Content
Startup India @10 — Highest Annual Spike in Start-up Registrations
Expert Panel Sets Norms for Religious Structures in Wildlife Sanctuaries
Nobel Prize Debate — Politicisation and Symbolism of the Nobel Peace Prize
Kaziranga Elevated Corridor — Eco-Sensitive Infrastructure to Reduce Wildlife Mortality
Land Is Power — Women’s Land Rights and Agrarian Gender Inequality in India
Drowning in Its Home — Sangai (Dancing Deer) and the Collapse of Floating Wetlands
Startup India @10 — Highest Annual Spike in Start-up
Why in News ?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that ~44,000 start-ups were registered in 2025, the highest annual addition since the launch of Startup India.
Statement made during the 10th anniversary of the Startup India Mission.
India now positioned as the 3rd largest start-up ecosystem globally.
Relevance
GS II – Governance
Government policies for entrepreneurship promotion.
Role of DPIIT, regulatory reforms, ease of doing business.
Centre–State competition in start-up ecosystems.
GS III – Economy
Start-ups as drivers of:
Job creation.
Innovation-led growth.
Capital market deepening (IPOs).
MSME–start-up linkage in value chains.
Shift from factor-led to innovation-led growth.
Startup India: Core Basics
Launch date: 16 January 2016.
Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Commerce & Industry (DPIIT).
Core objectives:
Foster innovation.
Promote entrepreneurship.
Enable investment-led growth.
Key instruments:
Start-up recognition by DPIIT.
Fund of Funds for Start-ups (FFS).
Tax exemptions & compliance easing.
Key Data & Evidence
2025:
~44,000 new start-ups registered (highest single-year jump).
Ecosystem position:
India = 3rd largest globally (after US & China).
Trend highlighted:
Start-ups → Unicorns → IPOs → Job creation.
Registration ≠ success; but reflects pipeline depth.
Economic Dimension
Growth engine:
Start-ups driving:
Job creation.
Capital formation.
Productivity gains.
Structural shift:
From factor-led growth → innovation-led growth.
Capital markets linkage:
Rising start-up IPOs deepen domestic capital markets.
MSME–Start-up continuum:
Start-ups complement MSMEs in value chains.
Governance & Administrative Dimension
Regulatory reforms:
Self-certification under labour & environmental laws.
Faster incorporation & IPR facilitation.
Digital public infrastructure:
Aadhaar, UPI, ONDC enabling low-cost scaling.
Centre–State role:
States competing via start-up policies, incubators.
Social Dimension
Democratisation of entrepreneurship:
Growth beyond metros into Tier-2/Tier-3 cities.
Youth dividend utilisation:
Converts job-seekers into job-creators.
Women entrepreneurship:
Rising share, but still underrepresented in funding.
Technology & Innovation Dimension
Strong presence in:
FinTech, EdTech, HealthTech, SaaS, Climate-tech.
Leveraging:
AI, data analytics, digital platforms.
Start-ups as drivers of:
Indigenous innovation.
Atmanirbhar Bharat goals.
Challenges
Quality vs quantity:
High registrations, but survival rates vary.
Funding concentration:
Venture capital skewed towards few sectors & cities.
Regulatory uncertainty:
Taxation (angel tax legacy issues).
Compliance burden for scaling firms.
Job quality concerns:
Informal, gig-based employment dominance.
Way Forward
Next phase: Startup India 2.0
Focus on deep-tech & manufacturing start-ups.
Credit diversification
Beyond VC: development finance, patient capital.
Inclusive entrepreneurship
Women, SC/ST, rural & agri-start-ups.
Outcome-based support
Survival, scale, exports—not just registrations.
Regulatory predictability
Stable tax & compliance regime for scale-ups.
Prelims Pointers
Startup India launched in 2016, not post-COVID.
DPIIT recognises start-ups (not NITI Aayog).
Fund of Funds ≠ direct equity funding.
Unicorn = private firm valued at $1 billion+.
Expert Panel Sets Norms for Religious Structures in Wildlife Sanctuaries
Why in News ?
The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) has framed guidelines on diversion/regularisation of forest land for religious structures inside Protected Areas (PAs).
Triggered by the Balaram–Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat) case, where diversion of forest land for temples was proposed and later revoked.
Raises critical issues of encroachment vs faith, forest rights settlement, and precedent-setting in wildlife governance.
Relevance
GS II – Polity & Governance
Balance between Fundamental Rights (Article 25) and DPSPs (Article 48A).
Role of statutory bodies: NBWL / SCNBWL.
Rule-based governance vs discretionary clearances.
GS III – Environment & Biodiversity
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Protected Areas governance and encroachment control.
Background & Case Context
Balaram–Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary hosts two temples claimed to be “historical”.
July 2024: SCNBWL initially cleared 0.35 ha forest land use for a religious trust.
October 2024: Clearance revoked after it was found that:
Rights of the Trust were not recorded in forest settlement records.
December 2025: Draft normative guidelines presented to SCNBWL to avoid ad-hoc decisions in future.
Core Guidelines
General Principle:
Any construction or expansion on forest land after 1980 = encroachment.
Exceptional Window:
Only if:
State issues a reasoned, documented order, and
Justifies regularisation on exceptional grounds.
Such cases to be referred to the Environment Ministry for case-by-case scrutiny.
Key cut-off year: 1980 (linked to Forest (Conservation) Act).
Constitutional & Legal Dimension
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
Central approval mandatory for diversion of forest land.
Post-1980 non-forestry use is presumptively illegal.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:
Strong protection regime for National Parks & Sanctuaries.
Infrastructure allowed only if non-detrimental to wildlife.
Article 25 (Freedom of Religion):
Subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
Does not override environmental laws.
Article 48A & 51A(g):
State and citizen duty to protect environment and wildlife.
Governance & Administrative Dimension
Problem exposed:
Many sanctuaries still have unsettled forest rights and claims.
Poor-quality forest settlement records create ambiguity.
Risk of precedent:
Regularising one religious structure may open floodgates across PAs.
Institutional response:
Shift from case-by-case discretion → rule-based SOP.
Role of SCNBWL:
Apex technical-cum-policy filter to balance conservation vs development/faith.
Social & Ethical Dimension
Faith vs Ecology dilemma:
Religious sentiments are socially powerful but ecologically footprint-heavy.
Ethical concern:
Selective accommodation of religion risks normalising encroachment.
Equity issue:
If faith-based claims allowed, why deny other community or livelihood claims?
Environmental & Wildlife Dimension
Protected Areas are:
Inviolate cores for biodiversity.
Highly sensitive to fragmentation, noise, footfall, waste.
Religious infrastructure often leads to:
Roads, shops, accommodation, pilgrim influx → secondary impacts.
Guidelines aim to:
Prevent “incremental degradation” of sanctuaries.
Challenges
Implementation gap:
States may still push proposals citing “historical existence”.
Data deficiency:
Lack of authentic records on pre-1980 structures.
Political pressure:
Religious institutions have high mobilisation capacity.
Forest Rights Act overlap:
Unsettled FRA claims complicate decision-making.
Way Forward
Strict adherence to 1980 cut-off as non-negotiable baseline.
Time-bound settlement of forest rights under FRA before considering any diversion.
Independent ecological impact assessment even for “small” religious uses.
No new construction principle:
Only maintenance of genuinely pre-1980, legally recorded structures.
National SOP:
Uniform criteria to avoid State-level arbitrariness.
Public communication:
Clarify that conservation is not anti-faith, but pro-intergenerational equity.
Prelims Pointers
SCNBWL ≠ NBWL (NBWL is chaired by PM; SCNBWL handles clearances).
Forest (Conservation) Act operative year: 1980.
Post-1980 forest constructions = encroachments (default rule).
Religious freedom is not absolute.
Nobel Prize with Special Focus on the Nobel Peace Prize
Why is it in News?
María Corina Machado publicly presented her Nobel Peace Prize medal to Donald Trump during a recent meeting in the US.
The act was described as a symbolic gesture of gratitude for Trump’s past support to Venezuela’s opposition and democratic cause.
This has triggered debate because:
Nobel medals are personal property of laureates and can legally be gifted or sold under the statutes of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
However, transferring a Peace Prize medal to a political leader raises questions about politicisation of the Nobel Peace Prize.
The episode has revived wider discussion on:
Whether the Nobel Peace Prize is being used as a political signal rather than a purely humanitarian recognition.
The distinction between symbolic diplomacy vs institutional neutrality of global awards.
Relevance
GS Paper I – World History / Society
Global institutions and moral authority.
Evolution of international recognition systems.
GS Paper II – International Relations
Soft power and norm-setting in global politics.
Awards as instruments of diplomatic signalling.
Institutional neutrality vs political messaging.
Nobel Prize: Core Basics
Instituted by the will of Alfred Nobel (1895).
First awarded: 1901.
Original categories:
Physics
Chemistry
Physiology/Medicine
Literature
Peace
Economics added later (1968) → Not part of original Nobel will.
Nobel Peace Prize: Unique Institutional Design
Awarded by Norwegian Nobel Committee.
Ceremony held in Oslo, not Stockholm.
Rationale:
Norway–Sweden union context at the time of Nobel’s will.
Unlike other Nobel Prizes:
Awarded to individuals or organisations.
Can be given for political processes, activism, conflict resolution, humanitarian work.
Eligibility, Nomination & Decision Process
Who can nominate?
National parliamentarians, ministers.
University professors (relevant fields).
Previous laureates.
International courts & organisations.
Key point:
Nomination ≠ endorsement.
Hundreds nominated annually; only one laureate selected.
Deliberations are confidential for 50 years.
Ownership of the Nobel Medal
Nobel medal, diploma, and prize money:
Become personal property of the laureate.
Nobel statutes:
Do not prohibit selling, donating, or auctioning medals.
Important examples:
Dmitry Muratov:
Auctioned Peace Prize medal (2022).
Proceeds (~USD 103.5 million) donated for Ukrainian children affected by war.
Carlos Saavedra Lamas:
Medal sold in 2014.
Insight:
Moral authority lies in use of prize, not physical possession.
Political Dimension of the Nobel Peace Prize
Peace Prize often reflects contemporary global conflicts and moral priorities.
Frequently criticised for:
Western normative bias.
Awarding aspirational peace rather than achieved peace.
Examples often debated in UPSC interviews:
Awards during ongoing conflicts.
Recognition of political opposition figures.
However:
Nobel Committee defends Peace Prize as a norm-setting instrument, not merely retrospective reward.
International Relations Dimension
Peace Prize as:
Soft power instrument.
Moral signalling mechanism in global politics.
Can:
Legitimize political movements.
Increase diplomatic pressure on regimes.
Sometimes causes:
Diplomatic discomfort.
Accusations of interference in domestic affairs.
Economic & Institutional Aspect
Prize money:
Approx. 10 million Swedish Krona (value may vary annually).
Nobel Foundation:
Manages endowment.
Prize money independent of medal ownership.
Challenges
Politicisation
Perception of ideological selectivity.
Premature awards
Given before outcomes are secured.
Eurocentric norms
Global South under-representation historically.
Symbol vs substance
Media focus on personalities rather than peace outcomes.
Way Forward
Greater transparency post 50-year disclosure.
Broader inclusion of:
Grassroots peacebuilders.
Community-level conflict resolution.
Balanced recognition:
Combine moral courage with demonstrable outcomes.
Reinforce Peace Prize as:
Instrument of conscience, not geopolitics.
Prelims Pointers
Peace Prize awarded in Norway, others in Sweden.
Economics Prize ≠ original Nobel category.
Medal ownership lies with laureate.
Nobel deliberations sealed for 50 years.
Kaziranga Elevated Corridor — Curbing Wildlife Mortality through Eco-Sensitive Infrastructure
Why in News ?
Prime Minister laid the foundation stone of a 34.5-km elevated corridor along/through Kaziranga National Park.
Objective: Reduce animal deaths caused by heavy traffic on NH-715 (formerly NH-37), especially during Brahmaputra floods.
Relevance
GS III – Environment
Human–wildlife conflict mitigation.
Wildlife corridors and ecological connectivity.
Conservation in flood-prone ecosystems.
GS III – Infrastructure
Sustainable infrastructure.
Disaster-resilient transport planning.
Integrating ecology into highway design.
Project Snapshot
Length: 34.5 km (elevated corridor).
Cost: ~₹6,950 crore.
Route: NH-715 connecting Kaziranga–Eastern Assam–Guwahati.
Ecological linkage:
Kaziranga floodplains ↔ Karbi Anglong hills.
Complementary works:
Widening of 30.22 km existing roads.
2 km long flyovers near Bokakhat & Jakhalabandha.
Ecological & Environmental Dimension
Flood-driven migration:
Annual Brahmaputra floods submerge low-lying grasslands.
Wildlife (rhinos, elephants, deer, predators) migrate to higher grounds of Karbi Anglong plateau.
Barrier effect of highways:
NH-715 cuts across natural corridors.
High vehicle speed = major mortality driver.
Scientific evidence:
Wildlife Institute of India study:
2016–17: 63 animals killed on NH-715 in one year.
Included apex predator (Indian leopard).
Elevated corridor benefit:
Restores horizontal ecological connectivity.
Minimises surface-level human–wildlife interaction.
Governance & Administrative Dimension
Shift in infrastructure paradigm:
From “road through forest” → “road over wildlife landscape”.
Inter-agency coordination:
MoRTH + Assam Govt + Forest Dept + WII inputs.
Eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) logic:
Corridor aligns with ESZ norms without halting development.
Challenge:
Construction-phase disturbance in a sensitive zone.
Economic Dimension
Trade-off resolution:
Maintains Assam’s key arterial connectivity to Guwahati.
Avoids economic losses from:
Traffic disruptions during floods.
Wildlife-vehicle collisions.
Cost-effectiveness:
High upfront cost but long-term savings in:
Wildlife loss.
Accident compensation.
Road maintenance due to flood damage.
Social & Ethical Dimension
Ethics of coexistence:
Acknowledges wildlife movement as a right, not a nuisance.
Local livelihoods:
Reduced road closures benefit tourism & transport workers.
Cultural value:
Kaziranga symbolises India’s conservation ethic (one-horned rhino).
Security & Strategic Dimension
NH-715 is a strategic connectivity route in eastern Assam.
Ensures:
All-weather movement.
Disaster-resilient infrastructure in flood-prone terrain.
Challenges
Construction impacts:
Noise, vibration, light pollution.
Speed management:
Elevated roads can encourage overspeeding if not regulated.
Habitat compression risk:
If feeder roads & urbanisation expand unchecked.
Monitoring gap:
Need for post-construction ecological audits.
Way Forward
Design & engineering
Wildlife-friendly pillars spacing.
Natural vegetation underpasses.
Traffic regulation
Strict speed limits.
AI-enabled animal detection & warning systems.
Construction safeguards
Seasonal work restrictions during peak migration.
Noise & light mitigation protocols.
Replication
Scale model to:
Nilgiris–Bandipur.
Pench–Kanha.
Eastern Ghats corridors.
Institutionalisation
Make WII ecological clearance mandatory for highways in protected landscapes.
Prelims Pointers
NH-715 (old NH-37) skirts Kaziranga NP.
Kaziranga = UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Karbi Anglong = key highland refuge during floods.
Elevated corridors ≠ underpasses; both are wildlife mitigation tools.
Kaziranga National Park
Location: Golaghat & Nagaon districts, Assam; south bank of the Brahmaputra River.
Status:
Declared National Park (1974).
UNESCO World Heritage Site (1985).
Tiger Reserve (2006) under Project Tiger.
Global Significance:
Hosts ~2/3rd of the world’s population of the One-horned Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis).
Biodiversity Profile:
“Big Five” of Kaziranga: Rhino, Tiger, Elephant, Wild Water Buffalo, Swamp Deer.
High tiger density (among the highest globally).
Land is Power — Women’s Land Rights in India
Why in News ?
Recent field-based reportage from Uttarakhand highlights feminisation of agriculture without feminisation of land ownership.
Despite constitutional and legal reforms, women cultivators remain invisible in land records, excluding them from schemes like PM-KISAN Samman Nidhi.
Reinforces long-standing academic evidence (Bina Agarwal) on land as the core determinant of women’s power, security, and autonomy.
Relevance
GS I – Indian Society
Gender inequality in agrarian structures.
Feminisation of agriculture.
GS II – Governance & Social Justice
Implementation gaps in welfare schemes (PM-KISAN, KCC).
Land as a State subject; federal challenges.
Women empowerment through asset ownership.
Core Problem Statement
Women do most agricultural work but do not own land → No legal farmer status → No scheme access → Economic disempowerment.
Constitutional & Legal Dimension
Constitutional backing
Article 14: Equality before law.
Article 15(3): Affirmative action for women.
Article 39(b), (c): Equitable distribution of material resources.
Statutory framework
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: First recognition of women’s inheritance.
2005 Amendment:
Daughters = coparceners by birth (ancestral property incl. agricultural land).
Applies irrespective of marital status.
Key gap
De jure equality ≠ de facto ownership.
Land largely transferred to women only as widows, not as daughters.
Governance & Administrative Dimension
Land records & farmer identity
Ownership-based definition of “farmer” excludes women cultivators.
Digitisation (DILRMP) replicates patriarchal ownership patterns.
Scheme access failure
PM-KISAN, KCC, crop insurance → land title mandatory.
Result: Women submit affidavits instead of enjoying rights.
Federal issue
Land = State subject → uneven implementation across states.
Economic Dimension
Productivity & credit
No land title → no collateral → no formal credit.
Zero/near-zero women Kisan Credit Cards in many hill districts.
Macroeconomic loss
FAO estimate (generic): Equal access to productive resources could raise farm output significantly.
Migration link
Male out-migration → women manage farms → “managerial feminisation without asset control.”
Social & Ethical Dimension
Patriarchal norms
Daughters “given away” at marriage → denied inheritance.
Social pressure to relinquish legal share.
Intra-household power
Land ownership:
Enhances bargaining power.
Reduces domestic violence risk (Bina Agarwal’s findings).
Intersectionality
Dalit, Adivasi women face:
Poor land quality.
No demarcation, water, or extension support.
Environmental & Sustainability Dimension
Women land managers:
Preserve forests, soil fertility, biodiversity.
Promote mixed cropping, organic manure.
Link to SDGs
SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 15 (Life on Land).
Data & Evidence
National Family Health Survey
Women owning land alone:
~7% (2014–15) → ~8% (2019–21).
Joint ownership:
~21% → ~23%.
PM-KISAN (Rajya Sabha, Dec 2024):
~87 million beneficiaries.
<20 million women (~2–3 out of 10).
Uttarakhand: ~16% women beneficiaries.
UN Women
Even where women do >75% farm work, ownership remains male-dominated.
Challenges
Implementation deficit
Laws exist; enforcement weak.
Institutional apathy
Revenue officials resist joint/matrilineal titles.
Awareness gap
Women unaware of location/utility of allotted land.
Design flaw
Land titles without irrigation, extension, or market access = symbolic empowerment.
Way Forward
Land record reforms
Mandatory joint spousal titles in all government land transfers.
Scheme redesign
PM-KISAN, KCC eligibility based on cultivation + management, not just ownership.
Administrative nudges
Stamp duty rebates for women land registration (best practices from states).
Institutional support
Boundary demarcation, water access, extension services post-allotment.
Normative change
Panchayat-led awareness on daughters’ inheritance rights.
Tribal areas
Effective implementation of forest & community land rights with women as primary title holders.
Drowning in its Home — Sangai (Dancing Deer) & Collapse of Floating Wetlands
Why in News ?
Recent ecological assessments warn that the Sangai (Dancing Deer) is approaching an extinction-level event due to collapse of floating meadows (phumdis) in Manipur.
Wildlife Institute of India (2022–23) conservation plan reports critically low wild population and severe habitat fragmentation.
Raises questions on wetland governance, hydropower–ecology conflict, and species-specific conservation failures.
Relevance
GS III – Environment & Biodiversity
Endangered species conservation.
Wetland ecology (Ramsar sites).
Protected Area management failures.
GS I – Geography (India)
Loktak Lake.
Floating wetlands (phumdis).
Species Profile
Common name: Sangai / Dancing Deer
Scientific name: Rucervus eldii eldii
IUCN status: Endangered
State animal: Manipur
Habitat specificity: Only wild population confined to floating meadows of Keibul Lamjao National Park
Unique feature:
Brow tine on forehead (males).
Delicate gait over floating vegetation → “dancing” illusion.
Geographical & Ecological Context
Located in Imphal Valley, south of Loktak Lake.
Keibul Lamjao NP:
World’s only floating national park.
Ramsar Convention site (Wetland of International Importance).
Core ecological unit: Phumdis
Floating mats of vegetation + organic matter.
Must be ≥1 metre thick to support adult Sangai (90–115 kg).
Population Status & Data
Declared extinct: 1951 → rediscovered later.
Apparent recovery till 1984, followed by decline.
WII (2022–23) findings:
~64 individuals in the wild.
~200 in captivity (zoos across India).
Earlier census (2016) showing 260 individuals now believed to be inflated / methodologically weak.
Habitat squeezed to ~10 sq km → severe crowding.
Key Threats
1. Habitat Collapse (Primary Driver)
Phumdis thinning & fragmentation due to:
Altered hydrology.
Pollution load.
Observed impact:
2023 census: 2 Sangai + 4 hog deer carcasses recovered → probable drowning.
2. Hydropower–Wetland Conflict
1983 downstream multipurpose hydroelectric project:
Causes monsoon backflow into Loktak–Keibul system.
Leads to:
Erosion of phumdis.
Delay in regeneration of floating mats.
Altered nutrient cycles.
3. Pollution & Urban Pressure
Untreated sewage from towns enters lake.
Excess nutrients → disrupt endemic plant species anchoring phumdis.
4. Genetic & Demographic Risks
Inbreeding depression due to:
Extremely small effective population.
Habitat confinement.
Results:
Reduced fertility.
Higher disease susceptibility.
Lower long-term viability.
5. Institutional Gaps
Ramsar status without effective wetland hydrological management.
Fragmented responsibility: wildlife, water resources, power departments.
Governance & Policy Dimension
Protected Area ≠ Protected Ecosystem
Focus on species protection, neglect of ecosystem processes.
Lack of environmental flow norms for Loktak basin.
Absence of integrated lake–river–wetland authority.
Environmental & Climate Dimension
Phumdis are climate-sensitive:
Changing rainfall patterns amplify hydrological stress.
Loss of floating wetlands:
Carbon sequestration declines.
Biodiversity collapse (hog deer, fish, birds affected).
Security & Cultural Dimension
Sangai = cultural keystone species of Manipur:
Embedded in dance, art, sports ethos, and identity.
Biodiversity loss risks:
Cultural alienation.
Local resistance to conservation if livelihoods ignored.
Way Forward
Ecological Measures
Restore minimum phumdi thickness through:
Controlled water levels.
Nutrient balance restoration.
Native vegetation regeneration programs.
Hydrological Governance
Enforce environmental flow regime downstream of hydropower project.
Seasonal water-level modulation aligned with phumdi regeneration cycle.
Genetic Conservation
Scientific metapopulation strategy:
Carefully managed translocations.
Genetic exchange between captive and wild populations (where viable).
Institutional Reform
Loktak–Keibul Integrated Wetland Authority:
Wildlife + Water + Urban governance convergence.
Community-based wetland stewardship with local fishers.
Monitoring & Science
Annual independent population audits using modern methods (camera traps, genetic sampling).
Long-term ecological research station at Keibul Lamjao.
Prelims Pointers
Keibul Lamjao NP = only floating national park in the world.
Sangai subspecies = Rucervus eldii eldii.
Phumdis must be ≥1 m thick to support Sangai.
Loktak Lake = Ramsar site + hydropower-linked wetland.