18 September 2025

• PM Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone of India’s first PM MITRA Park in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, part of the Government’s vision to strengthen India’s textile value chain.
• The speech coincided with:
  •  Ongoing India–U.S. trade negotiations, stuck over tariff issues.
  • Rising calls for Swadeshi/self-reliance in the festive season.
  • Domestic focus on women’s health, with the launch of Swasth Nari Sashakt Parivar Abhiyaan.
  • National security context — reference to Operation Sindoor (cross-border strikes on terrorist infrastructure).
• Broader institutional background: The PM MITRA scheme was announced in the 2021-22 Budget to establish 7 integrated textile parks under the 5F vision (Farm → Fibre → Factory → Fashion → Foreign), strengthening Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat.

Key Facts/Data (Prelims Pointers)

• PM MITRA Parks: 7 approved locations – Dhar (MP), Virudhnagar (TN), Warangal (Telangana), Navasari (Gujarat), Kalaburagi (Karnataka), Lucknow (UP), Amravati (Maharashtra).
• Investment in Dhar Park: Proposals worth ₹23,000 crore from 114 textile companies.
• Operation Sindoor: Began May 7, 2025 – Indian airstrikes in Pakistan and PoK targeting terror camps.
• Swasth Nari Sashakt Parivar Abhiyaan (SNSPA): Focused on women’s health screenings; campaign till Oct 2 (Gandhi Jayanti).
• Swadeshi Campaign: New GST rates effective Sept 22 (Navratri start); PM urged traders to mark Swadeshi goods in shops.

Critical Analysis Opportunities /Pros

• PM MITRA parks can integrate fragmented value chains, reduce logistics costs, and enhance exports. Boosts employment generation in rural & semi-urban areas.
• Swadeshi push aligns with demand for local manufacturing → multiplier effect on MSMEs. Women’s health initiative ensures productivity and inclusive growth.
• Assertive security stance (Operation Sindoor) enhances deterrence credibility.

Challenges/Cons

• Trade tensions with U.S. could hurt India’s export potential in textiles.
• “Buy Swadeshi” may conflict with WTO commitments and consumer choice.
• Implementation delays and infrastructure bottlenecks in PM MITRA.
• Women’s health schemes face gaps in last-mile delivery & awareness.
• Security operations risk escalation with Pakistan.

Long Term Implantation

• Strengthened textile sector could make India a global manufacturing hub by 2047.
• Swadeshi focus may encourage domestic industries but risks protectionism.
• Operation Sindoor signals an assertive India, reshaping regional security perception.

Way Forward

• Ensure efficient execution of PM MITRA parks with PPP models.
• Balance Swadeshi push with global trade competitiveness.
• Deepen India–U.S. trade cooperation in textiles & apparel.
• Expand women’s health screening beyond campaign mode into permanent institutional structures.
• Continue a measured counter-terror strategy to deter adversaries without uncontrolled escalation

SC CALLS FOR JAILING OF STUBBLE BURNERS;NOT FEASIBLE SAYS CENTRE

• Why important? Every winter, North India (Delhi- NCR, Punjab, Haryana, UP) witnesses severe air pollution, aggravated by paddy stubble burning after harvest. Despite repeated SC interventions and large government spending, the problem persists.
• Trigger: Sharp exchange in the Supreme Court between CJI B.R. Gavai and the Union Government (represented by ASG Aishwarya Bhati) over whether criminal prosecution of farmers should be reintroduced for stubble burning.
• Institutional background:
  • The Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Act, 2021 gave powers to penalize polluters but exempted farmers from prosecution.
  • Earlier, under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment Protection Act, 1986, farmers could be prosecuted.

Key Facts/Data(Prelims Poniters)

• Air Quality: Delhi’s AQI often crosses 400+ (severe) in winter.
• Stubble generation: Punjab & Haryana generate ~ 35 million tonnes of paddy straw annually; ~ 80-85% is burnt.
• Govt. funds: Crores spent on subsidies for Happy Seeder machines, PUSA decomposer, crop diversification schemes.
• Constitutional provisions:
  • Article 21 – Right to clean environment.
  • Article 48A – State’s duty to protect environment.
  • Article 51A(g) – Fundamental duty of citizens to protect environment.
• Relevant institutions: CAQM, CPCB, State PCBs, NGT.

Critical Analysis

• Opportunities/Pros:
  • Criminal prosecution could deter habitual offenders.
  • Uniform national policy may reduce state-wise blame game.
  • Push for crop diversification (millets, pulses) aligned with IYOM 2023–2030 (UN decade on millets & nutrition).
• Challenges/Cons:
  • Farmers are small & marginal; penal action may worsen agrarian distress.
  • Political sensitivity – large farmer vote bank.
  • Enforcement difficulty across thousands of villages.
• Long-term implications:
  • Continued stubble burning → worsening health crisis in NCR.
• Risk of climate change commitments (Paris Agreement, NDC targets) being undermined.
•  Judicial intervention vs executive discretion may create policy deadlock.

Way Forward

• Carrot + Stick Approach: Incentives for in-situ machines + selective penalization to send deterrence. Technology solutions: PUSA bio-decomposer, biomass-to-energy plants, ethanol blending.
• Crop diversification policy: Reduce paddy cultivation in Punjab–Haryana, incentivize millets/pulses.
• Cooperative federalism: Uniform CAQM-led framework with states on board.
• Awareness & Behavioural change: Farmer training, FPOs, panchayat-level monitoring.

A JUDICIAL NUDGE FOLLOWING STUCK LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

• The Supreme Court is examining the Presidential Reference on the scope of the Governor’s powers under Article 200, which deals with assent to Bills passed by State legislatures.
• Trigger: Certain Governors withheld Bills for years without action, creating legislative paralysis. Earlier, a 2-judge Bench mandated a 3-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills.
• Debate: Whether judiciary can impose such a timeline when the Constitution itself is silent.

Key Facts/Data (Prelims Pointers)

• Article 200: Governor can (i) assent, (ii) withhold assent, (iii) return Bill for reconsideration, (iv) reserve for President.
• Article 201: Deals with President’s assent in case of reserved Bills.
• Article 163: Governor acts on aid and advice of Council of Ministers, except where Constitution explicitly grants discretion.
• Article 355: Duty of Union to ensure State governance in accordance with Constitution → potential ground for intervention when Governors stall Bills.
• Shamsher Singh (1974): Governor generally bound by ministerial advice.
• Nabam Rebia (2016): Governor cannot act independently except where Constitution grants discretion.
• State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023) & State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025): Struck down Governor’s claim of discretionary power under Article 200.
• Sarkaria & Punchhi Commissions: Reiterated Governor is a constitutional head; discretion only in rare cases (e.g., unconstitutional Bills).
• Government of India Act, 1935 – Section 75: Used phrase “Governor in his discretion,” deliberately omitted in Article 200.

Static Linkages

• Separation of Powers: Judiciary’s role in ensuring constitutional machinery.
• Federalism: Governor as an “agent of Centre” vs State autonomy.
• Parliamentary System: Real executive = elected government, not nominal head.
• Judicial Review: Expanding scope, like in Article 21 (A.K. Gopalan → Maneka Gandhi).

Critical Analysis Pros / Opportunities

• Fixing timelines ensures legislative efficiency.
• Strengthens federalism by curbing misuse of Governor’s office.
• Upholds constitutional morality (Governor as nominal head).

Cons / Challenges

• Judiciary encroaching into legislative/executive domain.
• No express constitutional basis for time limits.
• May create Centre–State tensions if Union intervenes under Article 355.

Long-term Implications

• Sets precedent for judicially mandated timelines in governance.
• Prevents Governors from becoming a “super- constitutional authority.”
• May lead to clearer codification of Governor’s role infuture constitutional amendments.

Way Forwards

• Codify Governor’s powers & timelines in legislation. Strengthen conventions of cooperative federalism.
• Use Sarkaria Commission’s recommendation: rare discretion only for patently unconstitutional Bills.
• Parliamentary/State oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability.
• Comparative study of UK model (Sovereign cannot refuse assent independently).

LET GEIGER COUNTERS,NOT GUESSES,SHAPE IRAN ACTION

• Trigger: U.S. strikes on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility (June 2025) → escalated tensions.
• E3 Action: On 28 August 2025, Britain, France, and Germany invoked the JCPOA snapback clause citing Iran’s violations.
• Why important: Brings back the prospect of UN sanctions, militarisation in West Asia, oil market shocks, and challenges to global nuclear non- proliferation regime.

Key Facts / Prelims Pointers

• JCPOA (2015): Iran + P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany) + EU.
• Snapback Mechanism: Restores pre-2015 UNSC sanctions if any participant alleges “significant non- compliance.”
• Iran’s Reaction: Parliament halted IAEA cooperation without National Security Council approval; legislators suggested withdrawal from NPT.
• Recent Development: On 9 September 2025, Iran and IAEA signed an agreement in Cairo to resume limited verification.
• India’s Stakes:
  • 8 million citizens in West Asia.
  • Oil supply through Strait of Hormuz.
  • Member of IAEA Board, SCO, and BRICS (both include Iran).
  • Tarapur lab = IAEA-certified, capable of sample analysis.

Static Linkages

• Polity: Sovereignty vs treaty obligations (Iran’s Parliament law).
• Economy: Oil import dependency, shipping insurance costs, sanctions on banks।
• Geography: Chokepoints & maritime security (Strait of Hormuz).

• IR: Non-proliferation regime, role of UNSC, IAEA safeguards.

Critical Analysis Opportunities / Pros

• Verification reduces speculation → stabilises oil markets & diplomacy.
• Pausing snapback upon verified cooperation preserves multilateralism.
• India can bridge divides (IAEA Board + SCO/BRICS).

Challenges / Cons

• Iran distrusts IAEA inspections (past leaks led to strikes).
• Information vacuum fuels miscalculation.
• Major power divergence: U.S./E3 vs. Russia/China vs. Israel/Gulf.

Long-Term Implications

• Failed diplomacy → snapback sanctions, isolation of Iran, risk of war.
• Success → precedent for depoliticised nuclear verification.

Way Forward

• Immediate:
  • Narrow IAEA access to bombed sites (framed as sovereign choice).
  • Use Tarapur lab for neutral sample analysis.
  • India to broker limited package: IAEA verification ↔ pause in snapback.
• Medium-term:
  •  “Managed access” protocols protecting sensitive military details.
  • Regional maritime energy-security consultative group (India as convenor).
  • Strengthen IAEA crisis-response mechanism.

• Why important?
• The judgment directly addresses the balance between religious autonomy vs. state regulation in managing community resources.
• Trigger: Challenges to controversial provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
• Background:
  • Waqf Act, 1995: Governs Muslim religious endowments, property, and their administration.
  • Amendment 2025: Sought to curb misuse/corruption but accused of arbitrary interference in minority affairs.
  • Judgment (15 Sept 2025): Court upheld presumption of constitutionality, partly stayed provisions, partly upheld others.

Key Facts/Data (Prelims Pointers)

• Waqf Boards: Administer waqf properties; under 1995 Act.
• Controversial Amendments:
  •  Only Muslims practising ≥5 years can create waqf→ Stayed.
  • District Collectors adjudicating disputes → Stayed.
  • Non-Muslim representation capped: 4 (Central Council), 3 (State Boards).
  • CEO of Waqf Board preferably a Muslim.  Waqf-by-user recognition → removed, but existing claims till 8 April 2025 protected.
  • Restrictions on declaring protected monuments/tribal lands as waqf → upheld.
• Constitutional angles:
  •  Art. 25–28 → Freedom of religion.  
  • Art. 14 → Equality before law.
  • Art. 300A → Right to property.
  • Art. 246 & 7th Schedule List III (Concurrent List) → Religious endowments.

Critical Analysis Opportunities/Pros

• State oversight may reduce corruption, land misuse.
• Balanced judgment avoids immediate polarisation.
• Validates principle of secular governance – no group should misuse public resources.

Challenges/Cons

• Risk of perception of state interference in minority affairs.
• Political polarisation – “appeasement vs. targeting” narrative.
• Limiting waqf-by-user may hurt genuine historical claims.

Long-term Implications

• Could shape future jurisprudence on religious endowments.
• Sets precedent for balancing minority autonomy with state regulation.
• Political consensus-building becomes central to legitimacy.

Way Forward

• Build multi-party, inter-community consensus before passing sensitive laws.
• Ensure consultative law-making with minority institutions.
• Adopt transparent auditing, digital land records for religious endowments.
• Global best practice: Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs (state-regulated) vs. UK Charity Commission (independent oversight).

EU STRATAGIC ROADMAP IN INDIA

Context & Bachground

• The European Union (EU) unveiled a new strategic agenda with India (2025), aimed at elevating ties across trade, technology, defence, climate change, and connectivity.
• Announcement made by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU High Representative Kaja Kallas.
• Comes at a time when India is carefully managing ties with the US under President Donald Trump, while also balancing Russia–Ukraine tensions and maintaining strategic autonomy.
• Builds upon:
  • The India–EU Strategic Partnership (2004)
  • Ongoing FTA negotiations since 2007, revived in 2021
  • Newer initiatives like India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and EU’s Global Gateway (connectivity strategy).

Key Facts / Data (Prelims Pointers)

• EU is India’s largest trading partner.
• Proposed EU–India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) could become “largest deal of its kind anywhere in the world.”
• Security & Defence Partnership: cooperation on cyber, maritime, counterterrorism, crisis management.
• Supply chain resilience: Trade & Technology Council (TTC).
• Horizon Europe Programme: India invited to participate in R&D and startups.
• Mobility: Proposal for a comprehensive mobility framework, including European
• Legal Gateway Office for skills mobility. Connectivity focus: IMEC, Global Gateway, trilateral cooperation with third countries.
• EU flagged concerns: India’s purchase of Russian oil and participation in Russian military exercises.

Critical Analysis Opportunities / Pros

• Economic: Access to EU market, investment in startups, supply chain diversification.
• Strategic: Closer defence-industrial cooperation, maritime and cyber security. Technology: Horizon Europe, TTC, digital partnerships.
• Global governance: Alignment on multilateral issues, climate action, Indo-Pacific cooperation.

Challenges / Cons

• EU concerns over India’s Russia ties (oil imports, exercises).
• Protectionist tendencies in EU (carbon border tax, labour/environment standards).
• Negotiation delays in FTA since 2007.
• Possible clash on data privacy (GDPR) and digital sovereignty.

Long-term Implications

• Enhances India’s role as a balancing power in multipolar geopolitics.
• Creates a counterweight to China in Indo-Pacific supply chains.
• Strengthens India’s economic security, but could test strategic autonomy if EU pushes alignment on Ukraine/Russia.

Way Forward

• Fast-track FTA negotiations with flexibility on sensitive sectors.
• Enhance cooperation in critical technologies (AI, 5G, semiconductors).
• Balance Russia relations with commitments to EU on rules-based order.
• Expand mobility and education cooperation (student exchanges, research tie-ups).
• Promote green growth and climate finance partnership with EU’s expertise.

SECURING VALLEY AND SLOPES

• News Trigger: Devastating floods and cloudbursts during Monsoon 2025 in Dehradun, J&K, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Uttarakhand.
• Significance: Highlights the fragility of the Himalayan ecosystem amid climate change, unplanned development, and high disaster vulnerability.
• Historical/Institutional Background:
  • Himalayas prone to flash floods, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), landslides.
  • Past tragedies: Kedarnath (2013), Chamoli glacier burst (2021).
  • Institutions: NDMA (2005), SDRF/NDRF, IMD forecasting, GSI, NRSC, BBMB.

Key Facts/Data (Prelims Pointers)

• J&K: 140+ deaths in Chenab & Tawi basins. Army laid Bailey bridges; yatris evacuated.
• Punjab: Floods in Ravi, Beas, Sutlej; NDMA coordinated with CWC, IMD, BBMB.
• Himachal Pradesh: Chamba, Kullu, Lahaul-Spiti worst-hit; 10,000 pilgrims evacuated.
• Uttarakhand: Army built 400-ft aerial cableway; IAF’s Chinooks lifted heavy equipment.
• Technology used: Drones, Doppler radars, satcom links, OneWeb, GIS mapping, AI for hydro-met forecasting.
• Schemes/Programmes: NDMA’s Aapda Mitra for community preparedness; Gorakhpur model for flood control.

Critical Analysis Opportunities/Pros:

• Multi-agency professional response: Army, IAF, SDRF, NDRF.
• Integration of technology: drones, GIS, AI forecasting.
• Community volunteerism: locals + Aapda Mitra.

Challenges/Cons:

• Alerts often ignored (pilgrimage continues even during red alerts).
• Unregulated construction: in floodplains, destabilised slopes.
• Low citizen awareness of evacuation routes & shelters. Disaster management remains reactive, not preventive.

Long-Term Implications:

• Climate change = more frequent & intense disasters.
• Need for resilient infrastructure, stricter building codes.
• Community-centric disaster culture must become mainstream.

Way Forward

• Technology scale-up: 24×7 glacial lake monitoring (NRSC), expanded landslide mapping (GSI), dense Doppler radar network.
• Community Integration: School-based drills, Panchayat awareness, civil society in DDMAs.
• Resilient Development: Strict no-build zones, seismic codes, slope stabilisation, sustainable mining control. Build Back Better: Roads & embankments with ecological safeguards.
• Global Best Practices: Japan’s earthquake drills, Bangladesh’s cyclone shelters, Sendai Framework principles.