Context

• India is entering a new frontier of scientific and technological exploration: the deep ocean.
• Advances in underwater robotics, submersibles and seabed exploration have created the ability to access mineral resources thousands of metres beneath the ocean.
• However, technological capability raises a fundamental question: should everything that can be exploited technologically necessarily be exploited?
• The deep ocean remains poorly understood, making the balance between strategic resource needs and ecological responsibility

India’s Growing Deep-Sea Capabilities

• India holds three International Seabed Authority exploration contracts covering about 95,000 sq km across the Central Indian Ocean Basin, Central Indian Ridge and Carlsberg Ridge.
• Exploration has identified approximately 366 million tonnes of polymetallic nodules containing nickel, copper, cobalt and manganese, minerals important for advanced manufacturing and the energy transition.
• Under the Deep Ocean Mission, India is developing deep-sea mining technology, underwater robotics and the MATSYA-6000 human submersible.
• The National Institute of Ocean Technology has tested a mining machine at around 5,270 metres depth
• Scientific exploration has simultaneously revealed the ocean's ecological complexity.
• Biodiversity surveys across 19 seamounts have examined about 1,300 deep-sea organisms, including nearly 23 species reported as new to science. Such discoveries demonstrate how much remains unknown.

The Ecological Limits of Technological Progress

• The assumption that technological feasibility equals ecological acceptability is particularly risky in the deep ocean.
• Seabed mining could disturb habitats, generate sediment plumes and disrupt ecological relationships.
• Since many deep-sea ecosystems are poorly understood, the long-term effects of large-scale disturbance may be uncertain or irreversible.
• This is not an argument against scientific research. Instead, it supports more science before irreversible intervention.
• Exploration can expand knowledge, establish environmental baselines and develop technology without automatically leading to commercial extraction.

Strategic Minerals Versus Ecological Necessity

• Deep-sea minerals have legitimate strategic importance for renewable energy, electric mobility and advanced manufacturing.
• Yet strategic value alone cannot establish ecological permission.
• Before extraction, India should determine whether minerals are genuinely necessary at the proposed scale, whether alternative materials and sources exist, and whether demand can be reduced through recycling, efficiency, substitution and circular-economy practices.
• The key question should therefore shift from How can we mine with minimum damage?” to “Do we need to mine at all?

From Extraction to a Circular Economy

• The deep-sea mining debate is fundamentally linked to patterns of resource consumption.
• Continuously opening new extraction frontiers is not a sustainable response to rising mineral demand.
• A stronger approach would emphasise resource efficiency, recycling, reuse, repair and substitution.
• Mission LiFE provides a relevant framework by encouraging responsible consumption and behavioural change.
• A circular economy can reduce pressure on both terrestrial and marine ecosystems by keeping materials in productive use for longer.
• Deep-sea resources should therefore not be treated as an automatic solution to the mineral requirements of India's development.

India’s Opportunity for Ecological Leadership

• India's current position at the exploration stage provides an opportunity to develop a model of deep-sea ecological governance.
• The deep ocean can be recognised as natural capital, rather than merely a mineral reserve.
• Any future exploitation should be preceded by comprehensive biodiversity assessments, transparent monitoring, rigorous environmental standards and compelling evidence of necessity.
• India can demonstrate that technological leadership and environmental restraint are compatible.

Sustainable Development and Natural Capital

• Nature-based Solutions, Sustainable Development Goals, Circular Economy and Mission LiFE share a common principle: economic development ultimately depends upon healthy ecosystems.
• Sustainability should therefore mean more than extracting resources with reduced environmental damage.
• It should also involve reducing unnecessary extraction and protecting ecosystems whose full ecological and economic value remains uncertain.
• The deep ocean is an important test of this principle because its ecological functions may ultimately prove more valuable than its mineral wealth.

Conclusion

• India's deep-sea programme demonstrates significant scientific, technological and strategic capabilities.
• Yet progress should not be measured solely by how deeply India can explore or how efficiently it can extract resources.
• True scientific maturity requires combining technological capability with ecological wisdom, precaution and restraint.
• Exploration should continue to expand knowledge, while commercial exploitation should remain subject to strong evidence of necessity and environmental safety.

Context

• India is gradually shifting from being primarily a technology adopter to becoming a technology creator.
• Public research institutions, universities, corporate R&D centres and deep-tech startups are increasingly contributing to indigenous innovation.
• Developments in Gallium Nitride (GaN) semiconductors, CAR-T cancer therapy, space technology, 5G/6G and AI-enabled healthcare demonstrate this transformation.
• India has therefore developed the foundations of an innovation economy, but converting scientific capabilities into sustained technological and economic strength remains a challenge.

The Three Pillars of India’s Innovation Ecosystem

• A strong innovation economy rests on three interconnected pillars: public research, private-sector R&D and deep-tech entrepreneurship.
• Public institutions undertake long-term research, universities develop knowledge and skilled talent, while corporations provide capital and industrial capabilities.
• Startups increasingly transform laboratory discoveries into marketable products.
• The growing interaction among these sectors is creating an integrated innovation pipeline, linking scientific research with industrial production and commercial applications.

Patent Growth: Progress with Important Limitations

• India's patent filings increased from over 1,10,000 in 2024-25 to more than 1,43,000 in 2025-26, a 30.2% rise.
• Domestic applicants account for nearly seven in ten filings, indicating greater participation by Indian researchers, companies and institutions.
• Yet patent applications do not automatically translate into successful innovation.
• India had just over 2,40,000 patents in force in 2025, compared with approximately 5.7 million in China, 3.5 million in the U.S. and 2.1 million in Japan.
• India also spends less than 1% of GDP on R&D, substantially below China and the U.S. Increasing expenditure and improving the conversion of research into commercially successful technologies are therefore essential.

GaN Technology and Strategic Self-Reliance

• The development of Gallium Nitride-based semiconductor technology illustrates the strategic value of indigenous research.
• GaN-based MMICs are important for advanced radar, defence, space systems and next-generation communications.
• DRDO laboratories developed indigenous GaN capabilities, helping India reduce dependence on restricted foreign technologies.
• Technology transfer is now expanding GaN applications to 5G/6G infrastructure, electric vehicles and renewable-energy systems.
• The emergence of AGNIT Semiconductors, a spin-off from IISc, demonstrates how public and academic research can move towards commercialisation.
• Such developments strengthen technological sovereignty and strategic autonomy.

From Technology Implementer to Standard Setter

• India is also seeking a greater role in shaping global telecommunications standards. The Bharat 6G Alliance aims to contribute 10% of global 6G patents by 2030.
• Its members have made thousands of patent filings and increased technical contributions to 3GPP.
• Although applications are not equivalent to granted or standard-essential patents, participation in standards development can determine future market influence and intellectual-property ownership.
• The rise of Jio Platforms among major international patent filers indicates India's growing effort to move from technology implementation towards standard-setting and intellectual-property ownership.

Deep-Tech Startups Expand the Innovation Frontier

• India's startup ecosystem is increasingly moving beyond conventional digital services towards deep technology, advanced manufacturing and space innovation.
• Pixxel Space is developing hyperspectral imaging through satellite technology, while Skyroot Aerospace and Agnikul Cosmos are advancing indigenous launch technologies.
• Such ventures combine engineering expertise, scientific research and cost-efficient innovation.
• Government initiatives and private investment are particularly important because deep-tech companies face long development cycles, high capital requirements and substantial technological risks. 

Healthcare Innovation and Inclusive Technology

• Innovation is also transforming healthcare. ImmunoACT's NexCAR19, India's indigenous CAR-T cell therapy, demonstrates the potential to make advanced cancer treatment considerably more affordable.
• Similarly, Remidio Innovative Solutions uses smartphone-based retinal imaging and AI to detect conditions such as diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma.
• These examples reflect frugal innovation, where advanced technologies are redesigned for affordability, accessibility and large-scale deployment.

Bridging the Innovation-to-Market Gap

• India must address several structural weaknesses. R&D expenditure needs to rise, particularly private investment in high-risk research.
• Technology-transfer mechanisms between public institutions and industry must become more efficient, while patent examination capacity should expand.
• The most important challenge is the commercialisation gap between research and the first paying customer.
• Startups and researchers require better access to capital, testing facilities, manufacturing infrastructure, regulatory support and markets.
• Stronger industry-academia partnerships, standardised technology-transfer frameworks and patient capital can help bridge this gap. 

Conclusion

• India is gradually moving from being a technology consumer and implementer towards becoming a technology creator and potential standard setter.
• Public research, corporate R&D and deep-tech entrepreneurship are increasingly reinforcing one another.
• GaN semiconductors demonstrate strategic technological capability; 5G/6G research reflects growing participation in global standards; while space and healthcare startups show the commercial and social potential of indigenous innovation.
• India may not yet be an innovation superpower, but it is increasingly developing the institutions, intellectual property, technological capabilities and enterprises needed to build an innovation-led economy.

Context:

• The proposed Graham Bill, which seeks to target countries such as India and China for purchasing Russian oil, is an example of the selective application of international norms and the expansion of American coercive power.
• The central issue is not merely the use of secondary sanctions against third countries, but the broader question of sovereignty, democratic accountability, international law and strategic autonomy.
• Even if Russia is blamed for the Ukraine war and Iran’s regime is opposed, the US cannot legitimately impose costs on countries that did not start or control these conflicts.

The Democratic Accountability Deficit:

• Externalising domestic failures:
  • The war with Iran has generated significant domestic criticism and global economic and security disruptions, yet the US political system appears unable to impose meaningful accountability on the executive.
  • Instead of scrutinising the conduct and consequences of war, the US Congress is portrayed as attempting to discipline other countries through sanctions.
  • This is equivalent to transforming inadequate accountability at home into coercive authority abroad.
• Executive power and congressional abdication:
  • The problem goes beyond Donald Trump as an individual. There is a broader historical pattern of executive discretion in US foreign policy and war-making.
  • The bipartisan support for measures targeting third countries is therefore presented as particularly significant.
  • Congress, rather than restraining executive power, is argued to have strengthened it, raising questions about the representative character of American institutions. 

Selective Application of International Principles:

• Unequal burden-sharing:
  • The Graham Bill allegedly assumes that the US can impose economic costs on countries that had no role in initiating a war and were not consulted in its conduct.
  • This highlights a perceived double standard:
    • The Bill reportedly seeks exemptions for US imports of low-enriched uranium, suggesting that Washington recognises the economic consequences of sanctions when they affect itself,
    • While expecting poorer countries to absorb higher energy costs.
  • Europe is also criticised for applying international-law principles selectively, particularly by prioritising Ukraine while responding differently to other conflicts, including Iran.
• “Arrogance of power”:
  • The Senator J. William Fulbright’s concept of the “Arrogance of Power” explains the recurring feature of American foreign policy.
  • This arrogance operates at several levels:
    • Power mistaken for virtue: Material power is treated as evidence of moral legitimacy.
    • Self-legitimating power: The powerful assume that others must justify their actions, while they themselves remain exceptions.
    • Resistance to self-restraint: Excessive confidence discourages acknowledgement of failure or compromise.
    • Epistemic overreach: Major powers may develop mistaken assumptions about how other societies and states will respond to coercion.
  • The Graham Bill is consequently portrayed as a legislative endorsement of this approach.

Limits of Coercive Power:

• The US cannot necessarily determine the strategic choices of major sovereign states through economic pressure.
• The experiences of Ukraine and Iran demonstrate the continuing importance of state sovereignty and political agency.
• Attempting to compel countries such as India and China through sanctions may therefore generate resistance rather than global stability.
• Therefore, the US Congress should focus more closely on executive accountability and the consequences of American military intervention.

Way Ahead for India:

• Protecting strategic autonomy:
  • The Graham Bill could pressure India to reduce its purchases of Russian oil, affecting energy security and creating a challenge for India’s strategic autonomy and its freedom to pursue an independent foreign policy.
  • However, strategic autonomy does not mean opposing the US. India can deepen India-US cooperation while retaining the freedom to disagree with Washington on issues affecting India's national interests.
  • Excessive concessions to avoid US pressure could weaken India’s bargaining position and policy independence.
• Need for a principle-based foreign policy: India should apply consistent principles such as sovereignty, non-interference, peaceful resolution of disputes and respect for international law across Ukraine, Gaza and Iran conflicts.
• Strengthening global partnerships:
  • Rather than depending excessively on any single power, India can strengthen ties with Russia, the EU, Japan, Gulf countries and the Global South.
  • This would increase its diplomatic space and resilience against external pressure.

Conclusion:

• The Graham Bill highlights the limits of unilateral power, selective international norms, and the conflict between sovereignty and coercive diplomacy.
• Therefore, India's strategic autonomy should not be reduced to transactional bargaining with major powers.

Why in the News?

• The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has notified new film certification guidelines for the Central Board of Film Certification, retaining the 1991 framework while adding two new provisions.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• About CBFC (Objectives, Certification Categories)
• News Summary (New Guidelines, Significance)

About the CBFC

• The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
• Its function is to certify films for public exhibition in India. Contrary to common perception, the Board's mandate is certification rather than censorship; it assigns films to categories indicating audience suitability, though it may also require modifications before granting a certificate.

Certification Categories

• Following the Cinematograph Rules, 2024, the certification structure includes:
  • U: Unrestricted public exhibition
  • UA: Unrestricted with parental guidance, now subdivided into three age-based markers
  • A: Restricted to adults
  • S: Restricted to a specialised class of persons, such as doctors or scientists
• The UA category now carries three new sub-categories: UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+, marking content suitable for children aged seven, thirteen and sixteen respectively.

News Summary

• The revised guidelines retain all aspects of the detailed 1991 version, with two new additions.
• Addition One: Drug-Related Warnings
  • Scenes depicting or involving the use, consumption or trafficking of narcotic drugs or other psychotropic substances must now carry a disclaimer or statutory warning.
  • This aligns film certification with the broader government push against substance abuse, including the recently launched national anti-drug campaign targeting youth.
• Addition Two: Age-Based Markers
  • The second addition specifies new age markers in line with the three UA sub-categories notified under the Cinematograph Rules, 2024.
  • Where the Board considers it necessary to caution parents or guardians about whether their wards should watch a film, it will certify the film for unrestricted public exhibition with an endorsement to that effect.
  • This gives parents a more granular indication of suitability than the single UA category previously allowed.

Continuing Provisions from the 1991 Framework

• The bulk of the guidelines carry forward long-standing requirements.
• On Violence and Crime
  • The CBFC is to ensure that anti-social activities and violence are not glorified or justified, and that the modus operandi of criminals or other visuals and words likely to incite an offence are not depicted.
  • Scenes justifying or glorifying drinking are also to be avoided.
• On Children
  • Scenes showing the involvement of children in violence, as victims, perpetrators or forced witnesses, or showing children subjected to any form of child abuse are not to be presented needlessly.
• On Vulnerable Groups and Animals
  • The Board is to discourage scenes showing abuse or ridicule of physically and mentally handicapped persons, as well as scenes depicting cruelty to or abuse of animals.
• On Obscenity and Depiction of Women
  • The guidelines require that human sensibilities are not offended by vulgarity, obscenity or depravity, that dual-meaning words catering to baser instincts are not allowed, and that scenes degrading or denigrating women in any manner are not presented.

The Eight Specified Requirements

• National symbols and emblems are not shown except in accordance with the Emblems and Names Act, 1950.
• Scenes involving sexual violence against women, attempted rape, rape, molestation or similar, are avoided. Where germane to the theme, they must be reduced to the minimum with no details shown.
• Scenes showing sexual perversions are avoided, and where germane to the theme, reduced to the minimum with no details shown.
• Visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented.
• Visuals or words promoting communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitudes are not presented.
• The sovereignty and integrity of India is not called into question, the security of the State is not jeopardised, and friendly relations with foreign States are not strained.
• Public order is not endangered.
• Visuals or words involving defamation of an individual or body of individuals, or contempt of court, are not presented.

Constitutional Context

• These guidelines derive from Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression on grounds including the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.
• The overlap between the guidelines and these constitutional grounds is close, reflecting the framework within which film certification operates.
• The Supreme Court in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) upheld pre-censorship of films, holding that the medium's mass appeal and emotional impact justified treating it differently from other forms of expression.

Significance

• The revision is modest in substance but notable in what it signals.
• By retaining the 1991 guidelines almost entirely, the Ministry has opted for continuity rather than a wholesale rewrite, despite considerable changes in the film industry, viewing platforms and audience expectations over three and a half decades.
• The age-based UA markers represent a genuine improvement in information for parents, bringing India closer to graded classification systems used in several other countries.
• The drug warning requirement places film certification within a wider policy campaign, using cinema as a channel for public messaging.

Why in news?

The Tata Sons board meeting was expected to settle the two biggest questions facing the holding company of the Tata group: its leadership and whether it remains private. Instead, it opened a new chapter in an increasingly bitter power struggle.

The board approved a fresh five-year term for N Chandrasekaran as Executive Chairman despite opposition from Tata Trusts Chairman Noel Tata. It also decided to proceed with listing after the Reserve Bank of India rejected the company's request to surrender its registration as a Core Investment Company.

Both decisions now move to the shareholders' meeting, where Tata Trusts hold 66 per cent of Tata Sons.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What Happened at the Board Meeting?
• The Legal Challenge
• Why the AGM Is Crucial?
• The Listing Question
• The Shapoorji Pallonji Factor
• What Happens Next?
• Risk to Group Decision-Making

What Happened at the Board Meeting?

• On August 12, 2026, Chandrasekaran told the board he would not seek another term after his tenure ends on February 20, 2027.
• Later, the Nomination and Remuneration Committee unanimously recommended that he reconsider, citing his contribution and the group's larger interests.
• On September 17, Chandrasekaran agreed to reconsider, and the board voted 4–1 to reappoint him for five years. Venu Srinivasan, Harish Manwani, Anita M George and Saurabh Agrawal backed him; Noel Tata opposed; Chandrasekaran did not vote.
• The same four directors backed listing, while Noel Tata opposed it.
• The decisions carry a clear majority of the six-member board but not consensus.
• Notably, Venu Srinivasan, the other Tata Trusts nominee, supported both decisions, exposing a split within the Trusts' representation.

The Legal Challenge

• Noel Tata has challenged the legality of the board's decision itself.
• Tata Trusts say the Articles of Association require the support of the Trusts' nominee directors for the appointment or reappointment of the chairman.
• Noel Tata placed before the board a legal opinion from former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud supporting this position.
• The September 17 resolution may therefore become the subject of further corporate and legal proceedings.

Why the AGM Is Crucial?

• The board can recommend a reappointment, but shareholders at the annual general meeting can accept or reject it. Chandrasekaran's directorship itself is due for renewal at the AGM, and he must remain a director to continue as chairman.
• The complication is that no AGM date is fixed. The AGM scheduled for August 18 failed for lack of quorum. Under the Articles of Association:
  • At least five members must be personally present.
  • The quorum must include an authorised representative jointly nominated by the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT).
• A Charity Commissioner's order in May restricted the SRTT from conducting board proceedings. Without a properly convened SRTT board meeting, the joint nomination cannot be made. Until this deadlock is resolved, shareholders cannot vote.
• When the AGM does take place, the arithmetic changes dramatically. Noel Tata lost the board vote 4–1, but Tata Trusts' 66 per cent shareholding makes the AGM potentially the most consequential in Tata Sons' history.

The Listing Question

• Tata Sons has been classified as an upper-layer NBFC since September 2022. It sought to surrender its Core Investment Company registration and remain a private, unlisted company.
• The RBI rejected this recently and directed the company to comply with applicable requirements, including the implications for listing.
• The board has chosen to proceed with listing rather than challenge the RBI. However, an IPO is not imminent; listing involves a long regulatory and corporate process covering structure, timing, disclosures and shareholder approvals.

Noel Tata's Case Against Listing

• Noel Tata argued that:
  • Tata Sons is majority-owned by charitable trusts whose dividends fund hospitals, universities and research.
  • A listed company would answer to institutional and foreign shareholders focused on financial returns.
  • Such shareholders may not support capital deployment into distressed group companies or greenfield projects with long payback periods.
  • Listing would fundamentally alter the character of Tata Sons.
• Tata Trusts want the company to explore all permissible avenues to avoid listing.

The Shapoorji Pallonji Factor

• The Shapoorji Pallonji group owns about 18.37 per cent of Tata Sons and favours listing. A public listing would create a market for its stake and provide liquidity.
• The listing issue is thus intertwined with the larger battle over control and governance.

What Happens Next?

• Three parallel processes will dominate:
  • AGM deadlock: The quorum issue involving the SRTT must be resolved before shareholders can decide anything.
  • Succession battle: The board backs Chandrasekaran, but Noel Tata rejects the decision and questions its legality.
  • RBI-driven listing: The board is moving towards listing while Tata Trusts seek to remain private.

Risk to Group Decision-Making

• The rift between management and controlling shareholders threatens to stall long-pending strategic priorities, including capital allocation, restructuring of underperforming unlisted ventures and a unified approach to regulatory mandates.
• Insiders report growing suspicion and uncertainty among senior directors, with weakened communication and coordination.
• Noel Tata has warned that a premature decision on chairmanship would be legally vulnerable and expose the group to litigation while regulatory issues remain pending before the RBI.

Why in news?

The Ministry of Labour and Employment has notified a hike in the wage ceiling of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO). The ceiling rises from Rs 15,000 to Rs 25,000 per month.

The change comes after a gap of 12 years. It is presented as a step towards widening India's social security net and formalising the workforce.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What the Notification Changes?
• A Revision Long Delayed
• How the Contribution Structure Works?
• A Signal to the Labour Market
• Fiscal and Industry Costs
• The Criticisms
• Conclusion

What the Notification Changes?

• The wage ceiling is the wage threshold up to which coverage under EPFO schemes is compulsory.
• Raising it expands both the number of workers covered and the amount contributed for them.
  • Over 8 crore EPFO subscribers must now mandatorily contribute up to a wage of Rs 25,000.
  • Coverage applies to all three schemes: the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF), the Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS), and the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance (EDLI) Scheme.
  • Contributions on wages above Rs 25,000 remain voluntary.
  • An estimated 51 lakh additional workers will come under mandatory coverage.
  • The pension contribution for most subscribers rises from Rs 1,250 to Rs 2,083 per month, that is, 8.33% of Rs 25,000 instead of 8.33% of Rs 15,000.
  • Official estimates place the average rise in total EPF contribution at about Rs 600 per worker per month.
• Workers earning between Rs 15,000 and Rs 25,000 are affected the most, since their contributions were earlier capped at the lower ceiling.

A Revision Long Delayed

• This is the ninth revision of the wage ceiling since the EPF Scheme began in 1952. It is only the third occasion when the gap between two revisions exceeded a decade.
• The government's stated rationale is that the revision reflects sustained wage growth, rising incomes and the continued expansion of formal employment during the intervening years.

How the Contribution Structure Works?

• Employee contributes 12% of basic salary, dearness allowance and retaining allowance. This entire amount goes to the EPF.
• Employer contributes 12%, which is split into 3.67% to EPF and 8.33% to EPS.
• Government contributes 1.16% towards pension up to the wage ceiling, to compensate for shortfalls arising from low wages.
• Employees make no direct contribution to the pension scheme.
• Under EDLI, employers contribute 0.5% of wages, with no deduction from employees. It provides life insurance cover of Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 7 lakh on death during service.

A Signal to the Labour Market

• Experts note that the revision also sends a signal to states about an acceptable wage scale.
• At least seven major states and Union Territories already fix statutory minimum wages for unskilled workers above the old Rs 15,000 ceiling: Delhi (Rs 17,800), Maharashtra (Rs 17,000), Karnataka (Rs 16,800), Haryana (Rs 16,500), Gujarat (Rs 16,000), Rajasthan (Rs 15,500) and Uttarakhand (Rs 15,220).
• The old ceiling had therefore fallen below legally mandated wages in several states.

Fiscal and Industry Costs

• The expansion carries a fiscal cost. The government will bear an additional outgo of Rs 1,089 crore. A
  • Annual budgetary support for the pension scheme will rise from about Rs 10,250 crore to roughly Rs 11,339 crore.
• Industry faces higher costs too. Experts noted that while retirement savings and social security coverage improve, employers face a direct cost implication through higher PF, pension and EDLI contributions, especially for the Rs 15,000–25,000 wage bracket.
• Analysts expect some rise in operating costs, particularly in manufacturing and MSMEs in the short term, but views stronger social security as a long-term investment in the workforce.

The Criticisms

• Two concerns dominate the debate.
• Lower take-home pay. Employers may absorb the higher contribution within the existing cost-to-company (CTC) structure. The worker's gross package stays the same, but the in-hand salary shrinks.
• An inadequate ceiling. Trade unions argue the revision is too little and too late. They pointed out that a ceiling frozen for 12 years was already out of sync with prevailing wages, and that social security must evolve with minimum wages, actual wages, inflation and cost of living. AITUC demands a ceiling of Rs 30,000.
• The issue had been discussed at several meetings of the EPFO's Central Board of Trustees (CBT) over the past decade before the decision was finally taken.

Conclusion

The hike corrects a 12-year freeze and brings 51 lakh more workers under formal social security. Yet indexation, not episodic revision, remains the real reform. Without linking the ceiling to wages and inflation, India's social security net will keep lagging behind its labour market.

About Patriot Missile System:

• Patriot, short for Phased Array Tracking Radar for Intercept on Target, ​is a mobile surface-to-air missile defense system.
• It was originally developed byS. weapons maker Raytheon Technologies.
• The system can intercept aircraft, tactical ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles, depending on the interceptor used.
• It is the United States Army’s most advanced air defense system.
• The system was first used in combat during the 1991 Gulf War, with batteries protecting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel, and later used during the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
• Nineteen ​countries now operate the Patriot system, including the S., Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
• Features:
  • A Patriot battery (i.e., the basic firing unit) consists of a phased array radar, an engagement control station, computers, power generating equipment, and launchers, each of which holds four ready-to-fire missiles.
  • It is equipped with a track-via-missile (TVM) guidance system. Midcourse correction commands are transmitted to the guidance system from the mobile engagement control centre.
  • The system's radar has a range of over 150 km and can simultaneously track up to 100 potential targets.
  • The system has different capabilities depending on the type of interceptor used.
  • The PAC-2 interceptor uses a blast-fragmentation warhead, while the newer PAC-3 missile uses more advanced hit-to-kill technology.
  • Depending on the version in use, the interceptor missiles can reach an altitude of more than 24 kilometers.

About Vasai Fort:

• Vasai Fort, also known as the Bassein Fort, is an ancient fort located at Vasai in the suburbs of North Mumbai, Maharashtra.
• It overlooks the confluence of the Ulhas River.
• History:
  • Vasai was known as a place for shipbuilding in the 15th Century.
  • Bahadur Shah, a Mughal Emperor, had built the Bassein Fort in the 1530s.
  • The Portuguese conquered and destroyed most of the fort a year after it was built.
  • The Portuguese remodeled the fort into a flourishing city by building a citadel inside.
  • The fort was under Portuguese control till 1739 AD.
  • In the 18th century, the fort was raided and overtaken by the Maratha army under Chimaji Appa. They stood strong for 3 long years, and then the British took over the fort in the First Anglo-Maratha War.
• Architecture:
  • Surrounded by the sea on three sides and protected by a strategically designed moat on the landward side, its defenses were nearly impenetrable.
  • Within its expanse, remnants of once-majestic churches, intricate archways, and Portuguese-style facades still stand, albeit weathered by time.
  • Three old churches are recognisable in the fort. The southernmost chapel has a well-preserved barrel-vaulted ceiling, and the walls are covered with tree roots and palm groves.