03 January 2026

• The U.S. President Donald Trump threatened military intervention if Iran uses lethal force against ongoing anti-government protests.
• Iranian leadership warned that any U.S. interference would make American military assets in West Asia legitimate targets.
• Protests erupted due to severe economic distress marked by high inflation, currency collapse, and post-war sanctions pressure.
• The development follows the June 2025 U.S.– Israel strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran’s retaliatory attack on a U.S. base in Qatar.

Key Points

•  Protests began in Tehran after a sharp fall in the Iranian rial; later spread nationwide.
• Iran reported multiple civilian and security casualties during clashes.
• Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad publicly encouraged protests, escalating Iranian concerns of external regime-destabilisation.
• Iran’s food inflation reached 64.2% (October) — second highest globally (World Bank data).
• The rial has lost ~60% value since June 2025, aggravating livelihood stress.
• U.S. reiterated readiness to strike if Iran rebuilds its nuclear or ballistic missile capabilities.

Static Linkages

• UN Charter Principles:
  • Article 2(4): Prohibition on threat or use of force
  • Article 2(7): Non-intervention in domestic affairs
• International Relations Theory:
  • Security dilemma and deterrence  
  • Coercive diplomacy and economic sanctions
• Nuclear Governance:
  • JCPOA (2015) framework and implications of unilateral withdrawal
• West Asian Geopolitics:
  •  Proxy conflicts, energy security, and Gulf militarisation

Critical Analysis

• U.S. Perspective
  • Claims moral responsibility to deter state violence
  • Uses military signalling as coercive diplomacy
• Iran’s Perspective
  • Views protests as internally manageable economic unrest
  • Sees U.S.–Israel actions as regime-change strategy
• International Law Concerns
  • Unilateral “humanitarian intervention” lacks clear legal legitimacy
  • Violates sovereignty unless authorised by UNSC
• Regional Implications
  • Risk of wider West Asian escalation
  • Threats to energy routes, diaspora safety, and Gulf stability
• Global Order Dimension
  • Weakening of multilateralism
  • Increasing normalisation of unilateral force

Way Forward

• Prioritise UN-led multilateral diplomacy over unilateral threats
• Separate humanitarian concerns from military coercion
• Revive structured negotiations on sanctions relief and nuclear compliance
• Promote regional confidence-building measures in the Gulf
• Ensure civilian protection through international monitoring mechanisms

LANGUAGE ROW FUELS ASSAM CLASH

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• A recent peer-reviewed academic study published in Contemporary South Asia revisits the 1961 Silchar language movement violence in Assam.
• The study reinterprets the episode as a product of policy failure, colonial linguistic legacies, and power asymmetries, rather than an inevitable ethnic clash.
• It gains relevance amid contemporary debates on citizenship, indigeneity, NRC, and CAA in Assam.

Key Points

• In 1960–61, Assam amended its Official Language Act, declaring Assamese as the sole official language, with limited concessions to Bengali in Barak Valley.
• The decision triggered mass protests, culminating in police firing on May 19, 1961, killing 11 demonstrators in Silchar.
• Language functioned as:
  • A marker of political power
  • A gateway to public employment, land records, and administration
• The movement was not communal:
  • Participants included Hindus, Muslims, and tribal communities
• Colonial policies had earlier:
  • Imposed Bengali as the administrative language in 19th-century Assam
  • Marginalised Assamese speakers
• Post-independence reversal of linguistic dominance created new insecurities among Bengali-speaking regions.
• Conflict resolution mechanisms like the Shastri Formula failed due to lack of structural accommodation.
• Media narratives and Centre–State misjudgment aggravated tensions.

Static Linkages

• Colonial Census & Administration
• British censuses rigidly classified languages → hardened identities (NCERT Modern History).
• Constitutional Provisions
  • Articles 343–351: Language framework of the Union.
  • Article 29: Protection of linguistic minorities.
• Federalism
  • Language as a sensitive component of asymmetric federalism (Polity – Laxmikanth).
• State Reorganisation
  • Linguistic principle aimed at accommodation, not homogenisation (SRC, 1956).
• Internal Security
  • Identity-based mobilisation as a non- traditional security challenge (ARC Reports).

Critical Analysis

• Strengths of the Study
  • Moves beyond binary “Assamese vs Bengali” narratives.
  • Highlights institutional responsibility in identity conflicts.
• Structural Challenges
  • Uniform language policies in multilingual societies risk exclusion.
  • Administrative insensitivity can convert cultural anxiety into violence.
• Governance Lessons
  • Symbolic issues (language) can become material conflicts when linked to resources.
• Ethical Dimension
  • Raises concerns over state accountability, proportionality of force, and democratic dissent.

Way Forward

• Design context-specific language policies reflecting regional demographics.
• Strengthen constitutional safeguards for linguistic minorities.
• Institutionalise early warning and dialogue mechanisms for identity-based grievances.
• Promote functional multilingualism in administration and education.
• Apply historical lessons to current citizenship and indigeneity policies to avoid polarisation.

CENTRE WON’T CHANGE LAND POLICY

• The 50th meeting of Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation (PRAGATI), chaired by Narendra Modi, reviewed the status of major infrastructure projects.
• The Cabinet Secretary highlighted that land acquisition continues to be the single largest bottleneck in infrastructure development.
• The Union Government clarified that there is no proposal to amend the existing land acquisition law.
• PRAGATI has reviewed over 3,300 projects with an investment value of about ₹85 lakh crore since its launch.

Key Points

• Issues reviewed under PRAGATI  
  • Total issues raised: 7,735
  • Issues resolved: 7,156
• Break-up of resolved issues  
  • Land acquisition: 35%
  • Forest, wildlife & environmental clearances: 20%
  • Right of use / right of way: 18%
  • Others: law & order, construction delays, power utility approvals, financial issues
• Governance mechanism
  • Issues first addressed at the Ministry level  
  • Complex matters escalated through institutional mechanisms
  • Final review at PM-chaired PRAGATI meetings
• Outcome
  • Completion of several long-pending projects, including those initiated in the 1990s
  • Improved coordination between Centre–State– local governments

Static Linkages

• Land Acquisition Framework
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
  • Key provisions: Social Impact Assessment (SIA), consent clauses, enhanced compensation, R&R
• Environmental Regulation
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980  
  • Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
  • EIA Notification, 2006  
• Infrastructure & Growth
  • Public capital expenditure as a growth driver (Economic Survey)
  • Project delays linked to cost overruns and fiscal stress (CAG reports)
• Federal Governance
  • Cooperative federalism through Centre–State coordination (NITI Aayog, ARC reports)

Critical Analysis

• Advantages
  • High-level monitoring ensures time-bound decision-making
  • Reduces inter-ministerial silos and enhances administrative efficiency
  • Encourages States to resolve issues irrespective of political alignment
• Concerns
  • Persistent land acquisition hurdles indicate structural issues in consent, litigation, and rehabilitation
  • Environmental clearances may face capacity constraints and competing development– conservation priorities
  • Risk of prioritising speed over social and ecological safeguards
• Stakeholder Perspective
  • States seek faster execution
  • Project-affected families demand fair compensation and rehabilitation
  • Environmental institutions seek procedural compliance

Way Forward

• Strengthen early-stage land pooling and negotiated settlement models
• Digitisation of land records and GIS-based planning  
• Parallel processing of land, forest, and environment clearances
• Improve quality and credibility of Social Impact Assessment
• Outcome-based monitoring linking PRAGATI reviews with milestones and accountability

• COP30 (Belem, Brazil, Nov 2025) placed waste management and circularity at the core of the global climate agenda, with focus on methane mitigation pasted
• Launch of the “No Organic Waste (NOW)” global initiative to reduce methane emissions from organic waste.
• COP30 highlighted circular economy as a pathway for inclusive growth, cleaner air, and public health.
• Cities were urged to accelerate circularity by recognising waste as a resource.
• India’s Mission LiFE, proposed at COP26, aligns with this approach through lifestyle-based climate action.
• Rapid urbanisation in India has made Garbage Free Cities (GFC) by 2026 a developmental necessity.

Key Points

• Urban India is projected to generate:
  • 165 million tonnes of waste annually by 2030
  • 436 million tonnes by 2050
• Waste-related emissions may exceed 41 million tonnes of GHGs by 2030.
• Over 50% of municipal solid waste is organic, suitable for composting and bio-methanation.
• Compressed Biogas (CBG) plants enable green fuel and energy generation from wet waste.
• Plastic constitutes a major share of dry waste, posing risks to ecosystems and human health.
• Construction & Demolition (C&D) waste generation: ~12 million tonnes/year.
• Under SBM Urban 2.0, ~1,100 cities are rated dumpsite-free.
• Environment (C&D) Waste Management Rules, 2025 to be enforced from 1 April 2026

Static Linkages

• Urbanisation-induced environmental stress and carrying capacity of cities.
• Methane as a short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP) with high global warming potential.
• Transition from linear economy (take–make– dispose) to circular economy.
• Waste-to-energy, composting, and resource recovery concepts.
• Constitutional allocation of water and sanitation as State responsibilities.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Circularity reduces landfill dependency and methane emissions.
  • Generates green jobs and alternative fuels (CBG, RDF).
  • Aligns urban governance with global climate commitments.
• Challenges
  • Poor segregation at source limits recycling efficiency.
  • Inadequate municipal capacity, finances, and infrastructure.
  • Weak enforcement of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
  • Poor traceability and accountability for C&D waste.
  • Market, quality, and viability issues for recycled products.
• Stakeholder Issues
  • Urban Local Bodies face fiscal and technical constraints.
  • Industries seek regulatory clarity and stable demand.
  • Citizens show behavioural inertia despite awareness drives.

Way Forward

• Mandate 100% source segregation with incentives and penalties.
• Scale up CBG, composting, and MRFs via PPP models.
• Strict enforcement and digital tracking under C&D Waste Rules.
• Expand EPR to all dry waste streams.
• Strengthen municipal finances and technical capacity.
• Promote inter-city learning through Cities Coalition for Circularity (C-3).
• Integrate Mission LiFE with urban local governance.

URBAN-RURAL SANITATION RESET

Context of the News

• Swachh Bharat Mission launched in 2014 to eliminate open defecation.
• Over 12 crore household toilets constructed in rural India.
• All villages declared Open Defecation Free (ODF).
• Transition to SBM (Grameen) Phase II with focus on ODF Plus.
• Emphasis on faecal sludge management (FSM) due to dominance of on-site sanitation systems.
• Maharashtra demonstrates urban–rural sanitation linkages (Satara district model).

Key Points

• SBM-G Phase II covers:
  • Solid waste management
  • Liquid waste management
  • Faecal sludge and septage management
• ODF Plus villages (Oct 2025): ~5.68 lakh (~97% of total villages).
• Rural sanitation relies mainly on septic tanks and pits.
• Absence of FSM leads to:
  • Groundwater contamination
  • Public health risks
  • Manual scavenging hazards  
• Maharashtra initiatives:
  • 200+ FSTPs in urban areas.
  • 41 STPs enabled for co-treatment.
• Satara model:
  • Linking rural gram panchayats to underutilised 65 KLD FSTP.
  • Scheduled desludging every 5 years.
  • Cost recovery through sanitation tax.
•  Mayani village:
  • Cluster-level FSTP serving ~80 villages.

Static Linkages

• Sanitation as determinant of public health outcomes.
• 73rd Constitutional Amendment: sanitation as core function of Panchayats.
• Manual Scavengers Act, 2013: prohibition of hazardous cleaning.
• Polluter Pays Principle and Precautionary Principle.
• SDG 6: safe and sustainable sanitation.
• Economic Survey: sanitation linked to human capital formation.

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Shifts focus from access to service sustainability.
  • Reduces environmental and health externalities.
  • Optimises existing urban infrastructure.  
  • Strengthens decentralised governance.
• Challenges
  • Limited technical capacity of gram panchayats.
  • Behavioural resistance to sanitation user charges.
  • Regulation of private desludging operators.   
  • Coordination gaps between ULBs and PRIs.

Way Forward

• Institutionalise scheduled desludging nationwide.
• Promote urban–rural co-treatment agreements.
• Develop cluster-based FSM infrastructure.  
• Capacity building of PRIs under SBM-G.
• Strict enforcement of mechanised desludging norms.
• Performance-linked sanitation incentives to States.