Content
- Indian Railways to Patronise ‘Aabhar’ Online Store
- Decoding India’s Projected GDP: Ambition vs. Arithmetic
- India Pushes FTA Talks with Chile and Peru — Securing Rare Earths and Critical Minerals
- Anti-GM Activists Question ‘Advantages’ of ICAR’s Two Gene-Edited Rice Varieties
- Mohanlal Case and Cracks in India’s Wildlife Law
- Invisible Deaths: Climate Crisis and the Abandonment of India’s Sanitation Workers
Indian Railways to Patronise ‘Aabhar’ Online Store
Why in News?
- The Indian Railways has announced its patronage for ‘Aabhar’, an online store launched on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) to promote local artisans, weavers, and handicraft producers under One District One Product (ODOP) and Geographical Indication (GI) frameworks.
- The initiative aligns with the government’s ‘Vocal for Local’ campaign and complements the ‘One Station One Product’ (OSOP) scheme.
Relevance :
GS-2 (Governance):
- Government initiatives for inclusive, transparent procurement (GeM, ODOP, OSOP).
- Institutional convergence between MoT, KVIC, CCIE, and Indian Railways for MSME empowerment.
GS-3 (Economy):
- Promotion of local industries and rural artisans under Atmanirbhar Bharat and Vocal for Local.
- Integration of traditional crafts into digital marketplaces and sustainable consumption models.
GS-1 (Culture):
- Preservation and promotion of India’s cultural heritage through handicrafts, GI-tagged products, and handlooms.
Basic Concept
- ‘Aabhar’ Online Store:
An e-commerce platform on GeM that curates gift and souvenir items crafted by Indian artisans, handloom weavers, tribal producers, and women-led enterprises. - Implementing Partners:
- Central Cottage Industries Emporium (CCIE)
- Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC)
- State Handloom and Handicraft Emporiums
- Purpose:
To integrate local handicrafts and heritage products into official gifting and events by government departments, PSUs, and institutions.
Key Objectives
- Promote Local Heritage: Showcase India’s cultural richness through handlooms, handicrafts, and tribal art.
- Empower Artisans: Provide market access and stable demand for marginalized rural producers and women entrepreneurs.
- Support Sustainable Development: Encourage eco-friendly, handmade products over mass-produced imports.
- Institutional Patronage: Use Indian Railways’ nationwide presence to drive large-scale adoption in government procurement.
Institutional Linkages
- Platform: Hosted on GeM (Government e-Marketplace) for transparent, direct sourcing.
- Alignment with Policies:
- Vocal for Local
- Make in India
- Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan
- ODOP and GI Promotion Initiatives
- Railways’ Precedent: Builds upon the success of ‘One Station One Product’ (OSOP) — stalls across railway stations promoting local crafts, such as Banarasi silk (Varanasi), chikankari (Lucknow), and bamboo crafts (Assam).
Significance
- Economic: Expands domestic market opportunities for micro and small enterprises (MSMEs).
- Social: Promotes inclusive growth by uplifting tribal, rural, and women artisans.
- Cultural: Reinforces India’s intangible heritage and craftsmanship traditions.
- Administrative: Encourages ethical procurement practices within government departments.
Challenges
- Logistics and Delivery: Ensuring efficient supply chain and quality control from rural producers to buyers.
- Digital Literacy: Need for capacity-building among artisans for GeM onboarding.
- Sustained Demand: Maintaining consistent government and institutional orders beyond ceremonial occasions.
Other Initiatives
- ODOP (One District One Product): Promotes district-specific handicrafts or produce.
- GI Tagging: Protects intellectual property and authenticity of traditional crafts.
- OSOP (One Station One Product): Provides physical retail space to artisans at railway stations.
- PM Vishwakarma Yojana: Supports traditional artisans and craftspeople through financial and skill-based aid.
Decoding India’s projected GDP
Why in News?
- Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal recently stated that India will become a $30 trillion economy in 20–25 years.
- The claim drew scrutiny as economists questioned whether India’s current growth trajectory supports this projection.
- The discussion reflects India’s long-term economic ambition, trade negotiation posture, and structural growth challenges.
Relevance :
GS-3 (Economy):
- Growth projections, macroeconomic trends, and structural reforms needed for Viksit Bharat@2047.
- Role of productivity, investment, and rupee stability in sustaining high nominal GDP growth.
- Fiscal and monetary challenges in long-term growth trajectory.
GS-2 (Polity & Governance):
- Economic policymaking, coordination among ministries (Finance, Commerce, NITI Aayog).
- Policy coherence in achieving sustainable development goals.
Basic Concepts
1. What is GDP?
- Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures the total monetary value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a year.
- Indicates economic size, productivity, and global influence.
- Example (2024):
- India’s GDP: $3.9 trillion (FY 2023–24)
- US GDP: $29.2 trillion
- California (US State): $4.1 trillion — larger than India’s entire economy.
2. How GDP is Calculated in USD Terms:
- GDP (in ₹) ÷ Average Dollar–Rupee Exchange Rate = GDP (in $).
- Nominal GDP is used in such projections (not adjusted for inflation).
India’s Growth Record (Historical Perspective)
| Period | Nominal GDP CAGR | Rupee Depreciation CAGR | Implied Growth Outcome |
| Past 25 years (2000–2024) | 11.9% | 2.7% | India could reach $55.9 trillion by 2048 |
| Past 11 years (2013–2024) | 10.3% | 3.08% | India could reach $25.8 trillion by 2048 and $30 trillion by ~2053 |
- CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate
The Divergence
- Based on 25-year trend: India = $55.9 trillion (2048)
- Based on 11-year trend: India = $25.8 trillion (2048)
- Difference: ~75% in projected size; time lag of ~7 years to reach $30 trillion.
- This highlights the sensitivity of long-term projections to small shifts in growth rates and exchange depreciation.
Key Factors Affecting GDP Projections
1. Growth Momentum:
- India’s growth has slowed since 2014—partly due to global headwinds, investment slowdown, and uneven domestic reforms.
2. Rupee Depreciation:
- A faster depreciation (over 3% CAGR recently) reduces GDP in dollar terms, even if domestic output rises.
3. Inflation vs. Real Growth:
- Nominal GDP includes inflation; real GDP growth matters more for welfare and purchasing power.
4. Demographic Dividend:
- India’s working-age population remains a strength till the 2040s but needs quality education and jobs to translate into productivity.
5. Productivity and Capital Formation:
- Sustained investment in infrastructure, innovation, and manufacturing needed to push growth above 8–9% consistently.
6. External Sector:
- Trade competitiveness, exchange rate stability, and energy security will affect dollar-denominated GDP.
Overview
1. Exponential Effect:
- Even a 1% drop in annual GDP growth over decades leads to trillions in lost output.
- Example: 11.9% → 10.3% CAGR = ~$30 trillion difference over 25 years.
2. Base Effect:
- India’s small base allows rapid scaling, but as the economy grows, marginal growth rates naturally decelerate.
3. Credibility of Projection:
- To reach $30 trillion by 2048, India needs a nominal GDP growth of ~11–12% annually (real growth ~7–8% + inflation ~4%).
- At the current pace (~6.5% real growth, 3.5% inflation), India would hit $30 trillion closer to 2053–2055.
Policy Imperatives for Sustaining High Growth
1. Structural Reforms:
- Simplify land and labour laws, deepen financial markets, and ensure ease of doing business.
2. Industrial Policy & Manufacturing Push:
- Build on PLI schemes and digital manufacturing ecosystems to reduce import dependence.
3. Human Capital:
- Strengthen education, health, skilling, and women’s workforce participation to maximise demographic potential.
4. Fiscal and Monetary Stability:
- Manage inflation, public debt, and exchange rate volatility to sustain investor confidence.
5. Innovation and Digitalization:
- Leverage AI, clean energy, and digital infrastructure to enhance productivity and exports.
Global Context
- The US and China dominate the global GDP chart at $29 trillion and $18 trillion respectively.
- For India to be comparable, it must sustain decades of high, inclusive growth without external shocks.
- A $30 trillion India by mid-century would place it alongside the US and China as a global economic pole.
Significance
- Reflects India’s long-term economic ambition under Viksit Bharat@2047.
- Shapes India’s confidence in trade negotiations, FDI strategy, and geopolitical standing.
- Highlights the importance of consistency in growth, not just potential.
Challenges Ahead
- Growth slowdown due to cyclical and structural issues.
- Global economic fragmentation and trade protectionism.
- Climate transition costs and dependence on energy imports.
- Inequality and uneven regional development.
The Bottom Line
- Piyush Goyal’s $30 trillion vision is aspirational, not impossible.
- Achieving it demands faster growth, rupee stability, and structural transformation.
- The next two decades will determine whether India remains a fast-growing developing nation or becomes a developed global economic powerhouse.
India pushes FTA talks with Chile, Peru with focus on rare earths
Why in News?
- India’s trade negotiation teams are currently in Chile and Peru to fast-track Free Trade Agreement (FTA) talks.
- The core objective is to secure long-term, assured access to critical minerals and rare earth elements vital for India’s EVs, electronics, renewable energy, and defence manufacturing.
- This comes amid China’s export restrictions on rare earths and India’s diversification push under its Critical Minerals Strategy 2023 and trade diversification policy.
Relevance :
GS-2 (International Relations):
- India’s strategic engagement with Latin America under South–South Cooperation.
- Role of trade diplomacy in resource security and geopolitical diversification.
GS-3 (Economy & Science-Tech):
- Critical minerals policy, FTA frameworks, and India’s mineral supply chain resilience.
- Role of KABIL and MSP (Minerals Security Partnership) in energy transition and EV ecosystem.
GS-3 (Environment):
- Sustainable mining practices and global environmental compliance in resource partnerships.
Context
Background of India–Chile & India–Peru Engagements
- India–Chile:
- Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) signed in 2006, expanded in 2017.
- India offered tariff concessions on 1,031 products; Chile reciprocated on 1,798 products.
- Current bilateral trade (FY25): $3.75 billion (India’s exports: $1.5 billion).
- Negotiating upgrade to Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) covering critical minerals, digital trade, MSMEs, and investments.
- India–Peru:
- FTA talks started in 2017, paused during COVID-19, now resumed.
- Bilateral trade includes India’s exports of motor vehicles, cotton yarn, pharma, and Peru’s exports of gold, copper ore, concentrates.
- Progress is slower due to Peru’s cautious negotiation pace.
Strategic and Economic Rationale
1. Securing Critical Minerals:
- Latin America holds abundant reserves of lithium, copper, cobalt, and rare earths, essential for clean energy and high-tech manufacturing.
- India seeks exploration and mining rights in these countries to reduce import dependence and diversify away from China.
2. Countering China’s Dominance:
- China controls ~90% of the global rare earth supply chain and recently restricted exports of rare earths and magnet technologies.
- These curbs impacted India’s automotive and electronics sectors, prompting an urgent strategic sourcing response.
3. Trade Diversification Strategy:
- Aims to reduce overdependence on traditional partners (US, EU, China) amid tariff tensions and supply disruptions.
- Latin America provides resource complementarity with India’s manufacturing ambitions.
Critical Minerals in Focus
| Mineral | Strategic Use | Key Supplier (LatAm) |
| Lithium | EV batteries, energy storage | Chile, Argentina |
| Copper | Power grids, electronics | Peru, Chile |
| Rare Earth Elements (REEs) | Magnets, wind turbines, defence tech | Chile |
| Cobalt | Battery cathodes | Peru |
India’s Broader Critical Minerals Strategy
- Critical Minerals Mission (2023) under Ministry of Mines identifies 30 priority minerals.
- KABIL (Khanij Bidesh India Ltd.), a JV of NALCO–HCL–MECL, tasked to acquire overseas mineral assets.
- Minerals Security Partnership (MSP): India exploring deeper engagement with the US, Japan, and Australia for critical mineral supply chains.
- Domestic Exploration: GSI and AMD expanding exploration of lithium (J&K, Rajasthan) and REEs (Andhra Pradesh, Kerala).
India–Chile CEPA: Next-Gen Agreement
- Will upgrade the 2017 PTA to cover:
- Critical minerals and exploration cooperation
- Trade in goods and services
- Digital trade and e-commerce
- Investment and MSME linkages
- Technology sharing in green energy and mining
- Chile’s enthusiastic approach contrasts with Peru’s cautious pace, but both countries are key to India’s resource security in the Southern Hemisphere.
Challenges & Concerns
- Rules of Origin: Preventing Chinese transshipment of goods via Chile or Peru to exploit tariff concessions.
- Geopolitical Risk: Latin America’s internal political volatility may delay deals.
- Environmental Compliance: India’s exploration rights must align with local sustainability norms.
- Negotiation Timeframe: Peru’s slow FTA pace could delay resource access.
Significance
1. Economic:
- Strengthens supply chain resilience and secures inputs for Make in India and energy transition sectors.
- Enhances bilateral trade volumes and opens Latin American markets for Indian pharma and automobiles.
2. Strategic:
- Counters China’s mineral diplomacy and secures India’s role in global value chains for green tech.
- Deepens South–South cooperation and strengthens India’s footprint in Latin America.
3. Diplomatic:
- Reinforces India’s Act East + Act Latin trade diversification strategy.
- Builds on India’s image as a reliable, sustainable partner in critical mineral value chains.
Projected Outcomes
- India–Chile CEPA likely to conclude soon (2025), unlocking exploration and investment partnerships.
- India–Peru FTA expected by late 2026–27, once outstanding tariff and mineral clauses are resolved.
- Together, both FTAs could cut India’s dependence on China for 15–20% of key mineral inputs.
Anti-GM activists question ‘advantages’ of ICAR’s two gene-edited rice varieties
Why in News?
- The Coalition for a GM-Free India accused ICAR of “scientific fraud” and data manipulation in field trials of two genome-edited rice varieties — Pusa DST-1 and DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala).
- These varieties were hailed as a global first in gene-edited rice by Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan (May 2024), but activists claim ICAR’s own AICRP (All India Coordinated Research Project) reports for 2023–24 contradict the claims.
Relevance :
GS-3 (Science & Technology):
- Genome editing (CRISPR, SDN-1/2/3), agricultural biotechnology, and biosafety regulation.
- Ethical and scientific concerns over transparency, data integrity, and research governance.
GS-2 (Governance):
- Institutional accountability of ICAR and oversight mechanisms under India’s biosafety laws.
- Policy–activism interface in regulatory decision-making (GM mustard, Bt brinjal precedents).
GS-3 (Environment & Agriculture):
- Implications for sustainable agriculture, biodiversity, and food security.
Basic Concepts
1. Genetic Modification (GM) vs Genome Editing (GE):
- GM Crops: Introduce foreign DNA (transgenes) from other species → regulatory approval under GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee) required.
- Genome-Edited Crops: Modify existing genes (via tools like CRISPR-Cas9) without foreign DNA; regulatory relaxations possible if no transgenes remain.
- India allows SDN-1 and SDN-2 genome editing (small edits without foreign DNA) under a simplified regulatory pathway (2022 guidelines).
2. ICAR’s Role:
- ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) oversees agricultural R&D.
- AICRP on Rice conducts multi-location field trials across India to evaluate varietal performance under various agro-climatic zones.
About the Two Varieties
1. Pusa DST-1 (IET 32043):
- Developed by IARI (Pusa Institute).
- Claimed traits: drought, salinity, and alkalinity tolerance; higher yield than parent MTU-1010.
- Announced as a global first gene-edited rice (May 2024).
2. DRR Dhan 100 “Kamala” (IET 32072):
- Developed by ICAR-Indian Institute of Rice Research (IIRR), Hyderabad.
- Derived from BPT 5204 (Sona Masuri).
- Claimed: 17% higher yield, early maturity (20 days), improved nitrogen-use efficiency.
Allegations by the Coalition for a GM-Free India
1. Data Contradictions:
- Pusa DST-1:
- 2023 AICRP report: No data on drought/salinity due to “limited seed quantity.”
- Showed same or 4.8% lower yield vs parent MTU-1010; underperformed in 12 of 20 sites.
- 2024 trials: No yield advantage in coastal/inland salinity; only 1.6% gain in alkaline soils.
- Yet summary table selectively highlighted “30% higher yield” from 8 sites in one zone.
- DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala):
- 2023: Underperformed in 8 of 19 sites; yield advantage (4.3%) limited to southern zone.
- 2024: Excluded several sites without reason; used 6 sites to claim 17.21% higher yield.
2. Accusation of “Scientific Fraud”:
- ICAR allegedly cherry-picked data to present exaggerated performance.
- Activists claim repetition of biotech lobby tactics seen in earlier controversies (e.g., Bt Brinjal, GM Mustard).
3. Lack of Transparency:
- No independent peer-reviewed validation of field results.
- Absence of publicly available biosafety and ecological risk assessments.
Policy and Governance Context
1. Regulation in India:
- Genome Editing Guidelines (2022):
- SDN-1 & SDN-2 exempt from GEAC oversight; handled by ICAR & Institutional Biosafety Committees.
- Critics argue this reduces regulatory scrutiny and increases conflict of interest.
2. Past Controversies:
- Bt Brinjal (2010): Moratorium after public opposition.
- GM Mustard (2022): Accused of insufficient biosafety review; Supreme Court cases ongoing.
3. Global Perspective:
- Genome editing accepted in US, Japan, Argentina with relaxed norms.
- EU (2023) considering differentiated rules for New Genomic Techniques (NGTs).
- India’s position: cautious optimism with “innovation–biosecurity balance.”
Scientific and Ethical Concerns
- Data Integrity: Potential manipulation undermines credibility of public research institutions.
- Environmental Risks: Gene-edited crops may still pose unforeseen ecosystem effects.
- Farmer Autonomy: Risk of corporate seed monopolies through IP protection on edited varieties.
- Public Trust: Erosion of confidence in scientific institutions if allegations proven true.
Way Forward
- Independent Re-evaluation: Multi-location, transparent field trials under third-party supervision.
- Public Data Disclosure: All AICRP raw data should be made open-access.
- Stronger Oversight: Strengthen Biosafety Authority to cover genome-edited crops.
- Stakeholder Dialogue: Farmers, scientists, and civil society engagement to build informed consensus.
- Science Communication: Clear differentiation between GM and GE crops for public understanding.
Mohanlal Case and Cracks in India’s Wildlife Law
Why in News?
- On 25 October 2025, the Kerala High Court declared that the ownership certificates and government orders legalising actor Mohanlal’s ivory possession were “illegal, void, and unenforceable.”
- The verdict reopened a 14-year-old wildlife case that began with the 2011 Income Tax raid at Mohanlal’s residence, where officials discovered four elephant tusks and 13 ivory artefacts.
- The judgment exposed systemic weaknesses in India’s wildlife governance, highlighting procedural violations, selective enforcement, and the influence of celebrity privilege.
Relevance :
GS-2 (Governance):
- Rule of law, administrative discretion, and procedural justice in environmental governance.
- Accountability of state agencies and misuse of executive power.
GS-3 (Environment):
- Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 — enforcement challenges, ivory trade bans, and conservation ethics.
- Weak deterrence and institutional gaps in wildlife crime prosecution.
GS-4 (Ethics):
- Moral dimensions of privilege, celebrity influence, and equality before law.
- Integrity and fairness in environmental justice.
Basic Legal Framework
1. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:
- Core legislation to protect India’s fauna and flora.
- Prohibits possession, sale, or display of wildlife trophies and animal articles (including ivory) without valid certification.
- Section 40 & 42:
- Section 40: Requires prior declaration of possession of any wildlife article.
- Section 42: Allows ownership certificates only after verification and gazette notification.
2. Ivory Ban:
- 1986: Complete ban on trade in Indian ivory.
- 1991 Amendment: Extended ban to African ivory imports and possession without certification.
- Ivory = Symbol of illegal wildlife trade, associated with elephant poaching and population decline.
Chronology of Events
- 2011:
Income Tax officials raid Mohanlal’s house → seize 4 tusks & 13 ivory artefacts.
Forest Department files case under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
- 2015:
Kerala govt issues a notification under Section 40(4) inviting declarations from those possessing ivory — aimed at regularising past possession.
→ Mohanlal declares ownership; Chief Wildlife Warden grants certificate under Section 42.
→ Case withdrawn; ivory declared “lawfully owned.”
- 2018–2023:
Conservationists and ex-forest officers challenge the validity of certificates before the High Court, citing lack of gazette publication of notification.
- 25 Oct 2025:
Kerala HC declares notification & certificates void ab initio — violating statutory procedure.
Rebukes State for “legal mala fides” and misuse of administrative discretion.
Key Legal and Procedural Issues
1. Gazette Publication Requirement:
- Mandatory for validity under the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
- Kerala govt’s 2015 notification never published in the official gazette, making it legally non-existent.
2. Retrospective Regularisation:
- The 2015 notification allowed individuals to retroactively legalise illegal possession — undermining the spirit of the Act.
- The process effectively converted a criminal offence into paperwork compliance.
3. Violation of Equality Before Law (Article 14):
- Regularisation allegedly tailored to benefit a single high-profile individual.
- No similar leniency shown to other violators → selective enforcement.
4. Administrative Mala Fide:
- HC noted “convenience over legality”, indicating misuse of discretion by the State to protect the influential.
High Court’s Verdict (2025)
Bench: Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar & Jobin Sebastian.
Key Observations:
- “A power not exercised in the manner prescribed under the statute cannot be said to have been exercised at all.”
- Declared all ownership certificates void from inception.
- Criticised govt’s procedural shortcuts and lack of transparency.
- Stopped short of ordering confiscation or prosecution; left option for fresh, lawful notification if the govt wishes to reopen the process.
Significance:
- Reaffirmed that procedure is justice in environmental law.
- Reinforced rule of law over administrative convenience.
Ethical and Societal Dimensions
1. Symbolism of Ivory:
- Ivory represents centuries of elephant slaughter and ecological loss.
- Even if legally obtained, displaying ivory legitimises and normalises the trophy culture tied to poaching.
2. Kerala’s Cultural Paradox:
- Elephants = revered in temples and cinema.
- Yet, Kerala has high rates of human-elephant conflict and captive elephant abuse.
- Reflects a deep moral contradiction — worship and exploitation coexist.
3. Celebrity Privilege:
- Case reveals how influence distorts law enforcement.
- Bureaucratic bias toward the famous undermines public trust.
- “If this were an ordinary citizen,” remarked a forest officer, “the ivory would have been seized permanently.”
Broader Policy and Governance Implications
1. Weak Enforcement Architecture:
- State wildlife departments lack autonomy, legal clarity, and political backing.
- Enforcement often diluted by ministerial or celebrity pressure.
2. Transparency Gaps:
- Lack of public access to ownership records or notification details.
- Violates principles of accountable governance in environmental law.
3. Erosion of Deterrence:
- Administrative regularisation creates moral hazard — others may expect similar amnesty.
- Undermines deterrence embedded in Sections 49–51 (penalties) of the Act.
4. Judicial Intervention as Corrective:
- Courts remain the last line of defence in wildlife protection.
- Reinforces importance of procedural compliance as a safeguard against arbitrariness.
Invisible Deaths: Climate Crisis and the Abandonment of India’s Sanitation Workers
Why in News ?
- The Down To Earth (Nov 2025) investigation titled “Invisible Deaths: How India’s Climate Crisis Abandons Its Sanitation Workers” exposed how rising temperatures, caste hierarchies, and institutional neglect combine to turn sanitation work into a slow, climate-driven genocide.
- Despite 733 recorded heatstroke deaths (Mar–Jun 2024), the deaths of sanitation workers — predominantly Dalits — remain unrecorded, unacknowledged, and unprotected in India’s climate adaptation and labour policies.
- It highlights how climate change amplifies caste-based occupational vulnerability and exposes policy blind spots in NAMASTE scheme, heat action plans, and labour codes.
Relevance :
GS-2 (Governance & Social Justice):
- Policy failure in implementing NAMASTE scheme and manual scavenging rehabilitation.
- Exclusion of sanitation workers from climate adaptation and social protection frameworks.
GS-3 (Environment):
- Intersection of climate change, heatwaves, and occupational vulnerability.
- Need for climate justice and inclusive adaptation planning.
GS-1 (Society):
- Caste-based occupational hierarchy and structural violence under climate stress.
- Ethical and human rights implications of invisible labour deaths.
GS-4 (Ethics):
- Moral responsibility of the state toward dignity of labour and distributive justice.
Basic Legal and Institutional Framework
1. Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
- Prohibits manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks without protective equipment.
- Mandates rehabilitation, alternate livelihood, and compensation to affected families.
2. Supreme Court Directives (2014 & 2025)
- 2014: Directed States to end manual scavenging and compensate sewer-death families with ₹10 lakh.
- Jan 2025: Absolute ban on manual scavenging in 6 metro cities, including Delhi.
3. NAMASTE Scheme (National Action for Mechanised Sanitation Ecosystem, 2023)
- Objective: Eradicate hazardous manual cleaning through mechanisation, training, PPE distribution, and social security.
- Coverage: 84,902 identified workers, but only 45,871 PPE kits distributed (54% coverage).
4. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020
- Contains no heat-protection provisions for sanitation or outdoor workers (only for dock workers).
5. Heat Action Plans (HAPs)
- Prepared by 23 States, but most ignore caste and occupation-based vulnerability, treating risk as a uniform environmental issue rather than a social injustice.
Key Data (2020–2025)
| Period | Reported Sewer/Septic Tank Deaths | Key Findings |
| 2020–24 | 294 official deaths | ≈ 1 preventable death every 6 days |
| 2024 | 116 deaths | Govt insists “manual scavenging eradicated” |
| Jan–Jun 2025 | 42 deaths | Delhi worst affected (6 deaths) |
| 2019–23 | 377 total deaths | 90% lacked safety gear (Govt social audit) |
→ Reality: Deaths continue under contractual, caste-based, invisible labour systems despite legal bans.
The Climate–Caste Nexus
1. Caste as Structural Heat Exposure:
- Marginalised castes (mainly Dalits) occupy most heat-exposed occupations — sanitation, waste collection, construction.
- 150% higher heat exposure recorded among Dalit workers for UTCI (Universal Thermal Climate Index) thresholds between 26°C–35°C.
2. Amplified Risks in Sewers:
- Sewer interiors amplify temperatures, trap toxic gases (H₂S, methane), and reduce oxygen.
- No modified working hours or cooling breaks during heatwaves.
3. Legal Blind Spots:
- Labour laws and HAPs fail to link climate vulnerability with caste or occupation, perpetuating policy invisibility.
Invisible Deaths and Data Denial
1. Statistical Erasure:
- Govt claims manual scavenging eradicated; thus, worker deaths are not recorded as occupational or climate casualties.
- 40% of sanitation workers lack ID documents, excluding them from welfare, insurance, or climate compensation schemes.
2. Reporting Gap:
- Deaths among contractual workers (under private agencies) often unreported or misclassified.
- State agencies’ refusal to maintain caste-disaggregated climate data leads to policy blindness.
Privatisation and Precarity
1. Contractualisation of Risk:
- Example: Chennai protests (Aug 2025) — 2,000 workers resist privatisation cutting wages from ₹22,590 to ₹15,000.
- Private contractors → reduced accountability, no insurance, no pensions.
2. Mechanisation Gap:
- NAMASTE’s goal of “no human in sewer” unrealised — most cities still depend on manual cleaning due to lack of machines, budget cuts, and local contractor networks.
Climate Justice and Caste: A Broader Lens
1. Unequal Climate Impacts:
- Tamil Nadu floods (2015): 90% of injured, 95% of houses damaged belonged to Dalits (IDSN study).
- Dalit settlements in low-lying flood-prone areas face systemic exclusion from relief and safe water.
2. Regional Parallels:
- Amnesty International (2025): Similar discrimination among Dalit sanitation workers in Bangladesh’s coastal districts — climate disasters intensifying caste and gender vulnerability.
→ India mirrors this structural violence under climate stress.
Government and Institutional Response
1. NAMASTE Implementation Gaps (Parliamentary Committee, Aug 2025):
- Warned PPE distribution delays may “deprive many workers of crucial protection.”
- Urged strict enforcement so no worker handles faecal matter directly.
2. Policy Silences:
- No national database of sanitation deaths post-2022.
- Heat Action Plans rarely mention “sanitation” or “Dalit.”
- No compensation framework linking heat deaths to occupational cause.
Ethical, Governance, and Human Rights Dimensions
1. Structural Violence:
- Climate change magnifies pre-existing caste oppression, not just environmental exposure.
- “Invisible deaths” = outcome of policy denial + social hierarchy.
2. Governance Failure:
- Contradiction between ‘Viksit Bharat’ narrative and denial of basic dignity to sanitation workers.
- Reflects state apathy, fragmented accountability, and moral vacuum.
3. Moral Paradox:
- Nation bans manual scavenging but continues to exploit Dalits through informal, dangerous labour chains.
- Climate crisis turns occupational stigma into existential threat.
What Justice Demands (Policy Imperatives)
1. Formalisation:
- All sanitation work under permanent government employment with social security and medical cover.
2. Criminal Accountability:
- Strict prosecution of employers sending workers without safety gear or mechanised tools.
3. Mechanisation:
- Full mechanisation of sewer cleaning in every ULB (Urban Local Body) within 2 years.
4. Data Justice:
- Caste- and occupation-disaggregated climate data in all adaptation and resilience frameworks.
5. Integration with Climate Planning:
- Link sanitation labour conditions to National Adaptation Communication (NAC) and State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCC).
