Why in news?

US President Donald Trump recently alleged that India is “dumping” rice in the US and hurting American farmers, vowing to fix the issue with tariffs. However, trade data contradicts this claim.

The US is not a major rice producer and actually exports more rice than it imports. In 2024–25, US production was only 7.05 million tonnes—far below India’s 150 million tonnes—yet the US still exported 3 million tonnes while importing 1.6 million tonnes.

In value terms, the US imported $1.5 billion worth of rice in 2024, mainly from Thailand, while imports from India were much smaller. The data shows India’s rice exports to the US are limited, and the US is far from being flooded with Indian rice.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• India’s Dominance in Global Rice Exports
• U.S. Threatens Tariffs on Indian Rice
• US Rice Imports: Mostly Premium, Not Low-Value Dumping
• Impact of Potential New Tariffs on India’s Rice Exports

India’s Dominance in Global Rice Exports

• India remained the world’s leading rice exporter in 2024–25, shipping 198.65 lakh tonnes (19.86 million tonnes) of rice across multiple categories — basmati, parboiled, non-basmati white, broken and other varieties.
• In value terms, exports exceeded $12.95 billion, reinforcing India’s position as the top global supplier, controlling around 40% of international rice trade.
• Strong monsoons, competitive pricing and the removal of export restrictions on non-basmati rice boosted the sector.
• India produced 150 million tonnes of rice in 2024–25, accounting for 28% of global output, with yields increasing from 2.72 t/ha (2014–15) to 3.2 t/ha (2024–25) due to better seeds, agronomy and irrigation.
• India currently supplies rice to over 172 countries, and aims to expand exports to 26 additional markets, including the Philippines, Indonesia, the UK, and Mexico, according to APEDA.

U.S. Threatens Tariffs on Indian Rice

• Days before U.S. negotiators arrive in New Delhi, President Donald Trump suggested new tariffs on Indian rice, claiming India was “dumping” rice in the U.S.
• However, experts say the move appears aimed at pleasing U.S. farmers rather than reflecting genuine trade concerns.

US Rice Imports: Mostly Premium, Not Low-Value Dumping

• The US does not import cheap, low-value rice from India or Thailand. Instead, it buys premium aromatic varieties such as Thai Hom Mali, Jasmine, and Indian basmati—priced much higher than US-exported rice.
• These imported varieties cost between $690 and $1,125 per tonne, compared to $560–$675 per tonne for typical US export rice.
• Since the US exports more rice than it imports, and its imports consist mainly of high-value specialty rice, claims of India “dumping” cheap rice in the American market do not hold.

Impact of Potential New Tariffs on India’s Rice Exports

• India is the world’s biggest rice exporter, shipping 22.5–25 million tonnes annually. In comparison, the US is a very small buyer of Indian rice.
• US Share in Indian Exports Is Tiny
  • Basmati exports (2024–25):
    • Total: 60.65 lakh tonnes
    • To the US: 2.74 lakh tonnes (≈ 4.5%)
  • Non-basmati exports:
    • Total: 141.30 lakh tonnes
    • To the US: 0.61 lakh tonnes (≈ 0.4%)
  • This trend continues in the current fiscal year as well: the US takes only 1–2% of India’s rice shipments.
• Bigger Markets Lie Elsewhere
  • Basmati: West Asia dominates — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, UAE.
    • In the US, basmati sales are controlled by a few Indian companies like LT Foods, whose "Royal" brand holds 55% of the North American market.
  • Non-basmati: Africa is the main buyer — Benin, Togo, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Senegal, etc.
    • The US is almost irrelevant for this category.
• Tariff Impact: Minimal to Negligible
  • Even if Donald Trump imposes new tariffs, the effect on India will be small because:
    • The US is not a major rice market for India.
    • Indian exporters are not dependent on the US for volumes or revenue.
    • Other export items (shrimps, jewellery, garments) would feel tariffs much more than rice.
  • Experts believe that the proposed tariff would backfire on the US as:
    • Tariffs would barely affect India, which has strong global markets. But they would raise rice prices for U.S. households, hurting consumers.
    • The threat looks like election-season messaging to American farmers, not a policy shift.

Why in the News?

• India recently witnessed two major transport disruptions: severe overcrowding on Bihar-bound trains during October-November, and mass cancellation of Indigo flights in December.
• The events raise critical questions on pricing policies, regulatory oversight, monopolies, and the role of the state in ensuring accessible and efficient transport services.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Strain on Public Transport (Demand Pressures, Constraints of Fiscal Framework, Indigo Crisis, etc.)

Demand Pressures and the Strain on Public Transport

• During Chhath Puja and the Bihar elections, lakhs of migrants attempted to return home, producing a sharp, sudden demand shock for long-distance trains.
• With prices kept low for welfare purposes and limited train availability, passengers faced extreme overcrowding, unsafe travel conditions, and inhospitable unreserved compartments.
• Economic theory suggests that rising demand should push up prices to equilibrate the market.
• However, in essential public services like railways, artificially low prices are a welfare mandate.
• The resulting excess demand exposes the underinvestment in public transport infrastructure, rather than a pricing failure.
• Why Raising Prices Is Not the Solution?
  • Critics often argue that low fares create inefficiency. However, the core issue is inadequate supply, not affordability.
  • For essential sectors, health, education, and public transport, low pricing is integral to welfare. What is missing is state-led expansion in capacity.

Constraints of a Neo-Liberal Fiscal Framework

• Fiscal Limits on Public Investment
  • India’s fiscal rules constrain government spending, preventing large-scale expansion of railway capacity.
  • Strict deficit targets limit the ability to build additional trains, add new routes, or expand infrastructure.
• Impact on Public Welfare
  • Thus, the state is forced into a paradox:

• Keeping prices low to maintain welfare,
• But it lacks the fiscal bandwidth to expand services.

• This leads to systemic overcrowding, service degradation, and periodic crises.

Private Sector Vulnerabilities: The Indigo Flight Crisis

• In December, Indigo, India's dominant private airline, cancelled a large number of flights due to regulatory issues, creating a supply shock. This triggered:
  • Stranded passengers
  • Sharp spike in airfares across airlines
  • Market-wide disruption, despite the issue originating in one firm
• This is because Indigo holds a near-monopoly in several sectors of the Indian aviation market.
• In a competitive market, one airline’s supply cut would not cause such widespread chaos. The episode underscores the need for regulatory oversight to prevent monopolistic dominance.

Common Structural Thread Between the Crises

• At first glance, the train overcrowding and airline cancellations seem unrelated, one arising from public sector limitations, the other from private sector dominance. But both crises stem from a single underlying framework:
  • Underinvestment in essential public services
    • Public transport is priced low for welfare reasons, but cannot expand sufficiently under strict fiscal rules.
  • Overreliance on deregulated private markets
    • Private airlines operate with concentrated market power, enabling fare spikes and system-wide disruption when one firm fails.
  • Together, these factors reflect the constraints of a neo-liberal policy model, where the state is discouraged from expanding welfare services and private monopolies grow unchecked.
  • The result is recurring transport crises affecting millions.

Way Forward

• The lessons from recent events point to three clear policy needs:

• Expand public investment in railways and essential transport infrastructure.
• Strengthen regulatory oversight of private operators, especially monopolistic entities.
• Reassess fiscal rules to allow higher spending in welfare-critical sectors.

• Transport is not just an economic service; it is a public good.
• Ensuring reliability, affordability, and resilience requires a balanced model where both state capacity and market behaviour are aligned with public welfare.

Why in News?

• With the rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, concerns have intensified over the use of copyrighted content for AI training without consent or remuneration.
• Globally, this has triggered litigation, policy debates, and regulatory uncertainty due to intersection of technology, IPR, innovation, and regulation; the role of the State in rate regulation and compulsory licensing.
• In this backdrop, a Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT)-led committee has released a working paper proposing a statutory licensing framework to balance AI innovation with copyright protection in India.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Key Proposal - ‘One Nation, One Licence, One Payment’
• Institutional Mechanism - CRCAT
• Royalty Determination Framework
• Retroactive Application of Royalties
• Transparency and Burden of Proof
• Stakeholder Responses
• Challenges in the Proposed Framework and Way Forward
• Conclusion

Key Proposal - ‘One Nation, One Licence, One Payment’:

• Mandatory blanket licence for AI training:
  • All AI developers must pay royalties for using copyrighted works in AI training.
  • No opt-out mechanism for freely available online content.
  • Model inspired by compulsory licensing in radio broadcasting under Indian copyright law.
• Rejection of voluntary licensing:
  • The committee rejects bilateral licensing deals (e.g., OpenAI–Associated Press).
  • Reasons are high transaction costs, unequal bargaining power, and marginalisation of small creators and startups.
  • Voluntary licensing is seen as favouring big tech and big publishers only.

Institutional Mechanism - CRCAT:

• A new umbrella non-profit body (Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training [CRCAT]) to be established under the Copyright Act, 1957.
• Functions of the body include collecting royalties from AI companies, distributing proceeds among copyright holders, etc.
• Membership: Only organisations (not individuals), one member per class of work.
• Coverage can expand gradually to unorganised sectors.

Royalty Determination Framework:

• Government-appointed rate-setting committee:
  • Composition: Senior government officers, legal experts, economic and financial experts, AI and emerging technology experts, AI developers’ and CRCAT representatives.
  • Powers: Fix fair, transparent, predictable rates; review rates every three years; decisions subject to judicial review.
• Likely pricing model:
  • Flat rate preferred initially.
  • Royalty as a percentage of gross global revenue earned from commercialised AI systems (excluding taxes).

Retroactive Application of Royalties:

• Royalties to apply retrospectively: AI developers already using copyrighted works and earning revenue must pay past dues.
• Justification:
  • Ensures fairness and accountability.
  • Not punitive, but corrective to restore balance in the creative ecosystem.

Transparency and Burden of Proof:

• Data disclosure by AI developers:
  • Mandatory submission of a ‘Sufficiently Detailed Summary’ of datasets used.
  • Includes:
    • Type of data (text, image, music, audiovisual)
    • Source (social media, publications, libraries, public datasets, proprietary data)
    • Nature of data usage
• Distribution of royalties: CRCAT to distribute funds proportionally based on extent of usage, heavily used categories (news, music, audiovisual) receive higher shares.
• Legal presumption: In litigation, content owners claim it is presumed valid. Burden shifts to AI developers to disprove misuse or non-payment.

Stakeholder Responses:

• Supporters (Committee view):
  • Ensures non-discriminatory access to training data
  • Prevents concentration of royalties among a few big players
  • Creates a predictable legal environment for AI development
• Opponents:
  • NASSCOM:
    • Calls forced royalties a “tax on innovation”
    • Supports opt-out mechanisms for content creators
  • Creative industry concerns:
    • Government-fixed rates are globally unprecedented
    • Fear undervaluation of premium content

Challenges in the Proposed Framework and Way Forward:

• Risk of over-regulation stifling AI innovation: Ensure robust stakeholder consultation.
• Administrative complexity in royalty distribution: Fine-tune royalty rates to avoid discouraging AI startups.
• Resistance: From both AI firms (cost burden) and content creators (flat-rate concerns). Strong judicial oversight to prevent arbitrariness.
• India becoming a global outlier in AI copyright regulation: Harmonisation with global AI governance norms.

Conclusion:

• India’s proposed mandatory blanket licensing regime for AI training represents a bold and interventionist approach to reconciling innovation with copyright protection.
• By institutionalising royalty payments through a statutory mechanism, the Centre aims to ensure equitable compensation for creators while maintaining open access to training data for AI developers.
• The success of this model will ultimately depend on rate rationality, transparency, and adaptive governance, making it a critical test case for AI regulation in the Global South.

Context

• Timed between Human Rights Day and Universal Health Coverage Day, the National Convention on Health Rights convened in New Delhi in December 2025, gathering hundreds of health professionals, activists and community leaders.
• Organised by the Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA), the convention outlined a comprehensive rights-based vision for strengthening India’s public health system.
• Its themes, privatisation, inequitable financing, exploitation of health workers and structural discrimination, highlight the systemic challenges shaping India’s health landscape.

Privatisation and the Erosion of Public Health

• A central concern is the rapid expansion of privatisation across medical colleges and public hospitals.
• Public–private partnerships are increasingly transferring public institutions to private hands, threatening to weaken already fragile public services.
• For millions dependent on public health facilities, this shift risks deepening financial and social barriers.
• Commercial private health care, driven by domestic and foreign investments, has grown without adequate regulation.
• Despite the Clinical Establishments Act of 2010, enforcement remains minimal, resulting in overcharging, unnecessary procedures such as excessive caesarean sections, opaque pricing and recurring violations of patient rights.

Justice and Dignity for Health Workers

• The indispensable role of frontline health workers during COVID-19 underscores the urgency of addressing their ongoing precarity.
• Many doctors, nurses, paramedics and support staff continue to face low wages, insecure contracts and inadequate social protection.
• The convention highlights that a resilient health system depends on fair compensation, safe working conditions, adequate staffing and comprehensive social security for all health workers.

Medicines, Market Failures, Public Access and Revitalising Public Health Systems

• Medicines, Market Failures and Public Access
  • Medicines account for a significant portion of household medical expenses.
  • With over 80% of medicines outside price control, patients are burdened by high retail markups, irrational drug combinations and aggressive marketing practices.
  • The convention calls for stronger regulatory oversight, removal of GST on essential medicines and the expansion of public sector pharmaceutical production to ensure equitable access to essential drugs.
• Revitalising Public Health Systems
  • Strong public health systems remain essential for the over 80 crore people who depend on public provisioning.
  • The convention highlights successful community-led models and innovative state-level approaches illustrating that improved health systems are achievable through decentralised planning, adequate financing and community participation.
  • The vision advanced is of a health system that is publicly funded, publicly accountable and grounded in the right to health.

The Way Forward

• Addressing Social Inequities in Health Care
  • Entrenched social hierarchies continue to shape health outcomes in India. Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, LGBTQ+ persons and persons with disabilities experience systemic discrimination and exclusion in accessing care.
  • A session on gender and social justice emphasises embedding inclusion, non-discrimination and equal access within health systems.
  • Recognising health as a product of broader determinants, the convention links health with food security, environmental degradation and climate change, calling for intersectoral, equity-focused approaches.
• A Legacy of Struggle and a Call for the Future
  • Marking its 25th anniversary, JSA reflects on decades of collaboration with women’s groups, science organisations, rural movements and patient advocacy networks.
  • The convention, held during the winter session of Parliament, facilitates dialogue with Members of Parliament to push for legislative and policy reforms anchored in health rights.
  • It celebrates past victories while outlining strategies for the decade ahead.

Conclusion

• The National Convention on Health Rights offers a powerful rights-based framework for transforming India’s health sector.
• By confronting the challenges of privatisation, inadequate public funding, weak regulation and structural inequalities, it articulates a clear demand: health care must serve people, not profits.
• Strengthening public systems, protecting health workers, regulating private care and embedding social justice are essential steps toward realising the right to health for all in India.

Context

• The experiences of people who grew up without care, endured homelessness after childhood abuse, or faced dehumanising psychiatric treatment reveal forms of suffering that cannot be captured through numerical indicators alone.
• These accounts show how distress emerges and manifests differently across lives shaped by deprivation, stigma, and systemic neglect.
• When mental health discourse focuses narrowly on symptoms and integration into predefined norms, barriers, social attitudes, and structural inequities remain overlooked.

Beyond the Deficit Lens

• Dominant approaches continue to view psychosocial disability through a deficit-oriented framework, emphasising integration into communities that reinforce narrow ideas of productivity and normality.
• This persists despite global gaps in mental health-care access of 70%–90% and despite advances in medication and therapy.
• These improvements have not addressed fundamental questions about the social conditions that produce suffering or the need for care grounded in dignity, agency, and equity.

Understanding Distress in Context

• A reimagined mental health system must centre dignity and disability justice, acknowledging that suffering arises from interactions between personal histories and broader societal forces.
• Material and relational deprivation often both precipitate and result from mental ill-health.
• Data linking suicides to family conflicts and relational ruptures point to deeper layers of shame, alienation, and abandonment, which are rarely spoken about or addressed.
• Explanations for distress, biological, psychological, social, cultural, political, and historical—are interlocking rather than competing frameworks.
• These influences intersect with caste, class, gender, and queer identities, shaping both experiences of distress and access to care.
• Effective mental health support requires attention to this overlapping complexity rather than reducing suffering to a single cause.

Care as Meaning-Making and Relational Justice

• People experiencing crises need space to explore uncertainty, identity, vulnerability, and purpose, yet mainstream models often prioritise biological or social determinants at the expense of these meaning-making processes.
• While tangible supports such as housing, medication, and financial assistance are essential, they cannot resolve feelings of disconnection or existential incoherence.
• Care must integrate material support with relational work, acknowledging that meaning and recovery unfold within a person’s social and ecological context.
• This orientation aligns with disability justice, which seeks liberation, wholeness, and autonomy, not mere integration into unequal systems.

The Way Forward

• Justice-Centred Model
  • A justice-centred model reframes treatment from ‘What is wrong with this person?’ to What does this person need to live the life they want?
  • This may include medication, community connection, spiritual grounding, or economic stability. This shift also strengthens trust and continuity of care, addressing common experiences of disillusionment and disengagement.
  • Building trust requires collaboration, dialogue, and acceptance of non-linear progress.
  • Justice, understood as recognising mutual obligations and repairing harms, demands that mental health care acknowledge the social contexts that create suffering.
  • Care cannot be ethical if it ignores the injustices that shaped a person’s distress.
• Transforming Care, Education, and Research
  • Transforming the system requires changes across training, practice, and research.
  • Mental health education should prepare practitioners to sit with uncertainty, navigate complex social realities, and value small wins.
  • Research must prioritise context-sensitive, granular insights over purely large-scale generalisations, employing transdisciplinary methods that link theory and practice to understand what works, for whom, and why.

Conclusion

• Those with lived experience and community members often labelled as non-specialists must be recognised as essential practitioners.
• Their experiential knowledge and contextual understanding provide forms of expertise that formal training cannot replace.
• They must receive fair compensation, training, and systemic support comparable to formally credentialed professionals.

About Monroe Doctrine:

• The Monroe Doctrine, articulated by U.S. President James Monroe in 1823, is a significant S. foreign policy statement aimed at preventing European intervention in the Americas.
• Primarily the work of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, the Monroe Doctrine forbade European interference in the American hemisphere but also asserted U.S. neutrality in regard to future European conflicts.
• The United States invoked the Monroe Doctrine to defend its increasingly imperialistic role in the Americas in the mid-19th century.
• The doctrine has had lasting impacts on U.S. relations with its southern neighbors, reflecting America's desire to assert its influence while advocating for independence and self-determination in the region.
• It was also a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in the 19th century.

About Bluetongue Virus (BTV):

• It is responsible for causing the severe haemorrhagic disease, bluetongue (BT).
  • It is an infectious, non-contagious, vector-borne
  • It can infect domestic ruminants, including cattle, sheep, and goats, along with wild animals such as buffalo, deer, antelope, and camels.
  • Of the domestic species, sheep are the most severely affected.
• Transmission:
  • BTV is predominantly spread between ruminants through the bites of infected Culicoides midges, tiny blood-feeding insects that can be found in large numbers on most farms.
  • Some BTV strains can be transferred from a ruminant mother to her fetus during pregnancy.
• Can the BTV Spread to Humans?
  • BTV does not infect humans.
  • There are no food safety issues, and meat and dairy products are safe to consume.
• BT can result in high rates of morbidity and even mortality in flocks and herds and can affect production (e.g. milk yields) and trade.
• Treatment:
  • There is no effective treatment for bluetongue.
  • Vaccines are available for certain types of the disease and are used in Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe.