About Charaichung Royal Bird Sanctuary:

• It is Asia’s first protected bird sanctuary.
• It was established in 1633 AD by Ahom king Swargadeu Pratap Singha.
• Location: It is located at Majuli - the world's largest river island.
• Ecological Significance: It hosts varieties of indigenous and migratory birds.

Key Facts about Charaichung Festival

• It is the second edition of the festival held in Majuli, Assam.
• This festival, organised with the support of Majuli Sahitya and local residents
• It aims to urge the government to further promote Charaichung as a tourism destination.

Majuli Island:

• It is the world’s largest river island located in Assam.
• The island is formed by the Brahmaputra River and its tributaries the Kherkutia Xuti and Subansiri
• Rice cultivation is the primary livelihood for the residents of Majuli, with several unique varieties of rice, such as Komal Saul and Bao Dhan, grown in the region.
• Most of the islanders belong to three tribes-Mishing, Deori, and Sonowal Kachari.

About Deepavali:

• Deepavali, also known as Diwali, is the festival of lights celebrated across India.
• ‘Deepa’ means lamp or light and ‘Vali’ means string or row, and Deepavali means rows of lights.
• It is celebrated on Kartik Amaavasya, which typically falls in October or November.
• The fundamental philosophy of Deepavali encompasses the celebration of prosperity, renewal, and abundance for all individuals.
• Celebration of Deepavali:
  • It begins with Dhanteras, a day of auspicious beginnings when families buy new metalware or essentials that symbolise prosperity.
  • The second day marks Naraka Chaturdashi, observed with rituals and lighting lamps to dispel negativity and welcome positive energy.
  • The third day is the highlight of Deepavali- the sacred Lakshmi-Ganesha Puja.
  • On the fourth day, families and friends visit one another, exchange gifts, and reconnect, strengthening their bonds and shared happiness.
  • The celebrations conclude with Bhai Dooj, a heartfelt tribute to the bond between brothers and sisters, observed with prayers, blessings, and meaningful rituals.
• It is the 16th Indian element on UNESCO’s List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

About Goniopora Coral:

• It is also known as flowerpot or daisy corals, is a type of hard, soft coral belonging to the Poritidae family.
• It is appreciated for its beautiful appearance as it possesses unique polyps that resemble flower petals.
• It typically inhabits lagoons and turbid reefs and considered thermally tolerant.
• Goniopora are a photosynthetic coral and derive some of their nutritional requirements from light. It can thrive in a wide range of lighting.
• Symbiotic Relationship: They have a symbiotic relationship with dinoflagellates called zooxanthellae that live in the tissues of the coral.
• Feeding: It is a predatory coral, meaning it obtains some of its nutrients by capturing small organisms in the water.

What is Black band disease?

• It is a bacterial necrotic infection that invades living coral.
• It forms a black band that crosses the infected coral, usually killing the colony.
• It is common in Caribbean reefs and rare in Australian waters.
• It is often linked to pollution or nutrient runoff.

About GlowCas9 Protein:

• It is a CRISPR protein that lights up while performing gene editing.
• It is a bioluminescent version of Cas9 that glows inside cells.
• Structure: GlowCas9 is created by fusing Cas9 with a split nano-luciferase enzyme derived from deep-sea shrimp proteins.
• Properties of GlowCas9 Protein:
  • The GlowCas9 is very stable and maintains its structure and activity at higher temperatures compared to the conventional enzyme.
  • It glows inside cells, allowing for real-time monitoring of CRISPR operations
• Working of GlowCas9 Protein:
  • The split nano-luciferase enzyme pieces reconnect when Cas9 folds correctly, producing light.
  • This glowing activity allows scientists to monitor CRISPR operations in living cells, tissues, and even plant leaves—without harming them.
• Benefits of GlowCas9 Protein
  • It can also increase the precision of Homology-Directed Repair (HDR).
    • Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) is a DNA repair process crucial for fixing hereditary mutations that are linked to genetic diseases like sickle cell anaemia, muscular dystrophy and so on.
  • GlowCas9 pioneers the emerging field of visualizing molecular gene therapy in motion.

About Deodar Tree:

• It is also known as the Himalayan Cedar.
• The name Deodar is derived from the Sanskrit word Devadāru, meaning “wood of the gods,” highlighting the tree’s cultural and spiritual importance.
• Characteristics of Deodar Tree:
  • It is native to high-altitude forests, this majestic conifer plays a critical ecological and cultural role.
  • Soil and Climate: It thrives in well-drained soils and moist temperate climates.
  • It is a large evergreen tree and has needle-like bluish-green leaves.
• Distribution: It is mainly found in the western Himalayan region.
• Applications: Traditionally, its wood has been used in temple construction, religious ceremonies, and Ayurvedic medicine.
• Threats: It faced threats from logging, habitat loss, and climate change.

Why in news?

Deepavali, the Festival of Lights, has been inscribed on UNESCO’s List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity during the 20th Intergovernmental Committee session held at New Delhi’s Red Fort.

It is now the 16th Indian cultural element on the prestigious list. The inscription recognises Deepavali as a living tradition continuously recreated by communities, fostering social cohesion and contributing to cultural continuity and development.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Understanding UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage List
• How a Tradition Gets Inscribed on UNESCO’s Intangible Heritage List?
• India’s Cultural Heritages Recognised by UNESCO
• Deepavali in UNESCO Intangible Heritage List
• UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage List 2025: Key Additions

Understanding UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage List

• UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage List recognises living traditions and skills — unlike monuments or archaeological sites.
• It includes oral traditions, performing arts, festivals, social practices, traditional craftsmanship, and knowledge of nature.
• These practices, such as India’s Garba and Kumbh Mela or France’s baguette-making, are passed across generations, strengthen cultural identity, and preserve humanity’s shared heritage.

How a Tradition Gets Inscribed on UNESCO’s Intangible Heritage List?

• For a cultural practice to be inscribed, UNESCO requires it to be inclusive, representative, and rooted in the community.
• The aim is to recognise living traditions that embody shared identity and social habits — such as France’s baguette-making, which UNESCO says reflects everyday rituals and conviviality.
• To include an element on UNESCO’s Representative List of ICH, states must submit a nomination dossier for evaluation. Each country can nominate one element every two years.
  • India nominated the ‘Deepavali’ Festival for the 2024–25 cycle.
• As globalisation and conflict threaten cultural diversity, UNESCO emphasises preserving these social histories.
• The list also highlights traditions at risk: in 2022, four elements were marked for urgent safeguarding, including Vietnam’s Chăm pottery-making, Chile’s Santa Cruz de Cuca pottery, Albania’s Xhubleta garment craft, and Türkiye’s traditional Ahlat stonework.

India’s Cultural Heritages Recognised by UNESCO

• Apart from Deepavali added in 2025, India has several cultural traditions inscribed on UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list.
• These include:
  • Festivals & Rituals: Durga Puja in Kolkata (2021), Kumbh Mela (2017), Nowruz (2016), Ramman festival of Garhwal (2009).
  • Performing Arts & Theatre: Sankirtana of Manipur (2013); Chhau dance, Kalbelia dance of Rajasthan, Mudiyettu of Kerala (2010); Kutiyattam Sanskrit theatre and Ramlila (2008).
  • Oral & Spiritual Traditions: Buddhist chanting of Ladakh (2012); Vedic chanting (2008).
  • Traditional Craftsmanship: Brass and copper utensil-making of the Thatheras of Jandiala Guru, Punjab (2014).
• These entries reflect the diversity and richness of India’s living heritage.

Deepavali in UNESCO Intangible Heritage List

• Deepavali, India’s iconic festival of lights, has been inscribed on UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, alongside 19 other global traditions in 2025.
• This came a year after West Bengal’s Durga Puja made it to the prestigious list. The decision was taken during a key meeting of UNESCO being hosted at the Red Fort.
• What UNESCO Recognition Means for Deepavali?
  • Deepavali’s inscription enhances the festival’s global stature, strengthens efforts to preserve its traditions, and supports India’s cultural diplomacy, including among the diaspora.
  • The Intergovernmental Committee guiding the 2003 Convention promotes safeguarding measures, best practices, and funding support.
  • The recognition also boosts tourism, fosters cultural exchange, and helps sustain the artisans and communities who keep Deepavali’s living traditions vibrant.

UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage List 2025: Key Additions

• The 2025 Representative List features a diverse set of cultural traditions from across the world.
• Highlights include:
  • Performing Arts & Music: Amateur theatre of Czechia; Cuarteto music of Argentina; Cuban Son; Joropo of Venezuela; Mvet Oyeng musical art of Central Africa.
  • Festivals & Rituals: Deepavali (India); Gifaataa New Year festival (Ethiopia); Festivity of the Virgen of Guadalupe (Bolivia); Christmas Bram and Sambai (Belize).
  • Crafts & Traditional Skills: Brussels’ rod marionettes; Behzad’s miniature art (Afghanistan); Bisht weaving and practices across West Asia; Tangail saree weaving (Bangladesh); zaffa wedding tradition in parts of the Arab world.
  • Culinary Heritage: Commandaria wine (Cyprus); Koshary dish traditions (Egypt).
  • Community Practices: Guruna pastoral retreats (Chad–Cameroon); family circus tradition (Chile); Confraternity of flowers and palms (El Salvador); bagpipe craftsmanship in Bulgaria.

Why in news?

Australia has implemented a first-of-its-kind ban preventing anyone under 16 from using major social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, X, Snapchat, and Threads.

Under the new rules, minors cannot create new accounts and any existing profiles are being shut down. The move is historic and is drawing global attention, as other countries observe how the ban unfolds and whether it effectively protects children online.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Australia Sets Global Precedent With Social Media Age Ban
• Why Australia Introduced the Under-16 Social Media Ban?
• Concerns Over Rights and Feasibility
• How Australia’s Rule Differs From India’s Approach?

Australia Sets Global Precedent With Social Media Age Ban

• Australia has become the first country to legally enforce a minimum age of 16 for social media use.
• Platforms like Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and others must now block over a million underage accounts, marking a major shift in global online safety regulation.
• What the New Australian Law Mandates?
  • Under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act, platforms must:
    • Take “reasonable steps” to identify under-16 users and deactivate their accounts.
    • Block new account creation by anyone below 16.
    • Prevent workarounds, such as fake birthdays or identity misrepresentation.
    • Have a grievance mechanism to fix errors where someone is wrongly blocked or allowed.
  • This shift places direct responsibility on tech platforms to verify user ages and enforce compliance — something never before mandated at this scale.
• Key Exemptions in the Law
  • The Australian government has excluded several online services from the age-ban:
    • Dating apps
    • Gaming platforms
    • AI chatbots
  • This has raised questions, especially as some AI tools have recently been found allowing inappropriate or “sensual” conversations with minors.

Why Australia Introduced the Under-16 Social Media Ban?

• The Australian government says the ban aims to shield young users from the “pressures and risks” created by social media platforms.
• These include:
  • Addictive design features that encourage excessive screen time
  • Harmful or unsafe content affecting mental health and well-being
  • High levels of cyberbullying — over half of young Australians report experiencing it
• The government argues that stronger safeguards are required because existing platform policies have failed to protect minors.
• Regulatory Impact: Big Tech Under Pressure
  • The new law has forced major companies such as Meta, Google and TikTok to overhaul their systems.
  • Meta has reportedly begun deactivating under-16 accounts.
  • Platforms that fail to block under-16 users face penalties up to AUD 33 million.
  • Although tech companies oppose the law publicly, all have stated they will comply.
  • Importantly, children themselves aren’t penalised for attempting to access social media — only platforms are.

Concerns Over Rights and Feasibility

• The Australian Human Rights Commission has criticised the blanket ban, arguing that:
  • It may restrict a child’s right to free expression
  • It risks pushing children to unsafe, unregulated online spaces
  • Enforcement challenges could weaken the effectiveness of the law
• Debate continues over whether this strict ban is the right solution or if more balanced, protective alternatives exist.
• The Risk of State Overreach
  • Digital rights advocates warn that child-safety regulations can expand into tools of state control. Examples include:
    • Turkey, where child-safety powers were used to remove political posts.
    • Brazil, where similar laws restricted election content.
    • India, where online speech is already heavily regulated.
  • Safety rules can become a gateway to censorship.
• Why Bans Often Fail in Practice?
  • Teenagers repeatedly bypass restrictions using VPNs, fake ages, and loopholes.
  • The internet’s decentralised design — originally meant for resilience — makes enforcing bans extremely difficult.
  • Meanwhile, platforms like Twitch host thriving creator economies, complicating blanket restrictions.
• Reactions: Tech Pushback, Parental Support
  • Tech companies warn the new rules may be impractical and intrusive.
  • Parents and safety advocates widely support the move, citing rising online harms, bullying, and mental-health concerns among teenagers.
  • The law is now being closely watched by other governments as a possible model for future regulation.

How Australia’s Rule Differs From India’s Approach?

• Unlike Australia’s blanket ban, India does not restrict children from using social media.
• Instead, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 focuses on parental consent and data safeguards.
• Key points:
  • No minimum age for social media use, but anyone under 18 is treated as a child under the law.
  • Platforms must implement a “verifiable parental consent” mechanism before processing children’s data — though the law does not prescribe how this must be done.
  • Companies are prohibited from processing children’s data in ways that may harm their well-being.
  • Platforms cannot track, monitor behaviour, or run targeted ads toward children.
• India’s model is therefore data-protection–centric, not access-restricting, unlike Australia’s outright ban for under-16s.

Context:

• The Supreme Court’s judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference has attracted both criticism and praise. The debate centres on whether the Court should fix timelines for high constitutional authorities such as the President, Governors, and Speakers.
• The judgment emphasises strict adherence to the written Constitution, avoiding judicial innovation where the text is silent.
• However, critics argue that this reflects a reluctance to exercise the Court’s broader constitutional duty—interpreting the Constitution in a manner suited to present-day realities.
• Such judicial restraint, they warn, weakens the Court’s role as a guardian of constitutional accountability.
• The Constitution does not prescribe timelines for many crucial functions of constitutional authorities.
  • A key example is the Speaker’s quasi-judicial role under the Tenth Schedule, where they decide disqualification cases due to defection.
  • Despite the importance of these decisions, no time limits have been specified, often leading to long delays and political misuse.
• This article highlights how the Supreme Court’s judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference has raised serious concerns about judicial restraint, constitutional accountability, and the misuse of constitutional silences by authorities such as Governors and Speakers.

The Lack of Timelines Creates a Constitutional Anomaly

• The absence of fixed timelines for key constitutional actions has produced a serious anomaly.
• Legislatures have a fixed five-year term, yet defection cases under the Tenth Schedule can remain undecided until the term expires — allowing defecting legislators to escape consequences entirely. This undermines the very purpose of the anti-defection law.
• Similar issues arise with Governors withholding assent or delaying action on Bills.
• While Governors may return a Bill for reconsideration, they cannot indefinitely sit on legislation and effectively block laws without justification.
• Such inaction contradicts the Constitution’s design, as only courts — not Governors — have the authority to invalidate legislative or executive acts.

The Irony in the Supreme Court’s Verdict

• The Supreme Court’s decision in the Presidential Reference ironically strengthens the very problem it was expected to resolve.
• By refusing to impose timelines on constitutional authorities — particularly Governors — the Court held that since Article 200 contains no explicit timeline, none should be read into it.
• This effectively legitimises Governors indefinitely withholding assent to Bills, allowing them to stall laws passed by elected Assemblies.
• In doing so, the Court not only ceded ground to the executive but also failed to recognise how constitutional silence can be misused to undermine democratic functioning.

A Missed Opportunity to Uphold Constitutional Morality

• The judgment also overlooks the doctrine of constitutional morality — a principle championed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in 1948.
• He urged that constitutional morality must guide those interpreting and operating the Constitution so that its spirit prevails even where the text is silent.
• In recent years, courts have invoked constitutional morality to advance progressive values in cases such as Sabarimala (women’s entry) and LGBTQIA+
• Here, however, the Court declined to use that interpretive tool, missing an opportunity to protect the Constitution from misuse and ensure that its foundational ideals are upheld.

Ambedkar’s Warning and the Costs of Judicial Hesitation

• B.R. Ambedkar had cautioned that a Constitution could be subverted not by changing its text but by altering the form of administration.
• His warning is strikingly relevant today: Speakers delaying defection rulings and Governors withholding assent to Bills beyond the Assembly’s tenure exemplify how constitutional processes can be distorted without formally breaking the law.
• Ambedkar recognised that not every administrative detail could be written into the Constitution.
• Instead, he placed trust in future courts and institutions to uphold constitutional morality and protect the spirit of the document.
• Yet, the Supreme Court’s reluctance to mandate timelines for constitutional authorities undermines this very trust.
• By refusing to interpret constitutional silences in a way that prevents misuse, the Court risks enabling outcomes that contradict the Constitution’s purpose and democratic ideals.
• This moment serves as a reminder that constitutional morality — the principle Ambedkar saw as essential for the Republic’s future — remains far from fully realised in India’s political and administrative culture.

Context

• The controversy surrounding Vande Mataram reflects ongoing struggles over historical memory, constitutional values, and the political ownership of nationalism.
• Although the song occupies a revered place in India’s anti-colonial heritage, its meaning has repeatedly been reshaped by competing visions of national identity.
• The current revival of debate in Parliament suggests an effort to reinterpret settled questions and redefine symbolic markers of national unity.

Historical Roots of the Song and Its Early Controversies

• Rabindranath Tagore’s 1896 Rendition and Controversy
  • Vande Mataram, composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in 1875, became a powerful emblem of India’s freedom struggle.
  • Rabindranath Tagore’s 1896 rendition at the Congress session embedded it within the nationalist imagination.
  • Yet its later stanzas, rich in Hindu goddess imagery, raised concerns among Muslim leaders who regarded certain verses as religiously exclusionary.
  • These objections gained urgency after the Government of India Act, 1935 ushered in provincial elections, compelling the Congress to adopt a more inclusive public posture.
• CWC Adoption of First Two Stanzas
  • A turning point came in 1937 when the Congress Working Committee, chaired by Jawaharlal Nehru and attended by major leaders such as Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Maulana Azad, and Subhas Chandra Bose, unanimously resolved to adopt only the first two stanzas for public and official occasions.
  • Though Mahatma Gandhi was not a formal member, he was influential in shaping the final wording.
  • The committee affirmed the song’s historic significance while recognising the validity of Muslim objections.
  • The selected stanzas were deemed non-religious, inclusive, and reflective of the song’s essence.
  • This decision was guided by the need for communal harmony and the practical responsibility of administering provinces with diverse populations.

Constituent Assembly Debates: Settling the Question

• Following Independence, the Constituent Assembly revisited the status of national symbols.
• Its composition highlighted India’s pluralism: despite the post-Partition Hindu majority, leaders such as B.R. Ambedkar entered the Assembly through cross-community political arrangements.
• The Assembly considered three contenders, Vande Mataram, Sare Jahan Se Achha, and Jana Gana Mana.
• While Sare Jahan Se Achha carried secular appeal, concerns arose due to Allama Iqbal’s later association with the Pakistan movement.
• The Assembly ultimately selected Jana Gana Mana as the national anthem, while giving Vande Mataram a place of honour.
• Notably, the Constitution made no mention of a national song, allowing its status to remain customary rather than legal.
• The distinction became clearer in 1976 when the 42nd Constitutional Amendment introduced fundamental duties, including respect for the national anthem and flag, without extending similar provisions to the national song.

Legal and Judicial Interventions

• Courts have occasionally engaged with the question of Vande Mataram.
• In 2017, the Madras High Court suggested that schools sing it weekly and offices monthly, even recommending translation for those unable to sing it in Bengali or Sanskrit.
• The Delhi High Court considered petitions urging equal treatment of the national song and anthem.
• The Union government argued that while both deserve equal respect, only the national anthem enjoys legal protection under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which criminalises disruptions to the anthem but provides no parallel regime for the national song.
• This distinction underscores the enduring legal separation between the two symbols.

Contemporary Revival of the Controversy: Symbolic Politics or Constitutional Engineering?

• The renewed parliamentary debate is striking because the issue was conclusively settled both in 1937 and during constitution-making.
• One explanation for its revival lies in symbolic politics, where invoking Vande Mataram allows contemporary leaders to present themselves as champions of nationalism while indirectly questioning the judgment of earlier figures such as Patel, Nehru, and Gandhi.
• Selective memory transforms a nuanced historical decision into a simplistic narrative of compromise.
• A second possibility is the intention to elevate the national song’s legal status.
• Proposals to create a new fundamental duty to respect Vande Mataram suggest the potential to reshape national symbols without constitutional amendment, echoing procedural strategies used in other policy domains.
• Such a move could eventually facilitate the introduction of a new national anthem or alter the established symbolic framework of the Republic.

Conclusion

• The evolution of Vande Mataram demonstrates how national symbols must adapt to pluralistic realities.
• Leaders such as Nehru, Patel, Gandhi, and Rajendra Prasad acted not out of hesitation but out of a commitment to inclusive nationalism.
• By respecting the song while choosing an anthem aligned with India’s secular ethos, the Constituent Assembly safeguarded national unity.
• True patriotism lies in recognising the historical complexity of national symbols and preserving the pluralistic balance that has shaped India’s democratic identity.