Context: Recently, the United States has designated The Resistance Front (TRF) as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about The Resistance Front (TRF); 1267 Sanctions Committee.
The Resistance Front
The Resistance Front (TRF) is a proxy of Pakistan-based UN-designated terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
Founded by Muhammad Abbas Sheikh (now deceased) in 2019, in the aftermath of the abrogation of Article 370. It is currently headed by designated terrorist Sheikh Sajjad Gul. As per Indian security agencies, the outfit was floated to evade international sanctions against Pakistan.
TRF has carried out several terror attacks in Jammu & Kashmir’s Keran (2020), Handwara, Sopore, Shopian, Anantnag, and Reasi with the latest one in Baisaran meadows of Pahalgam (2025).
TRF usually focused on security forces and political figures, but late 2024 onwards it started to target infrastructure projects and civilians (including non-locals) in J&K.
The Indian government has designated the outfit as a terror organisation under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in 2023.
The move intensifies global pressure on Pakistan to rein in terror groups operating from its territory.
The designation will help India’s case in designating the TRF under the 1267 Committee for sanctions at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and imposing sanctions and travel bans on its members.
The 1267 Sanctions Committee
The 1267 Sanctions Committee, also known as the ISIS and Al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee, was established under the UNSC Resolution in 1999.
It is one of the most important UN subsidiary bodies working towards combating terrorism, particularly in relation to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and associated individuals, groups and entities.
The committee decides on sanctions and travel bans for individuals and entities associated with these terror organisations and ensures the enforcement of these measures under UNSC resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011), and 2253 (2015).
Pakistan, a non-permanent member of the UNSC, has been protecting TRF at UNSC with support from China.
Context: There is a growing global consensus that Israel's conduct in Gaza meets the legal threshold for genocide. While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued binding provisional measures, Israel’s non-compliance and continued assault raise doubts about the credibility of the rules-based international order.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Key facts about Genocide Convention; International Court of Justice.
Mains: Crimes against Humanity: Efforts, Institutions and Limitations.
What is Genocide?
Genocide was formally recognised as a crime under international law by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 1946.
In the aftermath of the horrors of the Holocaust (Germany), the UNGA unanimously adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in 1948.
The Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Genocide is considered the gravest of international crimes, and its prohibition constitutes a non-derogable peremptory norm(jus cogens) of international law. This means:
Prohibition of Genocide is absolute and universal- All countries must follow it. It cannot be ignored, suspended, or violated, even during war, emergency or with mutual agreement.
Any treaty or law that allows genocide is automatically invalid.
Because of its status as a jus cogens norm, the duty to prevent and punish genocide gives rise to an erga omnes obligation (one owed to the international community as a whole). This means that all states, regardless of their direct involvement in a conflict, are legally bound to act against genocide wherever it occurs.
Genocide Convention
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) emerged as an international treaty in the aftermath of World War II.
The convention is the first-ever legal instrument to define and criminalise genocide as an international crime, and a binding treaty to prevent and punish such acts.
It was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.
The Convention came into force in 1951, and has 153 state parties till 2024. India ratified the Genocide Convention in 1959.
The Genocide Convention defines genocide through five acts:
Killing members of a group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life to bring about physical destruction
Imposing measures to prevent births
Forcibly transferring children to another group with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
The definition of genocide given by the Convention has been adopted by various international and hybrid tribunals, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), and has been incorporated into the domestic laws of several countries.
Being an erga omnes obligation, South Africa, technically unrelated to the conflict in Gaza, claims standing to bring the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
South Africa moves to ICJ against Israel:
South Africa moves to ICJ: In January 2024, South Africa initiated proceedings against Israel at the ICJ, alleging that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza amounted to genocide.
Interim order by ICJ: As of July 2025, ICJ has not yet ruled on the merits of the charge, however, it has issued a series of binding provisional measures, including repeated directives to ensure the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza. These interim orders reflect ICJ’s preliminary assessment that a plausible risk of genocide exists.
Humanitarian crisis in Gaza:
The Gaza Strip is experiencing a humanitarian crisis as a result of the Gaza war (since October 2023).
Since March 2025, Israel has begun a complete blockade of all food and supplies going into Gaza. The blockage has been partially eased since May 2025 with limited aid distribution. This has resulted in significant shortages of fuel, food, medication, water, and essential medical supplies, with almost half a million people facing starvation.
Global consensus: As the humanitarian crisis worsens, a global consensus is emerging. Heads of state, senior United Nations officials, and leading international jurists are increasingly characterising Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocidal.
Establishing Genocidal Intent is Difficult:
Proving that genocide has occurred requires establishing two essential elements: the act itself and the intent behind it.
Establishing the Act: The first step is to establish the commitment of one or more of the five specific acts (specified in the Genocide Convention) against a protected group.
Establishing the Intent behind the Act:
Even more difficult is to establish the specific intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part. This rare intent is what sets genocide apart from other mass atrocities.
It is just not enough to show that the crimes were committed; rather the prosecutors must prove that the individuals as members of a group were targeted to annihilate the group’s capacity to survive or reconstitute itself as a political, social, or cultural entity.
Scale of Destruction in Gaza: Evidence of Plausible Genocide:
In June 2025, a UN Commission of Inquiry found that Israeli air strikes, shelling, burning and controlled demolitions had destroyed more than 90% of schools and university buildings across the Gaza Strip.
Investigative Reports in Gaza points out systematic destruction not only of residential areas but also of critical infrastructure, including hospitals, universities, mosques, water systems, agricultural zones, and cultural heritage sites, as evidence of a policy aimed at making Palestinian life in Gaza unsustainable.
As per the local health authorities:
Over 58,000 people have been killed, including more than 17,000 children.
Gaza now reportedly has the highest per capita number of amputee children in the world.
As the starvation crisis deepens, civilians have reportedly been shot while waiting in queues for food and essential supplies.
The scale of destruction in Gaza lend further credence to these claims that Israel had crossed the threshold for committing genocide. Israel has maintained that its military campaign targets Hamas and not civilians, who it claims are affected only as collateral damage.
Limitations of International Court of Justice
ICJ has held that intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the scale and nature of atrocities, patterns of conduct, and dehumanising rhetoric by state officials.
1. Rigid standards to establish Genocide:
However, the ICJ’s evidentiary standard for proving genocidal intent remains stringent and has come under increasing criticism.
In Croatia v. Serbia (2015), the ICJ held that genocidal intent could only be inferred from a pattern of conduct if “this is the only inference that could be reasonably drawn” from the acts in question.
This means that genocidal intent can only be accepted if it is the only possible explanation for the acts committed.
This rigid standard is widely criticised as it dismisses the possibility of genocide if there apperas to be any other plausible motive. Such a restrictive approach risks makes genocide near-impossible to prove.
ICJ needs a balanced approach that weighs all available evidence and discards inferences that are clearly unreasonable.
In other words, the presence of other conceivable motives should not automatically negate a finding of genocidal intent.
This view is consistent with international criminal jurisprudence. Both the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) have recognised that genocidal intent can co-exist with other motives.
2. Diminishing credibility of ICJ and rules-based international order:
Israel’s continued non-compliance with the ICJ’s binding provisional measures are increasingly being seen as a litmus test for the credibility of rules-based international order and undermines the credibility of ICJ.
Absence of decisive Multilateral Action: Within the UN framework, a strong case has emerged for suspending Israel from the UNGA, citing its persistent violations of the UN Charter and binding Security Council (UNSC) resolutions.
Article 6 of the UN Charter permits the expulsion of a member state by the Assembly on the UNSC’s recommendation if it consistently breaches the Charter’s core principles.
In 2024, the UNGA adopted a resolution calling for economic sanctions on Israel, including an arms embargo. The US, in particular, has continued to shield Israel from accountability by repeatedly vetoing most UNSC resolutions.
A final verdict by the ICJ on South Africa’s genocide allegations against Israel is likely to take years, as it must follow extensive hearings on jurisdiction and the merits of the case.
Context: India's voting pattern at the United Nations (UN) is undergoing a marked transformation. Annual share of abstentions in India’s votes at the UN reaches an all-time high.
Relevance of the Topic:Mains: Can be used as an argument to support India’s increasing voice (stature) as a rising Middle power; or India’s non-alignment (NAM) in changing global dynamics.
India's altered Voting Pattern at the United Nations: Key Trends
An analysis of more than 5,500 different resolutions in the UN that India voted on between 1946 and June 2025 shows that:
Late 1950s-late 1960s: India’s voting pattern remained volatile until the late 1960s, with the percentage of annual ‘yes’ votes swinging between 20% and 100%. The percentage of abstentions fluctuated between 0% and 40%.
In the time period in between: The magnitude of this volatility decreased substantially. India’s voting patterns in the UN became stable, with the share of ‘yes’ votes ranging over 75%, and abstentions under 20%.
From 2019 onwards: The proportion of abstentions by India every year has increased, while the ‘yes’ votes have reduced.
Annual percentage of ‘yes’ votes by India has fallen to 56%, the lowest since 1955.
Annual percentage of abstentions has increased to 44%, the highest share in India’s history at the UN.
Reasons behind the shift in India’s Voting Patterns:
India establishes its own independent position: An increasingly polarised world (greater polarisation between major powers in the UN) has led to India to alter its voting strategy at the UN. This rise in the share of abstentions could help India to establish its own independent position on various issues.
Increasing complexities of resolutions: The increase in abstentions is simultaneously a reflection that UN resolutions have become much more complicated (several different aspects and provisions are bundled up on the same resolution). In such situations, rather than jeopardising bilateral relations, abstention allows diplomatic flexibility and future repositioning of the stand.
Abstention provides emerging and middle powers like India the opportunity to express themselves more freely, rather than merely going along with the consensus or voting against it.
Context: A leadership change in Canada under the Prime Minister Mark Carney has led to a strategic reset in India-Canada ties, with both sides working to restore diplomacy and revive trade talks after a two-year standoff.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: India-Canada Ties: Significance and Challenges.
Background of the Canada - India Tensions
India-Canada relationship faced a major setback in September 2023 when former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Indian agents of being involved in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and pro-Khalistan separatist leader. India denied the allegations, calling them “absurd and motivated,” and responded by expelling Canadian diplomats and suspending visa services.
The situation worsened in October 2024, with further diplomatic expulsions amid Canadian investigations into alleged Indian involvement in clandestine operations targeting Sikh separatists.
Recent Strategic Reset Between India-Canada
A shift in Canada’s leadership and a more pragmatic foreign policy under the new Prime Minister have created an opportunity to reset ties with India, focusing on shared priorities and economic cooperation. The improvements in India-Canada Relations is reflected by:
High-Level Engagement: The new Prime Minister of Canada hosted the Indian Prime Minister at the G7 Summit. Calling it his great honor, the Indian counterpart highlighted the need for win-win cooperation, reflecting a positive shift in bilateral intent.
Mutual Cooperation: Both leaders emphasised cooperation on energy transition, artificial intelligence, and countering transnational repression and terrorism.
Revival of Dialogue: India’s External Affairs Ministry confirmed plans to restart senior ministerial and working-level engagements.
Resumption of the Trade talk: Talks on the Canada-India Free Trade Pact, stalled since 2023, are being revived.
Significance of India-Canada Relations
India-Canada bilateral ties are underpinned by shared values of democracy, pluralism, expanding economic engagement and long standing people-to-people ties.
Strategic Economic Partnership:
Bilateral trade stood at $12.4 billion in 2024, with potential for exponential growth.
Canadian investments in India (direct and indirect) now total nearly CA$100 billion, particularly in infrastructure, financial services, and real estate.
India supplies Canada with pharmaceuticals, textiles, gems and jewelry, while Canada exports potash, timber, paper, and mining products to India.
Educational and People-to-People Ties:
India is the largest source of international students in Canada, contributing significantly to its education sector and economy.
Canada is among the top 5 tourist sources for India. A large and politically active Sikh diaspora in Canada, the largest outside India, influences bilateral dynamics.
Geopolitical and Strategic Convergence:
Both countries are part of democratic alliances and share concerns about transnational terrorism, climate change, and emerging technologies like AI and renewable energy.
Trade diversification is a priority for both amid growing concerns over US tariffs and China’s assertiveness.
Complementary Economic Strengths: Canada seeks to diversify beyond the US market; India offers a young market with rising consumption.
Key Challenges in the Relationship
Khalistan Issue: India sees Canada’s inaction against Khalistan-linked separatist groups as a serious security concern, which continues to cause diplomatic friction.
Pending Extradition Requests: More than two dozen extradition and provisional arrest requests by India, related to individuals charged with extremism, remain unresolved in Canada.
Allegations of Transnational Repression: Canada is investigating the killings of two Sikh separatists and has accused Indian nationals of involvement. While India denies any role, the ongoing legal cases have strained bilateral trust.
Mistrust in Security Cooperation: Canada accuses Indian diplomats of covert surveillance, while India criticizes Canada for ignoring intelligence inputs and not cooperating on counterterror efforts.
Stalled Trade Negotiations: Despite prolonged discussions, both countries have been unable to finalise a Free Trade Agreement (FTA), limiting economic potential.
Way Forward
Revive Strategic Dialogue: Resume high-level diplomatic talks to rebuild trust and strengthen institutional ties.
Boost Security Cooperation: Establish joint mechanisms for intelligence sharing and counterterror collaboration.
Fast-Track Trade Engagement: Accelerate trade talks like EPTA to expand economic cooperation and reduce dependency on third markets.
Adopt Economic-First Approach: Prioritise trade and investment ties regardless of political differences, especially in education and energy.
Leverage Diaspora Diplomacy: Strengthen cultural links through the Indian diaspora while addressing extremist influences diplomatically.
The recent strategic reset signals a move toward pragmatic diplomacy between India and Canada, and signals a shift towards a stable, future-ready partnership focused on trade, trust, and shared global goals.
Context: China’s informal ban on DAP exports to India during the crucial sowing season has disrupted supply chains, and has exposed India’s strategic dependence on the geopolitical rival.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Major fertilisers used in India, India’s top fertiliser import sources.
Mains: Fertiliser supply chain disruptions and their impact on farmers and way Forward.
DAP Fertiliser in Indian Agriculture
India is the largest importer of Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) in the world, the second-most used fertiliser in the country after Urea.
DAP contains - 46% Phosphorus (P) and 18% nitrogen (N), and is critical during sowing for root and shoot development.
China has historically been the top exporter of DAP to India. 80% of India’s speciality fertilisers- crucial for high-value horticultural crops like fruits and vegetables, come from China.
China’s Informal Weaponisation of Trade:
Informal Export Ban on DAP:
China has stopped exporting DAP to India without an official notification.
Until 2023-24, China was a prominent supplier of DAP to India.
In 2024-25, imports from China fell from 22.9 lakh tonnes (LT) in FY24 to 8.4 LT in FY25.
Since January 2025, not a single tonne from China has been imported.
Impacts on India
Shortage of Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) the second most-used fertiliser in India during the peak kharif sowing season.
Rise in DAP Prices:
DAP import prices rose from ~$515/tonne (mid-2024) to $810+/tonne (mid-2025).
DAP prices in local markets spiked from the official MRP of ₹1,350 to ₹1,700+ per 50-kg bag due to shortages and hoarding.
Distress among farmers due to erratic supply and growing black market.
Shortage-driven crop damage may raise prices of vegetables, pulses, and oilseeds, fuelling food inflation.
Fertiliser units may struggle to meet demand, leading to underproduction and reliance on second-tier alternatives like Single Superphosphate (SSP) and Ammonium Phosphate Sulphate (APS). China's indirect control over upstream phosphate resources affects India’s ability to domestically manufacture DAP.
Indian importers have to source more phosphates from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Russia and Jordan, however, none of these countries have been able to fill the void left by China.
Way Forward
Supply diversification: Establish new supply lines from Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.
Boost Domestic Production: Invest in reviving and upgrading public and cooperative sector fertiliser units.
Subsidise innovation in green and nano-fertilisers to reduce import dependence.
Like the proposed India Rare Earth Mission, create a National Fertiliser Mission with production-linked incentives, research, and domestic backward linkages.
Leverage multilateral forums (e.g., WTO) to raise the issue of informal trade blockades.
Explore bilateral pressure through BRICS or SCO diplomatic backchannels.
Improve real-time logistics and digital tracking of fertiliser distribution and direct benefit transfers for fertiliser subsidies to bypass black-market exploitation.
India's fertiliser crisis is a strategic wake-up call. It offers an opportunity for India to reset its fertiliser ecosystem toward efficiency, resilience, and autonomy.
Key Facts:
DAP contains 46% Phosphorus (P) and 18% Nitrogen (N). Experts recommend that Indian farmers should be discouraged from applying fertilisers with very high individual nutrient content- be it DAP (46% P); Urea (46% N) and Muriate of Potash (60% potassium or K).
Ammonium phosphate sulphate (APS), a NPKS complex (20: 20: 0: 13), has emerged as India’s third most consumed fertiliser after urea and DAP. APS is more balanced i.e., has nutrients in the right quantities and proportions for effective absorption by the plant roots and leaves.
Other Examples of China's Strategic Trade Weaponisation:
In 2010, China halted rare earth exports to Japan amid the Senkaku Islands dispute.
In 2024-25, China restricted rare earth magnet exports to India, affecting defence and EV sectors.
In 2025, Chinese firms refused to supply parts for tunnel boring machines used in Indian infrastructure.
Context: During the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) held in Paris, Maratha Fort Systems in India got UNESCO Heritage Tag.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: About Maratha Military Landscape, UNESCO World Heritage Tag.
Maratha Military Landscapes in UNESCO’s World Heritage List
Maratha Military Landscapes of India has been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. The decision was taken during the ongoing 47th session of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) being held in Paris.
With this inscription, India now has 44 properties on the UNESCO World Heritage List. India ranks 6th globally and 2nd in Asia Pacific Region for the most number of World Heritage Sites.
The purpose of including these heritage sites in UNESCO’s list is to preserve and promote shared heritage based on OUVs (Outstanding Universal Values) found in cultural, natural as well as mixed properties across 196 countries.
About Maratha Military Landscapes
Maratha Military Landscapes of India is an extraordinary network of twelve forts spread across the states of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.
The list includes forts at: Raigad, Salher, Shivneri, Lohagad, Khanderi, Rajgad, Pratapgad, Suvarnadurg, Panhala, Vijaydurg, Sindhudurg (Maharashtra) and one Gingee Fort in Tamil Nadu.
The forts are located across a range of diverse terrains- from coastal outposts to hilltop strongholds - reflecting a sophisticated understanding of geography and strategic defence planning.
Time Period: 17th to 19th Centuries CE.
UNESCO’s World Heritage List:
UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention was adopted in 1972 and entered into force in 1975.
Objective: To identify, protect and help preserve international sites of exceptional ecological, scientific, or cultural importance.
As of 2025: India has 44 UNESCO World Heritage Sites. These include 36 cultural sites, 7 natural sites, and 1 mixed site (Khangchendzonga National Park).
In 2024, the Moidams of Charaideo, Assam was inscribed in the World Heritage List.
Context: Two GLP-1 drugs- Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide and Eli Lilly’s tirzepatide, are now available in the Indian market.
Mounjaro, Ozempic, Wegovy, Semaglutide, Tirzepatide belong to a class of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, originally developed to treat diabetes and obesity.
Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Key facts about GLP-1 Drugs.
What are GLP-1 Drugs?
GLP-1 is an incretin hormone and a neurotransmitter naturally secreted from the small intestine and hindbrain in the human body, after one eats a meal. It travels to the pancreas, where it helps to regulate blood sugar by increasing insulin and decreasing glucagon.
GLP-1 RA (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) are a new class of drugs that mimic naturally-occurring gut hormones called incretin (GLP-1 is one such incretin). Thus, they regulate appetite and digestion, helping users feel full faster and consume fewer calories.
Semaglutide and Tirzepatide both mimic the action of GLP-1. Tirzepatide additionally also mimics the action of another hormone called GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide).
How GLP-1 Drugs Work?
GLP-1 drugs impact centres in the brain associated with control of hunger and satiety, to effectively tell us that we have had enough to eat and need to stop eating. They work by:
improving the secretion of insulin that allows more of the glucose in the bloodstream to enter cells where it can be used for energy.
inhibiting the secretion of the hormone glucagon that stimulates the liver to release stored glucose into the bloodstream.
slowing down the emptying of the stomach so that the glucose levels in the bloodstream does not spike.
reducing appetite by signalling to the brain that one is satiated.
The drugs can be self-administered by the patient once a week via subcutaneous injection (similar to insulin). Semaglutide is also available as an oral tablet.
Utility of GLP-1 Drugs:
Weight loss: Extremely effective for weight-loss helping people lose on an average 15% to 20% of their body weight, equivalent to otherwise lost with bariatric surgeries.
Diabetes: GLP-1 drugs infusion significantly increases insulin levels and lowers glucose levels in diabetic patients.
Alzheimer’s: Some evidence shows that the drugs are associated with lower risk of Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
Other Conditions: Found to be effective and are being studied for conditions including- cardiovascular diseases, kidney disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and obstructive sleep apnoea. Studies have shown a 69% reduction in heart failure events.
Potential Side Effects of GLP-1 Drugs:
Common side effects include- nausea, vomiting, acidity, burping, hiccups, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, and appetite loss.
Rarer complications include- pancreatitis, retinal changes (necessitating eye exams), and increased risk of medullary thyroid carcinoma, especially for those with a family history.
Context: Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) is set to begin confined field trials of genetically modified (GM) Maize in the ongoing kharif season.
PAU has received approval from the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), under the Department of Biotechnology, along with formal consent from the Punjab state government.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about GM crops; GM Maize; Regulations related to GM crops.
Confined Field Trials of GM Maize
PAU will conduct confined field-trials of two varieties of transgenic Maize in collaboration with Bayer Crop Science Limited (formerly Monsanto).
GM Maize has been genetically engineered with both herbicide-tolerant (HT) and insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) traits.
Herbicide-tolerant (HT) Maize: To study weed-control efficacy in herbicide-tolerant maize hybrids with the application of Glyphosate-K salt.
Insect-resistant (IR) Maize: To study the efficacy of insect-protected maize hybrids against targeted lepidopteran pests (stem borer; fall armyworm).
Confined field trials are small-scale field experiments to address the biosafety requirements and evaluate the performance of specific traits in genetically engineered plants.
Criticism of Confined field trials of GM Maize trials:
Anti-GMO activists have expressed strong opposition to the project. The concerns include-
Unintended environmental consequences including the risk of gene flow into nearby farms or wild varieties. Trials pose risks of genetic contamination and long-term ecological damage.
Risk of potential long-term health risks associated with GM food products.
Introduction of GM crops in India (even for research or confined trials) sets a dangerous precedent, particularly in Punjab where agricultural ecology is already under stress. Glyphosate-tolerant Maize trails are controversial as glyphosate (a herbicide) is currently banned in Punjab due to its negative impacts on human health and the environment.
Lack of transparency and insufficient public consultation. Bayer’s involvement has been questioned given the global controversies surrounding GM seed patent enforcement.
The organisations have demanded transparency on the scientific basis for the approval and raised concerns over biosafety violations in previous GM crop trials at PAU.
PAU Maintains that:
Trials were permitted only after receiving clearance from the Government of India’s Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), under the Department of Biotechnology.
Biosafety Research Level 1 (BRL-I) trials (preliminary) and Advanced level II (BRL-II) trials would be carried out under strict standard operating procedures, with mandatory permission from state-level committees.
Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) is the regulatory authority for BRL-1 trials (size limited to no more than one acre/trial site location).
Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) is the regulatory authority for Biosafety Research Level II (BRL- II) trials (size is generally limited to no more than 2.5 acres/trial site location).
What are GM Crops?
Genetically Modified (GM) crops are plants that have had their DNA modified (altered) through genetic engineering.
It involves inserting new DNA into the genome of a plant.
The seeds produced by these plants will inherit the new DNA.
E.g., BT cotton is a genetically modified variety of cotton that contains genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis.
Benefits of GM crops:
Genetic modification is done to transfer a particular trait to the plant in order to:
Increased the yield of a crop
Increased nutritional content of a crop
Developing resistance to:
Abiotic stresses like temperature, salinity or herbicide-resistant
Biotic stresses like insect-resistant crops.
Regulations related to GM crops:
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and their products are regulated under the “Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms/ Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989.”
The rules are notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These rules regulate the use, research, and commercialisation of GMOs, especially for environmental and biosafety concerns.
The commercial cultivation and the field trials of GM crops require clearance from the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
After the GEAC clearance, the state governments have the power to approve (or reject) the field trials of particular GM crops in their respective states.
Status of GM crops in India
BT cotton is the only GM crop that is commercially allowed for cultivation in India from 2002.
Field trials of GM Mustard (DMH-11) were approved by GEAC in 2022, but its commercial release is still pending.
Context: The safe return of Group Captain Shubhanshu Shukla from the International Space Station as part of the Axiom-4 Mission, where he was the pilot among the four-member crew, marks a watershed moment for India’s space programme.
Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Key facts about Axiom-4 Mission. Mains: Significance of Axiom-4 Mission.
Axiom-4 Mission
Axiom-4 Mission is a private spaceflight organised by Axiom Space launched aboard the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft in June 2025.
The crew spent 18 days aboard the International Space Station (ISS) and conducted various experiments in the microgravity environment.
The mission was conducted in collaboration with NASA, Axiom Space, ESA, and other international partners.
Successful Homecoming:
Axiom-4 Mission returned to Earth with their SpaceX Dragon capsule splashing down off the San Diego coast in the US.
The astronauts will undergo a rehabilitation programme for about a week under the supervision of flight surgeons to help him adapt back to gravity.
The crew completed 320 orbits of earth. They also completed over 60 research activities.
Valuable Lessons from Axiom-4 Mission
Invaluable lessons for Gaganyaan Mission: Group Captain Shukla of IAF is selected as one of the astronauts on India’s Gaganyaan Mission. The mission provides an invaluable blueprint for streamlining complex operational flows in the upcoming Gaganyaan Mission. This includes-
Pre-flight preparations and launch sequences to in-orbit activities, docking procedures, and the critical re-entry and recovery phases.
Intricacies of communication protocols, real-time decision-making under pressure, and robust contingency planning.
Blueprint for Astronaut Selection and Training: Participation in Axiom-4 Mission led to fairly detailed exposure of training procedures to Group Captain Shukla. This experience provides a rich case study in-
Crew training and preparation: Globally, commercial astronauts are from various professional backgrounds (not necessarily career military pilots) rigorously trained and seamlessly integrated into a complex mission profile.
Refinement of India’s training methodologiesand astronaut selection: This includes incorporating best practices for physiological adaptation to microgravity and psychological conditioning for isolation. Both simulation-based drills and real-time problem-solving scenarios can enhance the preparedness of Indian Vyomnauts.
Paves way for International Crewed Mission Coordination: While ISRO’s approach to space exploration and research has been largely national, the global landscape of human spaceflight is becoming increasingly collaborative and driven by the commercial sector. The mission showcases the efficiency and necessity of international collaboration, where diverse expertise works together towards shared objectives.
Private-sector Engagement in Space Sector:
Axiom-4’s reliance on established commercial launch and crew vehicles (like Space X’s Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon) highlights increasing reliability and capability of private-sector space transportation and collaboration.
This could inspire India to explore strategic partnerships with the private sector in India and globally for certain sub-systems or specific commercial methodologies.
This mission’s success (viability and profitability) can encourage more Indian companies to invest in space infrastructure, services, and human spaceflight support. This could lead to a thriving ecosystem of Indian suppliers, manufacturers, and service providers for future missions.
Encourages the Younger Generation to pursue STEM Education.
As the global space community becomes more interconnected, Axiom-4 Mission highlights the benefits of pooling resources, expertise, and technological capabilities.
The participation of one of its astronaut candidates in Axiom-4 will enrich Gaganyaan Mission in terms of planning and execution, and serve as a stepping stone in building operations infrastructure for future programs like commercial space flights and Bhartiya Antariksha Station.
Context: Germany is considering funding the US-made Patriot Air Defence Systems for Ukraine amid ongoing Russian missile and drone attacks.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about Patriot Missile System.
Ukraine has repeatedly asked Western allies for more air defences to protect critical infrastructure and civilians from frequent missile and drone attacks. Ukrainian officials maintain that Patriot systems are vital to defend against long-range attacks by Russia.
What is the Patriot Missile System?
Petriot (Phased Array Tracking Radar for Intercept on Target) is a mobile surface-to-air defence system.
Developed by: United States
It is used to detect, track, and shoot down incoming missiles, aircraft, and drones.
It is considered one of the most advanced air defence systems in the US arsenal, and has been in service since the 1980s.
How does the Patriot work?
The system has different capabilities depending on the type of interceptor used.
The earlier PAC-2 interceptor uses a blast-fragmentation warhead that detonates in the vicinity of a target.
The PAC-3 family of missiles uses more accurate technology that hits the target directly.
According to NATO, the system’s radar range exceeds 150 km.
Global Usage:
The system is used in 19 countries including: The US, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
In 2025, the US transferred about 90 Patriot interceptors from Israel to Ukraine.
Cost of the System:
A newly produced single Patriot battery costs over $1 billion, including $400 million for the system and $690 million for the missiles in a battery.
Patriot interceptors are estimated to cost $4 million.
