24 September 2025

• Trigger: India will submit its updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) at COP30 in Brazil (November 2025).
• Background:
  • NDCs are voluntary climate action goals pledged under the Paris Agreement (2015) to limit global warming to well below 2°C (preferably 1.5°C) above pre-industrial levels.
  • Countries are mandated to revise NDCs every 5 years → India last updated in 2022.
  • COP30 is crucial as Brazil (host) has stressed review of unmet NDCs and raising ambition.

Key Facts / Data (Prelims Pointers)

• India’s 2022 NDCs:
  • Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 45% from 2005 levels by 2030.
  • Source 50% of power capacity from non- fossil fuels by 2030 (achieved in 2023).
  • Create carbon sink of 2–3 billion tonnes CO₂ via afforestation by 2030.
• Progress:
  • By 2019 → 33% reduction in emission intensity vs 2005.
  • By June 2023 → 50% power capacity from non-fossil fuels installed.
• Global Context:
  • Even if all NDCs are met → World still warms to ~3°C by 2100.
  • EU: Long-term goal = Net Zero by 2050; Proposed 90% cut by 2040 vs 1990 levels.
  • Australia: New target = 62–70% cut from 2005 levels by 2035.
  • US: Exited Paris Agreement.
  • China: Yet to announce COP30 goals.
• Institutional Mechanisms:
  • India Carbon Market (2026) → Mandatory intensity targets for 13 sectors; tradable Emission Reduction Certificates.
  • Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) with Japan → Bilateral clean energy + carbon credit sharing.

Critical Analysis Opportunities / Pros

• India has overachieved interim targets (non-fossil fuel capacity).
• Carbon market (2026) could provide a  transparent mechanism for emission reductions.
• Bilateral mechanisms like JCM with Japan → Attract foreign investment + technology transfer.

• Enhances India’s climate diplomacy credibility.

Challenges / Cons

• Finance & Technology gap → Developed nations have not met $100 bn/year climate finance pledge.
• India’s reliance on coal for base-load power may slow transition.
• Carbon sink goal (2–3 bn tonnes) difficult due to land constraints, afforestation challenges.
• Global ambition mismatch → Current NDCs lead to 3°C warming, far from Paris goals.

Long-term Implications

• India’s climate policy must balance development needs (energy access, growth) with global climate responsibility.
• Successful implementation could make India a leader in green economy & clean tech hub.
• Failure to scale ambition may worsen climate risks (heatwaves, floods, agriculture losses).

Way Forward

• Strengthen Carbon Market → Ensure credibility, avoid greenwashing.
• Green Finance Mobilisation → Sovereign green bonds, blended finance models.
• Technology Transfer → Push for international cooperation (hydrogen, carbon capture, storage).
• Decentralised Renewables → Rooftop solar, rural energy access.
• Afforestation + Carbon Sink Strategy → Agroforestry, mangroves, degraded land restoration.
•   Climate Justice Lens → Advocate CBDR principle in global forums.

GST 2.0 TO RUN LIKE A WELL-OILED MACHINE

• The GST Council (constitutional body under Article 279A) approved GST 2.0 reforms on 3rd September 2025.
• This reform collapses the earlier 4-slab system (5%, 12%, 18%, 28%) into 3 key slabs (5%, 18%, 40%), easing compliance and reducing classification disputes.
• Trigger: Long-standing demands from industry (esp. MSMEs), persistent issues of inverted duty structures, litigation, and consumer inflation pressures.
• Institutional history: GST was launched in 2017, hailed as the “One Nation, One Tax” reform, but its multi-slab structure and compliance complexity were seen as hurdles.

Key Facts/Data (Prelims Pointers)

• GST Council – chaired by Union Finance Minister; includes Union & State Finance Ministers; decisions generally by consensus.
• New slab rates (GST 2.0):
  • ~5% (essentials)
  • 18% (standard)
  • 40% (luxury/sin goods)
• Coverage: “99% of goods & services now in 0%, 5% or 18% categories.”
• Expected impact:
  • Potential GDP growth boost of +1% (via consumption).
  • Revenue foregone: Tens of thousands of crores.
  • Consumers: Direct savings; inflation moderation.
  • MSMEs: Reduced compliance cost,improved margins.
• Constitutional provision:
  • Article 279A → GST Council.
  • Article 246A → Concurrent power of Centre & States to levy GST.
• Past report: Economic Survey repeatedly flagged issues of multi- slab complexity, classification disputes, delays in ITC refunds.4444

Critical Analysis Opportunities/Pros

• Simplified slabs → less litigation & classification disputes.
• Boosts consumption → particularly rural/semi-urban.

• Reduces compliance burden for MSMEs → strengthens formalisation.
• Inflation moderation in essentials.
• Improves predictability & tax certainty → attracts investment.

Challenges/Cons

• Revenue loss for Centre & States (esp. short- term).
• Need to ensure pass-through of benefits → consumers must actually see reduced prices.
• Administrative readiness (GSTN, State departments, labelling/packaging authorities).
• Transition challenges for stock, packaging, unsold goods.
• Possible political friction if States feel revenue stress.

Long-term implications

• Enhances trust between Govt, industry, and consumers.
• Pushes India towards a modern VAT-type system comparable with best global practices.
• Strengthens Ease of Doing Business → contributes to $5 trillion economy roadmap.

Way Forward

• Strengthen compliance IT infrastructure (GSTN) for smooth refunds and real-time monitoring.
• Build MSME capacity → accounting, legal, and digital literacy.
• Establish robust grievance redressal & feedback loops for classification issues.
• Ensure anti-profiteering enforcement so tax cuts are not absorbed by companies.
•  Study global best practices (e.g., New Zealand’s single-rate GST, EU’s VAT frameworks) for further simplification.

PENALTY IN PROPORTION

• Trigger: On 22 September 2025, Justice M.M. Sundresh of the Supreme Court, during criminal defamation proceedings against the Foundation for Independent Journalism, expressed concern over misuse of the law by politicians and private actors as a tool of intimidation.
• Background:
  • In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation under Sections 499–500 IPC, reasoning that “reputation is part of Article 21 (Right to Life)”.
  • Since then, frequent misuse against journalists, activists, and political opponents has raised questions on proportionality and compatibility with free speech.

Key Facts / Data (Prelims Pointers)

• Legal Provisions:
  • Section 499, IPC → Definition of defamation.
  • Section 500, IPC → Punishment (up to 2 years imprisonment, fine, or both).
•   Constitutional Angle:
  • Article 19(1)(a) → Freedom of speech & expression.  Article 19(2) → Allows reasonable restrictions,including defamation.
  • Article 21 → Right to life, dignity, reputation.
• Judicial Precedents:
  • Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) → Privacy vs. press freedom.
  • Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) → Upheld criminal defamation.
•  Global Comparison:
  • UK → Abolished criminal defamation (Defamation Act, 2013).
  • US → Civil law only; “actual malice” test (NYT v. Sullivan).
  • UN HRC → Urges decriminalisation of defamation as a democratic safeguard

Critical Analysis Arguments For Criminal Defamation

•  Protects individual reputation and dignity (Article 21).   Acts as a deterrent against reckless/malicious speech.
• Provides immediate remedy compared to long-drawn civil suits

Arguments Against Criminal Defamation

• Disproportionate punishment → jail term for reputational injury.
• Misuse by political leaders → suppress dissent, intimidate journalists.
• Judicial burden → frivolous complaints, easy summons.
• Chilling effect → self-censorship in media, weakening democracy.

Long-term Implications

• Curtails free democratic debate.
• Weakens press freedom.
• Converts judiciary into an arena for political vendetta.

Way Forward

• Decriminalise defamation → shift fully to civil remedies (damages, injunctions, apologies).
• Judicial safeguards → stricter scrutiny before issuing summons.
• Dedicated fast-track civil courts for defamation.  
• Adopt global best practices:
  • UK – Civil defamation under Defamation Act, 2013.
  • US – Higher threshold (public figures must prove “actual malice”).
  • UN – Strongly recommends removal of criminal sanctions.

• On May 14, 1948, Israel was declared a state; the U.S. recognised it within 11 minutes. It became a UN member in 1949.
• In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) declared the State of Palestine.
• Recognition came from much of the Global South, but Western nations withheld it, insisting recognition must follow a negotiated two-state solution.
• Trigger (2025): At the UN General Assembly, the U.K., France, Canada, and Australia recognised Palestine — a shift signalling waning patience with Israel’s policies and weakening faith in a diplomatic settlement process.
• Contextual backdrop:
  • Gaza devastation due to Israeli military campaigns.
  • Expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank, with growing settler violence
• Israeli PM Netanyahu openly rejecting the idea of a Palestinian state.

• U.S. offering unconditional support to Israel, while Europe shows cracks in the pro-Israel consensus.

Key Facts / Data (Prelims Pointers)

• UN Recognition: Over 130 UN member states (mainly Global South) recognise Palestine; Western bloc largely abstained until now.
• UN Membership: Israel admitted in 1949; Palestine has non-member observer state status (since 2012).
• International Law: Palestinians have a recognised right to self-determination under the UN Charter and ICJ opinions.
• Oslo Accords (1993, 1995): Created Palestinian Authority, but final status issues unresolved.
• Settlements: Over 700,000 Israeli settlers now live in the occupied West Bank & East Jerusalem.
• Europe’s role: U.K. (Balfour Declaration 1917), France (nuclear cooperation), Canada & Australia (long-time U.S. allies) — historically pro-Israel.

Critical Analysis Opportunities / Pros

• Diplomatic pressure on Israel to halt settlements and military excesses.
• Revival of momentum for two-state solution.
• Europe aligning closer with Global South views, signalling multipolarity.

Challenges / Cons

• Netanyahu’s stance: categorical rejection of Palestinian statehood.
• U.S. unconditional support undermines European moves.
• Ground realities: Gaza destroyed, West Bank heavily fragmented by settlements.
• Recognition is largely symbolic, without enforcement mechanisms.

Long-term Implications

• Could deepen U.S.-Europe divergence on Israel policy.
• May legitimise Palestinian claims in global diplomacy.
• Rising pressure for arms embargoes or sanctions against Israel.
• But risks Israel’s further radicalisation under far-right leadership.

Way Forward

• Immediate humanitarian priority: End Gaza war and ensure aid access.
• Political: Freeze settlement activity; uphold UN resolutions.
• Legal: ICJ advisory opinions & ICC war crimes investigations pursued seriously.
• Diplomatic: Europe, India, and other middle powers should mediate, avoiding overdependence on U.S.-Israel axis.
• Global best practice: Use South Africa– Namibia model of negotiated independence under UN supervision.

H-1B FEE THREATENS INDIA’S IT FIRM & BUSINESS MODELS

Context & Bachground

• Trigger: Trump administration imposed a $100,000 annual fee on new H-1B visas, aimed at curbing wage arbitrage by Indian IT firms and Big Tech.
• Why important: H-1B visas are central to Indian IT companies’ U.S. business models and also to the U.S.’s innovation ecosystem. The move could reshape global talent flows.
• Historical background:
  • H-1B visa created under Immigration Act of 1990 to allow U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign workers.
  • Traditionally capped at 85,000 visas/year (65,000 general + 20,000 for U.S. master’s graduates).
  • India has consistently accounted for the largest share of H-1B holders.

Key Facts/Data (Prelims Pointers)

• H-1B workers form 65% of America’s IT workforce (2025), up from 32% in 2003.
• Unemployment among U.S. graduates: 6.1% in CS, 7.5% in computer engineering.
• Indian IT giants (TCS, Infosys, Wipro) rely heavily on H-1B for onshore delivery.
• International students contribute $40 billion annually to U.S. economy; majority in STEM.
• Competitor nations (Canada, Australia, UK) aggressively liberalising skilled migration pathways.

Critical Analysis Opportunities / Pros

• Could protect U.S. workers from wage suppression.
• Forces Indian IT firms to move up the value chain and focus on innovation.
• May filter H-1B applications toward genuinely exceptional talent.

Challenges / Cons

• Indian IT industry may face profitability shock and job relocations.
• Startups and SMEs in U.S. disproportionately hurt compared to Big Tech.
• Talent may migrate to competitor countries, leading to innovation exodus.
• Risks offshoring of jobs instead of creating U.S. employment.

Long-term Implications

• Weakens U.S. innovation ecosystem, strengthens rivals like Canada, UK, Australia, and potentially China.
• Strains India-U.S. trade and services ties.
• Encourages India to rethink dependence on H- 1B and diversify global markets.

Way Forward

• Nuanced visa reforms: fee differentiation by salary bands, exemptions for U.S.-educated graduates, lower rates for R&D talent.
• India’s response:
  • Invest in domestic AI & deep-tech ecosystems.
  • Expand bilateral mobility partnerships with EU, UK, Japan.
  • Incentivise reverse brain drain by attracting returnees.
• Global best practice: Canada’s Global Talent Stream – fast-track visas, clear pathways to permanent residency.

WORLD HAS A CHINA MODEL

• Trigger: The piece reflects on the ideological decline of the “End of History” thesis (Fukuyama) and the “Washington Consensus” (John Williamson), both of which symbolised Western dominance after the Cold War.
• The 2008–09 Global Financial Crisis weakened free-market orthodoxy and revived Keynesian economics.
• Rise of China’s state capitalism (often termed the “Beijing Consensus”) challenged liberal democracy and free-market supremacy.
• With Trump 2.0’s authoritarian tilt, shrinking freedoms in democracies like India/US, and rising surveillance, the global ideological balance appears to be shifting away from classical liberal democracy.

Key Facts / Data (Prelims Pointers)

• Fukuyama – End of History (1992) → liberal democracy as “final form of human government”.
• Washington Consensus (1989) → fiscal discipline, privatisation, free trade, IMF/World Bank conditionalities.
• Beijing Consensus (2004, Joshua Cooper Ramo) → state capitalism, innovation, gradual reform, authoritarian resilience.
• 2008–09 Global Financial Crisis → IMF/World Bank softened orthodoxy, Keynesian revival.
• China overtook Japan in 2009 → became world’s 2nd largest economy; later world’s top exporter/importer.
• Trumpian mercantilism → tariff wars, defence & oil exports push.
• Surveillance State → India (Aadhaar misuse debates), US (Patriot Act, NSA), China (Social Credit System).

Critical Analysis Opportunities / Pros

• State intervention can provide stability in crises (2008, COVID-19).
• China’s human capital investments show results in tech & infrastructure.
• Mercantilist push may revive domestic industries.

Challenges / Cons

• Shrinking democratic freedoms even in liberal democracies.
• Surveillance undermines privacy & civil liberties.
• Centralisation of power erodes institutional checks & balances.
• Rising economic nationalism risks trade wars & instability.

Long-term Implications

• Liberal democracy no longer the “inevitable destiny” → competing models of governance.
• Global ideological shift towards “development- first authoritarianism”.
• India risks being bracketed with illiberal democracies if freedoms shrink further.

Way Forward

• Strengthen institutional independence (judiciary, regulators, media).
• Enact robust privacy laws (EU GDPR model).  Promote inclusive growth to prevent state–corporate collusion.
• Balance security with liberty (transparent surveillance oversight).
• International dialogue on digital rights, trade fairness, and democratic resilience.