A thick layer of smog can be seen near India Gate amid rising pollution in New Delhi on November 23, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap

The story so far: Air pollution in Delhi has been in the ‘severe’ and ‘severe plus’ category for the most part of the last 10 days. This week, the Supreme Court pulled up the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), the government’s monitoring agency, on its inadequate pollution control response.

What is the CAQM?

The CAQM in the National Capital Region (NCR) and adjoining areas came into existence through an ordinance in 2020, which was later replaced by an Act of Parliament in 2021. The CAQM was set up for better coordination, research, identification and resolution of problems surrounding air quality and connected issues. It initially had 15 members, comprising officials, past and present, of the environment ministry and other departments of the Union government, as well as officials of various State governments, and representatives from NGOs and other agencies. The CAQM is now headed by Rajesh Verma and there are 27 members.

Also Read: Is Delhi becoming an uninhabitable city? | Explained

The CAQM replaced the EPCA (Environmental Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority), which was formed in 1998 by the Supreme Court. However, the EPCA was not backed by a statute and experts had raised the issue that it lacked the teeth to act against authorities which did not follow its orders. Despite that drawback, it was under the EPCA that many of the measures being followed by the CAQM started, including the Graded Response Action Plan or GRAP, a list of temporary emergency measures to control air pollution.

What are the powers of CAQM?

Under the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021, the CAQM was given the power to take all measures, issue directions and entertain complaints, as it deems necessary, for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of air in the NCR and adjoining areas. Under Section 14 of the Act, the CAQM can initiate stringent actions against officers for not following its orders.

Why did the SC pull up the CAQM?

Over the years, the Supreme Court which has been hearing an ongoing case on air pollution, has pulled up different governments and agencies for their laxity. On September 27, Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih orally observed about CAQM: “Like pollution, your directions are in the air.” The court was referring to various stakeholders not following the CAQM’s orders despite specific provisions under the 2021 Act. “There has been total non-compliance of the Act. Please show us a single direction issued to any stakeholder under the Act… We are of the view that though the Commission has taken steps, it needs to be more active. The Commission must ensure that its efforts and directions issued actually translate into reducing the problem of pollution,” the Bench observed. On November 18, the Supreme Court slammed the CAQM for delayed action while directing stringent curbs under Stage IV of the GRAP and noted that rather than taking pre-emptive action to contain air pollution, it waited in vain for the air to improve. Stage IV is the highest level of restrictions under GRAP, and according to the CAQM’s rules, it is supposed to be implemented when the air quality category is likely to fall to ‘severe plus’, and is likely to remain in that level for three or more days. The court pulled up the CAQM for delaying implementation of curbs though the AQI had slipped to the ‘severe plus’ category.

Is the CAQM to blame for Delhi’s pollution?

Though the CAQM makes plans and coordinates with different agencies, it is the agencies that have to implement them on the ground.

An official of the CAQM said the commission has improved coordination and planning. “For example, though the paddy stubble burning, which is a source of severe pollution, happens in October-November, we start meeting State officials from February and continue talks till the season is over,” the member said. The CAQM had also coordinated with Punjab and Haryana to prepare action plans for controlling stubble burning in 2022 and it is updated every year.

About challenges that the commission faces, the official said, “Over the years, though we were looking at different sources of pollution and trying to control them, our main focus was on controlling stubble burning. But from now onwards, we will try to focus on multiple areas. We will be putting more energy and time on controlling dust and vehicular pollution too.”

Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, Centre for Science and Environment, said that the decision to impose GRAP should be taken proactively by the CAQM. Pollution forecasting methods have to be more accurate, she added.

About CAQM being pulled up by the court for not making sure that the commission’s orders are not followed, she said that before taking action on officers, the CAQM should work with different State governments to work out the specific time bound targets to be achieved in different sectors. “Then identify gaps in actions and ensure proper strategy development, and resource allocation have been done and accordingly track implementation. If the action is still not on track then the action can be taken. But it is more important to focus on enabling action at ground level,” she said.

The logo of the COP29 United Nations climate change conference is seen next to the temporary fences in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 22, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The story so far: The 29th edition of the Conference of Parties (COP), arguably the most important of the UN’s climate conferences, was scheduled to end on November 22, after 11 days of negotiations, and take a collective step forward in addressing rising carbon emissions. However, deliberations are expected to carry on beyond the deadline with several sticking points outstanding.

What is the significance of COP29?

Going into the talks, developing countries had stated that at least a trillion dollars per year from 2025-35 would be necessary to meet emission targets. This was seen to be the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance which refers to money that will be given to developing countries by developed countries to help the former meet their goals to transition away from the continued use of fossil fuels and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries have been repeatedly saying that the figure should be “trillions of dollars.” To this end, developed countries have mobilised and transferred $115 billion in 2021-22 — a controversial clause that has yet to be resolved in the universal agreement — but per the Paris Agreement, a new target higher than $100 billion must be agreed upon by 2025. The talks in Baku were expected to conclusively agree upon a number but there continues to be a sharp split between developed and developing countries on the quantum and other basic aspects of what this NCQG should look like.

What do developing countries want?

This block of countries include China, India and the Group of 77 countries. There are also other coalitions such as the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), Least Developing Countries (LDC), Small Island Developing Countries (SIDS) etc. Nearly all developing countries fall into one or multiple groupings and while they have differences, they are largely agreed on the point that it is the developed countries that should pay the bulk of climate finance.

More importantly, they specified that this money had to be provided not only to help countries meet their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) but also buffer against existing threats of climate change, and make good for climate damage already wrought. The NDCs are targeted, voluntary plans by all countries to reduce carbon emissions by certain quantities until 2030. The NCQG, the developing countries say, should also reflect contributions by developed countries on the basis of their historical contribution to existing carbon concentrations in the atmosphere as well as their per capita GDP. To put this in perspective, it is important to note that even if all countries fulfilled their stated voluntary commitments, it would as of now only translate to a 2% cut, and this year — the latest scientific assessments suggest — carbon emissions will likely increase 0.8% over 2023.

What does the developed world say?

However developed countries, led by the European Union, say these demands are unreasonably high. They aver that “all actors” (read countries) should collectively work to hike up climate finance to $1.3 trillion per year by 2035. While agreeing that they must “take the lead” they have only a set a goal of $250-300 billion by 2035 per year. Moreover this would consist of a “variety of sources,” including “public and private, bilateral and multilateral, and alternative sources.”

This suggests that another major demand of the developing world, of ensuring most of the money is in the form of grants or low-cost loans, remains unmet.

Have any concrete agreements been made?

A week before the conference began, China had petitioned the Presidency of COP29 to discuss “climate-change related unilateral restrictive trade measures” at the conference. This is an unusual request as trade issues are discussed on forums such as the World Trade Organization. China proposed this as part of a grouping of countries called BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China).

The petition is primarily directed at a European Union proposal called the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes a tax on products imported into the EU that don’t conform to carbon-emission norms required by the Union. The CBAM is currently operating in a “transitional phase” but will come into full effect from January 1, 2026.

The first day of the conference saw an agreement on carbon markets to be supervised by the UN. Such a market would allow countries to trade carbon credits — certified reductions of carbon emissions — among themselves and whose prices are determined as a consequence of emission caps imposed by countries.

The market itself follows from a section in the Paris Agreement, called Article 6. Sub- sections within the Article spell out how countries can bilaterally trade carbon among themselves (Art 6.2) and participate in a global carbon market (6.4). Though most of the necessary nuts and bolts to make operational such a carbon market, supervised by a United Nations body, were in place since 2022, there were several niggles, particularly on ensuring that the carbon credits generated are genuine and its antecedents are transparent.

While there is criticism among environmentalist groups that enough discussions on this didn’t take place, this is supposed to be a mechanism to facilitate climate finance. India has been discussing bilateral deals to trade carbon with several countries. An agreement such as the one in Baku could be a catalyst, and activate India’s own carbon-trading market.

Palestinians warm by the fire in the rubble of destroyed buildings in the Bureij refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip on November 16, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AFP

The story so far:

Saudi Arabia hosted a summit of leaders from Arab and Islamic countries last week to discuss the Palestine question. The summit demanded an immediate end to Israel’s military aggression on Gaza and Lebanon.

What did leaders say?

In their closing statement, the leaders condemned the Israeli military’s “shocking and horrific crimes”, its “crime of genocide”, and “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza, and called for an “independent, credible” international committee to investigate these crimes. It urged for measures to end the Israeli occupation and “establish an independent, sovereign Palestinian state on the lines of June 4, 1967, with occupied Al-Quds [Jerusalem] as its capital, based on the two-state solution, and in accordance with the approved references and the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.”

What is the significance of the summit?

In recent years, Arab countries had shown a willingness to improve or even normalise ties with Israel bypassing the Palestine question, in violation of the spirit of the Arab Peace Initiative, which promised recognition to Israel in return for the creation of a Palestine state. In 2020, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan normalised ties with Israel in an agreement called the Abraham Accords. In the past, Arab-Israel normalisation — Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 — came with some Israeli compromises. Israel signed the Framework for Peace in the Middle East with Egypt in 1979 (following the Camp David Agreement), agreeing to establish an autonomous Palestinian self-governing authority in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, and the Israel-Jordan agreement (the Wadi Araba Treaty) following the 1993 Oslo Agreement, which laid the foundations of the Palestine National Authority.

But when the Abraham Accords were signed, the Palestinians got nothing. After the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and Israel’s retaliatory war on Gaza (and the West Bank), Arabs condemned the Israeli actions but stopped short of provoking the Jewish state. However, their unease and anger over the war Israel was carrying out were on display. In the Riyadh summit, they came together and expressed their collective anger and sent a message to both Israel and the U.S. that resolving the Palestine question is key to peace in West Asia.

Where do Saudi-Israel ties stand?

In September 2023, Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince, and Prime Minister, said the kingdom was in an advanced stage of finalising a normalisation agreement with Israel. For both the U.S. and Israel, an agreement with Saudi Arabia was the logical next step of the normalisation process. Arab countries were also increasingly wary of Iran and they seemed ready to bolster ties with Israel and build a joint defensive shield against potential Iranian threats. Then came the October 7 attack, and Israel’s war on Gaza.  Israel’s indiscriminate use of power, which has destroyed much of Gaza, has triggered strong anti-Israel sentiments in the Arab Street. Saudi Arabia and the UAE see the Hamas brand of political Islam as a threat to their monarchical systems. But they cannot ignore the mood in the Arab Street and West Asia, which is predominantly anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. A few months after the war, the Saudis said any future agreement with Israel should be linked to resolving the Palestine issue.

On September 18, Crown Prince Mohammed said, “The kingdom will not cease its tireless efforts to establish an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and we affirm that the kingdom will not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without one.” At the opening of the Riyadh summit, MBS, as Prince Mohammed is popularly known, said Israel was committing “genocide” in Gaza, in his harshest criticism of the war. This points to a steady deterioration in Saudi-Israel ties over the past year.

Will the Arabs join the war?

Very unlikely. The last time an Arab country attacked Israel was in 1973 when Egypt, along with Syria, launched a surprise offensive in Sinai and Golan, Egyptian and Syrian territories, respectively, that were captured by Israel in 1967. Egypt launched the attack to get its territory back, not for the Palestinians. Ever since, peace between Israel and Arab states prevailed, irrespective of Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories. That status quo is unlikely to change as no Arab country has the stomach to go to war against Israel. But before the October 7 attack, Arabs were moving closer to formalising their relationship with the Jewish state — that push has now been derailed. Now, even the UAE, which had close ties with Israel, says it “is not ready to support the day after the war in Gaza without the establishment of a Palestinian state”. Arab countries have also entered into a detente with Iran, bringing their decades-long rivalry with the Shia state to a tactical halt.

This signals a subtle realignment in West Asia’s strategic landscape. Before October 7, the Gulf Arabs and Iran were at loggerheads with each other. The U.S. wanted to bring Israel and the Gulf Arabs, the two pillars of its West Asia policy, closer to each other. Israel had proposed a joint defensive alliance against Iran, with America’s blessing. The Palestine issue had been pushed to the sidelines of the region. Now, the Palestine issue is back at the centre. Iran and the Arabs have learned to co-exist, at least for now. And the Arab-Israel normalisation process has been shelved.

A Texas delegate holds a sign during the 2024 Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 17, 2024. Donald Trump has pledged to launch — on day one of his presidency — the largest deportation operation of undocumented immigrants in U.S. history.
| Photo Credit: AFP

The story so far: On October 22, 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) flew a “large-frame charter removal flight” to repatriate Indian nationals “who did not establish legal basis to remain in the United States.” Royce Murray, assistant secretary for Border and Immigration Policy at the DHS, said the U.S. had repatriated over 1,100 Indian nationals in the previous fiscal year.

Why were the Indians repatriated?

The U.S. officials maintain that they want to deter “irregular migration” to the U.S. from India among other countries, and that the charter flight was in addition to the regular removals that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department carries out through commercial flights. The flight was aimed at showcasing the strong will of the then poll-bound Joseph Biden administration to enforce immigration laws and deliver “tough consequences for those who enter unlawfully.”

What are the ways in which irregular Indian immigrants try to enter the U.S.?

Indians who try to enter the U.S. unlawfully generally try to use the southern U.S. border with Mexico and the Canada-U.S. border in the north. The pressure is more on the Mexico-U.S. border as several Latin American or central American countries like Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are known to provide visa-free entry to U.S.-visa holding Indians for a period of time. Using this facility, some people try to stay for extended periods of time in these countries that are known for their porous borders and easy travel to the Texas border by using dangerous human trafficking agents and organisations. India has a large number of agreements for visas with these countries that allow for extended stays for Indian citizens. For example, Peru is among those that waives visa requirement for Indian nationals for business and tourism purposes for one or more stays totalling up to 180 days per year, provided that they hold permanent residence or a visa valid for a minimum of six months for Australia, Canada, U.K., the U.S., or any Schengen country.

From which States is there a high rate of irregular immigration?

The latest flight from the U.S. that carried the Indian nationals landed in Punjab, an U.S. official told the media, indicating that most of the people on board that special flight hailed from Punjab. The Hindu had reported in November 2023 that from November 2022 to September 2023, a record number of Indians — 96,917 — were arrested while crossing illegally into the U.S., according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (UCBP) data. The number of Indians trying to enter the U.S. has witnessed a five-fold rise since 2019. Available data indicates that Gujarat has been supplying half of the total illegal immigrants trying to enter the U.S. There have also been several instances of deaths of people while trying to cross the border. In a well-documented case, a family of four — Jagadish Patel, Vaishaliben Patel and their two children, Vihangi and Dharmik, froze to death as they tried to cross from Canada into the U.S.

What is meant by lawful immigration to U.S.?

There are various legally accepted processes through which Indian citizens immigrate to the U.S. Every U.S. fiscal year (October 1 to September 30) around 1,40,000 employment-based immigrant visas are made available to qualified persons under the provisions of U.S. immigration law. Employment-based immigrant visas fall into five “preference categories”. In certain cases, spouses and children are allowed to join the applicant. The professionals who fall in the first three categories are persons with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics, outstanding professors and researchers with adequate experience, multinational managers and executives. Professionals holding advanced degrees and persons of exceptional abilities can also apply for immigrating lawfully to the U.S. Skilled workers, professionals and unskilled workers who can fill positions after two years of training also fall in this range. The fourth category is ‘Certain Special Immigrants’ that includes professionals who work with broadcast media in the U.S., certain employees or former employees of the U.S. government as well as people from conflict zones like Iraq and Afghanistan (translators/interpreters). The fifth category includes investors who can launch foreign commercial enterprises in the U.S.

President-elect Donald Trump, who is known to have used expressions like “poisoning the blood” on the issue of immigration, has not targeted Indians. In fact, during the closing part of his campaign, he even spoke for protection of the Hindu minority community in Bangladesh which appealed to Indian-origin voters in the U.S. That apart, Vice-President-elect J.D. Vance’s wife Usha Chilukuri Vance is of Indian origin. The greater part of his focus on immigration has been turned towards the cross-border flow from Latin American countries. However, anti-immigration measures under him will be uniformly implemented and is likely to hit Indian immigrants too.

What was Trump’s policy on immigration during his first term?

During his first stint (2017-2021), President Trump had increased the rate of denial of H1B visas to Indian professionals. Mr. Trump had issued a “Buy American and Hire American” executive order on April 18, 2017. Subsequently, the Foreign Affairs Manual included a directive to consular officials to keep the executive order in view while deciding on granting of a visa. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under President Trump, denial of H1B visa for initial services grew rapidly from 13% in 2017 to 21% in 2019. There were also allegations that U.S. consular officials were making it extremely difficult for Indian companies to transfer employees from India to the U.S. under the L1 visa category.

Editorial | Desperation in distress: On migration attempts by Indians to the developed world 

During his first term, Mr. Trump had given the slogan of ‘Build the Wall’ in the southern border of the U.S. with Mexico. In the just-concluded presidential election, he focused on stopping illegal immigration and deporting foreigners who are staying in the U.S. illegally — the number being touted to be in the region of 11 million. Mr. Trump has delivered a series of speeches on how he plans to deal with this problem which is presumed to affect the job market in the U.S. He has declared that the National Guard will be deployed to deport illegal overstayers and that he might even invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. However, there is little clarity about how Mr. Trump would address immigration-related concerns that his supporters have displayed during the campaign.

In addition, his anti-immigrant stance will clash with the economic policy of his tech czars who want to access the Indian market. It will be ironical if the Trump presidency opposes the entry of people from markets favoured by Trump-friendly business tycoons.

Children, senior citizens, pregnant women, those with pre-existing co morbidities, and people forced to work in the open are more vulnerable to the impact of heat. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The story so far: The Tamil Nadu government, last week, notified a heatwave as a State-specific disaster. This would entail providing relief to people affected by heatwaves, solatium for the family of those who have died of heat-related causes, and to launch interim measures to help manage the heat. Expenditure for this will be incurred from the State Disaster Response Fund.

Is heat a crisis now?

The World Meteorological Organization declared that 2023 was the hottest year on record. The frequency of heatwaves has increased in recent years, consistent with anthropogenic climate change, as per the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2023. Closer home, in India, people are already reeling under the impact of intense heatwaves. In a paper in the journal Environment International, titled Impact of heatwaves on all-cause mortality in India: A comprehensive multi-city study, the authors Jeroen de Bont et al record India’s heatwaves that have been occurring with increased frequency during the last decades. In May 1998, India experienced a severe heatwave over a two-week period considered to be the worst in the preceding 50 years. During the summer of 1999, India experienced unprecedented heat in April, with maximum temperatures of 40°C or above for more than 14 days.

Editorial | Sun signs: On extreme heat and Tamil Nadu’s policy decision

Another heatwave in 2003 was estimated to have caused more than 3,000 deaths in Andhra Pradesh, the paper recounts. In May 2010, a heatwave in Ahmedabad led to approximately 1,300 deaths. In 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2023 extreme heatwaves have been observed across India. In the summer of 2024, a severe and long heatwave impacted India, blistering plains and hills, causing deaths and heat strokes. May 2024 was the worst, with Churu in Rajasthan recording a maximum of 50.5°C, recorded as the highest temperature in India in eight years. As per records, there were 219 deaths, including election officials on duty in the districts; over 25,000 people suffered from heatstroke.

How is a heatwave defined?

A heatwave is defined generally as a prolonged period of unusually and excessively hot weather, which may also be accompanied by high humidity, but is primarily determined by regions for themselves. The India Meteorological Department (IMD), which determines heatwave conditions, has specified the following criteria: a heatwave need not be considered till maximum temperature of a station reaches at least 40°C for plains and at least 30°C for hilly regions. In the regional context, heatwave management has already emerged as a problem requiring focused attention. During April and May 2024, many parts of Tamil Nadu recorded temperatures above 40°C.

Also read | Understanding the heat and health conundrum

Eun-Soon Im et al, in a paper on Deadly heatwaves projected in the densely populated agricultural regions of South Asia featured in Science Advances, stated that the crisis is all the more significant in South Asia, a region inhabited by about one-fifth of the global human population, where there exists an unprecedented combination of severe natural hazards and acute vulnerability. “The most intense hazard from extreme future heatwaves is concentrated around densely populated agricultural regions of the Ganges and Indus river basins,” the paper forecasts.

How does heat impact health?

Extreme heat conditions have a definite deleterious impact on human health, life and productivity. In their paper, Jeroen de Bont et al say they found strong evidence of the impact of heatwaves on daily mortality. Longer and more intense heatwaves were linked to an increased mortality risk. This makes it a public health problem that governments must tend to. They further add that heat-related morbidity and mortality can be caused by the direct effects of exposure to extreme heat, including a spectrum of heat-related illnesses from heat exhaustion to heat stroke. “Equally challenging from a public health perspective are the indirect effects of extreme heat exposure, occurring when heat exposure stresses underlying physiological systems and results in other specific manifestations such as renal insufficiency, acute cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, and exacerbations of pulmonary disease,” the paper notes.

Further, existing vulnerabilities such as poverty, lack of access to shelter and health care, unplanned cities and working out in the open, add to the burden in mid and low middle income communities. Children, senior citizens, pregnant women, those with pre-existing co morbidities, and people forced to work in the open, as in construction and agriculture industries, are more vulnerable to the impact of heat. According to the WHO, heat-related mortality for people over 65 years of age increased by approximately 85% between 2000-2004 and 2017-2021.

A working paper from the Early Childhood Scientific Council on Equity and the Environment, Harvard University, (Extreme Heat Affects Early Childhood Development and Health: Working Paper No. 1., 2023) details the effect extreme temperatures can have during pregnancy and early childhood, including on learning, sleep quality, and mental and behavioural health.

What is wet bulb temperature?

Wet bulb temperature is the lowest temperature to which a surface can be cooled by water evaporating from it, or the lowest temperature to which the surface of the skin can be cooled by sweating. Beyond this threshold, the human body can no longer cool itself, leading to heat stroke or even death. This temperature accounts for not only the degrees but also helps measure humidity and understand how much evaporation can occur.

This is particularly significant to India, which has a vast coastline in the east and west, and where rising humidity levels are of concern. Steven C. Sherwood et al in the paper An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress point out that peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. Exceeding a wet bulb temperature of 35°C for extended periods would induce hyperthermia in humans, as dissipation of heat becomes impossible.

What should governments do?

The long-term goal is addressing the anthropogenic causes for climate change, and at the same time, tackling systemic shortfalls like poverty, unplanned cities, access to health care and nutrition. However, there is much that governments can do even in the interim, during periods of intense heat, as indicated by the Tamil Nadu government. These include keeping in readiness health centres, maternity and children hospitals to provide treatment for citizens, stockpiling adequate quantities of ORS and medicines that will be useful at hospitals, providing water and shelter to those who have to brave the elements and rescheduling work hours to protect outdoor workers.

Security personnel stand guard near a “Golden Bridge on Silk Road” decoration for the Belt and Road Forum outside the China National Convention Center in Beijing, China, April 25, 2019. REUTERS/Jason Lee
| Photo Credit: JASON LEE

The story so far: The Brazilian government indicated this week that it may not want to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which would make it the second member of the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) after Indiato decline joining the trillion-dollar Chinese global infrastructure project that was started in 2013.

What may have prompted the decision?

The decision was conveyed in an interview to a Brazilian newspaper by Celso Amorim, Chief Adviser on Foreign Policy to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva. The interview has raised questions about Brazil-China ties, as well as about the BRI, which was launched as a modern-day version of the ancient Silk Road.

In the interview to O Globo, Mr. Amorim said that rather than sign an “accession contract” with China, Brazil would prefer to explore “synergy” in various nationally determined infrastructure projects. “The key word is synergy. It’s not about signing something like an insurance policy. We’re not entering into an accession treaty. It’s a negotiation of synergies,” Mr. Amorim said, adding that while China could give the relationship any name, for Brazil any partnership would involve projects defined and decided by Brazil. He did not, however, reject the BRI outright or forswear Chinese funding for a number of projects, mainly on infrastructure, but also in other areas, ranging from solar energy to hybrid or electric cars. Mr. Amorim also suggested that such projects would engage not only Brazil but also other South American countries. Finally, Mr. Amorim pointed to more geopolitical collaborations that Brazil and China can further, such as the six-point peace plan for Ukraine.

Why is the timing important?

Unlike most of its neighbours, Brazil is one of only four South American countries not to join the Chinese initiative. Mr. Lula’s predecessors Jair Bolsonaro and Michel Temer had been positive on Chinese investments but demurred at Beijing’s multiple attempts at getting Brazil to sign an MoU on the BRI. As of December 2023, about 150 countries worldwide have done so, with India and Brazil being notable exceptions in the developing world, especially given their common membership of the BRICS. Russia also has some BRI projects under development for energy and roads, but it has not signed the MoU, only inking a China-Eurasian Economic Union MoU on the BRI.

In July, however, Mr. Lula had told a news conference that Brazil was studying the benefits of joining the BRI. “As China wants to discuss this Silk Road, we will have to prepare a proposal to assess ‘What do we gain? What’s in it for Brazil if we participate in this thing?’,” he said. However, the decision conveyed in the O Globo interview, which comes after the BRICS summit in Russia and a visit to China by Mr. Amorim, appears to indicate that Brazil has concluded that the gains do not outweigh the risks of such a move.

What were India’s reasons to stay out of BRI?

In its decision announced in May 2017 to stay out of the BRI, India was more forthright, and had outlined three issues: the corridor disregards sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, particularly referring to projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; it would push smaller economies into debt traps and environmental hazards; and there was a lack of transparency, indicating India was wary of the BRI’s larger geopolitical aims. In Brazil, officials say that there is an underlying concern about growing dependence in the CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) region on Chinese investment, although Brazil-China trade has reached robust levels of $180 billion and Chinese investment of $3 billion a year in Brazil is the highest in the continent. With all that is at stake, all eyes are on what President Lula says later this month, when he hosts the G-20 in Rio De Janeiro (November 18-19), followed by a state visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Brasilia on November 20.

Has the BRI lost its sheen?

More than a decade after it was launched by Mr. Xi, the Belt and Road Initiative is no longer the “project of the century” it was once touted as. Of the 150 countries that have either signed an MoU or contracted for BRI projects, 44 are in Sub-saharan Africa, 17 in the European Union, 17 others in Europe and Central Asia, 31 in East Asia and South East Asia, 22 in South America and 19 in West Asia-North Africa.

One of the reasons the BRI’s charms have dimmed is China’s own slowing economy and Beijing’s unwillingness to be as generous with its loans in the second half of the decade, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Another is the discomfort in many countries over the terms for the loans, which involve hiring Chinese companies and engaging Chinese workers, while often demanding heavy collateral, as Sri Lanka found out after losing control of the Hambantota port. The U.S.’s heavy lobbying against the BRI has also had some effect: Italy’s Giorgia Meloni announced in December 2023 that it would not renew the BRI MoU. The Brazilian Foreign Adviser’s statement follows a visit by U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai who asked Brazil to think carefully through an “objective lens” before signing on to the BRI. The remarks raised a protest from the Chinese Embassy in Brasilia which called them “disrespectful” of Brazil’s sovereign right to choose its partners. With some ambiguity still apparent in Brazil’s stand, some have suggested that President Lula may be keeping his options open, at least until the outcome of the U.S. elections on November 5.

Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Suburban Collection Showplace on October 26, 2024 in Novi, Michigan. Photo: Getty Images via AFP

The story so far:

Around 24.4 crore people are eligible to vote for the U.S. presidential election slated for November 5. In 2020, two-thirds of the eligible voters voted. The next President of the U.S. will be decided less by these national numbers than by a few thousand voters in some key places, which are called battleground or swing States, thanks to the unique features of the country’s electoral system.

What transpired in the last two elections?

The last two elections of 2016 and 2020 demonstrated the outsize impact of the swing factor in several States, even as the country became more polarised. In 2020, President Joe Biden had a national lead of around 70 lakh votes over Donald Trump, but what mattered more were the small margins with which he won key States. Of around 67 lakh votes cast in Pennsylvania, Mr. Biden led over Mr. Trump by 81,660; in Michigan, he had 1.54 lakh more, of the total 54 lakh polled; in Wisconsin, Mr. Biden led by just 20,682 votes in a total of more than 32 lakh votes.

Editorial | Neck and neck: On the U.S. presidential election

In 2016, Mr. Trump had trailed his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton by two percentage points, which was in excess of 20 lakh votes, but he could still emerge as the winner because he won key swing States. For instance, he won Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes of the total 61.7 lakh votes polled; Wisconsin by 22,748 of the 30 lakh votes; and Michigan, by 10,704 of the 48 lakh votes polled.

How is the winner chosen?

The winner of the U.S. presidential contest is selected not by a majority of national popular votes, but by a majority in the electoral college of 538, which is 270. Members of the electoral college are apportioned between the States. Most U.S. States have a “winner-takes-it-all” system that allots all electors to the candidate who gets more popular votes. So, whether a candidate has one or one million votes more than their opponent in California, for instance, all 54 electoral college votes of the State, will be awarded to him or her.

Similarly, all 19 electoral college votes of Pennsylvania will be awarded to the winner of the popular votes within that State, regardless of the margin. This system could create the anomaly of a candidate winning the election, without winning more popular votes than the opponent, nationally. That is also why the main opponents this time, Mr. Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris, are trying to turn the battleground States in their favour in the last lap of campaigning ahead of election day.

Which are the key States that will play a role in picking the winner?

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, and North Carolina are the battleground States of 2024; and the contest between Mr. Trump and Ms. Harris is a dead heat, going by all opinion polls. The average polling error for more than five decades in the U.S. is 3.4%. In all the seven swing States, in nearly all the polls, the leading candidate has a lead well within this margin. Like the last two elections, the margins could be very narrow and these States will decide who will be the President for the next four years. It is also possible that most of these States could swing to either side, as it happened in the last two elections, rather than being evenly divided between the two.

Even a minor swing among significant voting blocs in these States could turn the tide either way. Both candidates are trying to tailor their messages, particularly targeting these States. For instance, Latinos make up nearly a quarter of Arizona’s voters. That possibly explains Mr. Trump’s recent attempts to portray his opponent as being disrespectful of the Catholic church. In Georgia, Black votes count considerably, and Mr. Trump has been trying to mobilise them behind his anti-immigration politics. Latest polling figures show Mr. Trump gaining more ground among Latinos and Blacks. Michigan, a State that turned Republican in 2016 and Democrat in 2020, has around two lakh Muslim voters. Democrats, and Ms. Harris, face a crisis of credibility among them, against the backdrop of the conflict in West Asia. They may not vote for Mr. Trump but could turn indifferent towards Ms. Harris. Mr. Trump had won North Carolina in 2016 and 2020, but Ms. Harris is making some new inroads, according to polls.

In the last stretch, there will be further concentration of firepower by both sides on the small numbers that count as big in the elections. Catching the swing voters in these States is what both candidates are focussing on now.

A screen displaying a picture of this year’s laureates Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkum is seen during the announcement of the winners of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm on October 7, 2024. Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkum won the Nobel medicine prize on October 7, 2024 for the discovery of microRNA and its role in how gene activity is regulated, the Nobel jury said.
| Photo Credit: AFP

The Nobel Committee announced on October 7 that the Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology would be shared by Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun “for the discovery of microRNA and its role in post-transcriptional gene regulation,” thereby unlocking a secret on how different types of cells develop.

What is microRNA?

The human body is probably the most complex puzzle that humans are still trying to make sense of. Every time there is a better understanding and a piece slides into place with a resounding click, then it is an occasion for celebration. For a Nobel Prize too perhaps. This year’s awardees of the Nobel Prize for Medicine — Ambros and Ruvkun — did slide in a couple of pieces into the right slots in the massive puzzle that suddenly opened our eyes to understanding how different cell types develop.

Editorial | Regulation role: On the 2024 Medicine Nobel

Consider this: Every cell in the body contains the same chromosome, so every cell contains exactly the same set of genes and presumably, the same instructions. But different cell types have different, unique characteristics. It confounded the imagination until Ambros and Ruvkun came along. Their discovery offered a plausible explanation for the conundrum. The piece of the puzzle was called microRNA, a new class of tiny RNA molecules that play a crucial role in gene regulation. As the Nobel announcement statement said, their groundbreaking discovery revealed a completely new principle of gene regulation essential for multicellular organisms, including humans.

It is now known that the human genome codes for over one thousand microRNAs. Genetic information flows from DNA to messenger RNA (mRNA), via a process called transcription, and then on to the cell for production of protein. There, mRNAs are translated so that proteins are made according to the genetic instructions stored in DNA.

The key is in the precise regulation of gene activity so that only the correct set of genes is active in each specific cell type. Additionally, gene activity must be continually fine-tuned to adapt cellular functions to changing conditions in our bodies and environment. If gene regulation goes awry, it can lead to serious diseases. Therefore, understanding the regulation of gene activity has been an important goal for many decades.

What is the work that led to the Nobel prize?

Ambros and Ruvkun, both American biologists, were together in their post-doctoral period at the H. Robert Horovitz lab in the 1980s, and their interest in cell development probably had its spark there. “It was the moment,” Ruvkun said later, “when recombinant DNA was just starting to take off and it was obvious that it was a revolution and I wanted to be part of that.” As they say, great achievements have humble beginnings, and this duo started appropriately enough with a humble 1 mm long roundworm. This creature was not an odd choice though: it possessed many specialised types of cells, such as nerve and muscle cells, making it a convenient model to study a complex genetic regulation process across species, one that was conserved throughout evolution.

After that, both scientists branched off on their own, though they remained focused on the same theme, obsessively, as great scientists are wont to, but exchanging data with each other, a task assigned great value in the modern scientific world.

The study of mutant strains that disrupt cellular processes offers great insights into gene function, and Ambros and Ruvkun took this path. They studied two mutant strains of worms, lin-4, and lin-14, that displayed defects in the timing of activation of genetic programmes during development.

After his post-doctoral research, Ambros analysed the lin-4 mutant in his laboratory. He managed to clone the gene which revealed that the lin-4 gene produced an unusually short RNA molecule that lacked a code for protein production. This suggested that the small RNA from lin-4 was responsible for inhibiting lin-14.

Concurrently, Ruvkun investigated the regulation of the lin-14 gene at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Ruvkun showed that the inhibition occurred at a later stage in the process of gene expression, through the shutdown of protein production. Experiments also revealed a segment in lin-14 mRNA necessary for its inhibition by lin-4. There were therefore complementary sequences in lin-4 and lin-14 mRNA, and the former binds to such sequences in the latter, blocking protein production in lin-14.

The two laureates compared their findings, which resulted in a breakthrough discovery. A new principle of gene regulation, mediated by a previously unknown type of RNA, microRNA, had been discovered. The results were published in 1993 in two articles in the journal Cell. Incidentally, Ambros’ wife Rosalind Lee was his colleague and the first author of the Cell paper cited by the Nobel Committee. As Iorio and Croce wrote in their paper Causes and consequences of microRNA dysregulation, in the Cancer Journal, “microRNAs represent indeed an entire novel level of gene regulation that forced scientists to revise and somehow reorganise their view of the molecular biology.”

While these results were met with initial silence from the scientific community, perception changed and euphoria took over, after Ruvkun’s research group published their discovery of another microRNA encoded by the let-7 gene, seven years later. This gene was highly conserved and present throughout the animal kingdom, unlike lin-4. Over the following years, different microRNAs were identified. As a result of this work, researchers are today aware of the presence of more than 1,000 genes for different microRNAs and that gene regulation for microRNA is present in all multicellular organisms.

What are the applications for the future?

As Iorio and Croce list, since the first discovery, there have been remarkable advances in the understanding of microRNA biology. These include the identification of hundreds of microRNA genes; the dissection of microRNA biogenesis pathways; the identification of numerous microRNA targets and the establishment of principles of target regulation; and more importantly, there have been vigorous studies of their biological functions in physiological and pathological conditions.

Researchers found that a single microRNA can regulate the expression of many different genes, and conversely, a single gene can be regulated by multiple microRNAs, thereby coordinating and fine-tuning entire networks of genes. Extensive research has also yielded knowledge that cells and tissues do not develop normally without microRNAs. Abnormal regulation by microRNA can contribute to cancer, and mutations in genes coding for microRNAs have been found in humans, causing conditions such as congenital hearing loss, eye and skeletal disorders. Mutations in one of the proteins required for microRNA production result in the DICER1 syndrome, a rare but severe syndrome linked to cancer in various organs and tissues.

The Nobel Prize 2024: An interactive guide

There are five major components of the UPS benefits, starting with the assurance that government employees will receive half of their average basic pay drawn over their final 12 months in service prior to retirement, as a monthly pension for life. 
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

The story so far: Last weekend, the Union Cabinet signed off on a major shift in the approach for providing old age income security to Central government employees, setting the stage for a new Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) to be launched on April 1, 2025. About 23 lakh Central government employees are expected to benefit from the new scheme, while those employees who are part of an ongoing pension scheme called the National Pension System (originally called the New Pension Scheme or NPS) will have a one-time option to switch to the UPS. States have been given the option to bring their employees under the UPS framework, and will need to work out the scheme’s funding from their own resources.

What are the benefits being offered under the UPS?

There are five major components of the UPS benefits, starting with the assurance that government employees will receive half of their average basic pay drawn over their final 12 months in service prior to retirement, as a monthly pension for life. This promise is subject to a minimum service of 25 years. The benefits will be proportionately lower for those with lesser service tenures, provided they served for least 10 years in government. The minimum pension amount at superannuation, has been set at ₹10,000 for those with 10 years of service. The UPS also offers a family pension equivalent to 60% of a government worker’s pension at the time of her or his demise, to support their dependents. To provide a hedge against inflation, these pension incomes will be raised in line with the consumer price trends for industrial workers — akin to the dearness relief allowance offered to serving government employees. Last but not the least, the UPS also promises a lumpsum superannuation payout in addition to gratuity benefits at the time of retirement. This will amount to 1/10th of an employee’s monthly emoluments, that is salary + dearness allowance, as on the date of superannuation for every completed six months of service.

How is this different from the current pension system?

Currently, government employees who joined service prior to January 1, 2004, are covered by what has come to be known as the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) that was replaced by the NPS for employees who joined in or after 2004.

Editorial | Middle path: On the Unified Pension Scheme

The OPS also offered employees an assured pension at 50% of last drawn salary, with dearness allowance hikes added along the way, an assured family pension of 60% of the last drawn pension, and a minimum pension of ₹9,000 plus dearness allowances. At the time of retirement, employees could commute 40% of the pension and receive it as a lumpsum. Moreover, for pensioners or family pensioners crossing 80 years of age, an additional 20% pension is given, with that number rising to 30% at 85 years, 40% at 90 years, and 50% at 95 years. Pension incomes are also revised in line with salary updates as per Pay Commission suggestions. The last salary upgrade for government employees kicked in from 2016, based on the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations. A critical difference between the OPS and NPS as well as the UPS, is that its promises were funded straight off the revenues of the government at the time of making payouts. So the liabilities of the OPS were “unfunded”, with no contributions made by employees or the employer, as is the case with non-government formal sector employees whose retirement savings are governed under by the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) Act.

The NPS, launched through an executive order by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government after years of debate about the unsustainability of civil servants’ pension bills, did away with the defined benefits system of the OPS and switched to a ‘defined contribution’ pension regime. 10% of employees’ salaries were remitted to a pension account with a matching contribution from the employer (the Centre, or States as almost all of them switched to the NPS after 2004). These funds were pooled and deployed in market-linked securities, with the option of parking some funds in equity markets, by pension fund managers. At the time of retirement, employees were required to buy an annuity (an insurance instrument that provides a monthly income) with 40% of the accumulated corpus in their NPS account, and withdraw the rest. The Centre had raised its contribution to the NPS to 14% in 2019, but there was no element of certainty offered on NPS members’ pension incomes, like the OPS did. NPS members, including those who may have retired already, can now move to the UPS.

The UPS combines the defined benefit model of the OPS through its promised pension levels and other sops, with the defined contribution NPS mechanism. While employees’ contributions will be limited to 10% of salary as is the case with NPS, the government will contribute a higher 18.5% of salary to the pooled pension accounts. The Centre will also have to bear any gap between the eventual earnings on these contributions, and its assured pension promises under the UPS. It is not clear at this point if the UPS will factor in future Pay Commissions’ recommendations or offer higher pensions for those over 80 years of age, as the OPS did.

Why did the government opt for a change?

Prior to, and after, its launch, the NPS regime had faced a strong pushback from government employees over the loss of any assurance about their likely pension incomes, and the stark contrast in fortunes for post-2004 workers vis-à-vis their predecessors. While this clamour had persisted through the UPA years, the decibel levels against it mounted in recent years, especially as some of the early NPS entrants with fewer years of service started to retire with what they perceived as poor pension benefits. This restiveness eventually became an electoral issue, with Opposition parties such as the Congress promising a return to the OPS for State employees covered by the NPS ahead of some Assembly polls, and effecting the switch after gaining power in a few. The Centre, through the Narendra Modi government’s second innings, pushed back over this reform reversal by States terming these as fiscally irresponsible sops.

However, in March 2023, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a committee to review the NPS for government employees in a way that balances “their aspirations with fiscal prudence”. This panel, headed by former Finance Secretary T.V. Somanathan (now serving as Cabinet Secretary), held wide consultations with employees and other stakeholders, and although its report has not been made public yet, the switch to the UPS has been informed by its parleys. If there was any doubt that UPS’ bouquet of benefits is linked to political considerations after the recent Lok Sabha polls and ahead of several State polls, Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw laid it to rest. While announcing the UPS, he emphasised that Congress-ruled States which announced a return to the OPS were yet to implement it, while Prime Minister Modi had ensured an outcome that will ensure “inter-generational equity”.

How have employees and States reacted? What is the likely impact on finances?

Central government employees have broadly welcomed the UPS provisions as an acknowledgement of the NPS’ problems, but there are still reservations about the contributory aspects of the UPS and the lack of a commutation option like the OPS. Like employee representatives, economists also await more details on the UPS’ contours and math. UPS contributions, including arrears for some, are expected to cost an additional ₹7,050 crore this year. Dearness hikes, as and when announced, will warrant additional funding too. “Assured pensions will add to the government committed expenditure in the future, while reducing the uncertainty for employees. This will have to be built into the fiscal consolidation roadmap going ahead,” remarked Aditi Nayar, ICRA’s chief economist.

While the immediate impact will only be the additional 4.5% contribution towards the UPS, future payouts will be higher but can be absorbed by higher revenue growth, reckoned Bank of Baroda chief economist Madan Sabnavis. “We can look at this as being equivalent to Pay Commission revisions which are absorbed by the system,” he averred.

There are five major components of the UPS benefits, starting with the assurance that government employees will receive half of their average basic pay drawn over their final 12 months in service prior to retirement, as a monthly pension for life. 
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

The story so far: Last weekend, the Union Cabinet signed off on a major shift in the approach for providing old age income security to Central government employees, setting the stage for a new Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) to be launched on April 1, 2025. About 23 lakh Central government employees are expected to benefit from the new scheme, while those employees who are part of an ongoing pension scheme called the National Pension System (originally called the New Pension Scheme or NPS) will have a one-time option to switch to the UPS. States have been given the option to bring their employees under the UPS framework, and will need to work out the scheme’s funding from their own resources.

What are the benefits being offered under the UPS?

There are five major components of the UPS benefits, starting with the assurance that government employees will receive half of their average basic pay drawn over their final 12 months in service prior to retirement, as a monthly pension for life. This promise is subject to a minimum service of 25 years. The benefits will be proportionately lower for those with lesser service tenures, provided they served for least 10 years in government. The minimum pension amount at superannuation, has been set at ₹10,000 for those with 10 years of service. The UPS also offers a family pension equivalent to 60% of a government worker’s pension at the time of her or his demise, to support their dependents. To provide a hedge against inflation, these pension incomes will be raised in line with the consumer price trends for industrial workers — akin to the dearness relief allowance offered to serving government employees. Last but not the least, the UPS also promises a lumpsum superannuation payout in addition to gratuity benefits at the time of retirement. This will amount to 1/10th of an employee’s monthly emoluments, that is salary + dearness allowance, as on the date of superannuation for every completed six months of service.

How is this different from the current pension system?

Currently, government employees who joined service prior to January 1, 2004, are covered by what has come to be known as the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) that was replaced by the NPS for employees who joined in or after 2004.

Editorial | Middle path: On the Unified Pension Scheme

The OPS also offered employees an assured pension at 50% of last drawn salary, with dearness allowance hikes added along the way, an assured family pension of 60% of the last drawn pension, and a minimum pension of ₹9,000 plus dearness allowances. At the time of retirement, employees could commute 40% of the pension and receive it as a lumpsum. Moreover, for pensioners or family pensioners crossing 80 years of age, an additional 20% pension is given, with that number rising to 30% at 85 years, 40% at 90 years, and 50% at 95 years. Pension incomes are also revised in line with salary updates as per Pay Commission suggestions. The last salary upgrade for government employees kicked in from 2016, based on the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations. A critical difference between the OPS and NPS as well as the UPS, is that its promises were funded straight off the revenues of the government at the time of making payouts. So the liabilities of the OPS were “unfunded”, with no contributions made by employees or the employer, as is the case with non-government formal sector employees whose retirement savings are governed under by the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) Act.

The NPS, launched through an executive order by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government after years of debate about the unsustainability of civil servants’ pension bills, did away with the defined benefits system of the OPS and switched to a ‘defined contribution’ pension regime. 10% of employees’ salaries were remitted to a pension account with a matching contribution from the employer (the Centre, or States as almost all of them switched to the NPS after 2004). These funds were pooled and deployed in market-linked securities, with the option of parking some funds in equity markets, by pension fund managers. At the time of retirement, employees were required to buy an annuity (an insurance instrument that provides a monthly income) with 40% of the accumulated corpus in their NPS account, and withdraw the rest. The Centre had raised its contribution to the NPS to 14% in 2019, but there was no element of certainty offered on NPS members’ pension incomes, like the OPS did. NPS members, including those who may have retired already, can now move to the UPS.

The UPS combines the defined benefit model of the OPS through its promised pension levels and other sops, with the defined contribution NPS mechanism. While employees’ contributions will be limited to 10% of salary as is the case with NPS, the government will contribute a higher 18.5% of salary to the pooled pension accounts. The Centre will also have to bear any gap between the eventual earnings on these contributions, and its assured pension promises under the UPS. It is not clear at this point if the UPS will factor in future Pay Commissions’ recommendations or offer higher pensions for those over 80 years of age, as the OPS did.

Why did the government opt for a change?

Prior to, and after, its launch, the NPS regime had faced a strong pushback from government employees over the loss of any assurance about their likely pension incomes, and the stark contrast in fortunes for post-2004 workers vis-à-vis their predecessors. While this clamour had persisted through the UPA years, the decibel levels against it mounted in recent years, especially as some of the early NPS entrants with fewer years of service started to retire with what they perceived as poor pension benefits. This restiveness eventually became an electoral issue, with Opposition parties such as the Congress promising a return to the OPS for State employees covered by the NPS ahead of some Assembly polls, and effecting the switch after gaining power in a few. The Centre, through the Narendra Modi government’s second innings, pushed back over this reform reversal by States terming these as fiscally irresponsible sops.

However, in March 2023, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a committee to review the NPS for government employees in a way that balances “their aspirations with fiscal prudence”. This panel, headed by former Finance Secretary T.V. Somanathan (now serving as Cabinet Secretary), held wide consultations with employees and other stakeholders, and although its report has not been made public yet, the switch to the UPS has been informed by its parleys. If there was any doubt that UPS’ bouquet of benefits is linked to political considerations after the recent Lok Sabha polls and ahead of several State polls, Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw laid it to rest. While announcing the UPS, he emphasised that Congress-ruled States which announced a return to the OPS were yet to implement it, while Prime Minister Modi had ensured an outcome that will ensure “inter-generational equity”.

How have employees and States reacted? What is the likely impact on finances?

Central government employees have broadly welcomed the UPS provisions as an acknowledgement of the NPS’ problems, but there are still reservations about the contributory aspects of the UPS and the lack of a commutation option like the OPS. Like employee representatives, economists also await more details on the UPS’ contours and math. UPS contributions, including arrears for some, are expected to cost an additional ₹7,050 crore this year. Dearness hikes, as and when announced, will warrant additional funding too. “Assured pensions will add to the government committed expenditure in the future, while reducing the uncertainty for employees. This will have to be built into the fiscal consolidation roadmap going ahead,” remarked Aditi Nayar, ICRA’s chief economist.

While the immediate impact will only be the additional 4.5% contribution towards the UPS, future payouts will be higher but can be absorbed by higher revenue growth, reckoned Bank of Baroda chief economist Madan Sabnavis. “We can look at this as being equivalent to Pay Commission revisions which are absorbed by the system,” he averred.