thestudyiashindi

[thestudyiashindi]

Five Years After Covid

Context : Tracking Migration

Five years post-pandemic, migration has largely returned to pre-Covid trends, with new challenges and opportunities emerging. The Covid-19 pandemic had caused severe disruptions to migration, affecting both internal and international mobility.

Impact of Covid-19 on Internal Migration

The pandemic triggered mass reverse migration:

First lockdown: 44.13 million migrants returned to rural areas.

Second lockdown: 26.3 million returned.

Challenges faced by migrants:

Wage theft, food insecurity, lack of healthcare access.

Discrimination, stigma, and even instances of brutality.

Economic strain on families dependent on remittances.

Post-Pandemic Trends in Internal Migration

Return to urban centres: The rural economy was unable to absorb returning workers.

MGNREGA provided partial relief but was insufficient for long-term employment.

Rural distress, low wages, and urban aspirations continue to drive migration.

Climate change as a factor:

Studies in Odisha show that climate change is negatively impacting agriculture, leading to increased distress migration.

Urbanisation and policy initiatives:

Government initiatives such as the Smart Cities Mission promote urban migration.

Projected urban population: Expected to reach 40% by 2026.

Impact of Covid-19 on International Migration

Hardships faced by Indian emigrants:

Job losses, wage cuts, overcrowded conditions, poor sanitation.

Despite challenges, remittances remained resilient, underscoring their importance.

Post-pandemic shifts in migration destinations:

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries continue to attract Indian workers.

Diversification towards Europe:

Indians were the top recipients of EU Blue Cards (2023).

Growing migration to non-traditional destinations like Malta and Georgia.

Increasing migration to Africa:

Economic growth and job opportunities in IT, manufacturing, and healthcare sectors.

However, risks exist, as seen in the case of 47 workers stranded in Cameroon.

Healthcare workers are in high demand globally.

Student migration surge:

Kerala Migration Survey (2023): Student emigrants doubled from 1.29 lakh (2018) to 2.5 lakh (2023).

RBI data (2021): Outward remittances for education peaked at $3,171 million.

Challenges like the Russia-Ukraine war affecting Indian students.

Challenges in Migration Governance

Need for policy evaluation and reform:

e-Shram portal (2021): Aims to create a National Database of Unorganised Workers (NDUW).

Limited success due to lack of awareness and digital access barriers.

One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) scheme (2018):

Designed to improve food security for internal migrants.

Many migrants remain outside its ambit, requiring better implementation.

Data gaps in migration tracking:

2021 Census delay: No updated data on migration post-Covid.

PLFS 2020-21: Reports a 28.9% migration rate, but collected during a volatile period.

Lack of a comprehensive database of Indian emigrants.

The Ministry of External Affairs’ emigrant estimates likely underreport migration.

The Way Forward: Strengthening Migration Governance

Expand state-level migration surveys:

Kerala Migration Surveys (since 1998) have enhanced policy formulation.

Replication in Odisha, Goa, Punjab, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Tamil Nadu is beneficial.

National-level surveys needed to track evolving migration trends.

Improve migrant welfare schemes:

Enhance awareness and access to e-Shram and ONORC.

Strengthen social security, insurance, and legal protections for migrant workers.

Facilitate safe international migration:

Strengthen pre-departure training and awareness programmes.

Expand support networks in emerging destinations.

Adapt policies to climate-induced migration:

Integrate climate resilience strategies into rural employment schemes.

Develop policies addressing agriculture-driven migration.

[thestudyiashindi]

Astronauts Return from ISS

Effects of Spaceflight and Rehabilitation

On March 19 (IST), a SpaceX capsule carrying astronauts Sunita Williams, Barry Wilmore, Aleksandr Gorbunov, and Nick Hague landed in the Gulf of Mexico.

More on News

Williams and Wilmore completed a nine-month stay on the ISS, having reached there in June 2023 aboard Boeing’s Starliner capsule.

NASA has a structured re-adaptation regimen for returning astronauts to help them readjust to Earth’s gravity.

Effects of Extended Spaceflight on the Human Body

Microgravity effects: Fluids flow more easily towards the brain, Muscle tension reduces, Bone density decreases.

Astronauts maintain strict exercise and diet routines on the ISS to counteract these effects.

Space agencies have psychological support programs to manage stress from workload and confinement.

Research gaps:

Limited data due to the small number of astronauts.

Differences in body responses across individuals.

Extended spaceflight may affect male and female astronauts differently, but more research is needed.

Astronaut Monitoring in Space

In 2024, NASA’s Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer released updated medical standards.

Monitoring includes: Pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight tests to track astronauts’ health.

Regular self-evaluations: 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months after launch.

Private medical conferences: Daily for the first week, then weekly, and before/after spacewalks.

Hearing and eye tests: Every three months.

Body mass measurement: One week after launch, then monthly.

Blood and urine tests: Conducted six months after launch and as needed.

Deep vein thrombosis and blood-flow screening: 1 & 2 months after launch, and 42 days before return.

Astronauts are also monitored for muscle strength and radiation exposure.

Post-Flight Rehabilitation Process

Immediately after splashdown, astronauts undergo medical tests and physical activity-based rehabilitation.

Recovery timeline: Most astronauts return to pre-flight fitness within 45 days, but some may take longer. Astronauts in space for 20 days recover in about a week.

Medical evaluations post-return:

Day of return: Physical exam, neurological assessment, ECG, eye tests, blood/urine tests, skin checks, and orthostatic tolerance evaluation.

Further assessments: 3 days, 1-2 weeks, and 2 months post-descent.

Conducted by crew surgeon, deputy crew surgeon, or partner flight surgeon.

Psychological checks by mission psychologists.

Physical Rehabilitation Program

Focus: Readjust the body to Earth’s gravity without injury.

2024 study by Indian Journal of Aerospace Medicine: Astronauts undergo massage therapy if required.

First week: Two hours of daily physical reconditioning: Warm-up exercises, elliptical, rowing, cycling, back/lower limb exercises, gait improvement, and stretching.

Second week: Jogging, water-based ball games added.

NASA’s 2011 Technical Report on Post-Flight Reconditioning: 

Program targets aerobic capacity, muscular strength, endurance, stamina, bone density, balance, agility, coordination, proprioception, and neurovestibular function.

Daily progress assessments by medical and physiotherapy teams.

Once astronauts reach pre-flight fitness, they resume normal duties.

This structured approach ensures astronauts return safely and regain their pre-flight physical and mental fitness.

International Space Station (ISS)

It was officially approved by President Reagan and received budget approval from the US Congress in 1984.

The Station was designed between 1984 and 1993.

It is Earth’s only microgravity laboratory.

It is a large spacecraft that orbits the Earth at an altitude of about 400 km.

It is a joint venture involving five space agencies: NASA (United States), Roscosmos (Russia), JAXA (Japan), ESA (European Space Agency), and CSA (Canadian Space Agency).

An international crew of seven people live and work while travelling at a speed of five miles per second, orbiting Earth about every 90 minutes. 

It facilitates experiments, research, and international cooperation.

The orbital outpost will continue to provide advanced research benefiting humans on and off the Earth through 2030.

[thestudyiashindi]

Government’s Use of Section 79 of the IT Act and X’s Legal Challenge

Controversial Clampdown: Govt’s Use of Section 79 Challenged by X.

The recent legal challenge by Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter) against the Indian government’s interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, has raised critical concerns regarding free speech, content moderation, and intermediary liability. X has filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court contesting the government’s expanded use of Section 79 to issue content-blocking orders, arguing that it bypasses safeguards provided under Section 69A of the IT Act.

X’s Legal Challenge

X has challenged the government’s interpretation and application of Section 79 before the Karnataka High Court, stating that:

Section 79 is only a safe harbour provision and does not grant blocking powers to the government.

The Sahyog portal creates an arbitrary censorship regime.

Government orders lack sufficient justification and are not in line with constitutional safeguards under Article 19(2).

These measures harm X’s business model, which relies on the free exchange of lawful information.

The Karnataka High Court, while refusing to pass an interim order, has allowed X to approach the court again if coercive action is taken.

Grok AI Controversy and Legal Debate

X’s AI chatbot, Grok 3, has drawn government scrutiny for using Hindi slang and allegedly posting critical responses about the government.

Key legal question: Does AI-generated content qualify as third-party content under Section 79’s safe harbour provision?

Courts may need to determine whether X can be held liable for AI-generated responses.

Section 79 of the IT Act: Safe Harbour Provision

Section 79 provides a “safe harbour” for intermediaries (such as X), exempting them from liability for content posted by third-party users.

Section 79(3)(b) states that intermediaries can be held liable if they do not remove unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge or notification from the appropriate government agency.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) restricted the application of this provision, ruling that intermediaries are only required to remove content if ordered by a court or if the government’s order aligns with Article 19(2) restrictions.

Section 69A: Government’s Blocking Powers

Section 69A allows the Central Government to block public access to any online content in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, national security, and public order.

It is governed by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which mandates a structured review process before issuing blocking orders.

The Shreya Singhal ruling upheld Section 69A, noting that it has safeguards against misuse.

Government’s Expanded Use of Section 79

In October 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued directives allowing all ministries, state governments, and law enforcement agencies to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b).

In October 2024, MeitY launched the “Sahyog” portal, enabling agencies to issue and upload content removal orders.

X has argued that these measures establish an “unlawful parallel content-blocking mechanism”, bypassing Section 69A safeguards and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal.

Constitutional and Legal Implications

The case raises critical issues related to constitutional rights, legal safeguards, and digital governance.

Concerns over censorship: X’s challenge underscores fears of arbitrary content takedowns without proper legal oversight.

Need for due process: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal emphasised the importance of judicial review in content removal decisions.

Impact on free speech and digital rights: The outcome of this case could set a precedent for content regulation and intermediary liability in India.

Way Forward

Judicial Clarity: The Supreme Court or High Courts should provide a clear interpretation of Section 79’s scope and ensure it is not misused for arbitrary censorship.

Legislative Reforms: The IT Act should be amended to define due process mechanisms for content takedown requests.

Transparency Mechanisms: MeitY and digital platforms should collaborate on transparent and accountable content moderation frameworks.

Balancing Free Speech and National Security: Any content-blocking framework must balance national security concerns with fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a).

[thestudyiashindi]

The Future of NATO

The Uncertain Future of NATO: Strength or Struggle?

Recent geopolitical shifts, particularly Donald Trump’s stance on burden-sharing, have raised concerns about NATO’s future. Trump’s statements have reignited concerns about U.S. commitment to NATO. He has suggested that the U.S. might not defend NATO allies failing to meet defense spending targets. This has raised concerns over European security, transatlantic relations, and global stability.

Strategic Evolution of NATO Post-Cold War

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was established in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union and prevent the spread of communism.

Over time, NATO expanded to include former Eastern Bloc nations, evolving into a global security alliance.

After the Cold War, NATO expanded beyond Europe, engaging in missions in Afghanistan, Libya, and counterterrorism operations.

The inclusion of Eastern European nations complicated relations with Russia.

George F. Kennan’s 1997 warning that NATO expansion would be a “fateful error” has gained renewed relevance.

The Biden administration’s support for NATO expansion contrasts with Trump’s withdrawal-oriented approach.

U.S. Stance and Burden-Sharing Debate

The United States contributes approximately 70% of NATO’s expenditures, making it the backbone of the alliance.

Trump’s policy emphasises that European nations must contribute more to their own security.

His administration’s stance signals a possible withdrawal or reduction of U.S. involvement, forcing Europe to take greater responsibility.

The debate over burden-sharing has gained urgency, reflecting long-standing concerns about Europe’s reliance on U.S. defense support.

European Response and Prospects of an Independent Defence Strategy

European nations face a critical decision—increase defense spending or develop an independent security alliance.

The Bruegel and Kiel Institute study suggests that Europe would need 250 billion euros annually to secure itself without U.S. assistance.

Current European defense spending stands at 1.6% of GDP, significantly lower than the proposed 4%.

Key military requirements for European self-reliance include 1,400 main battle tanks and 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles for 50 additional brigades.

Proposals for a new European Treaty Organisation (ETO) indicate that Europe may seek an alternative defense framework.

Potential Implications of NATO’s Collapse

Geopolitical Shifts and Strategic Winners

Russia and China would benefit from a weakened NATO.

Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe would expand, increasing security threats for countries like Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states.

China could leverage Western divisions to strengthen its global position and security alliances.

Military and Security Consequences for the U.S.

The U.S. would lose access to over 40 military bases in Europe.

A weaker NATO would reduce the U.S.’s ability to project power globally, diminishing its geopolitical influence.

Military collaboration and intelligence-sharing among Western allies would decline.

Strategic Challenges for Europe

France and the UK, as nuclear powers, would have to assume greater security responsibilities.

The effectiveness of a European-led military alliance without U.S. support remains uncertain.

Increased financial burden could strain economic growth and domestic policies in European nations.

Shift Towards European Strategic Autonomy

Calls for greater European defense cooperation have grown.

France and Germany have promoted EU-led defense initiatives.

Mechanisms like the European Defence Fund (EDF) and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) are being explored.

However, Europe lacks a unified military structure and depends on U.S. nuclear deterrence.

Widening U.S.-Europe Rift and Its Implications

NATO’s Future and European Security

The lack of U.S. commitment could weaken NATO’s collective defense mechanism.

Europe may explore alternative defense frameworks like the “armed forces of Europe”.

Russia’s Strategic Leverage

A divided NATO could embolden Russia to push for further territorial gains.

The U.S.’s exclusion of Ukraine from negotiations has heightened European fears of Russian expansionism.

Trump’s engagement with far-right European parties signals a potential shift in transatlantic political alliances.

If nationalist parties gain traction, European unity on foreign policy issues could weaken.

A breakdown in U.S.-Europe relations could impact trade agreements, technology partnerships, and supply chains.

European nations might seek closer alliances with India, Japan, and ASEAN.

China and Russia could exploit transatlantic divisions to enhance their geopolitical influence.

Emerging global platforms like BRICS and G20 coalitions could gain prominence.

Impact on India and Its Strategic Interests

A weaker NATO may divert U.S. focus from the Indo-Pacific, affecting India’s regional security.

This could influence QUAD and U.S.-India defense cooperation.

India may need to reassess its defense partnerships with European nations.

Opportunities for India to strengthen its role in a multipolar world order.

Way Forward for NATO and Global Stability

Strengthening NATO through increased European defense contributions.

Encouraging EU-U.S. dialogue to maintain transatlantic cooperation.

Establishing clear policies to deter security threats.

Exploring alternative security frameworks to reduce over-dependence on the U.S.

[thestudyiashindi]

Taming the Titans: Rethinking Regulation in the Digital Age

Introduction: Power of the Digital Giants Beyond Products

In today’s world, the biggest companies do not sell oil or steel—they control data. Digital titans such as Meta, Google, and Amazon have built empires by offering free services like social media, search engines, and messaging apps. But behind the scenes, these platforms collect vast amounts of data about their users—what we like, search, say, and even where we go. This data is then used to power algorithms that keep users hooked, predict behaviour, and sell targeted advertising.

Unlike traditional companies that grow by selling more products, these digital platforms thrive on a cycle: the more users they attract, the more data they collect, and the more powerful they become. This network effect gives them a significant advantage over new or smaller competitors, who simply cannot compete without access to similar volumes of data. As a result, a few companies control most of the digital world, raising serious concerns about competition, privacy, and freedom of choice. To protect competition and consumer rights, this essay argues that regulators must modernise laws to tackle data-driven dominance and ensure fair digital markets.

The Meta Case: A Wake-Up Call for India

In a landmark move on 18 November 2024, India’s Competition Commission (CCI) fined Meta ₹213.14 crore for abusing its dominant position in the digital messaging and advertising markets. The case centred around a controversial privacy policy update rolled out by WhatsApp, a company owned by Meta. This update forced users to agree to sharing their data with other Meta platforms like Facebook and Instagram—on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis. The CCI found this deeply problematic because users had no real choice, and it unfairly boosted Meta’s advertising capabilities by combining data across platforms.

Meta quickly challenged this decision and won a partial stay from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Although they had to deposit half the penalty, they were temporarily allowed to continue sharing user data. The case is still ongoing, but it has already highlighted a crucial gap in Indian law: our competition rules were not designed to handle data-driven monopolies. They were made for industries where prices, not data, showed who had power.

The Google Parallel: Another Goliath Under the Scanner

Meta is not the only digital giant facing scrutiny. In 2022, Google was fined ₹1,337.76 crore for using its dominance in mobile phones to force companies to pre-install its apps. This gave Google an unfair edge, especially in developing countries like India, where Android is the most used operating system. Again, the court upheld the fine, showing that regulators were beginning to understand the tricks used by tech giants to maintain dominance.

Globally, Google has faced multiple investigations. The United States, European Union, and even Australia have accused it of unfair practices—from favouring its own services in search results to locking in advertisers and app developers with restrictive contracts. All of this points to a troubling pattern: once a digital giant takes the lead, it uses its power to stay there, pushing out competitors and limiting consumer choice.

Data: The New Currency of Control

What oil was to the 20th century, data is to the 21st. But there is a key difference: oil can be used only once, while data can be collected, reused, and analysed endlessly. In digital markets, this gives enormous power to those who gather the most data. And with billions of people using Meta’s and Google’s services every day, they have access to an unimaginable amount of personal information.

This data is not just used to improve services. It fuels powerful algorithms that predict user behaviour, suggest content, and display advertisements tailored to each individual. The result? Users spend more time on these platforms, generate even more data, and become increasingly dependent on them. This creates a “walled garden” effect, where it’s hard for users to switch to other services—even if better or more ethical options exist.

Traditional Laws vs Digital Realities

Competition laws in many countries, including India, are outdated. They were designed when industries competed on prices, and market dominance could be measured in simple financial terms. But in the digital age, dominance comes from data, not prices. Many services are free to use, which confuses regulators who still look for “price manipulation” as a sign of monopoly.

For example, WhatsApp is free. So is Google Search. But these platforms make billions by collecting user data and selling access to advertisers. They do not raise prices—but they raise barriers for competitors, restrict user freedom, and often ignore privacy concerns. This means regulators need new tools and definitions to assess market power in the digital world.

Learning from the West: Global Echoes and Shared Struggles

India is not alone in this fight. The European Union has introduced strong laws like the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to control how digital giants operate. The DMA requires “gatekeepers” like Meta and Google to offer fair access to competitors, prevent self-promotion, and ensure user consent for data use. GDPR, on the other hand, gives users more control over their personal information.

The United States, too, is pursuing legal action against Meta for its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing that these purchases were made to kill competition. In Germany, authorities ruled that Meta violated competition and privacy laws by combining user data from various platforms without consent. These global efforts show a growing recognition: the digital world cannot be left unchecked.

The Regulatory Toolbox: New Tools for a New Era

Experts have proposed a “toolkit” approach to regulate digital giants, much like using different tools for different kinds of repairs. Here’s what this might look like:

Hammer and Axe (Structural Solutions): Break up companies or block mergers that reduce competition. For example, force Meta to separate Facebook from Instagram or WhatsApp if they use combined data unfairly.

Weights and Measures (Behavioural Rules): Make sure platforms do not give special treatment to their own services or set unfair terms for users and developers. In the UK, a new Digital Markets Unit is being created to do exactly this.

Safety Mask and Gloves (Data and Privacy Protections): Treat data as a public trust. Make companies get real, informed consent before using it, and limit how much they can collect and combine.

Scaffolding and Ladders (Infrastructure Changes): Promote decentralised platforms, open standards, and public alternatives so users are not trapped in a handful of corporate ecosystems.

Each of these tools targets a different kind of harm, from privacy violations to unfair competition. Together, they can make digital markets healthier and more democratic. Read More...........................

[thestudyiashindi]

Trapped in the Haze

Every winter, a thick, smoky haze blankets northern India, with cities like Delhi experiencing hazardous pollution levels. This is largely due to the age-old practice of stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana. Burning crop residue, or stubble, remains the quickest and cheapest way for farmers to clear fields after the paddy harvest, even though this method of clearing fields harms health, air quality, and the environment. Despite government policies and programmes aimed at curbing stubble burning, the high cost of machinery, lack of direct incentives, and limited time to prepare fields for the next crop leave farmers feeling trapped. This complex problem continues to create a recurring cycle of pollution affecting millions.

Practice of Stubble Burning

Stubble burning, the practice of setting fire to leftover plant stalks after harvesting, has long been a common method for farmers in Punjab and Haryana. For them, burning the stubble is a fast and cheap way to clear the fields before planting wheat, the next crop in their cycle. This practice requires no special equipment, making it accessible for small-scale farmers who often face economic pressures. Yet, this approach has severe consequences for air quality, health, and the environment.

Reasons Behind Stubble Burning

Economic Constraints and Lack of Affordable Alternatives: Small farmers face financial pressures that make sustainable options for crop residue management difficult. Expensive machines like balers and super-seeders are essential to managing crop residue without burning, but their cost is prohibitive for most small-scale farmers​. Government subsidies aimed at promoting these machines have not been effective or accessible enough to address the scale of the problem. As a result, many farmers revert to the cheaper and faster method of burning.

Shrinking Cultivation Window: With the enactment of the Punjab Preservation of Subsoil Water Act in 2009, the government aimed to conserve water by delaying paddy planting until mid-June. However, this law also reduced the timeframe between paddy harvest and wheat sowing, making it even harder for farmers to adopt alternative residue management methods. This shrinking window pressures farmers to burn stubble quickly so they can move on to wheat planting​.

Lack of Direct Incentives and Financial Support: Despite the potential of direct financial incentives to discourage stubble burning, the Central government has not yet implemented a robust programme to support this. The Punjab government proposed a system where the Central and State governments would share the cost, providing ₹2,500 per acre as an incentive for farmers to manage stubble sustainably. However, this proposal has not been approved. Without significant direct support, farmers are less motivated to switch from burning to sustainable practices​.

Environmental and Health Impacts

The environmental and health impacts of stubble burning are far-reaching. The smoke produced by burning fields travels across states, causing air quality to deteriorate drastically in densely populated areas like Delhi. In 2023, Delhi’s air quality index (AQI) reached hazardous levels, with PM2.5 concentrations—fine particles harmful to human health—exceeding WHO safety guidelines by more than ten times. Such high levels of pollution can cause serious respiratory issues, aggravate chronic lung diseases, and even increase the risk of lung cancer​. These health concerns extend to rural areas, affecting not only city dwellers but also farmers and villagers exposed to the harmful pollutants on a daily basis.

Government Efforts and Policy Gaps

Subsidies for Crop Residue Management (CRM) Machines: The Central government introduced a subsidy scheme in 2018 to encourage farmers to use CRM machines. Although this initiative aimed to help farmers manage crop residue without burning, these subsidies have not effectively addressed the problem. Many farmers find it challenging to operate and maintain these machines, and reports indicate that many of the subsidised machines have become redundant due to high operational costs​.

Legal Actions and Penalties: In recent years, the government and courts have imposed penalties on farmers who burn stubble. Some farmers even face red entries in their records, which can affect their ability to get loans or sell land. However, these punitive measures often feel unjust to farmers, who are already facing economic hardship. Punishing them for a practice they feel they cannot avoid only adds to their burden, and coercive measures alone have proven insufficient in stopping the practice​.

Success of Incentive Programmes in Haryana: Haryana’s initiative to offer a ₹1,000 per acre incentive for farmers who sell stubble to contractors has seen some success. Farmers who participate in this programme help supply stubble for biofuel production, reducing the amount of residue burned. This programme illustrates that with proper incentives, farmers are willing to adopt alternatives to burning. However, the programme is currently limited in scale and would need substantial expansion to address the problem on a larger scale​.

Long-Term Solutions: Diversification and Sustainable Agriculture

Experts in agricultural policy suggest that one of the most promising solutions is to diversify the types of crops grown. In particular, farmers could shift away from water-intensive crops like paddy to alternatives that produce less residue, such as cotton and sugarcane. However, these alternative crops do not receive the same minimum support price (MSP) as paddy, making them less attractive to farmers​. For crop diversification to be successful, the government would need to offer strong support for these alternative crops, including reliable pricing and better market access.

The Historical Context of Stubble Burning

The roots of the stubble burning issue can be traced back to the Green Revolution, which transformed Punjab into a rice-growing region to ensure food security. Traditionally, Punjab did not grow paddy, as its climate and soil were not naturally suited for it. However, with government support and high-yielding crop varieties, paddy production soared. Mechanised farming methods, such as combine harvesters, left long stubble in the fields, which could not be easily ploughed back into the soil. Consequently, burning became the easiest option. The legacy of these policy changes continues to impact farmers, who are now reliant on a crop that poses serious challenges for residue management​.

Ethical Concerns and the Farmer’s Perspective

Many farmers feel the current approach to stubble burning is unfair. With limited resources and alternatives, they find themselves penalised for a practice that feels like a necessity rather than a choice. It is important to think about whether it is fair to punish poor farmers, especially since forcing them to change will not work on its own. Farmer unions and local organisations argue for a balanced approach that includes incentives and practical support rather than solely relying on penalties.

Technological Innovations and Potential Solutions

Exploring innovative and affordable technologies for stubble management could help. Newer technologies, like small-scale machines suited to smaller farms or community machinery sharing programmes, could make sustainable residue management accessible to more farmers. Moreover, integrating stubble into biofuel production or other industries, as Haryana’s incentive programme illustrates, offers promising possibilities. With such measures, India could take a step forward in addressing this recurring problem​.

Conclusion

Stubble burning is a complex, multifaceted issue tied to historical agricultural policies, economic pressures, and environmental impacts. Although the government has implemented several measures to curb the practice, the support provided often falls short of the real needs of farmers. Expanding incentive programmes, investing in sustainable agricultural practices, and making affordable technology accessible to small-scale farmers are critical steps to reducing stubble burning. With these efforts, the thick haze that envelops northern India each winter could eventually start to clear, benefiting both the farmers and the millions affected by air pollution across the region.

[thestudyiashindi]

Balancing Rights and Welfare.

In India, the Rights and Welfare to own property and the government’s power to take it for public good have often conflicted. This ongoing debate was highlighted in a recent case, Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, decided by the Supreme Court of India. The case focused on an important question: Should private property always be considered something that can serve the entire community? This question is not new; India’s leaders have faced it since the 1970s when socialist ideas inspired changes to the Constitution. Today, the Supreme Court’s decision seeks to balance property rights with public welfare, considering both personal freedoms and the country’s changing needs.

The 25th and 26th Constitutional Amendments for Rights and Welfare

In 1971, the Indian government introduced two important amendments—the 25th and 26th—to support socialist ideals. These amendments aimed to give the government greater control over property to promote fairer distribution of resources. Under the 25th Amendment, the term “compensation” in Article 31 was replaced with “amount,” meaning that the government could pay less than market value when acquiring private land. It also added Article 31C, giving priority to Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which support the distribution of resources for the common good and prevent wealth from gathering in only a few hands.

The 26th Amendment went further, abolishing special payments to former princes, known as “privy purses.” This helped establish an equal society where everyone could benefit, not just a privileged few. Together, these amendments encouraged a system where the government could control resources to help everyone, especially the less fortunate.

Strengthening Public Welfare Through Articles 39(b) and 39(c)

The changes to the Constitution allowed the government to enforce Articles 39(b) and (c) more strongly. Article 39(b) calls for resource distribution to benefit everyone, while Article 39(c) works to prevent wealth concentration. With the 25th Amendment, the government could acquire land more easily to build schools, hospitals, and other public resources. This amendment prioritised public welfare over individual property rights, which meant the government could take land if it would help a larger number of people.

The Supreme Court Case: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra

Recently, the Supreme Court revisited the question of property rights in the case Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra. The case arose from a law passed by the Maharashtra state government in 1986, which allowed the government to take over poorly maintained buildings from landlords and give them to tenants. This was meant to protect tenants from unsafe living conditions. However, landlords argued that this law violated their property rights.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, representing the majority of the judges, decided that not all private property could automatically be taken by the government for community purposes. Instead, the Court ruled that only certain types of property could be considered “material resources of the community,” depending on factors like scarcity, necessity, and the benefit to the community. This new approach means that the government can only acquire private property when it clearly serves the community’s interests.

Balancing Rights with Judicial Review on Rights and Welfare.

The Court’s ruling placed limits on the government’s power to acquire private property by strengthening the role of judicial review. Judicial review allows courts to examine government actions and decide whether they are fair and just. Previously, the government could simply claim that a law followed Article 39(b) and avoid judicial review. Now, however, the Court requires a case-by-case examination to ensure the law truly benefits the public and respects property owners’ rights.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, in his dissenting opinion, argued that Parliament should have the final say on what counts as community resources, since elected representatives are responsible for making decisions on public welfare. Meanwhile, Justice B.V. Nagarathna added that personal items, like someone’s clothes or furniture, should never be considered community resources, emphasising the importance of respecting individual privacy.

Socialist Roots and the Shift to a Balanced Approach

The new ruling is a shift from India’s earlier socialist view, inspired by judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, who believed that all property could be controlled by the government to benefit society. This older view supported nationalisation and wealth redistribution, but India’s economic direction has since changed. The Court’s ruling acknowledges this shift and supports a welfare model that balances private ownership with public needs rather than focusing solely on socialist ideals.

The judgment also brings in the concept of “intergenerational equity.” This means that today’s property owners have a responsibility to future generations, ensuring that resources are used wisely and are available for the next generation. This idea encourages sustainable development and responsible ownership, aligning with a vision of long-term community welfare.

The Influence of Past Interpretations

The recent judgment also revisits and adapts earlier interpretations of property rights. In the past, Justice Krishna Iyer argued that all essential resources should serve the community and that the government should be able to control them. However, today’s Court chose a more balanced approach, recognising that while public welfare is essential, private property rights are also valuable in a modern, market-driven economy. This change reflects India’s growth from a strictly state-controlled economy to a mixed one that respects both private and public interests.

The Case’s Broader Socio-Economic Impact

This ruling comes at a time when India balances socialism with capitalist growth. After independence, the government often took over private industries to build a state-led economy. Over time, however, private investment has become essential to the nation’s economic growth. This Supreme Court ruling supports this new approach, respecting both community needs and private investment.

For property owners, the ruling offers protection, assuring them that their land cannot be taken without reason. It encourages a stable environment for people and businesses to invest without fearing that the government will take away their property unfairly. For the government, it means any property acquisition must be justified as genuinely benefiting the public.

The Continuing Story of Property Rights

This case reminds us of Saeed Akhtar Mirza’s film Mohan Joshi Hazir Ho, where the character Mohan Joshi fights for his right to live in a safe home despite his landlord’s neglect. Like in the film, this legal battle has gone on for decades, with both landlords and tenants waiting years for a decision. Although the nine-judge bench’s decision offers clarity, it leaves some questions open, as another bench will decide if the 1986 law is constitutional.

The judgment illustrates how the law can help people while also respecting personal property rights. It shows that both sides—property owners and the government—can be protected through fair laws.

Future Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment has several long-term implications for both property owners and the government. First, it reinforces the right to private property, establishing that private ownership is not only constitutionally protected but also respected within the legal framework. For property owners, this judgment is a form of protection, as the government must now follow clear guidelines and provide fair compensation if it wishes to acquire private property​.

For India’s investment climate, this judgment is also significant. By protecting property rights, the Court has created a stable environment for investors. This move encourages individuals and companies to invest in private property without the fear of sudden, unjust acquisition by the state. As a result, this judgment can have a positive impact on India’s economy, supporting both domestic and foreign investments.

Conclusion

India’s journey with property rights reflects a continuous search for balance. The 25th and 26th Amendments gave the government greater control for public welfare, but today’s Supreme Court decision adds important safeguards for individuals. By allowing the government to take property only when it serves the community and compensating owners fairly, The Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra judgment protects both individual rights and public welfare. It represents a new direction in Indian constitutional law, rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach to eminent domain, and emphasising the importance of fairness and justice in government policies. This judgment is a milestone that reflects India’s evolving socio-economic landscape. It sets a guiding example for future cases, helping India grow as a country where personal responsibility and community needs are respected. As India develops, this balanced approach supports a vision of fairness and inclusion, ensuring that both private rights and public welfare are equally valued in the nation’s future.