Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Type: Op-ed

  • India’s youth crisis is about the absence of jobs, not just examination reform

    India’s youth crisis is about the absence of jobs, not just examination reform

    Question (2023, GS3): Most of the unemployment in India is structural in nature. Examine the methodology adopted to compute unemployment in the country and suggest improvements.
    Linkage: The editorial contends that youth agitations and demand for cheaper coaching address only the symptoms of the crisis, whereas the foundational issue is structural unemployment—the deep-seated absence of final job opportunities for qualified youths at the end of their preparation.

    Mentor comment

    The Hindu’s editorial argues that India’s youth unemployment problem is a jobs crisis, not merely an examination reform problem. The youth agitation that forced the resignation of the then Union Education Minister produced a government commitment to examination reform, including free online coaching for competitive examinations using India’s Digital Public Infrastructure. The editorial contends that cheaper coaching addresses only the preparation stage of the crisis, while the deeper problem is the absence of jobs at the end of that preparation.

    What does the data show about the scale of the crisis?

    1. Coaching costs have risen, not fallen: Private coaching now costs 16% of what an average Indian family spends on a child’s education, up from 12.5% in 2018. Nearly a quarter of that spending occurs during the higher secondary years, when students prepare for competitive examinations.
    2. Seat scarcity dwarfs coaching costs: Over 22 lakh candidates appeared for this year’s medical entrance examination for about 1.4 lakh undergraduate seats, with fewer than 10,000 of those seats at the top 50 colleges. The Joint Entrance Examination for engineering colleges shows a similar pattern.
    3. Undergraduate enrolment has fallen for the first time: For the first time since the All India Survey on Higher Education began in 2011, undergraduate enrolment fell by 93,322 in 2023-24, sharpest among young men.
    4. The fall is regionally concentrated: Uttar Pradesh recorded the steepest decline, with undergraduate enrolment down 1.53 lakh even as diploma enrolment rose 1.38 lakh, suggesting students are substituting away from degrees that do not lead to jobs.
    5. Formal, secure jobs remain rare among graduates: Periodic Labour Force Survey unit level data shows that of every 100 graduates aged 15 to 29 in 2025, only 26 held regular salaried employment, and only four held a salaried job with both a contract and social security.

    Why has growth not translated into jobs?

    1. Manufacturing has not absorbed graduates: Manufacturing, the sector best placed to absorb India’s college graduates, remains at around a sixth of gross value added, well short of the quarter of the economy the government has long promised.
    2. Private investment has retreated: Corporate investment fell from 17.3% of GDP in 2007-08 to 10.3% in 2024-25, unmoved by the cut in the corporate tax rate from 30% to 22% in 2019.
    3. Regulatory enforcement has turned selective: The editorial states that a regulatory and enforcement zeal that selectively targets enterprises has disproportionately affected medium sized companies, the segment best placed to generate jobs.

    Conclusion

    The youth employment crisis has two distinct ends: preparation for jobs, and the jobs themselves. Free coaching addresses only the first. The editorial’s position is that public investment in industrial capacity, export-disciplined industrial support, and a less selective regulatory posture toward medium sized enterprises would do more for youth employment than examination reform alone, citing Vietnam as a comparator that has used this route.

  • Counting out the disabled citizens

    Why in the News

    Census 2027’s questionnaire carries a single disability question, Question 13, which enumerates only nine categories of disability, against the 21 conditions formally recognised as disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. A count built on nine categories cannot register a person whose recognised condition falls outside those nine, which means the Census undercounts India’s disabled population by construction, not merely by survey error, and the Unique Disability ID (UDID) database that might otherwise cross-check the Census figure carries its own coverage gaps.

    What does the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 recognise, and what does the Census actually ask?

    1. 21 recognised conditions under the 2016 Act: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the law replacing the earlier 1995 Persons with Disabilities Act, expanding recognised disabilities from 7 to 21 categories, and mandating reservation, accessibility, and non-discrimination duties on the State) legally recognises 21 distinct categories of disability, including several, such as specific learning disabilities, acid attack survivors, and multiple sclerosis, that were not recognised under India’s earlier disability law.
    2. Census 2027’s Question 13 covers only nine categories: The Census questionnaire’s single disability question condenses the 21 legally recognised categories into just nine, meaning twelve legally recognised disabilities have no corresponding option a respondent can select.
    3. A structural undercount, not a response-rate problem: Because the missing twelve categories are absent from the question itself, a respondent living with one of them cannot be captured correctly regardless of how carefully the Census is conducted, making this a design gap rather than an implementation gap.

    Why can’t the UDID database fill this gap?

    1. UDID (Unique Disability ID) coverage depends on active registration: The UDID database only includes individuals who have actively applied for and been issued a disability certificate and identity card, so it excludes anyone with a recognised disability who has not gone through that certification process.
    2. Certification access itself is uneven: Access to the medical assessment boards that issue UDID certification varies sharply between urban and rural areas, meaning UDID’s own gaps are likely to be concentrated among the same populations the Census undercount would most affect.
    3. Two flawed instruments cannot cross-check each other reliably: A Census that undercounts by question design and a UDID database that undercounts by registration access cannot be used to validate one another, since neither offers an independent, complete count against which the other’s gap can be measured.

    What follows from an undercounted disabled population?

    1. Reservation and welfare planning rests on the undercount: Government reservation quotas in education and employment for persons with disabilities, and the targeting of disability-specific welfare schemes, are calibrated using population estimates that a structurally undercounting Census feeds into.
    2. Categories left out of Question 13 remain statistically invisible: Persons with conditions such as specific learning disabilities or multiple sclerosis, recognised under the 2016 Act but absent from the Census question, have no official population estimate to anchor policy design specific to their needs.

    Conclusion

    A Census disability question built on nine categories against a legal framework recognising 21 will undercount India’s disabled population in a way no amount of survey diligence can correct, and the UDID database’s own registration-dependent gaps mean there is no reliable instrument left to check the resulting figure against. Expanding Question 13 to match the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016’s full 21 categories before Census 2027 is administered is the specific, correctable step this gap points to.

    Disability rights in India

    1. About: Disability rights in India rest on a rights-based, rather than a purely welfare-based, framework since the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which places binding legal duties on the State to ensure accessibility, non-discrimination, and reservation, rather than treating disability support as discretionary welfare.
    2. Rationale: The shift to a rights-based approach followed India’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which required domestic law to guarantee enforceable rights rather than optional benefits.
    3. Named typology: The 2016 Act expanded recognised disability from 7 categories under the 1995 law to 21, adding categories such as acid attack survivors, Parkinson’s disease, specific learning disabilities, and multiple sclerosis that the earlier law did not recognise at all.

    Challenges in disability rights implementation

    1. Undercounting in national data systems: As Census 2027’s nine-category question shows, India’s principal demographic data instrument cannot fully register the 21 categories the law itself recognises. Eg. Specific learning disabilities and multiple sclerosis have no dedicated Census option despite legal recognition since 2016. Fix. Redesign Question 13 to map directly onto the 2016 Act’s full 21-category schedule before the Census is finalised.
    2. Accessibility mandates poorly enforced: The 2016 Act places a legal duty on government and public infrastructure to be accessible, but compliance across transport, government buildings, and digital platforms remains inconsistent. Eg. The Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan (Accessible India Campaign) set accessibility targets for government buildings that a large share of audited buildings have still not met. Fix. Tie a share of central grants to State governments to independently verified, building-by-building accessibility audit scores.
    3. Reservation implementation gaps in employment: The Act mandates a minimum reservation in government employment for persons with disabilities, but actual fill rates against the reserved quota lag the mandated share in most government departments. Fix. Mandate an annual, department-wise public disclosure of reservation fill rates for persons with disabilities, modelled on existing Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe reservation reporting.
    4. UDID registration barriers in rural areas: Certification for the Unique Disability ID depends on access to a medical assessment board, which is disproportionately concentrated in urban centres. Eg. A rural resident may need to travel to a district hospital multiple times to complete the certification process. Fix. Conduct periodic camp-based UDID certification drives at the block level rather than requiring travel to a fixed district facility.
    5. Weak data on economic outcomes for persons with disabilities: Beyond the population count itself, India lacks robust, regularly updated data on employment rates, income levels, and educational attainment specifically among persons with disabilities. Fix. Add disability status as a standard disaggregation category in the Periodic Labour Force Survey, alongside the existing gender and social-category breakdowns.

    Back2Basics: Unique Disability ID (UDID)

    1. A national database and identity card system issued to persons with disabilities upon certification by a designated medical assessment board.
    2. Intended to serve as a single, portable proof of disability accepted across government schemes, replacing the need for repeated, State-specific certification.
    3. Coverage depends on individuals actively applying for and completing certification, so it does not capture persons with disabilities who have not gone through that process.
    4. Administered under the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026] Which of the following statements with regard to the persons with disabilities in India is/are
    correct?
    1. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, an Act passed by the Parliament of India in
    2018, mandates reservation in education and employment, places a legal duty on
    Governments to ensure accessibility and non-discrimination.
    2. The Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan focuses on achieving universal accessibility for Persons with
    Disabilities across three key domains — built infrastructure, transport systems and
    information and communication technology.
    3. The National Divyangjan Finance and Development Corporation (NDFDC) is a public
    sector organisation set up by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as a not-for-profit company to
    promote entrepreneurship among Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).
    Select the answer using the code given below:
    (a) 1 and 2
    (b) 2 only
    (c) 1 and 3
    (d) 1 only
    ANSWER: B”

  • The Mecca pact is for joint defence. Against whom?

    Why in the News

    Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan have signed a Joint Defence Agreement, referred to in this analysis as the “Mecca pact,” carrying a mutual-defence clause compared to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, under which an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. The comparison to Article 5 raises the immediate question the headline poses, against which threat the pact is actually directed, with Houthi forces, Iran, and Israel named as the candidate threats it is read against. The pact’s timing also intersects with a separate memorandum of understanding on the Iran nuclear deal, adding a second thread India has to track alongside the pact itself.

    What does the Joint Defence Agreement commit its signatories to?

    1. A mutual-defence clause modelled on collective-security logic: The agreement’s central provision commits Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan to treat an attack on any one signatory as an attack on all three, the same collective-defence logic that underlies Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty establishing NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the military alliance built around that mutual-defence guarantee among its member states).
    2. Brings together a nuclear-armed state and two major regional military powers: Pakistan’s status as a nuclear-armed state, combined with Saudi Arabia’s financial weight and Turkey’s military capacity, gives the pact a combined military profile larger than any one of the three could offer bilaterally.
    3. Formalises a defence relationship that predates the pact: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a long-standing defence relationship, including reported Saudi financial support for Pakistan’s military and nuclear programmes over past decades, which the new agreement puts into a formal, named framework.

    Against which threats is the pact actually directed?

    1. Houthi forces in Yemen: Houthi missile and drone attacks have targeted Saudi Arabia and shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden for years, making the Houthis the most immediate, active threat the pact’s signatories face along their own borders and sea lanes.
    2. Iran, as the region’s other major military power: Saudi Arabia’s regional rivalry with Iran, sharpened further by the 2026 US-Israel strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, gives Saudi Arabia reason to seek a codified defence guarantee involving Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent.
    3. Israel, given the pact’s timing after West Asia’s 2026 escalation: The pact follows a period of intense regional escalation involving Israel, Iran, and Iran-backed proxies, a context in which any new Gulf-Pakistan defence arrangement is inevitably read partly through an Israel lens even without an explicit reference to it.

    How does the pact intersect with the separate Iran nuclear deal memorandum of understanding?

    1. Parallel track on Iran’s nuclear programme: A separate memorandum of understanding addressing Iran’s nuclear programme is under discussion around the same period as the Mecca pact, giving the region two live tracks, a defence pact among Sunni-aligned states and a nuclear negotiation track involving Iran, that could pull regional alignments in different directions depending on how each concludes.
    2. Pact could complicate, or could reinforce, de-escalation efforts: A formal defence pact perceived as directed at Iran could harden Tehran’s position in the parallel nuclear talks, or it could give Saudi Arabia the security assurance needed to support a negotiated outcome rather than an escalatory one.

    What does the pact mean for India?

    1. Pakistan gains a codified Saudi and Turkish security backer: A mutual-defence commitment involving Pakistan changes the calculus of any future India-Pakistan military confrontation, since an escalation with Pakistan could now, at least in principle, draw a response from Saudi Arabia or Turkey under the pact’s terms.
    2. Turkey’s inclusion adds a NATO-member dimension: Turkey’s own NATO membership means a pact linking a NATO member’s mutual-defence commitment to Pakistan introduces an additional layer of complexity into how India reads any future crisis involving Pakistan.
    3. India’s own West Asia relationships face a balancing test: India maintains a Special Strategic Partnership with both Saudi Arabia and Israel and a distinct, cooperative relationship with Iran; a pact that positions Saudi Arabia more explicitly within a defence framework alongside Pakistan tests India’s ability to keep engaging all three without one relationship undercutting another.

    Conclusion

    The Mecca pact’s Article 5-style mutual-defence clause is read here as most plausibly directed at the combination of Houthi forces and Iran, with Israel present in the background given the region’s 2026 escalation, rather than at any single named adversary. For India, the pact’s most consequential feature is not who it targets but that it gives Pakistan a codified Saudi and Turkish security backer, a shift India’s own West Asia balancing act will now have to account for.

    India and West Asia

    1. About: West Asia, encompassing the Gulf Cooperation Council states, Iran, and Israel, is a region where India pursues parallel Special Strategic Partnerships with rival powers, a policy sometimes described as India’s “de-hyphenation” approach to the region.
    2. Energy and economic weight: The region supplies close to 60 percent of India’s crude oil and about 70 percent of its LPG and LNG needs, and the Gulf Cooperation Council bloc was India’s largest trading-partner bloc in 2024-25 at $178 billion in bilateral trade.
    3. Diaspora and remittance stakes: Roughly 9 to 10 million Indians live and work across West Asia, a diaspora whose remittances form a major share of India’s total inward remittance flows.
    4. Strategic connectivity stakes: The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and Iran’s Chabahar Port both depend on regional stability, giving India a direct interest in how any new defence alignment in the region affects that stability.

    Challenges in India’s West Asia policy

    1. Regional volatility complicates strategic autonomy: Escalating conflicts, most recently the 2026 US-Israel strikes on Iran and Iran’s retaliatory closure of the Strait of Hormuz, force India to react to swings in the region’s security situation that it does not control. Eg. Nearly 700 Indian seafarers were reported stranded near the Strait of Hormuz during the 2026 crisis. Fix. Maintain standing evacuation and diplomatic-contingency protocols for Indian nationals and shipping specific to a Hormuz or Red Sea closure scenario.
    2. Energy import dependence leaves India exposed to regional shocks: India imports roughly 85 percent of its crude oil needs, a significant share from West Asia, exposing it directly to price spikes and supply disruption from regional conflict. Eg. Brent crude crossed $120 a barrel during the 2026 Hormuz blockade. Fix. Accelerate diversification of crude and LNG sourcing alongside continued build-out of strategic petroleum reserves.
    3. A new Pakistan-linked defence pact narrows India’s room with Saudi Arabia: A formal Saudi-Pakistan-Turkey defence agreement puts a security commitment to Pakistan inside the same framework as India’s own strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia. Eg. Saudi Arabia has historically also provided financial support tied to Pakistan’s defence establishment. Fix. Use the India-Saudi Strategic Partnership Council to seek explicit reassurance that the pact’s mutual-defence clause is not read as extending to an India-Pakistan contingency.
    4. Connectivity projects remain hostage to regional conflict: IMEC’s viability depends on a stable transit route through West Asia, and continuing conflict renders the corridor commercially non-viable in the near term. Eg. The corridor’s planned Israel-linked Mediterranean leg is directly exposed to any renewed Israel-related escalation. Fix. Prioritise near-term investment in the corridor’s less conflict-exposed segments, such as Gulf-to-India maritime links, while the land-transit leg remains unviable.
    5. Balancing three rival partnerships simultaneously: India’s parallel Special Strategic Partnerships with Saudi Arabia and Israel, alongside its distinct cooperative ties with Iran, require continuous diplomatic management to prevent one relationship’s demands from constraining another. Eg. India’s Chabahar Port investment in Iran periodically runs up against US sanctions pressure tied to India’s separate ties with Washington. Fix. Seek issue-specific, sanctions-compliant carve-outs for Chabahar-related transactions, as India has previously secured for humanitarian trade with Iran.

    Back2Basics: Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty

    1. The provision of the North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, under which an armed attack against any one member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is treated as an attack against all members, triggering a collective self-defence response.
    2. Has been formally invoked only once in NATO’s history, following the September 2001 attacks on the United States.
    3. Serves as the reference model against which other mutual-defence clauses, including the one in the Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan Joint Defence Agreement, are commonly compared.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 10 marks] With the waning of globalization, post-Cold War world is becoming a site of sovereign nationalism. Elucidate.”

  • Gor in Srinagar: a one-man mission to strengthen a sputtering relationship

    Why in the News

    The US Ambassador to India, Sergio Gor, visited Srinagar and described Jammu and Kashmir as an “important part of India,” a remark read against India’s longstanding sensitivity to any US position on Kashmir and against President Trump’s earlier offer to mediate on the Kashmir dispute. India has consistently rejected any third-party mediation on Kashmir, treating it as a strictly bilateral matter with Pakistan, or as a purely internal matter following the 2019 reorganisation of the erstwhile State. An Ambassador’s remark affirming Jammu and Kashmir’s place within India, delivered from Srinagar itself, sits at the point where the US-India-Pakistan strategic triangle and India’s own sensitivity over Kashmir mediation intersect.

    Why does an Ambassador’s Kashmir remark carry this much weight?

    1. India rejects third-party mediation on Kashmir as a matter of settled position: New Delhi has consistently maintained that any Kashmir-related issue with Pakistan is bilateral, and that Jammu and Kashmir’s internal status is a purely domestic matter following its 2019 reorganisation, a position any external actor’s remark on the region is read against.
    2. Contrasts with Trump’s earlier mediation offer: President Trump had earlier offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan, an offer India rejected, making the Ambassador’s affirmation of Jammu and Kashmir as part of India a notable contrast within the same US administration’s public statements.
    3. Location of the remark adds to its significance: A statement affirming Jammu and Kashmir’s status as part of India, made from Srinagar itself rather than from Washington or New Delhi, is read as a more deliberate signal than the same words delivered elsewhere would carry.

    How does this fit the broader US-India-Pakistan strategic triangle?

    1. The US maintains parallel relationships with both India and Pakistan: Washington’s engagement with Pakistan, including on counter-terrorism and regional stability, runs alongside its deepening strategic partnership with India, a balancing act that surfaces whenever a US official’s statement touches Kashmir.
    2. India’s sensitivity stems from past instances of perceived hyphenation: India has historically pushed back against any US framing that treats India and Pakistan as a linked pair on Kashmir, since India seeks its relationship with the United States assessed on its own terms rather than through a Pakistan-linked lens.
    3. The remark functions as reassurance amid broader friction points: With trade tariffs, H-1B visa fees and differing approaches to Russia already straining the relationship, an unambiguous Kashmir remark serves as a low-cost way for the Ambassador to reaffirm alignment with India’s position on a historically sensitive issue.

    Conclusion

    The Ambassador’s Srinagar remark reads as a deliberate reassurance to India at a moment when trade and visa disputes have strained the relationship, and it stands in contrast to the mediation offer that preceded it. Whether the remark reflects a settled US position or an individual Ambassador’s own initiative will become clearer only if it is echoed at the presidential or State Department level.

    Frictional points in India-US relations

    1. India-Pakistan hyphenation: Statements or offers that treat India and Pakistan as a linked pair, most visibly President Trump’s mediation offer on Kashmir and his claim to have brokered an end to Operation Sindoor, run against India’s insistence on being engaged independently of Pakistan.
    2. Trade and tariff disputes: Disagreements over tariffs, data localisation rules, and price caps on medical devices such as coronary stents have created recurring points of economic friction between the two countries.
    3. The H-1B visa fee increase: A steep rise in the H-1B visa fee, reported at around $100,000, directly affects the competitiveness of India’s information technology sector, which relies heavily on H-1B-based deployment of Indian professionals to the United States.
    4. Divergence over Russia and Iran: India’s continued engagement with Russia, including energy purchases and defence systems such as the S-400, and its interest in Iran’s Chabahar Port, sit uneasily against US sanctions policy on both countries.
    5. Strategic autonomy versus alliance expectations: India’s practice of engaging simultaneously with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS, and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue reflects a multi-alignment approach that does not map onto the closer alliance-style alignment the United States sometimes expects of partners.

    Back2Basics: Jammu and Kashmir’s post-2019 status

    1. Reorganised in August 2019 under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which revoked the special status previously available under the now-abrogated Article 370 and split the former State into two Union Territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
    2. India treats the region’s internal status as a purely domestic matter, not open to third-party mediation or comment.
    3. Any dispute with Pakistan over the region is treated by India as strictly bilateral, governed by the Shimla Agreement of 1972, which committed both countries to resolving differences through bilateral negotiation.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026] The Chancellor of Germany visited India in January 2026. Which of the following is/are NOT correct in terms of outcomes?
    1. MoU between All India Institute of Ayurveda and University of Hamburg
    2. MoU on Youth Hockey Development between Hockey India and German Hockey Federation
    3. Establishment of a bilateral dialogue mechanism on the Indo-Pacific
    4. Opening of an Honorary Consul of Germany in Lucknow
    (a) 2 and 3
    (b) 1 and 4
    (c) 3 and 4
    (d) 1 only
    ANSWER: B”

  • Smart glasses highlight gaps in privacy laws

    Why in the News

    Meta’s smart glasses, which can discreetly record video and audio of anyone around the wearer, have renewed concerns over surveillance and consent, and over how far the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 actually protects a bystander who never agreed to be recorded. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) held privacy to be a fundamental right intrinsic to Article 21, developing a three-part legality-necessity-proportionality test for any restriction on it. Wearable recording devices normalised for everyday use test that framework in a setting the 2017 judgment did not anticipate: a bystander with no relationship to the device’s owner, and no practical way to know they are being recorded.

    Why do smart glasses expose a specific gap in India’s privacy framework?

    1. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is built around consent, which a bystander cannot give: The Act’s core protection mechanism requires a data principal’s consent before personal data is processed, a structure that assumes a data subject who is a party to the transaction, not a bystander recorded without their knowledge by someone else’s device.
    2. No dedicated framework for covert or discreet recording devices: Existing privacy protections address data processing by an identifiable data fiduciary, typically a company or platform, not the diffuse, device-level recording enabled by consumer wearables carried by private individuals.
    3. Enforcement depends on the bystander detecting the recording: Because smart glasses are designed to record discreetly, a bystander has no practical way to exercise any of the rights the 2023 Act grants a data principal, since exercising those rights first requires knowing that one’s data was processed at all.
    4. Cybercrime figures already show a rising surveillance-adjacent harm pattern: National Crime Records Bureau data has recorded a rising trend in cybercrime cases involving unauthorised recording and image-based harassment, a pattern smart-glasses-style wearables are positioned to accelerate.

    Conclusion

    Smart glasses expose a structural gap between a consent-based data protection framework and a recording technology that operates on people who never consented to anything. Closing that gap requires provisions specific to covert or ambient recording devices, rather than relying on the same consent architecture built for data fiduciaries processing information from their own users.

    What is the Right to Privacy, and what does it protect?

    1. About: The Right to Privacy is a fundamental right, read into Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty, protecting an individual’s control over personal information, bodily integrity, and personal decisions from unjustified interference by the State.
    2. Rationale: The right exists because personal autonomy, from choice of partner to control over one’s own data trail, is treated as intrinsic to human dignity rather than a privilege the State may withdraw.
    3. Named typology: The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy (2017) recognised several strands within the right: informational privacy over personal data, decisional autonomy over intimate personal choices, bodily integrity against intrusive procedures, and digital privacy against online surveillance.
    4. Proportionality test for restrictions: Any state action restricting privacy must meet a three-part test: legality (backed by law), a legitimate aim, and proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued.
    5. Institutional gap in independent oversight: Agencies such as the Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing, and the National Investigation Agency operate without a dedicated, independent body reviewing their surveillance activity for privacy compliance.
    6. Colonial-era laws still authorise interception: Provisions in the Telegraph Act continue to authorise phone tapping under standards that predate the Puttaswamy proportionality test, creating a mismatch between old authorisation powers and the newer constitutional standard.
    7. Corporate data harvesting outside individual awareness: Technology platforms collect and monetise personal data at a scale most users do not track or understand, a form of privacy erosion the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 only partially addresses through its consent and purpose-limitation provisions.
    8. Low digital literacy limits the exercise of privacy rights: Citizens frequently do not know what data they have given consent to share, or how to invoke the correction and erasure rights the 2023 Act grants them.

    Challenges in protecting the right to privacy

    1. Mass surveillance without independent judicial oversight: Interception and surveillance decisions in India are authorised through executive processes rather than prior judicial warrant. Eg. Allegations around the use of Pegasus spyware against journalists and activists in 2021 raised exactly this oversight gap. Fix. Introduce a judicial or quasi-judicial warrant requirement before any interception order takes effect, replacing the current executive-only authorisation.
    2. National-security exemptions in the 2023 Act draw criticism: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 permits government agencies to be exempted from several of its obligations on national security and public-order grounds. Eg. Government bodies notified under the Act’s exemption provisions are not bound by the same data-minimisation and purpose-limitation duties private data fiduciaries face. Fix. Require any national-security exemption to be time-bound and reviewed periodically by an independent oversight body rather than granted as a standing exemption.
    3. Corporate surveillance through data-driven advertising: Large technology platforms build detailed behavioural profiles from data users hand over without meaningfully understanding the trade-off. Eg. Targeted political and commercial advertising built on granular user profiling has drawn regulatory scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions. Fix. Mandate clear, layered consent disclosures under the 2023 Act’s rules that separate necessary data use from optional profiling-based use.
    4. Health data retention concerns from pandemic-era tools: Contact-tracing and health applications built during the COVID-19 pandemic raised unresolved questions about how long the government retains the health data those apps collected. Eg. Aarogya Setu’s data retention and sharing practices drew sustained criticism from privacy researchers. Fix. Set a statutory data-retention ceiling for any health-emergency application, with automatic deletion once the stated public-health purpose ends.
    5. No dedicated authority solely focused on privacy enforcement: The Data Protection Board established under the 2023 Act adjudicates complaints but does not function as a proactive privacy regulator auditing surveillance practices across government and industry. Fix. Expand the Data Protection Board’s mandate to include periodic, unprompted audits of large-scale surveillance and data-processing systems, government and private alike.

    Back2Basics: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

    1. India’s first standalone law on personal data processing, built around consent as the primary legal basis for processing, with defined exceptions for legitimate uses such as employment and government functions.
    2. Creates the Data Protection Board of India as the adjudicatory body for data-protection complaints and penalties.
    3. Grants data principals rights to access, correct, and erase their personal data, and imposes purpose-limitation and data-minimisation duties on data fiduciaries.
    4. Permits the government to exempt specified agencies from several of the Act’s obligations on national security and public-order grounds, a provision that has drawn criticism for its breadth.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 10 marks] Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023”

  • The fact is youth unemployment has a household cost

    Why in the News

    Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2025 data records youth unemployment at 14.8 percent and a Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) rate of 40.1 percent among the tertiary-educated, and the argument advanced from this data is that graduate joblessness is a household-level economic cost, not only an individual setback. A young person’s inability to find work does not only reduce that person’s own income, it removes an income the household had budgeted around, often after the household had itself financed the degree that produced no job.

    What is the household cost, distinct from the individual one?

    1. Sunk cost of financing the degree: Households that borrow or spend savings to fund a graduate’s education absorb that cost with no return if the graduate cannot find matching work, a loss the individual unemployment rate does not price in.
    2. Deferred contribution to household income: A household budgets around the expectation that an educated young adult will begin contributing income at a certain age; unemployment past that age forces the household to keep supporting a wage-earner it had expected to become a net contributor.
    3. Compounding effect on savings for other dependants: Money a household would have redirected toward a younger sibling’s education, a parent’s healthcare, or retirement savings instead continues to support an unemployed graduate.
    4. Psychological and bargaining costs within the household: Prolonged dependence on parents past the expected age of self-sufficiency affects a young adult’s standing and decision-making power within the household, a dimension PLFS-style employment data cannot itself measure but that the 40.1 percent NEET rate among the tertiary-educated makes newly visible.

    How does the tertiary-educated NEET rate compare with the general NEET pattern?

    1. Tertiary-educated NEET rate far exceeds the general rate: At 40.1 percent, the NEET rate among India’s tertiary-educated youth is markedly higher than the NEET rate among youth without a degree, inverting the usual expectation that more education reduces the risk of disengagement from work.
    2. Concentration in urban, aspirational households: The households most likely to have financed a tertiary degree, and to therefore carry the sunk cost described above, are disproportionately urban and lower-middle income, the segment for whom a graduate’s income was budgeted as a route out of that bracket.

    Conclusion

    Youth unemployment at 14.8 percent and a 40.1 percent NEET rate among the tertiary-educated do not describe an individual labour market outcome alone. They describe a household that financed an investment in education and is not yet receiving the income return it planned around, a cost that persists in household budgets even where it does not appear in an individual’s own unemployment statistic.

    Youth unemployment in India

    1. About: Youth unemployment measures joblessness among the working-age population, typically 15 to 29 years, whose job search outcomes diverge sharply from the adult labour force.
    2. Rationale for tracking it separately: Youth unemployment behaves differently from the aggregate rate because young workers are more likely to be first-time job seekers with no accumulated informal-sector fallback, so a downturn hits them earliest and hardest.
    3. Recognised typology: Unemployment among India’s youth spans frictional joblessness during the transition from education to work, structural joblessness from a skills mismatch, and disguised underemployment in low-productivity family enterprises and agriculture.
    4. Jobless growth in services: Services drive the largest share of GDP growth but employ under 30 percent of the workforce, limiting the sector’s capacity to absorb new entrants.
    5. Skill deficit at graduation: Only about half of India’s graduates are assessed as readily employable, per employability surveys, pointing to a curriculum gap rather than a shortage of degree holders.
    6. Weak manufacturing absorption: Manufacturing contributes only 16 to 18 percent of GDP, well below the roughly 26 percent contribution in China, limiting the formal, labour-intensive job creation India’s youth bulge needs.
    7. Informality as the default outcome: Over 90 percent of India’s workforce remains informal, so even youth who do find work often find it without security, benefits, or a written contract.
    8. Female youth workforce deficit: Caregiving duties, domestic responsibilities, and mobility constraints keep young women out of paid employment at a much higher rate than young men.

    Challenges in addressing youth unemployment

    1. Survey methodology undercounts informal and gig work: PLFS-style surveys do not fully capture home-based, gig, or platform work within India’s overwhelmingly informal workforce. Eg. Platform-based delivery and ride-hailing work is not consistently classified in the survey’s job categories. Fix. Update survey instruments to explicitly capture gig, platform, and digital work categories, aligned with International Labour Organization and System of National Accounts definitions.
    2. Low-frequency rural data delays policy response: Rural employment data has historically been measured only annually, compared with quarterly urban estimates, masking rural distress in real time. Eg. A poor monsoon’s effect on rural non-farm employment often does not show up in national data until the following year’s release. Fix. Extend the quarterly PLFS survey design to rural areas at the same frequency as urban areas.
    3. Capital-intensive investment bias: Investment continues to flow toward capital-intensive sectors such as information technology and infrastructure rather than the labour-intensive sectors that absorb semi-skilled youth. Eg. Automation in manufacturing has reduced the labour intensity of new capacity even as output has grown. Fix. Direct production-linked incentives toward labour-intensive sectors such as textiles, leather, and food processing, alongside the existing electronics-focused schemes.
    4. Demographic dividend at risk of becoming a demographic trap: A youth bulge that cannot find work stops being an economic asset and starts becoming a fiscal and social liability as the cohort ages without having built savings or skills. Eg. State of Working India 2026 estimates 9.2 crore youth in the NEET category nationally. Fix. Expand the government’s employment-linked incentive schemes and apprenticeship mandates specifically targeted at the 21 to 29 age cohort.
    5. Weak coordination across employment data systems: Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation payroll data, the National Career Service portal, and PLFS survey data are not integrated, making it hard to track whether a given policy intervention is actually creating net new jobs. Eg. The Employment Linked Incentive scheme announced in 2025 tracks payroll additions but not whether they represent new jobs or reclassified existing ones. Fix. Build a single integrated employment data dashboard drawing on EPFO, NCS and PLFS data for real-time tracking.

    Back2Basics: NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training)

    1. An internationally used labour-market indicator that counts young people who are neither working, studying, nor undergoing any training, distinct from the unemployment rate, which only counts those actively seeking work.
    2. Captures discouraged job seekers and those who have withdrawn from the labour force entirely, a population the standard unemployment rate does not measure.
    3. The State of Working India 2026 report estimates roughly 9.2 crore Indian youth in this category.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023, GS3, 15 marks] Most of the unemployment in India is structural in nature. Examine the methodology adopted to compute unemployment in the country and suggest improvements.”

  • [24th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: Core concerns

    [24th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: Core concerns

    Question (2017, GS3): ““Industrial growth rate has lagged behind in the overall growth of Gross-Domestic-Product (GDP) in the post-reform period” Give reasons. How far the recent changes is Industrial Policy are capable of increasing the industrial growth rate?
    Linkage: The easing of the Manufacturing PMI to its lowest level since August 2021 due to weak domestic demand is a classic real-time symptom of industrial growth lagging behind overall economic expansion. It forces candidates to examine why Indian manufacturing struggles to maintain sustained momentum.

    Mentor Comment

    Growth in the Index of Core Industries slowed to 5.4 per cent in July from 6 per cent in the previous month. The Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index eased in the same month to its lowest level since August 2021, on weak domestic demand conditions. July’s core sector growth was still the second highest rate in the last seven months. The tension sits between that headline and its composition: a large part of the growth rests on a statistical low base effect, the two genuinely strong sectors are cement and electricity, and the domestic crude oil and natural gas sectors have contracted continuously for at least the last 14 months.

    What is the Index of Core Industries?

    • What it measures: The Index of Core Industries measures the combined production of the country’s core infrastructure industries, covering coal, crude oil, natural gas, refinery products, fertilisers, steel, cement and electricity.
    • Why it is watched: These industries carried a combined weight of about 40 per cent in the Index of Industrial Production, so the core index acts as an early read on industrial output before the fuller index is released.
    • Current series: The index is compiled on a revised new series, for which comparable data currently extends back only about 14 months.

    Why is the July core sector number weaker than it looks?

    • Growth rests on a low base: A large part of even this slower growth is based on a statistical low base effect, where a contraction in the corresponding month of the previous year makes the current month’s output look like expansion.
    • Coal illustrates the effect: The coal sector grew at an 11 month high of 7.6 per cent in July. That was measured against a contraction of 12.3 per cent in July of last year.
    • Refinery products repeat the pattern: The refinery products sector snapped a three month streak of contraction to grow at 2.7 per cent. This too was measured against a contraction in July 2025.
    • Iron ore’s strength is partly base driven: The iron ore sector grew at 29.5 per cent, slower than 44.5 per cent in June. Its comparison base is contractions of 16.4 per cent in June and 7.1 per cent in July of last year.
    • The headline flatters the trend: A rate that is second highest in seven months coexists with an easing demand signal, which means the ranking of the number matters less than what produced it.

    Which sectors are carrying the index and which are dragging it?

    • Steel has slowed sharply: The steel sector decelerated to 2.9 per cent in July from 5.6 per cent in June and 15.7 per cent in July of last year. This is a genuine slowdown rather than a base effect.
    • Hydrocarbons are a standing drag: The domestic crude oil and natural gas sectors have contracted continuously for at least the last 14 months for which the new series has data.
    • Electricity remains strong but is decelerating: The electricity sector grew at 9 per cent in July. That was slower than two consecutive months of double digit growth in May and June, which were lifted by prevalent heatwave conditions in many parts of the country.
    • Cement accelerated: The cement sector sped up to 13.1 per cent, the clearest genuine acceleration in the index.
    • The bright spots are only two: Within the core index, cement and electricity were the only two sectors reading as bright spots, and such positive trends were few and far between.

    Does the core sector number describe output or demand?

    • The two indicators point in opposite directions: The core index recorded its second highest growth in seven months in the same month that the Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index fell to its lowest since August 2021.
    • They measure different things: The core index counts physical production in a set of infrastructure industries. The Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index records what purchasing managers report about new orders and demand conditions.
    • A base effect can mask a contraction: A sector recovering from a deep fall registers a high growth rate at a low level of output, so a rate can rise even as demand conditions ease.
    • Weather and construction are not demand: The strongest readings came from electricity, lifted by heatwave conditions, and from cement, which tracks construction activity rather than broad consumer demand.
    • The forward reading is slack: Easing demand conditions were already being predicted by other indicators before the core sector data appeared, so the July slowdown was not a surprise.

    How is energy import dependence turning into a cost shock?

    • Import volumes are rising: India’s crude oil imports rose 13.3 per cent in volume terms in July. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports grew a more marginal 1.5 per cent.
    • Domestic supply is not filling the gap: Against the falling domestic base noted above, the economy’s appetite is being met from abroad rather than from home production.
    • The bill has jumped: High oil prices meant the crude oil import bill jumped 41 per cent in July, so a 13.3 per cent volume rise translated into a far larger payment outgo.
    • A tariff shock is queued behind it: The 100 per cent tariffs the United States is preparing to levy on countries such as India that import Russian oil will once again burden Indian exporters.
    • Blending has not yet displaced imports: Moving to 20 per cent ethanol blending has not yet impacted oil imports materially, so the substitution effect is not visible in the July numbers.

    Challenges to the Index of Core Industries as a growth signal

    • Base effects distort the headline rate: A contraction in the year ago month converts a modest recovery into a high growth print, which misleads on the level of output. Eg. Coal’s 11 month high of 7.6 per cent in July sat on a 12.3 per cent contraction in July of the previous year. Fix. Publish index levels and two year compound rates alongside the year on year rate in every release.
    • Coverage is narrow: The index tracks a small set of infrastructure industries and therefore misses most of the economy’s output. Eg. Services contribute over half of Gross Value Added and are entirely outside the core index. Fix. Publish the core index alongside a high frequency services activity indicator so the composite reading is visible.
    • Weights favour public sector heavy industries: The largest weights sit in sectors dominated by public enterprises and administered pricing, so the index responds to policy decisions as much as to market demand. Eg. Refinery products and electricity output move with administered allocation and tariff decisions. Fix. Rebase and reweight the index on a fixed cycle with published sensitivity of the headline to each sector’s weight.
    • Informal and small firm output is invisible: Production by micro and small enterprises is not captured, so a squeeze concentrated there does not register. Eg. Of about 64 million micro, small and medium enterprises, only around 14 per cent have access to formal credit and most stay outside statistical registers. Fix. Link the index to Goods and Services Tax e-way bill and electronic invoice data to capture small firm activity.
    • Provisional data is heavily revised: Early estimates are released on partial returns and are revised in later months, so a policy read taken on the first print can reverse. Eg. Iron ore’s July reading of 29.5 per cent followed a June figure of 44.5 per cent, a swing large enough to change the quarterly picture on revision. Fix. Publish a standing revision history for each sector so the reliability of the first print is visible.
    • It reads supply, not demand: The index counts what was produced, not what was bought, so it can rise while orders fall. Eg. July’s core growth of 5.4 per cent coincided with the Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index at its weakest since August 2021. Fix. Present the core index and the demand side survey indicators in a single monthly dashboard rather than as separate releases.

    Conclusion

    The Indian economy looks set for a period of slack demand, higher costs and moderating growth. The July core sector reading does not contradict that: a large part of its growth is base driven, only cement and electricity grew genuinely strongly, and the sectoral spread set out above is narrow. The cost side is worsening independently, on the import bill and the tariff exposure already recorded. Whether the next few months show a genuine industrial recovery depends on domestic demand rather than on the base against which growth is measured.

    Industrial Growth in India

    • Manufacturing’s share is stuck: Manufacturing contributes around 17 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), far below the 25 per cent target set under Make in India.
    • Global standing: India holds about 2.8 per cent of global manufacturing output against China’s roughly 29 per cent, with domestic manufacturing output nearing $1 trillion in 2025-26.
    • Concentration: Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu account for about 40 per cent of net value added in manufacturing, and half the States have no operational Special Economic Zone.

    Government Initiatives for Industrial Growth

    • National Manufacturing Mission: Announced in the 2025-26 Budget, it unifies manufacturing policy and targets a 25 per cent GDP share with 143 million jobs by 2035.
    • Production Linked Incentive Scheme: Covers 14 sunrise and strategic sectors with outcome linked incentives, drawing over ₹1.76 lakh crore in committed investment as of March 2025.
    • Semiconductor Mission: A ₹76,000 crore framework under which 10 projects worth about ₹1.60 lakh crore have been approved.
    • Industrial Corridors Programme: India approved 11 corridors covering 32 projects, with 12 new industrial nodes cleared in 2024 for plug and play industrial cities.

    Challenges in Industrial Growth

    • Compliance load falls on small firms: Micro, small and medium enterprises face over 1,450 annual compliances, which consumes management time that would otherwise go into expansion. Eg. Annual compliance costs for such firms run to ₹13 lakh to ₹17 lakh. Fix. Adopt third party certification in place of repeat inspections, as the Ajay Shankar Committee recommended.
    • Regional concentration leaves capacity idle: Industrial value added clusters in three States, so national incentives do not translate into national capacity. Eg. Half of India’s States have no operational Special Economic Zone. Fix. Weight central incentive disbursal toward States below the national share of net value added.
    • Technology transition is slow in strategic segments: Domestic capability lags in electronics, semiconductors and renewable energy components, which keeps high value assembly abroad. Eg. India remains heavily dependent on imports for semiconductors and advanced electronic components. Fix. Extend Production Linked Incentives to upstream segments such as advanced materials and green hydrogen rather than final assembly alone.
    • Credit does not reach small manufacturers: Formal finance is unavailable to the great majority of small firms, so they cannot fund the fixed capital that raises productivity. Eg. The unmet credit demand of the micro, small and medium enterprise sector is estimated at about ₹20 lakh crore to ₹25 lakh crore. Fix. Expand cash flow based lending against Goods and Services Tax returns rather than collateral based assessment.
    • Trade barriers raise export uncertainty: Tariff action by large markets can remove the price advantage of an entire export segment without notice. Eg. The United States imposed a 50 per cent tariff in August 2025, hitting about 55 per cent of India’s exports to that market. Fix. Deepen global value chain participation through trade agreements and diversify destination markets under a China plus one strategy.

  • Measuring manufacturing growth afresh: Three questions

    Why in the News

    The new Gross Domestic Product (GDP) series of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) shows the manufacturing Gross Value Added (GVA) deflator recording negative growth for nine consecutive quarters between 2023 and 2025. The same series places the level of real manufacturing GVA in 2025-26 at no less than 15 percentage points above the Index of Industrial Production (IIP) for manufacturing. When the new series was announced, the Chief Economic Advisor and the Secretary, MoSPI stated that the estimates rested on a new methodology. That methodology was said to have solved the measurement problems that had bedevilled the old series, including in manufacturing. MoSPI has not yet released the detailed standard document explaining the new calculations. Three specific anomalies in the manufacturing numbers therefore cannot be tested against the stated method, and the plausibility of the series has to be assessed from the numbers themselves.

    What is the manufacturing Gross Value Added deflator?

    1. Gross Value Added, defined: GVA for a sector is the value of its output minus the value of its intermediate inputs. It measures what producers in that sector actually added, before taxes on products are added and subsidies subtracted.
    2. What the deflator does: The sector deflator is the price index that converts nominal GVA at current prices into real GVA at base year prices. Real GVA equals nominal GVA divided by that deflator.
    3. What its movement signals: A deflator growing negatively means the sector’s own price level is falling. Real growth then runs ahead of nominal growth by the size of that fall.

    Why does confidence in manufacturing data matter now?

    1. The China Squeeze: The Chinese manufacturing export machine has again moved across world markets and threatens lower-skill manufacturing in poorer countries. The pressure this creates on Indian producers is what the data is being asked to measure.
    2. Two decades of stated ambition: The Union government set major ambitions for the sector, beginning with the flagship Make in India programme in 2014. The production-linked incentive (PLI) scheme followed several years later.
    3. The PLI’s dual purpose: The scheme was in part a response to the opportunities opened by the China-plus-one shift in global sourcing. It was also a response to the challenge of aggressive Chinese competition.
    4. Conflicting signals elsewhere: The wider economy is sending contradictory signals at present. Understanding manufacturing performance is the route to lifting some of that confusion.
    5. A recognised prior problem: Problems in manufacturing sector data under the previous series were widely recognised. MoSPI made strenuous efforts to address them in the new series.

    Why has the manufacturing deflator shown falling prices for nine straight quarters?

    1. The anomaly itself: The manufacturing GVA deflator records negative growth, meaning falling price levels, for nine consecutive quarters between 2023 and 2025. No comparable stretch of deflation appears anywhere else in the price data for that period.
    2. The core inflation test: The core Consumer Price Index (CPI), which excludes food and energy-related products, shows no sign of deflation across those quarters. Core CPI through December 2025 rests on the 2011-12 series and the March 2026 reading on the 2024 series.
    3. The wholesale price defence, and its limit: The wholesale price index (WPI) was negative for some of this period. It was not negative for nine consecutive quarters.
    4. Why WPI is the wrong benchmark anyway: The GVA deflator should not move in line with the WPI. The WPI is overly driven by input prices, and a value added deflator must reflect output prices net of inputs.

    Why is real GVA growth almost twice IIP growth?

    1. The size of the gap: In 2025-26 the level of real manufacturing GVA exceeded the IIP by no less than 15 percentage points. Both series are measured on the 2022-23 base.
    2. The growth gap it implies: Annual average real growth of manufacturing between 2022-23 and 2025-26 measured by GVA is about twice that measured by the IIP. The two figures are about 11 per cent against about 6 per cent.
    3. The informal sector explanation, and why it fails: Real GVA includes the informal sector and the IIP excludes it, so faster informal growth could in principle open a gap. For the most recent two years informal sector performance has been proxied by formal sector data, which makes the explanation mechanically impossible.
    4. The volumes versus value added explanation: The IIP measures output volumes rather than value added. A widely held perception holds that real GVA can grow faster than real output when input prices fall.
    5. Why that perception is wrong: Real GVA is calculated at constant prices, not at changing prices, so falling input prices cannot lift it. Real value added can grow faster than output volumes only where productivity improves, that is where firms become more efficient in using intermediate inputs.

    Why has the link between the two series broken down?

    1. The pre-2011 benchmark: Before the 2011-12 methodology changes, GVA and IIP moved closely together. The correlation between their growth rates over June 2005 to that break was 0.8.
    2. The post-2011 divergence: The two series diverged after the 2011-12 methodology changes. That divergence has been exacerbated in the new series rather than corrected by it.
    3. The recent segment: Since September 2022 the two series move very differently. The comparison excludes the Covid quarters from June 2020 to March 2022.
    4. The character of the difference: The real GVA series bounces around a great deal across quarters. The IIP series over the same stretch is fairly stable.

    What do the three questions together say about the new series?

    1. None is individually decisive: No one of the three issues is dispositive about the quality of the new series. Each is an unexplained pattern rather than a demonstrated error.
    2. The missing document is the binding constraint: The detailed standard document explaining the new calculations has not been released. Independent researchers therefore cannot check the anomalies against the method that produced them.
    3. The methodology claim raises the bar, it does not lower it: The new series was presented as the fix for exactly the manufacturing measurement problems of the old series. Anomalies concentrated in manufacturing are the hardest place for that claim to sit unexplained.
    4. What plausible explanations would buy: Explanations would engender confidence in the new GDP figures. They would also allow an assessment of the state of Indian manufacturing and of the impact of recent government actions to revive it.

    Challenges to the new GDP series’ manufacturing estimates

    1. Deflator choice drives the real number: Real GDP requires choosing a deflator, and the production side deflator is heavily influenced by the WPI. Eg. In FY23 a global commodity price surge pushed the WPI into double digits, and the high deflator suppressed measured real growth. Fix. Complete the WPI base revision so the deflator basket reflects the current price structure.
    2. No producer price index exists: India deflates goods sectors with a wholesale index built for trade flows rather than for producer output. Eg. Services sectors are deflated using CPI components because no dedicated producer price series covers them. Fix. Introduce a Producer Price Index on the model used across advanced statistical systems and retire WPI-based deflation.
    3. Transparency lags the release: The estimates reach the public well before the sources and methods behind them. Eg. The new series arrived with a stated methodology claim and without the standard explanatory document. Fix. Publish the sources and methods volume alongside the series so verification is concurrent with release.
    4. Informal output is still partly extrapolated: Informal sector performance for recent years is proxied from formal sector data, which cannot capture divergence between the two. Eg. The old series extrapolated large-company filings to the whole informal economy and stayed blind to the sharper hit small firms took after demonetisation. Fix. Shorten the lag on the Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises so proxying is not required for two full years.
    5. Statistical independence has been questioned: Resignations from the National Statistical Commission and withheld survey results have raised concerns about the autonomy of official statistics. Eg. Two members of the Commission resigned in 2019 over the handling of employment data. Fix. Constitute an independent statistical commission with a statutory mandate, as recommended by the Rangarajan Commission in 2001.

    Conclusion

    The new GDP series was presented as the answer to the manufacturing measurement problems of the old one, and its manufacturing numbers now carry three patterns that the stated methodology does not obviously produce. A deflator falling for nine quarters, a 15 percentage point level gap against the IIP and a correlation that has weakened since 2005-2012 are each testable claims that cannot be tested without the sources and methods document. Releasing that document is the precondition for confidence in the figures. Whether and how Indian manufacturing has stood up to Chinese competition is a question only reliable data can answer.

    “[2021, GS3, 10 marks] Explain the difference between computing methodology of India’s Gross Domestic Product(GDP) before the year 2015 and after the year 2015.”

  • Investment question has a political answer

    Why in the News

    Private corporate investment in India remains considerably lower than the peak seen in the mid 2000s, even as large corporates hold substantial cash. Firms are deploying funds in financial assets rather than building physical assets such as factories, and are taking money out of the country rather than investing it here. The standard explanations offered for this are subdued domestic demand and global uncertainty. A political economy explanation is now advanced instead, locating the cause in how political power structures affect investment decisions. Centralisation of political power has been unmistakable after 2014, accompanied by fiscal centralisation and a reconfiguration of federal structures. The contested claim is that market concentration around a handful of “national champions” is not an accident of policy but is politically useful, which would make an investment revival costly to the current political settlement.

    What are “national champions”?

    1. Definition: A national champion is a large domestic business group that a government treats as the preferred vehicle for building strategic capacity, and that is favoured in policy design as a result.
    2. How the status is conferred: Preference operates through the terms of auctions, tariffs, incentive eligibility, clearances and access to public contracts rather than through an announced designation.
    3. The economic consequence: A handful of such groups now command far greater sway over the economy than before, which raises the entry barrier facing any firm attempting to compete with them.

    What does the investment slowdown actually look like?

    1. Cash-rich firms are not building: Large corporates hold funds but are not committing them to new capacity in India.
    2. Capital is leaving: Companies are taking money out of the country rather than investing it domestically.
    3. Investment is below its own peak: Private corporate investment remains considerably lower than the level reached in the mid 2000s.
    4. Financial assets over physical assets: Corporate India is more keen to deploy funds in financial assets than to use them for factories and plant.
    5. The standard explanations are incomplete: Subdued domestic demand and global uncertainty have been put forward, and neither accounts for why firms with the means to invest choose not to.

    Why does the concentration of political and market power deter private investment?

    1. Political and fiscal centralisation: Centralisation of political power after 2014 has been accompanied by greater fiscal centralisation and a reconfiguration of federal structures, including attempts to restrict the powers of states and, as a consequence, of regional parties. Eg. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026, amending the 1957 law under which the State owns the mineral and signs the lease while the Centre sets the rules and the royalty rate.
    2. Market concentration has moved in step: The rise of a handful of large companies, aided by policy, has given them far greater sway over the economy than ever before.
    3. One, patronage for smaller firms has dried up: The concentration of political power and the decline in the relative power of regional parties has ended the patronage and protection that were afforded to smaller and regional firms, who could rise up and become national players.
    4. Two, policy uncertainty and an uneven playing field: Higher barriers to entry and terms tilted towards larger corporates make it harder for new players to emerge, and firms will not invest if they fear the rules of the game can be arbitrarily changed or that they can be caught on the wrong side of policies. Policy credibility is what is at stake.
    5. Three, the fear of being muscled out: Investors fear that business success will be met by a hostile takeover by a national champion, so the question is not whether they are allowed to operate but whether they can stay in business and remain competitive over the next 10 to 20 years.

    Why would dispersing economic power be politically costly?

    1. Competition requires a rethink of the strategy: For the larger corporate sector to ramp up investment and for competition to emerge, the strategy of relying on a few national champions needs to be reconsidered.
    2. Dispersed economic power funds political opposition: A larger number of big private players would disperse rather than concentrate economic power, which would in turn increase the funding avenues available to Opposition parties.
    3. Economic competition feeds political competition: Weakening the concentration of economic power would possibly weaken the concentration of political power, so greater economic competition could lead to greater political competition.
    4. The two open questions: It is unsettled whether the current political structure creates the space for new players to safely invest and emerge as competitors to the national champions, or whether market concentration is itself politically useful.

    Why do the ingredients of an investment boom not produce one?

    1. The macroeconomic conditions are present: An undervalued exchange rate, depressed real wages and sustained public sector investment in infrastructure are all in place, alongside the demographic dividend.
    2. The same mix powered East Asia: This combination powered the rise of countries such as China and South Korea, where firms responded to it with large capacity additions.
    3. India’s firms are not responding: Firms are likely to remain hesitant and unsure about investing without a change in the approach, despite those conditions.
    4. Confidence, not capability, is binding: Investment decisions are taken only when investors think they have a fair chance of benefiting from them.
    5. The end state if nothing changes: The consequent absence of competition raises the possibility of an uncompetitive, high-cost economy.

    Challenges to the national champions strategy

    1. Concentration raises consumer and input costs: Dominant firms in a sector face little pressure to hold prices down, which raises costs for every downstream user. Eg. Telecom tariffs rose sharply after the sector consolidated into three private operators. Fix. Use the deal value threshold introduced by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 to review acquisitions that current turnover tests miss.
    2. Policy-created advantage is hard to withdraw: Once a group builds capacity on the strength of an incentive, removing the incentive becomes a shock the government is reluctant to deliver. Eg. Most approved incentive under the Production Linked Incentive scheme for large-scale electronics manufacturing has flowed to a small group of mobile phone assemblers. Fix. Publish sunset dates and firm-level disbursement data with each incentive scheme so withdrawal is scheduled rather than negotiated.
    3. Concentrated bank exposure transmits firm risk to the system: Lending concentrated in a few large groups converts a single group’s distress into a banking problem. Eg. The corporate loan losses that produced the non-performing asset build-up of the 2010s were concentrated in a handful of infrastructure and metals groups. Fix. Enforce large exposure limits at group rather than borrower level and publish group-wise banking exposure.
    4. Bidding rules can favour incumbents: Net worth, prior experience and bank guarantee conditions in auctions and tenders can exclude new entrants before price is considered. Eg. Critical mineral block auctions have repeatedly failed for want of qualified bidders. Fix. Set qualification thresholds proportionate to block or contract size and allow consortium bidding for first-time entrants.
    5. Competition enforcement is slow relative to market speed: Investigations concluded years after conduct occurs cannot restore a market that has already tipped. Eg. Appeals against Competition Commission of India orders routinely run for several years before finality. Fix. Fund a dedicated appellate bench for competition matters with statutory disposal timelines.

    Conclusion

    The reluctance of cash-rich Indian firms to invest is being read as a political economy problem rather than a demand or global uncertainty problem. Concentrated political power, an uneven playing field and the fear of being displaced by a national champion together deny new entrants confidence in a 10 to 20 year horizon. Reversing that requires dispersing economic power, which carries political costs the current settlement has no incentive to accept. What remains unresolved is whether market concentration will be treated as a cost to growth or retained as a political asset.

    Industrial Policy and Private Investment in India

    1. What industrial policy does: It is the set of state interventions that shape which industries expand, through licensing, tariffs, incentives, public investment and ownership rules.
    2. The arc since Independence: The Industrial Policy Resolutions of 1948 and 1956 built a mixed economy with reserved public sector schedules, the licensing regime of the 1960s and 1970s restricted private entry, and the New Industrial Policy of 1991 abolished licensing for most sectors.
    3. India’s scale: Manufacturing contributes around 17 per cent of Gross Domestic Product against a 25 per cent target, and India accounts for about 2.8 per cent of global manufacturing output against China’s roughly 29 per cent.
    4. The current gap: Weak domestic private capital formation persists even as foreign investment rises, with cumulative Foreign Direct Investment crossing about $1.14 trillion between April 2000 and December 2025.

    Laws Governing Industry and Competition in India

    1. Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951: The parent law for central regulation of scheduled industries, and the statutory basis of the industrial licensing regime.
    2. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: Regulated large business houses through asset thresholds to prevent economic concentration, and was repealed after those thresholds were removed post-1991.
    3. Competition Act, 2002: Replaced the 1969 Act, prohibits anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance, and establishes the Competition Commission of India to regulate combinations.
    4. Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023: Introduces a deal value threshold for merger review, a settlement and commitment framework, and shorter approval timelines.

    Government Initiatives for Industry and Investment

    1. Make in India (2014): Aims to raise manufacturing’s share of Gross Domestic Product towards 25 per cent, largely through ease of doing business measures.
    2. Production Linked Incentive scheme (2020): Covers 14 sunrise and strategic sectors with outcome-linked financial incentives paid on incremental output.
    3. National Manufacturing Mission: Announced in the 2025-26 Budget, targeting a 25 per cent Gross Domestic Product share and 143 million jobs by 2035, with a focus on solar photovoltaics, electric vehicle batteries, green hydrogen and wind.
    4. National Single Window System: Consolidates central and state clearances into a single application interface for investors.
    5. Invest India: The dedicated investment facilitation agency created after the Foreign Investment Promotion Board was abolished in 2017.

    Challenges in Industrial Policy and Private Investment

    1. Logistics and infrastructure costs: Power, transport and cluster gaps raise the operating cost of a new plant and lengthen its payback period. Eg. Logistics costs remain close to 8 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. Fix. Front-load the National Infrastructure Pipeline in states with the weakest evacuation and port connectivity.
    2. Land acquisition risk: Title complexity and local resistance delay projects long enough to destroy their business case. Eg. The POSCO steel project in Odisha was shelved after prolonged land disputes. Fix. Build titled and pre-cleared land banks with plug-and-play utilities before inviting investment.
    3. Tariff and trade shocks: External trade measures can remove an export market after capacity has been built for it. Eg. The 50 per cent United States tariff imposed in August 2025 hit roughly 55 per cent of India’s United States-bound exports. Fix. Diversify market access through trade agreements and deepen participation in global value chains.
    4. Workforce readiness for Industry 4.0: Adopting automation and artificial intelligence systems requires reskilling at a scale current training capacity cannot deliver. Eg. Only about 4.7 per cent of India’s workforce has formal skill training, against roughly 96 per cent in South Korea. Fix. Fund employer-led reskilling through the re-skilling fund created under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
    5. Import dependence in strategic inputs: Heavy reliance on imported electronics, semiconductors and pharmaceutical inputs exposes downstream manufacturers to supply shocks. Eg. Electronics assembly in India depends on imported display and chip components. Fix. Extend performance-linked incentives to component and materials manufacture rather than final assembly alone.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS3, 15 marks] Discuss the rationale of the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme. What are its achievements? In what way can the functioning and outcomes of the scheme be improved?”

  • What young want, and why creating good jobs is no longer optional

    Why in the News

    Almost 70 per cent of urban job seekers surveyed in Delhi said they were looking for a job that would place them on their ideal career path from the start, instead of settling for any job. The survey covered over 3,000 randomly sampled men and women, 24 years of age on average, living in middle-class residential areas of the capital, and was conducted in the summer of 2023. Their stated career goal was predominantly salaried or formal-sector employment. The Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) for the same year records an urban labour market that cannot supply that goal, with less than 50 per cent of the urban workforce in salaried jobs. A follow-up experiment then exposed a random subset of the same job seekers to real-world job openings and salaries, and re-surveyed them a year later. Correcting their information lowered their expectations and left their aspirations untouched, so the contest is over who adjusts, the young or the labour market.

    What is the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS)?

    1. Purpose: The PLFS is the official household survey that estimates how many people are working, seeking work or outside the labour force, and in what kind of work they are engaged.
    2. Nodal body: The National Sample Survey Office under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation conducts it and is the principal source of employment estimates in India.
    3. Activity status measures: Usual Status classifies a person by activity over the preceding 365 days, while Current Weekly Status treats a person as unemployed if they did not work even one hour in the reference week.

    What do young urban job seekers actually want from work?

    1. A career path, not a job: Almost 70 per cent said they wanted an opening that put them on their ideal career path from the start rather than any available job, and more men said this than women.
    2. Formal salaried work is the goal: The stated career goal was predominantly salaried or formal-sector employment rather than casual or own-account work.
    3. Women lean harder towards salaried jobs: More women job seekers aspired to salaried positions than men did.
    4. Only 14 per cent of women prefer self-employment: Just 14 per cent of the women interviewed said they would rather work for themselves.
    5. A third of men want to run enterprises: More than a third of the men wanted to start their own businesses.
    6. Public sector preference is a myth: A comparable share of these men and women were looking for private-sector salaried jobs, which cuts against the dominant narrative of a strong preference for government jobs.

    How far does the urban labour market fall short of those preferences?

    1. Salaried work is a minority outcome: Less than 50 per cent of India’s urban workforce holds a salaried job.
    2. It is scarcer still for the young: Merely one in every three employed 24-year-olds holds a salaried job, a lower share than for the workforce as a whole.
    3. Government jobs are a tenth of the market: No more than 10 per cent of the urban workforce is in the public sector or government jobs.
    4. The formal private sector is barely larger: Only about 15 per cent of the urban workforce is in the formal private sector.
    5. Self-employment is the largest single category: Of those working, 40 per cent are self-employed.
    6. Most self-employment is subsistence, not enterprise: An overwhelming majority of these businesses hire no worker at all and report an annual turnover of less than Rs 10 lakh, so the aspiration to build a firm meets a market of one-person shops.

    Why do salary expectations diverge from what these jobs actually pay?

    1. The occupations tested: Respondents were asked what they expected to earn as an accounts keeper, a primary school teacher, a data entry operator, a hospital attendant and an electrician, and each expectation was measured against actual PLFS earnings for the same occupation.
    2. Expectations run up to 40 per cent above reality: Job seekers expect up to 40 per cent higher salary than the earnings the PLFS records for the same work.
    3. Men are the more over-optimistic: Male job seekers expect almost Rs 8,000 more per month than the actual average earnings for these jobs.
    4. The gap widens for salaried work: For salaried jobs specifically, male job seekers expect Rs 8,500 more per month than actual earnings.
    5. The aggregate divergence exceeds 30 per cent: Taken together, salary expectations sit more than 30 per cent above reality, and the skew is sharper still among job seekers below 25 years of age, especially young men.
    6. Information and inexperience explain the gap: A lack of information or outright misinformation about openings and pay, combined with inexperience of the job market, are the two obvious sources of the misalignment.

    What did correcting job seekers’ information change, and what did it leave untouched?

    1. The design: A random subset of the 3,000 job seekers was informed about real-world job opportunities and salaries, and both the informed and the non-informed groups were re-surveyed twelve months later.
    2. Expectations fell: Accurate information significantly dampened labour-market expectations of landing the ideal job, relative to those who were not informed.
    3. Men disengaged first: Men in particular became less likely to report that they were on their ideal career path.
    4. Search effort fell with belief: That disillusionment was accompanied by a decline in men’s job-search intensity.
    5. The two exits from a failed search: As preferred job offers fail to materialise, job seekers adjust expectations downwards and either remain in the same jobs or leave the labour market and enrol at educational institutions.
    6. Aspirations did not move: The answer on whether aspirations changed is a clear no, since these men and women continued to aim for formal-sector jobs or dynamic entrepreneurship a year later, because aspirations are long-term goals and not easily malleable.
    7. High education costs make the expectation rational: Good-quality education is increasingly bought from private institutions at rising cost, so a high expected salary is not only aspirational but necessary to recover that outlay.

    Challenges to the Periodic Labour Force Survey

    1. Informal work is under-captured: Household surveys do not fully record home-based, gig and platform work in a workforce that is about 90 per cent informal. Eg. Delivery and ride-hailing riders working across two aggregators are frequently recorded as ordinary self-employed workers. Fix. Align the activity definitions with International Labour Organization and System of National Accounts practice so multi-job holders, freelancers and platform workers are counted separately.
    2. No skill mapping against job requirements: The survey does not match worker skills to the requirements of available jobs, so structural unemployment cannot be measured from it. Eg. The India Skills Report finding that only about half of graduates are employable has no counterpart in official survey data. Fix. Add a skills and job-requirement module so mismatch is measured rather than inferred.
    3. Rural data has been low frequency: Rural estimates were historically produced only once a year, so rural distress is visible with a long lag. Eg. A monsoon failure that pushes workers back into farm labour shows up only in the following annual round. Fix. Extend high-frequency quarterly or monthly rounds to rural areas rather than confining them to towns.
    4. Urban bias in the high-frequency rounds: The quarterly bulletins have been confined to urban areas, which under-measures the larger rural workforce. Eg. Quarterly urban unemployment rates are debated publicly while comparable rural numbers are unavailable. Fix. Publish a single integrated quarterly series covering both sectors on the same reference period.
    5. New job categories are missing: Gig, digital, start-up and green jobs are not adequately represented in the occupational classification the survey uses. Eg. Solar installation and battery recycling roles have no distinct occupational code. Fix. Integrate Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, National Career Service and PLFS records so emerging job creation is tracked from administrative data as well.

    Conclusion

    Young urban job seekers want formal salaried careers and dynamic enterprise, and correcting their information about the market lowers what they expect to earn without changing what they want. That asymmetry places the burden of adjustment on the economy rather than on the young, and realising these aspirations requires a structural transformation that creates jobs with regular pay and benefits. The four Labour Codes are a step in that direction, and creating good jobs and genuine career paths, rather than jobs alone, is no longer optional. Failure carries a specific cost, which is the squandered potential of an entire generation.

    Employment and Unemployment in India

    1. What is measured: An unemployed person is of working age, that is 15 years and above, without work, currently available for work and actively seeking it in a reference period.
    2. Structure of the workforce: The Labour Force Participation Rate stood at 59.3 per cent in 2025, about 90 per cent of the workforce is informal, and nearly 58 per cent of salaried workers still lack a written contract.
    3. The absorption problem: Services drive most output growth but employ under 30 per cent of the workforce, while manufacturing contributes only about 16 to 18 per cent of Gross Domestic Product against roughly 26 per cent in China.
    4. Types of unemployment tested: Frictional, structural, cyclical, seasonal, disguised, voluntary and chronic unemployment are distinguished, with disguised unemployment concentrated in agriculture where marginal productivity approaches zero.

    Laws and Rules Governing Employment in India

    1. Code on Wages, 2019: Consolidates four wage laws, sets a statutory floor wage, and extends minimum wage cover beyond the roughly 30 per cent of workers it earlier reached.
    2. Industrial Relations Code, 2020: Merges three laws, raises the closure and retrenchment approval threshold from 100 to 300 workers, and gives fixed-term workers parity and gratuity after one year.
    3. Code on Social Security, 2020: Merges nine laws, defines gig and platform workers for the first time, and requires aggregators to contribute 1 to 2 per cent of turnover to a welfare pool.
    4. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020: Consolidates 13 laws into one licence, one registration and one return, and caps hours at 8 to 12 daily and 48 weekly.
    5. Commencement of the four Codes: All four came into force on 21 November 2025, replacing a fragmented body of central labour legislation.
    6. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005: Guarantees 100 days of wage employment per rural household in a financial year.

    Government Initiatives for Employment Generation

    1. PM Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana: An employment-linked incentive approved in July 2025 with a Rs 99,446 crore outlay, targeting 3.5 crore jobs over two years.
    2. e-Shram Portal: A national database issuing Universal Account Numbers to unorganised workers and integrating access to more than 14 central schemes.
    3. PM Internship Scheme: Launched in 2024 to offer 1 crore internships in top companies over five years.

    Challenges in Employment Generation in India

    1. Lopsided structural change: India moved from agriculture to services without a job-rich manufacturing phase, so the sector that absorbs low-skilled labour elsewhere never scaled here. Eg. Manufacturing’s share of output has been stuck near 17 per cent against a 25 per cent policy target. Fix. Direct incentives to textiles, leather, food processing and electronics assembly, which absorb low and semi-skilled workers at scale.
    2. Capital-intensive investment bias: Investment flows to information technology and infrastructure rather than to labour-intensive activity, so output growth outruns job growth. Eg. Under the Production Linked Incentive scheme, most disbursed incentive has gone to large scale electronics assembly and pharmaceuticals, both capital intensive lines. Fix. Weight incentive schemes by jobs created per rupee of assistance rather than by output alone.
    3. Firms stay small to avoid compliance: Threshold-linked obligations reward staying under the size limit, which caps productivity and formal hiring. Eg. Micro, small and medium enterprises face more than 1,450 annual compliances costing Rs 13 to 17 lakh. Fix. Extend the Jan Vishwas approach of decriminalising minor compliance offences, which already covered 183 provisions across 42 central Acts.
    4. Skill deficit at both ends: Only about 4.7 per cent of the workforce has formal skill training, against roughly 96 per cent in South Korea, so employers and applicants describe different jobs. Eg. The Annual Status of Education Report 2023 found a quarter of rural youth aged 14 to 18 unable to read a Class 2 text. Fix. Tie curricula to Industry 4.0 and green job roles through mandatory industry-academia apprenticeship linkages.
    5. Women are kept out of paid work: Caregiving, domestic duties and mobility barriers hold female participation far below male participation. Eg. Urban female Labour Force Participation Rate stood at 25.8 per cent against 75.6 per cent for men in 2024. Fix. Enforce creche provision and workplace safety obligations already carried in the Codes.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023, GS3, 15 marks] Most of the unemployment in India is structural in nature. Examine the methodology adopted to compute unemployment in the country and suggest improvements.”