Current Affairs 25 August 2025

Content

1. The ASI is facing a credibility crisis
2. Indians least concerned about the global economy: PEW survey
3. How have deception techniques evolved?
4. 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill
5. ISRO holds air-drop test for Gaganyaan mission
6. Cryptocurrency: unlocking the digital vaults
7. Is India underestimating the cost of dealing with invasive species?
8. Integrated Air Defence Weapon System (IADWS)
9. India and the world in dairy
10. Arctic sea ice melting has slowed, but here is why this isn’t ‘good news’

The ASI is facing a credibility crisis

Basics: What is ASI?

• Archaeological Survey of India (ASI): Premier national body under the Ministry of Culture, responsible for archaeological research, excavation, and conservation of monuments in India.
• Mandate:
  • Excavation of ancient sites.
  • Preservation of monuments.
  • Publication of findings.
  • Guiding India’s official archaeological narrative.

Relevance : GS 1(Culture , Heritage)

The Keeladi Excavation

• Location: Near Madurai, Tamil Nadu (Vaigai river valley).
• Started: 2014.
• Findings:
  • Around 7,500 artefacts uncovered in initial phases.
  • Evidence of urban, literate, secular society.
  • Bridged gap between Iron Age (12th–6th BCE) and Early Historic Period (6th–4th BCE).
  • Suggested part of the second urbanisation of India (6th–2nd BCE).
• Significance: Challenges the North-centric narrative of early Indian urbanisation → highlights ancient Tamil civilisation’s sophistication.
• Scholars began calling it the “Vaigai Valley Civilisation”.

The Controversy

• 2017: Lead archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna was abruptly transferred to Assam → perceived as an attempt to downplay findings.
• ASI halted excavation, claiming “no significant findings”.
• Sparked a political conflict between Tamil Nadu government and the Union government.
• Madras High Court intervened → excavation handed to Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology.
• State-led excavations (2018 onwards) → over 18,000 artefacts unearthed.

Scientific Dispute

• 2023 Report by Ramakrishna: Substantiated early findings with
  • Stratigraphic sequencing.
  • Material culture analysis.
  • Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dating → confirming antiquity of artefacts.
• ASI Response: Asked for “revision” of report → accused of political interference.
• Issue highlights politics within archaeological practice and credibility crisis of ASI.

Broader Pattern of ASI’s Conduct

a) Tamil Nadu Sites

• Adichanallur (Thoothukudi):
  • Excavated 1900s, revived in 2004 by ASI.
  • Iron Age artefacts (3,000+ years old).
  • Findings delayed for 15 years, published only after court intervention.
• Sivagalai (Thoothukudi): Similar neglect in publishing findings.

b) Rajasthan Site (Bahaj Village):

• Unearthed 23m-deep paleochannel → linked by ASI to mythical Saraswati River.
• Report claimed links to “Mahabharata period”.
• Example of mytho-historical narrative embraced without rigorous scientific basis.

Key Criticisms of ASI

Institutional Problems:

• Arbitrary transfers & politicisation (e.g., Keeladi case).
• Delayed publication of findings.
• Reliance on outdated Wheeler method (grid system excavation).
• Lack of comprehensive research design.
• Closed internal review system – most findings stay in internal reports, not peer-reviewed journals.

Academic Critiques:

• Ashish Avikunthak (2021): Bureaucratic hurdles, poor infrastructure, stifled research environment.
• Supriya Verma & Jaya Menon (2003): Ayodhya excavation lacked scientific rigour.
• Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Jürgen Neuß: ASI stuck in outdated methodologies, fails in holistic interpretation.

Contrast with Global Practices:

• Institutions in Germany (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut), France (INRAP), Japan (Agency for Cultural Affairs):
  • Publish findings in international journals.
  • Ensure transparency, accountability, and global engagement.

Conceptual Issue: Methodological Nationalism

• ASI accused of projecting a state-sanctioned, singular narrative of India’s past.
• Characteristics:
  • Privileging certain histories (civilisational unity, monolithic antiquity).
  • Teleological interpretations (presenting history as linear progress towards modern Indian nationhood).
  • Suppressing alternative regional narratives (e.g., Tamil civilisation).

Implications

• Academic: Loss of credibility in global scholarly community.
• Political: Fuels regional vs central tensions (Tamil Nadu vs Union government).
• Cultural: Undermines India’s diverse historical past → promotes homogenised narratives.
• Institutional: ASI faces crisis of legitimacy as an objective scientific body.

Way Forward

• Institutional Reform:
  • Greater autonomy from political interference.
  • Transparent review & publication system.
  • Adoption of modern excavation techniques (remote sensing, digital stratigraphy).
• Decentralisation: Empower state archaeological departments to conduct excavations independently.
• Global Engagement: Publish in peer-reviewed international journals.
• Plural Histories: Recognise India’s regional diversities & multiple civilisational strands, not just a monolithic past.
• Capacity Building: Better training, funding, and infrastructure for archaeologists.

Indians least concerned about the global economy: PEW survey

What is the Pew Research Center Survey?

• Independent US-based think tank → conducts opinion surveys globally on politics, society, and international issues.
• 2025 Survey details:
  • Conducted March 24–30, 2025.
  • Covered 25 countries (including India).
  • Compared with past surveys (2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022).
  • Focused on five perceived global threats:
    • Spread of false online information.
    • Global economy.
    • Climate change.
    • Terrorism.
    • Infectious diseases.

Relevance : GS 3(Indian Economy)

Global Findings (Across 25 Countries)

• False information online:
  • Median 72% → major threat.
  • Seen as No. 1 threat in 7 countries (Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, U.K., U.S., South Korea).
• Global economy:
  • Median 70% → major threat.
  • For first time since 2017, ranked above climate change.
  • Driven by concerns over slowing growth, U.S. tariffs, and ongoing wars.
• Climate change:
  • Median 67% → major threat.
  • Ideological divide → Left more concerned than Right.
  • No country ranked it as top single threat.
• Terrorism:
  • Median 69% → major threat.
  • Higher concern in middle-income countries (79%) vs high-income countries (60%).
  • More concern among older, less educated, and right-leaning populations.
• Infectious diseases:
  • Significant concern in Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico (ranked top threat).

India-Specific Findings

• Terrorism:
  • 79% Indians → major threat.
  • Among the highest shares globally.
  • Similar to Israel, Nigeria, Turkey.
• False online information:
  • Close to 70% Indians saw it as a threat → similar to global median.
• Infectious diseases:
  • Nearly 70% Indians saw it as a threat.
• Global economy:
  • Only 49% Indians → major threat (among the lowest globally).
• Climate change:
  • Only 55% Indians → major threat (again among the lowest shares globally).

Contrasts with Advanced Economies (9 Countries)

• Advanced economies (U.S., U.K., Japan, Germany, etc.):
  • More concerned about false online information & economy.
  • Climate change concern stronger among left-leaning populations.
• India:
  • More concerned about terrorism & infectious diseases than economy/climate.
  • Reflects security-focused public psyche vs eco-climate anxieties in developed nations.

Reasons for India’s Unique Response

• High terrorism concern:
  • Legacy of cross-border terrorism (Pakistan, Afghanistan spillover).
  • Domestic insurgencies (Kashmir, Naxal-affected regions).
  • Media amplification of security threats.
• Lower climate change concern:
  • Climate change seen as long-term/global issue, less immediate.
  • Developmental priorities (jobs, poverty, growth) dominate public perception.
  • Awareness gap despite frequent heatwaves, floods, air pollution crises.
• Lower economy concern:
  • India’s relatively high growth rate (7%+ in recent years) compared to slowing global economies.
  • Strong government narrative on resilience of Indian economy may reduce perceived risk.
• False information concern:
  • Reflects India’s high social media penetration and rise of misinformation in elections, communal tensions.

Implications of Survey Results

For India:

• Public opinion shaped more by immediate security threats than long-term structural challenges.
• Possible policy-populism gap: Govt needs strong climate & economy focus, even if people under-prioritise them.
• Rising misinformation threat → need for digital literacy, stronger regulation of online platforms.

For Global Governance:

• False information becoming the new universal threat → undermines democracy, trust, and global cooperation.
• Economic anxieties outweighing climate concerns could weaken global climate commitments (e.g., COP negotiations).
• Divergent threat perceptions between rich and middle-income countries complicate multilateral policy alignment.

Way Forward for India

• National security: Continue strengthening counter-terrorism measures.
• Climate change: Improve public awareness linking local disasters (floods, heatwaves) to climate change.
• Economy: Enhance resilience amid global shocks, communicate real risks better.
• Digital governance: Invest in fact-checking, AI moderation, cyber laws.
• Health security: Strengthen pandemic preparedness, integrate infectious disease monitoring.

How have deception techniques evolved?

Basics of Decoys in Warfare

• Definition: Deliberate use of fake signatures, objects, or signals to mislead enemy sensors, targeting systems, or decision-making.
• Traditional role: Camouflage, dummy equipment, false troop movements (e.g., WWII inflatable tanks).
• Modern transformation:
  • Digital-era electronic spoofing.
  • Multispectral deception (radar, thermal, acoustic, infrared).
  • AI-enabled decoys.
• Strategic purpose:
  • Confuse/saturate enemy targeting systems.
  • Waste enemy munitions.
  • Protect high-value assets (fighters, ships, tanks).
  • Provide time for counter-manoeuvre or retaliation.

Relevance : GS 3(Internal Security , Defence)

India’s Deployment of Decoys

Air Force: Fibre-Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD) – X-Guard

• Context: Used during Operation Sindoor by IAF Rafales.
• Function:
  • Trailed ~100m behind aircraft.
  • Mimics Radar Cross-Section (RCS), Doppler velocity, and spectral signature.
  • Integrated with Rafale’s SPECTRA EW suite.
  • Generates 360° jamming signals.
• Impact:
  • PAF J-10C fighters misidentified decoys as real Rafales.
  • Wasted PL-15E beyond-visual-range missiles.
  • Possibly led PAF to wrongly claim shootdowns.
• Significance:
  • First known operational Indian use of AI-enabled aerial decoys.
  • India seeking emergency procurement of more units.

Comparable Global Systems

• Leonardo’s BriteCloud (Eurofighter, Gripen-E, F-16).
• Raytheon/BAE’s AN/ALE-50/55 (F/A-18).
• Adaptations possible for UAVs (Heron, MQ-9 Reaper).

Navy: Torpedo and Missile Decoys

• INS Karanj (Scorpene-class submarine):
  • Equipped with state-of-the-art torpedo decoy system.
  • Creates misleading acoustic signatures to divert incoming torpedoes.
• Surface warships:
  • Use floating chaff, acoustic decoys, offboard active deception systems.
  • Comparable to Nulka decoy (Australia-U.S.) → mimics radar signature of larger ship, diverts anti-ship missiles.

Army: Land-Based Decoys

• Current use: Inflatable, radar-reflective, and heat-emitting dummies (tanks, artillery, missile batteries, command posts).
• 2025 RFI (Request for Information):
  • For decoys replicating T-90S/SK tanks.
  • Must mimic dimensions, thermal, and acoustic signatures.
  • Aimed at confusing enemy drones, loitering munitions, precision-guided missiles.
• Comparisons:
  • Russia’s Inflatech → simulates entire armoured brigades.
  • Ukraine’s wooden/3D-printed fakes → drain Russian missile stocks.
  • U.S. decoy vehicles tested against Javelin ATGMs.
  • China → extensive investment in camouflage & deception.

How the X-Guard FOTD Works (Mechanics)

• Weight: ~30 kg, retractable, reusable.
• Functions:
  • Projects false RCS & velocity → radar thinks it’s a real aircraft.
  • Replicates onboard ECM signals of Rafale.
  • Creates a convincing phantom aircraft for human operators & AI targeting systems.
  • Integration with SPECTRA EW suite:
    • SPECTRA detects threats, manages jamming.
    • X-Guard acts as an expendable decoy shield.

Importance of Decoys in Modern Warfare

• Asymmetric advantage:
  • Decoys cost a fraction of real platforms.
  • Force enemy to expend expensive munitions.
• Multi-domain necessity:
  • Air: Protects 4th/5th gen fighters against advanced radar-guided missiles.
  • Land: Protects tanks/artillery against drones, PGMs, ATGMs.
  • Sea: Protects ships/submarines against anti-ship missiles, torpedoes.
• Future trajectory:
  • AI-enhanced autonomous decoys.
  • Networked deception swarms (air & sea drones).
  • Greater role in countering drone/loitering munition saturation.

Strategic Implications for India

• Operational: Enhances survivability of high-value platforms (Rafales, Scorpenes, T-90s).
• Economic: Low-cost, high-return investment.
• Psychological: Creates fog of war, undermines enemy confidence.
• Defensive posture: Especially critical against Pakistan’s and China’s advanced missile/drone arsenals.
• Industrial opportunity: Scope for domestic R&D in decoys under Atmanirbhar Bharat.

Global Lessons for India

• From Ukraine: Low-cost decoys can exhaust superior adversaries.
• From U.S./Australia: Offboard, independent decoys (like Nulka) vital for naval survival.
• From Russia/China: Mass deployment of fake formations creates operational paralysis for enemies.

Conclusion

• Decoys have moved from supplementary camouflage to a strategic asset equal to firepower.
• India’s adoption of X-Guard, torpedo decoys, and land-based fakes indicates recognition of this trend.
• The future battlefield will likely see AI-enabled swarms of decoys operating alongside real systems, blurring the line between illusion and reality.

130th Constitutional Amendment Bill

Context of Criminalisation of Politics

• Definition: Entry and participation of individuals with criminal background in legislative and executive positions.
• Magnitude (ADR Data):
  • 46% of sitting MPs and 45% of MLAs face criminal cases.
  • Candidates with criminal records have 15.4% chance of winning vs 4.4% for clean candidates.
• Consequences:
  • Weakens democracy, undermines rule of law.
  • Promotes muscle-power & money-power in elections.
  • Public distrust in political institutions.

Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Constitution )

Existing Legal Framework

• Representation of the People Act (RP Act), 1951:
  • Section 8: Disqualification on conviction if sentence ≥ 2 years.
  • Applies for entire sentence duration + 6 years post-release.
• Section 8(4): Earlier allowed MPs/MLAs to continue in office if appeal was filed → struck down in Lily Thomas (2013) case.
• Current gap: Law disqualifies MPs/MLAs from being legislators, but no explicit provision for disqualification from being a minister (PM/CM or cabinet).

What does the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill propose?

• Amendments: To Articles 75, 164, and 239AA (Union Council of Ministers, State Council of Ministers, and NCT of Delhi).
• Key provisions:
  • If a Minister is arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days in connection with an offence punishable with ≥ 5 years imprisonment, they must be removed.
  • Process:
    • Removal based on advice of PM/CM.
    • If no advice is given, automatic cessation from office on 31st day.
  • PM/CM themselves: Must resign on 31st day if detained ≥ 30 days.
  • Once released, they can be re-appointed.
• Extension: Similar provisions proposed for J&K and Puducherry.
• Procedure: Needs 2/3rd majority in both Houses (since constitutional amendment).

Rationale Behind the Bill

• Address criminalisation of politics by ensuring that individuals facing serious criminal charges do not hold executive authority.
• Prevent misuse of executive power by tainted ministers during investigation/trial.
• Bring executive disqualification in line with legislative disqualification norms under RP Act.

Issues and Criticisms

1. Undermines Parliamentary Democracy:
   1. PM/CM should have freedom to choose their council of ministers (basic feature of Constitution).
   1. External restriction weakens this discretion.
2. Police Action Before Trial:
   1. Even without conviction, mere arrest + detention for 30 days leads to removal.
   1. Violates principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.
3. Scope for Misuse:
   1. Governments may misuse police machinery to arrest opposition ministers.
   1. Particularly dangerous in Centre–State conflicts (e.g., opposition-ruled states).
4. Temporary Nature:
   1. Ministers can be reappointed after release → little real deterrent effect.
5. Focus on Effect, Not Cause:
   1. Bill addresses ministers already in office, not selection of candidates.
   1. Real issue: Political parties nominating tainted individuals in the first place.

Alternatives and Reforms Needed

• Election Commission’s 2016 Recommendation:
  • Bar candidates from contesting elections once charges are framed by a competent court for offences punishable ≥ 5 years.
• Judicial Oversight: Safeguards against frivolous cases (screening by independent judicial body before disqualification).
• Political Party Responsibility:
  • Stop giving tickets to candidates with criminal background.
  • Supreme Court (2018, 2020 judgments): Parties must publicly justify selection of candidates with criminal cases.
• Voter Awareness: Strengthening disclosure norms under affidavits (Form-26).
• Fast-Track Courts: To decide cases against MPs/MLAs quickly → prevent prolonged uncertainty.

Strategic Implications

• Positive:
  • Symbolic move against corruption & criminalisation.
  • May enhance executive accountability.
• Negative:
  • Weakens federalism, creates potential for political vendetta.
  • Risks destabilisation of governments through misuse of arrests.

Conclusion

• The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill reflects India’s attempt to tackle criminalisation of politics, but it risks constitutional overreach and misuse.
• True reform lies in preventing criminal candidates from entering politics, not only in removing them after being elected/appointed.
• A balanced approach requires:
  • Judicial safeguards,
  • Political party self-discipline,
  • Electoral reforms (pre-screening of candidates),
  • Strengthening institutional mechanisms like ECI and judiciary.

ISRO holds air-drop test for Gaganyaan mission

 Gaganyaan Mission

• Objective: India’s maiden human spaceflight mission.
• Timeline: Targeted for execution in coming years (preparatory missions ongoing).
• Goal: To send a 3-member crew to low-Earth orbit (LEO) (~400 km altitude) for 3 days and bring them back safely.
• Agencies involved: ISRO (lead), Indian Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, DRDO.

Relevance : GS 3(Space)

What is the IADT (Integrated Air Drop Test)?

• Purpose: End-to-end demonstration of parachute-based deceleration system for crew module recovery.
• Why important: Safe descent and splashdown are critical risk phases in human spaceflight.
• Process:
  • A dummy crew capsule (~5 tonnes) was lifted by an Indian Air Force Chinook helicopter.
  • Capsule released mid-air → descended from a few km altitude.
  • Drogue parachutes deployed first to stabilise → followed by sequential deployment of main parachutes.
  • Parachutes slowed capsule for safe splashdown speed.

Critical Systems Involved

• Crew Module (CM): Houses astronauts. Requires controlled descent and recovery.
• Parachute Recovery System: Designed for redundancy (multiple parachutes to ensure safe deceleration).
• Crew Escape System (CES): 5 types of solid motors tested; ensures astronauts can escape in case of launch failure.
• Environmental Control & Life Support System (ECLSS): Provides oxygen, pressure, and climate control inside capsule.

Significance of IADT-1

• Validation step: Proves reliability of parachute-based deceleration and recovery system in near-real conditions.
• Human-rating of systems: Essential before flying astronauts. Ensures safety compliance.
• Cross-agency coordination: Demonstrates synergy between ISRO, IAF, DRDO, Navy, Coast Guard for recovery operations.
• Infrastructure readiness: Facilities like crew training centres, control centres, and modified launch pads already established.

Why Recovery Phase is High Risk

• Atmospheric re-entry: Capsule faces extreme heat, requiring robust heat shields.
• Descent dynamics: High velocity (~7–8 km/s in orbital return) must be reduced drastically.
• Splashdown precision: Capsule must land safely at pre-identified zones in sea for Navy recovery.
• Human safety: Even minor failure in parachutes/ECLSS can risk astronaut lives.

Preparatory Steps Before Human Flight

• Unmanned Test Missions:
  • Test vehicle flights (abort & escape systems).
  • Pad Abort Tests (crew escape reliability).
• IADT series: More tests to validate parachute deployments at different conditions.
• Orbital Module Preparation Facility: Readying crew and service modules.
• Crew training: Indian astronauts undergoing training in Russia + advanced training in Bengaluru.

Strategic Significance

• India’s entry into human spaceflight club: After USA, Russia, and China.
• Boost for indigenous aerospace tech: Parachutes, life-support, CES—all indigenously developed.
• Spinoffs: Enhanced capabilities in re-entry vehicles, space tourism, future lunar missions.
• National prestige & soft power: Strengthens India’s standing as a space power.

Cryptocurrency: unlocking the digital vaults

What is Cryptocurrency?

• Etymology: Derived from Greek word “kryptos” = hidden/secret.
• Definition: Digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography for security.
• Nature:
  • Not physical (can’t be touched/seen).
  • Stored in virtual wallets (software or hardware).
  • Not controlled by RBI, SEBI, or Govt. of India – fully decentralised.
• Medium: Works on decentralised computer networks (nodes).
• Transactions: Peer-to-peer (P2P), no banks/intermediaries required.
• Example: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, etc.

Relevance : GS 3(Economy – Currencies)

How is it Different from Traditional Money?

• Traditional Currency:
  • Regulated by central banks (RBI, Federal Reserve).
  • Physical + digital form.
  • Requires intermediaries (banks, payment gateways).
  • Transactions can be altered/reversed.
• Cryptocurrency:
  • Decentralised, no central regulator.
  • Purely digital, secured by cryptography.
  • Transactions are irreversible and recorded permanently.
  • Runs on blockchain technology.

What is Blockchain? (The Backbone of Crypto)

• Definition: A decentralised, digital, distributed ledger storing all transaction history of a cryptocurrency.
• Analogy:
  • Like a global accountant’s notebook + Google Sheet shared with everyone.
  • Every page = a block.
  • Once a block is filled, it is time-stamped, sealed, and linked to the next via a hash (unique code).
  • Together, they form a chain of blocks = blockchain.

Key Features of Blockchain

• Transparency: Anyone can view transactions.
• Immutability: No one can delete/alter past records.
• Security: Encrypted and verified by multiple nodes.
• Decentralisation: No central authority.
• Trustless System: Transactions validated by code, not institutions.

How Do Transactions Work?

1. Initiation: Ram sends a crypto coin to Shyam.
2. Bundling: This transaction + previous ones grouped into a block.
3. Validation: Nodes verify authenticity using cryptography.
4. Linking: Once block is full → sealed with hash → linked to previous block.
5. Updating: Blockchain updated across all nodes instantly.
6. Example analogy: Shared Google Sheet where everyone can see entries, add new ones, but no one can delete past data.

Why Do People Invest in Crypto?

• High returns: Potentially exponential growth (e.g., Bitcoin rise since 2009).
• Borderless: Works across countries, independent of banks.
• Transparency & security: Immutable records.
• Diversification: Alternative asset class beyond stocks, gold, real estate.
• Utility: Used for payments, smart contracts (Ethereum), NFTs, DeFi.

Risks and Challenges

• Volatility: Prices fluctuate wildly (e.g., Bitcoin crashed >70% in 2022).
• Regulatory uncertainty: India, US, EU still evolving laws.
• Security threats: Hacks, scams, phishing, wallet theft.
• No consumer protection: Unlike banks, no recourse for fraud/loss.
• Speculative nature: Without knowledge, investment = gambling.

India and Cryptocurrency

• Adoption: Millions of Indians hold crypto assets.
• Payments: Some firms accept crypto payments globally.
• Regulation:
  • Not legal tender in India.
  • 30% tax on crypto gains (since Union Budget 2022).
  • 1% TDS on transactions.
• Future: India exploring CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) as regulated alternative.

Why Blockchain is Revolutionary (Beyond Crypto)

• Applications:
  • Banking & finance (faster, transparent settlements).
  • Supply chains (track authenticity).
  • Healthcare (secure patient records).
  • Governance (land records, e-voting).
  • NFTs & Metaverse (digital ownership).

Is India underestimating the cost of dealing with invasive species?

Basics: What are Invasive Alien Species (IAS)?

• Definition: Non-native plants, animals, or microbes introduced (intentionally/unintentionally) into a new ecosystem where they outcompete native species.
• Pathways of spread:
  • Global trade (timber, crops, live animals, plants).
  • Shipping (ballast water, hull fouling).
  • Travel and tourism.
  • Agriculture, aquaculture, ornamental trade.
• Examples in India: Lantana camara, Prosopis juliflora, Parthenium hysterophorus (Congress grass), African catfish, Golden apple snail.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

Key Findings of the New Study (Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2025)

• Global economic cost: Over $2.2 trillion (1960–2022).
• Underestimation: Actual costs may be 16 times higher than earlier reported.
• Regional costs:
  • Europe: $1.5 trillion (71.4% of global costs).
  • North America: $226 billion.
  • Asia: $182 billion.
  • Africa: $127 billion.
  • Australia & Oceania: $27 billion.
• India:
  • No exact absolute cost estimated.
  • Highest discrepancy in reporting: 1.16 billion % difference in recorded vs. real management expenditure (suggesting hidden/unreported costs).
• Global median discrepancy: 3,241%.
  • Europe: 15,044%.
  • Asia (excl. India): 3,090%.
  • Africa: 1,944%.

Who are the Major Invaders?

• Plants: Largest economic impact, $926.38 billion (1960–2022).
  • Example: Lantana camara (covers Bandipur NP, highly combustible).
  • Example: Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) – costly per sq. km.
• Arthropods (insects, spiders, etc.): $830.29 billion.
• Mammals: $263.35 billion.

Impact of Invasive Species

1. Economic
   1. Crop yield loss.
   1. Forestry destruction.
   1. Increased fire hazards (lantana).
   1. Higher management/control costs.
2. Ecological
   1. Displacement of native species.
   1. Alteration of soil chemistry and water cycles.
   1. Spread of diseases.
   1. Reduced biodiversity and ecosystem resilience.
3. Social
   1. Threats to food security.
   1. Human health impacts (e.g., allergies from Parthenium).
   1. Higher burden on resource-constrained economies (India, Africa).

Why Underreporting in India?

• Lack of centralised data systems.
• Poor inter-agency coordination (forest, agriculture, fisheries, environment departments).
• Limited funding for monitoring & control.
• Reports in local/regional languages often excluded from global databases (InvaCost bias).
• Competing conservation priorities (e.g., tiger reserves, afforestation drive).

Policy and Management Strategies

• Global treaties:
  • Ballast Water Management Convention – prevent spread via shipping.
  • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) – parties (including India) must prevent, control, or eradicate invasive species.
• Response strategies:
  • Prevention of introduction (quarantine, stricter import checks).
  • Eradication (if caught early).
  • Control & suppression (mechanical removal, biocontrol agents).
  • Slow spread management (buffer zones, awareness).
• Challenge: Complete eradication often impractical, since many agricultural crops themselves are non-native.

India-Specific Issues

• High invasion intensity in forests, wetlands, and agricultural landscapes.
• Examples:
  • Parthenium in farmlands.
  • Prosopis juliflora degrading grasslands.
  • Eichhornia crassipes (Water hyacinth) choking wetlands.
• Costs: Hidden/unrecorded, but among the highest globally.
• Need: Centralised national invasive species database, scientific monitoring, integration of invasion control in policies like National Biodiversity Action Plan.

Big Picture Analysis

• Dual challenge:
  • Mitigating economic losses & ecological damage.
  • Reconciling with globalisation and trade, which accelerates invasions.
• Climate change: Increases invasibility of ecosystems, aiding spread of alien species.
• Way forward for India:
  • National-level invasive species action plan.
  • Stronger quarantine laws at ports.
  • Integration with agriculture and forest policies.
  • Regional cooperation (since invasions cross political borders).

Integrated Air Defence Weapon System (IADWS)

Basics

• Air Defence Systems (ADS):
  • Designed to detect, track, intercept, and destroy hostile aerial threats (aircraft, UAVs, missiles).
  • Can be short-range, medium-range, or long-range.
  • In modern warfare, integrated systems combine radars, missiles, guns, lasers, and electronic warfare tools.
• Integrated Air Defence Weapon System (IADWS):
  • A multi-layered defence shield being developed by DRDO.
  • Successfully completed maiden flight tests off Odisha coast (Aug 24, 2025).
  • Part of Mission Sudarshan Chakra (announced by PM Modi on Independence Day 2025).
  • Target year: 2035 for full operationalisation.

Relevance : GS 3(Internal Security , Defence , Science and Technology)

Components of IADWS

• Quick Reaction Surface-to-Air Missiles (QRSAM):
  • Short-to-medium range missile.
  • Mobile, can engage multiple aerial targets quickly.
• Advanced Very Short Range Air Defence System (VSHORADS):
  • Portable, shoulder-fired or tripod-based.
  • Effective against low-flying aircraft, UAVs, helicopters.
• Directed Energy Weapons (DEW):
  • High-power lasers.
  • Future-oriented technology for soft kill (jamming, blinding) and hard kill (destroying drones, missiles).
• Surveillance & Cybersecurity Integration:
  • Combines radar-based tracking with networked surveillance & cyber defence systems.
  • Aimed at intercepting threats across domains (air, cyber, electronic).

Strategic Context

• Why Needed?
  • Rising threats from long-range missiles, drones, UAV swarms, stealth aircraft, and cyber warfare.
  • China and Pakistan both developing advanced missile systems and UAV capabilities.
  • India’s critical installations (nuclear plants, command centres, metro cities, defence bases) require a layered security shield.
• Global Comparison:
  • Similar systems:
    • US: Patriot & THAAD.
    • Russia: S-400, S-500.
    • Israel: Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow.
  • India is moving towards self-reliant, indigenised solutions instead of heavy dependence on imports.

Significance for India

1. National Security
   1. Will provide multi-layered protection at borders and critical infrastructure.
   1. Better defence against Pakistan’s Nasr missiles and China’s cruise/hypersonic threats.
2. Strategic Autonomy (Atmanirbhar Bharat)
   1. Reduces reliance on foreign systems like Russian S-400.
   1. Boosts India’s indigenous defence R&D and defence exports.
3. Technological Leap
   1. Integration of cyber, laser weapons, AI-based tracking marks entry into futuristic warfare.
   1. Enables network-centric warfare capability.
4. Private Sector Participation
   1. Defence organisations + private companies will jointly develop system.
   1. Encourages growth of Indian defence-industrial ecosystem.

Challenges

• Technology complexity: Directed energy weapons and multi-layered integration are highly advanced fields.
• Costs: Extremely high financial burden; long-term sustained funding required.
• Timelines: Target year 2035 may face delays (common in defence projects).
• Adversary countermeasures: China/Pakistan may develop decoys, electronic countermeasures, or hypersonic glide vehicles.

Big Picture

• The IADWS is a strategic leap towards building a robust, indigenous, multi-layered air defence system.
• Complements India’s existing S-400 system (Russian import), Akash, and other missile defence layers.
• Strengthens deterrence posture, providing credible defensive depth against modern aerial threats.
• Aligns with Atmanirbhar Bharat and India’s ambition to become a global defence exporter.

India and the world in dairy

Basics

• India’s Dairy Sector
  • India is the world’s largest milk producer (~22% of global output).
  • Milk = key contributor to rural income and nutrition.
  • Dairy in India is largely smallholder-driven, unlike large mechanised farms in the US/EU.
  • Cooperatives (like Amul/GCMMF) play a major role in procurement, processing, and marketing.
• Global Dairy Trade
  • Major exporters: US, EU, New Zealand, Australia.
  • Major importers: China, Southeast Asia, Middle East.
  • India is mostly self-sufficient; exports are limited.
  • Pressure from WTO & bilateral trade deals (esp. US) to open Indian market to global dairy products.

Relevance : GS 3(Agriculture , Dairy Farming)

Price Competitiveness

• Comparison with US:
  • Example: Corn (feed input) – US farmers get maize at ₹15.4/kg vs ₹22–23/kg in India → lowers US dairy input cost.
  • But India’s farm-gate milk price (~₹34/litre for cow milk in Maharashtra) is comparable or lower than US.
• Reason:
  • Unpaid family labour in India → keeps costs artificially low.
  • India’s low-cost model relies on labour intensity, not productivity.

Efficiency & Value Chain

• Price Transmission:
  • In Gujarat, farmers get 45–46 per litre for cow milk (3.5% fat, 8.5% SNF) vs ₹34–35 private dairies pay.
  • Farmers share 55–57% of consumer rupee – higher than US (35%).
  • Cooperatives compress the value chain → better margins for farmers.
• Processing Efficiency:
  • Cooperatives like Amul add value through butter, cheese, ghee, etc.
  • Procurement, transport, marketing more integrated in India → efficiency in converting farm milk to retail.

Challenges

1. Sustainability of Low-Cost Advantage
   1. Based on cheap/unpaid labour, not productivity gains.
   1. As rural wages rise & alternative employment grows, labour-based competitiveness may weaken.
2. Input Constraints
   1. Scarcity of high-quality fodder.
   1. Small, unviable herd sizes → limited economies of scale.
   1. Labour-intensive milking (manual), unlike automation in US/NZ.
3. Global Competition
   1. Countries like New Zealand have abundant pastures → cost-effective, grass-fed milk.
   1. US/EU → high mechanisation, selective breeding, advanced fodder genetics → higher yields.
4. Climate & Resource Stress
   1. Dairying in India is water-intensive (fodder, cattle rearing).
   1. Climate change may impact feed availability & productivity.

Big Picture: India’s Position

• Strengths:
  • World’s largest producer, self-sufficiency.
  • Strong cooperative model (Amul success story).
  • High farmer share of consumer rupee.
• Weaknesses:
  • Cost competitiveness based on low wages, not efficiency.
  • Productivity per animal much lower than global standards (India’s ~1,800 litres/year vs US/NZ >10,000 litres/year).
  • Poor fodder base & fragmented production.
• Opportunities:
  • Genetic improvement (cross-breeding, selective breeding).
  • Mechanisation & automation (milking machines, feed technology).
  • Fodder innovation (high-yield fodder, hydroponics).
  • Dairy exports (value-added products like ghee, paneer, casein).
• Threats:
  • Trade liberalisation → cheap US/NZ dairy may undercut Indian farmers.
  • Rising labour costs → erode low-cost advantage.
  • Climate change & resource pressure.

Arctic sea ice melting has slowed, but here is why this isn’t ‘good news’

Context :

• Arctic Sea Ice
  • Floating ice formed from seawater in the Arctic Ocean.
  • Seasonal: expands in winter, shrinks in summer.
  • Important climate indicator → reflects solar radiation (albedo effect), regulates global climate, supports ecosystems.
• Why It Matters
  • Sea ice decline accelerates global warming (less reflection, more heat absorption).
  • Impacts global ocean currents, weather patterns, ecosystems, human settlements (sea-level rise indirectly via Greenland).

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)

Key Findings of Study

• Conducted by researchers from University of Exeter, Columbia University, UC Irvine.
• Analysed Arctic Sea Ice Loss since 1980s.
• Found: rate of Arctic ice loss has slowed in past 20 years, compared to 1990s.
• BUT: slowdown is due to natural climate variability, not reduced global warming.

Why has Arctic ice loss slowed down?

• Natural variability in climate systems:
  • Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Variability (AMV), and ENSO (El Niño–Southern Oscillation).
  • These fluctuations alter sea surface temps, circulation, cloud cover, influencing Arctic climate.
• Ice loss reduced from 8.3 lakh sq km per decade (1992–2012) to 3.1 lakh sq km per decade (2003–2022).

Why this is not ‘good news’

1. Not a recovery, only temporary
   1. The slowdown doesn’t mean melting has reversed.
   1. Ice is still thinning and fragile → makes sudden collapse more likely in the near future.
2. Masking the trend
   1. Natural variability is temporarily offsetting the greenhouse-gas-driven warming.
   1. Once variability shifts, ice loss could accelerate dramatically.
3. No evidence of climate action impact
   1. The slowdown is not due to reduced CO₂/GHG emissions.
   1. Thus, policy inaction continues to be dangerous.
4. Future Risks
   1. If melting accelerates again, collapse could be faster than previously modelled.
   1. This would trigger abrupt climate shifts (feedback loops like methane release, disrupted monsoons, altered jet streams).

Scientific Context

• Arctic amplification: Arctic warms 2–4 times faster than global average.
• Tipping Point Risk: A critical threshold exists beyond which sea ice loss becomes irreversible, even if emissions are reduced later.
• Analogy by scientists: Ice loss is like a ball rolling downhill. Temporary slowdown = ball pauses, but slope ensures it will roll down faster later.

Implications

• For Climate Science
  • Need to account for natural variability in climate models.
  • Avoid misinterpreting slowdown as progress.
• For Policy
  • Reinforces urgency of deep emission cuts.
  • Reliance on natural pauses is dangerous.
• For Global Climate Systems
  • Faster future melting could disrupt:
    • Monsoons (South Asia).
    • North Atlantic currents (AMOC).
    • Global temperature regulation.