — finds that less than 25% of marginal farmers are active members of agricultural cooperatives, despite marginal farmers constituting ~60–70% of India’s agricultural households.
The report assesses cooperative access and outcomes across six states — Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tripura, and Uttarakhand — and highlights structural exclusion, digital divides, and gender gaps within the cooperative ecosystem.
Relevance
GS-III: Agriculture, Inclusive Growth, Rural Institutions
Role of PACS, credit access, service-hub model, livelihood outcomes
GS-II: Social Justice / Participation Gaps
Gender exclusion, digital divide, elite capture, governance capacity
Key Facts & Data — Who are marginal farmers?
Definition: Own < 1 hectare of land.
Share in agrarian structure: 60–70% of farm households; backbone of smallholder agriculture.
Yet only ~1 in 4 are cooperative members — signalling weak institutional inclusion.
Role of Cooperatives & PACS — Why they matter ?
Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) = lowest tier of the cooperative system; closest interface for rural households.
Provide credit, input supply, procurement & marketing channels, and increasingly digital/public services (PDS, e-governance links).
Function as rural service hubs in several states → linked to better livelihood outcomes.
What the report finds ? — Evidence from Six States
Low participation especially in Bihar, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh.
Barriers to inclusion
Complex membership procedures & documentation
Long distances to PACS and weak last-mile presence
Limited working capital → low service reliability
Persistent social exclusion (caste, class, gender)
Consequences
Higher dependence on informal credit/markets
Slower income growth, higher vulnerability to climate & price shocks
Digital Divide — Facts
Tripura: 77.8% cooperatives use no digital tools
Bihar: 25% cooperatives report zero digital adoption
Digital use largely informational, not transformational
Women & older farmers face skill constraints, limiting benefits.
Gender & Leadership Gaps
Women members registered: 21.25 lakh (2.125 million)
Women directors on cooperative boards: 3,355 → very low leadership conversion
Barriers: restrictive norms, mobility limits, unpaid care burden → decision-making remains male-dominated.
Where access exists — Impact is measurable ?
Income outcomes
45% cooperative-linked marginal farmers report income increase
~21% report decline/stagnation
Livelihood security
49% members report improved security; ~16% remain insecure
Financial inclusion
67% members access credit/financial services via cooperatives
Productivity
42% report improved crop yields; 22.5% report decline
States with PACS as integrated service centres show stronger positive outcomes.
Why are marginal farmers excluded?
Institutional design gaps: procedures, documentation, capital constraints
Geographical inequity: uneven spread of PACS, long travel costs
Social hierarchies: elite capture, weak voice for women & marginal groups
Capability deficit: limited digital literacy, low management capacity
Policy-practice gap: cooperative reforms focus on scale, not inclusion.
Policy Relevance
Strengthen last-mile cooperative presence in low-coverage districts
Simplify membership & governance norms; ensure grievance & transparency
Capital infusion + professionalisation of PACS operations
Targeted digital capacity-building, especially for women & elderly farmers
Promote integrated PACS (credit + inputs + procurement + services) to maximise impact.
Large share of India’s PM2.5 not emitted directly, but chemically formed in the atmosphere: CREA Study
Why is it in news?
A new analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) finds that a large share of India’s PM2.5 pollution is not directly emitted, but is chemically formed in the atmosphere from precursor gases, especially sulphur dioxide (SO₂) from coal-based power plants.
The study shows that up to 42% of India’s PM2.5 is secondary particulate matter, mainly ammonium sulphate, and warns that unless India targets SO₂ and other precursor emissions, air-quality gains under NCAP will remain limited and short-lived.
Relevance
GS-III: Environment / Air-Pollution Governance
Secondary PM2.5, SO₂ control, coal-power emissions, NCAP strategy gaps
GS-III: Energy–Environment Trade-offs
FGD policy, precursor-gas regulation, public-health externalities
Key Facts & Data — PM2.5 Composition in India
Share of secondary PM2.5 (national): up to 42% — predominantly ammonium sulphate
Primary precursor: SO₂ → reacts with ammonia & atmospheric oxidants → secondary sulphate aerosols
India = world’s largest SO₂ emitter
~60% of national SO₂ emissions from coal-fired power plants
FGD policy gap: ~78% of coal plants exempted from installing Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) → weak SO₂ control at source
State-level Evidence (CREA assessment using NASA MERRA-2, 2024)
Highest ammonium sulphate contribution
Chhattisgarh — 42%
Odisha — 41%
Across states: ammonium sulphate = 17–42% of PM2.5 mass
Most states cluster at 30–40% annually
Seasonal profile (pan-India)
Winter: 31–52% of PM2.5
Post-monsoon: 27–53%
Summer: 11–36%
Monsoon: 4–26%
➝ Secondary PM remains significant year-round, and dominant in polluted months.
Delhi Case Study — What drives severe episodes?
~33% of Delhi’s annual PM2.5 = secondary ammonium sulphate
Seasonal dominance:
Post-monsoon: 49% of PM2.5
Winter: 41%
Summer/Monsoon: ~21%
Episodes are driven largely by regional SO₂ plumes + secondary formation, not only local primary emissions.
What the findings imply ?
PM2.5 challenge ≠ just road dust / primary emissions
Secondary particulate matter is a core driver, not a marginal factor.
Coal-power SO₂ controls are pivotal
FGD exemptions undermine health & NCAP outcomes
States with dense thermal clusters show highest secondary sulphate loads
Policy–monitoring gap
Current strategies emphasise PM10 & visible dust sources
Chemical composition & precursor gases (SO₂, NO₂, NH₃) remain under-regulated.
CREA’s Policy Message (Evidence-linked)
Reinstate mandatory FGD installation across all coal-based TPPs
Integrate precursor-gas reduction targets in NCAP revision
Expand speciated PM monitoring (sulphate, nitrate, ammonium) alongside mass concentration
Coordinate regional emission controls during winter/post-monsoon high-risk periods.
What is Secondary PM2.5?
Primary PM2.5: emitted directly (dust, combustion soot, vehicle exhaust)
Secondary PM2.5: forms in the atmosphere when gaseous precursors react:
SO₂ → sulphates (ammonium sulphate)
NOx → nitrates
NH₃ (agriculture, waste) → reacts with SO₂/NOx aerosols
Secondary particles are finer, more toxic, and travel long distances → regional pollution episodes.