Content

1. Thousands of forest rights titles ‘vanish’ in Chhattisgarh records
2. Undocumented migrants leaving via eastern border tripled in 2025’
3. India’s First Private EO Satellite Constellation (PPP Model)
4. Many reject plastics treaty draft that omits curbs on production
5. 1950 quake that broke mountains is a portend of things to come
6. Kenyan farmers use bees, sesame to keep pillaging elephants away
7. Key features of Income-Tax Bill, 2025
8. Dhirio

---

Thousands of forest rights titles ‘vanish’ in Chhattisgarh records

---

Basics: Understanding Forest Rights

• Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006: Recognizes the rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) over forest land and resources.
• Types of Rights under FRA:
  • Individual Forest Rights (IFR): Land rights to individual tribal/OTFD families for habitation or self-cultivation (up to 4 hectares).
  • Community Forest Rights (CFR): Collective rights of a community over common forest resources for livelihood, grazing, fishing, NTFP (non-timber forest produce), etc.
  • Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR): Specific right of Gram Sabhas to manage, protect, and conserve traditional forest resources.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology – Tribal Rights)

The Issue Reported

• Thousands of forest rights titles (IFR + CFRR) have “disappeared” from official records in the State Tribal Welfare Department.
• This happened over the last 17 months (based on RTI findings).
• Earlier, higher distribution figures were revised downward, with officials citing “miscommunication and reporting errors”.
• Current official data (as of May, via RTI):
  • 4.82 lakh IFR titles distributed.
  • 4,396 CFRR titles distributed.
  • Across 30 districts of the state.

Possible Reasons for Data Discrepancy

• Administrative lapses: Poor record management or clerical mistakes.
• Political/Statistical adjustments: Inflated figures earlier for achievements; later “correction” to avoid audit issues.
• Weak monitoring: No centralized digital system to track title distribution.
• RTI revelations: Only citizen-led transparency has highlighted inconsistencies.

Implications of Missing Titles

• For Tribals/OTFDs:
  • Loss of secure land tenure and livelihoods.
  • Threat of eviction without formal rights.
  • Erosion of trust in government schemes.
• For Governance:
  • Raises credibility concerns over FRA implementation.
  • Shows weak coordination between Tribal Welfare Department, Revenue, and Forest Departments.
• For Conservation:
  • Without CFRR recognition, Gram Sabhas cannot legally manage forests → weakening decentralized forest governance.

Broader Context

• National FRA Status (as per MoTA data, 2023):
  • ~46.35 lakh titles distributed across India.
  • But less than 50% of total potential recognized.
• Common Problems in FRA implementation:
  • High rejection rates of claims without proper reasons.
  • Poor awareness among beneficiaries.
  • Forest Department resistance to giving up control.
  • Lack of updated land records and satellite mapping.

Way Forward

• Digital record-keeping: Create a state-wide FRA dashboard with district-wise data.
• Independent audit: Verify missing/altered numbers through CAG or third-party agencies.
• Empower Gram Sabhas: Strengthen their role in claim verification and record maintenance.
• Capacity building: Train revenue and tribal welfare officials on FRA provisions.
• Transparency measures: Mandate periodic public disclosure of FRA implementation status.

---

‘Undocumented migrants leaving via eastern border tripled in 2025’

---

India–Bangladesh Border Context

• Length: 4,096 km (world’s fifth-longest international border).
• States covered: West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram.
• Guarded by: Border Security Force (BSF).
• Issues: Illegal migration, cattle smuggling, human trafficking, insurgency infiltration.

Relevance : GS 3(Internal Security)

 

Latest Data (as of July 15, 2025)

• Exiting India voluntarily:
  • 2024: 1,049 persons.
  • 2025 (till July 15): 3,536 persons (over 3x increase).
• Entering India from Bangladesh:
  • 2024: 2,425 persons.
  • 2025 (till July 15): 1,372 persons (drop).

Causes of Surge in Exits

• Regime change in Bangladesh (August 5, 2024) → Political uncertainty, crackdown on opponents.
• India’s internal drive after Pahalgam terror attack (April 22, 2025) → Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) ordered States to detect and deport illegal Bangladeshi migrants.

Methods of Exit

• Voluntary Exits: People leaving without coercion, caught by BSF.
• “Pushback” operations: Police/BSF pushing migrants across the border without legal deportation (not defined under Indian law).
  • Estimated ~2,500 people pushed back since August 2024.
  • Controversy: Trinamool Congress alleged BSF illegally pushed West Bengal residents; BSF denies.

Legal & Security Aspects

• Deportation vs Pushback:
  • Deportation requires due process + coordination with Bangladesh authorities.
  • Pushback is extra-legal, raises humanitarian and diplomatic concerns.
• Security concern: Fear of undocumented persons being used for terror logistics, sleeper cells.
• Human rights concern: Risk of wrongful pushbacks, lack of legal remedy.

---

India’s First Private EO Satellite Constellation (PPP Model)

---

Basics: Earth Observation (EO) Satellites

• EO satellites: Capture images/data of Earth for climate, agriculture, security, urban planning.
• Analysis Ready Data (ARD): Processed satellite data, easy for direct use.
• Value-Added Services (VAS): Customized products (maps, surveillance, analytics).

Relevance : GS 3(Science and Technology)

New Initiative

• Lead consortium: Pixxel Space India (Bengaluru-based startup).
• Partners: Piersight Space, Satsure Analytics, Dhruva Space.
• Investment: ₹1,200 crore over 5 years.
• Constellation: 12 indigenous EO satellites.
• Announced by: IN-SPACe (Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre).

Applications

• Climate change monitoring.
• Disaster management (floods, cyclones, earthquakes).
• Agriculture (crop monitoring, yield prediction).
• Marine surveillance (illegal fishing, coastal security).
• National security (border vigilance, troop movements).
• Urban planning (land use, smart cities).

Significance

• Data sovereignty: Reduces reliance on foreign satellite imagery.
• Private sector maturity: First large-scale, commercially viable satellite project by Indian startups.
• Global competitiveness: Positions India as a supplier of high-quality geospatial intelligence.
• Strategic: Boosts Atmanirbhar Bharat in space and supports defence needs.

Broader Linkages

• Migration Issue: Security-heavy → highlights vulnerabilities in India’s border management and challenges of human rights in migration policy.
• Space Sector Growth: Technology-heavy → shows India’s push to become self-reliant and competitive globally.
• Common thread: Both developments reflect India’s balancing act between internal security challenges (illegal migration) and external technological rise (space leadership).

---

Many reject plastics treaty draft that omits curbs on production

---

Background of the Treaty

• Global Context: Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental crises — affecting oceans, biodiversity, human health, and climate.
• Mandate: UN Environment Assembly Resolution 5/14 (2022) called for a legally binding treaty on plastic pollution covering the full life cycle of plastics (production, design, consumption, and waste).
• Expectation: Countries were supposed to finalise the draft treaty text this week in Geneva.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

The Chair’s Draft Text (Controversial Version)

• Excludes Production Cuts: The draft does not mandate reduction in plastic production, which was a key demand from the majority of countries.
• Favours Minority Bloc: Text aligns with positions of India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and several Arab states, which want focus only on downstream waste management, not production.
• No Binding Reuse/Refill Systems: Fails to promote circular economy mechanisms (reuse, refill, extended producer responsibility).
• Weak & Voluntary Provisions: Instead of legally binding commitments, the text pushes voluntary measures, heavily favouring petrochemical producers.

Positions of Different Stakeholders

• Minority Bloc (India, Arab States, Petrochemical Economies)
  • Oppose binding restrictions on production.
  • Advocate tackling plastic waste through waste management, recycling, and innovation rather than capping supply.
  • India supported Kuwait’s approving statement.
• Majority Bloc (~80 Countries, including Colombia, Panama, many Latin American, African, European nations)
  • Strongly opposed the draft text.
  • Called it unacceptable, as it “spat upon red lines” like mandatory production cuts.
  • Demand a new draft text that genuinely addresses lifecycle of plastics.
• Independent Experts/NGOs (IEEFA, CIEL, WWF)
  • Criticise the draft as a mockery of the consultative process.
  • Argue that the text ensures business-as-usual, protects industry interests, and undermines human health & rights.
  • Say it betrays the vision of a full life-cycle treaty.

Key Arguments from Both Sides

• Pro-Production Cuts (Majority)
  • Plastic waste is overwhelming — recycling cannot keep up (only ~9% globally recycled).
  • Upstream solutions (reduce production, redesign products) are essential.
  • Without capping production, waste management alone is ineffective.
• Anti-Production Cuts (Minority, incl. India)
  • Plastic is vital for development — cheap, versatile, supports healthcare, food supply chains, industry.
  • Production cuts may hurt economies still developing.
  • Focus should be on better collection, recycling, innovation, alternative materials.

Geopolitical & Economic Dimensions

• Petrochemical Lobby: Countries with oil/gas-based economies (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.) see plastic demand as critical to future revenues (since fossil fuel use in energy is declining).
• India’s Position: Balances between development needs and environmental goals — reluctant to cap production but supports recycling/innovation.
• North-South Divide: Developed nations push stricter production controls, while some developing countries resist due to economic dependence on plastics.

Reactions at Geneva

• Strong Opposition: 80 countries, led by Colombia & Panama, rejected the draft outright.
• Support: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and India signaled approval (with room for improvements).
• Observers’ View: The Chair’s text is lopsided, undermines years of consultations, and does not meet UNEA’s mandate.

Broader Implications

• If treaty finalised in current form → Status quo continues, plastic production keeps rising (~400 million tonnes annually, projected to double by 2040).
• Weak treaty risks being symbolic rather than transformative.
• Failure to agree on stronger terms may deepen divisions between petro-states and environmental advocates.

Way Forward

• Negotiators must decide whether to:
  • Reopen text negotiations → draft a stronger version addressing lifecycle.
  • Or settle for weak treaty → risk losing credibility of multilateral environmental agreements.
• Likely outcome: Compromise framework treaty with voluntary measures now, stronger provisions phased in later (similar to Paris Climate Agreement model).

---

1950 quake that broke mountains is a portend of things to come

---

Background & Event

• Date & Time: August 15, 1950, at ~7:30 PM IST.
• Magnitude: 8.6 on the Richter scale — largest recorded continental earthquake (on land).
• Duration of shaking: 4–8 minutes, extremely long for an earthquake.
• Epicentre: Near Rima (Zayu), ~40 km west of Mishmi Hills, at the India–Tibet border.
• Depth: 15 km (shallow-focus → higher surface damage).
• Area affected: ~3 million sq. km — India (especially Assam & Arunachal), Tibet, Myanmar, Bangladesh, South China.

Relevance : GS 1(Geography)

Immediate Impact

• Casualties:
  • ~1,500 deaths in India.
  • 4,000 deaths in Tibet (Yedong village submerged into Yarlung Zangbo).
     
• Cattle deaths: ~50,000–1,00,000.
• Infrastructure:
  • Rail tracks twisted into “snake-like” patterns.
  • Bridges, utilities, farms destroyed.
  • Severe damage in Sibsagar–Sadiya region (Upper Assam).
• Environmental impact:
  • Hills sheared → landslides blocked rivers.
  • After days, landslide-dammed rivers burst → flash floods, wiping out villages downstream.
  • Nehru’s radio address (Sep 9, 1950) described Brahmaputra flood carrying remains of villages, animals, elephants, timber.
• Psychological impact: Felt as far as Lhasa, Sichuan, and Yunnan.

Geological & Tectonic Setting

• Plate Tectonics:
  • Location: Eastern Himalayan Syntaxis (EHS), where Indian Plate collides with Eurasian Plate.
  • Plate convergence: 20 mm/year average across Himalayas; 10–38 mm/year in NE Himalayas (GPS data).
  • Complexity: Collision not just India–Eurasia but also interaction with Sunda Plate.
• Unique mechanism:
  • Most Himalayan quakes = thrust faulting (one block overrides another).
  • 1950 Assam quake = strike-slip + thrust hybrid mechanism.
  • Suggested activation of multiple faults, propagating westwards into thrust zones.
• Seismology significance:
  • Occurred when global seismographic networks were expanding.
  • Boosted earthquake monitoring, leading to development of Plate Tectonic Theory.
  • India had its first seismic observatory at Alipore (1898).

Historical Earthquakes in Northeast India

• Ahom chronicles mention quakes in 1548, 1596, 1697 AD.
• Geological studies confirm a major medieval earthquake 1262–1635 AD.
• Northeast is historically one of the most seismically active zones in the Himalayas.

Lessons & Scientific Significance

• Demonstrated: Himalayan tectonic segments can produce magnitude ≥8.6 earthquakes.
• Fragility: Earthquake + landslide + flood linkage in Himalayan terrain.
• Contribution to Science:
  • Strengthened global evidence for continental plate collision.
  • Case study for strike-slip vs thrust interplay in collisional zones.
• Preparedness:
  • 1950 → limited built environment, mostly rural.
  • Today → urban expansion, hydropower dams, highways → much higher vulnerability.

Future Risks & Implications

• Central Himalayas: Most seismically active today; capable of hosting an Assam-1950–like event.
• Development vs Risk:
  • Large dams, hydropower projects, highways in NE Himalayas → amplified disaster potential.
  • Fragile terrain + high seismicity = seismic risk hotspot.
• Geopolitical angle:
  • Both India and China planning hydroelectric projects in EHS (seismically vulnerable).
  • Potential risk to regional security, ecology, and populations.
• Seismic preparedness needed:
  • Stronger building codes.
  • Early warning & dam safety protocols.
  • Cross-border disaster cooperation.

Core Takeaways

• The 1950 Assam Earthquake remains the world’s largest continental quake (M 8.6).
• It showcased the tectonic complexity of the Eastern Himalayas.
• Triggered not just ground shaking but cascading disasters (landslides, floods).
• Underlined the future seismic risk in a now far more densely populated and infrastructurally developed Northeast India.
• A warning for sustainable planning in one of Earth’s most active seismic zones.

---

Kenyan farmers use bees, sesame to keep pillaging elephants away

---

Geographical & Ecological Context

• Location: Taita Hills, Southern Kenya, near Tsavo East & Tsavo West National Parks.
• National Parks:
  • Tsavo East lies <10 km east of the farmlands.
  • Tsavo West borders the north, west, and south.
• Landscape: Unfenced parks → elephants freely migrate across human settlements.
• Ecological Need: Elephants require ~150 kg vegetation daily, making crop fields an attractive food source.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology , Agriculture, Man-Animal Conflict)

 

Nature of Human-Elephant Conflict

• Crop raiding: Elephants target maize, watermelons, and green grams.
• Threat to human life:
  • Annual deaths: 30–35 people killed in elephant-related incidents across Kenya (Kenya Wildlife Service estimate).
  • Example: A 3-year-old girl killed in Taita Taveta; mother injured.
• Retaliation by humans: Spearing, poisoning, and hostility toward elephants.
• Escalation factors:
  • Expansion of human settlements and farms → blocked migratory routes.
  • Scarcity of natural forage in parks.
  • Intelligent elephants adapt quickly — testing fences and charging when not deterred.

Community Experiences

• Richard Shika (68, farmer): Survived a charging elephant while defending maize fields.
• Local farmers: Risk life when chasing elephants; face constant crop loss.
• Gertrude Jackim (70, farmer): Switched from maize to sesame → safer and less attractive to elephants.

Innovative Mitigation Strategies

• Beehive Fences (“Bees as Guards”):
  • Farmers hang beehives from wires between poles around farms.
  • When elephants brush against the wire → hives swing → bees disturbed → elephants flee.
  • Supported by Save the Elephants NGO.
  • About 50 farmers in Taita adopted this method.
  • Bonus: Provides honey income in addition to crop protection.
• Crop Diversification (Sesame Cultivation):
  • Elephants dislike sesame smell; acts as a natural repellent.
  • Encouraged replacement of high-risk crops (maize, watermelon).
  • Around 100 farmers supported to grow sesame.
  • Benefits: Reduced raids + profitable cash crop.

Conservation & Coexistence Outlook

• Conservationist View (Yuka Luvonga, Save The Elephants):
  • Human development (roads, farms, infrastructure) restricts migratory routes, intensifying conflict.
  • Long-term aim: Coexistence rather than confrontation.
• Impact of Solutions:
  • Reduced hostility → fewer cases of elephants being speared/poisoned.
  • Enhanced human safety and livelihood security.
  • Builds community acceptance of wildlife conservation.
• Global Significance:
  • A model for addressing human-wildlife conflict in biodiversity hotspots worldwide.
  • Integrates local innovation + ecological knowledge → “win-win” for farmers and wildlife.

Key Takeaways

• Conflict Drivers: Migration barriers, food scarcity, human expansion.
• Human Costs: Annual deaths, crop destruction, psychological stress.
• Solutions:
  • Beehive fencing (biological deterrent).
  • Crop choice (sesame vs maize).
• Broader Lesson: Sustainable coexistence requires community participation, ecological sensitivity, and alternative livelihood strategies.

---

Key features of Income-Tax Bill, 2025

---

Background & Context

• Old regime: Income-Tax Act, 1961 has governed direct taxation in India for over 6 decades.
• Need for reform:
  • Cumbersome provisions, multiple amendments, and interpretational ambiguities.
  • Globalisation of economy and digitisation of financial systems require a modern tax code.
  • Aim: Simplification, removal of anomalies, legal clarity, and alignment with present-day business realities.
• Process:
  • First draft of I-T Bill tabled in February 2025 → Withdrawn after criticism.
  • Select Committee headed by Baijayant Panda gave recommendations (July 21, 2025).
  • Revised Bill (624 pages) introduced in August 2025, incorporating corrections and most recommendations.
  • Passed by Lok Sabha (Aug 12, 2025) and Rajya Sabha (Aug 13, 2025).
  • Effective date: April 1, 2026 (FY 2026–27 onwards).

Relevance : GS 2(Governance ) ,GS 3(Taxation)

Key Features of Income-Tax Bill, 2025

Clarity & Rationalisation

• Refunds:
  • Earlier draft: Refund claim restricted to returns filed before due date.
  • Final Bill: Restriction removed → Refund possible even for belated returns.
• Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) for LLPs:
  • Earlier draft: Expanded scope would have taxed LLPs even without special benefits.
  • Final Bill: Restriction deleted, aligning AMT provisions with existing law → Prevents undue hardship.
• TCS (Tax Collected at Source):
  • Clarification: Nil TCS on LRS remittances for education & medical purposes financed by financial institutions.

Fixing Errors & Removing Anomalies

• Inter-corporate dividends: Drafting errors corrected to align with actual intent.
• Donations to NGOs:
  • Ambiguity in treatment resolved → Non-profits exempt up to 5% of total donations (not anomalous base).
• TDS exemption certificates:
  • Companies at 18.5% MAT rate (vs 25% preferential) clarified → Can obtain nil-TDS certificate if no liability.
• Transfer pricing: Ambiguities in provisions removed.
• Carry forward & set-off of losses: Clarified to reduce litigation.
• Beneficial ownership reference (Sec 79): Omitted to simplify corporate restructuring compliance.
• House property income: Explicit clarification of 30% standard deduction (after municipal taxes) retained.

Structural & Conceptual Changes

• “Tax Year”:
  • Defined as 12 months starting April 1 → Brings certainty and consistency in terminology.
• Information-gathering powers:
  • Tax authorities can collect data from email servers, social media, and online investment platforms → Tightens compliance net.
• Sovereign wealth fund exemptions:
  • Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) granted full tax exemption, as already given to Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA).

Incentives & Simplification

• NPS withdrawals:
  • Amendment in Taxation Laws Bill, 2025: Tax-free withdrawal of 60% lump sum corpus at retirement under National Pension System (aligns with global best practices).
• Focus on simplicity:
  • Consolidated drafting, removal of duplications, harmonised provisions with Finance Act amendments.

Additional Measures via Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill

• Passed alongside I-T Bill.
• Extends market-linked NPS tax benefits.
• Aligns sovereign wealth fund exemptions for foreign investment inflows.

Implications

• For taxpayers:
  • Greater flexibility (refunds, belated returns).
  • Reduced compliance burden for LLPs & NGOs.
  • Certainty in property income, transfer pricing, and carry forward of losses.
• For corporates:
  • Clearer dividend rules, removal of ambiguity in beneficial ownership, aligned AMT provisions.
• For government:
  • Strengthened tax enforcement with digital surveillance tools.
  • Boost to FDI inflows via sovereign fund exemptions.
• For economy:
  • Long-awaited modernisation of tax law.
  • Expected to reduce litigation, improve ease of doing business, and broaden tax compliance base.

Comparison: February Draft vs August Bill

• Refund restricted → Refund liberalised.
• LLP AMT expanded → LLP AMT aligned with old regime.
• TCS omission on LRS → Explicit Nil TCS provided.
• Drafting anomalies (NGOs, dividends, losses, TP) → Corrected.
• Ambiguities in Sec 79 → Removed.
• Saudi PIF exemption newly added.

---

Dhirio

---

Origins & Cultural Context

• Definition: Dhirio (also called dhirvo) is Goa’s traditional bullfight, involving two bulls locked in combat until one retreats.
• Historical Roots:
  • Dates back to Portuguese colonial times in Goa.
  • Traditionally organised during harvest season as a form of rural entertainment.
  • Became an integral part of church feasts and local festivals.
• Cultural Significance:
  • Seen as a community bonding event where villagers gathered.
  • Similar to derbies in Europe—social occasions where being present was part of prestige.
  • Discussed and remembered in communities for days after the fight.
• Comparison with Spanish Bullfighting:
  • Goa’s version is described as “less complicated” and “less colourful” than Spain’s.
  • Focuses on bulls fighting each other, unlike Spain where matadors face bulls.

Relevance : GS 1(Culture , Heritage)

 

Mechanics of Dhirio

• Process:
  • Two bulls, trained and encouraged by owners, charge at each other.
  • They lock horns, with the clash compared to “the fall of a gigantic tree”.
  • The fight ends when one bull withdraws.
• Role of Owners/Trainers: Egg the bulls on, prepare them for contests.
• Audience: Large crowds gather, cheering for bulls like a sporting event.
• Betting Tradition: Goa diaspora in Europe also places bets on fights, showing its economic-cultural extension.

Legal Ban

• Trigger Incident (1996):
  • A man named Xavier Fernandes was killed during a bullfight in Ambaji-Pathar.
• Legal Challenge:
  • NGO petitioned Bombay High Court at Goa citing violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA).
• Court Verdict:
  • In September 1996, the High Court banned all animal fights, including dhirio.
  • The ban remains in effect under PCA provisions.

Political & Social Debate

• Arguments for Legalisation:
  • Cultural Preservation: MLAs argue dhirio is part of Goa’s identity and heritage.
  • Economic Potential: Seen as a way to generate tourism and state revenue.
  • Sporting Analogy: Compared to boxing or wrestling—testing strength without “cruelty”.
  • Regulation Proposal: Suggestions like capping horns, proper supervision, and designated venues.
  • Parallels with Jallikattu: Since Tamil Nadu secured exceptions for its bull-taming sport in 2017, Goa MLAs propose similar treatment.
• Arguments Against Legalisation:
  • Animal Cruelty: Critics point out it violates PCA and promotes violence as entertainment.
  • Human Safety: Risk of fatalities (e.g., 1996 incident).
  • Ethical Concerns: Questioning normalisation of violence for cultural or economic reasons.
  • Political Optics: Balancing tradition with India’s commitment to animal welfare laws.

Legal & Constitutional Dimensions

• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960:
  • Section 11 prohibits causing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals.
  • Used as legal basis for the ban.
• Supreme Court Judgments:
  • Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014): Struck down jallikattu citing cruelty.
  • Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017: Allowed jallikattu through state law, upheld as cultural right.
  • Goa MLAs now seek similar constitutional-cultural exemption for dhirio.
• Potential Path:
  • State legislative amendment + central approval, similar to Tamil Nadu’s route.

Present Status & Way Forward

• Current Status:
  • Dhirio remains illegal under the 1996 High Court ruling.
• Ongoing Demand:
  • Strong cross-party MLA demand for revival and regulation.
  • Seen as both cultural protection and tourism opportunity.
• Future Challenges:
  • Balancing animal rights vs. cultural rights.
  • Avoiding international criticism of animal cruelty.
  • Need for legal clarity: whether Goa Assembly can carve out exceptions like Tamil Nadu.