Current Affairs 09 September 2025

Content

1. GST 2.0 could undermine dietary health
2. India–China: the need for a border settlement
3. How does two-factor authentication (2FA) work?
4. At least 19 killed in Nepal protests; Sharma Oli govt. revokes social media ban
5. Vembanad Lake crisis

---

GST 2.0 could undermine dietary health

---

Why in News

• From 22 September 2025, India will implement GST 2.0 with a simplified structure:
  • Two main slabs: 5% and 18%.
  • A special 40% “sinful/ultra-luxury” bracket.
• Many everyday foods (pizza bread, confectionery, chocolates, jams, jellies) will shift to lower tax slabs (5% or zero).
• Aerated and sugar-based beverages will move to the 40% bracket.
• Concern: While simplifying GST, these changes may undermine public health goals by making unhealthy foods more affordable.

Relevance : GS III (Economy – Tax Policy, Public Health, Nutrition Security, Non-Communicable Disease Prevention).

 

From Basics

• GST Basics:
  • Introduced in 2017 → “One Nation, One Tax” indirect tax reform.
  • Prior slabs: 5%, 12%, 18%, 28% (+ cess).
  • GST 2.0 → rationalised to 5% and 18%, with 40% sin tax for harmful/luxury goods.
• Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in India:
  • Account for ~65% of deaths (WHO, MoHFW data).
  • Diet-related risk factors: high sugar, salt, fat consumption → obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease.
• Front-of-Pack Labelling (FOPL):
  • Proposed by FSSAI in 2022, still not finalised.
  • Supreme Court (July 2025): ordered FSSAI to finalise norms within 3 months.
  • Debate: Health Star Rating vs “High-in” Warning Labels.
  • WHO-SEARO’s Nutrient Profile Model (NPM): recommends category-based cut-offs for sugar, sodium, fats.
• Advertising Rules (Current):
  • HFSS foods banned near schools (FSSAI 2020).
  • CCPA 2022 → restrictions on misleading ads.
  • ASCI 2024 → expanded disclosure norms.
  • Still no comprehensive HFSS advertising regulation comparable to Chile or UK.

Comprehensive Overview

Positive Aspects of GST 2.0

• Simplification of structure → reduces compliance burden.
• 40% sin tax on aerated drinks → aligns with global best practices.
  • Studies (Asia, Africa) show 2.5–19% consumption decline after sugar taxes.
• Can nudge reformulation of sugary drinks if linked with labelling and ad restrictions.

Public Health Concerns

• Unhealthy foods becoming cheaper:
  • Pizza bread (including maida-based) exempted.
  • Chocolates, jams, confectionery moved to 5%.
• Mismatch in taxation: sugary beverages penalised, but sugary foods incentivised.
• Risk of substitution: adolescents may shift from taxed beverages to untaxed sugary snacks.

Weakness in Regulatory Ecosystem

• Food Labelling Gaps:
  • Without mandatory FOPL, consumers can’t differentiate healthy vs unhealthy products.
  • “Per serving” labels misleading → need per 100g/ml thresholds.
• Advertising Gaps:
  • No restriction on HFSS ads across TV, social media, print.
  • Chile’s model (ban on child-directed advertising of “high in” foods) more effective.

Policy Corrections Needed

• Link GST with FOPL:
  • Products breaching “high in” thresholds → taxed 18% or higher.
  • Compliant products → taxed 5% or lower.
• Mandatory Warning Labels:
  • Adopt WHO-SEARO or ICMR-NIN thresholds.
  • Apply per-quantity norms to avoid loopholes.
• Stronger Ad Regulation:
  • Ban ads for “high in” products to children.
  • Restrict ad slots during peak child-viewing hours.
• Use of Sin-Tax Revenues:
  • Redirect to NCD prevention, labelling enforcement, reformulation incentives.

Long-Term Implications

• If uncorrected, GST 2.0 could increase NCD burden, straining healthcare.
• Integrated approach needed: Tax Policy + Labelling + Advertising Regulation.
• India can set a global example by aligning fiscal and health policies.

---

India-China: the need for a border settlement

---

Why in News

• On 19 August 2025, India and China held the 24th round of Special Representatives (SR) talks on the boundary issue.
• Talks resumed after a five-year gap (2019–2024) due to the 2020 border crisis.
• Both sides reiterated commitment to the 2005 “Political Parameters and Guiding Principles” agreement as the framework for settlement.
• Agreed to focus on:
  • Early harvest settlement of the Sikkim–Tibet boundary.
  • New border management mechanisms to prevent 2020-like incidents.

Relevance : GS II (International Relations – Boundary Dispute, Security, Diplomacy, Strategic Affairs).

 

From Basics

• Historical Context:
  • Boundary dispute dates back to colonial demarcations → McMahon Line (Arunachal Pradesh) and Aksai Chin (Ladakh).
  • 1962 war → unresolved borders, mistrust.
  • 1979 Vajpayee’s visit to China → beginning of normalization.
• Vajpayee’s Role:
  • 1998 nuclear tests soured ties, but reconciliation followed.
  • 2003: Vajpayee’s visit → Special Representatives (SR) mechanism set up (NSA-level talks).
  • Aim: political, not purely technical, resolution.
• 2005 Political Parameters Agreement:
  • Settlement to consider strategic interests and settled populations.
  • Suggested swap deal:
    • China keeps Aksai Chin (strategically vital for it).
    • India retains Arunachal Pradesh (populated, culturally tied to India).
  • Articles:
    • Art. IV – “mutual and equal security”.
    • Art. VII – “interests of settled populations” to be protected.
• Subsequent Developments:
  • 2007: China reasserted claim on Tawang (Arunachal Pradesh) despite Article VII.
  • 2013: Both sides reached 18-point consensus (per Menon & Chinese Ambassador Wei Wei).
  • Doklam crisis (2017) → revealed partial agreements (Sikkim-Tibet watershed alignment).
  • 2020 Galwan crisis → major breakdown of trust, collapse of existing CBMs.

Comprehensive Overview

Strategic Significance of Settlement

• For India:
  • Secure borders → reduce military costs of LAC deployment.
  • Focus on core strategic challenges (Indian Ocean, Pakistan).
  • Normalize relations with China → boost trade & diplomacy.
• For China:
  • Stable border allows focus on Taiwan, South China Sea.
  • Secures Aksai Chin (vital for Xinjiang–Tibet connectivity).
  • Prevents India–U.S. alignment from hardening further.

Key Roadblocks

• Tawang Issue: China insists India concede Tawang, despite India’s settled populations argument.
• Mistrust: 2020 Galwan clash → CBMs (1993, 1996, 2005, 2013) undermined.
• Domestic Politics: Both leaderships risk being seen as compromising on sovereignty.
• Geopolitical Factors: U.S.–China rivalry makes Beijing cautious about India’s growing alignment with Quad.

Present Status (2025)

• 24th SR talks revived the 2005 framework.
• Agreement to:
  • Prioritize Sikkim–Tibet boundary finalization (low-hanging fruit).
  • Devise new border management mechanisms beyond failed 1996/2005 CBMs.
• Military deployments remain high → both sides paying heavy economic and strategic costs.

The Way Forward

• Political Will Required: A deal exists in principle since 2005–2013; execution stalled by lack of leadership consensus.
• Incremental Approach: Start with Sikkim-Tibet “early harvest”, expand to Ladakh–Arunachal.
• Revived CBMs: Joint patrolling, hotlines, no-weapons protocols must be reworked.
• Strategic Compromise: Both sides must accept “as is, where is” logic — Aksai Chin with China, Arunachal with India.

Key Takeaways

• The 2005 Political Parameters Agreement remains the only negotiated document on India–China boundary.
• Settlement is technically feasible but blocked by political reluctance and trust deficit.
• Without resolution, both countries bear escalating military and economic costs at the LAC.
• A breakthrough requires top-level political push, as Vajpayee once attempted in 2003.

---

How does two-factor authentication (2FA) work?

---

Why in News

• Growing cyber threats have exposed the limitations of password-only authentication.
• Increasing adoption of Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) by services like Google, Facebook, banks, and government portals.
• Popular implementations: Google Authenticator, Authy, Microsoft Authenticator, YubiKey.

Relevance : GS III (Internal Security – Cybersecurity, Authentication Technologies, Digital Governance).

From Basics

• Passwords Alone Are Not Enough:
  • Vulnerable to theft, phishing, brute-force attacks.
  • If compromised, attackers gain full access without user awareness.
• What is 2FA?
  • Authentication via two factors:
    • Something you know → Password.
    • Something you have → Authenticator app/device.
  • Example: Even with a stolen password, attacker also needs access to your phone.
• One-Time Passwords (OTPs):
  • Short numeric codes valid for a few seconds.
  • Prevents reuse → intercepted code becomes useless.
• Time-based One-Time Passwords (TOTP):
  • Defined by open standard (RFC 6238).
  • Uses secret key + current time to generate 6-digit code every 30 seconds.
  • Widely supported across platforms → interoperability.
• How TOTP Works:
  • Service shares a secret key (via QR code).
  • Both server and authenticator app calculate code using:
    • Shared secret.
    • Time counter (increments every 30 seconds).
    • Cryptographic hash function.
  • Result → 6-digit code displayed on app, verified by server.
• Hash Functions:
  • Convert variable-length input → fixed-length output (e.g., SHA-256 → 256-bit).
  • Properties: one-way, collision-resistant, sensitive to small input changes.
• HMAC (Hash-based Message Authentication Code):
  • Combines secret key with message using hash function securely.
  • Provides integrity + authenticity.
  • Formula involves XOR mixing with pads (inner & outer).
• XOR in Cryptography:
  • Logical operation: outputs 1 if inputs differ, 0 if same.
  • Reversible → crucial in encryption and authentication schemes.

Comprehensive Overview

Security Strengths

• Layered defence: requires both password + device.
• Time sensitivity: codes valid only for 30 seconds.
• Unpredictability: without secret key, output cannot be derived.
• Compatibility: TOTP standard ensures same method across apps.

Limitations & Risks

• Device Loss: if phone is lost, access recovery can be difficult.
• Phishing Attacks: real-time phishing kits can capture OTPs.
• Man-in-the-Middle Attacks: attacker intercepts OTP during login.
• User Inconvenience: setup and backup keys often neglected.

Alternatives & Variants

• HOTP (HMAC-based OTP) → counter instead of time, less common.
• Push-based 2FA → approval via notification, not manual code.
• Hardware Tokens (e.g., YubiKeys) → physical device generates secure codes.
• Biometrics → fingerprint, face, or iris as second factor.

Broader Implications

• Cybersecurity Policy: governments, banks, and enterprises encourage 2FA adoption.
• Digital India/UIDAI Context: Aadhaar-enabled authentication also uses multi-factor.
• Global Cyber Norms: alignment with zero-trust security architecture.

Key Takeaways

• 2FA and TOTP provide significantly higher protection than passwords alone.
• Based on cryptographic principles (hash, HMAC, XOR) and time-based counters.
• Adoption challenges remain (phishing, user convenience), but it is a necessary global cybersecurity standard.

---

At least 19 killed in Nepal protests; Sharma Oli govt. revokes social media ban

---

Why in News

• Nepal witnessed unprecedented protests led mainly by Gen Z youth against the government’s ban on social media platforms.
• Trigger: Government ordered registration of digital platforms, curbs on “objectionable posts”, and blocked apps like TikTok, Viber, and Bigo Live.
• Protests escalated into violent clashes near Parliament in Kathmandu; 19 killed, many injured.
• The movement reflects deeper anger at corruption, political dynasties, and lack of accountability.

Relevance : GS II (International Relations – India–Nepal, Democracy, Governance, Civil Liberties, Political Movements).

From Basics

• Nepal’s Democracy:
  • Transitioned from monarchy → democracy (2008).
  • Federal democratic republic with frequent political instability.
• Social Media in Nepal:
  • Primary platform for youth expression, activism, and dissent.
  • Used to highlight corruption, nepotism (“Nepo Babies”), and demand accountability.
  • Especially critical for Gen Z (large share of Nepal’s population is below 30).
• Legal Context:
  • Government claimed regulation was needed to curb misinformation and harmful content.
  • Critics: Seen as muzzling dissent, shrinking civic space, undermining free speech.

Comprehensive Overview

Political Context

• Youth anger directed at entrenched political class (Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, Sher Bahadur Deuba, K.P. Sharma Oli).
• Allegations: misuse of power, corruption in aid, infrastructure contracts, and wealth accumulation by political elites.
• Rotational politics among same leaders since 2006 peace process → perception of stagnation.

Social Dimension

• Gen Z frustration: lack of jobs, poor governance, and corruption.
• Social media as only outlet for voice → crackdown triggered massive backlash.
• “Nepo Babies” trend: exposing privileges of children of leaders.

Legal & Governance Issues

• Government rationale: curb fake news, hate speech, and “objectionable posts”.
• Reality: disproportionate restrictions → violation of free expression, association, and privacy.
• Opposition parties & rights groups: called it an authoritarian overreach.

Economic Concerns

• Nepal’s weak economy, high youth unemployment, and migration reliance (remittances).
• Social media bans hurt small businesses, digital creators, and diaspora communication.

Geopolitical Angle

• Nepal caught between India and China’s influence.
• Social media restrictions could push Nepal closer to China-style digital authoritarianism.
• Impacts Nepal’s democratic credentials regionally and globally.

Broader Implications

• Ban symbolises clash between youth aspirations vs. entrenched elite politics.
• Raises questions about state control over digital spaces in fragile democracies.
• May fuel long-term distrust in institutions and radicalisation of youth movements.

Key Takeaways

• Social media ban is only the trigger → the real issue is youth disillusionment with corruption, dynastic politics, and lack of accountability.
• Nepal faces a democratic backsliding risk if bans and curbs on free expression continue.
• Stability requires reforms: youth participation in governance, anti-corruption measures, transparency, and balancing digital regulation with rights.

---

Vembanad Lake crisis

---

Why in News

• Vembanad Lake, Kerala’s largest wetland and a Ramsar site, faces severe ecological degradation.
• Unchecked tourism (luxury houseboats), encroachment, sewage, and reclamation threaten its survival.
• A CWRDM report shows boat numbers have exceeded carrying capacity → pushing the ecosystem to collapse.

Relevance : GS III (Environment – Wetlands, Ramsar Sites, Ecological Degradation, Sustainable Tourism, Climate Resilience).

From Basics

• Location: Spans Alappuzha, Kottayam, Ernakulam districts in Kerala.
• Ecological importance:
  • Largest Ramsar site in Kerala.
  • Regulates floods, nourishes paddy fields (Kuttanad region – “Rice Bowl of Kerala”), sustains fisheries.
  • Habitat for mangroves, migratory birds, and aquatic life.
• Socio-economic role:
  • Supports fishing communities.
  • Central to Kerala’s backwater tourism (houseboats, shikaras).

Comprehensive Overview

Tourism Pressure

• Traditional kettuvalloms turned into luxury floating resorts.
• Safe capacity: 461 houseboats → Actual: 954 + 241 shikaras + 404 motorboats + 1,625 country boats.
• Impact: Sewage discharge, diesel pollution, boat congestion → erosion, breeding ground destruction.

Water Pollution

• Coliform levels near Punnamada: 8,000 → lake turning into “floating septic tank”.
• Sewage treatment infrastructure largely idle.
• Churning wakes disturb sediments → ecological imbalance.

Impact on Communities

• Fisherfolk displaced from traditional fishing grounds.
• Declining fish catch → loss of livelihoods.
• Increased vulnerability to floods and droughts.

Wetland Degradation

• Area shrinkage: 130.68 sq. km (1967) → 3.29 sq. km (2011).
• Ongoing annual reduction: ~0.3 sq. km.
• Encroachments: illegal resorts, land reclamation, high-rises.
• Example: 2019 Maradu flats demolition → exposed 26,000+ violations.

Governance & Policy Issues

• Tourism-politics nexus → reluctance to regulate.
• Judicial interventions (SC orders demolitions) address visible violations, but invisible pressures (houseboat sewage, congestion) remain unchecked.
• Lack of integrated wetland management plan.

Proposed Solutions

• Ban non-local boats, regulate carrying capacity.
• Waste treatment mandatory at hubs.
• Declare Vembanad a fish sanctuary (as proposed by KSSP).
• Promote eco-tourism, restrict entry into sensitive zones.
• Balance tourism revenue with ecological sustainability.

Broader Significance

• Environmental: Wetland collapse → loss of biodiversity, flood regulation capacity.
• Economic: Threat to fisheries, paddy cultivation, and long-term tourism viability.
• Social: Marginalisation of local communities, cultural displacement.
• Climate Change Context: Kerala’s recurrent floods make Vembanad’s survival critical for resilience.

---