Content
Indian Railways to Patronise ‘Aabhar’ Online Store
Decoding India’s Projected GDP: Ambition vs. Arithmetic
India Pushes FTA Talks with Chile and Peru — Securing Rare Earths and Critical Minerals
Anti-GM Activists Question ‘Advantages’ of ICAR’s Two Gene-Edited Rice Varieties
Mohanlal Case and Cracks in India’s Wildlife Law
Invisible Deaths: Climate Crisis and the Abandonment of India’s Sanitation Workers
Indian Railways to Patronise ‘Aabhar’ Online Store
Why in News?
The Indian Railways has announced its patronage for ‘Aabhar’, an online store launched on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) to promote local artisans, weavers, and handicraft producers under One District One Product (ODOP) and Geographical Indication (GI) frameworks.
The initiative aligns with the government’s ‘Vocal for Local’ campaign and complements the ‘One Station One Product’ (OSOP) scheme.
Relevance :
GS-2 (Governance):
Government initiatives for inclusive, transparent procurement (GeM, ODOP, OSOP).
Institutional convergence between MoT, KVIC, CCIE, and Indian Railways for MSME empowerment.
GS-3 (Economy):
Promotion of local industries and rural artisans under Atmanirbhar Bharat and Vocal for Local.
Integration of traditional crafts into digital marketplaces and sustainable consumption models.
GS-1 (Culture):
Preservation and promotion of India’s cultural heritage through handicrafts, GI-tagged products, and handlooms.
Basic Concept
‘Aabhar’ Online Store:
An e-commerce platform on GeM that curates gift and souvenir items crafted by Indian artisans, handloom weavers, tribal producers, and women-led enterprises.
Implementing Partners:
Central Cottage Industries Emporium (CCIE)
Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC)
State Handloom and Handicraft Emporiums
Purpose:
To integrate local handicrafts and heritage products into official gifting and events by government departments, PSUs, and institutions.
Key Objectives
Promote Local Heritage: Showcase India’s cultural richness through handlooms, handicrafts, and tribal art.
Empower Artisans: Provide market access and stable demand for marginalized rural producers and women entrepreneurs.
Support Sustainable Development: Encourage eco-friendly, handmade products over mass-produced imports.
Institutional Patronage: Use Indian Railways’ nationwide presence to drive large-scale adoption in government procurement.
Institutional Linkages
Platform: Hosted on GeM (Government e-Marketplace) for transparent, direct sourcing.
Alignment with Policies:
Vocal for Local
Make in India
Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan
ODOP and GI Promotion Initiatives
Railways’ Precedent: Builds upon the success of ‘One Station One Product’ (OSOP) — stalls across railway stations promoting local crafts, such as Banarasi silk (Varanasi), chikankari (Lucknow), and bamboo crafts (Assam).
Significance
Economic: Expands domestic market opportunities for micro and small enterprises (MSMEs).
Social: Promotes inclusive growth by uplifting tribal, rural, and women artisans.
Cultural: Reinforces India’s intangible heritage and craftsmanship traditions.
Administrative: Encourages ethical procurement practices within government departments.
Challenges
Logistics and Delivery: Ensuring efficient supply chain and quality control from rural producers to buyers.
Digital Literacy: Need for capacity-building among artisans for GeM onboarding.
Sustained Demand: Maintaining consistent government and institutional orders beyond ceremonial occasions.
Other Initiatives
ODOP (One District One Product): Promotes district-specific handicrafts or produce.
GI Tagging: Protects intellectual property and authenticity of traditional crafts.
OSOP (One Station One Product): Provides physical retail space to artisans at railway stations.
PM Vishwakarma Yojana: Supports traditional artisans and craftspeople through financial and skill-based aid.
Decoding India’s projected GDP
Why in News?
Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal recently stated that India will become a $30 trillion economy in 20–25 years.
The claim drew scrutiny as economists questioned whether India’s current growth trajectory supports this projection.
The discussion reflects India’s long-term economic ambition, trade negotiation posture, and structural growth challenges.
Relevance :
GS-3 (Economy):
Growth projections, macroeconomic trends, and structural reforms needed for Viksit Bharat@2047.
Role of productivity, investment, and rupee stability in sustaining high nominal GDP growth.
Fiscal and monetary challenges in long-term growth trajectory.
GS-2 (Polity & Governance):
Economic policymaking, coordination among ministries (Finance, Commerce, NITI Aayog).
Policy coherence in achieving sustainable development goals.
Basic Concepts
1. What is GDP?
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures the total monetary value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a year.
Indicates economic size, productivity, and global influence.
Example (2024):
India’s GDP: $3.9 trillion (FY 2023–24)
US GDP: $29.2 trillion
California (US State): $4.1 trillion — larger than India’s entire economy.
2. How GDP is Calculated in USD Terms:
GDP (in ₹) ÷ Average Dollar–Rupee Exchange Rate = GDP (in $).
Nominal GDP is used in such projections (not adjusted for inflation).
India’s Growth Record (Historical Perspective)
Period
Nominal GDP CAGR
Rupee Depreciation CAGR
Implied Growth Outcome
Past 25 years (2000–2024)
11.9%
2.7%
India could reach $55.9 trillion by 2048
Past 11 years (2013–2024)
10.3%
3.08%
India could reach $25.8 trillion by 2048 and $30 trillion by ~2053
CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate
The Divergence
Based on 25-year trend: India = $55.9 trillion (2048)
Based on 11-year trend: India = $25.8 trillion (2048)
Difference: ~75% in projected size; time lag of ~7 years to reach $30 trillion.
This highlights the sensitivity of long-term projections to small shifts in growth rates and exchange depreciation.
Key Factors Affecting GDP Projections
1. Growth Momentum:
India’s growth has slowed since 2014—partly due to global headwinds, investment slowdown, and uneven domestic reforms.
2. Rupee Depreciation:
A faster depreciation (over 3% CAGR recently) reduces GDP in dollar terms, even if domestic output rises.
3. Inflation vs. Real Growth:
Nominal GDP includes inflation; real GDP growth matters more for welfare and purchasing power.
4. Demographic Dividend:
India’s working-age population remains a strength till the 2040s but needs quality education and jobs to translate into productivity.
5. Productivity and Capital Formation:
Sustained investment in infrastructure, innovation, and manufacturing needed to push growth above 8–9% consistently.
6. External Sector:
Trade competitiveness, exchange rate stability, and energy security will affect dollar-denominated GDP.
Overview
1. Exponential Effect:
Even a 1% drop in annual GDP growth over decades leads to trillions in lost output.
Example: 11.9% → 10.3% CAGR = ~$30 trillion difference over 25 years.
2. Base Effect:
India’s small base allows rapid scaling, but as the economy grows, marginal growth rates naturally decelerate.
3. Credibility of Projection:
To reach $30 trillion by 2048, India needs a nominal GDP growth of ~11–12% annually (real growth ~7–8% + inflation ~4%).
At the current pace (~6.5% real growth, 3.5% inflation), India would hit $30 trillion closer to 2053–2055.
Policy Imperatives for Sustaining High Growth
1. Structural Reforms:
Simplify land and labour laws, deepen financial markets, and ensure ease of doing business.
2. Industrial Policy & Manufacturing Push:
Build on PLI schemes and digital manufacturing ecosystems to reduce import dependence.
3. Human Capital:
Strengthen education, health, skilling, and women’s workforce participation to maximise demographic potential.
4. Fiscal and Monetary Stability:
Manage inflation, public debt, and exchange rate volatility to sustain investor confidence.
5. Innovation and Digitalization:
Leverage AI, clean energy, and digital infrastructure to enhance productivity and exports.
Global Context
The US and China dominate the global GDP chart at $29 trillion and $18 trillion respectively.
For India to be comparable, it must sustain decades of high, inclusive growth without external shocks.
A $30 trillion India by mid-century would place it alongside the US and China as a global economic pole.
Significance
Reflects India’s long-term economic ambition under Viksit Bharat@2047.
Shapes India’s confidence in trade negotiations, FDI strategy, and geopolitical standing.
Highlights the importance of consistency in growth, not just potential.
Challenges Ahead
Growth slowdown due to cyclical and structural issues.
Global economic fragmentation and trade protectionism.
Climate transition costs and dependence on energy imports.
Inequality and uneven regional development.
The Bottom Line
Piyush Goyal’s $30 trillion vision is aspirational, not impossible.
Achieving it demands faster growth, rupee stability, and structural transformation.
The next two decades will determine whether India remains a fast-growing developing nation or becomes a developed global economic powerhouse.
India pushes FTA talks with Chile, Peru with focus on rare earths
Why in News?
India’s trade negotiation teams are currently in Chile and Peru to fast-track Free Trade Agreement (FTA) talks.
The core objective is to secure long-term, assured access to critical minerals and rare earth elements vital for India’s EVs, electronics, renewable energy, and defence manufacturing.
This comes amid China’s export restrictions on rare earths and India’s diversification push under its Critical Minerals Strategy 2023 and trade diversification policy.
Relevance :
GS-2 (International Relations):
India’s strategic engagement with Latin America under South–South Cooperation.
Role of trade diplomacy in resource security and geopolitical diversification.
GS-3 (Economy & Science-Tech):
Critical minerals policy, FTA frameworks, and India’s mineral supply chain resilience.
Role of KABIL and MSP (Minerals Security Partnership) in energy transition and EV ecosystem.
GS-3 (Environment):
Sustainable mining practices and global environmental compliance in resource partnerships.
Context
Background of India–Chile & India–Peru Engagements
India–Chile:
Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) signed in 2006, expanded in 2017.
India offered tariff concessions on 1,031 products; Chile reciprocated on 1,798 products.
Current bilateral trade (FY25): $3.75 billion (India’s exports: $1.5 billion).
Negotiating upgrade to Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) covering critical minerals, digital trade, MSMEs, and investments.
India–Peru:
FTA talks started in 2017, paused during COVID-19, now resumed.
Bilateral trade includes India’s exports of motor vehicles, cotton yarn, pharma, and Peru’s exports of gold, copper ore, concentrates.
Progress is slower due to Peru’s cautious negotiation pace.
Strategic and Economic Rationale
1. Securing Critical Minerals:
Latin America holds abundant reserves of lithium, copper, cobalt, and rare earths, essential for clean energy and high-tech manufacturing.
India seeks exploration and mining rights in these countries to reduce import dependence and diversify away from China.
2. Countering China’s Dominance:
China controls ~90% of the global rare earth supply chain and recently restricted exports of rare earths and magnet technologies.
These curbs impacted India’s automotive and electronics sectors, prompting an urgent strategic sourcing response.
3. Trade Diversification Strategy:
Aims to reduce overdependence on traditional partners (US, EU, China) amid tariff tensions and supply disruptions.
Latin America provides resource complementarity with India’s manufacturing ambitions.
Critical Minerals in Focus
Mineral
Strategic Use
Key Supplier (LatAm)
Lithium
EV batteries, energy storage
Chile, Argentina
Copper
Power grids, electronics
Peru, Chile
Rare Earth Elements (REEs)
Magnets, wind turbines, defence tech
Chile
Cobalt
Battery cathodes
Peru
India’s Broader Critical Minerals Strategy
Critical Minerals Mission (2023) under Ministry of Mines identifies 30 priority minerals.
KABIL (Khanij Bidesh India Ltd.), a JV of NALCO–HCL–MECL, tasked to acquire overseas mineral assets.
Minerals Security Partnership (MSP): India exploring deeper engagement with the US, Japan, and Australia for critical mineral supply chains.
Domestic Exploration: GSI and AMD expanding exploration of lithium (J&K, Rajasthan) and REEs (Andhra Pradesh, Kerala).
India–Chile CEPA: Next-Gen Agreement
Will upgrade the 2017 PTA to cover:
Critical minerals and exploration cooperation
Trade in goods and services
Digital trade and e-commerce
Investment and MSME linkages
Technology sharing in green energy and mining
Chile’s enthusiastic approach contrasts with Peru’s cautious pace, but both countries are key to India’s resource security in the Southern Hemisphere.
Challenges & Concerns
Rules of Origin: Preventing Chinese transshipment of goods via Chile or Peru to exploit tariff concessions.
Geopolitical Risk: Latin America’s internal political volatility may delay deals.
Environmental Compliance: India’s exploration rights must align with local sustainability norms.
Negotiation Timeframe: Peru’s slow FTA pace could delay resource access.
Significance
1. Economic:
Strengthens supply chain resilience and secures inputs for Make in India and energy transition sectors.
Enhances bilateral trade volumes and opens Latin American markets for Indian pharma and automobiles.
2. Strategic:
Counters China’s mineral diplomacy and secures India’s role in global value chains for green tech.
Deepens South–South cooperation and strengthens India’s footprint in Latin America.
3. Diplomatic:
Reinforces India’s Act East + Act Latin trade diversification strategy.
Builds on India’s image as a reliable, sustainable partner in critical mineral value chains.
Projected Outcomes
India–Chile CEPA likely to conclude soon (2025), unlocking exploration and investment partnerships.
India–Peru FTA expected by late 2026–27, once outstanding tariff and mineral clauses are resolved.
Together, both FTAs could cut India’s dependence on China for 15–20% of key mineral inputs.
Anti-GM activists question ‘advantages’ of ICAR’s two gene-edited rice varieties
Why in News?
The Coalition for a GM-Free India accused ICAR of “scientific fraud” and data manipulation in field trials of two genome-edited rice varieties — Pusa DST-1 and DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala).
These varieties were hailed as a global first in gene-edited rice by Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan (May 2024), but activists claim ICAR’s own AICRP (All India Coordinated Research Project) reports for 2023–24 contradict the claims.
Relevance :
GS-3 (Science & Technology):
Genome editing (CRISPR, SDN-1/2/3), agricultural biotechnology, and biosafety regulation.
Ethical and scientific concerns over transparency, data integrity, and research governance.
GS-2 (Governance):
Institutional accountability of ICAR and oversight mechanisms under India’s biosafety laws.
Policy–activism interface in regulatory decision-making (GM mustard, Bt brinjal precedents).
GS-3 (Environment & Agriculture):
Implications for sustainable agriculture, biodiversity, and food security.
Basic Concepts
1. Genetic Modification (GM) vs Genome Editing (GE):
GM Crops: Introduce foreign DNA (transgenes) from other species → regulatory approval under GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) required.
Genome-Edited Crops: Modify existing genes (via tools like CRISPR-Cas9) without foreign DNA; regulatory relaxations possible if no transgenes remain.
India allows SDN-1 and SDN-2 genome editing (small edits without foreign DNA) under a simplified regulatory pathway (2022 guidelines).
2. ICAR’s Role:
ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) oversees agricultural R&D.
AICRP on Rice conducts multi-location field trials across India to evaluate varietal performance under various agro-climatic zones.
About the Two Varieties
1. Pusa DST-1 (IET 32043):
Developed by IARI (Pusa Institute).
Claimed traits: drought, salinity, and alkalinity tolerance; higher yield than parent MTU-1010.
Announced as a global first gene-edited rice (May 2024).
2. DRR Dhan 100 “Kamala” (IET 32072):
Developed by ICAR-Indian Institute of Rice Research (IIRR), Hyderabad.
Derived from BPT 5204 (Sona Masuri).
Claimed: 17% higher yield, early maturity (20 days), improved nitrogen-use efficiency.
Allegations by the Coalition for a GM-Free India
1. Data Contradictions:
Pusa DST-1:
2023 AICRP report: No data on drought/salinity due to “limited seed quantity.”
Showed same or 4.8% lower yield vs parent MTU-1010; underperformed in 12 of 20 sites.
2024 trials: No yield advantage in coastal/inland salinity; only 1.6% gain in alkaline soils.
Yet summary table selectively highlighted “30% higher yield” from 8 sites in one zone.
DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala):
2023: Underperformed in 8 of 19 sites; yield advantage (4.3%) limited to southern zone.
2024: Excluded several sites without reason; used 6 sites to claim 17.21% higher yield.
2. Accusation of “Scientific Fraud”:
ICAR allegedly cherry-picked data to present exaggerated performance.
Activists claim repetition of biotech lobby tactics seen in earlier controversies (e.g., Bt Brinjal, GM Mustard).
3. Lack of Transparency:
No independent peer-reviewed validation of field results.
Absence of publicly available biosafety and ecological risk assessments.
Policy and Governance Context
1. Regulation in India:
Genome Editing Guidelines (2022):
SDN-1 & SDN-2 exempt from GEAC oversight; handled by ICAR & Institutional Biosafety Committees.
Critics argue this reduces regulatory scrutiny and increases conflict of interest.
2. Past Controversies:
Bt Brinjal (2010): Moratorium after public opposition.
GM Mustard (2022): Accused of insufficient biosafety review; Supreme Court cases ongoing.
3. Global Perspective:
Genome editing accepted in US, Japan, Argentina with relaxed norms.
EU (2023) considering differentiated rules for New Genomic Techniques (NGTs).
India’s position: cautious optimism with “innovation–biosecurity balance.”
Scientific and Ethical Concerns
Data Integrity: Potential manipulation undermines credibility of public research institutions.
Environmental Risks: Gene-edited crops may still pose unforeseen ecosystem effects.
Farmer Autonomy: Risk of corporate seed monopolies through IP protection on edited varieties.
Public Trust: Erosion of confidence in scientific institutions if allegations proven true.
Way Forward
Independent Re-evaluation: Multi-location, transparent field trials under third-party supervision.
Public Data Disclosure: All AICRP raw data should be made open-access.
Stronger Oversight: Strengthen Biosafety Authority to cover genome-edited crops.
Stakeholder Dialogue: Farmers, scientists, and civil society engagement to build informed consensus.
Science Communication: Clear differentiation between GM and GE crops for public understanding.
Mohanlal Case and Cracks in India’s Wildlife Law
Why in News?
On 25 October 2025, the Kerala High Court declared that the ownership certificates and government orders legalising actor Mohanlal’s ivory possession were “illegal, void, and unenforceable.”
The verdict reopened a 14-year-old wildlife case that began with the 2011 Income Tax raid at Mohanlal’s residence, where officials discovered four elephant tusks and 13 ivory artefacts.
The judgment exposed systemic weaknesses in India’s wildlife governance, highlighting procedural violations, selective enforcement, and the influence of celebrity privilege.
Relevance :
GS-2 (Governance):
Rule of law, administrative discretion, and procedural justice in environmental governance.
Accountability of state agencies and misuse of executive power.
GS-3 (Environment):
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 — enforcement challenges, ivory trade bans, and conservation ethics.
Weak deterrence and institutional gaps in wildlife crime prosecution.
GS-4 (Ethics):
Moral dimensions of privilege, celebrity influence, and equality before law.
Integrity and fairness in environmental justice.
Basic Legal Framework
1. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:
Core legislation to protect India’s fauna and flora.
Prohibits possession, sale, or display of wildlife trophies and animal articles (including ivory) without valid certification.
Section 40 & 42:
Section 40: Requires prior declaration of possession of any wildlife article.
Section 42: Allows ownership certificates only after verification and gazette notification.
2. Ivory Ban:
1986: Complete ban on trade in Indian ivory.
1991 Amendment: Extended ban to African ivory imports and possession without certification.
Ivory = Symbol of illegal wildlife trade, associated with elephant poaching and population decline.
Chronology of Events
2011:
Income Tax officials raid Mohanlal’s house → seize 4 tusks & 13 ivory artefacts.
Forest Department files case under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
2015:
Kerala govt issues a notification under Section 40(4) inviting declarations from those possessing ivory — aimed at regularising past possession.
→ Mohanlal declares ownership; Chief Wildlife Warden grants certificate under Section 42.
→ Case withdrawn; ivory declared “lawfully owned.”
2018–2023:
Conservationists and ex-forest officers challenge the validity of certificates before the High Court, citing lack of gazette publication of notification.
25 Oct 2025:
Kerala HC declares notification & certificates void ab initio — violating statutory procedure.
Rebukes State for “legal mala fides” and misuse of administrative discretion.
Key Legal and Procedural Issues
1. Gazette Publication Requirement:
Mandatory for validity under the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
Kerala govt’s 2015 notification never published in the official gazette, making it legally non-existent.
2. Retrospective Regularisation:
The 2015 notification allowed individuals to retroactively legalise illegal possession — undermining the spirit of the Act.
The process effectively converted a criminal offence into paperwork compliance.
3. Violation of Equality Before Law (Article 14):
Regularisation allegedly tailored to benefit a single high-profile individual.
No similar leniency shown to other violators → selective enforcement.
4. Administrative Mala Fide:
HC noted “convenience over legality”, indicating misuse of discretion by the State to protect the influential.
High Court’s Verdict (2025)
Bench: Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar & Jobin Sebastian.
Key Observations:
“A power not exercised in the manner prescribed under the statute cannot be said to have been exercised at all.”
Declared all ownership certificates void from inception.
Criticised govt’s procedural shortcuts and lack of transparency.
Stopped short of ordering confiscation or prosecution; left option for fresh, lawful notification if the govt wishes to reopen the process.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that procedure is justice in environmental law.
Reinforced rule of law over administrative convenience.
Ethical and Societal Dimensions
1. Symbolism of Ivory:
Ivory represents centuries of elephant slaughter and ecological loss.
Even if legally obtained, displaying ivory legitimises and normalises the trophy culture tied to poaching.
2. Kerala’s Cultural Paradox:
Elephants = revered in temples and cinema.
Yet, Kerala has high rates of human-elephant conflict and captive elephant abuse.
Reflects a deep moral contradiction — worship and exploitation coexist.
3. Celebrity Privilege:
Case reveals how influence distorts law enforcement.
Bureaucratic bias toward the famous undermines public trust.
“If this were an ordinary citizen,” remarked a forest officer, “the ivory would have been seized permanently.”
Broader Policy and Governance Implications
1. Weak Enforcement Architecture:
State wildlife departments lack autonomy, legal clarity, and political backing.
Enforcement often diluted by ministerial or celebrity pressure.
2. Transparency Gaps:
Lack of public access to ownership records or notification details.
Violates principles of accountable governance in environmental law.
3. Erosion of Deterrence:
Administrative regularisation creates moral hazard — others may expect similar amnesty.
Undermines deterrence embedded in Sections 49–51 (penalties) of the Act.
4. Judicial Intervention as Corrective:
Courts remain the last line of defence in wildlife protection.
Reinforces importance of procedural compliance as a safeguard against arbitrariness.
Invisible Deaths: Climate Crisis and the Abandonment of India’s Sanitation Workers
Why in News ?
The Down To Earth (Nov 2025) investigation titled “Invisible Deaths: How India’s Climate Crisis Abandons Its Sanitation Workers” exposed how rising temperatures, caste hierarchies, and institutional neglect combine to turn sanitation work into a slow, climate-driven genocide.
Despite 733 recorded heatstroke deaths (Mar–Jun 2024), the deaths of sanitation workers — predominantly Dalits — remain unrecorded, unacknowledged, and unprotected in India’s climate adaptation and labour policies.
It highlights how climate change amplifies caste-based occupational vulnerability and exposes policy blind spots in NAMASTE scheme, heat action plans, and labour codes.
Relevance :
GS-2 (Governance & Social Justice):
Policy failure in implementing NAMASTE scheme and manual scavenging rehabilitation.
Exclusion of sanitation workers from climate adaptation and social protection frameworks.
GS-3 (Environment):
Intersection of climate change, heatwaves, and occupational vulnerability.
Need for climate justice and inclusive adaptation planning.
GS-1 (Society):
Caste-based occupational hierarchy and structural violence under climate stress.
Ethical and human rights implications of invisible labour deaths.
GS-4 (Ethics):
Moral responsibility of the state toward dignity of labour and distributive justice.
Basic Legal and Institutional Framework
1. Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
Prohibits manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks without protective equipment.
Mandates rehabilitation, alternate livelihood, and compensation to affected families.
2. Supreme Court Directives (2014 & 2025)
2014: Directed States to end manual scavenging and compensate sewer-death families with ₹10 lakh.
Jan 2025: Absolute ban on manual scavenging in 6 metro cities, including Delhi.
3. NAMASTE Scheme (National Action for Mechanised Sanitation Ecosystem, 2023)
Objective: Eradicate hazardous manual cleaning through mechanisation, training, PPE distribution, and social security.
Coverage: 84,902 identified workers, but only 45,871 PPE kits distributed (54% coverage).
4. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020
Contains no heat-protection provisions for sanitation or outdoor workers (only for dock workers).
5. Heat Action Plans (HAPs)
Prepared by 23 States, but most ignore caste and occupation-based vulnerability, treating risk as a uniform environmental issue rather than a social injustice.
Key Data (2020–2025)
Period
Reported Sewer/Septic Tank Deaths
Key Findings
2020–24
294 official deaths
≈ 1 preventable death every 6 days
2024
116 deaths
Govt insists “manual scavenging eradicated”
Jan–Jun 2025
42 deaths
Delhi worst affected (6 deaths)
2019–23
377 total deaths
90% lacked safety gear (Govt social audit)
→ Reality: Deaths continue under contractual, caste-based, invisible labour systems despite legal bans.
The Climate–Caste Nexus
1. Caste as Structural Heat Exposure:
Marginalised castes (mainly Dalits) occupy most heat-exposed occupations — sanitation, waste collection, construction.
150% higher heat exposure recorded among Dalit workers for UTCI (Universal Thermal Climate Index) thresholds between 26°C–35°C.
2. Amplified Risks in Sewers:
Sewer interiors amplify temperatures, trap toxic gases (H₂S, methane), and reduce oxygen.
No modified working hours or cooling breaks during heatwaves.
3. Legal Blind Spots:
Labour laws and HAPs fail to link climate vulnerability with caste or occupation, perpetuating policy invisibility.
Invisible Deaths and Data Denial
1. Statistical Erasure:
Govt claims manual scavenging eradicated; thus, worker deaths are not recorded as occupational or climate casualties.
40% of sanitation workers lack ID documents, excluding them from welfare, insurance, or climate compensation schemes.
2. Reporting Gap:
Deaths among contractual workers (under private agencies) often unreported or misclassified.
State agencies’ refusal to maintain caste-disaggregated climate data leads to policy blindness.
Privatisation and Precarity
1. Contractualisation of Risk:
Example: Chennai protests (Aug 2025) — 2,000 workers resist privatisation cutting wages from ₹22,590 to ₹15,000.
Private contractors → reduced accountability, no insurance, no pensions.
2. Mechanisation Gap:
NAMASTE’s goal of “no human in sewer” unrealised — most cities still depend on manual cleaning due to lack of machines, budget cuts, and local contractor networks.
Climate Justice and Caste: A Broader Lens
1. Unequal Climate Impacts:
Tamil Nadu floods (2015): 90% of injured, 95% of houses damaged belonged to Dalits (IDSN study).
Dalit settlements in low-lying flood-prone areas face systemic exclusion from relief and safe water.
2. Regional Parallels:
Amnesty International (2025): Similar discrimination among Dalit sanitation workers in Bangladesh’s coastal districts — climate disasters intensifying caste and gender vulnerability.
→ India mirrors this structural violence under climate stress.
Government and Institutional Response
1. NAMASTE Implementation Gaps (Parliamentary Committee, Aug 2025):
Warned PPE distribution delays may “deprive many workers of crucial protection.”
Urged strict enforcement so no worker handles faecal matter directly.
2. Policy Silences:
No national database of sanitation deaths post-2022.
Heat Action Plans rarely mention “sanitation” or “Dalit.”
No compensation framework linking heat deaths to occupational cause.
Ethical, Governance, and Human Rights Dimensions
1. Structural Violence:
Climate change magnifies pre-existing caste oppression, not just environmental exposure.
“Invisible deaths” = outcome of policy denial + social hierarchy.
2. Governance Failure:
Contradiction between ‘Viksit Bharat’ narrative and denial of basic dignity to sanitation workers.
Reflects state apathy, fragmented accountability, and moral vacuum.
3. Moral Paradox:
Nation bans manual scavenging but continues to exploit Dalits through informal, dangerous labour chains.
Climate crisis turns occupational stigma into existential threat.
What Justice Demands (Policy Imperatives)
1. Formalisation:
All sanitation work under permanent government employment with social security and medical cover.
2. Criminal Accountability:
Strict prosecution of employers sending workers without safety gear or mechanised tools.
3. Mechanisation:
Full mechanisation of sewer cleaning in every ULB (Urban Local Body) within 2 years.
4. Data Justice:
Caste- and occupation-disaggregated climate data in all adaptation and resilience frameworks.
5. Integration with Climate Planning:
Link sanitation labour conditions to National Adaptation Communication (NAC) and State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCC).