Content :

1. Vaccinating India
2. Fathoming America’s plan to manage AI proliferation

Vaccinating India

Global Context

• Vaccine coverage for six major diseases (e.g., measles, polio, TB) has doubled globally (1980–2023).
• Zero-dose children (those who haven’t received even the first DTP vaccine dose) dropped sharply to 75% globally during this period.
• The number of zero-dose children is seen as a key indicator of health inequality and immunisation system performance.

Relevance : GS 2(Health)

Practice Question : Despite significant progress in immunisation coverage, the high number of zero-dose children in India reflects persistent socio-economic and geographic inequities. Critically examine the factors behind this trend and suggest measures to meet India’s commitments under the WHO’s Immunization Agenda 2030. (15 marks, 250 words)

India’s Position

• India had 1.44 million zero-dose children in 2023 — 2nd highest globally.
• India is among 8 countries that account for over 50% of global zero-dose children (~16 million).
• India’s large birth cohort: 23 million babies born in 2023, the highest in the world.

Historical Trends

• Zero-dose rate in India declined from 33.4% (1992) → 10.1% (2016).
• Numbers fluctuated recently:
  • 2019: 1.4 million
  • 2021 (post-COVID disruption): 2.7 million
  • 2022: 1.1 million
  • 2023: 1.44 million
• In percentage terms, 2023 zero-dose rate is 6.2% of total births — a relatively low share given the absolute size.

Regional Distribution

• High-burden states: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat.
• High tribal/Northeast prevalence: Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh.

Demographic Inequities

• Disparities based on gender, caste, and rural-urban divide have narrowed.
• However, high prevalence persists among:
  • Poor households
  • Low maternal education
  • Scheduled Tribes
  • Muslim communities

Key Challenges

• Not due to conflict or fragile systems (unlike many high-burden countries).
• Barriers:
  • Vaccine hesitancy in specific communities
  • Access in tribal belts and urban slums
  • Migrant populations with low service outreach

Forward

• India must halve zero-dose numbers by 2030 (relative to 2019 baseline of 1.4 million) to meet WHO’s IA2030 goals.
• Requires sustained, targeted efforts:
  • Community outreach
  • Awareness campaigns
  • Urban-slum and tribal area immunisation drives

Fathoming America’s plan to manage AI proliferation

Backdrop: The AI Diffusion Framework

• The AI Diffusion Framework was introduced by the Biden administration to regulate AI chip exports and model weights.
• It treated AI similarly to nuclear technology, aiming to prevent adversaries (like China, Russia) from accessing high-end compute power, a key driver of AI capabilities.
• Goal: Preserve U.S. AI leadership by limiting global access to compute-intensive hardware.

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations ) , GS 3(Technology)

Practice Question : The rescission of the U.S. AI Diffusion Framework signals a tactical recalibration, not a strategic shift in its AI control policy. Discuss the implications of such evolving technology-driven controls on global cooperation, innovation, and India’s strategic autonomy in the AI domain. (15 marks, 250 words)

Why the Framework Was Withdrawn

• Rescinded by the Trump administration (2025), seen as a tactical rollback, not a strategic shift.
• Key flaws of the Framework:
  • Undermined technological collaboration, even with allies.
  • Created trust deficits by signaling U.S. dominance in setting rules.
  • Treated civilian-origin AI tech as a purely military asset.
  • Encouraged workarounds like China’s DeepSeek R1, which achieved high performance using low compute, negating U.S. controls.

Global Reactions and Strategic Shifts

• Allies began pursuing technological sovereignty, investing in alternative ecosystems to avoid overdependence on U.S. AI infrastructure.
• For India, which wasn’t favoured under the framework, the withdrawal is a welcome development.
• The global AI race continues; the U.S. is still intent on denying China access to cutting-edge AI technology.

Evolving U.S. Strategy: New Forms of Control

• Post-framework, U.S. focus has shifted to tech-enabled enforcement, not broad trade bans.
• Recent actions:
  • Expanded export controls (March 2025).
  • More companies added to the entity list (blacklist).
  • New legislation introduced:
    • On-chip surveillance features.
    • Location tracking to prevent diversion of AI chips to adversaries.

Emerging Concerns with Tech-Driven Controls

• Risks:
  • Privacy, ownership, and surveillance issues.
  • Reduced autonomy of buyers and users of AI hardware.
  • Potential inhibition of legitimate civilian use.
• Could replicate the same trust and sovereignty issues as the original framework.

Conclusion: Strategic Continuity, Tactical Change

• Withdrawal of the framework is not a change in intent, but a change in approach.
• U.S. AI control strategy persists in new, possibly subtler, forms.
• Failure to learn from the past risks undermining U.S. AI leadership, alienating allies, and accelerating global decoupling in AI development.