Current Affairs 09 September 2025
Content GST 2.0 could undermine dietary health India–China: the need for a border settlement How does two-factor authentication (2FA) work? At least 19 killed in Nepal protests; Sharma Oli govt. revokes social media ban Vembanad Lake crisis GST 2.0 could undermine dietary health Why in News From 22 September 2025, India will implement GST 2.0 with a simplified structure: Two main slabs: 5% and 18%. A special 40% “sinful/ultra-luxury” bracket. Many everyday foods (pizza bread, confectionery, chocolates, jams, jellies) will shift to lower tax slabs (5% or zero). Aerated and sugar-based beverages will move to the 40% bracket. Concern: While simplifying GST, these changes may undermine public health goals by making unhealthy foods more affordable. Relevance : GS III (Economy – Tax Policy, Public Health, Nutrition Security, Non-Communicable Disease Prevention). From Basics GST Basics: Introduced in 2017 → “One Nation, One Tax” indirect tax reform. Prior slabs: 5%, 12%, 18%, 28% (+ cess). GST 2.0 → rationalised to 5% and 18%, with 40% sin tax for harmful/luxury goods. Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in India: Account for ~65% of deaths (WHO, MoHFW data). Diet-related risk factors: high sugar, salt, fat consumption → obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease. Front-of-Pack Labelling (FOPL): Proposed by FSSAI in 2022, still not finalised. Supreme Court (July 2025): ordered FSSAI to finalise norms within 3 months. Debate: Health Star Rating vs “High-in” Warning Labels. WHO-SEARO’s Nutrient Profile Model (NPM): recommends category-based cut-offs for sugar, sodium, fats. Advertising Rules (Current): HFSS foods banned near schools (FSSAI 2020). CCPA 2022 → restrictions on misleading ads. ASCI 2024 → expanded disclosure norms. Still no comprehensive HFSS advertising regulation comparable to Chile or UK. Comprehensive Overview Positive Aspects of GST 2.0 Simplification of structure → reduces compliance burden. 40% sin tax on aerated drinks → aligns with global best practices. Studies (Asia, Africa) show 2.5–19% consumption decline after sugar taxes. Can nudge reformulation of sugary drinks if linked with labelling and ad restrictions. Public Health Concerns Unhealthy foods becoming cheaper: Pizza bread (including maida-based) exempted. Chocolates, jams, confectionery moved to 5%. Mismatch in taxation: sugary beverages penalised, but sugary foods incentivised. Risk of substitution: adolescents may shift from taxed beverages to untaxed sugary snacks. Weakness in Regulatory Ecosystem Food Labelling Gaps: Without mandatory FOPL, consumers can’t differentiate healthy vs unhealthy products. “Per serving” labels misleading → need per 100g/ml thresholds. Advertising Gaps: No restriction on HFSS ads across TV, social media, print. Chile’s model (ban on child-directed advertising of “high in” foods) more effective. Policy Corrections Needed Link GST with FOPL: Products breaching “high in” thresholds → taxed 18% or higher. Compliant products → taxed 5% or lower. Mandatory Warning Labels: Adopt WHO-SEARO or ICMR-NIN thresholds. Apply per-quantity norms to avoid loopholes. Stronger Ad Regulation: Ban ads for “high in” products to children. Restrict ad slots during peak child-viewing hours. Use of Sin-Tax Revenues: Redirect to NCD prevention, labelling enforcement, reformulation incentives. Long-Term Implications If uncorrected, GST 2.0 could increase NCD burden, straining healthcare. Integrated approach needed: Tax Policy + Labelling + Advertising Regulation. India can set a global example by aligning fiscal and health policies. India-China: the need for a border settlement Why in News On 19 August 2025, India and China held the 24th round of Special Representatives (SR) talks on the boundary issue. Talks resumed after a five-year gap (2019–2024) due to the 2020 border crisis. Both sides reiterated commitment to the 2005 “Political Parameters and Guiding Principles” agreement as the framework for settlement. Agreed to focus on: Early harvest settlement of the Sikkim–Tibet boundary. New border management mechanisms to prevent 2020-like incidents. Relevance : GS II (International Relations – Boundary Dispute, Security, Diplomacy, Strategic Affairs). From Basics Historical Context: Boundary dispute dates back to colonial demarcations → McMahon Line (Arunachal Pradesh) and Aksai Chin (Ladakh). 1962 war → unresolved borders, mistrust. 1979 Vajpayee’s visit to China → beginning of normalization. Vajpayee’s Role: 1998 nuclear tests soured ties, but reconciliation followed. 2003: Vajpayee’s visit → Special Representatives (SR) mechanism set up (NSA-level talks). Aim: political, not purely technical, resolution. 2005 Political Parameters Agreement: Settlement to consider strategic interests and settled populations. Suggested swap deal: China keeps Aksai Chin (strategically vital for it). India retains Arunachal Pradesh (populated, culturally tied to India). Articles: Art. IV – “mutual and equal security”. Art. VII – “interests of settled populations” to be protected. Subsequent Developments: 2007: China reasserted claim on Tawang (Arunachal Pradesh) despite Article VII. 2013: Both sides reached 18-point consensus (per Menon & Chinese Ambassador Wei Wei). Doklam crisis (2017) → revealed partial agreements (Sikkim-Tibet watershed alignment). 2020 Galwan crisis → major breakdown of trust, collapse of existing CBMs. Comprehensive Overview Strategic Significance of Settlement For India: Secure borders → reduce military costs of LAC deployment. Focus on core strategic challenges (Indian Ocean, Pakistan). Normalize relations with China → boost trade & diplomacy. For China: Stable border allows focus on Taiwan, South China Sea. Secures Aksai Chin (vital for Xinjiang–Tibet connectivity). Prevents India–U.S. alignment from hardening further. Key Roadblocks Tawang Issue: China insists India concede Tawang, despite India’s settled populations argument. Mistrust: 2020 Galwan clash → CBMs (1993, 1996, 2005, 2013) undermined. Domestic Politics: Both leaderships risk being seen as compromising on sovereignty. Geopolitical Factors: U.S.–China rivalry makes Beijing cautious about India’s growing alignment with Quad. Present Status (2025) 24th SR talks revived the 2005 framework. Agreement to: Prioritize Sikkim–Tibet boundary finalization (low-hanging fruit). Devise new border management mechanisms beyond failed 1996/2005 CBMs. Military deployments remain high → both sides paying heavy economic and strategic costs. The Way Forward Political Will Required: A deal exists in principle since 2005–2013; execution stalled by lack of leadership consensus. Incremental Approach: Start with Sikkim-Tibet “early harvest”, expand to Ladakh–Arunachal. Revived CBMs: Joint patrolling, hotlines, no-weapons protocols must be reworked. Strategic Compromise: Both sides must accept “as is, where is” logic — Aksai Chin with China, Arunachal with India. Key Takeaways The 2005 Political Parameters Agreement remains the only negotiated document on India–China boundary. Settlement is technically feasible but blocked by political reluctance and trust deficit. Without resolution, both countries bear escalating military and economic costs at the LAC. A breakthrough requires top-level political push, as Vajpayee once attempted in 2003. How does two-factor authentication (2FA) work? Why in News Growing cyber threats have exposed the limitations of password-only authentication. Increasing adoption of Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) by services like Google, Facebook, banks, and government portals. Popular implementations: Google Authenticator, Authy, Microsoft Authenticator, YubiKey. Relevance : GS III (Internal Security – Cybersecurity, Authentication Technologies, Digital Governance). From Basics Passwords Alone Are Not Enough: Vulnerable to theft, phishing, brute-force attacks. If compromised, attackers gain full access without user awareness. What is 2FA? Authentication via two factors: Something you know → Password. Something you have → Authenticator app/device. Example: Even with a stolen password, attacker also needs access to your phone. One-Time Passwords (OTPs): Short numeric codes valid for a few seconds. Prevents reuse → intercepted code becomes useless. Time-based One-Time Passwords (TOTP): Defined by open standard (RFC 6238). Uses secret key + current time to generate 6-digit code every 30 seconds. Widely supported across platforms → interoperability. How TOTP Works: Service shares a secret key (via QR code). Both server and authenticator app calculate code using: Shared secret. Time counter (increments every 30 seconds). Cryptographic hash function. Result → 6-digit code displayed on app, verified by server. Hash Functions: Convert variable-length input → fixed-length output (e.g., SHA-256 → 256-bit). Properties: one-way, collision-resistant, sensitive to small input changes. HMAC (Hash-based Message Authentication Code): Combines secret key with message using hash function securely. Provides integrity + authenticity. Formula involves XOR mixing with pads (inner & outer). XOR in Cryptography: Logical operation: outputs 1 if inputs differ, 0 if same. Reversible → crucial in encryption and authentication schemes. Comprehensive Overview Security Strengths Layered defence: requires both password + device. Time sensitivity: codes valid only for 30 seconds. Unpredictability: without secret key, output cannot be derived. Compatibility: TOTP standard ensures same method across apps. Limitations & Risks Device Loss: if phone is lost, access recovery can be difficult. Phishing Attacks: real-time phishing kits can capture OTPs. Man-in-the-Middle Attacks: attacker intercepts OTP during login. User Inconvenience: setup and backup keys often neglected. Alternatives & Variants HOTP (HMAC-based OTP) → counter instead of time, less common. Push-based 2FA → approval via notification, not manual code. Hardware Tokens (e.g., YubiKeys) → physical device generates secure codes. Biometrics → fingerprint, face, or iris as second factor. Broader Implications Cybersecurity Policy: governments, banks, and enterprises encourage 2FA adoption. Digital India/UIDAI Context: Aadhaar-enabled authentication also uses multi-factor. Global Cyber Norms: alignment with zero-trust security architecture. Key Takeaways 2FA and TOTP provide significantly higher protection than passwords alone. Based on cryptographic principles (hash, HMAC, XOR) and time-based counters. Adoption challenges remain (phishing, user convenience), but it is a necessary global cybersecurity standard. At least 19 killed in Nepal protests; Sharma Oli govt. revokes social media ban Why in News Nepal witnessed unprecedented protests led mainly by Gen Z youth against the government’s ban on social media platforms. Trigger: Government ordered registration of digital platforms, curbs on “objectionable posts”, and blocked apps like TikTok, Viber, and Bigo Live. Protests escalated into violent clashes near Parliament in Kathmandu; 19 killed, many injured. The movement reflects deeper anger at corruption, political dynasties, and lack of accountability. Relevance : GS II (International Relations – India–Nepal, Democracy, Governance, Civil Liberties, Political Movements). From Basics Nepal’s Democracy: Transitioned from monarchy → democracy (2008). Federal democratic republic with frequent political instability. Social Media in Nepal: Primary platform for youth expression, activism, and dissent. Used to highlight corruption, nepotism (“Nepo Babies”), and demand accountability. Especially critical for Gen Z (large share of Nepal’s population is below 30). Legal Context: Government claimed regulation was needed to curb misinformation and harmful content. Critics: Seen as muzzling dissent, shrinking civic space, undermining free speech. Comprehensive Overview Political Context Youth anger directed at entrenched political class (Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, Sher Bahadur Deuba, K.P. Sharma Oli). Allegations: misuse of power, corruption in aid, infrastructure contracts, and wealth accumulation by political elites. Rotational politics among same leaders since 2006 peace process → perception of stagnation. Social Dimension Gen Z frustration: lack of jobs, poor governance, and corruption. Social media as only outlet for voice → crackdown triggered massive backlash. “Nepo Babies” trend: exposing privileges of children of leaders. Legal & Governance Issues Government rationale: curb fake news, hate speech, and “objectionable posts”. Reality: disproportionate restrictions → violation of free expression, association, and privacy. Opposition parties & rights groups: called it an authoritarian overreach. Economic Concerns Nepal’s weak economy, high youth unemployment, and migration reliance (remittances). Social media bans hurt small businesses, digital creators, and diaspora communication. Geopolitical Angle Nepal caught between India and China’s influence. Social media restrictions could push Nepal closer to China-style digital authoritarianism. Impacts Nepal’s democratic credentials regionally and globally. Broader Implications Ban symbolises clash between youth aspirations vs. entrenched elite politics. Raises questions about state control over digital spaces in fragile democracies. May fuel long-term distrust in institutions and radicalisation of youth movements. Key Takeaways Social media ban is only the trigger → the real issue is youth disillusionment with corruption, dynastic politics, and lack of accountability. Nepal faces a democratic backsliding risk if bans and curbs on free expression continue. Stability requires reforms: youth participation in governance, anti-corruption measures, transparency, and balancing digital regulation with rights. Vembanad Lake crisis Why in News Vembanad Lake, Kerala’s largest wetland and a Ramsar site, faces severe ecological degradation. Unchecked tourism (luxury houseboats), encroachment, sewage, and reclamation threaten its survival. A CWRDM report shows boat numbers have exceeded carrying capacity → pushing the ecosystem to collapse. Relevance : GS III (Environment – Wetlands, Ramsar Sites, Ecological Degradation, Sustainable Tourism, Climate Resilience). From Basics Location: Spans Alappuzha, Kottayam, Ernakulam districts in Kerala. Ecological importance: Largest Ramsar site in Kerala. Regulates floods, nourishes paddy fields (Kuttanad region – “Rice Bowl of Kerala”), sustains fisheries. Habitat for mangroves, migratory birds, and aquatic life. Socio-economic role: Supports fishing communities. Central to Kerala’s backwater tourism (houseboats, shikaras). Comprehensive Overview Tourism Pressure Traditional kettuvalloms turned into luxury floating resorts. Safe capacity: 461 houseboats → Actual: 954 + 241 shikaras + 404 motorboats + 1,625 country boats. Impact: Sewage discharge, diesel pollution, boat congestion → erosion, breeding ground destruction. Water Pollution Coliform levels near Punnamada: 8,000 → lake turning into “floating septic tank”. Sewage treatment infrastructure largely idle. Churning wakes disturb sediments → ecological imbalance. Impact on Communities Fisherfolk displaced from traditional fishing grounds. Declining fish catch → loss of livelihoods. Increased vulnerability to floods and droughts. Wetland Degradation Area shrinkage: 130.68 sq. km (1967) → 3.29 sq. km (2011). Ongoing annual reduction: ~0.3 sq. km. Encroachments: illegal resorts, land reclamation, high-rises. Example: 2019 Maradu flats demolition → exposed 26,000+ violations. Governance & Policy Issues Tourism-politics nexus → reluctance to regulate. Judicial interventions (SC orders demolitions) address visible violations, but invisible pressures (houseboat sewage, congestion) remain unchecked. Lack of integrated wetland management plan. Proposed Solutions Ban non-local boats, regulate carrying capacity. Waste treatment mandatory at hubs. Declare Vembanad a fish sanctuary (as proposed by KSSP). Promote eco-tourism, restrict entry into sensitive zones. Balance tourism revenue with ecological sustainability. Broader Significance Environmental: Wetland collapse → loss of biodiversity, flood regulation capacity. Economic: Threat to fisheries, paddy cultivation, and long-term tourism viability. Social: Marginalisation of local communities, cultural displacement. Climate Change Context: Kerala’s recurrent floods make Vembanad’s survival critical for resilience.