10 October 2025

• India signed a £350 million defence deal with the U.K. to buy Lightweight Multirole Missiles (LMM) for the Indian Army.
• Both sides agreed on a £250 million collaboration for electric-powered naval engines.
• 64 Indian firms to invest £1.3 billion in the U.K., creating ~7,000 jobs.
• U.K. universities — Lancaster and Surrey — approved to open campuses in India under NEP 2020 reforms.

Key Points

• LMMs to be built in Belfast, advancing a “complex weapons partnership.”
• Electric engine deal advances green defence cooperation.
• Major Indian investors: TVS Motor (£250m), Cyient (£100m), Hero Motors (£100m), Muthoot Finance (£100m).
• Ties strengthen after signing the India-U.K. CETA (2025).
• Education tie-up reflects globalization of higher education.

Static Linkages

• Make in India promotes indigenisation in defence.
• FDI policy allows up to 74% in defence via automatic route.
• NEP 2020 enables top global universities to operate in India.
• Maritime India Vision 2030 & SAGAR promote green and secure maritime growth.
• National Hydrogen Mission aligns with naval electrification.

Critical Analysis

• Pros:
  • Boosts strategic and technological cooperation.
  • Encourages green defence innovation.  Expands bilateral investment and jobs.
  • Enhances education access and research quality.
• Cons:
  • Limited tech transfer in defence.  Trade imbalance persists.
  • Regulatory clarity needed for foreign campuses.

Way Forward

• Deepen co-production and R&D partnerships.  Ensure balanced FDI flow both ways.
• Integrate green energy goals in defence projects.
• Strengthen education quality assurance for foreign universities.

LASZLO KRASZNAHORKAI WINS NOBEL PRIZE IN LITERATURE

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Hungarian author László Krasznahorkai, known for his long, philosophical, and darkly humorous novels, was awarded the 2025 Nobel Prize in Literature.
• The Swedish Academy cited his “compelling and visionary oeuvre that, in the midst of apocalyptic terror, reaffirms the power of art.”
• Krasznahorkai is a major voice in Central European literature, continuing the tradition of Kafka and Thomas Bernhard.
• Several of his novels — including Satantango and The Melancholy of Resistance — were adapted into films by director Béla Tarr.
• At 71, he becomes the first Nobel laureate from the Hungarian city of Gyula.

Key Points

• Awarding Institution: Swedish Academy, Stockholm.
• Prize Citation: For his “compelling and visionary oeuvre… reaffirming the power of art.”
• Literary Style: Known for single-sentence novels, blending absurdism, philosophy, and existential critique.
• Major Works: Satantango (1985), The Melancholy of Resistance (1989), Baron Wenckheim’s Homecoming (2016).
• Other Awards:
  • National Book Award for Translated Literature (U.S., 2019).
  • Man Booker International Prize (2015) for The Melancholy of Resistance.
• Political Context: Vocal critic of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the nation’s growing authoritarian nationalism.
• Cultural Significance: Reflects Europe’s post- communist social anxiety and moral decay through art.

Static Linkages

• Nobel Prizes founded by Alfred Nobel’s will (1895); first awarded 1901.
• Awarding body (Literature): Swedish Academy.  India’s laureate: Rabindranath Tagore (1913) for Gitanjali.
• Objective: Honour contributions benefiting humanity — including peace, literature, sciences, and economics.

Critical Analysis

• Positives:
  • Strengthens art’s role in questioning power and social decay.
  • Promotes global appreciation of non-English literature.
  • Enhances Hungary’s cultural visibility.
• Concerns:
  • Nobel selections often criticised for Eurocentrism.
  • Political contexts may overshadow artistic merit.

Way Forward

• Promote translation of global literature.  Protect freedom of artistic expression.
• Use cultural diplomacy to bridge global divides.

INDIA’S MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS,THE CRIES AND SCARS

• A young couple in Shahjahanpur, UP, died by suicide after poisoning their infant, citing debt.
• Similar student suicides in Kota, Rajasthan, reveal a growing national mental health crisis.
• NCRB (ADSI 2023): 1,71,418 suicides (↑0.3%); rate 12.4 per lakh (↓0.8%).
• Despite Mental Healthcare Act 2017 and National Suicide Prevention Strategy 2022, suicides continue to rise.
• Increasing dependence on AI chatbots for emotional support highlights loneliness and weak institutional care.

Key Points

• High-Burden States: Maharashtra, TN, MP, Karnataka, WB (40%+ cases).
• Main Causes: Family issues (31.9%), illness (19%), relationship problems (10%).
• Farmer Suicides: 10,786 (6.3% of total); mainly Maharashtra & Karnataka.
• Mental Health Burden:
  • 230 million Indians affected.
  •  70–92% treatment gap.
  • 0.75 psychiatrists per 1 lakh (WHO norm: 3).  
• Budget: ₹270 crore (largely unspent).

Static Linkages

• Article 21: Right to life = right to mental well-being.
• Article 47: State’s duty to improve public health.
• Mental Healthcare Act 2017: Decriminalises suicide; ensures care access.
• National Health Policy 2017: Integrates mental health in public services.
• SDG 3.4: Promote mental health & well-being.

Critical Analysis

• Pros:
  • Progressive laws (MHCA 2017).
  • National Suicide Prevention Strategy (2022).
• Cons:
  • Acute manpower shortage.  
  • Poor budget utilisation.
  • Stigma & lack of awareness.
  • Digital tools unregulated, risky.
• Stakeholders:
  • Govt: Need inter-ministerial action.
  • Civil Society: Early detection & outreach.  
  • Families: Require awareness & support.

Way Forward

• Declare mental health a public health emergency.
• Form a National Task Force with dedicated funding.
• Increase mental health professionals to 3–5 per 1 lakh.
• Place trained counsellors in all schools, colleges, PHCs.
• Regulate digital mental health apps for privacy & ethics.
• Expand insurance for mental health under Ayushman Bharat.
• Launch mass destigmatisation campaigns.

• Over 1 billion people (13% of world population) live with mental illness (WHO).
• India: 13.7% lifetime prevalence; ~200 million affected.
• Legal backing: Mental Healthcare Act (MHA), 2017 ensures right to mental health, decriminalises suicide, and mandates insurance.
• SC judgment (Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh): Declared mental health a fundamental right under Article 21.
• Govt initiatives:
  • DMHP in 767 districts.
  • Tele MANAS helpline: 20 lakh+ counselling sessions.
  • Manodarpan: covers 11 crore students.

Key Points

• Treatment gap: 70–92% (85% for depression/anxiety).
• Workforce: 0.75 psychiatrists, 0.12 psychologists per 1 lakh (WHO norm: 3 psychiatrists).
• Budget: Only 1.05% of health spending (WHO: ≥5%).
• Rehabilitation coverage: <15% of need met.
• Stigma: 50% of Indians associate illness with weakness/shame.
• Global comparison:
  • Developed nations: 40–55% treatment gap, 8–10% health budget on mental health.
  • Insurance: >80% (India <15%).
  • ICD-11 disorders not yet included in Indian guidelines.

Static Linkages

• Article 21: Right to mental health.
• Article 47: Duty of State to improve public health.
• National Health Policy 2017: Mental health integration in primary care.
• WHO Action Plan (2013–2030): Reduce suicide, expand coverage.
•   Public health – State subject (List II, Entry 6).

Critical Analysis

• Pros:
  • Legal right to mental health (MHA 2017).  
  • Wider access via DMHP & Tele MANAS.
  • School awareness through Manodarpan.
• Cons:
  • High treatment gap, low funding.
  • Urban bias in mental health workforce.  Weak monitoring, poor coordination.
  • Strong stigma and limited insurance.

Way Forward

• Raise budget to ≥5% of total health spending.
• Integrate mental health into primary care & insurance.
• Train mid-level providers to bridge workforce gap.
• Adopt ICD-11 in national guidelines.
• Real-time monitoring of district performance.
• Nationwide anti-stigma campaigns.
• Inter-ministerial coordination (Health, Education, Labour, Social Justice).

TUSKS AND TENSIONS

Context of the News

• Kerala passed the Wild Life Protection (Kerala Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeking to empower the State in decisions previously reserved for the Union government.
• The Bill allows the State to:
  • Decide when a Schedule II animal becomes ‘vermin’, losing protections in specific areas and periods.
  • Empower the Chief Wildlife Warden to kill, tranquillise, capture, or translocate any animal that has severely injured a person.
• Motivated by human-wildlife conflicts, especially with wild boars in agricultural and forest mosaics.
• Prior attempts to have the Centre declare wild boars as vermin were unsuccessful, reflecting State frustration.

Key Points

• Schedule II powers: Previously, only the Union government could declare vermin species.
• Human-wildlife conflict: Increasing incidents due to expansion of human settlements into forest buffer zones.
• Centre-State tension: The amendment reflects Kerala’s critique of opaque decision-making at the Union level.
• Legal framework:
  • Wildlife is in the Concurrent List; State laws inconsistent with Central Act require Presidential assent.
  • Section 62 of the Central Act limits indiscriminate culling to protect conservation baselines.
• Potential risk: May normalise lethal interventions due to governance failures rather than ecological necessity

Static Linkages

• Indian Polity: Federal structure, Concurrent List, Presidential assent.
• Environment: Wildlife protection laws, Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, Schedule I & II species, conservation ethics.
• Human-Wildlife Conflict: Case studies in NCERT Class 12 Environment, buffer zones, ecological balance.
• International commitments: Convention on Biological Diversity, wildlife conservation obligations.

Critical Analysis

• Pros:
  • Empowers States to act swiftly on local human-wildlife conflicts.
  • Addresses Centre’s bureaucratic delays in declaring vermin.
  • Potential for data-driven, State-specific management of wildlife.
• Cons / Risks:
  • May undermine national conservation baselines and international commitments.
  • Lethal interventions could normalize killing over coexistence.
  • Could be seen as federal abdication if safeguards and transparency are weak.
  • Expansion of settlements into buffer zones aggravates conflicts, not addressed in the Bill.

Stakeholder Perspectives:

• State Government: Immediate relief from human-wildlife conflict.
• Central Government / Conservationists: Risk of inconsistent national conservation standards.
• Farmers / Local Communities: May welcome swift action but long-term ecological risk exists.

Way Forward

• Establish clear, accountable, and transparent criteria for declaring species as vermin.
• Strengthen non-lethal measures (translocation, fencing, insurance, early warning systems).
• Ensure baseline protections and international commitments remain intact.
• Create State-level ecological data frameworks for decision-making.
• Incentivize coexistence strategies, including community participation and compensation schemes.

STOP THE BLASTS

Context of the News

• Firecracker unit blast in V. Savaram, Konaseema, Andhra Pradesh killed 8.
• Unit among 18 licensed ones in the district; recent safety audit reported no issues.
• Three-day manufacturing ban imposed; fresh audit ordered.
• Electrical fire caused explosion; poor record- keeping complicated identification.
• Area is close to oil and gas operations, increasing risk.

Key Points

• Firecracker manufacturing is mostly seasonal; minor except in Tamil Nadu.
• PESO regulates licensing and safety protocols.  Protocols include strict electrical safety, human presence restrictions, and fire containment.
• Lapses in implementation likely caused Konaseema accident.
• 18 other wholesale cracker units operate in the district.

Static Linkages

• Explosives Act, 1884; Factories Act, 1948.  
• NDMA disaster management guidelines.
• BIS & PESO chemical safety standards.
• Role of District Collector in licensing and governance.

Critical Analysis

• Pros: Strong regulatory framework; quick government response.
• Cons: Poor compliance, weak audits, low awareness, record-keeping gaps, high-risk location.
• Challenges: Small-scale, seasonal units; coordination gaps; low worker awareness.

Way Forward

• Strict compliance with PESO protocols
• Independent audit verification.
• Digital employee and activity records.  Worker and owner safety training.
• Periodic risk assessments near critical infrastructure.
• Better coordination between PESO and local authorities.