The Hindu — UPSC Analysis
Thursday, 09 July 2026
Bengaluru City Edition · Vol. 57 No. 162 · Curated for Prelims & Mains | GS I · II · III · IV
📋 Today's Topics
- U.S.–Iran ceasefire & the Strait of Hormuz crisisGS2 · GS3
- Russian oil share in India's imports risesGS3
- How India withstood the West Asia energy crisisGS3 · GS2
- The Right to be ForgottenGS2
- The 'Hummus Trail' & Geneva Conventions ActGS2
- Checkbox Caste — Census 2027 caste enumerationGS1 · GS2
- Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rollsGS2
- States shoulder welfare — fiscal federalismGS2 · GS3
- Quantum computing & the National Quantum MissionGS3
- Pandemic treaty, PABS & the DRC Ebola outbreakGS2
- WHO Global Status Report on Cancer 2026GS2 · GS3
- U.S. DoJ indictment in the Nijjar killingGS2 · GS3
- Quick Prelims Revision (MCQ Bank)Prelims
- FAQsRevision
U.S.–Iran ceasefire in trouble: the Strait of Hormuz flashpoint
Context
U.S. President Donald Trump declared the ceasefire with Iran "over" on July 8 after both sides traded strikes over the safe passage of commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran said U.S. "violations" had rendered parts of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) "ineffective". This is the second time the two sides have exchanged fire since signing the MoU on June 17.
Background & Key Facts
- Trigger: Three ships passing an alternative route along the Omani coast — the M/T Al Rekayyat (Marshall Islands), M/T Wedyan (Saudi Arabia) and M/T Cyprus Prosperity (Liberia) — were attacked over the weekend.
- U.S. response: Revoked the sanctions waiver that had allowed the sale of Iranian oil after the MoU, then launched dozens of air strikes on "monitoring and surveillance centres" on Iran's southern coast.
- Casualties: U.S. strikes killed eight military personnel, per Iranian state television (described by Tehran as "martyrs").
- Iran's retaliation: The IRGC claimed it struck "85 U.S. military assets" in the Persian Gulf — including Port Salman (U.S. Fifth Fleet area, Bahrain) and Ali Al-Salem Air Base (Kuwait) — and claimed to have downed a U.S. MQ-9 drone over Bushehr.
- MoU terms: Signed June 17. Under Article 5, Iran promised "safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days" from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman; Iran would also hold talks with Oman on future administration of the strait.
- Two structural hurdles: (i) Israel's continued war in Lebanon against Hezbollah (MoU Article 1 covers Lebanon), and (ii) the disputed status of the Strait of Hormuz.
- India's stand: The MEA voiced "deep concern" over the targeting of commercial shipping and urged all parties to exercise restraint and return to dialogue.
Strategic Geography — The Strait of Hormuz
- A narrow chokepoint linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea — the world's most critical oil transit chokepoint.
- Iran has directed tankers to use a "designated route" along its own coast; a second route runs along Oman's coast. The U.S. and Gulf states encourage the Oman route, which Iran fears erodes its leverage.
- Late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated by the U.S. and Israel on February 28; funeral processions were underway in Najaf, Iraq.
Coercion vs. escalation dilemma: Controlled military pressure is failing to restore the status quo ante in the strait. A return to full-scale war would collapse the diplomatic track and leave Iran's nuclear programme unresolved; staying in talks means accepting a new status quo on Hormuz.
"Revolution 2.0" narrative: A companion editorial argues Iran has emerged from the war stronger, with the IRGC in full control, its nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes off the negotiating table, and national pride re-energised — mirroring the mobilisation of 1979.
Erosion of U.S. security guarantees: Iranian strikes on American bases have dented the credibility of the U.S. security umbrella (built around the GCC, formed 1981), pushing some Gulf states to explore accommodation with Iran.
- India must balance ties between Iran and the Israel–U.S.–UAE bloc while safeguarding energy and shipping interests.
- Prioritise diplomatic de-escalation, protection of Indian seafarers and merchant vessels, and freedom of navigation.
- Deepen supplier diversification to insulate the economy from a Hormuz disruption.
Strait of Hormuz Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Strait of Oman / Sea of Oman IRGC MQ-9 drone
MCQ: Strait of Hormuz
With reference to the Strait of Hormuz, consider the following statements:
- It connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.
- Iran and the United Arab Emirates share its northern and southern shores respectively.
- It is the only maritime outlet for crude oil exports from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
- 1 only
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Russian oil share in India's imports rises above 40%
Context
Russia's share in India's oil imports rose above 40% in May 2026 — the highest in nearly two years — even as Russia charged India a premium and India moved to diversify sources, including resuming imports from Iran and Venezuela.
Background & Key Facts
- Russian share (May 2026): 40.5% by volume and 42.6% by value of India's total oil imports.
- Premium, not discount: India paid about $916/tonne for Russian oil vs an average $870/tonne across all imports — a premium of ~$46/tonne. Russia had been offering a discount as recently as February.
- Total imports: 21.82 million tonnes in May 2026 — highest since January, ~12% higher than April, but ~2.6% lower than May 2025.
- Price effect: India's oil import bill rose 23.5% over April and ~66% over May 2025 — because oil cost $106/barrel in May 2026 vs $64/barrel in May 2025.
- Russia volume vs value: Value of Russian imports grew 83% year-on-year while the actual volume fell 2% — a pure price effect.
- Diversification: India imported $430.5 million of Iranian oil in April 2026 (falling to $277 million in May); the U.S. began allowing Venezuela to export oil in February.
Reversal of the discount logic: Russia flipping from discount to premium weakens the original economic rationale for heavy dependence — India is now paying more for Russian crude than the market average.
Concentration risk: A 40%+ single-supplier share raises supply-security concerns, especially amid the Hormuz turmoil; the parallel push into Iran and Venezuela signals a deliberate rebalancing.
- Continue supplier diversification (Gulf, U.S., Africa, Latin America) to cap single-source exposure.
- Accelerate the energy transition — ethanol blending, renewables, strategic petroleum reserves — to blunt price shocks.
Indian crude basket Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ujjwala scheme OMCs
MCQ: India's oil imports
Consider the following statements regarding India's crude oil imports in May 2026:
- Russia accounted for over 40% of imports by both volume and value.
- India paid a lower-than-average price per tonne for Russian crude.
- The rise in the import bill was driven mainly by higher global oil prices rather than higher volumes.
- 1 and 2 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
How India withstood the crisis in West Asia — energy resilience
Context
When the Strait of Hormuz became the epicentre of global anxiety, India — the world's third-largest oil importer — contained fuel and cooking-gas inflation better than many advanced and emerging peers, reviving comparisons with the 1973 oil shock and the 1991 balance-of-payments crisis.
Background & Key Facts
- Dependence: India imports almost 90% of its crude oil and remains heavily reliant on the Gulf for oil, gas and fertilizers.
- Shock magnitude: The Indian crude basket crossed $120/barrel; the import-linked cost of a domestic LPG cylinder rose above ₹1,600; war-risk premiums escalated sharply.
- Petrol restraint: Prices rose just 7.5% in India vs ~14% (Germany), 19% (U.K.), 45% (U.S.), over 50% (Pakistan, Philippines), and almost 90% (Myanmar).
- Diesel restraint: India limited the increase to ~8% while the UAE saw an ~85% surge.
- LPG: India imports ~60% of LPG; a domestic cylinder stayed at ₹942 (₹642 for Ujjwala beneficiaries) — cheaper than in Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka.
- Fiscal cushion: State-run OMCs absorbed ₹74,781 crore in losses on petrol, diesel and LPG up to June 30 instead of passing the shock to consumers.
Four Pillars of Resilience
- 1. Strategic relationships as energy security: Decades of engagement with Iran and Gulf partners kept channels open; Iran facilitated the movement of Indian ships.
- 2. Diversified supplier base: Partnerships from Russia and the U.S. to Africa and Latin America — "not putting all energy eggs in one basket".
- 3. A decade of energy planning: Higher ethanol blending, an expanding renewable base, larger strategic reserves, stronger refining capacity.
- 4. Whole-of-government coordination: Ministries of External Affairs, Petroleum & Natural Gas, Ports/Shipping/Waterways, the Indian Navy and the National Security Council Secretariat worked together to monitor risks and protect supplies.
Cushion has a cost: The ₹74,781-crore OMC absorption protected households but strained public-sector balance sheets — resilience was partly fiscal, and is not costless if a shock persists.
Structural dependence remains: ~90% import reliance means the "success" is about managing exposure, not eliminating it — the case is framed as a pillar of 'Viksit Bharat'.
- Institutionalise the whole-of-government crisis mechanism for future energy shocks.
- Scale renewables, biofuels and strategic reserves to lower structural import dependence.
Ethanol Blending Programme Indian crude basket NSCS 1973 oil shock / 1991 BoP crisis
MCQ: Energy resilience
Which of the following measures cushioned Indian households from the recent West Asia oil shock?
- Absorption of losses by public-sector Oil Marketing Companies.
- Diversification of the crude supplier base across multiple regions.
- Ethanol blending and an expanded strategic petroleum reserve.
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
What is the Right to be Forgotten?
Context
In a recent ruling (May 29, 2026), the Delhi High Court laid down the principles governing the "right to be forgotten", evolving a new jurisprudence to protect the privacy of those still victimised by their digital footprints despite having matters settled in their favour.
Background & Key Facts
- Definition: The right to have information erased or de-indexed from the public digital environment when its continued accessibility is harmful and serves no public interest.
- Origin (2014): Spanish citizen Mario Costeja González complained to the European Court of Justice about Google displaying an old notice on his repossessed house despite the debt being settled — laying the groundwork for the right, later codified in Article 17 of the EU's GDPR.
- Indian jurisprudence: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) held privacy — including informational privacy — a fundamental right under Article 21. High Courts then diverged in approach.
- The 2026 case: The Delhi HC ruled on 30+ consolidated petitions, led by Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India. It held the right flows from Article 21's guarantee of dignity and informational privacy.
- Proportionality test: Retention must have a legitimate purpose; harm to privacy must be balanced against public interest; the least intrusive means — masking names rather than deleting judgments — is preferred.
- Directions: A two-week deadline for legal databases to comply; only parties' names are redacted, not the facts. Judgments stay accessible by case number or keyword — only name-based searches are restricted.
Right to be Forgotten & the DPDP Act
- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 offers a limited statutory right to erasure in Section 12, but it is based on consent and does not explicitly cover judicial records and public archives.
- The Act is "deficient" because rules are not yet notified and the Data Protection Board is not fully effective.
- Constitutional tension: The right conflicts with freedom of speech and press (Article 19(1)(a)), the principle of open justice, and the public's right to know.
Enforcement is the hardest part: An acquittal may still surface high in name-based searches; de-indexing does not stop mirrors, archive copies or social-media sharing. Without technical compliance, the right stays "largely symbolic".
Who decides? Routing every request through courts creates bottlenecks; leaving it to tech companies raises due-process concerns. A tiered system is proposed — platforms for routine cases, the Data Protection Board for contested ones, courts for judicial matters.
- Notify DPDP rules and operationalise the Data Protection Board.
- Build a tiered adjudication mechanism and ensure genuine technical de-indexing by platforms.
Article 21 · Article 19(1)(a) K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) GDPR Article 17 DPDP Act 2023 · Section 12 Data Protection Board
MCQ: Right to be forgotten
Consider the following statements:
- The right to be forgotten was affirmed as a facet of the fundamental right to privacy in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 provides an explicit statutory right to erasure of judicial records.
- Under the Delhi High Court's 2026 ruling, only the names of parties — not the facts of a case — are to be masked.
- 1 and 3 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 2 only
- 1, 2 and 3
The 'Hummus Trail' and the Geneva Conventions Act, 1960
Context
On June 2, 2026, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), a Palestinian rights organisation based in Brussels, filed a complaint with India's Home Ministry, Bureau of Immigration and police to arrest Eitan Gilboa — an Israeli soldier of the 271st Combat Engineering Battalion — vacationing in Himachal Pradesh, accusing him of "war crimes in Gaza" in 2024.
Background & Key Facts
- Allegation: Participation in the destruction of residential buildings and civilian infrastructure in Khan Yunis and Rafah, with self-filmed videos later posted online. HRF submitted geo-located videos and chain-of-command documentation.
- Legal basis: Alleged violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which India is a signatory. India lacks a standalone war-crimes law but has the Geneva Conventions Act, 1960.
- Universal jurisdiction: Under the Act, India can arrest any person — irrespective of nationality or where the offence occurred — for a "grave breach" under the Convention. If arrest is not possible, deportation can be facilitated.
- Government response: The Union government did not issue a statement or initiate a probe; Gilboa has since left India.
- 'Hummus Trail': ~80,000 Israelis visit India yearly — many young veterans on the Tiul Gadol (a 6-month-to-a-year post-service trip funded by army bonuses). In February 2026 Israel allocated four million NIS to boost tourism collaboration with India.
- Trail geography: Kasol ("mini-Israel"), Kodaikanal, Kerala, Goa, Hampi, Gokarna, Rishikesh, Varanasi, Pushkar, Almora, Dharamkot, and recently the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
- Global context: Israel has killed over 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza since the October 7, 2023 attack and faces a genocide case at the ICJ filed by South Africa. HRF's action has succeeded in Brazil, Romania, Peru, Belgium and Canada; a Chilean court recently recognised universal jurisdiction over Gaza war crimes.
Law vs. diplomacy: The 1960 Act gives India the legal tools of universal jurisdiction, but the executive's inaction reflects the primacy of the deepening India–Israel strategic and economic partnership.
Normalisation debate: Author Azad Essa frames India–Israel tourism as part of a broader normalisation process; a UN Commission of Inquiry has alleged Israeli forces "deliberately" inflicted death and grave harm on Palestinian children.
- Clarify India's procedure for handling universal-jurisdiction complaints under the Geneva Conventions Act.
- Balance strategic ties with obligations under international humanitarian law.
Geneva Conventions Act, 1960 Fourth Geneva Convention Universal jurisdiction ICJ · genocide case
MCQ: Geneva Conventions Act
With reference to India's Geneva Conventions Act, 1960, consider the following statements:
- It allows India to prosecute a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions regardless of the accused's nationality.
- It applies only to offences committed within Indian territory.
- India is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
- 1 and 3 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 2 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Checkbox Caste — counting caste in Census 2027
Context
The rehearsal for the second phase of Census 2027 — underway in 16 States and Union Territories since July 6 — carries a key feature: an "open column" in which respondents can state their caste, which the enumerator records. Unlike the 2011 SECC, this counting of caste in the Census itself has statutory backing. The pre-test ends July 20.
Background & Key Facts
- The open-column problem: The open-ended method in the 2011 Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) returned over 46 lakh "caste names" against the 4,147 in the 1931 Census (the last to tabulate caste) — respondents entered surnames, sub-castes and clan names interchangeably.
- Unusable data: The Centre told the Supreme Court in 2021 that SECC figures were too error-ridden to be relied upon for reservation.
- Proposed fix: Use the digital Census's hand-held devices pre-loaded with a curated list of castes and sub-castes, so the enumerator selects the 'correct' entry after asking the respondent — as the 2022–23 Bihar caste survey showed, this returns more usable data.
- Why count caste: Caste is an abstract, hierarchical identity conferred at birth; the Constitution set itself against caste by abolishing untouchability. The rationale for counting is that empirical data can sharpen welfare and affirmative action, and inform questions of the "creamy layer" and sub-categorisation.
Enumeration vs. reification: Counting caste risks ossifying an "abstract, irrational" identity — yet the editorial argues that with sharper targeting, caste data can delegitimise casteism rather than entrench it.
Method matters: "If caste is to be counted, it should be counted well" — the open-ended way will not serve the intended purpose; a curated pre-loaded list is essential to avoid the 2011 incoherence.
- Adopt a curated, standardised caste list on digital devices, learning from the Bihar survey.
- Use data for evidence-based welfare, creamy-layer and sub-categorisation decisions — not for entrenching identity.
SECC 2011 1931 Census Creamy layer Sub-categorisation of OBCs
MCQ: Caste enumeration
Consider the following statements about caste enumeration in Indian censuses:
- The 1931 Census was the last to comprehensively tabulate caste before Independence.
- The 2011 SECC's open-ended method produced far more "caste names" than the 1931 Census.
- The Census 2027 rehearsal records caste with statutory backing, unlike the 2011 SECC.
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
CEO denies 'mass SIR' charge — Special Intensive Revision of rolls
Context
Karnataka's Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) V. Anbu Kumar rejected allegations by the BJP and JD(S) that the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was being conducted through "mass SIR" exercises, asserting it was being carried out transparently and per Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines.
Background & Key Facts
- Door-to-door mandate: All District Election Officers (DEOs) were instructed to ensure Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visited every household and handed over enumeration forms directly.
- Complaint handling: Show-cause notices were issued to 35 BLOs over alleged lapses; reports were sought from DEOs and forwarded to the ECI.
- Scale: Over 11 crore enumeration forms were printed within nine days and supplied to BLOs on schedule; the CEO reported no complaints of non-supply, inter-district mix-ups, or forms delivered to wrong electors.
- BLA role: Booth Level Agents (BLAs) of recognised political parties may also collect filled forms, but a BLA can collect a maximum of 50 forms a day, and forms must be verified by the BLO before acceptance.
- Distribution status (News in Numbers): 80.85% of enumeration forms had been distributed to electors across the State; Bommanahalli recorded the lowest at 35%.
Process integrity vs. political trust: Opposition parties allege "mass SIR" (bulk collection from common locations); the CEO frames isolated instances as not amounting to an ECI violation. The dispute underscores how roll revision has become politically charged.
Grievance layering: Many complaints are resolved at ERO/AERO/DEO levels and may not reach the CEO — raising questions about visibility and accountability of the process.
- Ensure strict door-to-door distribution and verifiable audit trails to build cross-party trust.
- Transparent, time-bound disposal of complaints with published data.
ECI · CEO · DEO Booth Level Officer (BLO) Booth Level Agent (BLA) Electoral Registration Officer (ERO)
MCQ: Electoral roll machinery
In the machinery for electoral-roll revision, match the roles correctly:
- BLO — conducts door-to-door distribution and collection of enumeration forms.
- BLA — an agent of a recognised political party, capped at collecting 50 forms a day.
- ERO — the district-level authority who prints enumeration forms.
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
States shoulder welfare — fiscal federalism & social spending
Context
As revenues accrue to the Union, fiscally constrained States are carrying a growing share of welfare spending. Over the 2000s several welfare schemes became laws ("rights-based" welfare); over the last decade the emphasis has shifted from rights towards cash transfers.
Background & Key Facts
- Combined welfare allocation (2025-26): ₹24.20 lakh crore, or 6.77% of GDP, with the Union's contribution accounting for just 1.89% of GDP.
- States drive the rise: Real spending on social services has risen over time, but the Union's share has stayed largely stagnant — the overall rise is driven by States.
- Cost-sharing ratios: PMMVY and ICDS are centrally sponsored with the Centre bearing 60% and States 40%. MGNREGA was funded 90:10; its replacement, the VB-GRAM G Act, will add much more to States' contribution.
- School education: States' share of school-education spending is ~75.2%.
- Cash transfers: Per the 16th Finance Commission Report, States spent ₹4.14 lakh crore on unconditional cash transfers.
- Tax mismatch: Tax revenues favour the Union, but the onus of funding falls disproportionately on States; India's social-security spending lags middle-income peers as a share of GDP.
Vertical fiscal imbalance: The Union collects the bulk of buoyant taxes while States bear a rising welfare burden — the shift of MGNREGA's 90:10 model towards a heavier State share (VB-GRAM G) intensifies this.
Rights to cash: The move from rights-based guarantees to cash transfers changes the accountability architecture of welfare delivery.
- The Union should raise its fiscal commitment to the social sector to align welfare with constitutional precepts.
- Leverage the human-development–growth "mutually reinforcing cycle" argued in recent EPW research (Bose & Banerjee).
PMMVY · ICDS · PDS MGNREGA · VB-GRAM G Act 16th Finance Commission Centrally Sponsored Schemes
MCQ: Welfare fiscal federalism
Consider the following statements:
- PMMVY and ICDS are centrally sponsored schemes with a 60:40 Centre–State cost-sharing ratio.
- MGNREGA was funded on a 90:10 Centre–State basis.
- In 2025-26, the Union government's direct contribution to selected welfare schemes exceeded 6% of GDP.
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Quantum computing & the National Quantum Mission
Context
Quantum computers promise a new era in simulating molecules, securing digital lives, optimising logistics and modelling phenomena that overwhelm supercomputers — but hardware "noise" stands between promise and performance. The Government sanctioned over ₹6,000 crore for the National Quantum Mission (NQM) in April 2023.
Background & Key Facts
- Origin: Physicist Paul Benioff described the "quantum Turing machine" — a computer operating by quantum mechanics — in a 1980 paper in the Journal of Statistical Physics. Deutsch, Feynman and Peter Shor built on it.
- NQM goal: By 2031, build "intermediate-scale quantum computers" and make India a leading nation in quantum technologies.
- Bit vs qubit: A classical bit is 0 or 1; a qubit exploits superposition (0, 1 and infinite states between) and entanglement (linked states regardless of distance), making quantum machines "massively parallel".
- Qubit types: Superconducting (Josephson junction — e.g., Google's Willow, Dec 2024), quantum-dot, trapped-ion, photonic, and NMR qubits.
- First realisation (1998): Groups from Oxford and IBM/UC Berkeley/Stanford/MIT built a 2-NMR-qubit machine that solved the Deutsch–Jozsa problem faster than classical computers.
- The noise problem: Qubits are fragile (decoherence); processors must be cooled near absolute zero (−273 °C). Error rates are 1%–0.1% vs classical error of one in a quintillion (10 followed by 17 zeroes).
- Error correction: Forces several physical qubits into one "logical qubit". Google's 2024 Nature paper (Willow) showed that scaling a lattice (3×3 → 5×5 → 7×7) suppressed the encoded error rate by a factor of two each time — below the threshold. IBM expects a fault-tolerant machine by 2029.
Beware the hype: No commercially relevant problem has yet been solved by a quantum computer that a classical supercomputer could not (Google Quantum AI). Classical computing will not disappear soon (IISc's Arindam Ghosh, chair of Karnataka's Quantum Task Force).
"Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum" (NISQ): Today's machines are useful benchmarks but years from practical utility; the central engineering puzzle is "how to construct a perfect machine out of imperfect parts".
- Invest in error-correction and logical-qubit research under the NQM's verticals.
- Build talent and materials/devices capability; target applications in climate modelling, materials and cryptography.
National Quantum Mission Superposition · Entanglement Josephson junction Decoherence · NISQ Willow (Google)
MCQ: Quantum computing
Consider the following statements about quantum computing:
- Superposition allows a qubit to exist in multiple states simultaneously.
- Entanglement links the states of qubits regardless of physical distance between them.
- Decoherence is the process by which error-corrected qubits gain stability.
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Pandemic treaty, PABS system & the DRC Ebola outbreak
Context
WHO member states resumed talks in Geneva (a two-week session till July 17 — the seventh round) to finalise the missing piece of the pandemic treaty, with a fresh Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) injecting urgency.
Background & Key Facts
- PABS system: The agreement's Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing mechanism deals with sharing access to pathogens with pandemic potential, then sharing the resulting benefits — vaccines, tests, treatments.
- Timeline: The pandemic agreement was adopted in May 2025 (after 3+ years of post-COVID negotiations); the PABS annex was meant to be finalised by May 2026 but progress has been slow.
- Divide: Wealthy countries and developing nations are at loggerheads over how the mechanism works in practice.
- DRC Ebola: Declared mid-May; 1,561 confirmed cases including 506 confirmed deaths, with spillover into Uganda.
- Leadership push: WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus urged countries to "keep the destination in sight"; before the G7 summit, he and Brazil's President Lula urged leaders to treat July 17 "as a deadline, not a milestone".
Equity is the sticking point: The Third World Network insists meaningful progress needs developed countries to move down from "maximalist positions" — echoing COVID-era vaccine-inequity debates.
Preparedness gap: The DRC outbreak is a "painful" reminder that "the threat never truly goes away", underscoring the cost of an unfinished benefit-sharing framework.
- Finalise a balanced PABS annex ensuring rapid pathogen sharing and equitable benefit access.
- Strengthen global surveillance, coordination and vaccine access to avoid a repeat of COVID-19's disjointed response.
WHO Pandemic Agreement PABS system Ebola · DRC Third World Network
MCQ: Pandemic treaty
The PABS system, in the news, is associated with:
- A World Bank facility for pandemic-hit economies
- The WHO pandemic agreement's pathogen access and benefit-sharing mechanism
- A UNEP framework on biodiversity access
- An IMF surveillance tool for health financing
WHO Global Status Report on Cancer 2026
Context
The WHO's first-ever survey of people affected by cancer, and the Global Status Report on Cancer 2026 (WHO with the International Agency for Research on Cancer), were released on July 8, warning of rising cases and widening inequities in access to care.
Background & Key Facts
- Global burden: ~20.6 million new cases and close to 10 million deaths annually — cancer is the second leading cause of death globally after cardiovascular disease.
- Projection: Without action, annual cases are projected to rise to nearly 35 million by 2050.
- Financial/social toll: At least 45% of affected people face financial hardship, more than half report mental-health challenges, and nearly all caregivers report strain.
- Survival inequity: 87% of women with breast cancer survive to five years in high-income countries vs only ~42% in low-income countries. Fewer than one in three countries include cancer care in universal health coverage.
- Regional burden (2024): Asia — over half of all cases (50.7%) and deaths (56.5%); Europe — 21% of cases and 20% of deaths despite ~9% of world population; Africa and parts of Asia — lower incidence but disproportionately high mortality.
Inequity by choice, not fate: WHO's Tedros framed the documented inequities as "the consequence of choices" that can be reversed — survival should not depend on where a person is born or earns.
UHC gap: Cancer care's near-absence from universal health coverage in most countries drives the survival divide and household impoverishment.
- Integrate cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment and palliative care into UHC packages.
- Strengthen early detection, financial protection and mental-health/caregiver support.
IARC Universal Health Coverage NCDs WHO Global Status Report
MCQ: Cancer report
Consider the following statements from the WHO Global Status Report on Cancer 2026:
- Cancer is the leading cause of death globally, ahead of cardiovascular disease.
- Five-year breast-cancer survival is markedly higher in high-income than in low-income countries.
- The report was released jointly by the WHO and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
U.S. DoJ indictment in the Nijjar killing & the Bishnoi network
Context
The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) said on July 8 that jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and his associate Satinderjeet Singh (alias Goldy Brar) ordered the June 18, 2023 assassination of pro-Khalistan figure Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada.
Background & Key Facts
- "Operation Hard Ball": Investigations were jointly conducted by law enforcement in the U.S., Canada and Europe; 37 accused — including a serving Punjab Police inspector — were charged by the DoJ.
- Diplomatic backdrop: The murder strained India–Canada relations, with then-PM Justin Trudeau alleging involvement of "agents of the Indian government". The U.S. indictment identified Nijjar as "H.S.N."; India had designated him a terrorist in 2020.
- Charges: Racketeering, targeted killings, shootings, extortion, trafficking of narcotics across borders. 24 defendants have been arrested in the U.S., Canada and Spain; 10 fugitives are sought.
- Seizures: ~1,000 kg of cocaine, 1 kg of heroin, $40,000 in cash and a dozen firearms; a $50,000 reward was declared for Brar's arrest/extradition.
- WhatsApp-from-jail: The DoJ alleges Bishnoi used encrypted apps (as recently as Dec 2025–Jan 2026) to extort/attempt to extort $5 million from victims in Los Angeles and Thousand Oaks. He is lodged at Sabarmati jail under Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (restricting his movement).
- NIA link: A 2022 NIA chargesheet said Bishnoi "runs the entire operations of the gang from within the jail"; extortion money is allegedly routed to Canada, the U.S., Dubai, Thailand and Australia to fund "pro-Khalistan extremists".
Transnational organised crime meets geopolitics: The case fuses gangsterism, narcotics, extortion and Khalistani extremism across jurisdictions — testing India–Canada–U.S. cooperation.
Prison-based crime: Allegations of running a global syndicate via smuggled phones from a high-security jail raise serious questions of prison security and inter-agency intelligence.
- Deepen mutual legal assistance and coordinated action against transnational crime networks.
- Tighten prison security and communications monitoring to disrupt jail-run syndicates.
NIA Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita · Sec 303 Extradition · MLAT Transnational organised crime
MCQ: Transnational crime
Consider the following statements:
- The U.S. DoJ's "Operation Hard Ball" was conducted jointly with law enforcement in Canada and Europe.
- Hardeep Singh Nijjar was designated a terrorist by India in 2020.
- Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita relates to restricting an under-trial's movement outside jail.
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
📝 Quick Prelims Revision — MCQ Bank
Q1 — Prambanan Temple
The Prambanan Temple, where India and another nation launched a joint restoration project, is located in:
- Cambodia
- Indonesia
- Thailand
- Myanmar
Q2 — Pinaka rocket
The Pinaka, successfully flight-tested by the DRDO, is a:
- Long-range surface-to-air missile
- Guided long-range artillery rocket system
- Anti-satellite weapon
- Submarine-launched ballistic missile
Q3 — LNG regasification
With reference to the IGU World LNG Report, consider the following:
- India added 52.5 mtpa of regasification capacity in 2025, surpassing Spain to become the fourth-largest market.
- Dahej LNG is India's only ultra-large regasification terminal.
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Q4 — AISHE higher education
According to AISHE 2023-24, consider the following statements:
- The Gender Parity Index (GPI) in higher education has stayed above 1.0 for seven consecutive years.
- The female Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) is higher than the national baseline.
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Q5 — Kerala free bus scheme
The Priyadarshini free bus-ride scheme, in the news, is associated with which State transport corporation?
- KSRTC (Karnataka)
- KSRTC (Kerala)
- TSRTC (Telangana)
- MSRTC (Maharashtra)
Q6 — Bamboo for landslides
Species such as Melocanna baccifera and Bambusa bambos, mentioned as bioengineering tools, are used primarily for:
- Carbon sequestration in wetlands
- Slope stabilisation and landslide mitigation
- Desalination of coastal soils
- Controlling invasive aquatic weeds
❓ FAQs
Frequently asked exam-oriented questions — 09 July 2026 edition
Why is the Strait of Hormuz so strategically important?
How does the "right to be forgotten" differ from a right to full deletion?
What is universal jurisdiction, and how does India apply it?
Why is India's welfare spending described as a "vertical fiscal imbalance"?
What is "NISQ" in quantum computing?
Take the Next Step
Qualify Prelims? Start Mains Prep with Legacy IAS
Expert faculty, structured GS & Optional guidance, and Bangalore's most trusted UPSC coaching — all under one roof.
Jayanagar, Bengaluru · Classroom & Online · legacyias.com
Analysis based on The Hindu, Bengaluru City Edition, 09 July 2026. Prepared for academic use. Static background and frameworks added for exam preparation; original article text has been paraphrased, not reproduced.


