December 27, 2025

Current Affairs

UNESCO Recognises Deepavali as Intangible Cultural Heritage

Context: During the 20th Session of the Intergovernmental Committee for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, hosted at the Red Fort, New Delhi, UNESCO inscribed Deepavali (Diwali) on its Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) of Humanity. With this, Deepavali becomes India’s 16th ICH element, joining earlier inscriptions such as Kumbh Mela (2017), Kolkata Durga Puja (2021), and Garba of Gujarat (2023).

About Deepavali

Deepavali is a 2,500-year-old festival rooted in ancient agrarian and seasonal traditions, later assimilated into diverse religious and regional practices across South Asia.

Hindu traditions:
It commemorates events such as Rama’s return to Ayodhya, Goddess Lakshmi’s emergence, Krishna’s victory over Narakasura, and the return of the Pandavas, symbolising the triumph of light over darkness and dharma over adharma.
Other religious traditions:
- Jainism: Marks Mahavira’s Nirvana.
- Sikhism: Celebrated as Bandi Chhor Divas, recalling Guru Hargobind’s release from imprisonment.
- Buddhist and regional practices: Observed as Tihar and by Newar Buddhist communities in Nepal.
Cultural practices:
Celebrated over five days (Dhanteras to Bhai Dooj), Deepavali involves lighting diyas, ritual worship, home decoration, exchange of gifts, community gatherings, and region-specific customs across India and Nepal.
Socio-economic dimension:
The festival generates significant economic activity in textiles, gold, handicrafts, traditional lamps, firecrackers, and e-commerce, and is increasingly celebrated globally with official recognition in several countries.

About the 20th UNESCO ICH Committee Session

India is hosting the 20th session from 8–13 December 2025 at the Red Fort, New Delhi.

Agenda:
Review new nominations, assess safeguarding reports, examine existing ICH elements, approve international assistance, and share best practices for protecting living heritage.
Participation:
Over 800 delegates from 180+ countries, including committee members, UNESCO officials, experts, NGOs, and cultural practitioners.

Significance for India

The inscription of Deepavali strengthens India’s cultural diplomacy and soft power, highlights the country’s pluralistic traditions, and reinforces its leadership role in global heritage governance. Hosting the ICH session further positions India as a key voice in safeguarding intangible cultural heritage worldwide.

One Nation, One Licence, One Payment: India’s Proposed AI Copyright Framework

Context: A DPIIT-led committee has released a working paper titled “One Nation, One License, One Payment”, proposing a statutory licensing framework to govern the use of copyrighted content for Artificial Intelligence (AI) training. If implemented, India would become the first country to adopt a nationwide compulsory licensing system with retrospective royalty obligations for AI developers.

AD 4nXd4FgKMDwsXhppjlf cajCGnaASCgigsLBVwdnqaEU9Awuji OyAdvUyUeu upDAmz6g2 TIdeGFuuZIcoF7S6H262oLJpIg4QKqKhszsghBZ512 8Quy0zowXQW

What is the Proposal?

The proposal seeks to address growing conflicts between AI developers and content creators by introducing a blanket compulsory licence. This would allow AI developers to train models on all lawfully accessed copyrighted works without negotiating individual licences, in return for statutory royalty payments.

A key institutional innovation is the creation of a Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT)—a non-profit body that would collect royalties from AI companies and distribute them to authors, publishers, musicians, artists and other rights holders.

Royalty rates would be fixed through a revenue-linked, government-appointed expert committee, ensuring uniformity across India.

Notably, the proposal also recommends retroactive royalty payments from AI systems that are already commercially successful.

Why India Needs an AI Royalty Framework

India’s Copyright Act, 1957 does not explicitly provide exceptions for text-and-data mining or AI training, creating legal uncertainty.

At the same time, creative sectors such as publishing, news media, music and cinema—worth thousands of crores annually—receive no compensation despite extensive use of their content in AI datasets.

A statutory model would ensure fair compensation, prevent exploitative licensing practices, and create a level playing field between global AI giants and India’s vast base of creators. With over 1.3 million registered creators, India has the scale to shape global norms in AI governance.

Additionally, a clear licensing regime could reduce copyright litigation under Section 51 of the Act, where multiple cases are already pending against unlicensed AI training.

Key Challenges

The proposal faces several hurdles. No major economy currently uses government-mandated royalty rates for AI training, raising concerns about global compatibility.

Fixing fair rates across more than 20 copyright categories—books, music, films, photographs, software—will be complex.

CRCAT will require advanced technical capacity to audit datasets and revenues. There are also concerns that retroactive payments may strain early-stage Indian AI startups operating on thin margins. Judicial scrutiny of royalty rates could further delay implementation.

Way Forward

A phased and adaptive approach can mitigate risks. Flexible royalty tiers, periodic rate revisions, and concessional slabs for startups can balance innovation with creator rights.

Continuous dialogue between AI firms and creative industries, along with strong digital infrastructure within CRCAT, will be critical for effective rollout.

Conclusion

The “One Nation, One Licence, One Payment” proposal represents a bold attempt to reconcile AI innovation with copyright justice.

If carefully implemented, it could position India as a global rule-setter in AI-copyright governance.

Karnataka Hate Speech Bill, 2025

Context: Karnataka has introduced the Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, marking India’s first State-level legislation to explicitly define hate speech. The Bill aims to address rising incidents of hate crimes, particularly those amplified through digital platforms, and to strengthen preventive and punitive mechanisms.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The Bill provides a clear statutory definition of hate speech, covering expressions that cause injury, hostility, or disharmony against individuals or groups based on religion, caste, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, disability, or place of birth.

Punishments range from 2 to 10 years of imprisonment, along with fines, depending on the severity and recurrence of the offence.

A notable feature is collective liability, whereby office-bearers of organisations can be held responsible if hate crimes are linked to organisational activities.

The Bill empowers the State to restrict or remove online content that promotes hate speech and authorises the police to take suo motu action in specified circumstances, eliminating the need for a formal complaint in serious cases.

Existing Legal Framework in India

India currently relies on dispersed provisions to regulate hate speech.

BNS Section 196 (earlier IPC 153A) penalises promotion of enmity between groups.
BNS Section 299 (earlier IPC 295A) punishes deliberate acts outraging religious feelings.
BNS Section 353 addresses speech likely to incite offences against the State or disturb public order.

The IT Act’s Section 66A was struck down in the Shreya Singhal judgment (2015) for vagueness, leaving a regulatory gap for online hate speech. In Tehseen Poonawalla (2018), the Supreme Court mandated preventive measures, including nodal officers, to curb hate crimes and mob violence.

Challenges in Hate Speech Regulation

Despite legal provisions, conviction rates remain low, with only about 20% of cases under hate speech provisions resulting in conviction (NCRB data). Over-criminalisation, weak evidence collection, and the subjective nature of defining hate speech increase the risk of misuse.

Online platforms exacerbate the problem, with nearly 70% of reported hate speech originating digitally. Political influence further complicates enforcement, as hate speech cases spike before elections.

Way Forward

Effective regulation requires harm-based, precise definitions, as recommended by the Law Commission (267th Report).

Independent nodal authorities, clear digital takedown protocols, and robust forensic standards for online evidence can improve enforcement while safeguarding free speech.

Significance

If implemented carefully, the Karnataka Bill could serve as a model for other states, balancing constitutional free speech with the need to protect dignity, public order, and social harmony.