Content

1. The hard truth about out-of-pocket health expenditure
2. How does SC’s order affect Waqf law?
3. EU–India partnership set for upgrade
4. Sarnath Heritage Plaque Revision and UNESCO Nomination
5. World Ozone Day: Earth’s protective layer on track to return to 1980s levels by mid-century, says WMO

---

The hard truth about out-of-pocket health expenditure

---

Context

• Definition: OOPE refers to direct payments made by households at the point of receiving healthcare services, excluding any insurance or government reimbursements.
• Issue: India’s out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) is the main mode of health financing → pushing families into poverty.
• NHA (National Health Accounts) reports show a decline in OOPE share (from 64% in 2013-14 → 39% in 2021-22).
• Criticism: The decline may be statistical, not real, due to survey limitations, under-reporting, and extrapolation.
• Why in news: Scholars compared NHA with CMIE, CES 2022-23, LASI, NIA data → found contradictions.

Relevance

• GS2: Health as a social justice issue, rights-based approach, federalism (Centre-State role in health).
• GS3: Human capital, poverty alleviation, economic burden of healthcare, inflation.
• GS1: Social inequalities in healthcare access.

Key Facts & Data

• NHA estimates: OOPE = 64% (2013-14) → 49% (2017-18) → 39% (2021-22).
• CES 2022-23: OOPE share in household consumption rose:
  • Rural: 5.5% → 5.9%
  • Urban: 6.9% → 7.1%
• LASI data: Higher hospitalisation by elderly than NSS suggests.
• CMIE-CPHS: Showed a V-shaped OOPE trend during COVID (steep rise + fall), absent in NHA.
• NIA estimates: Household spending on health in GDP shows steady increase, contradicting NHA’s decline.

Implications

(a) Polity & Governance

• Raises questions on data reliability for policymaking.
• Misleading statistics may allow governments to claim false progress in reducing healthcare burden.

(b) Economy

• Health-care inflation: Higher household budget share going to health.
• Increased borrowing/sale of assets for treatment → poverty trap.

(c) Society

• OOPE → catastrophic health expenditure.
• Women and children bear disproportionate burden (extra work, dropping out of school, reduced nutrition).
• Inequity: Poor often forgo care due to inability to pay.

(d) Pandemic Lessons

• NHA failed to capture COVID-19 distress → highlights gaps in real-time monitoring.

Critical Analysis

• Core Message of Article: The decline in OOPE shown by NHA is likely misleading, driven by flawed reliance on a single NSS round.
• Counter-arguments:
  • Government schemes like PM-JAY, free drugs initiatives, Health & Wellness Centres may have actually reduced OOPE.
  • But benefits may be uneven (urban vs rural, public vs private sector).
• Ethical & Political Dilemmas:
  • Using selective statistics for political narratives undermines trust.
  • Need balance between showcasing progress and acknowledging gaps.

Conclusion

• OOPE in India remains high and inequitable despite reported statistical declines, perpetuating poverty and health inequality.
• Strengthening public health schemes and improving real-time data collection are essential to protect vulnerable populations.

---

How does SC’s order affect Waqf law?

---

Basics

• Waqf: Permanent dedication of property by a Muslim for religious/charitable use under Islamic law.
• Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: Amended Waqf Act, 1995. Claimed aim: transparency & accountability.
• Petitioners’ claim: Violates Articles 26 & 30 (minority rights to manage religious affairs & institutions).
• SC (15 Sept 2025): Did not strike down Act entirely, but stayed contentious provisions pending final hearing.

Relevance

• GS2 (Governance & Polity): Minority rights (Articles 25, 26, 30), federalism (Centre-State powers in religious institutions), judicial oversight, secularism, separation of powers.
• GS1 (Social Issues): Religious autonomy, community self-governance, social harmony, minority alienation risk, impact on conversions and freedom of conscience.

SC’s Interim Directions

• Stayed provisions:
  • District Collectors’ unilateral power to decide ownership of waqf property.
  • Five-year practising Islam requirement for creating waqf.
  • Excessive non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards & Council.
• Allowed provisions:
  • Abolition of waqf by user doctrine.
  • Mandatory central registration of waqf property.
  • Application of Limitation Act, 1963 to waqf land claims.

Broader Implications for Minority Rights

(a) Positive Safeguards (Judicial Protection)

• Protects community autonomy from executive overreach.
• Reinforces separation of powers → property disputes remain with judiciary/tribunals, not district officials.
• Places limits on State interference in religious institutions under Article 26.

(b) Areas of Concern (Potential Restrictions)

• Five-year Islam practice clause (though suspended temporarily) could:
  • Create state policing of faith & religiosity.
  • Restrict new converts’ rights → affecting freedom of conscience (Article 25).
• Limiting “waqf by user” weakens community’s traditional practices, reducing scope of minority-controlled endowments.
• Allowing non-Muslim representation, though capped, raises tension with Article 30 rights (exclusive minority management).

(c) Larger Constitutional Themes

• Minority rights vs State regulation: Balancing autonomy with transparency.
• Federalism & secularism: Executive dominance in religious endowments risks tilting towards majoritarian oversight.
• Judicial minimalism: SC chose interim balance, not final confrontation.

Overview

• Polity & Governance:
  • Shows how State control of minority institutions can erode trust in secularism.
  • Opens debate on whether uniform accountability norms should apply to all religious endowments (temples, gurudwaras, mutts).
• Minority Rights :
  • Direct link to Articles 25, 26, 30.
  • Precedents: Azeez Basha vs Union of India (1968) (AMU not a minority institution), TMA Pai (2002) (scope of minority rights).
• Social Harmony:
  • Any perception of excessive State interference can fuel minority alienation.
  • May also create a template for State intervention in other religious endowments.
• Legal-Philosophical:
  • Tests the line between secular regulation (accountability, transparency) and religious autonomy (self-governance).

Way Forward

• Need for parity in regulation of all religious trusts/endowments (not just waqf).
• Frame clear, secular procedures for property verification — not dependent on subjective religiosity tests.
• Balance transparency & accountability with constitutional guarantees of minority self-management.
• Final SC judgment will be a landmark precedent for defining minority rights under Articles 26 & 30.

---

EU-India partnership set for upgrade

---

Context

• Event:
  The European Commission and EU High Representative Kaja Kallas unveiled “A New Strategic EU–India Agenda” in Brussels.
• Trigger:
  EU seeks to deepen ties with India (trade, technology, defence, climate), while expressing concerns over India’s military exercises with Russia and oil imports from Moscow.
• Background:
  India–EU relations involve:
  • Ongoing FTA negotiations (14th round in October 2025).
  • Shared interest in rules-based international order.
  • Challenges: Russia–Ukraine war, India’s tariffs, regulatory barriers, India’s China policy.

Relevance

• GS2 (IR/Polity): India–EU partnership, multilateralism, strategic autonomy.
• GS3 (Economy): FTA negotiations, non-tariff barriers, trade diversification.
• GS1 (Society): Social impact of liberalized trade on farmers & SMEs.

Key Facts & Data

• Strategic Agenda Scope: Trade, tech, security, defence, climate.
• EU Position: India = “crucial partner” but oil imports & Russia military exercises remain issues.
• FTA Negotiations: 14th round scheduled (Oct 6–10, 2025); aim → conclude by early 2026.
• Trade Growth: India–EU trade ↑ 90% in the last decade.
• Barriers Highlighted: Indian agricultural tariffs, non-tariff barriers like Qualitative Control Orders (QCOs).
• EU Strategy Phrase: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
• Geopolitical Context: EU balancing ties with India to prevent its tilt towards Russia/China.

Bilateral Trade Overview

• Trade Volume: In 2024, trade in goods between the EU and India reached €120 billion, accounting for 11.5% of India’s total trade. The EU is India’s second-largest trading partner, while India ranks as the EU’s 9th largest trading partner.
• Trade Growth: Over the past decade, EU–India trade in goods has increased by nearly 90%.
• Trade Balance: In 2024, the EU recorded a trade surplus of €147 billion in goods, with India being a significant contributor to this surplus.

Significance / Implications

a.Polity & Governance

• EU recognition of India as a global partner strengthens India’s multilateral standing.
• Potential agreement on classified information → deeper defence cooperation.
• Could elevate India–EU ties to a level comparable with India–US and India–Japan partnerships.

b.Economy

• FTA could expand India’s export access to EU (largest trading bloc globally).
• Addressing tariff/non-tariff barriers → key for market entry of Indian goods.
• India’s reputation as a “tough negotiator” may prolong timelines but also ensures strategic bargaining power.

c.Society

• Enhanced climate and tech cooperation → scope for joint work on clean energy, AI, digital governance.
• Trade liberalization → implications for Indian farmers & domestic industries (sensitive tariff sectors).

d.Geopolitics / Security

• EU wary of India’s Russia ties → oil imports, military exercises (Zapad-2025).
• EU wants India as a rules-based order partner in Indo-Pacific & Ukraine crisis context.
• EU sees engagement with India as a way to prevent strategic void filled by China/Russia.

Critical Analysis

• Core Message:
  EU is pushing for a comprehensive partnership with India but is cautious about India’s Russia links.
• Counter-Arguments / Missing Dimensions:
  • EU itself remains dependent on external energy & trade with authoritarian regimes (double standards argument).
  • India’s Russia oil imports are framed as economic necessity, not geopolitical alignment.
  • EU has not addressed Indian concerns over visa barriers, services trade, and agricultural subsidies.
• Ethical/Political Dilemmas:
  Balancing “strategic autonomy” vs. “rules-based order alignment” → India resists being pressured into Western geopolitical positions.

Conclusion

• India’s strategic partnership with the EU is set to deepen in trade, technology, defence, and climate cooperation.
• Successful engagement requires balancing strategic autonomy with EU concerns on Russia ties and aligning economic and geopolitical interests.

---

Sarnath Heritage Plaque Revision and UNESCO Nomination

---

Context

• What happened?
  The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) will install a new plaque at Sarnath crediting Raja Jagat Singh (a local ruler) instead of the British for preserving the holy Buddhist site.
• Why in news?
  This is part of India’s proposal to list Sarnath on the UNESCO World Heritage Site list (2025–26 cycle).
• Background:
  Sarnath, ~10 km from Varanasi, is where Buddha gave his first sermon in 528 BCE. Ashoka built stupas/monasteries here. Later sacked (12th century). Rediscovered during colonial excavations (18th–19th century).

Relevance

• GS1: Indian culture – Buddhist heritage, architecture, historical sites.
• GS3: Tourism economy, sustainable heritage management.

Key Facts & Data

• ASI change: Corrected attribution → Raja Jagat Singh, not British archaeologists.
• Ashoka (268–232 BCE): Built pillars/stupas; Lion Capital at Sarnath became India’s National Emblem.
• Destruction: 12th century sack; major decline after invasions (cited: Qutb-ud-din Aibek’s forces).
• Rediscovery: 1799 Jonathan Duncan; 1836 Cunningham excavations; 1904–05 F.O. Oertel systematic excavation.
• Findings: 476 architectural and sculptural relics + 41 inscriptions in one season (Oertel).
• UNESCO Nomination: Tentative list, 27-year wait for inscription.

Raja Jagat Singh

• Identity: Raja Jagat Singh, also called Babu Jagat Singh, was a prominent 18th-century figure in Banaras (Varanasi), holding administrative control (tahud) over parganas including Shivpur, which encompassed Sarnath.
• Historical Role: In 1793–94, he initiated excavations at the Dhamek Stupa in Sarnath, primarily to obtain building materials for a market in Banaras named after him.
• Discoveries: During the excavations, he uncovered a relic casket containing bones, pearls, and gold leaves, which were later discarded into the Ganges.
• Legacy: The stupa became locally known as the “Jagat Singh Stupa” due to his involvement.
• Misrepresentation: Over time, colonial and later narratives misrepresented him as a vandal, overshadowing his role in preserving and highlighting Sarnath’s archaeological significance.
• Modern Recognition: Recent research and efforts by the Jagat Singh Raj Pariwar Shodh Samiti clarified his contributions. The ASI installed a corrected plaque at the Dhamek Stupa crediting him, aligning with India’s 2025–26 UNESCO World Heritage nomination for Sarnath.
• Significance: His actions helped bring Sarnath’s Buddhist heritage to broader attention, supporting heritage preservation and cultural diplomacy.

Sarnath Heritage Site

• Historical Significance: Site of Buddha’s first sermon (528 BCE) → Birthplace of the “Dharmachakra” (Wheel of Dharma) → foundational to Buddhist philosophy.
• Ashokan Contributions: Ashoka (268–232 BCE) built stupas, monasteries, and the iconic Ashokan Pillar → Lion Capital later became India’s National Emblem.
• Medieval Decline: Sacked in the 12th century by Qutb-ud-din Aibak’s forces → led to centuries of neglect and decline.
• Colonial Rediscovery: Excavations by Jonathan Duncan (1799), Alexander Cunningham (1836), F.O. Oertel (1904–05) → recovered 476 architectural/sculptural relics + 41 inscriptions in one season.
• Archaeological Value: Contains stupas, monasteries, inscriptions, pillars, and relic caskets → provides insights into Mauryan, Gupta, and later periods.
• Cultural & Religious Importance: A major Buddhist pilgrimage site → promotes global Buddhist tourism and interfaith cultural understanding.
• UNESCO Nomination: Listed in India’s tentative list (2025–26) → potential World Heritage Site → global recognition, tourism boost, and conservation impetus.

Significance / Implications

• Polity & Governance:
  • National heritage recognition → assertion of indigenous credit (Raja Jagat Singh) instead of colonial narrative.
  • Strengthens India’s cultural diplomacy via UNESCO.
• Economy:
  • Tourism boost if UNESCO tag granted; global recognition of Buddhist circuit.
• Society:
  • Strengthens Buddhist identity and heritage preservation.
  • Corrects colonial historiography; promotes local ownership of history.
• Global/IR:
  • Soft power through Buddhist heritage diplomacy (esp. with SE Asia, East Asia).

Critical Analysis

• Core Message:
  Highlights transition from colonial credit to indigenous recognition; emphasis on historical continuity and rediscovery.
• Counter-Arguments / Missing Dimensions:
  • No discussion on present challenges of conservation (pollution, urban encroachment, mass tourism).
  • Ignores role of Buddhist communities in contemporary preservation.
  • Lacks detail on UNESCO evaluation criteria (authenticity, integrity, management).
• Ethical/Political Dilemma:
  • Rewriting plaques to correct colonial legacy vs. risking political overtones in historical crediting.

Conclusion

• Recognizing Raja Jagat Singh instead of colonial archaeologists asserts indigenous ownership and strengthens cultural diplomacy.
• UNESCO listing can boost tourism, preserve heritage, and promote sustainable management with community involvement.

---

World Ozone Day: Earth’s protective layer on track to return to 1980s levels by mid-century, says WMO

---

Context

• What happened: WMO released its Ozone Bulletin (Sept 16, 2025) stating that Earth’s ozone layer is on track to return to 1980 levels by mid-century.
• Why in news: Ozone hole over Antarctica in 2024 was smaller than in recent years, with delayed onset and faster recovery.
• Background:
  • Vienna Convention (1985) → Framework for cooperation.
  • Montreal Protocol (1987) → Landmark treaty phasing out ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
  • Kigali Amendment (2016) → Phasing down HFCs, with climate co-benefits.

Relevance

• GS2: Global governance, environmental treaties, multilateral institutions.
• GS3: Environment, ozone depletion, climate change mitigation, technology innovation.

Key Facts & Data

• ODS phase-out: Montreal Protocol eliminated 99% of controlled ODS.
• Projected Recovery Timelines:
  • Antarctica → 2066
  • Arctic → 2045
  • Rest of the world → 2040
• Ozone hole 2024:
  • Max mass deficit: 46.1 million tonnes (Sept 29, 2024).
  • Smaller than 2020–23 holes, below 1990–2020 average.
• Health & Environment Benefits: Prevents skin cancer, cataracts, ecosystem damage.
• Kigali Amendment: Ratified by 164 parties, expected to prevent 0.5°C warming by 2100.

Significance / Implications

(a) Polity & Governance

• Case study in effective multilateralism → science-based policy, global cooperation, compliance mechanisms.
• Demonstrates how binding treaties + financial/technological support deliver results.

(b) Economy

• Transition away from ODS spurred green innovation in refrigeration, air conditioning, foam, aerosols.
• HFC phase-down under Kigali → integrates climate mitigation with industry regulation.

(c) Society & Health

• Reduced risks of skin cancer & cataracts.
• Protects agriculture and marine ecosystems from UV damage.

(d) Environment & Climate

• Ozone recovery = resilience of Earth systems when stressors are reduced.
• Kigali adds climate co-benefit, showing overlap between ozone diplomacy and climate diplomacy.

Critical Analysis

• Article’s core tone: Positive, celebratory of multilateral success.
• Counter-arguments / Missing Dimensions:
  • Monitoring gaps: Need vigilance against illegal ODS production (e.g., CFC-11 emissions detected in 2018).
  • Replacement chemicals: HFCs are non-ODS but strong GHGs, requiring parallel climate strategies.
  • Equity concerns: Developing nations need technology transfer & finance for sustainable transitions.
• Ethical dimension: Global cooperation worked here → raises the question why climate change talks lag compared to ozone diplomacy.

Conclusion

• Multilateral treaties like the Montreal Protocol and Kigali Amendment demonstrate effective science-driven global governance and environmental recovery.
• Lessons from ozone recovery highlight the importance of technology transfer, monitoring, and equitable global cooperation for broader climate challenges.

Ozone Layer: Value Additions

• Function: Protects life on Earth by absorbing harmful UV-B radiation, reducing skin cancer, cataracts, and DNA damage.
• Montreal Protocol (1987): Landmark treaty that phased out ozone-depleting substances (CFCs, halons); considered a global environmental success story.
• Vienna Convention (1985): Framework for international cooperation on ozone protection.
• Kigali Amendment (2016): Phasing down HFCs (not ODS but potent greenhouse gases) → climate co-benefits, reduces global warming by ~0.5°C by 2100.
• Recovery Projections:
  • Antarctica → 2066
  • Arctic → 2045
  • Rest of the world → 2040
• Health & Environment Benefits: Lower UV exposure protects human health, agriculture, marine ecosystems, and biodiversity.
• Multilateral Diplomacy: Demonstrates effective science-based global governance; model for climate cooperation.
• Technology & Economy: Stimulated green innovation in refrigeration, air conditioning, and industrial processes.
• Monitoring & Challenges: Vigilance required against illegal ODS production; replacement chemicals (HFCs) need climate-conscious management.
• Equity & Ethics: Developing countries need technology transfer and finance for sustainable compliance; showcases global cooperation effectiveness.