Current Affairs 24 September 2025
Content UNESCO recognition for Kerala’s Varkala Cliff sparks celebration — and unease India to hold mega drone drill ‘Cold Start’ next month The mapping of the India-China border How Trump’s H-1B fee threatens India’s IT firms and Big Tech business models SC links sense of ‘stagnation’ in lower judiciary to long litigation India to submit updated carbon-reduction targets by the beginning of COP30 on Nov. 10 L-1 visa vis-à-vis the H-1B UNESCO recognition for Kerala’s Varkala Cliff sparks celebration — and unease Why is it in the news UNESCO recognition: Kerala’s Varkala Cliff added to UNESCO’s tentative World Heritage list. Significance: Acknowledges its geological, ecological, and cultural value, drawing national and international attention. Sparks debate over tourism, climate risks, and governance for fragile heritage sites. Relevance: GS I (Geography & Culture): Coastal geomorphology, laterite cliffs, sacred landscapes, human-environment interaction. GS III (Environment & Disaster Management): Coastal ecosystem conservation, climate change impacts, sustainable tourism. GS II (Governance & Policy): Heritage management, regulatory frameworks, stakeholder participation, eco-tourism policy. Understanding Varkala Cliff Location: Varkala, Kerala, along the Arabian Sea coast. Geological significance: Only place in Kerala where cliffs rise directly against the sea. Formed during the Mio-Pliocene age; millions of years old. Composed of laterite and sedimentary layers; contains fossils and paleo-climatic evidence. Vulnerable to erosion, landslides, and human disturbances. Cultural significance: Janardana Swamy Temple (over 2000 years old) and Sivagiri Mutt (Sree Narayana Guru) anchor the cliff’s spiritual identity. Serves as a site for pilgrimages and sacred rituals. Economic significance: Tourism hub: guesthouses, cafés, yoga centres, employment opportunities. Supports local livelihoods including fisherfolk. Current Concerns Environmental risks: Erosion, landslides, and cracks accelerated by monsoons and climate change. Sea-level rise and stronger storms threaten stability. Tourism pressures: Waste accumulation, septic leakage, unregulated construction. Narrow paths congested; risk of irreversible geological damage. Local community impact: Fisherfolk fear displacement and loss of livelihood. Economic benefits of tourism may conflict with environmental and cultural preservation. Governance issues: Weak regulatory oversight, flouted building codes, poor coordination between agencies. Proposed geo-park or heritage zone initiatives delayed. Opportunities from UNESCO recognition Global visibility: Enhances research, conservation, and responsible tourism. Funding & technical support: Access to UNESCO advisory, heritage management frameworks. Education & awareness: Schools and NGOs can promote geological, ecological, and cultural knowledge. Policy impetus: Encourages Kerala to develop a comprehensive management plan including carrying capacity studies and climate adaptation strategies. Strategic Implications Environmental governance: Recognition can act as a catalyst for stricter enforcement of building codes and waste management. Encourages science-based climate adaptation and erosion control. Tourism policy: Necessitates sustainable tourism models, zoning, and controlled visitor flows. Balancing economic benefits with preservation is crucial. Social equity: Fisherfolk and local communities must be actively involved in conservation decisions. Avoid displacement and preserve cultural identity. Conclusion UNESCO recognition is a double-edged sword: Celebrates geological, cultural, and economic value. Exposes risks from unregulated tourism, climate change, and governance failures. Way forward: Define carrying capacity, regulate construction, involve locals, and implement climate adaptation to ensure long-term sustainability. India to hold mega drone drill ‘Cold Start’ next month What is happening Exercise Name: Cold Start Timing: First week of October 2025 Location: Likely Madhya Pradesh Participants: Indian Army, Navy, Air Force; includes industry partners, R&D agencies, academia, and other stakeholders Focus: Testing drones and counter-drone systems, evaluating air defence capabilities and operational readiness Relevance: GS III (Internal Security & Defence): Modern warfare preparedness, drone and counter-drone technology, integrated tri-service exercises. GS III (Science & Technology): UAV systems, GPS-jamming, autonomous aerial platforms, R&D in defence technologies. Background and Context Post-Operation Sindoor: Largest joint drill since Operation Sindoor; previous exercise validated counter-drone and GPS jamming systems. Evolving aerial threats: Includes drones, UAV swarms, and GPS-jamming threats from potential adversaries. Reference to Pakistan: Exercise aims to stay ahead of adversary capabilities, acknowledging that adversaries also learn from India’s operational experiences. Strategic Importance Operational Readiness: Ensures the integrated response of Army, Navy, and Air Force to aerial threats. Force Multipliers: Counter-drone systems, GPS-jamming technologies, and advanced surveillance increase defensive and offensive capabilities. Inter-service synergy: Joint exercises enhance coordination, intelligence sharing, and rapid response across services. Technological and R&D Dimensions Focus on innovation: Inclusion of industry, academia, and R&D agencies ensures testing of state-of-the-art technologies. Drone and counter-drone systems: Likely tests detection, interception, neutralization, and electronic warfare capabilities. Future warfare preparation: Exercise aligns with modern warfare trends emphasizing unmanned systems and autonomous aerial platforms. Implications for National Security Airspace dominance: Enhances India’s defensive posture against UAV and drone threats, especially near sensitive borders. Deterrence signal: Demonstrates capability to neutralize aerial threats, sending a message to adversaries. Learning and adaptation: Feedback from the exercise will inform procurement, strategy, and capability development, ensuring readiness against emerging threats. The mapping of the India-China border Historical Background: The Basis of the Border Manchu Rule (1644–1911): Two major maps drawn with European Jesuit assistance: Kang-hsi Map (1721): Tibet-Assam segment; Tibet considered only up to the Himalayas; Tawang (south of Himalayas) not Tibetan. Ch’ien-lung Map (1761): Eastern Turkestan-Kashmir segment; Eastern Turkestan not conceived as trans-Kunlun; southern desolate region not claimed. 1913–14 Simla Conference: RoC delegate accepted non-Tibetan tribal belt (present Arunachal Pradesh) was not Tibetan. India included it in Assam; outcome consistent with Kang-hsi’s map. Implication: Traditional Chinese claims were limited; historical maps did not support trans-Himalayan claims in Arunachal Pradesh or Aksai Chin. Relevance: GS II (International Relations & Security): India-China boundary disputes, historical treaties, diplomatic negotiations. GS I (Geography & History): Geopolitical importance of Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin, historical mapping. GS III (Security): Strategic implications of border management, principle-based negotiation, territorial sovereignty. Evolution of Chinese Claims 1943: RoC sets aside Manchu maps; claims large Indian territories during WWII. Justification: map described as “unprecise draft.” December 1947: Similar map used amid India-Pakistan conflict. Pattern: China inherited and expanded claim-making from predecessor regimes rather than based on historical precedent. Post-Independence Diplomacy 1960 Talks (Jawaharlal Nehru & Chou En-lai): Chou questioned India’s historical evidence, using semantic and rhetorical tactics. Proposed resolving the boundary not solely on maps, but via principles: equitable, reasonable, dignity-preserving “package deal.” Key Insight (Vijay Gokhale, The Long Game): Chou avoided suggesting territorial swap (Aksai Chin ↔ Arunachal Pradesh). Both sides aimed for comprehensive resolution, integrating boundary, geopolitical, and trade matters. Specific Boundary Alignments 1914 Alignment: Indo-Tibetan boundary in line with Kang-hsi map; acknowledged by both parties at the time. 1899 Alignment: Kashmir-Sinkiang boundary line; based on watershed principle; related to Aksai Chin. Core Principles for Resolution Equity & Respect: No defeat to either side; preserve dignity and self-respect. Historical Evidence: Manchu-era maps provide strongest evidence for India’s claims. Geopolitical Package Approach: Consider boundary settlement along with trade and security issues; possibility of territorial swap remains contingent on mutual security needs. Key Takeaways Historical maps favor India: Manchu-era records clearly delineate Tibet’s southern boundary and Aksai Chin claims. China’s modern claims: Largely political opportunism during moments of Indian vulnerability; not supported by historical documentation. Diplomatic complexity: Both sides acknowledge need for principles beyond maps to achieve a sustainable, dignified settlement. Strategic perspective: India must maintain historical evidence, assert sovereignty, and engage in principle-based negotiations while safeguarding national security. How Trump’s H-1B fee threatens India’s IT firms and Big Tech business models Why is it in the news Trump administration imposes $100,000 annual fee per H-1B visa to curb labour arbitrage and favour domestic employment. Target: Indian IT firms (TCS, Infosys, Wipro) and global tech companies using cheaper foreign labour. Impacts new visa applications only; aims to reshape the IT outsourcing and talent ecosystem in the U.S. Raises concerns over innovation exodus, competitiveness, and global talent attraction. Relevance: GS III (Economy & Industry): Labour mobility, global IT outsourcing, impact on Indian IT firms, STEM talent flows. GS II (International Relations): India-US economic ties, trade, and visa policy implications. Basics of H-1B visa and context H-1B visa purpose: Allows U.S. companies to hire skilled foreign professionals for specialized roles, particularly in IT and STEM. Trend: H-1B workers now account for 65% of the U.S. IT workforce (up from 32% in 2003). Current issue: Rising H-1B hires coincide with mass layoffs of U.S. graduates in IT-related fields, triggering political and economic scrutiny. Existing filing cost: Previously a few thousand dollars per visa; minimal barrier led to “lottery-style” mass applications. Key drivers behind the policy Labour arbitrage: Indian IT firms leverage cheaper foreign engineers for onshore roles, impacting domestic wages. Domestic unemployment: 6.1% CS graduates and 7.5% computer engineering graduates remain jobless despite high H-1B usage. Political angle: Focus on protecting American workers and curbing displacement by foreign talent. Implications for Indian IT & Big Tech High fee impact: $100K per visa makes hiring foreign engineers onshore economically unviable. Strategic choices for IT firms: Raise client prices drastically. Shift operations offshore, reducing onshore employment opportunities. Big Tech: Need for selective hiring; only exceptional candidates will be considered, restoring the original purpose of H-1B. Collateral damage: May accelerate operational relocation overseas, potentially hurting U.S. employment instead of helping. Implications for U.S. innovation & economy STEM talent loss: International students contribute $40B+ annually; high fees discourage post-graduation retention. Global competition: Canada, Australia, UK actively attract STEM graduates; China’s tech growth increases geopolitical stakes. Innovation risk: U.S. risks losing intellectual capital needed for future technological breakthroughs. Disproportionate impact: Startups and mid-sized firms face higher barriers than tech giants (Google, Microsoft), potentially consolidating talent among large incumbents. Policy design critique Blunt instrument: Flat fee disregards skill levels, salaries, or elite university background. Better alternatives: Tiered fees based on salary, field of research, or U.S. university graduation could target arbitrage without losing top talent. Broader implication: Risk of undermining U.S.’s historical role as a global hub for science and technology talent. Strategic & geopolitical angle Global talent mobility: Countries with lower barriers can capture world-class talent. U.S. competitiveness: Policy may inadvertently strengthen China, EU, and Commonwealth nations in tech innovation. Trade-offs: Short-term labour protection vs. long-term strategic innovation disadvantage. SC links sense of ‘stagnation’ in lower judiciary to long litigation What is happening Event: Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI B.R. Gavai discussed judicial stagnation. Issue Highlighted: Weary feeling and stagnation among subordinate judicial officers due to prolonged litigation and career bottlenecks. Context of Reference: Whether judicial officers with 7 years’ legal experience can avail Bar quota for District Judge appointments. Data on Pendency: Total district court cases: 4.69 crore Criminal: 3.69 crore, Civil: 1.09 crore (National Judicial Data Grid) Relevance: GS II (Polity & Governance): Judicial structure, career progression in judiciary, access to justice, Articles 32, 226. GS II (Law & Ethics): Judicial independence, efficiency, pendency, systemic reforms. Key Observations by the Bench Justice M.M. Sundresh: Stagnation undermines the vitality of district judiciary, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Example: Bright law clerks hesitant to join judicial service due to uncertain career progression. Weak base in district judiciary → multiplication of litigation. Lawyers can accomplish in 5 years what judges do in 1 year on the Bench, indicating overburden and inefficiency. CJI B.R. Gavai: Difficulty attracting talent due to perceived long stagnation before promotion. Many capable officers do not become principal district judges even after 15–16 years. Underlying Issues Career Stagnation: Lack of timely promotion in subordinate judiciary reduces professional motivation. High Pendency: Over 4.69 crore pending cases strain the judiciary, particularly district courts, affecting public access to justice. Impact on Talent: Talented law graduates and clerks hesitant to join judicial service. Systemic Bottlenecks: Delay in appointments, promotions, and streamlined career progression. Constitutional and Institutional Relevance District Judiciary: Vital for a healthy justice system; considered part of basic structure. Access to Justice: Weak base → delayed justice, undermining Article 21 (Right to Life & Liberty) and public trust in judiciary. Judicial Independence & Efficiency: Stagnation risks demoralizing officers, reducing effectiveness and independence. Broader Implications Quality of Judicial Service: Stagnation impacts the professional standards and effectiveness of judges. Litigation Multiplication: Weak lower judiciary leads to case pile-up in higher courts, aggravating pendency. Policy Gap: Need for career planning, promotion reforms, and Bar quota clarity to maintain judicial motivation. Talent Retention: Ensuring attractive career trajectory crucial to draw best talent into public service. India to submit updated carbon-reduction targets by the beginning of COP30 on Nov. 10 Why is it in the news India will submit its updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) at COP30 in Brazil on November 10, 2025. Expected to include increased energy efficiency targets and reinforce climate commitments. COP30 presidency (Brazil) emphasizes assessment of gaps in NDC achievement globally. Submission is timely as only 30 out of 190+ countries have submitted updated NDCs so far. Relevance: GS III (Environment & Climate Change): NDCs, Paris Agreement, emissions intensity, renewable energy targets. GS II (International Relations & Governance): Climate diplomacy, COP negotiations, global climate commitments. GS III (Economy & Energy): Carbon markets, energy transition, policy interventions in 13 major sectors. Understanding India’s NDCs NDC Definition: Nationally Determined Contributions are country-specific climate action commitments under the Paris Agreement. India’s 2022 NDCs: Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 45% (2005 levels). Source 50% of electric power capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2030. Create a carbon sink of at least 2 billion tonnes by 2030. Key Terminology: Emissions intensity of GDP: Carbon emissions per unit of GDP; does not equal absolute emission reduction. Non-fossil fuel capacity: Renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear). Current Status (2023): 33% reduction in GDP emissions intensity (2005–2019). 50% of installed power capacity from non-fossil sources. Significance of Updated NDCs (NDC 3.0) Operational timeline: Likely to indicate targets for 2035. Carbon Market: India aims to operationalize the India Carbon Market by 2026 for 13 major sectors, enabling emission trading via reduction certificates. Global assessment: Updated NDCs feed into the UN ‘synthesis report’ to evaluate whether collective efforts are sufficient to meet Paris Agreement goals (well below 3°C warming). Global Context EU: No formal 2035 target yet; indicative reduction 66.25%–72.5% (1990 levels). Long-term goal: net zero by 2050. Australia: Updated NDC aims to cut emissions by 62%–70% of 2005 levels by 2035. Global gap: Even if all NDCs are perfectly met, world is projected to heat by 3°C, missing Paris target of well below 2°C. Strategic and Policy Implications Energy Transition: Higher energy efficiency and non-fossil power targets reinforce India’s climate leadership. Market Mechanism: Carbon market encourages corporate participation, incentivizes emissions reduction, and integrates economic tools with climate goals. International Diplomacy: Timely and ambitious NDC submission strengthens India’s position in global climate negotiations. Domestic Implementation: Targets will require policy interventions across 13 sectors, technology upgrades, and regulatory enforcement. Challenges Achieving absolute emission reduction while sustaining economic growth. Sectoral compliance: Ensuring carbon market operations are effective across industries. Global comparison: Need to match or exceed peers’ commitments to maintain credibility in climate diplomacy. Monitoring and Reporting: Accurate data collection and progress reporting to UNFCCC is critical. L-1 visa vis-à-vis the H-1B Why is it in the news The US administration imposed a $100,000 fee on fresh H-1B applications, prompting companies and workers to explore alternative work visas. The L-1 visa is being discussed as a potential alternative for certain employees of multinational companies. Policy relevance: Could affect Indian IT firms, Big Tech, and global talent mobility. Relevance: GS II (International Relations & Policy): US visa policies, bilateral labour mobility implications. GS III (Economy & Industry): Global talent mobility, Indian IT and Big Tech staffing strategies, international labour arbitrage. Understanding the L-1 visa Definition: L-1 is a non-immigrant intra-company transfer visa for executives, managers (L-1A), or employees with specialized knowledge (L-1B). Eligibility: Must have worked abroad for the same multinational firm for at least 1 continuous year in the past 3 years. Only the employer can petition; individuals cannot apply independently. Duration: L-1A: 7 years max (executives/managers) L-1B: 5 years max (specialized knowledge employees) Advantages: No lottery or quota; can apply year-round. “Blanket petitions” allow faster processing for large firms. L-1 holders can pursue a green card without jeopardizing status. Limitations: Tied to a single company; cannot switch employers freely. Not available to F-1 students (lack of prior international work experience). Cannot extend simply while awaiting a green card beyond allowed period. L-1 vs H-1B: Key Comparisons Feature L-1 H-1B Purpose Intra-company transfers Specialty occupation workers Eligibility 1 year abroad in same firm Bachelor’s degree or higher in relevant field Cap / Quota No cap 85,000/year (65k regular + 20k advanced degree) Lottery No Yes Prevailing wage Not required Required Duration L-1A: 7 yrs, L-1B: 5 yrs Initial 3 yrs, max 6 yrs Employer flexibility Tied to same company Can switch employers with new petition Green card Allowed, does not jeopardize status Allowed, but may require extensions for pending GC Student eligibility F-1 ineligible Optional through H-1B post-F-1 OPT Conclusion: L-1 is not a blanket substitute for H-1B; it is specialized for multinational transfers, advantageous for eligible employees but limited in scope. Current Data L-1 issuance (US State Dept): FY2019: 76,982 FY2021 (pandemic low): 24,863 FY2023: 76,571 Refusal rates increased from ~7% to 12% in 2023. Strategic & Policy Implications For Indian IT and Big Tech firms: May rely more on L-1 transfers for eligible employees to mitigate the $100,000 H-1B fee. Encourages offshore staffing models for employees ineligible for L-1. Talent mobility: L-1 ensures retention of highly skilled employees within multinational structures. US perspective: Maintains focus on protecting domestic labor while still allowing multinational firms to bring experienced talent. Global competition: Other countries (Canada, Australia, UK) may attract H-1B-eligible workers unable to use L-1.