Content

1. Startup India @10 — Highest Annual Spike in Start-up Registrations
2. Expert Panel Sets Norms for Religious Structures in Wildlife Sanctuaries
3. Nobel Prize Debate — Politicisation and Symbolism of the Nobel Peace Prize
4. Kaziranga Elevated Corridor — Eco-Sensitive Infrastructure to Reduce Wildlife Mortality
5. Land Is Power — Women’s Land Rights and Agrarian Gender Inequality in India
6. Drowning in Its Home — Sangai (Dancing Deer) and the Collapse of Floating Wetlands

---

Startup India @10 — Highest Annual Spike in Start-up 

---

Why in News ?

• Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that ~44,000 start-ups were registered in 2025, the highest annual addition since the launch of Startup India.
• Statement made during the 10th anniversary of the Startup India Mission.
• India now positioned as the 3rd largest start-up ecosystem globally.

Relevance

GS II – Governance

• Government policies for entrepreneurship promotion.
• Role of DPIIT, regulatory reforms, ease of doing business.
• Centre–State competition in start-up ecosystems.

GS III – Economy

• Start-ups as drivers of:
  • Job creation.
  • Innovation-led growth.
  • Capital market deepening (IPOs).
• MSME–start-up linkage in value chains.
• Shift from factor-led to innovation-led growth.

Startup India: Core Basics

• Launch date: 16 January 2016.
• Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Commerce & Industry (DPIIT).
• Core objectives:
  • Foster innovation.
  • Promote entrepreneurship.
  • Enable investment-led growth.
• Key instruments:
  • Start-up recognition by DPIIT.
  • Fund of Funds for Start-ups (FFS).
  • Tax exemptions & compliance easing.

Key Data & Evidence

• 2025:
  • ~44,000 new start-ups registered (highest single-year jump).
• Ecosystem position:
  • India = 3rd largest globally (after US & China).
• Trend highlighted:
  • Start-ups → Unicorns → IPOs → Job creation.
  • Registration ≠ success; but reflects pipeline depth.

Economic Dimension

• Growth engine:
  • Start-ups driving:
    • Job creation.
    • Capital formation.
    • Productivity gains.
• Structural shift:
  • From factor-led growth → innovation-led growth.
• Capital markets linkage:
  • Rising start-up IPOs deepen domestic capital markets.
• MSME–Start-up continuum:
  • Start-ups complement MSMEs in value chains.

Governance & Administrative Dimension

• Regulatory reforms:
  • Self-certification under labour & environmental laws.
  • Faster incorporation & IPR facilitation.
• Digital public infrastructure:
  • Aadhaar, UPI, ONDC enabling low-cost scaling.
• Centre–State role:
  • States competing via start-up policies, incubators.

Social Dimension

• Democratisation of entrepreneurship:
  • Growth beyond metros into Tier-2/Tier-3 cities.
• Youth dividend utilisation:
  • Converts job-seekers into job-creators.
• Women entrepreneurship:
  • Rising share, but still underrepresented in funding.

Technology & Innovation Dimension

• Strong presence in:
  • FinTech, EdTech, HealthTech, SaaS, Climate-tech.
• Leveraging:
  • AI, data analytics, digital platforms.
• Start-ups as drivers of:
  • Indigenous innovation.
  • Atmanirbhar Bharat goals.

Challenges

• Quality vs quantity:
  • High registrations, but survival rates vary.
• Funding concentration:
  • Venture capital skewed towards few sectors & cities.
• Regulatory uncertainty:
  • Taxation (angel tax legacy issues).
  • Compliance burden for scaling firms.
• Job quality concerns:
  • Informal, gig-based employment dominance.

Way Forward 

• Next phase: Startup India 2.0
  • Focus on deep-tech & manufacturing start-ups.
• Credit diversification
  • Beyond VC: development finance, patient capital.
• Inclusive entrepreneurship
  • Women, SC/ST, rural & agri-start-ups.
• Outcome-based support
  • Survival, scale, exports—not just registrations.
• Regulatory predictability
  • Stable tax & compliance regime for scale-ups.

Prelims Pointers

• Startup India launched in 2016, not post-COVID.
• DPIIT recognises start-ups (not NITI Aayog).
• Fund of Funds ≠ direct equity funding.
• Unicorn = private firm valued at $1 billion+.

---

Expert Panel Sets Norms for Religious Structures in Wildlife Sanctuaries

---

Why in News ?

• The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) has framed guidelines on diversion/regularisation of forest land for religious structures inside Protected Areas (PAs).
• Triggered by the Balaram–Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary (Gujarat) case, where diversion of forest land for temples was proposed and later revoked.
• Raises critical issues of encroachment vs faith, forest rights settlement, and precedent-setting in wildlife governance.

Relevance

GS II – Polity & Governance

• Balance between Fundamental Rights (Article 25) and DPSPs (Article 48A).
• Role of statutory bodies: NBWL / SCNBWL.
• Rule-based governance vs discretionary clearances.

GS III – Environment & Biodiversity

• Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• Protected Areas governance and encroachment control.

Background & Case Context

• Balaram–Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary hosts two temples claimed to be “historical”.
• July 2024: SCNBWL initially cleared 0.35 ha forest land use for a religious trust.
• October 2024: Clearance revoked after it was found that:
  • Rights of the Trust were not recorded in forest settlement records.
• December 2025: Draft normative guidelines presented to SCNBWL to avoid ad-hoc decisions in future.

Core Guidelines

• General Principle:
  • Any construction or expansion on forest land after 1980 = encroachment.
• Exceptional Window:
  • Only if:
    • State issues a reasoned, documented order, and
    • Justifies regularisation on exceptional grounds.
  • Such cases to be referred to the Environment Ministry for case-by-case scrutiny.
• Key cut-off year: 1980 (linked to Forest (Conservation) Act).

Constitutional & Legal Dimension

• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
  • Central approval mandatory for diversion of forest land.
  • Post-1980 non-forestry use is presumptively illegal.
• Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:
  • Strong protection regime for National Parks & Sanctuaries.
  • Infrastructure allowed only if non-detrimental to wildlife.
• Article 25 (Freedom of Religion):
  • Subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
  • Does not override environmental laws.
• Article 48A & 51A(g):
  • State and citizen duty to protect environment and wildlife.

Governance & Administrative Dimension

• Problem exposed:
  • Many sanctuaries still have unsettled forest rights and claims.
  • Poor-quality forest settlement records create ambiguity.
• Risk of precedent:
  • Regularising one religious structure may open floodgates across PAs.
• Institutional response:
  • Shift from case-by-case discretion → rule-based SOP.
• Role of SCNBWL:
  • Apex technical-cum-policy filter to balance conservation vs development/faith.

Social & Ethical Dimension

• Faith vs Ecology dilemma:
  • Religious sentiments are socially powerful but ecologically footprint-heavy.
• Ethical concern:
  • Selective accommodation of religion risks normalising encroachment.
• Equity issue:
  • If faith-based claims allowed, why deny other community or livelihood claims?

Environmental & Wildlife Dimension

• Protected Areas are:
  • Inviolate cores for biodiversity.
  • Highly sensitive to fragmentation, noise, footfall, waste.
• Religious infrastructure often leads to:
  • Roads, shops, accommodation, pilgrim influx → secondary impacts.
• Guidelines aim to:
  • Prevent “incremental degradation” of sanctuaries.

Challenges 

• Implementation gap:
  • States may still push proposals citing “historical existence”.
• Data deficiency:
  • Lack of authentic records on pre-1980 structures.
• Political pressure:
  • Religious institutions have high mobilisation capacity.
• Forest Rights Act overlap:
  • Unsettled FRA claims complicate decision-making.

Way Forward 

• Strict adherence to 1980 cut-off as non-negotiable baseline.
• Time-bound settlement of forest rights under FRA before considering any diversion.
• Independent ecological impact assessment even for “small” religious uses.
• No new construction principle:
  • Only maintenance of genuinely pre-1980, legally recorded structures.
• National SOP:
  • Uniform criteria to avoid State-level arbitrariness.
• Public communication:
  • Clarify that conservation is not anti-faith, but pro-intergenerational equity.

Prelims Pointers

• SCNBWL ≠ NBWL (NBWL is chaired by PM; SCNBWL handles clearances).
• Forest (Conservation) Act operative year: 1980.
• Post-1980 forest constructions = encroachments (default rule).
• Religious freedom is not absolute.

---

Nobel Prize with Special Focus on the Nobel Peace Prize 

---

Why is it in News?

• María Corina Machado publicly presented her Nobel Peace Prize medal to Donald Trump during a recent meeting in the US.
• The act was described as a symbolic gesture of gratitude for Trump’s past support to Venezuela’s opposition and democratic cause.
• This has triggered debate because:
  • Nobel medals are personal property of laureates and can legally be gifted or sold under the statutes of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
  • However, transferring a Peace Prize medal to a political leader raises questions about politicisation of the Nobel Peace Prize.
• The episode has revived wider discussion on:
  • Whether the Nobel Peace Prize is being used as a political signal rather than a purely humanitarian recognition.
  • The distinction between symbolic diplomacy vs institutional neutrality of global awards.

Relevance

GS Paper I – World History / Society

• Global institutions and moral authority.
• Evolution of international recognition systems.

GS Paper II – International Relations

• Soft power and norm-setting in global politics.
• Awards as instruments of diplomatic signalling.
• Institutional neutrality vs political messaging.

Nobel Prize: Core Basics

• Instituted by the will of Alfred Nobel (1895).
• First awarded: 1901.
• Original categories:
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Physiology/Medicine
  • Literature
  • Peace
• Economics added later (1968) → Not part of original Nobel will.

Nobel Peace Prize: Unique Institutional Design

• Awarded by Norwegian Nobel Committee.
• Ceremony held in Oslo, not Stockholm.
• Rationale:
  • Norway–Sweden union context at the time of Nobel’s will.
• Unlike other Nobel Prizes:
  • Awarded to individuals or organisations.
  • Can be given for political processes, activism, conflict resolution, humanitarian work.

Eligibility, Nomination & Decision Process

• Who can nominate?
  • National parliamentarians, ministers.
  • University professors (relevant fields).
  • Previous laureates.
  • International courts & organisations.
• Key point:
  • Nomination ≠ endorsement.
  • Hundreds nominated annually; only one laureate selected.
• Deliberations are confidential for 50 years.

Ownership of the Nobel Medal

• Nobel medal, diploma, and prize money:
  • Become personal property of the laureate.
• Nobel statutes:
  • Do not prohibit selling, donating, or auctioning medals.
• Important examples:
  • Dmitry Muratov:
    • Auctioned Peace Prize medal (2022).
    • Proceeds (~USD 103.5 million) donated for Ukrainian children affected by war.
  • Carlos Saavedra Lamas:
    • Medal sold in 2014.
• Insight:
  • Moral authority lies in use of prize, not physical possession.

Political Dimension of the Nobel Peace Prize

• Peace Prize often reflects contemporary global conflicts and moral priorities.
• Frequently criticised for:
  • Western normative bias.
  • Awarding aspirational peace rather than achieved peace.
• Examples often debated in UPSC interviews:
  • Awards during ongoing conflicts.
  • Recognition of political opposition figures.
• However:
  • Nobel Committee defends Peace Prize as a norm-setting instrument, not merely retrospective reward.

International Relations Dimension

• Peace Prize as:
  • Soft power instrument.
  • Moral signalling mechanism in global politics.
• Can:
  • Legitimize political movements.
  • Increase diplomatic pressure on regimes.
• Sometimes causes:
  • Diplomatic discomfort.
  • Accusations of interference in domestic affairs.

Economic & Institutional Aspect

• Prize money:
  • Approx. 10 million Swedish Krona (value may vary annually).
• Nobel Foundation:
  • Manages endowment.
  • Prize money independent of medal ownership.

Challenges

• Politicisation
  • Perception of ideological selectivity.
• Premature awards
  • Given before outcomes are secured.
• Eurocentric norms
  • Global South under-representation historically.
• Symbol vs substance
  • Media focus on personalities rather than peace outcomes.

Way Forward 

• Greater transparency post 50-year disclosure.
• Broader inclusion of:
  • Grassroots peacebuilders.
  • Community-level conflict resolution.
• Balanced recognition:
  • Combine moral courage with demonstrable outcomes.
• Reinforce Peace Prize as:
  • Instrument of conscience, not geopolitics.

Prelims Pointers

• Peace Prize awarded in Norway, others in Sweden.
• Economics Prize ≠ original Nobel category.
• Medal ownership lies with laureate.
• Nobel deliberations sealed for 50 years.

---

Kaziranga Elevated Corridor — Curbing Wildlife Mortality through Eco-Sensitive Infrastructure

---

Why in News ?

• Prime Minister laid the foundation stone of a 34.5-km elevated corridor along/through Kaziranga National Park.
• Objective: Reduce animal deaths caused by heavy traffic on NH-715 (formerly NH-37), especially during Brahmaputra floods.

Relevance

GS III – Environment

• Human–wildlife conflict mitigation.
• Wildlife corridors and ecological connectivity.
• Conservation in flood-prone ecosystems.

GS III – Infrastructure

• Sustainable infrastructure.
• Disaster-resilient transport planning.
• Integrating ecology into highway design.

Project Snapshot 

• Length: 34.5 km (elevated corridor).
• Cost: ~₹6,950 crore.
• Route: NH-715 connecting Kaziranga–Eastern Assam–Guwahati.
• Ecological linkage:
  • Kaziranga floodplains ↔ Karbi Anglong hills.
• Complementary works:
  • Widening of 30.22 km existing roads.
  • 2 km long flyovers near Bokakhat & Jakhalabandha.

Ecological & Environmental Dimension

• Flood-driven migration:
  • Annual Brahmaputra floods submerge low-lying grasslands.
  • Wildlife (rhinos, elephants, deer, predators) migrate to higher grounds of Karbi Anglong plateau.
• Barrier effect of highways:
  • NH-715 cuts across natural corridors.
  • High vehicle speed = major mortality driver.
• Scientific evidence:
  • Wildlife Institute of India study:
    • 2016–17: 63 animals killed on NH-715 in one year.
    • Included apex predator (Indian leopard).
• Elevated corridor benefit:
  • Restores horizontal ecological connectivity.
  • Minimises surface-level human–wildlife interaction.

Governance & Administrative Dimension

• Shift in infrastructure paradigm:
  • From “road through forest” → “road over wildlife landscape”.
• Inter-agency coordination:
  • MoRTH + Assam Govt + Forest Dept + WII inputs.
• Eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) logic:
  • Corridor aligns with ESZ norms without halting development.
• Challenge:
  • Construction-phase disturbance in a sensitive zone.

Economic Dimension

• Trade-off resolution:
  • Maintains Assam’s key arterial connectivity to Guwahati.
  • Avoids economic losses from:
    • Traffic disruptions during floods.
    • Wildlife-vehicle collisions.
• Cost-effectiveness:
  • High upfront cost but long-term savings in:
    • Wildlife loss.
    • Accident compensation.
    • Road maintenance due to flood damage.

Social & Ethical Dimension

• Ethics of coexistence:
  • Acknowledges wildlife movement as a right, not a nuisance.
• Local livelihoods:
  • Reduced road closures benefit tourism & transport workers.
• Cultural value:
  • Kaziranga symbolises India’s conservation ethic (one-horned rhino).

Security & Strategic Dimension

• NH-715 is a strategic connectivity route in eastern Assam.
• Ensures:
  • All-weather movement.
  • Disaster-resilient infrastructure in flood-prone terrain.

Challenges

• Construction impacts:
  • Noise, vibration, light pollution.
• Speed management:
  • Elevated roads can encourage overspeeding if not regulated.
• Habitat compression risk:
  • If feeder roads & urbanisation expand unchecked.
• Monitoring gap:
  • Need for post-construction ecological audits.

Way Forward

• Design & engineering
  • Wildlife-friendly pillars spacing.
  • Natural vegetation underpasses.
• Traffic regulation
  • Strict speed limits.
  • AI-enabled animal detection & warning systems.
• Construction safeguards
  • Seasonal work restrictions during peak migration.
  • Noise & light mitigation protocols.
• Replication
  • Scale model to:
    • Nilgiris–Bandipur.
    • Pench–Kanha.
    • Eastern Ghats corridors.
• Institutionalisation
  • Make WII ecological clearance mandatory for highways in protected landscapes.

Prelims Pointers

• NH-715 (old NH-37) skirts Kaziranga NP.
• Kaziranga = UNESCO World Heritage Site.
• Karbi Anglong = key highland refuge during floods.
• Elevated corridors ≠ underpasses; both are wildlife mitigation tools.

Kaziranga National Park  

• Location: Golaghat & Nagaon districts, Assam; south bank of the Brahmaputra River.
• Status:
  • Declared National Park (1974).
  • UNESCO World Heritage Site (1985).
  • Tiger Reserve (2006) under Project Tiger.
• Global Significance:
  • Hosts ~2/3rd of the world’s population of the One-horned Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis).
• Biodiversity Profile:
  • “Big Five” of Kaziranga: Rhino, Tiger, Elephant, Wild Water Buffalo, Swamp Deer.
  • High tiger density (among the highest globally).

---

Land is Power — Women’s Land Rights in India

---

Why in News ?

• Recent field-based reportage from Uttarakhand highlights feminisation of agriculture without feminisation of land ownership.
• Despite constitutional and legal reforms, women cultivators remain invisible in land records, excluding them from schemes like PM-KISAN Samman Nidhi.
• Reinforces long-standing academic evidence (Bina Agarwal) on land as the core determinant of women’s power, security, and autonomy.

Relevance

GS I – Indian Society

• Gender inequality in agrarian structures.
• Feminisation of agriculture.

GS II – Governance & Social Justice

• Implementation gaps in welfare schemes (PM-KISAN, KCC).
• Land as a State subject; federal challenges.
• Women empowerment through asset ownership.

Core Problem Statement

• Women do most agricultural work but do not own land → No legal farmer status → No scheme access → Economic disempowerment.

Constitutional & Legal Dimension

• Constitutional backing
  • Article 14: Equality before law.
  • Article 15(3): Affirmative action for women.
  • Article 39(b), (c): Equitable distribution of material resources.
• Statutory framework
  • Hindu Succession Act, 1956: First recognition of women’s inheritance.
  • 2005 Amendment:
    • Daughters = coparceners by birth (ancestral property incl. agricultural land).
    • Applies irrespective of marital status.
• Key gap
  • De jure equality ≠ de facto ownership.
  • Land largely transferred to women only as widows, not as daughters.

Governance & Administrative Dimension

• Land records & farmer identity
  • Ownership-based definition of “farmer” excludes women cultivators.
  • Digitisation (DILRMP) replicates patriarchal ownership patterns.
• Scheme access failure
  • PM-KISAN, KCC, crop insurance → land title mandatory.
  • Result: Women submit affidavits instead of enjoying rights.
• Federal issue
  • Land = State subject → uneven implementation across states.

Economic Dimension

• Productivity & credit
  • No land title → no collateral → no formal credit.
  • Zero/near-zero women Kisan Credit Cards in many hill districts.
• Macroeconomic loss
  • FAO estimate (generic): Equal access to productive resources could raise farm output significantly.
• Migration link
  • Male out-migration → women manage farms → “managerial feminisation without asset control.”

Social & Ethical Dimension

• Patriarchal norms
  • Daughters “given away” at marriage → denied inheritance.
  • Social pressure to relinquish legal share.
• Intra-household power
  • Land ownership:
    • Enhances bargaining power.
    • Reduces domestic violence risk (Bina Agarwal’s findings).
• Intersectionality
  • Dalit, Adivasi women face:
    • Poor land quality.
    • No demarcation, water, or extension support.

Environmental & Sustainability Dimension

• Women land managers:
  • Preserve forests, soil fertility, biodiversity.
  • Promote mixed cropping, organic manure.
• Link to SDGs
  • SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Data & Evidence

• National Family Health Survey
  • Women owning land alone:
    • ~7% (2014–15) → ~8% (2019–21).
  • Joint ownership:
    • ~21% → ~23%.
• PM-KISAN (Rajya Sabha, Dec 2024):
  • ~87 million beneficiaries.
  • <20 million women (~2–3 out of 10).
  • Uttarakhand: ~16% women beneficiaries.
• UN Women
  • Even where women do >75% farm work, ownership remains male-dominated.

Challenges

• Implementation deficit
  • Laws exist; enforcement weak.
• Institutional apathy
  • Revenue officials resist joint/matrilineal titles.
• Awareness gap
  • Women unaware of location/utility of allotted land.
• Design flaw
  • Land titles without irrigation, extension, or market access = symbolic empowerment.

Way Forward

• Land record reforms
  • Mandatory joint spousal titles in all government land transfers.
• Scheme redesign
  • PM-KISAN, KCC eligibility based on cultivation + management, not just ownership.
• Administrative nudges
  • Stamp duty rebates for women land registration (best practices from states).
• Institutional support
  • Boundary demarcation, water access, extension services post-allotment.
• Normative change
  • Panchayat-led awareness on daughters’ inheritance rights.
• Tribal areas
  • Effective implementation of forest & community land rights with women as primary title holders.

---

Drowning in its Home — Sangai (Dancing Deer) & Collapse of Floating Wetlands

---

Why in News ?

• Recent ecological assessments warn that the Sangai (Dancing Deer) is approaching an extinction-level event due to collapse of floating meadows (phumdis) in Manipur.
• Wildlife Institute of India (2022–23) conservation plan reports critically low wild population and severe habitat fragmentation.
• Raises questions on wetland governance, hydropower–ecology conflict, and species-specific conservation failures.

Relevance

GS III – Environment & Biodiversity

• Endangered species conservation.
• Wetland ecology (Ramsar sites).
• Protected Area management failures.

GS I – Geography (India)

• Loktak Lake.
• Floating wetlands (phumdis).

Species Profile 

• Common name: Sangai / Dancing Deer
• Scientific name: Rucervus eldii eldii
• IUCN status: Endangered
• State animal: Manipur
• Habitat specificity: Only wild population confined to floating meadows of Keibul Lamjao National Park
• Unique feature:
  • Brow tine on forehead (males).
  • Delicate gait over floating vegetation → “dancing” illusion.

Geographical & Ecological Context

• Located in Imphal Valley, south of Loktak Lake.
• Keibul Lamjao NP:
  • World’s only floating national park.
  • Ramsar Convention site (Wetland of International Importance).
• Core ecological unit: Phumdis
  • Floating mats of vegetation + organic matter.
  • Must be ≥1 metre thick to support adult Sangai (90–115 kg).

Population Status & Data

• Declared extinct: 1951 → rediscovered later.
• Apparent recovery till 1984, followed by decline.
• WII (2022–23) findings:
  • ~64 individuals in the wild.
  • ~200 in captivity (zoos across India).
• Earlier census (2016) showing 260 individuals now believed to be inflated / methodologically weak.
• Habitat squeezed to ~10 sq km → severe crowding.

Key Threats

1. Habitat Collapse (Primary Driver)

• Phumdis thinning & fragmentation due to:
  • Altered hydrology.
  • Pollution load.
• Observed impact:
  • 2023 census: 2 Sangai + 4 hog deer carcasses recovered → probable drowning.

2. Hydropower–Wetland Conflict

• 1983 downstream multipurpose hydroelectric project:
  • Causes monsoon backflow into Loktak–Keibul system.
  • Leads to:
    • Erosion of phumdis.
    • Delay in regeneration of floating mats.
    • Altered nutrient cycles.

3. Pollution & Urban Pressure

• Untreated sewage from towns enters lake.
• Excess nutrients → disrupt endemic plant species anchoring phumdis.

4. Genetic & Demographic Risks

• Inbreeding depression due to:
  • Extremely small effective population.
  • Habitat confinement.
• Results:
  • Reduced fertility.
  • Higher disease susceptibility.
  • Lower long-term viability.

5. Institutional Gaps

• Ramsar status without effective wetland hydrological management.
• Fragmented responsibility: wildlife, water resources, power departments.

Governance & Policy Dimension

• Protected Area ≠ Protected Ecosystem
  • Focus on species protection, neglect of ecosystem processes.
• Lack of environmental flow norms for Loktak basin.
• Absence of integrated lake–river–wetland authority.

Environmental & Climate Dimension

• Phumdis are climate-sensitive:
  • Changing rainfall patterns amplify hydrological stress.
• Loss of floating wetlands:
  • Carbon sequestration declines.
  • Biodiversity collapse (hog deer, fish, birds affected).

Security & Cultural Dimension

• Sangai = cultural keystone species of Manipur:
  • Embedded in dance, art, sports ethos, and identity.
• Biodiversity loss risks:
  • Cultural alienation.
  • Local resistance to conservation if livelihoods ignored.

Way Forward

Ecological Measures

• Restore minimum phumdi thickness through:
  • Controlled water levels.
  • Nutrient balance restoration.
• Native vegetation regeneration programs.

Hydrological Governance

• Enforce environmental flow regime downstream of hydropower project.
• Seasonal water-level modulation aligned with phumdi regeneration cycle.

Genetic Conservation

• Scientific metapopulation strategy:
  • Carefully managed translocations.
  • Genetic exchange between captive and wild populations (where viable).

Institutional Reform

• Loktak–Keibul Integrated Wetland Authority:
  • Wildlife + Water + Urban governance convergence.
• Community-based wetland stewardship with local fishers.

Monitoring & Science

• Annual independent population audits using modern methods (camera traps, genetic sampling).
• Long-term ecological research station at Keibul Lamjao.

Prelims Pointers

• Keibul Lamjao NP = only floating national park in the world.
• Sangai subspecies = Rucervus eldii eldii.
• Phumdis must be ≥1 m thick to support Sangai.
• Loktak Lake = Ramsar site + hydropower-linked wetland.

---