Content :
- Vaccinating India
- Fathoming America’s plan to manage AI proliferation
Vaccinating India
Global Context
- Vaccine coverage for six major diseases (e.g., measles, polio, TB) has doubled globally (1980–2023).
- Zero-dose children (those who haven’t received even the first DTP vaccine dose) dropped sharply to 75% globally during this period.
- The number of zero-dose children is seen as a key indicator of health inequality and immunisation system performance.
Relevance : GS 2(Health)
Practice Question : Despite significant progress in immunisation coverage, the high number of zero-dose children in India reflects persistent socio-economic and geographic inequities. Critically examine the factors behind this trend and suggest measures to meet India’s commitments under the WHO’s Immunization Agenda 2030. (15 marks, 250 words)
India’s Position
- India had 1.44 million zero-dose children in 2023 — 2nd highest globally.
- India is among 8 countries that account for over 50% of global zero-dose children (~16 million).
- India’s large birth cohort: 23 million babies born in 2023, the highest in the world.
Historical Trends
- Zero-dose rate in India declined from 33.4% (1992) → 10.1% (2016).
- Numbers fluctuated recently:
- 2019: 1.4 million
- 2021 (post-COVID disruption): 2.7 million
- 2022: 1.1 million
- 2023: 1.44 million
- In percentage terms, 2023 zero-dose rate is 6.2% of total births — a relatively low share given the absolute size.
Regional Distribution
- High-burden states: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat.
- High tribal/Northeast prevalence: Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh.
Demographic Inequities
- Disparities based on gender, caste, and rural-urban divide have narrowed.
- However, high prevalence persists among:
- Poor households
- Low maternal education
- Scheduled Tribes
- Muslim communities
Key Challenges
- Not due to conflict or fragile systems (unlike many high-burden countries).
- Barriers:
- Vaccine hesitancy in specific communities
- Access in tribal belts and urban slums
- Migrant populations with low service outreach
Forward
- India must halve zero-dose numbers by 2030 (relative to 2019 baseline of 1.4 million) to meet WHO’s IA2030 goals.
- Requires sustained, targeted efforts:
- Community outreach
- Awareness campaigns
- Urban-slum and tribal area immunisation drives
Fathoming America’s plan to manage AI proliferation
Backdrop: The AI Diffusion Framework
- The AI Diffusion Framework was introduced by the Biden administration to regulate AI chip exports and model weights.
- It treated AI similarly to nuclear technology, aiming to prevent adversaries (like China, Russia) from accessing high-end compute power, a key driver of AI capabilities.
- Goal: Preserve U.S. AI leadership by limiting global access to compute-intensive hardware.
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations ) , GS 3(Technology)
Practice Question : The rescission of the U.S. AI Diffusion Framework signals a tactical recalibration, not a strategic shift in its AI control policy. Discuss the implications of such evolving technology-driven controls on global cooperation, innovation, and India’s strategic autonomy in the AI domain. (15 marks, 250 words)
Why the Framework Was Withdrawn
- Rescinded by the Trump administration (2025), seen as a tactical rollback, not a strategic shift.
- Key flaws of the Framework:
- Undermined technological collaboration, even with allies.
- Created trust deficits by signaling U.S. dominance in setting rules.
- Treated civilian-origin AI tech as a purely military asset.
- Encouraged workarounds like China’s DeepSeek R1, which achieved high performance using low compute, negating U.S. controls.
Global Reactions and Strategic Shifts
- Allies began pursuing technological sovereignty, investing in alternative ecosystems to avoid overdependence on U.S. AI infrastructure.
- For India, which wasn’t favoured under the framework, the withdrawal is a welcome development.
- The global AI race continues; the U.S. is still intent on denying China access to cutting-edge AI technology.
Evolving U.S. Strategy: New Forms of Control
- Post-framework, U.S. focus has shifted to tech-enabled enforcement, not broad trade bans.
- Recent actions:
- Expanded export controls (March 2025).
- More companies added to the entity list (blacklist).
- New legislation introduced:
- On-chip surveillance features.
- Location tracking to prevent diversion of AI chips to adversaries.
Emerging Concerns with Tech-Driven Controls
- Risks:
- Privacy, ownership, and surveillance issues.
- Reduced autonomy of buyers and users of AI hardware.
- Potential inhibition of legitimate civilian use.
- Could replicate the same trust and sovereignty issues as the original framework.
Conclusion: Strategic Continuity, Tactical Change
- Withdrawal of the framework is not a change in intent, but a change in approach.
- U.S. AI control strategy persists in new, possibly subtler, forms.
- Failure to learn from the past risks undermining U.S. AI leadership, alienating allies, and accelerating global decoupling in AI development.
