Current Affairs 16 December 2025

Content

1. Viksit Bharat – Guarantee For Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill (VB-GRAM Bill)
2. Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025
3. One in Six People Exposed to Conflict Worldwide (ACLED Report, 2025)
4. Biosecurity in India: Risks, Preparedness, and the Need for a Unified Framework
5. Amicus Suggestions on Disabled Cadets Similar to DMA’s 2022 Plan
6. GRAP-IV in Delhi–NCR

---

Viksit Bharat – Guarantee For Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill (VB-GRAM Bill)

---

Why is this in News?

• The Union Government is set to introduce the VB-GRAM Bill in the Lok Sabha to replace MGNREGA, 2005.
• The Bill proposes a structural shift:
  • From demand-driven employment guarantee → supply-driven, budget-capped framework.
• Strong Opposition objections on:
  • Dilution of legal right to work.
  • Increased State financial burden.
  • Removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name.
  • Centralisation of power via area notification by the Union.

Relevance

• GS II:
  • Welfare schemes, rights-based vs executive-driven governance
  • Federalism, Centre–State fiscal relations
  • Decentralisation, role of Panchayati Raj Institutions
• GS III:
  • Inclusive growth, rural employment, poverty alleviation
  • Public finance, fiscal discipline vs social protection

MGNREGA (2005): Core Basics

• Legal right to employment under Article 21 (Right to livelihood – judicial interpretation).
• Guarantees:
  • 100 days of unskilled manual work per rural household per year.
  • Work on demand within 15 days, failing which unemployment allowance is payable.
• Cost sharing:
  • Centre: ~90% (wages + material).
  • States: ~10% (mainly unemployment allowance).
• Decentralised:
  • Gram Panchayat as principal planning and implementing authority.
• Key objectives:
  • Livelihood security.
  • Creation of durable rural assets.
  • Strengthening grassroots democracy.

What is VB-GRAM Bill? 

• Replaces MGNREGA with a new employment and livelihood mission.
• Key shifts:
  • Supply-driven scheme (no statutory demand guarantee).
  • Fixed annual budget cap decided by Union Government.
  • Employment only in Centre-notified rural areas.
  • Guaranteed workdays increased from 100 → 125 days.
  • State contribution raised to 40% of total expenditure.

Demand-Driven vs Supply-Driven: Conceptual Difference

Demand-Driven (MGNREGA)

• Employment is a right, not discretion.
• Fiscal outlay expands automatically with demand.
• Strong shock absorber during:
  • Droughts.
  • Pandemic-like crises.
  • Agrarian distress.

Supply-Driven (VB-GRAM)

• Employment limited by budget ceilings.
• Government decides:
  • Where work is provided.
  • How much work is available.
• Converts entitlement into welfare discretion.

Key Changes at a Glance

Aspect	MGNREGA	VB-GRAM Bill
Nature	Legal right	Welfare scheme
Workdays	100	125
Trigger	Worker demand	Govt allocation
Budget	Demand-responsive	Fixed, capped
Area coverage	All rural India	Centre-notified areas
State share	~10%	~40%
Federal tilt	Decentralised	Centralised

Constitutional & Federalism Concerns

• Article 246 + Seventh Schedule:
  • Rural employment, agriculture, land → State List/Concurrent List orientation.
• Increased State share:
  • Unfunded mandate.
  • Violates spirit of cooperative federalism.
• Central notification of eligible areas:
  • Weakens Gram Sabha autonomy (Article 243).

Socio-Economic Implications

Positive Arguments (Government’s Likely Rationale)

• Fiscal predictability and expenditure control.
• Better targeting of backward regions.
• Alignment with Viksit Bharat 2047 productivity narrative.
• Shift from relief-oriented work to “livelihood mission”.

Negative Implications

• Exclusion risk for distress-hit but non-notified areas.
• Loss of automatic safety net during economic shocks.
• Higher State burden may lead to:
  • Delays in wage payments.
  • Reduced work provision.
• Weakens women’s participation (MGNREGA had ~55–60% women workers).
• Potential rollback of poverty reduction gains:
  • MGNREGA contributed significantly to fall in rural poverty and distress migration.

Political Economy Dimension

• Removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name:
  • Symbolic break from rights-based welfare architecture.
• Shift reflects broader trend:
  • From rights-based legislations (RTI, MGNREGA, NFSA)
  • To executive-driven missions.
• Raises question: Welfare state → Developmental state with fiscal discipline?

Governance & Accountability Issues

• No clarity on:
  • “Parameters” for budget allocation.
  • Criteria for area notification.
• Reduced legal enforceability:
  • No unemployment allowance guarantee.
• Potential erosion of social audit effectiveness.

Way Forward

• Retain statutory demand-based core, even with budget rationalisation.
• Transparent, rule-based criteria for area notification.
• Restore balanced Centre-State cost sharing.
• Strong social audit and grievance redress mechanisms.
• Parliamentary scrutiny via Standing Committee.

---

Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025

---

Why is this in News?

• The Union Government has introduced the VBSA Bill, 2025 to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC).
• Government has proposed referring the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) amid strong Opposition resistance.
• Opposition alleges:
  • Executive overreach in higher education.
  • Erosion of federalism and institutional autonomy.
  • Imposition of Hindi through nomenclature.
  • Excessive regulatory and penalty powers.

Relevance

• GS II:
  • Governance, regulatory institutions, executive accountability
  • Federalism (education in Concurrent List)
  • Parliamentary processes (JPC, legislative scrutiny)
• GS I:
  • Education, linguistic diversity, cultural pluralism

UGC: Background and Role

• Established under UGC Act, 1956.
• Constitutional basis:
  • Entry 66, Union List – coordination and determination of standards in higher education.
• Core functions:
  • Funding universities.
  • Setting minimum standards.
  • Recognition of institutions.
• Criticism of UGC:
  • Over-centralisation.
  • One-size-fits-all regulation.
  • Slow approvals and compliance-heavy culture.

What is the VBSA Bill, 2025?

• Proposes creation of Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) as a single, overarching regulator for higher education.
• Aligns with NEP 2020 vision of regulatory overhaul and graded autonomy.
• Seeks to subsume or replace existing regulatory architecture led by UGC.

Key Features of the VBSA Bill

Regulatory Restructuring

• UGC replaced by VBSA with:
  • Expanded powers over recognition, compliance, penalties, and closure.
• Stronger executive involvement in appointments and oversight.

Graded Autonomy Framework

• Institutions categorised based on performance.
• Autonomy linked to:
  • Accreditation scores.
  • Compliance history.
• Critics argue autonomy is conditional, not inherent.

Compliance and Penalty Regime

• Introduces:
  • Intrusive inspections.
  • Heavy financial penalties.
  • Powers to suspend or shut institutions.
• Shift from facilitative regulation → command-and-control oversight.

Language and Nomenclature Issue

• Naming the authority and Bill in Hindi.
• Opposition from non-Hindi-speaking States:
  • Seen as cultural centralisation.
  • Contradicts linguistic pluralism under Articles 29–30.

Federalism Concerns

• Education is in the Concurrent List (Entry 25).
• VBSA centralises:
  • Regulatory power.
  • Norm-setting.
  • Enforcement mechanisms.
• States fear:
  • Reduced say in higher education governance.
  • Marginalisation of State universities.
• Kerala and Tamil Nadu objections reflect:
  • Long-standing Centre–State friction in education policy.

Executive Overreach: Core Criticism

• Concentration of powers:
  • Rule-making.
  • Enforcement.
  • Penalisation.
• Weak parliamentary or independent checks.
• Undermines:
  • Institutional autonomy.
  • Academic freedom.
• Risks politicisation of:
  • Curriculum.
  • Appointments.
  • Institutional functioning.

Implications for Higher Education

Potential Advantages

• Uniform national standards.
• Faster decision-making.
• Alignment with global benchmarks.
• Reduced multiplicity of regulators.

Serious Risks

• Chilling effect on academic freedom.
• Compliance burden on public universities.
• Disproportionate impact on State-funded institutions.
• Possible decline in diversity of pedagogical models.

Comparison: UGC vs VBSA

Aspect	UGC	VBSA (Proposed)
Nature	Statutory regulator	Statutory super-regulator
Autonomy	Limited but institutional	Conditional, performance-linked
Federal balance	Relatively accommodative	Strong central tilt
Penalty powers	Limited	Extensive, including closure
Language sensitivity	Neutral	Hindi-centric nomenclature

Why JPC Reference Matters

• Allows:
  • Detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny.
  • Stakeholder consultations (States, universities, faculty).
• Signals:
  • Political sensitivity.
  • Federal and cultural contestation.
• However:
  • Final outcome still depends on government majority.

Constitutional & Governance Lens

• Article 246 + Seventh Schedule: Balance between Centre and States.
• Academic freedom as part of:
  • Article 19(1)(a) (judicial interpretation).
• Risk of undermining university autonomy, a core democratic institution.

Way Forward

• Clearly demarcate:
  • Standard-setting vs day-to-day regulation.
• Independent appointments mechanism.
• Strong appellate and grievance redress bodies.
• Linguistically neutral nomenclature.
• Formal role for States in regulatory councils.

---

One in Six People Exposed to Conflict Worldwide (ACLED Report, 2025)

---

Why is this in News?

• ACLED (Armed Conflict Location and Event Data) released its 2025 global conflict assessment.
• Key headline:
  • 831 million people exposed to conflict in 2025.
  • Roughly one in six people globally.
• Reveals:
  • Sharp rise in violent events.
  • Increasing state involvement in violence, including against civilians.
  • Changing nature of warfare, especially use of commercial drones by non-state actors.

Relevance

• GS II:
  • International relations, global conflict trends
  • Role of UN, multilateralism, peacekeeping
• GS III:
  • Internal security: non-state actors, emerging technologies in warfare

What is ACLED?

• An independent, globally recognised conflict data collection and analysis organisation.
• Tracks:
  • Political violence.
  • Armed conflict.
  • Protest events.
• Used by:
  • UN agencies.
  • Governments.
  • Researchers and humanitarian organisations.

Key Global Findings (2025)

Scale of Conflict

• ~200,000 violent events recorded globally.
  • Nearly double compared to four years ago.
• 10% of global population exposed to conflict environments.

Nature of Contemporary Conflicts

1. Increased Violence, Reduced Restraint

• Armed actors show:
  • Higher willingness to use force.
  • Disregard for civilian harm.
• Reflects erosion of:
  • International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
  • Norms protecting non-combatants.

2. Rising Role of State Forces

• 74% of violent events involved state forces in 2025.
• State-led violence against civilians:
  • Increased from 20% (2020) → 35% (2025).
• Indicates:
  • Militarisation of internal conflicts.
  • Shrinking space for civilian protection.

Civilians at the Centre of Violence

• 56,000+ incidents of violence directed at civilians.
  • Highest in the last five years.
• Two critical patterns:
  • States increasingly targeting civilians.
  • Non-state groups causing the majority of fatalities.

Region-wise Trends

Europe

• Largest increase in violence globally.
• Driven overwhelmingly by:
  • Russia–Ukraine war.
• Highest number of people affected since 2022 invasion.

West Asia

• 48% decline in violent events compared to 2024.
• Key reasons:
  • End of Syria’s civil war.
  • Ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon.
• Reduced Israeli and Turkish air campaigns:
  • Led to 17% global drop in aerial warfare.

Africa

• Continues to bear:
  • High civilian fatalities.
  • Complex multi-actor conflicts.
• Sudan, DRC, Myanmar remain major hotspots.

State vs Non-State Actors: A Nuanced Picture

State Actors

• Israel and Russia:
  • Responsible for ~90% of cross-border state violence targeting civilians.
• Myanmar military:
  • Accounted for ~33% of state violence against its own civilians.

Non-State Armed Groups

• Responsible for ~60% of civilian fatalities.
• Major perpetrators:
  • Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Sudan:
    • 4,200 civilians killed.
      
      
    • ~11% of all non-state group fatalities globally.
  • Allied Democratic Forces (ADF):
    • ≥1,370 civilian deaths.
  • M23 movement (DRC):
    • 1,100 civilian deaths.
      
      
• Numbers likely undercounted due to reporting gaps.

Technological Shift in Warfare

Weaponisation of Commercial Drones

• 469 non-state armed groups have used drones at least once in last five years.
• 14% increase over the previous year.
• Significance:
  • Democratisation of military technology.
  • Low-cost, high-impact tools bypass traditional state monopoly on force.
  • Raises challenges for:
    • Airspace control.
    • Counter-terrorism.
    • Civilian safety.

Broader Implications

International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

• Rising civilian targeting signals:
  • Weak enforcement of Geneva Conventions.
  • Normalisation of civilian harm.

Global Security

• Conflicts are:
  • More frequent.
  • More lethal.
  • More fragmented.
• Multi-actor conflicts harder to resolve diplomatically.

Humanitarian Impact

• Increased displacement.
• Food insecurity.
• Collapse of health and education systems in conflict zones.

India and Global Governance Lens

• Reinforces need for:
  • Stronger multilateral conflict prevention.
  • UN Security Council reform.
  • Regulation of emerging military technologies (drones, AI).
• Relevant for India’s role in:
  • UN peacekeeping.
  • Global South diplomacy.
  • Norm-building on warfare ethics.

---

Biosecurity in India: Risks, Preparedness, and the Need for a Unified Framework

---

Why is this in News?

• Renewed policy focus following expert commentary highlighting:
  • Gaps in India’s biosecurity preparedness.
  • Absence of a unified national biosecurity framework.
• Concerns amplified by:
  • Rapid advances in biotechnology.
  • Rising role of non-state actors.
  • India’s low response capacity score on the Global Health Security Index (GHSI) (Rank: 66).

Relevance

• GS II:
  • Governance, institutional coordination, national security architecture
• GS III:
  • Internal security, disaster management, science & technology
  • Health security, bioterrorism, dual-use technologies

What is Biosecurity?

• Biosecurity:
  • Set of practices, policies, and systems to prevent intentional misuse of:
    • Biological agents.
    • Toxins.
    • Biotechnology.
• Covers:
  • Laboratory security.
  • Surveillance and early detection.
  • Containment of deliberate outbreaks.
  • Protection of human, animal, and plant health.
• Biosecurity vs Biosafety:
  • Biosafety: Prevents accidental release of pathogens.
  • Biosecurity: Prevents deliberate misuse.
  • Strong biosafety protocols are a prerequisite for biosecurity.

Global Context: Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

• Adopted in 1975.
• First treaty to:
  • Prohibit development, production, stockpiling of biological weapons.
  • Mandate destruction of existing stockpiles.
• India:
  • A signatory to the BWC.
  • Participates in export-control regimes like the Australia Group.

Why Does India Need Robust Biosecurity?

Structural Vulnerabilities

• Geography:
  • Porous borders → cross-border bio-risks.
• Ecology:
  • Biodiversity-rich zones vulnerable to zoonotic spillovers.
• Demography:
  • High population density → rapid transmission potential.
• Economy:
  • Heavy dependence on agriculture and livestock.

Emerging Threat Landscape

• Non-state actors exploring biological tools:
  • Example: Alleged preparation of Ricin toxin for terror use.
• Rapid spread of new-age biotechnologies:
  • Gene editing.
  • Synthetic biology.
• Lower entry barriers:
  • Dual-use research increasingly accessible.

India’s Existing Biosecurity Architecture

Legal Framework

• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
  • Governs hazardous microorganisms and GMOs.
• Biosafety Rules, 1989
• 2017 Guidelines
  • Recombinant DNA research.
  • Biocontainment standards.
• WMD Act, 2005
  • Criminalises biological weapons and delivery systems.

Institutional Mechanisms

• Department of Biotechnology (DBT):
  • Research governance and lab safety.
• National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC):
  • Outbreak surveillance and response.
• Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying:
  • Livestock biosecurity, transboundary animal diseases.
• Plant Quarantine Organisation of India:
  • Agricultural import-export regulation.
• National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA):
  • Guidelines on biological disaster management.

Key Gaps in India’s Biosecurity System

Fragmentation

• Multiple agencies with overlapping mandates.
• Lack of:
  • Central coordination.
  • Unified command during bio-emergencies.

Capability Deficits

• GHSI Ranking: 66
  • Detection score: Improved.
  • Response capacity: Declined.
• Indicates:
  • Surveillance without commensurate response readiness.
  • Inadequate surge capacity.

Governance Gaps

• No dedicated National Biosecurity Policy or Authority.
• Limited integration of:
  • Health.
  • Agriculture.
  • Defence.
  • Internal security.

Risks Ahead if Gaps Persist

• High-impact, low-probability events:
  • Bioterror attacks.
  • Engineered pandemics.
• Massive human cost:
  • Lives of billions potentially at risk.
• Economic consequences:
  • Food security shocks.
  • Supply-chain disruptions.
• Strategic vulnerability:
  • Biosecurity as a national security issue, not just public health.

Way Forward: Building a National Biosecurity Framework

Core Elements Needed

• Unified National Biosecurity Strategy:
  • Clear roles and responsibilities.
• Central Coordinating Authority:
  • Inter-ministerial integration.
• Capability Mapping:
  • Identify lab, surveillance, response gaps.
• Regulation of Dual-Use Research:
  • Ethical oversight.
• Capacity Building:
  • Skilled workforce.
  • Rapid response units.
• International Cooperation:
  • Intelligence-sharing.
  • Norm-setting on emerging biotechnologies.

---

Amicus Suggestions on Disabled Cadets Similar to DMA’s 2022 Plan

---

Why is this in News?

• The Supreme Court, in a case concerning medically discharged officer cadets, received amicus curiae recommendations.
• The amicus suggested adopting provisions similar to the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) 2022 proposal.
• The issue highlights:
  • Disability rights in armed forces.
  • Gaps between policy intent and implementation.
  • Constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

Relevance

• GS II:
  • Welfare of armed forces, role of judiciary
  • Executive accountability and policy implementation
• GS I:
  • Disability issues, social justice

Who are Medically Discharged Cadets?

• Officer cadets discharged due to:
  • Injuries or disabilities attributable to or aggravated by military training.
• Many are released before commissioning, leading to:
  • Denial of pensions and post-service benefits.
  • Unequal treatment compared to commissioned officers.

Legal & Constitutional Background

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 14: Equality before law.
• Article 21: Right to life with dignity.
• Article 33: Permits restrictions on armed forces, but not arbitrary discrimination.

Statutory Framework

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act):
  • Recognises service-related disability.
  • Mandates non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation.
• Judicial trend:
  • Courts have repeatedly held that training-related injuries are service-related.

What Did the DMA Propose in 2022?

A comprehensive welfare package for disabled officer cadets, including:

• Statutory disability pension with parity:
  • Same benefits as commissioned officers.
• Broad-banding of disability percentage:
  • Prevents denial due to marginal assessment differences.
• Family pension provisions.
• Healthcare coverage:
  • Access to Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS).
• Rehabilitation support:
  • Prosthetics.
  • Physiotherapy.
  • Mental health care.
• Resettlement assistance:
  • Skill development and alternative employment.

Status:

• Proposal approved by Service Headquarters.
• Yet to be implemented by the government.

Amicus Curiae’s Key Suggestions

• Implement DMA 2022 plan in toto for disabled cadets.
• Extend statutory disability pension even if discharge occurs pre-commission.
• Apply broad-banding to ensure parity and fairness.
• Ensure continuity of medical and rehabilitation support.
• Avoid ad hoc, case-by-case relief; adopt a uniform policy.

Core Issues Highlighted

Arbitrary Classification

• Cadets injured:
  • Before commissioning → denied benefits.
  • After commissioning → eligible.
• Violates reasonable classification test under Article 14.

Gap Between Policy and Practice

• DMA framework exists.
• Non-implementation reflects:
  • Bureaucratic inertia.
  • Weak accountability mechanisms.

Dignity and Moral Obligation

• Cadets injured while preparing to serve the nation.
• Denial of support undermines:
  • State’s duty of care.
  • Military morale and ethical governance.

Broader Implications

Military Human Resource Management

• Discourages talented youth from joining armed forces.
• Weakens trust in institutional fairness.

Disability Rights Discourse

• Tests inclusivity within uniformed services.
• Aligns with India’s commitments under:
  • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

Civil-Military Relations

• Welfare of soldiers and cadets central to:
  • Democratic oversight.
  • Professional armed forces.

Way Forward

• Immediate implementation of DMA 2022 proposal.
• Statutory backing to avoid executive discretion.
• Time-bound decision-making in disability assessment.
• Independent medical boards with transparency.
• Harmonisation with RPwD Act, 2016.

---

GRAP-IV in Delhi–NCR

---

Why is this in News?

• On 13 December 2025, air quality in Delhi–NCR deteriorated to ‘Severe+’ levels.
• Daily average AQI crossed 450, prompting authorities to invoke GRAP-IV, the strictest stage of India’s air-pollution emergency framework.
• Decision taken by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) following an emergency meeting, citing:
  • Rising AQI trend.
  • Unfavourable meteorological conditions (low wind speed, temperature inversion).

Relevance 

• GS III (Environment & Disaster Management)
  • Air pollution and urban environmental challenges
  • Public health emergencies due to environmental degradation
  • Disaster management: response to severe air-quality events
  • Sustainable urban development

What is GRAP?

• GRAP – Graded Response Action Plan:
  • A pre-defined, stage-wise emergency response framework to tackle air pollution in Delhi–NCR.
• Approved by the Supreme Court in 2016 (MC Mehta case).
• Statutory backing:
  • Implemented and enforced by CAQM under the CAQM Act, 2021.
• Objective:
  • Move from ad-hoc bans → predictable, rule-based escalation of actions as pollution worsens.

GRAP Stages and AQI Thresholds

GRAP Stage	AQI Range	Air Quality Category
GRAP-I	201–300	Poor
GRAP-II	301–400	Very Poor
GRAP-III	401–450	Severe
GRAP-IV	>450	Severe+ / Hazardous

What is GRAP-IV?

• Emergency pollution control stage activated when:
  • AQI exceeds 450.
• Reflects conditions posing serious health risks, even to healthy individuals.
• Focus:
  • Immediate reduction of pollution sources, regardless of economic disruption.

Measures Enforced Under GRAP-IV

Transport Restrictions

• Ban on entry of BS-IV trucks into Delhi.
• Exceptions:
  • Vehicles carrying essential commodities.
  • Emergency services.

Construction and Infrastructure

• Complete ban on:
  • Construction and demolition (C&D) activities.
  • Highways, roads, flyovers, overbridges.
  • Power transmission, pipelines, telecom infrastructure.
• Rationale:
  • C&D dust is a major PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ contributor.

Educational Institutions

• Hybrid mode for:
  • Classes VI–IX and XI.
• Objective:
  • Reduce exposure of children to toxic air.
  • Lower transport-related emissions.

Offices and Workplaces

• 50% capacity rule for:
  • Public, municipal, and private offices.
• Remaining staff:
  • Work From Home (WFH).
• Aim:
  • Curtail vehicular movement and congestion.

Institutional Framework Behind GRAP

Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM)

• Statutory body (2021).
• Jurisdiction:
  • Delhi + NCR states (Haryana, UP, Rajasthan).
• Powers:
  • Issue binding directions.
  • Override State government actions if required.
• Addresses:
  • Fragmentation in air-quality governance.

Why Does Delhi–NCR Repeatedly Enter GRAP-IV?

Structural Causes

• Geography & meteorology:
  • Landlocked region.
  • Winter temperature inversion.
• Emission sources:
  • Vehicular emissions.
  • Construction dust.
  • Biomass and waste burning.
  • Industrial emissions.
• Seasonal factors:
  • Crop residue burning (October–November).
  • Low wind speeds in winter.

Critical Evaluation of GRAP-IV

Strengths

• Rule-based, predictable response.
• Judicial backing ensures compliance.
• Region-wide coordination via CAQM.
• Immediate health protection focus.

Limitations

• Reactive, not preventive:
  • Triggered after pollution becomes hazardous.
• High economic and social cost:
  • Construction halt.
  • Disrupted livelihoods.
• Weak enforcement at local levels.
• Does not address year-round emission sources.

GRAP-IV vs Long-Term Air Pollution Control

Aspect	GRAP-IV	Long-Term Measures
Nature	Emergency response	Structural reform
Time horizon	Short-term	Continuous
Focus	Source suppression	Emission reduction
Examples	Bans, WFH, closures	Clean energy, transport reform, urban planning

Way Forward 

Short-Term

• Better forecasting and early activation of lower GRAP stages.
• Strict enforcement of dust-control norms year-round.

Medium to Long-Term

• Shift from seasonal firefighting to:
  • Clean transport transition.
  • Industrial emission standards.
  • Waste management reforms.
• Strengthen airshed-based governance beyond NCR.
• Integrate GRAP with:
  • National Clean Air Programme (NCAP).
  • State-level clean air action plans.

---