Current Affairs 03 December 2025

Content

1. DoT Order to Pre-Install Sanchar Saathi App
2. Why There Is No Peace in Ukraine
3. Why the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Needs Complete Digitisation
4. Only 20% of Candidates Accepted PM Internship Scheme Offers
5. WHO Issues First Global Guidelines on GLP-1 Weight-Loss Drugs
6. How the River Kosi’s Shifting Course Exposes the Perils of Embankments

---

DoT Order to Pre-Install Sanchar Saathi App 

---

Why Is It in the News?

• DoT issued a mandatory order directing all smartphone manufacturers to pre-install the Sanchar Saathi app on every device sold in India.
• Triggered political backlash (Opposition leaders calling it unilateral, undemocratic).
• Digital rights activists raised concerns over privacy, informed consent, and surveillance.
• Experts warned that pre-installed, non-removable apps can access OS-level permissions, creating potential pathways for malware/spying.

Relevance

GS-II: Governance

• Executive overreach vs citizen rights; informed consent; digital governance ethics.
• Accountability gaps: absence of statutory backing for mandatory apps.
• Public consultation deficits in tech regulation.

GS-II: Polity (Fundamental Rights)

• Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy test: legality–necessity–proportionality).
• Surveillance concerns, metadata collection, state intrusion.

GS-III: Cybersecurity

• Risk of system apps with OS-level permissions.
• Threat surface expansion; malware vector risks; IMEI–identity linking.

What is Sanchar Saathi?

• Launched by DoT in 2023 as a web portal, later upgraded to a mobile app.
• Objective: Counter telecom fraud, enable blocking of stolen devices, verify IMEI authenticity.
• Key functions:
  • Report fraudulent calls/number misuse.
  • Check IMEI genuineness via CEIR.
  • Request blocking/unblocking of stolen/ lost phones.
  • Monitor numbers linked to a single identity (TAFCOP component).

What Does the New DoT Mandate Require?

• Pre-installation on all new smartphones sold in India.
• Likely non-removable, as most pre-loaded system apps are integrated into OEM firmware.
• No public consultation before mandating.
• Not backed by a specific Act of Parliament.

Why Did Government Push It? (Official Rationale)

• Sharp rise in online fraud, “digital arrest” scams, impersonation and cross-border cybercrime.
• Increase in IMEI spoofing, sale of fake devices.
• App-based services like WhatsApp/Telegram can function even when SIM credentials change → traceability gap.
• Aim: strengthen device-SIM-identity link and support real-time cybercrime response.

Concerns Raised (Governance, Legal, Technical)

A. Governance Concerns

• Absence of consultation with industry/citizens.
• Mandatory installation contradicts the principle of informed consent.
• Risks of normalising state-pushed software on personal devices.

B. Legal and Constitutional Concerns

• Must pass Puttaswamy (2017) tests:
  • Legality: no explicit law authorising such surveillance-enabling installations.
  • Necessity: alternatives available (portal/SMS verification).
  • Proportionality: intrusive, continuous access to device metadata possible.
• Could blur lines between regulation and surveillance.

C. Technical & Cybersecurity Concerns

• Pre-installed apps often gain OS-level privileges (system apps).
• Users often cannot uninstall them → persistent capability.
• As cybersecurity expert Anand Venkatanarayanan noted:
  • Once an app has system-level access, an over-the-air update can give it deeper permissions.
  • Creates a potential single point of failure if app is compromised.
• Government becomes a potential malware vector—a major red flag.

D. Risks of Abuse

• Potential for continuous digital supervision (CPI-M MP John Brittas).
• Could enable mass metadata collection across millions of devices.
• History of spyware allegations (Pegasus) intensifies distrust.
• Manufacturer pushback: compromises secure OS architecture (Apple’s protest expected).

Broader Implications

• Expands executive authority without legislative scrutiny.
• Sets precedent: government apps may be forced on all devices in future.
• Could impact India’s reputation on digital rights and data protection.
• Could weaken India’s cybersecurity posture if exploited by threat actors.

International Practices

• Democratic countries rarely mandate pre-installed government apps.
• Exceptions:
  • South Korea’s disaster alert apps (voluntary install, not system apps).
  • Covid apps globally were voluntary (UK, EU, Japan).
• India’s approach resembles state-led firmware intervention, not standard global regulation.

Critical Overview

Strengths (Limited but Relevant)

• Helps combat rising telecom fraud.
• Facilitates faster IMEI tracking.
• Streamlines reporting of stolen devices.

Major Weaknesses

• Disproportionate → security benefits achievable without deep device intrusion.
• Undermines autonomy and informed consent.
• High systemic cybersecurity risk.
• Weak accountability → no statutory oversight.
• Diminishes trust in government technology.

Way Forward

• Shift from mandatory to opt-in installation.
• Run Sanchar Saathi as a service layer, not firmware layer.
• Enact a statutory framework defining digital surveillance limits.
• Conduct third-party security audits, open-source app code.
• Keep IMEI–SIM linkage at the telecom backend, not user device.
• Launch transparent public consultation with industry, civil society.

Conclusion

The DoT’s move stems from a genuine rise in cybercrime but adopts a legally weak, technologically intrusive, and governance-deficient route.
Mandatory pre-installation transforms a user’s smartphone into a potential instrument of persistent digital oversight. The policy must be redesigned along principles of proportionality, transparency, and privacy-by-design.

---

Why is there no peace in Ukraine?

---

Why Is It in the News?

• New U.S. (Trump administration)–led peace plan for the Russia–Ukraine war has been circulated to stakeholders.
• The plan is far less favourable to Ukraine than the 2022 Istanbul framework.
• Comes amid Ukrainian battlefield setbacks (Pokrovsk, Kupiansk), Western fatigue, domestic corruption scandals, and Trump’s shift in U.S. policy.
• Marks a major turning point: Ukraine is weaker, Russia stronger, and Western alignment fractured.

Relevance

GS-II: International Relations

• Power shifts in Russia–Ukraine conflict; failure of 2022 Istanbul process.
• Changing US foreign policy under Trump; “Reverse Kissinger” realignment attempt.
• Europe’s strategic autonomy gaps & NATO credibility questions.

GS-I/World History

• Territorial annexation, violation of post-1945 norms; coercive peace frameworks.

GS-II: Global Governance

• Erosion of international law due to legitimising territorial conquest.
• UN diplomacy limitations; great-power politics shaping peace frameworks.

Timeline of Peace Attempts (2022–2025)

A. Early 2022: Belarus → Turkey Talks

• Days after Russia invaded (Feb 2022), both sides opened negotiations in Belarus.
• Russian troops pushed towards Kharkiv and Kherson, aiming for a quick victory.

B. March 2022 Istanbul Talks

• Mediated by Turkey; first serious diplomatic breakthrough.
• Ukraine indicated willingness to:
  • Renounce NATO membership,
  • Recognise Russian as an official language,
  • Accept neutrality under multilateral security guarantees.
• Russia signalled readiness to:
  • Withdraw to pre-Feb 24, 2022 lines, keeping Crimea and parts of Donetsk/Luhansk.
• Fiona Hill & Angela Stent (Foreign Affairs, 2022):
  • Both sides reached a tentative interim settlement outline.

C. Collapse of the Istanbul Process

• Western powers hesitant to offer hard security guarantees to Ukraine.
• Boris Johnson reportedly urged Kyiv to continue fighting.
• Zelenskyy grew confident after Russia withdrew from Kyiv–Chernihiv.
• Result: Ukraine resumed war → later expelled Russian forces from Kharkiv and Kherson (late 2022).
• Russia retaliated by:
  • Annexing four more regions (Sept 2022),
  • Launching partial mobilisation,
  • Settling into a long-war strategy.

Shift in Strategic Landscape (2023–2025)

A. Military

• 2023 Ukrainian counter-offensive failed decisively → military option closed.
• Russia adapted to sanctions, stabilised economy, and improved defence lines.
• By 2024–25: Russia regained initiative → capture of Pokrovsk marks major advance.

B. Political

• Zelenskyy extended term under martial law; recent corruption scandals eroded legitimacy.
• U.S. under Biden: “support as long as it takes”.
• U.S. under Trump:
  • Views war as lost,
  • Shifts burden to Europe,
  • Seeks potential reset with Russia, including a “Reverse Kissinger” (tilting Russia away from China).

Trump’s 28-Point Peace Plan: Key Features

A. Territorial Settlement (Favors Russia)

• Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk recognised as “de facto Russian”.
• Ukraine must withdraw from Donetsk (Russia currently controls ~80%).
• Contact lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia frozen → Russia keeps captured areas.
• Other seized territories outside annexed oblasts returned by Russia.

B. Military Terms

• Ukraine must cap military strength at 600,000 personnel.
• Demilitarised buffer areas likely around the frontline.

C. NATO Issue (Core Russian Demand)

• Ukraine must constitutionally renounce NATO membership.
• NATO must legally commit that Ukraine will never be admitted.
• Ukraine can join the EU.

D. Security Guarantees

• Separate 3-point draft proposes NATO-style assurances for 10 years, renewable.
• Significant Russian attack treated as threat to transatlantic security.

E. Sanctions & Russia’s Reintegration

• Russia to be reintegrated into global economy.
• Sanctions can be lifted; Russia could rejoin G8.
• Long-term U.S.–Russia economic cooperation (conditional).
• Russia to enact legal non-aggression commitments.

Why Is the Plan Considered Pro-Russia?

• Ukraine loses ~20% of its pre-2014 territory permanently.
• NATO door shut irreversibly.
• Russia’s gains legitimised; its losses not fully reversed.
• Security guarantees for Ukraine remain vague.
• Russia receives economic reintegration even without full withdrawal.
• U.S. role shifts from active military supporter to mediator with Russia.

Zelenskyy’s Dilemma

If he accepts:

• Effectively admits Russian victory.
• Major political blow at home → backlash from military, nationalist groups.
• Legitimacy crisis given expired term + corruption scandals.
• Loss of territory becomes permanent.

If he rejects:

• U.S. may withdraw support, further isolating Ukraine.
• Risk of losing more territory in prolonged war.
• Europe alone cannot sustain Ukraine financially/militarily.

Europe’s Position

• Germany, France, U.K. vow continued support but lack U.S.-scale capability.
• European unity under strain due to energy, defence readiness, budget fatigue.
• Europe fears Trump’s plan may entrench Russian strategic advantages.

Ground Reality (Dec 2025)

A. Russia

• Controls:
  • All of Crimea,
  • All of Luhansk,
  • ~80% of Donetsk,
  • Significant parts of Kherson & Zaporizhzhia,
  • Slowly advancing in Kharkiv region.
• War economy stabilised; military industrial production revived.

B. Ukraine

• Facing power outages due to strikes on grid.
• Economic collapse prevented only through Western aid.
• Morale eroding; no feasible path to offensive victory.

Why Istanbul Moment Cannot Return ?

• 2022: Russia was on back foot → willing for concessions.
• 2025: Russia has battlefield momentum + geopolitical leverage.
• Ukraine now negotiating from weakness, not parity.
• Trump plan reflects changed power balance, not diplomatic creativity.

Implications for Global Politics

A. U.S.–Russia–China Triangle

• Trump may pursue Reverse Kissinger:
  • Draw Russia away from China to weaken Beijing.
• Success uncertain due to deep Russia-China alignment.

B. NATO Credibility

• Forcing Ukraine to give up NATO path may weaken NATO’s moral authority.
• Sets precedent that military pressure can force Western concessions.

C. International Law

• Legitimising territorial conquest undermines post-1945 rules.

Conclusion

• Peace efforts collapsed in 2022 due to Western hesitation and Ukrainian optimism.
• Strategic balance shifted sharply in Russia’s favour over 2023–25.
• Trump plan formalises Ukraine’s territorial losses and neutrality.
• Ukraine in 2025 faces its toughest moment: military setbacks + political crisis + U.S. pressure.
• The new plan is a coercive peace, not a negotiated settlement.

---

Why the SIR needs to be completely digitised

---

 What is Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?

• Periodic exercise by the Election Commission to update, correct, and verify electoral rolls.
• Traditionally meant to remove dead/shifted voters, include new voters, and correct errors.
• Requires accurate foundational records for reliability.

Relevance

GS-II: Governance

• Electoral roll integrity; administrative capacity; citizen–state interaction.
• Digital governance failures due to legacy datasets.

GS-II: Polity – Elections

• Role of Election Commission; BLO functioning; voter rights protection.
• Challenges to free, fair, and inclusive elections due to faulty rolls.

GS-III: Technology in Governance

• Need for structured, searchable databases; Aadhaar/PAN integration with safeguards.
• Digital workflow vs paper-based systems; reducing human error.

Why This Issue Is in News?

• SIR 2.0 depends on legacy voter rolls (2002–04) created manually on paper.
• India’s advanced digital systems (ECINet, Aadhaar-based verification, online EF system) are not fully used.
• Result: widespread errors, non-searchable data, mass deletions, voter panic, and operational delays.

Core Problem: Weak Foundation

• “Garbage in, garbage out” rule: flawed base data = flawed electoral rolls, no matter the procedure.
• 2002–04 rolls have:
  • Manual entries, handwritten, high spelling variation.
  • No standardised metadata or searchable fields.
  • Missing EPICs, house numbers, surnames, gender/age inconsistencies.
  • Zero digitisation quality control.

Evidence of Failure in Legacy Rolls

• Random audits reveal anomalies:
  • Entries implying polygamy (two wives with same husband name).
  • Incomplete names like “Rakesh”, “Vir”, “Sahgal/Sangal” mismatched spellings.
  • Missing EPIC numbers, addresses, and house numbers.
• Author (IIT/DRDO/IITK professor) scanned thousands of entries and couldn’t find his own record despite voting for decades.
• Non-searchable PDFs make identification practically impossible.

Systemic Regression: Why SIR 2.0 Fails

• Falls back to paper-era workflow:
  • BLOs collect paper forms → later digitised manually → verified again → digitally uploaded.
  • Massive delays: Over 50% of Uttar Pradesh’s EFs undigitised (EC statement, Nov 27).
  • Low digital skills among BLOs: errors, delays, inconsistent formats.
• Voters forced to:
  • Bring paper photos.
  • Submit duplicate proofs.
  • Make multiple visits.

ECINet vs Legacy SIR: Stark Underutilisation

ECINet Capabilities (Modern System)

• One-billion–record searchable database.
• Searchable by name, mobile, EPIC, DOB, address, relatives.
• Duplicate detection, Aadhaar linking, auto-verification.
• Online EF filing, constituency locator, grievance tracking.

Legacy SIR Reality

• Non-searchable PDFs.
• Manual forms, manual corrections.
• Broken search interface → “error” or “no details found”.
• EC disclaims ownership: “rolls published exactly as received from CEOs”.

Key Administrative Issues

• EC expects voters to remember where they voted in 2002–04, unrealistic after 20 years.
• EPIC cards from those years not archived; voters relied on scrap slips.
• BLOs often demand unnecessary documents (birth certificate, extra address proof) contrary to EC guidelines.
• For voters deleted from rolls:
  • Online Form 6 forces them to declare as first-time voters, introducing further distortions.
• Approval requirements for minor corrections via Form 8 are restrictive and slow.

Consequences

• Millions cannot locate or verify their names.
• Errors propagate through the system because the foundational dataset is unverified.
• Panic among citizens, overload on BLOs, political tensions during elections.
• Months-long disruption instead of a clean-up.

What Should Have Been Done ?

• Digital-only workflow, eliminating paper forms entirely.
• Deploy mobile kiosks with trained personnel for citizens lacking digital skills.
• Build searchable databases for legacy rolls before initiating SIR.
• Integrate Aadhaar (with safeguards), PAN, local body records via API checks.
• Uniform standards for names, addresses, metadata.

Transformation Blueprint: Fully Digital SIR 2026

a) Complete Digitisation

• Convert all State/UT rolls (2002–04 included) into English-searchable structured datasets.
• Regional scripts kept as display only, not for search logic.

b) Data Integration

• Merge legacy data with reliable datasets:
  • Aadhaar
  • Income Tax/PAN
  • Driving licence
  • Local body property records
• Automated consistency checks.

c) Voter Classification

1. Stable-address voters.
2. Frequent movers.
3. Citizenship/immigration ambiguity cases.

d) Online EF Submission

• 100% online workflows (mobile + web).
• Kiosks for rural/elderly users.
• Dedicated trained digital staff.

e) Digitise All Post-Submission Steps

• Document verification, approval, objections, final roll publication – all within ECINet.
• Real-time tracking of corrections/deletions.

Benefits of a Fully Digital System

• Eliminates legacy errors permanently.
• Single national database → consistent, verifiable, auditable.
• Faster approvals, real-time grievance handling.
• Massive reduction in human errors and BLO overload.
• Ensures transparency, trust, and electoral integrity.

The Way Ahead

• Digital SIR is not optional — essential for a credible democratic process.
• Most reforms are immediately implementable; only deep integration may extend beyond SIR 2.0.
• Once digitised, future revisions become simple annual updates, not massive crisis-driven exercises.
• SIR 2026 must become a technology-led trust revolution, not a paper-driven crisis.

---

Only 20% of candidates accepted PM Internship Scheme offers: data

---

What is the PM Internship Scheme?

• A national-scale internship programme announced in Union Budget 2024.
• Objective: Provide 1 crore internships in five years in top Indian companies.
• Designed to bridge: industry–academia gap, employability skills, and early career exposure for youth.
• Implemented via Ministry of Corporate Affairs; companies post internships on a central portal.

Relevance

GS-II: Governance

• Scheme design flaws; weak policy feedback loops; centre–industry coordination gaps.
• Budget utilisation issues; outcome vs output mismatch.

GS-III: Economy

• Labour market dynamics; employability and skilling ecosystem.
• Youth job-preparedness and industry-academia mismatch.

GS-II: Social Sector Development

• Youth aspirations; access barriers; regional disparities.
• Internship quality norms; role clarity; stipend adequacy.

Why is it in News?

• Data presented in Parliament shows low acceptance and high dropout rates.
• Despite exceeding target of 1.25 lakh internship offers for the pilot, only 20% of candidates accepted across two rounds.
• Nearly 20% of those who accepted quit mid-way, raising concerns about scheme design, workplace quality, and alignment with youth expectations.

Pilot Scale & Targets

• Pilot launched in October 2024, target: 1.25 lakh internships in one year.
• Total internships posted (Round 1 + Round 2): 2.45 lakh+ opportunities.

Key Numbers (Two Rounds Combined)

• 1.65 lakh offers made by companies.
• 33,300 offers accepted → Acceptance rate: 20.2%.
• 6,618 candidates left prematurely → Dropout rate: 19.9% among accepted candidates.

Round-wise Performance

Round 1

• Opportunities posted: 1.27 lakh.
• Applications: 6.21 lakh.
• Offers made: 82,000.
• Accepted: 8,700 (10.6% acceptance).
• Dropouts: 4,565 → More than 50% of interns quit mid-way.

Round 2 (January onwards)

• Opportunities posted: 1.18 lakh.
• Applications: 4.55 lakh.
• Offers made: 83,000+.
• Accepted: 24,600 (30% acceptance).
• Dropouts: 2,053 → 8.3% quit rate.

Youth Response: Why Only 20% Acceptance?

• Data indicates candidates declined offers due to:
  • Location mismatch (internships far from home; low stipends insufficient to support relocation).
  • Unsuitable roles (low-skilled tasks, perceived lack of value).
  • Long durations incompatible with academic calendars/exams.
• Many internships may not align with career aspirations or sector preferences.

High Dropout Rates: Key Reasons

• Poor role clarity and limited learning outcomes.
• Inadequate mentorship, long work hours, or project irrelevance.
• Stipend-quality mismatch: opportunity cost remains high for many students.
• Mismatch between expectations (skill-building) and reality (routine administrative tasks).
• Better opportunities elsewhere (private platforms/placements).

Utilisation of Funds

• Original pilot budget: ₹840 crore.
• Revised allocation (FY 2024–25): ₹380 crore.
• Actual utilisation so far: ₹73.72 crore.
• Low utilisation reflects low participation and operational delays.

Structural Challenges in PMIS

• Geographical concentration of opportunities in large metros; rural/remote candidates unable to relocate.
• Sector skew: many roles posted in sales, operations, basic admin; fewer in high-skill domains.
• Insufficient company participation from top-tier firms.
• Lack of flexibility in internship timings and duration.
• Portal-based recruitment lacks personalised matching, career guidance, or screening support.

Implications

• Indicates a misalignment between scheme design and youth aspirations.
• Calls into question feasibility of reaching the target of 1 crore internships.
• Poor internship experience could undermine employability goals.
• High dropout → signals issues in internship quality, company readiness, or monitoring.
• Low acceptance → reflects need for stronger incentives for both companies and interns.

Required Reforms

• Stipend rationalisation based on city tiers and living cost.
• Remote/hybrid internship options to expand reach.
• Sector diversification: tech, digital, green economy, EV, logistics, AI, MSMEs.
• Academic integration: credit-linked internships through universities.
• Quality assurance framework: standardised projects, mentorship norms, feedback loop.
• Improved matching algorithm on the portal to align skills–roles–location.
• Performance-based incentives for companies ensuring high-quality mentorship.

Conclusion

• The pilot achieved numbers in terms of offers, not uptake.
• The bottleneck is not supply but acceptance and retention.
• For the scheme to succeed at national scale:
  • Roles must be meaningful.
  • Stipends must be realistic.
  • Duration must be flexible.
  • Companies must be accountable.
• Without addressing these structural issues, scaling to 1 crore internships in 5 years is unlikely.

---

GLP-1 drugs

---

Why is it in News?

• On 1 December 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued its first global guidelines on the use of GLP-1 (Glucagon-Like Peptide-1) weight-loss drugs for treating adult obesity.
• WHO formally recognised GLP-1 therapies as effective, but issued conditional recommendations due to limited long-term data, high costs, and global inequity in access.
• The decision has major implications for public health, global obesity economics, and equitable access to new metabolic drugs.

Relevance

GS-II: Health

• WHO’s first global obesity-drug guidelines; global obesity governance.
• Integration of pharmacotherapy with behavioural interventions.

GS-III: Science & Tech

• GLP-1 mechanism; metabolic diseases; long-term safety questions.
• Supply-demand imbalance; counterfeit risks.

GS-II: Equity & Public Policy

• High cost; insurance gaps; unequal access in LMICs.
• Role of generics, price caps, regulated distribution.

What Are GLP-1 Drugs?

• GLP-1 = Glucagon-Like Peptide-1, a hormone produced in the gut.
• Functions:
  • Stimulates insulin secretion.
  • Slows gastric emptying.
  • Reduces appetite and cravings.
  • Improves metabolic markers (glucose, lipids).
• Designed originally for type-2 diabetes → later found to cause significant weight loss.

Examples of GLP-1 Drugs

• Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy)
• Liraglutide (Saxenda)
• Tirzepatide (Mounjaro; dual GLP-1/GIP agonist, highly effective)

Why GLP-1 Matters Globally

• Obesity ≠ lifestyle problem; it is a chronic metabolic disease.
• GLP-1 drugs represent the first major breakthrough since bariatric surgery.

Impact

• Weight loss: ~15–22% depending on drug.
• Reduced risk of:
  • Type-2 diabetes
  • Cardiovascular events
  • Certain cancers
  • Severe infectious disease outcomes
• Economic angle: Obesity may cost $3 trillion annually by 2030.
• GLP-1 drugs could reduce this burden if made accessible.

Key Elements of WHO’s New Guidelines

Conditional Recommendation

• Use GLP-1 drugs for adults with obesity, except pregnant women.
• Conditional because:
  • Limited long-term safety data.
  • Unknown effects after drug discontinuation.
  • Extremely high cost and equity barriers.

Must Accompany Behavioural Interventions

• Drugs cannot be used alone.
• Diet modification + physical activity + counselling remain essential.
• GLP-1 → only when lifestyle interventions fail or when obesity is severe.

Equity as Central Principle

• WHO stresses:
  • Tax-funded or insurance-backed programmes.
  • Avoiding two-tier systems where only the rich can access treatments.
  • Need for affordable generics in developing countries.

Why WHO Issued Guidelines Now ?

• Rapid worldwide adoption of drugs like Ozempic/Wegovy.
• Sharp rise of off-label use and medical tourism.
• Multiple countries witnessing shortages due to demand.
• Need for global standards on:
  • Who should use the drugs.
  • How to integrate them into national obesity programmes.
  • Ensuring safe and monitored usage.

Concerns Acknowledged by WHO

High Cost

• GLP-1 drugs cost ₹20,000–₹30,000/month in India (imported brands).
• Remains unaffordable for most low-middle-income populations.
• Insurance coverage extremely limited.

Limited Long-Term Data

• Weight regain after stopping is common.
• Safety beyond 5–10 years still unclear.
• Issues of gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, vomiting, inflammation).

Supply-Demand Problems

• High demand has led to shortages even in countries like US & UK.
• Could divert supply away from diabetics who need them clinically.

India-Specific Issues

Cost Barrier

• Experts say affordability is the biggest obstacle.
• Need for:
  • Generic manufacturing
  • Government price caps
  • Wider insurance coverage

Misuse Risks

• Rising trend of:
  • Off-label use for cosmetic weight loss
  • Unmonitored consumption
  • Counterfeit injectables

Guidance by Indian Experts

• Anoop Mishra: Need insurance coverage + generics for real impact.
• V. Mohan: GLP-1 is not a magic injection; diet + exercise remain primary.

Why GLP-1 Is a Global Public Health Turning Point ?

• Obesity now affects 1 in 8 people worldwide.
• Conventional lifestyle treatment works only for 10–15% long-term.
• GLP-1 therapies offer:
  • Clinically significant weight reduction
  • Improvements in metabolic syndrome
  • Reduced long-term healthcare expenditure

GLP-1 + Equity: Core Challenge

• Without systemic action:
  • Rich countries and wealthy individuals dominate access.
  • LMICs (like India) face supply and affordability barriers.
• WHO stresses that GLP-1 must not become a luxury therapy.

Policies Needed Globally

• Public insurance coverage
• Regulation of prices
• Support for local manufacturing
• Integration into national obesity guidelines
• Continued investment in prevention and lifestyle interventions

Conclusion

• WHO’s recognition is a major milestone in global obesity management.
• GLP-1 drugs are effective and transformative but:
  • Not a standalone solution
  • Not universally accessible
  • Not yet proven long-term
• The guidelines emphasise:
  • Safety
  • Equity
  • Integrated care
• For India and other LMICs, affordability and insurance coverage will determine real-world impact.

---

How the river Kosi’s shifting course exposes the perils of embankments

---

Why is it in News?

• Recent analysis highlights repeated breaches of Kosi embankments (latest in 2024), reviving debate on whether embankments worsen floods instead of preventing them.
• New studies and expert committees point to 120 km westward shift of the Kosi in 250 years due to sedimentation and engineering interventions.
• NDA’s “Flood to Fortune” promise and the Kosi-Mechi river-linking project have brought embankment policy back into political and ecological focus.

Relevance

GS-I: Geography

• River morphology; meandering rivers; sediment load; avulsion dynamics.
• Himalayan rivers’ hydrology and shifting channels.

GS-III: Disaster Management

• Embankment breaches increasing flood intensity; risk amplification.
• Structural vs non-structural flood mitigation approaches.

GS-III: Environment

• Human interventions altering natural river behaviour.
• Siltation, upstream catchment changes, climate variability impacts.

Understanding the Kosi River

• Origin: Tibet & Nepal; joins Ganga in Bihar.
• Called Sapta Kosi due to seven tributaries.
• Highly dynamic, one of world’s most sediment-loaded rivers.
• Known as “River of Sorrow” due to catastrophic floods and course shifts.
• Has shifted course ~120 km west over the last 250 years (People’s Commission on Kosi Basin).

Why Kosi Causes Extreme Flood Vulnerability ?

• High sediment load → riverbed aggradation.
• Dynamic course → frequent channel shifts.
• Low-gradient plains → sluggish flow, high inundation.
• Monsoon-fed system → sudden surge in discharge.
• Flood peaks: ~6 lakh cusecs (2024 flood).

Embankments: Intended Role

• Artificial levees to contain floodwaters.
• Aim: protect settlements, stabilize agriculture, allow development.
• Built extensively since 1950s in Bihar and Assam.

Issues with Embankments

Increased Siltation

• Embankments trap silt inside the confined channel → riverbed rises continually.
• Over time, river flows at a higher elevation than surrounding land, making breaches catastrophic.
• G.R. Garg Committee (1951) warned embankments are risky for silt-heavy rivers.

Frequent Breaches

• Kosi breached embankments in 1963, 1968, 1971, 1980, 1984, 1987, 1991, 2008, 2024.
• Breaches create sudden, unpredictable inundation over vast areas.

Water Logging Outside Embankments

• Poor drainage → stagnant water in villages trapped between embankments.
• Creates chronic flooding even without major river spillage.

Loss of Ecological Function

• Rivers lose:
  • natural drainage roles
  • floodplain recharge
  • sediment redistribution
  • wetland replenishment
• Leads to biodiversity loss and groundwater decline.

Short-term protection, long-term vulnerability

• Embankments need continuous raising as silt accumulates.
• High maintenance costs; frequent failures.
• “False sense of security” leads to unsafe development in floodplains.

Impact on Agriculture

• Deposition of coarse silt/sand during breaches (seen in Assam & Kosi belt).
• Loss of fertile topsoil → agrarian distress.

Himalayan Context: Why East is More Vulnerable

• Eastern Himalayan rivers (Kosi, Brahmaputra): affluent rivers
  • precipitation increases downstream
  • high sediment → higher breach probability
  • geologically weak terrain → landslides, river shifts
• Western Himalayan rivers: influent rivers
  • rainfall decreases downstream
  • more stable → embankments relatively safer

Key Expert Views

• E. Somanathan: Embankments initially help but later turn dangerous due to rising riverbed; recommends floodplain-based resilience and removal where feasible.
• Rahul Yaduka: Embankments serve development aims but cause waterlogging; suggests improving palaeochannels for natural water distribution.
• Bindhy W. Pandey: Embankments unsuitable for eastern Himalayan rivers; require strict monitoring & rehabilitation if used.
• Mahendra Yadav (Kosi Nav Nirman Manch): Advocates “living with floods” + rehabilitating people outside embankments.

Case Study: 2008 Kosi Catastrophe

• Breach at Kusaha (Nepal).
• Deaths: 400+
• People affected: 33 lakh
• Caused by silt accumulation, embankment ageing, and altered flow due to barrage.

Kosi–Mechi River-Linking Debate

Government’s Argument

• Provide irrigation to Mahananda basin.
• Promote fisheries and agriculture.
• NDA’s “Flood to Fortune” political pitch.

Expert Counterpoints

• Kosi peak flow: ~6 lakh cusecs
• Diversion through project: 5,247 cusecs → negligible impact on flood moderation.
• Linking won’t reduce flood peaks; may worsen siltation and cross-basin flooding.

Economic Concerns

• Embankments require rising annual expenditure.
• Bihar’s embankment-related spending has increased multiple times since 1950s.
• High budget consumption with low resilience gain.

Global Lessons

United States

• Actively removing embankments in many basins.
• Allowing controlled flooding to restore:
  • floodplains
  • wetlands
  • ecosystem integrity
• Result: milder floods, better ecological recovery.

Alternatives & Way Forward

1. Living with Floods

• Restore natural floodplains.
• Zoned habitation.
• Seasonal cropping patterns aligned with flood cycles.

2. Reviving Palaeochannels

• Use abandoned channels to redistribute floodwaters.
• Reduce pressure on main embankment.

3. River Basin Governance

• Basin-wide planning
• Cross-border coordination with Nepal
• Sediment management strategy

4. Early Warning & Evacuation

• Training communities inside embankment belts.
• Improving forecasting systems.

5. Scientific Desiltation

• Targeted removal at critical nodes.
• Must be ecology-sensitive; avoid indiscriminate sand mining.

---