Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 14 July 2025

Content :

1. Secularism — Implicit from Day One, Explicit in 1976
2. Assessing India’s Carbon Market Targets: Why Aggregate Emissions Matter More
3. Smoke and Sulphur: Why There Cannot Be Different Environmental Standards Within India

Secularism — implicit from day one, explicit in 1976

Why the Debate on Secularism Matters

• Secularism in India has long been a subject of legal, philosophical, and political discourse. With rising public interest in the constitutional origins and present interpretations of secularism, Faizan Mustafa’s article presents a historical and comparative exploration of how secular values have evolved in India.
• The piece seeks to clarify whether secularism was a post-1976 insertion or a foundational principle embedded in India’s constitutional and civilisational ethos.
• The article’s central argument is that secularism in India is deeply rooted not only in modern constitutionalism but also in ancient traditions of tolerance, coexistence, and pluralism.

Relevance : GS 2(Polity ,Constitution )

Practice Question : “Secularism in India was not merely a constitutional insertion in 1976, but a civilizational ethos and a foundational principle of the Republic.” Critically examine with reference to historical precedents and constitutional interpretation.(250 Words)

Historical Foundations of Indian Secularism

• Ashokan Edicts as Early Precursors:
  • Rock Edict 7: Encouraged all religions to coexist and emphasised self-restraint and purity of heart.
  • Rock Edict 12: Opposed the glorification of one’s religion and condemnation of others, promoting mutual respect.
  • Ashoka’s dhamma was not religion-specific but a governance code based on ethical conduct and coexistence.

• Motilal Nehru Report (1928):
  • Clause 4(11): Proposed that the Commonwealth of India shall have no state religion and the state should not favour or discriminate on religious grounds.

• Karachi Resolution (1931):
  • Explicitly stated that the state would remain neutral toward all religions.

• Hindu Mahasabha Draft Constitution (1944):
  • Included a clause rejecting any state religion at the Centre or in the provinces.

These pre-Constitutional documents show that various political and ideological groups envisioned a secular framework even before India’s independence.

The Constituent Assembly Debates and the 1976 Amendment

• In the Constituent Assembly (1949), a proposal to begin the Preamble with“In the name of God” was debated and rejected by a vote of 68 to 41.
• The word “secular” was not included in the original Preamble, but members agreed that secularism was consistent with democratic ideals and the goals of the freedom struggle.
• In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held secularism as part of the basic structure of the Constitution—before the word was inserted via the 42nd Amendment (1976).
• Several key terms like “federal,” “rule of law,” and “judicial review” are also not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but have been interpreted as implicit principles.

International Models of Secularism: Comparative Insights

Mustafa points out that secularism has different expressions across democracies. A few models include:

These comparisons suggest that secularism can take varied forms, balancing national traditions with commitments to religious freedom and equality.

Key Constitutional Concepts: Explicit and Implicit

• Explicit Values: Articles 14–18 (equality), Articles 25–28 (freedom of religion), and Preamble (justice, liberty, equality, fraternity).
• Implicit Principles: Secularism, rule of law, federalism—recognized through judicial interpretation and legal practice.
• The article stresses that absence of a word does not imply absence of the idea, reinforcing that constitutional secularism was intended from inception.

Present-Day Relevance and Models of Interpretation

• Mustafa suggests exploring alternate secular models like the “jurisdiction model”, where a dominant cultural heritage is acknowledged without compromising religious equality—similar to the UK or Ireland.
• The article argues that India’s secularism is unique: inspired by historical coexistence (Ashoka), shaped by modern constitutionalism (Nehru), and refined through judicial interpretation (Supreme Court rulings).

Assessing India’s carbon credit trading scheme targets

The Shift to Market-Based Climate Policy

• With the introduction of India’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) compliance mechanism, the government has announced greenhouse gas emissions intensity targets for eight industrial sectors.
• This marks a significant milestone in operationalizing market instruments for emissions reduction. However, as discussions grow around the ambition of these targets, a critical question arises: How should we assess the ambition—entity-wise, sector-wise, or economy-wide?

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

Practice Question : “In designing emissions trading systems like the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), ambition must be judged at the aggregate level, not at the entity or sectoral level.” Examine this statement in light of India’s climate targets.(250 Words)

Key Premise: Aggregate Targets Matter More Than Entity-Level Goals

• The authors argue that economy-wide impact is the correct lens for assessing ambition—not individual firm or sectoral performance.
• Drawing lessons from India’s Perform, Achieve, and Trade (PAT) scheme (2012–14 onwards), they show that while some sectors improved efficiency and others did not, overall energy intensity declined, proving the efficacy of market-based mechanisms at scale.

Market Mechanisms in Practice: Lessons from PAT

• Mixed Sectoral Performance:
  • Energy intensity rose in paper and chlor-alkali, but fell in aluminium and cement.

• Economy-Wide Efficiency:
  • Despite individual variations, combined analysis (adjusted for inflation, output, and price) showed net energy savings.

• Policy Insight:
  • The market allowed firms with lower abatement costs to generate efficiency certificates, while others purchased them—leading to cost-effective decarbonisation.

Why Not Focus on Sectoral Targets?

• Sector/entity-level targets enable financial transfers (through credit trading), but do not determine net emissions reduction.
• Comparing CCTS targets to historic sectoral performance under PAT is flawed because:
  • Past performance may not reflect future potential.
  • Future-oriented benchmarking aligned with India’s NDC (2030) and Net Zero (2070) goals is more meaningful.

Benchmarking Ambition: Data from Economy-Wide Modelling

Inference: Industry sector decarbonisation is slower compared to the power sector. Current industrial targets may lack ambition relative to modeled pathways aligned with NDCs.

Conclusion: Calibrating India’s Climate Ambition

• The early design of India’s carbon trading framework rightly introduces flexibility and market efficiency, allowing cost-effective pathways to emissions reduction. However, while sectoral participation is crucial, measuring ambition solely through industrial targets may understate or misrepresent national progress.
• To ensure alignment with India’s global commitments under the Paris Agreement and its Net Zero 2070 goal, aggregate modelling and monitoring should guide course correction. Future policy must ensure that ambition grows progressively—across all sectors, but especially in hard-to-abate industries.

Smoke and Sulphur

In a surprising reversal of its own 2015 directive, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has exempted the majority of India’s coal-fired power plants from mandatory installation of Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) systems, which are designed to curb sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions. This decision raises pressing concerns around regulatory coherence, regional equity in environmental standards, and India’s public health commitments.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

Practice Question : “India’s selective exemption of Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) norms weakens its commitment to uniform environmental standards and public health.” Do you agree? Substantiate your answer.(250 Words)

Background:

• 2015 Norms: All coal plants (≈180 plants, 600 units) were mandated to install FGDs by 2017 to reduce SO₂ emissions.
• Current Status: Only ~8% of units (mostly by NTPC) have complied.
• Recent Policy Change (2024): Majority exempted from FGD installation; only ~20% (in high-population or high-pollution zones like NCR) are now required to comply — by 2028.

Justifications Cited by the Government:

Scientific and Ethical Concerns:

• Partial Scientific Basis: IPCC does acknowledge sulfate cooling effects, but does not endorse SO₂ as a net positive — due to its harm to human health and contribution to PM2.5 pollution.
• Air Quality Standards: Average SO₂ levels in India may be below CPCB thresholds, but localised exposure risks and long-term particulate formation remain concerns.
• Inconsistent Policy Logic: Requiring FGDs only in select zones implies:
  • Environmental protection is location-dependent, not health-outcome-based.
  • A fragmentation of national environmental standards for a transboundary pollutant.

Implications for Governance:

Policy Recommendations:

1. Reinstate a Nationwide SO₂ Abatement Standard, with flexibility in compliance timelines, not in scope.
2. Broader Stakeholder Consultation before revising critical pollution control policies.
3. Invest in Domestic FGD Technology Ecosystem to reduce costs and reliance on limited vendors.
4. Independent Health Impact Assessments of SO₂ and PM2.5 in exempted zones.

Conclusion:

While cost-effectiveness and evidence-based policy revisions are valid governance goals, the recent MoEFCC decision risks creating a regulatory patchwork in environmental standards. A pollutant like sulphur dioxide cannot be geographically neutralized — it demands a uniform, precautionary approach. Any exemptions, if scientifically valid, must pass the test of transparency, equity, and public health prioritization.