Context

• India’s expanding network of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) reflects its efforts to deepen economic integration, attract investment and expand international market access.
• Recent agreements with the UAE, Israel, Uzbekistan, UK, EFTA, Oman and New Zealand demonstrate this growing engagement.
• Their importance, however, extends beyond tariffs and investment protection to commercial dispute resolution and arbitration.
• For international investors, the attractiveness of an economy depends not only on market opportunities but also on what happens when commercial relationships break down.
• India can therefore use its treaty framework to strengthen its domestic arbitration ecosystem and establish itself as a credible international arbitration jurisdiction.

The Opportunity Beyond Market Access

• The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the statutory foundation for domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign awards.
• The challenge is to connect this framework more effectively with India's international treaty policy.
• India’s recent FTAs have generally omitted Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), reflecting concerns about regulatory autonomy and potential claims against the State.
• However, substantial foreign investment occurs through contracts between investors and Indian government agencies.
• In such cases, commercial arbitration can provide an alternative to ordinary court litigation.
• Future FTAs could clarify that the absence of ISDS is supported by the availability of effective commercial arbitration remedies in India.
• Such clarity would reassure investors while preserving India’s reservations concerning international investment arbitration.

Distinguishing ISDS from Commercial Arbitration

• India’s BITs increasingly distinguish treaty-based investment arbitration from contractual commercial arbitration.
• The India-Uzbekistan BIT, for example, excludes disputes arising solely from contractual breaches from ISDS.
• Greater clarity is required regarding local-remedy requirements. Some BITs require investors to approach domestic courts or administrative bodies before initiating international arbitration.
• Commercial arbitration seated in India should potentially be recognised as another legitimate mechanism for addressing investment-related contractual disputes.
• Future BITs could therefore clarify that pursuing a dispute through Indian commercial arbitration may satisfy applicable local-remedy requirements.
• This would better integrate domestic arbitration into India’s investment-protection architecture while avoiding unnecessary procedural uncertainty.

Third-Party Funding: A Need for Nuance

• Third-party funding allows external financiers to bear arbitration costs in return for an agreed financial interest in the outcome.
• India’s reservations about such funding in ISDS are understandable because investment disputes involve sovereign decisions and may affect regulatory policymaking.
• However, these concerns do not necessarily apply to ordinary commercial disputes.
• Restrictions on third-party funding in ISDS should therefore not automatically imply its prohibition in domestic commercial arbitration.
• India could develop a comprehensive regulatory framework covering disclosure, conflicts of interest, transparency and procedural fairness.
• A clear distinction between ISDS funding and commercial arbitration funding would help create a more mature arbitration ecosystem.

The Evaluation Parameters of Investors

• Investors evaluate economies on more than taxation, tariffs and market access. They also consider whether disputes can be resolved predictably and efficiently.
• A strong investment environment requires three interconnected elements:
  • Prevention of disputes through clear treaties and contracts.
  • Efficient arbitration proceedings that resolve disputes fairly and promptly.
  • Predictable judicial enforcement of arbitral awards.
  • India does not need to transform every BIT or FTA into an arbitration agreement.
• Instead, treaties should complement domestic reforms and clearly establish the relationship between ISDS, courts and commercial arbitration.

India as a Global Arbitration Hub

• India’s ambition to become a global arbitration hub requires consistency between treaty policy, legislation, judicial practice and institutional capacity.
• A credible arbitration ecosystem can reduce commercial uncertainty, strengthen investor confidence and facilitate long-term contracts.
• At the same time, appropriate safeguards are necessary to protect legitimate governmental regulation and prevent excessive claims against the State.
• The objective should therefore be a balanced system that protects commercial interests without compromising regulatory autonomy.

Conclusion

• India’s growing BIT and FTA network provides an opportunity to integrate trade, investment protection and dispute resolution more effectively.
• The absence of ISDS in some agreements need not create a legal vacuum if commercial arbitration in India is made credible, accessible and predictable.
• Future treaties should distinguish investment disputes from contractual disputes, clarify the relationship between local remedies and Indian-seated arbitration, and separate restrictions on ISDS funding from the potential use of third-party funding in commercial arbitration.

Why in the News?

• The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has issued the Standard on Sustainability Assurance (SSA) 5000, aligned with the International Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ISSA) 5000, with certain provisions tailored to the Indian context.
• The standard will become effective from April 1, 2027, and seeks to bring greater rigour, consistency and credibility to corporate sustainability disclosures.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• About Sustainability Assurance (Meaning, Features, Greenwashing, Verification of Claims, Challenges, Opportunities, Significance)

About Sustainability Assurance

• Sustainability assurance refers to the independent examination and verification of information disclosed by companies regarding their environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.
• Unlike financial statements, which are generally prepared and audited according to established accounting and auditing standards, sustainability information can be collected through different methodologies and may involve both measurements and estimates.
• This creates challenges relating to consistency, comparability, data quality and verification.
• SSA 5000 seeks to address these concerns by establishing principles and procedures for assurance practitioners to:
  • Examine sustainability disclosures
  • Assess relevant risks
  • Collect and evaluate evidence
  • Examine internal controls
  • Identify material misstatements
  • Issue an assurance conclusion

What Does SSA 5000 Cover?

• The framework covers sustainability information across a wide range of ESG parameters. These may include:
  • Greenhouse gas emissions
  • Energy consumption
  • Water usage
  • Waste management
  • Biodiversity impacts
  • Diversity and employee practices
  • Governance indicators
• The standard replaces earlier ICAI standards such as SSAE 3000 and SAE 3410, which provided an umbrella framework for sustainability assurance engagements.
• Its introduction comes at a time when companies are reporting sustainability information under multiple frameworks, including Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards.

SSA 5000 and Greenwashing

• A major concern in sustainability reporting is that companies themselves prepare their sustainability reports and determine which achievements to highlight.
• SSA 5000 introduces a greater role for an independent assurance practitioner, who must assess whether sustainability claims are supported by adequate evidence and whether disclosures contain material errors or misleading presentations.
• For example, if a company claims that it has reduced its carbon emissions by a particular percentage, the assurer would examine:

• Emission-related calculations
• Energy consumption records
• Supporting documentation
• Relevant internal processes and controls

• This shifts sustainability reporting from management assertions towards evidence-based disclosures.

Addressing Selective Disclosure

• Greenwashing is the practice of making misleading or exaggerated claims about a company’s environmental or sustainability performance to appear more eco-friendly than it actually is.
  • Example: A company markets itself as “carbon neutral” while achieving little actual reduction in its emissions.
• Greenwashing may also occur through selective disclosure or “cherry-picking”, where positive sustainability achievements are highlighted while negative information is omitted.
• SSA 5000 requires assurance professionals to assess whether disclosures provide a balanced picture.
• They must consider whether the reporting scope excludes significant operations or negative information that could influence stakeholder decisions.
• The framework also addresses sustainability impacts across the wider value chain. A company may report improvements in its own operations while excluding emissions or social impacts generated by suppliers and other parts of its value chain.
• Assurance practitioners must therefore assess whether reporting boundaries are appropriate and whether significant activities have been excluded without adequate justification.

Verification of Sustainability Claims

• SSA 5000 requires assurance professionals to critically examine management assumptions rather than simply accepting explanations provided by companies.
• For instance, a claim of “carbon-neutral operations” may require examination of how emissions have been calculated, whether carbon offsets are genuine and whether claimed emission reductions are permanent.
• This is particularly important because sustainability information often involves technical calculations, estimates and measurement methodologies.
• The framework therefore requires practitioners to assess data quality, understand measurement processes and undertake procedures to verify the information.

Challenges in Implementation

• Complex Supply Chains
  • Assessing sustainability impacts across multiple suppliers and business partners can be difficult, particularly when companies lack reliable data from their wider value chains.
• Lack of Standardised Data
  • Differences in data collection and measurement methodologies can make sustainability information difficult to compare across companies.
• Forward-Looking Claims
  • Claims relating to Net Zero targets and future climate commitments involve assumptions about future actions, technology and business decisions, making their assurance more complex.
• Shortage of Skilled Professionals
  • Sustainability assurance requires multidisciplinary expertise covering accounting, auditing, environmental science and technology. A shortage of professionals with this combination of skills could constrain implementation.
• Higher Compliance Costs
  • Companies may need to invest in data-management systems, technology and specialised personnel to make sustainability information assurance-ready. These costs could be particularly significant for smaller firms.

Opportunities

• The emergence of sustainability assurance can create demand for professionals and firms capable of integrating accounting, assurance, environmental expertise, technology and regulatory advisory services.
• The sustainability consulting market has already expanded following SEBI's introduction of BRSR requirements for listed companies.
• SSA 5000 could therefore contribute to the emergence of integrated sustainability-management firms that help companies collect reliable data, prepare disclosures and meet assurance requirements.

Context:

Picture a farmer. The image that comes to mind is usually of a man. But the reality on India's farms is increasingly female.

This mismatch between perception and reality stems from decades-old practices of collecting data, designing policy, and defining who counts as a "farmer." It renders millions of working women nearly invisible.

In July 2026, Maharashtra passed the Women Farmers' Empowerment Bill, seeking to change this. Maharashtra's move is well-timed. The United Nations has designated 2026 as the International Year of the Woman Farmer. The state has positioned itself as a potential first mover, paving the way for others.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What the Maharashtra Act Does?
• The Scale of the Recognition Gap
• The Worker-Owner Dichotomy
• What the Data Reveals Across States?
• From Recognition to Real Access

What the Maharashtra Act Does?

• The Act grants women independent recognition as farmers, irrespective of land ownership, through a "Woman Farmer Certificate."
• It recognises women engaged in agriculture for at least one agricultural season a year, regardless of the nature of the land.
• It explicitly covers categories such as landless cultivators, landless livestock rearers, agricultural labourers, plantation labourers, and pastoralists.
• This creates a route for women without land titles to gain an independent agricultural identity and access welfare schemes and credit.
• Historical Significance
  • This is the first Indian State legislation to give enforceable legal form to the activity-based, land-delinked definition of "farmer" that the National Policy for Farmers, 2007 had proposed but never operationalised.
  • It is described as the culmination of three decades of women farmers' movements backed by civil society.
  • Earlier state efforts had made partial progress: Kerala's Kudumbashree collectives enabled group farming for women, and Odisha's KALIA scheme reached landless and sharecropper women.
  • But a women farmers' registry delinked from land records was missing until now.

The Scale of the Recognition Gap

• Women's role in Indian agriculture has grown sharply, but recognition has not kept pace.
  • In 2025, agriculture employed roughly 110 million women and 127 million men (rural, PLFS/Census-adjusted) — bringing the sector close to gender parity.
  • Women's agricultural workforce has more than doubled since 2017–18.
  • Nearly three-quarters of rural women workers are now in agriculture, compared with less than half of men.
• Yet most of this work goes unrecognised and unpaid:
  • In 2025, over 41% of female agricultural workers were unpaid, against 20% of men.
  • Nearly 63% of men were own-account workers, compared with 39% of women.

The Worker-Owner Dichotomy

• The core structural problem is this: women largely work on family land without owning it or having their name on records, due to patriarchal land-titling norms.
• Only 14% of operational agricultural landholdings are held by women (Agricultural Census, 2015–16).
• Since the person named in land records is the one counted in databases and given benefits, women's contribution remains statistically invisible.
• Because most states use land revenue records as their "source of truth" for administrative purposes, this bias is carried forward into scheme access.
• The consequence is concrete exclusion from credit, subsidies, technology and extension services.
• For instance, only 23% of PM-KISAN beneficiaries are women, despite the scheme providing ₹6,000/year to landholding farmer families.

What the Data Reveals Across States?

• A comparison of women's workforce share versus their scheme-beneficiary share exposes sharp gaps.
• Even in states where women form over 50% of the agriculture workforce, their share of beneficiaries is often below one-third.
• Exceptions: Meghalaya (women are 70% of PM-KISAN beneficiaries) and Kerala (44%) stand out — explained by matrilineal/customary tenure systems in the Northeast and Kudumbashree-style collective farming in Kerala.
• Widest gaps: In Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, women form nearly two-thirds of the workforce but represent only a small fraction of beneficiaries.
• The pattern is telling: the binding constraint is not land itself, but the identification system built on land records. Where land records act as gatekeeper, women get filtered out. Where an alternative mechanism exists, their access rises sharply.

From Recognition to Real Access

• Passing a law is only the first step. Several implementation challenges remain:
  • Identification mechanism: Women must be registered either through self-registration or identification by the Gram Sabha, including those with no land titles in their name. This will require a strong information campaign.
  • Database integration: The Act creates a new database of women farmers. Linking it with existing agricultural databases — while avoiding duplication or exclusion — is a significant administrative task.
  • Standardisation across states: A common system for definitions, certificate issuance, and database maintenance would allow women farmers' identities to be linked seamlessly across schemes, avoiding multiple registrations.
  • Agri Stack integration: Certificates must be linked to the Agri Stack — the Union Agriculture Ministry's digital platform — and Farmer IDs issued to women, integrating them into the broader digital agricultural ecosystem.
  • Sustained local outreach: Recognition translates into empowerment only if continuous local efforts make women aware of schemes and actively help them access benefits.

Conclusion

Women already do the work; the law has simply been slow to see them. Maharashtra's Act finally separates the identity of a farmer from the ownership of land. But a certificate on paper means little without databases, digital integration and sustained outreach behind it.

Real empowerment will be measured not in legislation, but in how many women actually reach the schemes meant for them.

Why in news?

As India expands clean energy capacity, land for solar projects is becoming scarce and costly. This has pushed interest towards innovative solutions that generate power without consuming more land.

The recently approved PM Surya Sarovar Yojana (PM-SSY) targets 5,000 MW of floating solar capacity on reservoirs and inland water bodies. But India's water infrastructure holds another under-explored resource: its vast canal network, among the largest in the world.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• About Canal-Top Photovoltaics (CTPV)
• Why CTPV Makes Sense?
• India's Track Record So Far
• Policy Support: Past and Present
• The Scale of the Opportunity
• Why Deployment Has Stayed Limited?
• The Way Forward

About Canal-Top Photovoltaics (CTPV)

• In Canal-Top Photovoltaics (CTPV), solar panels are mounted on specialised elevated structures built over canal stretches.
• This differs from floating solar, where panels sit on platforms floating directly on water.
• Structures may span the canal or be installed along the canal banks, depending on width, design and orientation.
• In every configuration, the design must allow unobstructed water flow underneath.

Why CTPV Makes Sense?

• Land Saved - Like floating solar, CTPV's biggest advantage is that it needs virtually no additional land. In Punjab, installing 20 MW of CTPV capacity is estimated to have saved nearly 100 acres of land.
• Water Saved - Panels covering canal stretches reduce evaporation losses — valuable in India's water-stressed regions.
• Better Panel Performance - The cooling effect of water beneath the panels can improve efficiency in hot weather.
• A Working Example - A 1-MW CTPV system over the Narmada Canal in Mehsana, Gujarat, commissioned in 2012, reportedly saves close to 9 million litres of water annually while generating 1.6 million units of electricity each year.

India's Track Record So Far

• CTPV remains a niche application, but India was an early mover.
  • 2012: First CTPV installation at Mehsana, Gujarat.
  • 2014–2017: Two 10-MW systems commissioned in Vadodara, Gujarat.
  • 2017–2018: 20 MW commissioned across Punjab.
  • September 2025: The Punjab Energy Development Agency invited expressions of interest for 40-MW CTPV projects across Punjab's canal network, which spans over 10,000 km.
  • Haryana has begun exploring CTPV over six of its irrigation canals.

Policy Support: Past and Present

• CTPV first received formal backing in 2014, when the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) launched a pilot-cum-demonstration scheme for grid-connected CTPV and canal-bank projects.
• Target: 50 MW each for CTPV and canal-bank projects.
• Financial assistance: Rs 3 crore per MW (CTPV) and Rs 1.5 crore per MW (canal-bank), or 30% of project cost, whichever was lower.

The Scale of the Opportunity

• A 2024 assessment, co-authored by the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP), estimated India's combined CTPV and canal-bank potential at around 131 GW.
  • This covers canals up to 30 metres wide, plus vertical bifacial installations for canals wider than 30 metres.
  • The assessment factored in solar irradiation, canal characteristics, distance from substations, and protected areas.
• The five states with highest potential: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab.

Why Deployment Has Stayed Limited?

• Despite early progress, CTPV has not scaled meaningfully in over a decade.
• High system cost is the primary bottleneck. Elevated structures spanning canals cost more than simple ground-mounted panels.
• Structures must be engineered to not disrupt canal operations and to withstand wind loads, requiring extra structural steel, foundations and maintenance access.
• Maintenance is harder — cleaning, repair and replacement work is more difficult on structures elevated above a working canal.
• The linear, winding nature of canals complicates layout, especially where canals change direction or substations are poorly located, raising the cost of electricity produced.

The Way Forward

• PM-SSY is expected to revitalise floating solar and signal growing policy interest in land-neutral solar solutions. This momentum could extend to CTPV as well, but scaling it requires deliberate steps:
  • Site selection based on land scarcity, nearby electricity demand, grid connectivity, and canal orientation.
  • Tailored financing — viability gap funding and low-cost debt — to attract developers and help early projects build experience, eventually reducing costs through scale.
  • A lesson from 2014: financial support alone is not enough. The earlier MNRE scheme did not convert pilots into large-scale deployment.
  • What's now needed is a renewed policy approach combining financial assistance, standardised specifications and guidelines, capacity building of state nodal agencies and irrigation departments, and streamlined approval processes.
• CTPV will not replace ground-mounted or rooftop solar. But even a fraction of its technical potential could meaningfully boost India's renewable capacity without adding pressure on land.

Conclusion

India does not lack sunlight or canals — it lacks the financing and standardisation to link the two at scale. CTPV shows that clean energy need not always compete with agriculture or habitation for land.

Turning canal water into a power asset, rather than just a resource in transit, is a quiet but meaningful opportunity waiting to be prioritised.

Why in News?

• External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar called for stronger and reformed multilateralism amid growing geopolitical competition, conflicts and pressures on international cooperation.
• He made the remarks while co-chairing the inaugural Partners for Multilateralism, International Law, Peace & Prosperity (P4M) Summit with European Council President Antonio Costa on the sidelines of the 81st UNGA in New York.
• The summit comes at a time when the global order is experiencing strategic rebalancing, geopolitical tensions and conflicts, while the UN system faces criticism over limited representation and decision-making effectiveness.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Global Order Under Stress
• The 4F Crisis
• Reformed Multilateralism
• India and Visegrád Group
• Bilateral and Regional Engagements
• Significance for India
• Conclusion

Global Order Under Stress:

• Jaishankar argued that the long-term rebalancing of global power has acquired a more difficult character because of intense strategic competition.
• If these pressures remain unchecked, they could weaken the spirit of international cooperation.
• Therefore, multilateralism needs to assert itself more strongly to address common global challenges.
• He stressed that cooperation is essential in areas such as -
  • Peace and international security
  • Climate action and climate justice
  • Emerging technologies
  • Development finance
  • Counter-terrorism
  • Global supply chains
  • Disaster resilience
  • Pandemic preparedness

The 4F Crisis:

• A major concern highlighted by Jaishankar was the vulnerability of global systems to disruptions in essential supplies.
• He referred to the “4F crisis” — fuel, food, fertiliser and finance.
• He called for -
  • Frameworks and guardrails for emerging technologies and capabilities.
  • De-risking and diversification where countries face dependence on strategic chokepoints.
  • International cooperation to prevent disruptions in critical supply chains.
  • Greater resilience against geopolitical shocks.
• This approach is particularly significant for countries such as India, which seek to maintain strategic autonomy while reducing excessive dependence on any single country or supply source.
• The emphasis on diversification is consistent with India’s broader approach of building resilient supply chains and maintaining multiple strategic partnerships rather than relying excessively on any single geopolitical bloc.

Reformed Multilateralism:

• India advocated “reformed multilateralism” based on -
  • More participative deliberations
  • Transparent decision-making
  • Greater representation of contemporary global realities
  • Respect for international law, rules and norms
• India argues that institutions created in an earlier geopolitical era need to become more representative of the present distribution of economic and political power.
• This is particularly relevant to UN Security Council (UNSC) reform, where India has been seeking permanent membership.

India and Visegrád Group (V4):

• Slovakia backed India’s bid for permanent membership of the UNSC, describing India as an important country of the Global South and an emerging power in the Indo-Pacific.
• Jaishankar also participated in the first V4+India Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.
• The Visegrád Group (V4) consists of Czechia (Czech Republic), Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.
• The meeting focused on strengthening cooperation in political and diplomatic affairs, economy and trade, defence and security, technology, space, connectivity, and people-to-people (P2P) relations.
• The new V4+India format expands India’s engagement with Central Europe and provides another platform for cooperation beyond traditional bilateral relationships.

Bilateral and Regional Engagements:

• During his UNGA visit, Jaishankar held meetings with foreign ministers of France, Ukraine, Hungary and Moldova.
• With France, discussions covered the Ukraine and Gulf crises, bilateral strategic cooperation and reform of the UN Security Council.
• With Ukraine, discussions included peace efforts, bilateral cooperation and the Black Sea, including the importance of freedom of navigation for global food security.
• These engagements demonstrate India’s effort to maintain dialogue with multiple stakeholders while pursuing its independent foreign-policy interests.

Significance for India:

• Strategic autonomy: Maintaining independent decision-making amid competing geopolitical blocs.
• Global South leadership: Advocating greater representation and voice for developing countries.
• Multilateral reform: Seeking institutions that are more representative, participatory and transparent.
• Supply-chain resilience: Reducing vulnerability arising from excessive dependence and geopolitical chokepoints.
• Rules-based international order: Supporting international law, norms and peaceful resolution of disputes.

Way Forward:

• A more effective multilateral system requires representative institutions, transparent decision-making, respect for international law and greater cooperation on transnational challenges.
• India’s advocacy of reformed multilateralism seeks to move global governance beyond bloc politics towards a system capable of addressing emerging challenges such as -
  • Climate change,
  • Technological disruption,
  • Pandemics,
  • Terrorism,
  • Food and energy insecurity.