Topic 1: The “Financial Toxicity” of Cancer Care in India
Syllabus
- GS Paper II: Issues relating to development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health, Education, Human Resources.
- GS Paper III: Inclusive Growth and issues arising from it.
Context
A lead study highlighted in The Hindu (Feb 05, 2025) introduces the concept of “Financial Toxicity”—a term describing the devastating economic burden placed on cancer patients. With India becoming the “Cancer Capital of the World,” the cost of survival is pushing millions into poverty.
Main Body: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
- Economic Dimension (The “Catastrophic” Spend):
- Out-of-Pocket Expenditure (OOPE): Despite schemes like Ayushman Bharat, nearly 60-70% of cancer expenditure in India is paid Out-of-Pocket. The study notes that for a rural family, a single cancer diagnosis wipes out 10 years of savings.
- Indirect Costs: Beyond hospital bills, the “toxicity” includes wage loss, travel to tier-1 cities (Tata Memorial in Mumbai or AIIMS in Delhi), and accommodation. This “non-medical” cost often exceeds the medical cost.
- Social Dimension:
- Gender Skew: Families are statistically more likely to stop treatment for women or the elderly to save assets for the “male breadwinner” or “heir.”
- Inter-generational Debt: To finance care, families resort to “distress financing”—selling agricultural land or taking high-interest loans from moneylenders, trapping future generations in debt peonage.
- Policy/Institutional Dimension:
- Insurance Gaps: Private insurance often has “co-pay” clauses or caps that are exhausted within the first few cycles of chemotherapy.
- Tertiary vs. Primary: India’s focus remains on Tertiary Care (building big hospitals) rather than Preventive Screening. Detecting cancer at Stage IV costs 10x more than at Stage I, yet 70% of Indian cases are detected late.
Positives, Negatives, and Government Schemes
| Positives (Interventions) | Negatives (Challenges) | Related Government Schemes |
| Price Capping: NPPA (National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority) has capped prices of 42 anti-cancer drugs, reducing costs by up to 90%. | Supply Chain: Capped drugs often face market shortages as pharma companies shift production to higher-margin items. | PM-JAY (Ayushman Bharat): Provides ₹5 Lakh cover (often insufficient for prolonged cancer care). |
| Generic Boom: India’s robust generic drug industry (Jan Aushadhi Kendras) offers chemotherapy at a fraction of global prices. | Radiotherapy Gap: WHO recommends 1 radiotherapy unit per million people; India has less than half that density. | National Programme for Prevention and Control of Cancer, Diabetes, CVDs and Stroke (NPCDCS). |
| Digital Health: ABDM allowing portability of records helps reduce redundant testing costs for migrants. | “Missing Middle”: The middle class is too rich for Ayushman Bharat but too poor to afford private oncology. | Health Minister’s Discretionary Grant (HMDG): For poor patients. |
Examples
- The “Tata Model”: The hub-and-spoke model implemented by Tata Memorial Centre creates smaller centers in places like Varanasi and Vizag, reducing the need for patients to travel to Mumbai, thereby cutting “financial toxicity” by 40%.
- Case Study: A farmer in Vidarbha selling 2 acres of land to fund immunotherapy for oral cancer, illustrating “medical impoverishment.”
Way Forward
- Catastrophic Health Expenditure Fund: Create a separate “High-Cost Illness” fund within Ayushman Bharat that kicks in once the ₹5 lakh limit is breached.
- Generic Prescriptions: Mandate the prescription of generic bio-similars for immunotherapy drugs in all public hospitals.
- Decentralized Care: Shift chemotherapy administration to District Hospitals so patients don’t travel to metros for routine cycles.
- Onco-Financial Counseling: Hospitals must appoint “financial counselors” to help patients navigate insurance, grants, and crowdfunding options before starting treatment.
Conclusion
“Financial Toxicity” is a side effect as lethal as the disease itself. Unless financial protection mechanisms evolve from “insurance” to “assurance,” India’s demographic dividend risks becoming a morbidity burden.
Practice Mains Question: “The term ‘Financial Toxicity’ in cancer care reflects the failure of public health financing. Discuss the socio-economic impacts of high out-of-pocket expenditure on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in India.” (10 Marks, 150 Words)
Topic 2: The Cess and Surcharge Conundrum (Fiscal Federalism)
Syllabus
- GS Paper II: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States; Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure; Devolution of powers and finances.
Context
Editorials in The Hindu and Indian Express (Feb 5, 2025) criticize the Union Government’s continued reliance on Cesses and Surcharges. Despite high tax collections, States argue their share is shrinking because cesses are excluded from the “Divisible Pool.”
Main Body: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
- Constitutional Dimension:
- Article 270: Mandates that all taxes collected by the Union must be shared with States, except for cesses and surcharges levied for a “specific purpose” (Article 271).
- The Loophole: The Centre has aggressively used this exception. In 2011-12, cesses were 10% of Gross Tax Revenue (GTR). By 2024-25, they rose to over 20-25%. This means for every ₹100 collected, the Centre keeps ₹25 upfront, and shares only 41% of the remaining ₹75.
- Fiscal Dimension:
- Effective Devolution: While the Finance Commission recommends 41% devolution, the effective devolution (actual money received by states) has dropped to roughly 29-30%.
- State Stress: States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka argue this “fiscal centralization” forces them to borrow more, yet the Centre also restricts their borrowing limits (Net Borrowing Ceiling).
- Political Economy:
- “Tied” Money: Cesses (like the Health & Education Cess) are “tied” funds. The Centre dictates how this money is spent via Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS), eroding the States’ autonomy to design their own welfare programs.
Positives, Negatives, and Government Schemes
| Positives (Centre’s View) | Negatives (States’ View) | Related Constitutional Articles |
| Targeted Funding: Cesses ensure dedicated funds for national priorities like Highways (Road Cess) or Sanitation (Swachh Bharat Cess). | Shrinking Pool: Denies states their rightful share of the buoyant tax revenue. | Article 270: Distribution of Taxes. |
| Flexibility: Allows the Centre to raise revenue for emergencies (e.g., Covid Cess) without amending the complex GST structure. | Audit Issues: CAG reports often flag that cess money is not transferred to the designated Reserve Funds but retained in the Consolidated Fund. | Article 271: Power to levy Surcharge. |
| National Security: Surcharges fund defence modernization which benefits the whole nation. | Vertical Imbalance: Widens the gap between the Centre’s resources and States’ expenditure responsibilities. | Article 280: Finance Commission. |
Examples
- Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC): Introduced in recent budgets, this cess reduced the Basic Customs Duty (shareable) and replaced it with a Cess (non-shareable), directly hitting state revenues.
- Petrol/Diesel Taxes: A massive chunk of fuel prices comprises “Road and Infrastructure Cess,” which the Centre keeps entirely.
Way Forward
- Constitutional Amendment: Limit the total collection from Cesses/Surcharges to 10% of Gross Tax Revenue.
- Merger into GST: Gradually merge cesses into the GST slabs so they automatically become part of the shareable pool.
- Sunset Clauses: Every new cess must have a mandatory “expiry date” (e.g., 5 years) to prevent them from becoming permanent revenue tools.
- Formula Revision: The 16th Finance Commission must calculate the “Divisible Pool” inclusive of cesses to restore trust in cooperative federalism.
Conclusion
Fiscal Federalism is the glue holding the Indian Union together. If the Centre continues to use the “Cess Route” to bypass devolution, it risks turning “Cooperative Federalism” into “Coercive Centralism.”
Practice Mains Question: “The rising share of Cesses and Surcharges in Gross Tax Revenue has become a bone of contention in Centre-State financial relations. Critically analyze.” (15 Marks, 250 Words)
Topic 3: India-U.S. Immigration Tensions & Deportation
Syllabus
- GS Paper II: Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests, Indian diaspora.
Context
Reports on February 5, 2025, indicate rising tensions as the U.S. administration (under the new Trump 2.0 presidency) tightens immigration rules. The U.S. has begun deporting undocumented Indian nationals, and new visa restrictions are impacting Indian techies.
Main Body: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
- Diplomatic Dimension:
- The “Donkey Route” Fallout: A surge in Indians entering the U.S. illegally via the Mexico/Canada borders (the ‘Donkey’ flights) has forced the U.S. hand. India is now diplomatically compelled to accept these deportees to maintain good standing for legal visa regimes (H-1B).
- Reciprocity: The U.S. is leveraging these deportations as a condition for other bilateral agreements, putting New Delhi in a tough spot between protecting its citizens and upholding international law.
- Economic Dimension (Remittances & Services):
- H-1B Anxiety: Stricter “wage floor” norms for H-1B visas are making Indian IT professionals expensive for U.S. companies. This threatens the $190 billion Indian IT service export market.
- Remittances: India is the world’s top remittance receiver ($125 bn+). Mass deportations or visa curbs could dent this crucial forex inflow, impacting families in Punjab, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh.
- Social/Human Dimension:
- The “American Dream” Crisis: The deportation drive creates a humanitarian crisis for thousands of families who sold assets to pay agents.
- Brain Drain vs. Circulation: While short-term pain is evident, some experts argue that stricter U.S. norms might force talent to stay in India, inadvertently boosting the domestic “Deep Tech” startup ecosystem (Brain Gain).
Positives, Negatives, and Government Schemes
| Positives | Negatives | Related Government Schemes |
| Legal Migration: Cracking down on illegal routes strengthens the case for expanding legal mobility partnerships. | Human Rights: Harsh detention conditions for Indian deportees in U.S. camps. | Pravasi Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PKVY): Skill training for overseas jobs. |
| Domestic Talent: May redirect high-skilled engineers to Indian Global Capability Centers (GCCs). | Stigma: The “illegal immigrant” tag tarnishes the reputation of the high-achieving Indian community (Model Minority). | MADAD Portal: For grievance redressal of migrants. |
| Agent Crackdown: Forces India to tighten its own “Emigration Check” laws against fraudulent travel agents. | Diplomatic Leverage: U.S. may use visa caps as a bargaining chip in trade/defence talks. | e-Migrate System: regulating overseas employment. |
Examples
- Charter Flights: The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) chartering specific flights to Punjab to return detainees.
- Tech Layoffs: H-1B holders laid off in the U.S. finding it harder to secure new jobs within the 60-day grace period due to new “hire American” incentives.
Way Forward
- Mobility & Migration Partnership Agreement (MMPA): Sign a formal pact with the U.S. (like with UK/Germany) to streamline legal migration and combat illegal trafficking.
- Social Security Totalization Agreement: Prioritize this long-pending pact so returning professionals don’t lose their U.S. social security contributions.
- Reskilling: Rehabilitate deportees by certifying their skills under the Skill India Mission so they can find dignity and work at home.
- Agent Regulation: Pass the Emigration Bill 2021 immediately to criminalize fraudulent manpower agencies facilitating the “Donkey” routes.
Conclusion
The immigration friction tests the resilience of the “Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership.” India must balance the protection of its diaspora with the enforcement of legal migration channels to ensure the “Living Bridge” between the two democracies remains strong.
Practice Mains Question: “The Indian diaspora is a strategic asset, but irregular migration poses a diplomatic challenge. Discuss the impact of tightening U.S. immigration norms on India’s economic and diplomatic interests.” (15 Marks, 250 Words)
Topic 4: The “Sovereign AI” Debate – Finance Ministry Bans DeepSeek/ChatGPT
Syllabus
- GS Paper III: Science and Technology- developments and their applications and effects in everyday life; Awareness in the fields of IT, Computers; Internal Security (Cyber Security).
Context
On February 5, 2025, the Union Finance Ministry issued a strict advisory directing all government officials to “strictly avoid” using public AI tools like ChatGPT and the Chinese model DeepSeek on official devices. This move comes amidst growing concerns over “Data Sovereignty” and the leakage of sensitive government files into foreign AI servers.
Main Body: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
- Security Dimension (The “Hallucination” of Secrecy):
- Data Leakage: When an official uploads a draft policy or tax data into a public LLM (Large Language Model) for summarization, that data becomes part of the AI’s “training set.” This means a sensitive Indian file could theoretically be retrieved by a user in the U.S. or China.
- DeepSeek Threat: The specific mention of “DeepSeek” (a Chinese AI) highlights the geopolitical risk. Usage of Chinese software on Indian government servers is seen as a direct backdoor for espionage, similar to the 2020 ban on Chinese apps.
- Administrative Dimension:
- Efficiency vs. Security: While banning AI protects data, it also denies officials the productivity boost that AI offers (drafting emails, summarizing lengthy reports). The bureaucracy risks falling behind the private sector in efficiency.
- Technological Dimension:
- Need for “BharatGPT”: The ban underscores the urgent need for India to develop its own Sovereign AI stack—models hosted on Indian servers (like CDAC’s AIRAWAT) where the data never leaves the country.
Positives, Negatives, and Way Forward
| Positives (The Ban) | Negatives (The Impact) | Related Initiatives |
| Data Integrity: Prevents classified information from training foreign algorithms. | Shadow IT: Officials might simply use their personal phones to access these tools, bypassing the ban and creating a larger, unmonitored risk. | Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. |
| Cyber-Hygiene: Enforces a culture of “Zero Trust” in government digital operations. | Innovation Lag: Without approved AI tools, the speed of governance (e.g., processing grievances) remains slow. | IndiaAI Mission: ₹10,372 crore approved to build domestic computing capacity. |
Way Forward
- Enterprise Licenses: Instead of a blanket ban, the government should procure “Enterprise Versions” of AI tools where data privacy is contractually guaranteed (data is not used for training).
- Sandboxed Environments: Create an “Offline AI” environment within the NIC (National Informatics Centre) cloud for officials to use safely.
Mains Question: “The prohibition of foreign AI tools in government offices highlights the conflict between administrative efficiency and data sovereignty. Discuss the need for an indigenous ‘Sovereign AI’ framework.” (10 Marks, 150 Words)
Topic 5: Uniform Civil Code (UCC) – The Uttarakhand Prototype
Syllabus
- GS Paper II: Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions (Article 44); Federalism.
Context
Reports from February 5, 2025, indicate that the Uttarakhand UCC (implemented recently) is facing its first major stress test with the mandatory registration of “Live-in Relationships.” Data reveals that within 10 days, only a handful of registrations have occurred, while privacy concerns are mounting.
Main Body: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
- Constitutional Dimension:
- Article 44 vs. Article 21: The UCC aims to fulfill Article 44 (State shall endeavor to secure a Uniform Civil Code). However, critics argue that the mandatory registration of live-in partners violates Article 21 (Right to Privacy/Puttaswamy Judgement) by inviting state surveillance into private bedrooms.
- Exemption of Tribes: The “Uniformity” is paradoxically diluted by the exemption of Scheduled Tribes (who constitute 3% of Uttarakhand but massive portions of other states). This raises the question: Is it a Uniform Code or a Selective Code?
- Social Dimension:
- Women’s Rights: Supporters argue the code ends discriminatory practices like Halala and Iddat, and grants legitimate status (and inheritance rights) to children born of live-in relationships.
- Moral Policing: The clause allowing parents to be notified if live-in couples are under 21 is viewed by the youth as institutionalized “moral policing,” potentially leading to honor crimes.
Key Provisions & Critique
| Provision | Intent | Criticism |
| Mandatory Registration | To provide legal protection to partners. | Criminalizes non-registration (prison term), leading to harassment. |
| Succession Rights | Equal property rights for sons and daughters. | STs are excluded, leaving tribal women without these benefits. |
| Ban on Polygamy | Gender equality in marriage. | Already illegal for most; primarily targets specific communities, causing polarization. |
Way Forward
- Privacy Safeguards: The “Live-in” registry data must be strictly firewalled to prevent it from being accessed by vigilante groups.
- National Blueprint: The Centre should wait for a “Social Impact Audit” of the Uttarakhand model before tabling a National UCC Bill.
Mains Question: “Critically analyze the features of the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code. To what extent does it balance the goal of gender justice with the fundamental right to privacy?” (15 Marks, 250 Words)
Topic 6: Cultural Soft Power – The Grammy Victory
Syllabus
- GS Paper I: Indian Culture – Salient aspects of Art Forms, Literature and Architecture.
- GS Paper II: India and its neighborhood- relations; Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests (Soft Power).
Context
In the 2025 Grammy Awards, Chandrika Tandon (Indian-American vocalist) won the award for Best New Age Album for “Triveni,” while Shankar Mahadevan’s Shakti continued to influence the global circuit. This reinforces the rise of Indian classical music as a pillar of global “Soft Power.”
Main Body: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
- Cultural Dimension (The “Fusion” Era):
- The win signifies the global acceptance of “Indo-Fusion”—blending Vedic chants with Western instrumentation. This is distinct from “Bollywood” soft power; it appeals to the high-culture, spiritual demographic globally.
- Diaspora Diplomacy: Figures like Chandrika Tandon (sister of Indra Nooyi) represent the “Model Minority” who bridge the gap between Wall Street (business) and The Vedas (culture), creating a positive narrative for India in the U.S.
- Economic Dimension (Creative Economy):
- India’s music industry is projected to cross $700 million by 2025. Recognition at the Grammys opens markets for Indian touring artists, instruments, and music tourism.
Relevance for UPSC
- Soft Power: Joseph Nye’s concept of “Soft Power” is critical for GS-2. India uses Yoga, Bollywood, and now Classical Fusion to win hearts without military coercion.
- Awards as Validation: While domestic awards (Padma) matter, international validation (Grammy/Oscar) forces the global north to treat Indian art as “Contemporary” rather than just “Folk/Anthropological.”
Mains Question: “Discuss the role of the Indian Diaspora in projecting India’s ‘Soft Power.’ How do cultural achievements on global platforms complement India’s diplomatic outreach?” (10 Marks, 150 Words)
Topic 7: The “Hollongapar” Dilemma – Primate Conservation vs. Strategic Connectivity
Syllabus
- GS Paper III: Conservation, Environmental Pollution and Degradation, Environmental Impact Assessment.
- GS Paper III: Infrastructure: Energy, Ports, Roads, Airports, Railways etc.
Context
The conflict surrounding the Hollongapar Gibbon Sanctuary (Assam) has intensified this week. Despite warnings from the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), the electrification of the 1.65-km railway track cutting through the sanctuary is proceeding. New reports from February 2025 indicate that while the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) has cleared the project subject to mitigation measures (like “canopy bridges”), conservationists term this a potential “genetic dead-end” for India’s only ape species, the Western Hoolock Gibbon.
Main Body: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
1. The Ecological Dimension (Habitat Fragmentation)
- The “Forest Island” Effect: The Hollongapar sanctuary is a small, isolated patch of evergreen forest (approx. 21 sq km) surrounded by tea gardens. The railway line, existing since 1887, already bisects this fragile ecosystem.
- Arboreal Nature: Hoolock Gibbons are strictly arboreal (tree-dwelling). They do not walk on the ground to cross gaps. The existing railway gap has already split the gibbon population into two distinct groups that cannot interbreed.
- Electrification Risk: The introduction of high-voltage overhead electric lines adds a new layer of danger—electrocution. Even if they don’t touch the wires, the electromagnetic hum and forest clearance for poles disrupt their acoustic communication (singing), which is vital for their territorial bonding.
2. The Infrastructure & Strategic Dimension
- Gateway to Upper Assam: This railway line connects Mariani to Dibrugarh. It is a critical artery for:
- Civilian Logistics: Transporting goods to Tinsukia and Dibrugarh.
- Defense Mobility: Moving troops and heavy equipment to the China border (Arunachal Pradesh). A single-track, non-electrified line creates a bottleneck, slowing down strategic deployment.
- The Cost of Rerouting: Conservationists proposed rerouting the track outside the sanctuary. However, the Railways argued this would cost exponentially more and delay critical connectivity projects by years.
3. The Mitigation Fallacy (Canopy Bridges)
- Artificial Bridges: The proposed solution involves building “Artificial Canopy Bridges” (rope ladders) to help apes cross the track safely.
- Efficacy Doubts: Studies show that primates are hesitant to use artificial structures. If the gibbons refuse the ropes, the populations remain genetically isolated, leading to inbreeding depression and eventual local extinction.
Positives, Negatives, and Way Forward
| Positives (Development Argument) | Negatives (Conservation Reality) | Data/Stat |
| Energy Efficiency: Electrification reduces the carbon footprint of diesel locomotives running through the Northeast. | Ecocide: Potential extinction of the specific gibbon families (approx. 125 individuals) due to genetic isolation. | Species Status: Western Hoolock Gibbon is Endangered (IUCN) and Schedule I (WPA, 1972). |
| Speed & Capacity: Doubles the freight carrying capacity, boosting the economy of Upper Assam. | Precedent: Sets a dangerous precedent that “mitigation” (even if unproven) can justify intrusion into Protected Areas (PAs). | Sanctuary Size: Only 20.98 sq km, making it highly sensitive to even small intrusions. |
Way Forward
- Underground Tunneling: While expensive, a short cut-and-cover tunnel for the train would restore the forest canopy above, permanently solving the conflict.
- Speed Restrictions: Strict “silent zones” and speed limits (20 kmph) must be enforced via automated sensors to prevent collisions.
- Genetic Rescue: If physical connection fails, forest departments may need to actively manage the gene pool by translocating individuals between the two severed halves of the sanctuary.
Mains Question: “Infrastructure development in ecologically fragile zones often leads to a ‘mitigation trap,’ where unproven solutions are used to justify permanent damage. Discuss with reference to the Hollongapar Gibbon Sanctuary crisis.” (15 Marks, 250 Words)
Topic 8: The “Artificial Border” – Fencing the Indo-Myanmar Frontier
Syllabus
- GS Paper II: India and its neighborhood- relations.
- GS Paper III: Security challenges and their management in border areas – linkages of organized crime with terrorism.
Context
Following the Home Minister’s announcement to scrap the Free Movement Regime (FMR), February 2025 has seen heightened tensions in Mizoram and Nagaland. State assemblies have passed resolutions opposing the move, while the Centre accelerates the construction of “Smart Fencing” along the 1,643 km border. The move aims to check the spillover of the Myanmar civil war but threatens the social fabric of the Zo-Kuki-Chin-Naga communities.
Main Body: Multi-Dimensional Analysis
1. The Internal Security Dimension
- Insurgency & Safe Havens: The open border has long been exploited by Valley-Based Insurgent Groups (VBIGs) of Manipur, who strike Indian forces and retreat into Myanmar’s Sagaing region. Fencing is seen as the only way to “seal” the grid.
- Narco-Terrorism: Proximity to the Golden Triangle makes this border a highway for heroin and methamphetamine (Yaba tablets). The proceeds from this trade fund arms procurement for Northeast insurgent groups.
- Illegal Migration: Since the 2021 coup in Myanmar, thousands of refugees have entered Mizoram. While Mizoram welcomes them as “kin,” Manipur views them as a demographic threat, intensifying the Meitei-Kuki conflict.
2. The Socio-Cultural Dimension (Kinship)
- “Borders Divided Us”: The border is a colonial construct (drawn by the British) that split families. A Naga or Kuki village often has half its houses in India and half in Myanmar.
- FMR Rationale: The 16-km visa-free Free Movement Regime was an acknowledgement of this reality. Scrapping it essentially criminalizes the daily life of tribals who cross over for farming, weddings, or funerals.
3. The Diplomatic Dimension
- Act East Policy Blockade: A hard, militarized border contradicts the spirit of the “Act East” policy, which envisioned the Northeast as a gateway to Southeast Asia. Trade corridors (like the Trilateral Highway) require open flow, not an “Iron Curtain.”
- Relations with the Junta: By fencing the border, India effectively signals it is preparing for a long-term breakdown of state authority in Myanmar, insulating itself from the chaos next door.
Positives, Negatives, and Way Forward
| Positives (Centre’s View) | Negatives (States’ View) | Key Concept |
| Sovereignty: Ends the ambiguity of “ungoverned spaces” where Indian law was weak. | Alienation: Risks turning friendly border populations (like the Mizos) against New Delhi. | FMR (Free Movement Regime): Allowed 16km access without visa; now scrapped. |
| Demographic Protection: Prevents sudden influxes of refugees that alter local voting patterns. | Terrain Challenge: Fencing 1,643 km of mountainous jungle is logistically near-impossible and easy to breach. | Smart Fencing: Uses sensors/cameras where physical walls are hard to build. |
Way Forward
- Regulated FMR: Instead of a total scrap, introduce “Biometric Border Passes” (already being piloted). This allows verified locals to cross for specific reasons while keeping a digital log of movement.
- Designated Crossing Points: Funnel traffic through specific Integrated Check Posts (ICPs) like Moreh and Zokhawthar, rather than allowing crossing at any point in the jungle.
- Refugee Policy: India urgently needs a defined domestic Refugee Law to handle the Myanmar influx systematically, rather than treating it solely as a security threat.
Mains Question: “The decision to fence the Indo-Myanmar border and scrap the Free Movement Regime (FMR) highlights the tension between ‘National Security’ and ‘Borderland Kinship.’ Critically analyze.” (15 Marks, 250 Words)
