Current Affairs 01 August 2025

Content

1. Can the ICJ ruling force rich nations to pay for historical emissions?
2. How not to identify an illegal immigrant
3. Why the world needs better green technologies
4. Malaria’s new frontlines: vaccines, innovation, and the Indian endgame
5. Mystery of African Mahogany G20 sapling solved
6. Language & division of states

Can the ICJ ruling force rich nations to pay for historical emissions?

Core of the ICJ Ruling

• Advisory nature: The ruling is not legally binding, but offers a legal interpretation of existing international obligations under climate law.
• Key reaffirmations:
  • Countries are legally obligated to reduce GHG emissions.
  • Developed nations must support vulnerable states facing disproportionate climate impacts.
  • Reiterates the 1.5°C target from the Paris Agreement as a climate safeguard.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

Legal & Scientific Challenges

• Causality problem:
  • Attribution of specific climate damages to specific countries’ emissions remains scientifically difficult.
  • Most extreme weather events are exacerbated, not uniquely created, by climate change, making legal claims tenuous.

• Proof thresholds:
  • Courts require clear evidence that a country’s inaction led to measurable harm.
  • As warming remains around 1–1.5°C, anthropogenic signals are not always dominant in many weather events.

Geopolitical and Enforcement Constraints

• Sovereignty prevails:
  • Nations like the U.S., China, and India are unlikely to alter energy systems due to a non-binding ruling.
  • The ICJ has no enforcement arm; any binding action would require UN Security Council backing, which is highly political.

• Selective compliance:
  • U.S. has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and continues fossil fuel subsidies.
  • Western nations historically dodge accountability, while developing nations are overregulated by the same legal frameworks.

Implications for Climate Reparations

• Reparations unrealistic:
  • History shows little delivery on promised climate finance or reparations; most are repackaged development aid.
  • Ted Nordhaus argues reliance on reparations is a “poor trade-off” that hinders energy access in developing nations

• Loss and Damage Fund:
  • Though symbolically important, funding remains limited.
  • Both Nordhaus and Grover are sceptical it will yield substantial compensation for vulnerable nations.

Domestic Leverage Potential

• Legal value at home:
  • Ruling offers activists and courts in treaty-ratifying countries a legal foundation to challenge their own governments.
  • Likely to be used more in domestic courts than in international litigation.

• Vulnerable nations:
  • Small Island Developing States (SIDS) may use this to bolster local climate litigation and international diplomatic leverage.

Shift in Global Technological Dynamics

• Tech flow no longer unidirectional:
  • China now leads clean tech exports, including to the West; India may follow.
  • This undercuts the 1990s assumption of one-way tech transfer from rich to poor countries.

• Modernising frameworks:
  • The ICJ ruling operates within the outdated “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) model.
  • There’s a call for a new global climate framework reflecting multi-polar tech development.

Equity vs Pragmatism

• Ecomodernist critique (Nordhaus):
  • Efforts to “co-opt Western legal mechanisms” for equity (e.g., Loss and Damage Fund, ICJ rulings) have failed.
  • Advocates domestic development-first strategies using all available resources.

• Climate justice perspective (Grover):
  • Acknowledges double standards in global legal norms.
  • Urges developing nations to act for their own sake, citing examples like Delhi’s air pollution and corporate capture of energy policy.

Future Outlook

• ICJ ruling ≠ Global shift:
  • Unlikely to trigger a wave of international litigation, despite some political claims (e.g., U.K. Shadow Energy Secretary).

• Tool, not a solution:
  • Best viewed as a strategic instrument for domestic action — not a global accountability game-changer.

• Political reality check:
  • Courts alone can’t force decarbonisation; global politics, power asymmetries, and economic interests dominate.

How not to identify an illegal immigrant

Context & Administrative Trigger

• Timeframe: Winter 2024, during Delhi’s cold wave.
• Trigger: Order from Delhi Lt. Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena directing the police to identify “illegal” foreign nationals, especially post-regime change in Bangladesh.
• Result: Surge in detentions of Bengali-speaking residents across urban slums in Delhi.

Relevance : GS 2(Governance , Social Issues)

Operational Pattern of Crackdown

• Primary Targets: Bengali-speaking residents, particularly in jhuggi settlements.
• Indicators Used for Profiling:
  • Language spoken (Bangla dialects).
  • Anonymous community tips on dialect and origin.
  • Clothing (e.g., lungi), and remittance patterns.
• Key Concern: Reliance on linguistic and cultural profiling rather than legal documentation or due process.

Linguistic Bias & Stereotyping

• Systemic Issue: A narrow perception of Indian Bengali identity, dominated by urban Kolkata dialects and pop culture.
• Misconceptions:
  • Treating non-Kolkata dialects or rural Bangla as “foreign”.
  • Misreading commonly used words like “paani” as non-Indian — despite their historical presence in early Bengali texts like Charyapada (8th century).
• Result: Cultural markers wrongly used as nationality tests.

Legal & Structural Shortcomings

• Neglect of Contextual Realities:
  • No consideration of 2015 India-Bangladesh land swap, where residents could opt for Indian citizenship.
  • No nuance in assessing mixed-status families or cross-border remittances.
• Example: Indian citizen detained solely for sending money to elderly parents in Bangladesh.

Ethnic & Cultural Profiling

• Cultural identifiers used as suspicion markers:
  • Lungi as an alleged “foreign” garment.
  • Remittances equated with cross-border illegality.
• Cultural pushback: Protest songs and local resistance narratives question this overreach — “Just because I wear a lungi… doesn’t mean I was born in Bangladesh.”

Class, Caste & Identity Intersections

• Initially impacted: Bengali Muslims.
• Now widened to: Lower-caste Hindu Bengalis.
• Emerging Trend: A complex overlap of ethnicity, caste, class, and dialect defines vulnerability — not legal status.

Public Discourse & Elite Silence

• Noted Absence: Limited response from Bengali public intellectuals in media, literature, or academia.
• Key Questions:
  • Is there a class detachment within Bengali society?
  • Are elite Bengalis silent due to discomfort with working-class dialects and attire?

Broader Implications

• Xenophobic Normalization: Language and attire increasingly seen as proxies for illegality.
• Institutional Fragility:
  • Weak documentation processes.
  • Absence of legal aid for suspected individuals.
  • Lack of linguistic and cultural training for enforcement agencies.
• Risk: Deepening intra-ethnic, class, and religious fault lines.

Key Takeaways

• Legal due process must override cultural inference in determining immigration status.
• Language, class, and dress cannot serve as lawful indicators of citizenship.
• A balanced approach requires institutional training, community engagement, and safeguards against arbitrary profiling.

Why the world needs better green technologies

Context & Key Question

• Backdrop: Global climate targets and energy independence goals are driving a massive push for renewable energy.
• Core Issue: Are silicon photovoltaics (Si-PV) still the best option, or should we invest in next-gen solar technologies with higher efficiency and lower environmental impact?

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

Silicon Photovoltaics (Si-PV): Overview

• Invented: 1954, Bell Labs (USA).
• Efficiency:
  • Lab efficiency: 18–21%.
  • Real-world (in-field) efficiency: 15–18%.
• Global Production:
  • 80% of supply from China.
  • India: Domestic capacity at ~6 GW, expected to rise.

Efficiency vs. Land Constraints

• Efficiency matters: Doubling efficiency → halves land requirement.
• Land crunch:
  • Rapid urbanization.
  • Environmental concerns limiting greenfield solar expansion.
• Implication: Silicon PV’s lower efficiency makes it less viable in space-constrained or high-demand areas.

Alternative Photovoltaic Technologies

• Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) Thin-Film: Up to 47% efficiency.
• Commercial-readiness: Many next-gen PVs are lab-tested, demonstration-ready, and awaiting commercial deployment.

Energy & Climate Dynamics

• Renewable Energy Installed (India): 4.45 TWh (by end-2024).
• Atmospheric CO₂: Increased from 350 ppm (1990) to ~425 ppm (2025).
• Implication: Renewable expansion isn’t keeping pace with energy demand.

Green Hydrogen: Promise vs. Reality

• Production method: Electrolysis using renewable power.
• Challenges:
  • Electrolysis is energy-intensive.
  • Storage & transport of hydrogen is difficult (leaky, low-density).
• Energy cascade losses: From Si-PV → electrolysis → storage → reconversion = compounding inefficiencies.

Proposed Alternatives

• Molecular Carriers: Convert H₂ to green ammonia (NH₃) or green methanol (CH₃OH) for transport.
  • But reverse conversion still demands high energy.
• Artificial Photosynthesis (APS):
  • Directly produce fuels from H₂O, CO₂/N₂, and sunlight.
  • Still in lab-stage, but promising for future.
• CO₂ Recycling: Turn CO₂ into useful fuels = climate mitigation + energy solution.

Europe’s Lead: RFNBO

• Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin (RFNBO):
  • Fuels made using renewables but not from biomass.
  • Includes green hydrogen, methanol, ammonia from sunlight and air.
• Policy push: India urged to follow suit to reduce 85% energy import dependence.

India’s Strategic Needs

• Current import dependence: 85% of energy (oil, coal, gas).
• Geopolitical vulnerability: Global conflicts + price shocks.
• Recommendation: Ramp up R&D spending, foster public-private innovation.

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Green hydrogen & Si-PV are helpful but not enough.
• Efficiency and energy economics need urgent innovation.
• India must diversify energy strategies to:
  • Improve energy density.
  • Optimize land use.
  • Enable cleaner, scalable fuels.
• Proactive R&D investment today is more cost-effective than reactive damage control tomorrow.

Malaria’s new frontlines: vaccines, innovation, and the Indian endgame

Malaria control in India has entered a decisive phase, powered by vaccine breakthroughs and innovation. Yet, persistent tribal hotspots and policy gaps challenge the 2030 elimination goal.

Relevance : GS 2(Health , Governance)

India’s Progress & Persistent Challenges

Achievements:

• >80% reduction in malaria burden between 2015–2023.
• National ambition: Elimination of malaria by 2030.

Persisting Hotspots:

• Tribal districts still highly affected:
  • Lawngtlai (Mizoram): 56+ cases/1000 people.
  • Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh): 22+ cases/1000 people.
• Mixed infections: In Jharkhand, 20% of cases involve both P. falciparum & P. vivax.
• Asymptomatic carriers: Silent transmission even in low-incidence zones.

 Malaria Parasites in India

• P. falciparum (Africa-dominant): More lethal.
• P. vivax (Asia-dominant): Dormant liver stage → late relapses.
• P. cynomolgi (monkey malaria): Crucial research model for P. vivax, but underutilized in India.

First-Generation Vaccines

1. RTS,S (Mosquirix)

• Approved in 2021.
• Protection: ~55% initially, wanes in 18 months.
• Requires 4 doses.

2. R21/Matrix-M (Oxford–Serum Institute)

• WHO-approved in 2023.
• Up to 77% efficacy in Phase 3.
• Low-cost, fewer doses, room-temperature stable → ideal for India.

Limitations of Current Vaccines

• Target only one life stage (pre-erythrocytic).
• Vulnerable to reinfection and continued transmission.
• Need for multi-stage or whole-parasite strategies.

Next-Gen Vaccine Approaches

A. Whole-Parasite Vaccines

• PfSPZ (Sanaria):
  • Uses radiation-weakened sporozoites.
  • 96% antibody response, up to 79% protection after 3 doses.
• PfSPZ-LARC2:
  • Modified version with potential for single-dose use.
  • Targeted use in outbreaks/migrant populations.

B. Blood-Stage Vaccines

• PfRH5:
  • Blocks red blood cell invasion.
  • Strain-transcending protection.
  • Promising Phase 1a/2b trials in UK, Gambia, Burkina Faso.

C. Transmission-Blocking Vaccines (TBVs)

• Pfs230D1 (Mali):
  • Blocks fertilization in mosquito gut.
  • 78% reduction in transmission (Phase 2).
• India’s TBV candidate – AdFalciVax:
  • Combines PfCSP + Pfs230/Pfs48/45.
  • Completed preclinical testing in 2025.
  • Mice: >90% protection with long immune memory (4+ months).
  • Room temp stable (9 months) → ideal for rural India.
• P. vivax TBV (Pvs230D1M):
  • First human trial in Thailand: up to 96% transmission reduction.

Immune Boosting & Novel Platforms

Protein-Based Innovations

• Ferritin nanoparticle + CpG adjuvant:
  • Cut liver-stage parasite burden by 95% in mice.
• PfCSP–MIP3α fusion:
  • Enhances antibody + T-cell response.
  • Reduced infection by 88% in mice.

mRNA-Based Platforms

• Pfs25-mRNA (CureVac + NIH):
  • Complete transmission block in mice.
  • Antibodies lasted 6+ months after 2 doses.
• BNT165e (BioNTech):
  • Blood-stage mRNA candidate.
  • Trial paused by FDA in 2025.

Parasite Evasion & Immune Engineering

• RIFIN proteins bind to LILRB1 receptors, silencing immune cells.
• Antibody D1D2.v-IgG (India):
  • Binds RIFIN 110x stronger than natural receptor.
  • Restores immune response in lab tests.

Vector Control Innovations

CRISPR Gene Drives

• Fertility-suppressing drives:
  • Eliminated entire Anopheles gambiae colonies in lab within a year.
• FREP1 gene edit:
  • Blocks parasite growth inside mosquito.
  • Spread to 90% of lab mosquitoes in 10 generations.

Smart Mosquito Designs

• Engineered to die early if infected → self-limiting transmission.
• Prevents ecological disruption by preserving uninfected mosquito populations.

Institutional & Policy Gaps

Key Challenges:

• Lack of:
  • Trained doctors,
  • Surveillance for resistance, and
  • Robust vector control systems.
• India’s P. vivax research underutilised due to:
  • Restricted monkey access, outdated priorities.

Steps Ahead:

• ICMR Expression of Interest (2025):
  • For industrial partners to co-develop AdFalciVax.
• Critical needs:
  • GMP-grade production, immune biomarkers, and efficacy benchmarking vs RTS,S & R21.

Takeaways

Mystery of African Mahogany G20 sapling solved

Background: G20 Plantation at Nehru Park

• Occasion: India’s G20 Presidency (2023).
• Event: Ceremonial plantation of saplings by G20 member countries and invited international organisations.
• Location: Designated plantation area in Nehru Park, New Delhi.
• Objective: Symbolic diplomacy using ecologically significant trees representing each country.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

The Mystery

• Issue Raised: A citizen-led platform (X, formerly Twitter) flagged that the sapling labelled “African Mahogany” didn’t resemble the actual species.
• Trigger: Viral post with over 28 lakh views, prompting questions on whether species verification had occurred.
• Official Clarification:
  • The currently standing sapling is a substitute, not the original African Mahogany gifted by Nigeria.
  • The original sapling died after being planted due to non-acclimatisation.

Scientific & Bureaucratic Process

• Plant Quarantine:
  • Imported plants underwent a required quarantine at ICAR-NBPGR, New Delhi.

• Pre-plantation Vetting:
  • Involved expert species identification to maximize survival in Delhi’s climate.

• Sources Confirmed:
  • Substitutes like Jamun (Indian species) were temporarily planted to maintain visual and aesthetic consistency.

Country-wise Sapling Details

• South Korea & South Africa:
  • Their original saplings failed to survive post-plantation.
  • Embassies confirmed it was within expected parameters.
  • South Korea has already replaced its original species.
• Nigeria’s African Mahogany:
  • Has now been sourced again and will be planted after the monsoon, as per ideal conditions.

Broader G20 Tree Representation

• A total of 17 tree species were planted by G20 countries and international organisations.
• Symbolism & Environmental Relevance:
  • Turkey, Spain, Italy: Olive trees.
  • South Korea: Silver tree.
  • Egypt, Saudi Arabia: Date Palm.
  • Indonesia: Frangipani.
  • China: Camphor Laurel.
  • African Union: Sausage Tree, Red Frangipani.

Coordination & Logistics

• Nodal Agency: New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC).
• Coordination: Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
• Challenges Faced:
  • Survival in new climate.
  • Visual aesthetics of the ceremonial area.
  • Ensuring embassy-level approval before using substitutes.

Key Takeaways

• Plant survival in alien climates is a known challenge; substitution is a standard protocol.
• Visual consistency maintained via indigenous look-alike species (like Jamun).
• Embassies remained involved in the replacement process, ensuring diplomatic sensitivity.
• The episode reflects eco-diplomacy, biosecurity procedures, and public accountability.

Language & division of states

Background Context

• Triggering Event: TN Governor R. N. Ravi criticized the linguistic basis of state formation, arguing it led to second-class citizenship for some populations.
• Core Debate: Whether the linguistic reorganisation of states in 1956 was a divisive or unifying force for India.

Relevance : GS 2(Social Issues )

India Before First Reorganisation (1956)

• Dual System of Administration:
  • British India: Directly administered provinces.
  • Princely States: Indirect rule through native rulers.
• Constitutional Classification (1950):
  • Part A: Former British provinces, governed by elected legislatures.
  • Part B: Former princely states, governed by Rajpramukhs.
  • Part C: Commissioners’ provinces + some princely states.
  • Part D: Andaman & Nicobar Islands (governed by the Centre).
• Total States/UTs on 26 January 1950: 28 states + 6 Union Territories.

Linguistic Reorganisation of States (1956)

• Key Trigger: Demands for states based on linguistic and cultural identity surged post-Independence.
• Major Catalyst: Potti Sriramulu’s death (1952) during a fast for a Telugu-speaking state (Andhra) sparked widespread protests → creation of Andhra State.
• Political Response:
  • Fazl Ali Commission (SRC) formed in 1953.
  • Submitted report: 30 September 1955.
  • Recommended reorganisation of India into 16 states & 3 UTs based on administrative efficiency + linguistic affinity.

Data Highlights: After 1956 Reorganisation

• States created based on dominant languages:
  • Andhra Pradesh (Telugu)
  • Kerala (Malayalam)
  • Karnataka (Kannada)
  • Tamil Nadu (Tamil)
  • Maharashtra (Marathi)
  • Gujarat (Gujrati)
• States that were reorganised or merged:
  • Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Bihar, Bombay, Madras, etc.
• Part A, B, C, D classifications abolished.
• New structure: Unified system with elected legislatures and clearer administrative boundaries.

Key Arguments For Linguistic Reorganisation

• Unity Through Identity:
  • Linguistic states ensured that diverse language groups felt included, preventing alienation.
• Nehru’s Pragmatic Approach:
  • Despite early caution, Nehru eventually supported linguistic states to manage unrest and enhance governance.
• Democratic Accommodation:
  • Recognised linguistic identities as part of a plural democratic ethos.
• Successful Model:
  • Scholar Ramachandra Guha and others note that linguistic reorganisation helped unify rather than divide India.

Governor R. N. Ravi’s Criticism (2025)

• Core Concern: Linguistic division has made many feel like second-class citizens.
• Quote: “In my own state Tamil Nadu… people live together but once it became a linguistic state, one-third became second-class.”
• Implication: Suggests that linguistic politics led to exclusion, particularly for linguistic minorities in each state.

Counterpoints to Governor’s View

• SRC’s Balanced Approach:
  • Rejected rigid linguistic determinism; argued for unity & cultural balance.
• Historical Complexity:
  • Bombay and Punjab saw violent protests during their linguistic splits (e.g. Bombay’s bilingual state demand).
• State Unity Beyond Language:
  • Example: Maharashtra and Gujarat, despite being split, remained stable politically and economically.

Broader Implications for Indian Federalism

• Language as a Unifying Principle:
  • While controversial, it has remained core to India’s identity management.
• Limits of Linguistic Logic:
  • Not applied uniformly — e.g., Punjab-Haryana division also involved religious and regional considerations.
• Ongoing Challenges:
  • Demands for new states (e.g., Gorkhaland, Vidarbha) still persist.
  • Need to address intra-state linguistic minorities’ rights.

Conclusion: A Mixed Legacy

• Reorganisation of 1956 was a pragmatic response to post-Independence challenges.
• Despite criticisms, it largely succeeded in:
  • Reducing secessionist tendencies.
  • Ensuring regional representation.
  • Preserving national unity amidst cultural diversity.
• However, interior exclusions and new grievances require renewed attention within federal policy frameworks.