Primus Civil Services Academy

Login / Register
Facebook Instagram Youtube Telegram X-twitter
  • +91 89711 29696
  • reachout@primusias.com

September 05th Current Affairs

Home / UPSC / Current affairs / UPSC Current Affairs – September 05th

Table of Contents

Operation Sindoor - Primus IAS
Current affairs

Operation Sindoor

July 21st Current Affairs Home / Operation Sindoor Why in News? Parliament’s Monsoon Session, starting July 21, 2025, is expected to feature

Read More »
July 21, 2025
Sesismic Waves - Primus IAS
Current affairs

Alaska Earthquakes

July 21st Current Affairs Home / Alaska Earthquakes Why in News? On July 21, 2025, Alaska Peninsula was struck by

Read More »
July 21, 2025

Centre claims Kukis ready for free movement in Manipur, days ahead of PM visit

Centre claims Kukis ready for free movement in Manipur, days ahead of PM visit

Relevance to UPSC

  1. GS Paper I (History, Society, Culture)
    • Ethnic Mobilization & Identity Politics: Sheds light on deep-rooted tribal-Meitei-Kuki dynamics in Northeast India.
    • Impact of Geography on Conflict: Buffer zones and strategic highways indicating geographic determinants of peace and conflict.
  2. GS Paper II (Polity, Governance, Internal Security)
    • Suspension of Operations (SoO) Agreement: Reflects conflict-resolution mechanisms and Centre–state–civil society coordination.
    • Territorial Integrity: Highlights challenges in preserving union integrity amid ethnic tensions.
    • Role of Civil Society (Kuki-Zo Council): Demonstrates how non-state actors influence peace processes.
  3. GS Paper III (Security Challenges, Infrastructure)
    • Restoration of Critical Infrastructure (NH-2): Focuses on reopening and securing National Highway-2 as vital for regional connectivity and economic normalcy.
    • Security Forces & Monitoring: Implementation of joint monitoring for adherence to the SoO agreement illustrates internal security mechanisms.

More About the News

  • The Centre has renewed a Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement with Kuki-Zo militant groups, including a pledge to maintain Manipur’s territorial integrity.
  • The Kuki-Zo Council agreed to allow free movement of commuters and essential goods along National Highway-2 (Imphal–Dimapur stretch).
  • The Council clarified that this arrangement does not apply to buffer zones between Meitei and Kuki areas.
  • The step is aimed at restoring normalcy, building inter-community trust, and improving governance and logistics ahead of PM Narendra Modi’s likely Manipur visit.

Manipur Conflict

Manipur, a strategic border state in Northeast India, has long witnessed ethnic fault lines between the valley-dwelling Meiteis and the hill-dwelling tribes (Nagas and Kukis). The recent demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status by the Meitei community and subsequent violence highlights the delicate balance between identity, land rights, and political representation in a sensitive frontier region.

Ethnic Composition of Manipur

  • Geographically compared to a football stadium:
    • Imphal Valley (10% of land) → dominated by non-tribal Meiteis (64% of population), elects 40/60 MLAs.
    • Hill Areas (90% of land) → inhabited by 33 recognised tribes (35% population), elects 20 MLAs.
  • Religious composition:
    • Meiteis: largely Hindus, some Muslims.
    • Tribes (Nagas, Kukis): largely Christians.

Meitei Argument for ST Status

  • Historical basis: Meiteis recognised as a tribe before merger with India (1949).
  • Preservation demand: Protect land, culture, language, and tradition.
  • Demographic insecurity:
    • Population share fell from 59% (1951) to 44% (2011).
    • Fear of “Greater Nagalim” shrinking Manipur’s territorial extent.
  • Land issues: Tribals can buy land in the Valley, but Meiteis are barred from hill areas.
  • Past agitations:
    • Demand for Inner Line Permit (2006–12) to control outsiders.
    • Fears of demographic shift due to Kuki-Zomi migration from Myanmar.
  • Development anxieties: Infrastructure (railways, highways) may intensify land and employment competition.
  • Employment concerns: Government is the largest employer; Meiteis feel excluded from ST reservation benefits.

Tribal Opposition to Meitei ST Demand

  • Meiteis already enjoy demographic, political, and academic dominance.
  • Granting ST status → would allow them to buy land in hill areas and dominate job quotas.
  • Meitei language is in the Eighth Schedule; many already benefit from SC/OBC/EWS reservations.
  • Tribals allege developmental imbalance → most budget allocation benefits the Imphal Valley despite tribes occupying 90% of land.

Process of Inclusion in ST List

  • State government initiates recommendation.
  • Ministry of Tribal Affairs reviews.
  • Registrar General of India (Home Ministry) approves.
  • National Commission for Scheduled Tribes examines.
  • Cabinet approval → Amendment Bill in Parliament.
  • Final notification by the President under Articles 341 & 342.

Triggers of Recent Unrest

  • Forest eviction drives → eviction of Kuki settlements termed “illegal encroachments”.
  • Manipur High Court order (2023) → asked govt. to recommend ST status for Meiteis.
  • Delimitation disputes (2020) → Meiteis questioned Census data; tribes claimed underrepresentation.
  • Myanmar coup (2021) → influx of migrants into border districts like Churachandpur.
  • Drug menace:
    • Anti-drug drive led to destruction of poppy fields.
    • Govt accused “illegal settlers” linked to Kuki-Zomi groups of drug cultivation.
  • Suspension of Operations (SoO) withdrawal: Govt pulled out of ceasefire with some Kuki groups accused of inciting violence.

Geography and History of Violence

  • Manipur divided into valley districts (Imphal-centric) and hill districts (Naga & Kuki dominated).
  • Historical role of Kukis: Settled by British & Maharaja along ridges as buffer against Naga raids.
  • Ethnic conflicts:
    • Naga movement (1950s) → triggered Meitei & Kuki insurgencies.
    • 1990s: Kukis demanded “Kukiland”, alienating Meiteis.
    • 1993: Meitei–Pangal (Muslim) clashes & Naga–Kuki massacres.
  • Churachandpur district: Kuki-Zomi dominated, poorest district, centre of recent protests.

Constitutional Safeguards for Tribals

  • Article 371C: Provides for a Hill Areas Committee in the Manipur Assembly.
  • Hill Areas Committee Order, 1972: All hill MLAs are members; Governor ensures functioning.

Way Forward

  • Revisit ST inclusion criteria (Lokur Committee, 1965): primitive traits, distinct culture, isolation, shyness of contact, backwardness.
  • Apply recommendations of later committees:
    • Bhuria Commission (2002–04) → tribal land, Panchayats, women’s issues.
    • Virginius Xaxa HLC (2013) → livelihood, education, health, displacement, legal safeguards.
  • Strengthen border surveillance to check illegal migration from Myanmar.
  • Economic & diplomatic engagement with neighbours for stability.
  • Identity protection measures for border communities.
  • Peace accords with insurgent groups to reduce violence.
  • Human rights reforms: Phase-out AFSPA, ensure fair legal mechanisms.
  • Inclusive governance: Ensure participation of both valley and hill communities in policymaking to foster trust.

Lasting peace in Manipur requires a calibrated approach that balances constitutional safeguards with inclusive development, while addressing genuine insecurities of all communities. Strengthening border management, fostering dialogue, and promoting participatory governance can ensure that Manipur evolves from a zone of conflict into a model of harmony, resilience, and integration within the Indian Union

Prelims MCQ

Q. Consider the following statements regarding the ethnic composition and political representation in Manipur: 1. The Meitei community, though confined largely to the Imphal Valley (10% of land), accounts for over 60% of the State’s population. 2. The Hill tribes (Nagas and Kukis), though inhabiting about 90% of the State’s land area, elect only one-third of the members in the State Assembly. 3. The Meitei language is included in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only

B. 1 and 3 only

C. 2 and 3 only

D. 1, 2 and 3

Mains Question

Q. The recent ethnic violence in Manipur highlights the deep-rooted tension between identity, land rights, and political representation. Analyze the causes of the conflict with special reference to the demand for Scheduled Tribe status by the Meiteis. Suggest measures to ensure inclusive governance and sustainable peace in the State.

NIRF Rankings 2025: IISc Bangalore, JNU retain top two ranks in Universities category

NIRF Rankings 2025 IISc Bangalore, JNU retain top two ranks in Universities category

Relevance to UPSC

  1. GS Paper II (Education Policy & Governance)
    • Highlights the role of NIRF as a crucial mechanism for assessing institutional quality in higher education.
    • Demonstrates government’s focus on transparency and accountability through performance-linked ranking frameworks.
  2. GS Paper III (Science & Technology, Economic Development)

Emphasizes research output, interdisciplinary collaboration, and infrastructure, connecting improvements in higher education to innovation and national development.

More About the News

  • The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2025 ranked IISc Bengaluru first and JNU second in the universities category, reaffirming their leadership in academic and research excellence.
  • Rankings are evaluated across parameters like teaching, learning, research, graduation outcomes, outreach, and inclusivity.
  • The top institutions reflect a growing emphasis on interdisciplinary research, international collaboration, and infrastructure development.
  • Public universities continue to lead, reinforcing their critical role in India’s higher education landscape.

What is National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF)?

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), launched in 2015 by the Ministry of Education, provides a comprehensive ranking system for higher educational institutions in India based on teaching, research, graduation outcomes, inclusivity, and perception. It has emerged as a benchmark for quality assurance, accountability, and policy direction in the education sector.

Evolution of NIRF

  • 2015: Launched by MHRD (now Ministry of Education).
  • 2016: First ranking released, covering universities, engineering, and management institutions.
  • 2017 onwards: Expanded to include law, pharmacy, architecture, medicine, dental, etc.
  • 2022: NIRF and NAAC rankings aligned for accreditation synergy.
  • 2025: Recognised as a policy tool to guide funding, research collaboration, and institutional reforms.

Constitutional & Non-Constitutional Provisions Linked

  • Article 45 & 46 – Directive Principles: Promotion of education and weaker section upliftment.
  • Article 21A – Right to Education (though school-centric, quality benchmarks extend to higher education).
  • Schedule VII (Union List) – Entry 66: Coordination and standards in higher education.
  • UGC Act, 1956 (Statutory basis) – NIRF complements UGC’s role in quality regulation.
  • NEP 2020 (Policy provision) – Push for outcome-based rankings and global competitiveness.

Powers & Functions

  • Ranking Institutions → Across 11 categories (e.g., IISc ranked 1 in 2025 Universities list).
  • Policy Feedback → Identifies gaps in research/teaching for government reforms.
  • Transparency Tool → Guides students/parents in informed choices.
  • Resource Allocation → Influences funding decisions (e.g., IoE tag, RUSA allocations).
  • International Benchmarking → Prepares Indian institutions for QS & THE global rankings.

Impact of NIRF

  • Enhanced Competition – Institutions like IITs, IISc, and JNU are motivated to raise their research output and innovation capacity to secure higher ranks.
  • Informed Student Choices – Students increasingly rely on NIRF while applying (e.g., Hindu College topping the NIRF 2025 college list influenced admissions preference).
  • Boost to Research Ecosystem – Funding and recognition are increasingly tied to research outcomes (e.g., IISc Bengaluru gaining global visibility through its consistent top rank).
  • Regional Inclusivity – Institutions beyond metros, such as VIT Vellore and Manipal Academy of Higher Education, have gained national recognition, encouraging balanced growth.
  • Policy Alignment – Insights from NIRF have influenced NEP 2020, which emphasises multidisciplinary learning and holistic education reforms.

Challenges of NIRF

  • Excessive Focus on Numbers – Rankings rely heavily on quantitative data like research publications, often ignoring quality (e.g., papers in predatory journals still get counted).
  • Urban-Centric Dominance – Elite metro-based universities dominate rankings, sidelining rural or state institutions (e.g., Delhi–Bangalore clusters overshadow North-East universities).
  • Data Manipulation Risks – Some institutions inflate faculty-student ratios or placement statistics to improve scores artificially.
  • Narrow Scope of Parameters – Teaching quality, classroom pedagogy, and community outreach remain inadequately measured (e.g., a socially impactful but small rural university remains unrecognised).
  • Low Institutional Awareness – Many Tier-2 and Tier-3 colleges underreport data or fail to participate (e.g., several state universities not submitting complete NIRF data).

Highlights of NIRF

  • Category-wise Rankings – Universities, colleges, medical, law, etc.
  • Outreach & Inclusivity Indicator – Encourages women’s participation, regional balance.
  • Transparency Portal – Institutions must upload audited data.
  • Expansion under NEP 2020 – Rankings integrated with accreditation (NAAC/NBA).
  • Global Connect – Benchmarking Indian institutions against global standards.

Way Forward

  • Holistic Ranking – Integrate teaching quality, innovation, and social outreach.
  • Decentralisation – State-wise institutional ranking systems.
  • Periodic Review – Metrics updated with evolving educational needs (AI, green tech).
  • Stronger Data Audits – Prevent manipulation, ensure credibility.
  • Global Outreach – Align NIRF with QS & THE methodologies for global visibility.

NIRF has evolved into a critical policy and accountability tool shaping India’s higher education landscape. Going forward, its focus should shift towards innovation, inclusivity, and global competitiveness to prepare Indian institutions for the knowledge economy of the 21st century.

Prelims MCQ

Q. Consider the following statements regarding the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF): 1. It was launched in 2015 by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (now Ministry of Education). 2. Its parameters include teaching, research, graduation outcomes, inclusivity, and perception. 3. The rankings are approved and notified under Article 342 of the Constitution. Which of the above are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only

B. 2 and 3 only

C. 1 and 3 only

D. 1, 2, and 3

Mains Question

Q. The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has emerged as a benchmark for quality assurance in higher education. Critically analyse its role in improving transparency, competition, and accountability in India’s education sector, while highlighting the challenges that limit its effectiveness. Suggest reforms to strengthen its global relevance.

2 policemen killed in operation against ‘Maoist team planning a strike’ in Jharkhand

PM Modi and EU leaders

Relevance to UPSC

  1. GS Paper II – Internal Security & Insurgency
    • Highlights the persistent Maoist challenge and the strategic nature of anti-insurgency operations.
  2. GS Paper III – Role of Security Forces & Governance
  • Demonstrates the complexities of counter-insurgency tactics, implementation of intelligence-based operations, and safeguarding of personnel.

More About the News

  • In Palamu, Jharkhand, two policemen were killed and one critically injured in an encounter with the Maoist faction TSPC during an operation to target commander Shashikant Ganjhu.
  • The clash occurred in Kedal forest, after intelligence inputs about a planned Maoist strike; security forces came under sudden fire.
  • The incident exposed tactical lapses, as senior officials were reportedly not fully informed of the mission.
  • A search and cordon operation continues, with reports that some Maoists may have been injured, though no bodies have been recovered.

Naxalism in India

The Union Home Minister, while paying tribute at the Amar Shaheed Smarak in Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, honoured the martyrs who sacrificed their lives in the fight against Maoist insurgency (Naxalism). He asserted that by March 2026, India will be completely free from the Maoist threat through a three-pronged “carrot-and-stick” strategy, which focuses on strengthening security measures, accelerating development initiatives, and ensuring empowerment of affected communities.

Evolution of Naxalism

  • 1967: Origin in Naxalbari village, West Bengal, led by Charu Majumdar & Kanu Sanyal → peasants uprising against landlords.
  • 1970s–80s: Spread across Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha; armed groups like People’s War Group (PWG) formed.
  • 2004: Merger of PWG and Maoist Communist Centre → CPI (Maoist) became central organisation.
  • 2006: PM termed Naxalism the “biggest internal security threat” (Red Corridor across 150 districts).
  • 2010s onwards: Decline due to security operations, development schemes, surrenders; now confined to few districts in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha.

Causes of Naxalism

  1. Land Alienation & Inequality
    • Unequal land distribution, bonded labour.
    • Example: Telangana, Bihar landlords vs landless peasants conflict.
  2. Tribal Displacement & Resource Exploitation
    • Large-scale displacement due to dams, mining, industrial projects.
    • Example: Displacement in Chhattisgarh’s Bastar region due to mining projects.
  3. Poor Governance & Development Deficit
    • Lack of infrastructure, schools, healthcare in tribal belts.
    • Example: Villages in Dantewada with no road connectivity, exploited by Maoists.
  4. Social Injustice & Exploitation
    • Marginalisation of Dalits, Adivasis; caste oppression.
    • Example: Atrocities against Dalits in Bihar in 1970s-80s fueled Naxalism.
  5. Failure of Institutions
    • Weak policing, corruption, slow justice delivery.
    • Example: Delay in land reforms & forest rights implementation pushed tribals towards Maoist support.

Impact of Naxalism

  1. Security Threat
    • Attacks on security forces, arms looting.
    • Example: 2010 Dantewada massacre killing 76 CRPF personnel.
  2. Economic Disruption
    • Destruction of infrastructure, halted mining/rail projects.
    • Example: Frequent attacks on railway lines in Jharkhand.
  3. Human Cost
    • Thousands of civilians, tribals, police killed.
    • Example: 2021 Bijapur ambush killed 22 jawans.
  4. Governance Paralysis
    • Parallel “janatana sarkars” (people’s govts) run by Maoists.
    • Example: Bastar areas where Maoists run kangaroo courts.
  5. Stalled Development
    • Investors avoid Red Corridor; welfare funds diverted.
    • Example: Delayed projects in Left Wing Extremism (LWE)-affected Odisha districts.

Challenges in Tackling Naxalism

  1. Difficult Terrain & Intelligence Gaps
    • Maoists exploit dense forests & mountains.
    • Example: Chhattisgarh’s Abujhmad forests remain Maoist stronghold.
  2. Local Support to Maoists
    • Tribals provide shelter, food due to grievances.
    • Example: Support in Jharkhand’s Latehar district.
  3. Human Rights Concerns
    • Security excesses, misuse of AFSPA/operations alienate locals.
    • Example: Allegations during Salwa Judum movement.
  4. Socio-Economic Backwardness
    • Persistent poverty makes Maoist ideology attractive.
    • Example: High poverty in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra.
  5. Inter-State Coordination Issues
    • Maoist corridors cut across state borders, hindering policing.
    • Example: Border areas of Chhattisgarh–Telangana used as safe zones.

Government Initiatives

  • Security Measures: Greyhounds, CoBRA battalions, Unified Command.
  • Development Schemes: Integrated Action Plan (IAP), Aspirational Districts Programme.
  • Surrender Policies: Financial packages, livelihood training for surrendered Maoists.
  • Legislation: Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), NIA Act.
  • Infrastructure Push: Road Connectivity Project for LWE Areas.

Recommendations by Committees

  • Expert Group (2008, Planning Commission): Focus on rights of tribals, land reforms.
  • Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee (2005): Repeal AFSPA, ensure rights-based approach.
  • K.S. Subramanian Committee: Police reforms, modernisation.
  • NITI Aayog: Link security with socio-economic empowerment.

Way Forward

  • Balanced Approach: Security + Development + Empowerment.
  • Strengthen Governance: Speedy implementation of Forest Rights Act, land reforms.
  • Improve Policing: Local recruitment, better intelligence networks.
  • Tribal Empowerment: Education, healthcare, livelihood schemes.
  • Dialogue & Rehabilitation: Encourage surrenders and peace talks.

Naxalism represents the clash between developmental deprivation and armed resistance. While security measures have reduced its spread, sustainable peace will come only by addressing root causes—land, livelihood, and dignity of tribals. A future-oriented strategy should ensure that by 2026 and beyond, governance and growth, not guns, define the Red Corridor.

Prelims MCQ

Q. Which of the following are key factors behind the persistence of Naxalism in India?
1. Unequal land distribution and displacement of tribals
2. Rapid industrialisation in LWE regions
3. Weak governance and lack of basic infrastructure
4. Effective inter-state coordination of security forces

A. 1, 2 and 3 only

B. 1 and 3 only

C. 2, 3 and 4 only

D. 1, 2, 3 and 4

Mains Question

Q. The Union Home Minister has announced that India will be free from Naxalism by 2026 through a three-pronged strategy. Critically examine the evolution, causes, and impact of Naxalism in India, and suggest a comprehensive roadmap for achieving this goal.

PM Modi and EU leaders discuss early conclusion of FTA, end to war in Ukraine

PM Modi and EU leaders

Relevance to UPSC

  • GS Paper II (International Relations & Foreign Policy): Highlights India’s deepening strategic collaboration with the European Union, reinforcing multilateral engagement and global economic diplomacy.
  • GS Paper III (Economy & Trade): Demonstrates the role of FTAs in shaping trade dynamics, influencing sectors from automobiles and pharmaceuticals to digital services and renewable energy.

More about the News

  • PM Narendra Modi, in a joint call with EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa, reiterated the goal of concluding the long-pending India–EU FTA negotiations by 2025-end.
  • Talks also focused on deepening cooperation in trade, technology, investment, defense, and advancing the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC).
  • The EU appreciated India’s role in promoting a peaceful resolution in Ukraine, highlighting shared strategic and economic priorities.
  • Negotiators have finalized nearly half of the FTA chapters (customs, trade facilitation), while sensitive sectors like dairy and rice remain excluded to safeguard domestic interests.

India - European Unioun (EU) Relations

India and the European Union share a strategic partnership since 2004, rooted in common democratic values, trade, technology, and global governance. Over time, cooperation has expanded to areas like climate change, digital transition, connectivity, and regional security, though challenges remain in realizing the full potential of the relationship.

Evolution of India–EU Relations

  • 1962 – India established diplomatic ties with the European Economic Community (EEC).
  • 1994 – India–EU Cooperation Agreement signed, providing a framework for political dialogue.
  • 2000 – First India–EU Summit launched a structured dialogue mechanism.
  • 2004 – Relationship upgraded to Strategic Partnership.
  • 2021 – Connectivity Partnership Agreement signed, focusing on digital, energy, transport, and people-to-people links.

Strengths of India–EU Ties

  • Trade & Investment Partner – EU is India’s second-largest trading partner (~11% of trade); India is EU’s 10th largest partner.
  • Technology & Research – Joint work in AI, space, clean energy; India participates in Horizon Europe research program.
  • Climate & Green Energy Cooperation – EU supports India’s renewable energy goals; partnership in International Solar Alliance (ISA).
  • Democratic Values – Shared commitment to multilateralism, rule of law, and human rights.
  • Connectivity & Infrastructure – EU part of India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC), promoting sustainable connectivity.

Weaknesses in the Relationship

  • FTA Deadlock – India–EU FTA negotiations (since 2007) delayed due to differences on tariffs, services, and agriculture.
  • Divergent Foreign Policy Stances – EU critical of India on human rights, CAA, Kashmir, creating diplomatic friction.
  • Trade Imbalances – EU’s strict standards and regulations (e.g., carbon tax, food safety norms) disadvantage Indian exporters.
  • Security Cooperation Limited – EU’s fragmented defense policy weakens counter-terrorism and maritime security ties.

Major Initiatives Taken Together

  • India–EU Strategic Partnership: Roadmap 2025 (launched in 2020).
  • Connectivity Partnership Agreement (2021).
  • Joint Naval Exercises in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean.
  • EU–India Clean Energy and Climate Partnership.
  • Digital Investment Forum for tech collaboration.

Challenges in the Relationship

  • Trade Protectionism – EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) could raise costs for Indian steel/aluminium exports.
  • Agriculture & Dairy Sensitivities – India unwilling to open markets; EU seeks access (e.g., dairy, wines, spirits).
  • Human Rights Concerns – EU Parliament resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir, CAA strain political trust.
  • China Factor – EU cautious about India’s role in Indo-Pacific, as some EU states pursue business ties with Beijing.

How are the Challenges Countered?

  • Trade Diplomacy – Restarted FTA negotiations in 2022; ~50% chapters closed by 2025.
  • Strategic Autonomy Dialogue – EU recognizing India’s neutral stance on Russia–Ukraine.
  • Sectoral Cooperation – Focus on technology, climate, connectivity where interests align.
  • Maritime Cooperation – Joint exercises in the Indo-Pacific strengthen trust.
  • Diversification of Partnerships – Expanding people-to-people, academic, and cultural exchanges to balance political frictions.

Way Forward

  • Early Conclusion of FTA balancing India’s domestic sensitivities and EU’s regulatory concerns.
  • Deepening Indo-Pacific Cooperation with EU naval presence in Indian Ocean.
  • Green & Digital Transition Partnership aligned with NEP 2020 and EU’s Green Deal.
  • Reform Multilateral Institutions jointly for global governance (UNSC, WTO, IMF).
  • Boost People-to-People Linkages via migration, education, and cultural programs.

India–EU relations are at a critical juncture, with opportunities to become a transformative global partnership. As the world shifts towards multipolarity, convergences in trade, climate, technology, and security can help overcome past frictions. A successful India–EU FTA and connectivity partnership could redefine global supply chains and cement both as pillars of a rules-based international order.

Prelims MCQ

Q. Consider the following statements regarding India–EU relations:
1. The first India–EU Summit was held in 2004, which upgraded the relationship to a Strategic Partnership.
2. The EU is India’s largest trading partner and India’s largest source of FDI.
3. India and the EU signed a Connectivity Partnership Agreement in 2021.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only

B. 2 and 3 only

C. 1 and 3 only

D. 1, 2 and 3

Mains Question

Q. India–EU relations, despite being based on common values and interests, have not reached their full potential. Discuss the major challenges in the relationship and suggest measures to transform this partnership into a truly strategic one.

Nepal bans 2 dozen social media sites including Facebook, X and YouTube

Nepal bans 2 dozen social media sites including Facebook, X and YouTube

Relevance to UPSC

  • GS Paper II (Governance & Rights): Highlights regulatory governance of digital platforms and the balance between regulation and freedom of expression.
  • GS Paper III (Security & Cyber Governance): Illustrates efforts to tackle misinformation, cybercrime, and ensure national security through digital oversight.
  • GS Paper IV (Ethics & Rights): Triggers ethical debates about censorship, platform accountability, and preservation of democratic values online.

More about the News

  • Nepal has blocked about two dozen major social media platforms including Facebook, X, and YouTube for failing to register with the government and appoint local liaison officers.
  • Platforms like TikTok, Viber, WeTalk, and Nimbuzz, which complied with registration requirements, remain accessible.
  • The government issued multiple notices and now seeks to enact a bill aimed at ensuring accountability and responsible content management on digital platforms. 
  • Critics, including rights groups, warn the move could be a step toward censorship and suppress freedom of expression in Nepal.

Social Media Regulation in India

The governance of social media in India has evolved from ad-hoc platform policing to a structured legal and policy framework that balances freedom of expression, public order, privacy, and platform accountability. Rapid digital adoption, misinformation, cyber-threats and cross-border harms have made proportionate regulation of platforms a policy priority—while raising complex constitutional and technical challenges.

Evolution

  • Early phase (pre-2008) — minimal regulation; platforms treated largely as global services.
  • IT Act, 2000 — introduced the legal baseline for intermediaries and cyber offences.
  • Intermediary Guidelines (2011) — first detailed due-diligence expectations for intermediaries.
  • Judicial developments (2015–2017) — landmark judgments shaped limits on criminalisation of speech (Shreya Singhal) and recognised privacy as a fundamental right (Puttaswamy).
  • IT Rules, 2021 (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code) — introduced stronger obligations: grievance officers, traceability requests, content takedown timelines and compliance officers.
  • Contemporary phase — continuous debates on data protection, platform liability, content moderation transparency and global regulatory alignment.

Constitutional & Non-Constitutional Provisions

Constitutional provisions

  • Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of speech and expression (subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)).
  • Article 21 — Right to life and personal liberty → read with privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy).
  • Article 32/226 — Judicial remedies against executive excess (including content takedowns/shutdowns).

Non-constitutional / statutory & regulatory provisions

  • Information Technology Act, 2000 — legal framework for intermediaries, cyber offences.
  • IT Rules (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code), 2021 — obligations for large intermediaries and publishers, grievance redressal, due diligence.
  • Proposed/related laws & policies — data protection / privacy laws (DPDP proposals), guidelines for OTT/digital news, CERT-In incident reporting rules.
  • Self-regulatory & industry codes — platform policies, independent auditors, transparency reports.

Advantages of Having Social Media Regulation

  1. Protects public order & national security
    • Example: Faster takedown of violent incitement or terror propaganda can prevent mob violence or recruitment by extremist groups.
  2. Reduces spread of misinformation & harms
    • Example: Mandatory grievance mechanisms and takedown timelines allow quicker removal of viral fake news during elections or health emergencies.
  3. Safeguards user privacy & data rights
    • Example: Rules on data handling and incident reporting (CERT-In style) help surface breaches and compel remediation for compromised personal data.
  4. Improves platform accountability & redress
    • Example: Requirement for grievance officers gives an aggrieved user a statutory route to seek remedy for defamatory or abusive content.
  5. Enables consumer & child protection online
    • Example: Limits on targeted advertising to minors or age-gating features can reduce exploitation and protect children from harmful content.

Impacts of Social Media Regulation

  1. Greater corporate compliance & transparency
    • Example: Platforms publishing transparency reports on takedowns, government requests and content moderation metrics.
  2. Faster legal remedies for victims
    • Example: Redressal channels allowing removal of non-consensual intimate images or defamatory posts within statutory timelines.
  3. Market changes & platform behaviour
    • Example: Platforms altering recommendation algorithms or reducing viral amplification to comply with safety norms.
  4. Chilling effect risks on speech
    • Example: Over-broad takedown orders or fear of liability leading platforms to over-remove legitimate political criticism.
  5. Operational & cost burdens on smaller intermediaries
    • Example: Smaller social apps face compliance costs (e.g., grievance officers, automated filters) which may push consolidation in the market.

Challenges in Bringing / Implementing Regulation

  1. Balancing free speech & restriction (legal ambiguity)
    • Example: Broad or vague takedown grounds risk arbitrary censorship; courts have struck down overbroad laws before.
  2. Technical feasibility & encryption
    • Example: End-to-end encryption (E2EE) on messaging apps complicates demands for message traceability without weakening privacy.
  3. Enforcement against global platforms
    • Example: Foreign platforms may resist local data or officer-appointment rules, slowing compliance or prompting legal standoffs.
  4. Misuse of rules for political ends
    • Example: Governments may use emergency takedowns or blocking powers to silence dissent under the pretext of public order.
  5. Capacity & rule of law gaps
    • Example: Police or judiciary in many districts lack cyber-investigation expertise, slowing lawful prosecution or redress.

Initiatives Taken by Government

  • Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code (2021) — platform duties, grievance officers, transparency.
  • CERT-In incident reporting & cybersecurity measures — mandatory cyber incident reporting (for certain entities).
  • Draft/Proposed data protection frameworks — to govern processing, consent and sensitive data.
  • Guidelines for online news/OTT regulation — content classification and grievance redressal.
  • Digital literacy and awareness campaigns — to build resilience to misinformation.

Popular Judicial Proceedings

  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) — struck down Section 66A (overbroad criminalisation of online speech); affirmed online speech protections and necessity of narrow restrictions.
  • K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — recognised right to privacy as fundamental; informed debates on data protection and surveillance.
  • Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) — dealt with internet shutdowns (J&K) and freedom of speech/access; courts stressed proportionality and legality of shutdowns.

Best Practices

Global

  1. European Union — Digital Services Act (DSA) (example of transparency & risk-based regulation)
    • Key idea: Mandatory risk assessment, transparency reporting, oversight for very large online platforms.
  2. Germany — NetzDG (Network Enforcement Act) (example of speedy takedown framework)
    • Key idea: Short timelines for removing clearly illegal content and reporting obligations; shows efficacy but also risks of over-removal.

India

  1. Grievance redressal under IT Rules 2021 (example of statutory user complaint mechanism)
    • Key idea: Mandated grievance officer and timelines; gives users a domestic remedy route.
  2. Transparency reporting by major platforms (industry practice)
    • Key idea: Periodic disclosures by platforms on government requests and content moderation actions improve public accountability.

Way Forward

  • Clear legal standards – Frame precise, harm-based rules guided by necessity and proportionality.
  • Privacy-first enforcement – Prefer targeted warrants and secure tech over mass traceability.
  • Risk-based duties – Impose stricter norms on large platforms; lighter compliance for smaller players.
  • Independent oversight – Establish regulators/auditors for transparency, algorithm checks, and grievance review.
  • Institutional capacity – Strengthen cyber forensic units, train judiciary, and set up digital courts.
  • Inclusive governance – Involve civil society, academia, industry, and users in policy design and appeals.
  • Digital literacy – Expand fact-checking, awareness campaigns, and user education to curb misinformation.

Prelims MCQ

Q. With reference to social media regulation in India, consider the following statements:
1. The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides an absolute safe-harbour to intermediaries, exempting them from liability regardless of their conduct.
2. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and violative of Article 19(1)(a).
3. The IT Rules (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code), 2021 require large social media intermediaries to appoint grievance officers and compliance officers.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A. 1 and 2 only

B. 2 and 3 only

C. 1 and 3 only

D. 1, 2 and 3

Mains Question

Q. “Regulation of social media is necessary to curb misinformation and protect public order, but it also poses risks to freedom of speech and privacy.” Critically discuss India’s current regulatory framework for social media, its strengths and limitations, and recommend a balanced roadmap that safeguards rights while ensuring platform accountability.

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Unlock Your IAS Dream – Enroll Now for the GS Foundation Batch 2026!

Register Now
Scroll to Top