Content :
- Sharp Rise in Number of Women Maoists Killed in Security Ops, Data Show
- Inflation Falls but Not Unemployment
- Rising Evaporative Demand Spotlights India’s Data and Research Gap
- SC Deprecates ‘Trend’ of Accused Reneging on Bail Payment Promises
- SC’s Three-Year Bar Experience Rule for Judge Exam Triggers Concern
- No Headway in India-ASEAN Trade Deal Review Despite 9 Meetings in Last One Year
Sharp rise in number of women Maoists killed in security ops, data show
Relevance: GS 3(Internal Security)
Trends in Casualties (2024–2025)
Sharp surge in total Maoist deaths:
- 2024: 217 killed (74 women)
- Till June 2025: 195 killed (82 women)
Proportion of women casualties increased:
- Over 1/3rd of Maoists killed in recent operations are women — a significant rise from previous years.
Contrast with past data (2019–2023):
- Fewer overall deaths; lower share of women (e.g., 2023: 20 deaths, only 5 women).
Reasons Behind High Women Presence
Coercion of tribal families:
- Faced with threats, Adivasi parents often part with girl children, who are then inducted into Maoist ranks.
Formation of Bal Dastas:
- Maoists recruit children, especially girls, indoctrinating them early.
Use of women as foot soldiers & human shields:
- Women often deployed in vulnerable roles, while leadership remains male-dominated.
Contradictions in Maoist Ideology
Discrepancy in gender rhetoric:
- Maoists claim to oppose patriarchy, but rarely promote women to leadership roles.
Manipulation of education:
- Maoists attack schools, fearing education will empower tribals and challenge their hold.
Government Response
- Increased operations post-MHA’s goal to end Maoism by March 2026.
- Focus on rehabilitation: Authorities encourage voluntary surrender, with gender-sensitive rehabilitation policies.
- Sensitivity to women’s plight: Officials acknowledge physical/emotional hardship faced by women in Maoist ranks.
Broader Issues
- State failure in tribal areas: Persistent poverty, lack of education, and insecurity make tribal women vulnerable.
- Need for balanced approach: Combining security action with development and social outreach is crucial.
Inflation falls but not unemployment
- Inflation fell sharply: From 3.2% in April to 2.8% in May 2025 — within RBI’s target.
- Unemployment rose simultaneously: From 5.1% in April to 5.8% in May, based on PLFS data.
- Key critique: Celebrating falling inflation while ignoring rising unemployment is economically myopic.
Relevance: GS 3(Indian Economy)
Growth and Employment Link
- GDP growth slowed: From 9.2% in 2023–24 to 6.5% in 2024–25.
- Broad-based deceleration: Most sectors saw slower growth except agriculture and public administration.
- Rising unemployment aligns with this growth slowdown, showing a structural concern.
Agriculture’s Role in Lowering Inflation
- Agricultural sector outpaced non-agricultural sectors in growth.
- This narrowed the supply-demand gap in food, sharply reducing food inflation:
- From ~11% in Oct 2024 to <1% in May 2025.
- Hence, real factors (supply-side) explain inflation reduction more than monetary tightening.
Limits of Monetary Policy
- Services sector slowdown can’t be attributed to interest rate hikes — it’s less credit-dependent.
- Monetary policy likely followed inflation trends rather than driving them.
Econometric Evidence
- Study shows no conclusive role of interest rates in curbing inflation in India.
- Agricultural price movements, linked to sectoral growth differences, are the dominant factor.
- Inflation targeting via demand suppression is ineffective when inflation is supply-side driven.
Expectations & Central Bank Credibility
- RBI’s claim of influencing inflation expectations is weak:
- Household inflation expectations remained high (above 4%) from Mar 2024 to May 2025.
- Hence, inflation decline cannot be due to expectation management.
Conclusion: Rethinking Macroeconomic Assessment
- Focusing solely on inflation ignores jobless growth and the economic distress it causes.
- A holistic macroeconomic evaluation must considered .
Rising evaporative demand spotlights India’s data and research gap
What is Evaporative Demand?
- A measure of how much water the atmosphere ‘wants’ to pull from land and vegetation.
- Depends on temperature, humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation.
- Increasing due to global warming, making the air “thirstier”.
Relevance: GS 3(Environment and Ecology)
Concept of ‘Thirstwave’
Coined by Kukal & Hobbins (2025):
- A thirstwave = ≥3 days of extreme evaporative demand.
- Found to be more frequent, intense, and longer over time.
- Different from heatwaves; includes moisture stress along with heat.
Agricultural Implications
- Even with adequate irrigation, crop water use now depends on atmospheric demand.
Higher evaporative demand leads to:
- Increased water loss
- Drier soils and crops
- Potential stress on food security and irrigation planning
Measurement Tool: Standardised Short-Crop Evapotranspiration
- Represents the water used by 12 cm high grass under ideal conditions.
- Simplifies complex evapotranspiration dynamics by assuming constant vegetation.
- Rising values reflect more intense weather parameters (heat, wind, radiation).
India’s Historical Data & Contradictions
- Earlier (pre-1997) studies (e.g., by Chattopadhyay & Hulme) found decreased evaporation, despite warming — due to high humidity.
- Future warming, however, expected to override humidity’s dampening effect, increasing evaporative demand.
Recent Indian Research
- Studies (e.g., IIT Roorkee 2022) noted:
- Increased evapotranspiration in North India, Western & Eastern Himalayas.
- Could indicate vegetation growth or agri-expansion.
- Yet, data on extreme thirstwaves in India is lacking.
Research and Policy Gaps
India lacks:
- Real-time data on evaporative demand extremes.
- Crop-wise sensitivity studies to thirstwaves.
- Policy frameworks to integrate thirstwave risk into agri-planning.
- Current efforts (e.g., by Kukal & Shailza Sharma) aim to fill this void for South Asia.
Global South Vulnerability
- Greater exposure and weaker resilience in countries like India.
- Worst thirstwaves may occur in unexpected regions — necessitating re-evaluation of climate adaptation strategies.
Way Forward
- Incorporate thirstwave tracking in IMD & agri advisories.
- Train farmers and water managers on new irrigation demands.
- Boost climate-resilient research funding, especially in Global South.
SC deprecates ‘trend’ of accused reneging on bail payment promises
Supreme Court’s Concern
- SC flagged a growing trend: Accused persons promise large payments to secure bail, especially in financial fraud and tax evasion cases — but later fail to honour the commitment.
- The practice is seen as a deliberate ploy to mislead courts and gain temporary liberty.
Relevance : GS 2(Social Justice, Judiciary)
Manipulation of Judicial Process
Accused later challenge bail conditions as:
- Onerous or illegal, or
- Claim lawyers made the offer without consent.
- Courts become victims of tactical misuse, undermining the sanctity of judicial orders.
Judicial Observations
- Justice Viswanathan: “We cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the court.”
- Courts must not permit misuse of voluntary undertakings used solely to secure bail.
Case in Focus
- Accused in ₹13 crore tax evasion case.
- Had secured bail by promising to pay ₹2.5 crore after partial payment.
- Failed to pay the promised sum → High Court cancelled bail.
- Moved Supreme Court against bail cancellation.
SC’s Balanced Approach
- Initially ordered the accused to surrender.
- Later, in view of familial responsibilities, recalled the surrender order, showing:
- Balance between Article 21 (Right to Liberty) and Integrity of the legal process.
Ethical and Legal Concerns
Raises questions on:
- Good faith in litigation,
- Abuse of anticipatory/regular bail procedures, and
- Role of counsel accountability in submitting financial offers.
- Calls for stricter scrutiny of bail conditions and their enforcement.
Implications for Judicial Reform
SC’s remarks could:
- Influence stricter guidelines on bail undertakings,
- Lead to penal consequences for non-compliance,
- Reinforce ethical standards in legal representations.
SC’s three-year Bar experience rule for judge exam triggers concern
What Did the Supreme Court Rule?
- On May 20, the SC reinstated the rule requiring a minimum of 3 years litigation experience before a candidate can take the judicial service examination for entry-level judges.
- Rationale: First-hand court experience is essential for judicial officers who deal with life, liberty, and property from Day 1.
Court’s Justification
- Book knowledge and pre-service training are not substitutes for real courtroom exposure.
- Learning by assisting seniors, observing judicial proceedings, and experiencing case flow is seen as indispensable.
Concerns and Criticisms Raised
- Hardship for recent law graduates (2023–25 batch) who prepared under the old eligibility criteria.
Review petitioners argue the change:
- Violates legitimate expectations
- Causes retrospective disadvantage
- Infringes Article 14 (Right to Equality)
Access and Certification Issues
- Practical hurdle: Candidates must get a practice certificate from a 10-year experienced lawyer.
- Many young lawyers (like petitioner Chandra Sharma) worked with seniors who don’t meet the 10-year threshold, adding bureaucratic difficulty.
Shetty Commission Debate
- SC cited the 1999 Shetty Commission, which recommended a 3-year rule.
- However, the same report also noted that modern legal education with practical training might negate the need for such a rule, if robust post-selection training is ensured.
Arguments for Reform and Phased Implementation
Petitioners suggest:
- Implement the 3-year rule from 2027 to avoid penalising current aspirants.
- Emphasize training post-selection rather than pre-entry restrictions.
Larger Questions Raised
- Should judicial recruitment focus more on experience or aptitude?
- Does the rule reduce access for talented freshers from marginalised or rural backgrounds?
- How to balance professional competence with inclusion and fairness in judicial recruitment?
No headway in India-ASEAN trade deal review despite 9 meetings in last one year
Background: ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA) Signed in 2009. India opened 71% of its tariff lines to ASEAN.
In contrast:
- Indonesia: 41%
- Vietnam: 66.5%
- Thailand: 67%
- This asymmetry in market access has become a key concern for India.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations),GS 3(Economy)
Trade Imbalance Concerns over 15 years:
- Exports to ASEAN doubled.
- But imports from ASEAN tripled.
- This growing trade deficit has fueled India’s demand for a review of the agreement.
Review Efforts and Deadlock
- Despite 9 meetings since Feb 2024, no tangible progress in the review.
- ASEAN seen as stonewalling reforms, resisting changes to existing terms.
China Angle: Rules of Origin Violation
- India has flagged indirect Chinese imports via ASEAN:
- ASEAN nations allegedly import cheap, subsidised Chinese raw materials, process them minimally, then re-export to India.
- Violates spirit of free trade and may amount to trade circumvention.
Strategic and Economic Implications
- Delay in review hurts Indian manufacturing and domestic industry competitiveness.
- Weak rules of origin enforcement undermines Atmanirbhar Bharat goals.
- India’s trade strategy faces a credibility test: balancing openness with protection.
Way Forward
India may need to:
- Push for stricter rules of origin and safeguard clauses.
- Explore bilateral tracks with key ASEAN nations.
- Use WTO-compatible tools to counter trade diversion.
