Quick Fix? Budget Alone Won’t Solve India’s R&D Problem
₹1-Lakh Crore RDI Scheme Approved
The Union Cabinet has approved a ₹1-lakh crore Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) scheme.
Objective: To incentivise the private sector to invest in basic research.
The scheme will use a special purpose fund under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF).
Funds will be given as low-interest loans.
Role of ANRF (Anusandhan National Research Foundation)
ANRF is an independent body under the Science Ministry.
It will act as the custodian of R&D funds.
Meant to serve as a single-window clearance for research funding for universities and institutions.
Expected funding split: Around 70% from private sources, rest from the government.
Government’s Strategy and Shift
Currently, the government contributes about 70% of India’s R&D spending.
Through RDI and ANRF, the government wants the private sector to take the lead in funding.
The government wants to reverse the ratio — more private investment, less government burden.
Problems With the Scheme
1. Restrictive Eligibility (TRL-4 Condition)
Only projects that reach Technology Readiness Level-4 (TRL-4) or above can get funds.
TRL scale (from NASA):
TRL-1: Early/basic research
TRL-9: Fully ready and deployable technology
Setting TRL-4 as a minimum is arbitrary and limits early innovation.
If prediction of success were easy, venture capital firms wouldn’t take risks.
2. Ignoring Key Lessons from Other Countries
Countries like the USA advanced because of their military-industrial systems.
Military spending encouraged risky and costly tech, which later benefited civilians (e.g. Internet, GPS).
India lacks such a military-tech ecosystem.
3. Deeper Structural Problems
Skilled scientists migrate abroad due to lack of suitable opportunities.
India has a weak manufacturing sector that can’t support new inventions.
These are deep, structural issues that cannot be fixed by budgetary allocations alone.
Relevance:
Class 10
Economics: Role of government in development, budgeting, and economic planning.
Science: Innovation, scientific development, R&D importance.
Political Science: Government policy and decision-making.
Class 11
Economics: Indian economic development and mixed economy (public vs private role).
Political Science: Policy planning, state initiatives in innovation.
Sociology: Migration of scientists (brain drain), role of institutions.
Physics: Basic vs applied research (conceptual understanding).
Class 12
Economics: Budget, government spending, public-private partnership in development.
Political Science: Challenges in public policy execution.
Business Studies: Innovation, venture capital, product development.
Science: Application of research and TRL levels; real-world technological growth.
Vocabulary:
The Dark Signs of Restricted or Selective Franchise
1. What is Happening in Bihar?
A Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list started on June 24, 2025.
Unlike earlier SIRs, this one requires complete re-verification of all voters using new documents.
This revision is happening after more than 20 years.
2. Why People Are Worried
The process is sudden and non-transparent, similar to demonetisation (2016).
Locals are calling it ‘votebandi’, like the term ‘notebandi’.
It also reminds people of Assam’s NRC, but:
NRC was supervised by the Supreme Court.
NRC took 6 years, covered 33 million people.
Bihar's SIR targets 50 million people in just one month.
3. Problems with Required Documents
11 documents are needed to prove voter eligibility.
Common documents like Aadhaar, voter ID, ration card, job card, driving licence are not accepted.
Accepted documents include:
Birth certificate
Matriculation certificate
Land or house ownership records
Passport
Caste certificate
These documents are rarely available to the common man in Bihar.
4. Issues for Migrant Workers
Many Biharis live, study or work outside the state.
During the COVID-19 lockdown (2020), many walked back home from other states.
Now, they may be removed from the voter list for not ‘ordinarily residing’ in Bihar.
5. Risk of Losing Voting Rights
The poor and migrants may lose voting rights, not due to citizenship issues but because they lack acceptable documents.
The ECI earlier gave Maharashtra a voter list larger than its adult population.
Some believe Bihar’s SIR is a ‘balancing act’ to remove voters for no fault of theirs.
6. National Impact
The ECI plans to extend Bihar’s SIR model to the whole country.
This may disrupt India’s electoral democracy, which was established by the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
7. Shift in Responsibility
Earlier: The state had to verify citizenship.
Now: The citizen must prove eligibility through documents.
This goes against the principle of natural justice (innocent until proven guilty).
8. Creation of Second-Class Citizens
Voters listed before 2003 are assumed to be citizens.
All others must prove citizenship now.
People excluded from the voter list may still be called ‘citizens’, but with no voting rights.
This may create a permanent category of disenfranchised, second-grade citizens.
9. Threat to Universal Adult Franchise
In many countries, people had to fight for equal voting rights for decades.
In India, everyone got the right to vote in 1950 after independence.
Now, requiring ownership and educational documents may restrict voting rights.
This could lead to a selective franchise, undoing the idea of universal adult franchise.
CBSE Relevance:
Class 10
Class 11
Class 12
Vocabulary:
“What will be the effect of rising military spending?” with: Rising Military Spending: What It Means
NATO’s New Defence Spending Target
NATO has pledged to raise military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035.
Earlier, the target was 2%.
Spending will include core defence and security-related needs.
This reflects a global trend of increasing military expenditure.
Historical Military Spending Trends
Global military spending in 2024: $2,718 billion, up 9.4% from 2023 — highest jump since 1988.
Reasons: Ongoing wars (Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Gaza) and new conflicts (India-Pakistan, Israel-Iran).
During the Cold War, spending peaked at 6.1% of global GDP (1960).
Post-Cold War: Lowest was 2.1% in 1998.
2024 level: 2.5% of global GDP.
Top Military Spenders
Top 5 (2024):
United States: $997 billion
China: $314 billion
Russia: $149 billion
Germany: $88.5 billion
India: $86.1 billion
Top 15 spenders = 80% of global military budget.
NATO (32 nations): Together spent $1,506 billion, which is 55% of global spending.
In terms of GDP % spent:
Saudi Arabia: 7.3%
Poland: 4.2%
US: 3.4%
Others: Between 1.3% and 2.6%
Impact on Public Goods (Like Health and Welfare)
Post-Cold War: Military cuts allowed growth in social spending.
Now, remilitarisation is reversing this gain.
Research (116 countries) shows that increased military spending:
Reduces domestic health budgets
Hits middle- and low-income countries the most
Example: Spain (1.24% military spending) refused NATO’s 5% target to protect welfare spending.
Budget Comparison with the UN
UN budget (2024): Only $44 billion
For peacekeeping, development, humanitarian aid
Received only $6 billion in 6 months, plans to cut budget to $29 billion
By contrast: U.S. spent $1 billion in 12 days (Israel-Iran war) on missile interceptors
Reason for UN budget crisis: U.S. (under Donald Trump) cut foreign aid
Also shut down USAID, which earlier gave $50–60 billion/year
Consequences of U.S. Foreign Aid Cuts
USAID funding prevented 91 million deaths over 20 years.
Its closure may cause up to 14 million more deaths, one-third of them children.
Impact on Global Development Goals
Ending extreme poverty by 2030 needs:
$70 billion/year (0.1% of high-income countries’ income)
4.5 billion people lacked essential health services in 2021.
Spending $1 per person/year on prevention could save 7 million lives by 2030.
Impact on Climate Change
NATO’s defence spending at 3.5% GDP would increase global emissions by 200 million tonnes/year.
2024 is the hottest year ever — rising military emissions harm climate efforts.
India’s Situation
After Operation Sindoor, India approved an extra ₹50,000 crore for emergency defence purchases.
Total military budget: ₹6.81 lakh crore
Health budget (Ayushman Bharat for 58 crore people): ₹7,200 crore
Military spending = 2.3% of GDP
Public health spending = 1.84%, less than the 2.5% National Health Policy target, and far below global norms.
NATO vs. Russia: Disparity
Russia’s economy is 25 times smaller than NATO’s.
Russia’s military spending is 10 times less.
Despite this, NATO is expanding military budgets, using fear as justification.
Overall Consequences
More spending on military means less for health, climate, and poverty reduction.
Military build-up can worsen conditions in developing countries.
Rising spending risks replacing peace with constant militarisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment