Content
- Environment Responsibility
- The new direction for India should be toward Asia
Environment Responsibility
Why is it in News?
- Several States and industrial regulators are proposing or implementing reductions in mandatory green-cover requirements for industrial estates and individual industries.
- These relaxations are being promoted as part of “ease of doing business” reforms.
- Ecologists and environmental planners warn that such norms are being diluted without ecological justification, relying on misleading global comparisons that ignore India’s density and ecological stresses.
- Debate sharpened after recent proposals to shrink green-belt obligations in multiple industrial corridors, raising concerns on sustainability, air quality, and ecological resilience.
Relevance
GS 1 – Geography & Society
- Land-use change, industrialisation, and ecological vulnerability in densely populated regions.
- Urban heat islands, habitat fragmentation, and landscape-level degradation.
GS 2 – Governance & Policy
- Regulatory dilution vs environmental safeguards.
- Federal role of States in industrial siting norms and green-belt regulation.
- Accountability mechanisms: Green Credit Programme, environmental regulators.
GS 3 – Environment, Ecology & Economy
- Green belts as mitigation tools; limits in ecosystem restoration.
- Ecological carrying capacity, pollution buffers, Nature-based Solutions (NbS).
- Conflict between ease of doing business and environmental sustainability.
- Need for landscape-level afforestation, restoration and carbon-offsetting frameworks.
Practice Question
- The trend of reducing green-cover norms is often justified by misleading global parallels. Critically examine the need for ecological calibration in policy transfers.(250 Words)
What are Green Belts?
- Vegetated buffers within/around industrial units.
- Purpose: dust suppression, microclimate regulation, noise reduction, visual greening.
- Nature: mitigative, not restorative; cannot replicate forests, wetlands or natural ecosystems.
Why Green Belts Matter (Scientific Evidence)?
- Can reduce TSP levels by up to 65% in industrial/roadside zones.
- Reduce ambient noise by 10–17 dB.
- Regulate heat and create microclimate buffers.
Limitations:
– Narrow, often mono-specific plantations.
– Weak long-term ecological value.
– Cannot replace forest ecosystem services such as hydrological regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity support, habitat connectivity.
Why the Current Relaxation Trend Is Problematic?
- Industries and industrial estate authorities seeking lower minimum green-cover norms.
- Policymakers cite international norms, but:
– Countries with low population density have wider ecological buffers.
– Lower industrial concentration and greater natural open spaces dilute pollution loads.
– Ecological carrying capacity varies across regions; copying ratios is unscientific.
Risk: convenience mistaken for sustainability.
Global Parallels Are Misleading (Ecological Calibration Needed)
- Population density determines pollution exposure and need for local buffers.
- Nations with vast landscapes provide natural ecological services externally.
- India’s ecological stress (high density, fragmented landscapes, industrial growth zones) demands higher on-site buffers, not lower.
- Numerical targets cannot be transplanted without ecosystem context.
On-site Green Belts vs Natural Ecosystems (Key Distinctions)
- On-site green belts = localised mitigation.
- Natural ecosystems = systemic services such as:
– Climate regulation and carbon storage.
– Watershed stability.
– Biodiversity, pollinators, food webs.
– Landscape resilience. - Industrial plantations cannot recreate these functions due to:
– Shallow root systems.
– Limited species diversity.
– Fragmentation and low connectivity.
Ecological Costs of Industrial Land Conversion
- Permanent habitat fragmentation.
- Loss of ecological corridors.
- Increased heat islands.
- Reduction in soil carbon and hydrological balance.
- Green belts cannot compensate for these landscape-level losses.
Balanced, Landscape-Level Strategy Proposed
A dual approach:
- On-site Mitigation (Minimum Mandatory Green Belts)
- Retain essential internal green cover based on pollution load and density.
- Uniform norms avoid regulatory confusion across industry types.
B. Off-site Ecological Restoration (Mandatory Commitments)
- Create/restore State-level green reserves near industrial clusters.
- Regenerate degraded lands, river basins, buffers around sanctuaries.
- Integrate industry efforts with:
– Green Credit Programme
– Carbon offsetting mechanisms
– State Compensatory Afforestation Plans
Track outcomes using measurable ecological indicators.
Why Landscape-Level Greening Works?
- Strengthens ecological resilience of entire industrial region.
- Enhances habitat connectivity.
- Reduces need for new greenfield expansion.
- Aligns industrial growth with Nature-based Solutions (NbS).
- Converts industries from compliance-driven actors to ecological partners.
New Model of Industrial Stewardship?
- Shift from “industry as polluter” to “industry as ecological steward.”
- Instruments:
– Biodiversity offsets
– Circular economy practices
– Green credits
– Regional afforestation compacts - Citizen oversight increases transparency and long-term ecological gains.
Conclusion
- Green belts are essential but limited tools; they are local mitigators, not ecosystem restorers.
- Global benchmarks for green-cover norms are not transferrable to India due to population density and ecological stress.
- Reducing green-cover norms improves industrial flexibility but risks undermining ecological resilience, especially in dense industrial belts.
- A two-tier strategy — retain minimum internal green belts + enforce strong off-site restoration — ensures ecological balance.
- Industrial sustainability hinges on landscape-level regeneration, not decorative greenery inside factory gates.
- True NbS requires industries to root their operations in the health of surrounding landscapes.
The new direction for India should be toward Asia
Why is it in News?
- The 2025 Tianjin SCO Summit and the Busan G2 Summit produced symbolic images signalling a major geopolitical shift: Asia—represented by India, China, Russia—is now the principal arena of global power.
- India faces intensified U.S. pressure (on Russian oil, alignment choices, tech dependencies) even as its ties with China stabilise and relations with Russia deepen.
- India is at a foreign policy inflexion point, needing to redefine strategic autonomy amid shifting Asian coalitions (BRICS+, SCO, ASEAN, RCEP).
- Debate emerging in India: Should India tilt West, tilt towards Asia, or craft an autonomous Asian-centred strategic pathway?
Relevance
GS 1 – Society & World History
- Rise of Asia as the global economic centre.
- Changing power structures and demographic weight in the Asian century.
GS 2 – International Relations, Governance
- India’s strategic autonomy and foreign policy recalibration.
- India–China–Russia dynamics vs U.S. strategic pressure.
- Regional institutions: BRICS+, SCO, ASEAN, RCEP.
- National security reorientation toward cyber and technology.
GS 3 – Economy, Security, Technology
- Asian value chains, supply-chain diversification, trade re-entry pathways.
- AI sovereignty, digital economy geopolitics, innovation ecosystems.
- Defence transformation: cyber warfare, drones, space, AI-led military capability.
Practice Question
- Critically analyse whether India’s strategic future lies more with Asia than with the West.(250 Words)
Broad Context
- Asia now holds two-thirds of global population and wealth creation potential.
- China, India, Russia now project a visible Asian strategic compact, reshaping post-Cold War alignments.
- The U.S. aims to prevent another “China-like rise,” and seeks to pull India away from Russia and China, narrowing India’s policy space.
India’s Strategic Inflection Point
- India is emerging as a top global economy, expanding foreign policy bandwidth.
- India rejects binary choices (“U.S. or China”), asserting non-negotiable strategic autonomy.
- As border negotiations with China in Ladakh progress, and Russia partnership stays stable, India’s Asian calculus becomes more pronounced.
India’s Long-Term Interests: Why Asia Matters More than the West
- Asia’s market will exceed U.S. and EU combined.
- Asian regionalism is functional, value-chain driven, not rules-based like the West.
- India has economic weight, tech capacity and demographics to be a balancing rather than a dependent actor.
- Asian blocs—BRICS, SCO, ASEAN—will increasingly interlock, with RCEP remaining open for India.
Reorientation Required: Four Hard Decisions
A. Recasting Strategic Autonomy
- India’s dual identity:
– High-growth emerging power;
– Largest Global South constituency (poverty, labour pool, climate vulnerabilities). - India must define “partnerships”: value-chain integration without absorbing others’ agendas.
- Rebalance commitments without diluting national data sovereignty, local technological capacity or inclusive growth.
B. New Geopolitical Rules: Technology > Diplomacy
- Old power hierarchies were built on colonialism, ships, capital flows.
- New hierarchy comes from:
– Technological interdependence,
– Innovation ecosystems,
– Military-technological integration (AI, computing, cyber). - Military power increasingly determined by tech ecosystems, not alliances.
- India must prioritise endogenous innovation to prevent lock-in by U.S. tech giants or Chinese ecosystems.
C. Cyber Warfare as the Primary Security Doctrine
- Land-based threats evolving: China lowering CPEC footprint; Pakistan reliant on ADB loans; U.S.–Saudi pact; U.S. pursuit of Bagram; shifting Afghan dynamics.
- India has U.S. sanctions waiver for Chabahar, opening Iran–Central Asia–Russia connectivity.
- Argument:
– Halve the standing Army;
– Reduce dependence on imported platforms;
– Pivot defence spending to AI, drones, space, missiles—domains where India has global-level competence. - Innovation-led defence strategy will generate domestic tech spillovers.
D. AI Sovereignty: Crucial for India’s Rise
- India’s AI Mission (₹10,372 crore) inadequate at current scale.
- Bernstein warns: India risks being peripheral if U.S. companies dominate foundational AI models.
- Parliamentary panel calls for domestic foundational model capability.
Requires:
– 20x increase in AI funding;
– National strategic AI collaboration;
– High-end compute;
– Proprietary Indian models;
– Talent ecosystem steered at PMO-level. - Without AI sovereignty, India cannot become a global power by 2047.
India’s Key Partnerships: Realistic Assessment
China: Trust but Verify
- Border negotiations in Ladakh advancing; potential to stabilise wider Kashmir landscape.
- Investment and economic complementarities remain high.
- But China’s strategic footprint remains unpredictable → verification essential.
Russia: Reliable Long-Term Pillar
- 75-year partnership; crucial technologies (S-400), energy stability, military equipment.
- Russia central to Eurasian connectivity and India’s continental strategy.
U.S.: Partner but also Constraint
- U.S. pushing India to:
– Cut Russian oil;
– Side with Indo-Pacific calculations;
– Depend on U.S. tech ecosystem. - Reduces India’s strategic space; disrupts multipolarity.
- U.S. global policy now more transactional, less multilateral.
India’s Emerging Asian Strategy
- Engage BRICS+, SCO, ASEAN, RCEP as intertwined regional mechanisms.
- Forge Asian value-chain complementarities beyond the WTO system.
- Build alternative markets to reduce U.S.-centric dependency.
- Promote Asian-led innovations in digital economy, AI, fintech, and cyber security.
- Strengthen Eurasian connectivity via Iran–Central Asia–Russia.
Conclusion
- The Asian century is now marked by intra-Asian great-power conversations, not Western-led platforms.
- India is navigating a complex triangular balance: improving China ties, strengthening Russia ties, managing U.S. pressure.
- The foreign policy inflexion point demands hard choices on defence, technology, and economic strategy.
- India’s rise depends on 3 pillars:
– Strategic autonomy grounded in national priorities;
– Tech-led power (AI, cyber, space);
– Deep integration with Asian economic and security architectures. - India’s goal is not alignment but autonomous Asian leadership in a multipolar world.
