Why in news?

India is relying on a patchwork of laws and platform-led measures to protect children on social media. Risks include exposure to harmful content, online grooming, and cybercrime.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 mandates parental consent before platforms can process children's data. The IT Act and POCSO Act provide additional criminal provisions.

Platforms are also using age-gating, parental controls, and child-focused content ecosystems. The government is considering a graded approach to regulate children's access to social media.

However, experts warn that enforcement gaps, technological loopholes, and easy age misrepresentation continue to undermine these safeguards.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Risks for Children in the Online Space
• India's Regulatory Framework for Children on the Internet
• Age-Gating Measures by Social Media Platforms

Risks for Children in the Online Space

• Exposure to Harmful Content - Increased screen time exposes children to inappropriate and harmful content. This can negatively impact mental health, leading to anxiety, stress, and social isolation.
• Threat of Online Grooming - Children are vulnerable to online grooming, where predators exploit them through digital platforms. This poses serious risks to their safety and well-being.
• Rising Cybercrime Against Children - NCRB data shows a 32% increase in cybercrimes against children (2021–2022). Indicates growing threats as more children engage online.
• Increasing Internet Usage Among Children
  • A NITI Aayog report reveals the following average daily online usage among Indian children in 2023:
    • Up to 5 years: ~1.5 hours daily (educational content, games)
    • 6–10 years: ~2.5 hours (social media, gaming, videos)
    • 11–15 years: ~4 hours daily
    • 16–18 years: ~6 hours daily
  • As screen time rises sharply with age, so does exposure to unregulated content and online risks.
  • The data underscores the urgency of stronger child safety frameworks in India's digital space.

India's Regulatory Framework for Children on the Internet

• India has developed a multi-layered framework combining legislation, platform regulations, and educational initiatives to protect children online.
• However, critics note that enforcement remains inconsistent.
• Data Protection
  • Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, companies collecting data of users under 18 must obtain parental or guardian consent.
  • Platforms are also prohibited from tracking or monitoring children's behaviour and serving them targeted advertisements.
  • A key concern, however, is that children can easily bypass these protections by misrepresenting their age.
• Laws Against Online Exploitation
  • Key laws addressing child safety online include:
    • Information Technology Act, 2000 - Criminalises the creation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
    • POCSO Act, 2012 — Defines and penalises online sexual exploitation and grooming.
    • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Extends liability to digital offences including trafficking and harassment of children.
    • Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 — Addresses online facilitation of child exploitation.
  • However, there are persistent weaknesses in digital forensic capacity, law-enforcement training, and the uneven functioning of Special POCSO Courts, all of which limit the effective investigation and prosecution of offences.
• Content Classification and Parental Controls
  • Under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, OTT platforms must classify their content into five age-based categories:
    • U, U/A 7+, U/A 13+, U/A 16+, A
  • Mandatory measures include:
    • Parental locks (U/A 13+ and above)
    • Age verification (Adult content)
• Screen Time and Digital Wellness in Education
  • The Ministry of Education introduced the PRAGYATA Guidelines in July 2020, recommending age-appropriate screen time limits for students.
  • The guidelines aim to safeguard both the safety and academic welfare of children in a digital learning environment.

Age-Gating Measures by Social Media Platforms

• Several major social media and tech platforms have introduced age-gating measures and child-safety tools, though their effectiveness remains a subject of debate.
• Google’s Parental Control System
  • Minimum age to create a Google account in India is 13 years.
  • For children below 13, parents can use Family Link to:
    • Monitor activity
    • Block inappropriate content
    • Approve app downloads and manage permissions
  • At 13, children can manage their accounts independently, though parents are notified if supervision ends.
• Instagram’s Teen Safety Features
  • Instagram offers ‘Teen Accounts’ with built-in protections.
  • Users under 16 require parental approval to relax safety settings.
  • Aims to provide a safer default environment for young users.
• Child-Focused Platforms
  • Platforms like YouTube Kids provide a controlled content environment.
  • Parents can customise content based on the child’s age.
  • Instagram had planned a kids-only app, but development was paused in 2021.
• Limitations and Criticism
  • These measures are not fully effective.
  • Studies suggest many safety tools can be easily bypassed or ineffective.
  • Platforms dispute such findings but concerns about real-world effectiveness remain.

Why in News?

• The 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), scheduled in Cameroon, will deliberate on incorporating the Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement into the Marrakesh Agreement (1995).
• With 128 out of 166 WTO members backing the IFD, India—along with South Africa—faces the risk of political isolation, raising critical questions about the future of multilateral trade governance.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What is the IFD Agreement?
• Global Support and WTO Context
• India’s Opposition to IFD
• India’s Tactical Position
• Challenges
• Way Forward
• Conclusion

What is the IFD Agreement?

• Objective and scope:
  • The agreement focuses on facilitating Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rather than liberalising it.
  • It aims to improve the investment climate, enhance transparency and predictability, reduce bureaucratic hurdles (red tape), and promote sustainable development, especially in developing and Least Developed Countries (LDCs).
• Key features:
  • It emphasizes streamlining procedures, faster approvals, and coordination among agencies.
  • It includes Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) - implementation linked to capacity of developing countries.
  • It explicitly excludes market access, investment protection, Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), and government procurement and subsidies.
• Nature of agreement: It is a plurilateral agreement binding only on participating members, open for others to join later.

Global Support and WTO Context:

• Growing backing: Support expanded from 70 countries (2017) to 128 members (out of 166 WTO members) currently. Backed by WTO leadership, including Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala.
• WTO’s institutional crisis: WTO’s relevance has been under strain due to unilateral tariffs (e.g., by Donald Trump administration), and the paralysis of dispute settlement mechanisms. IFD is seen as an attempt to revitalise WTO rule-making.

India’s Opposition to IFD:

• Threat to multilateralism: WTO operates on consensus-based decision-making. India argues that plurilateral agreements undermine inclusivity, and risk of fragmentation of global trade rules.
• Two-tier WTO system: Fear of creation of an elite club of rule-makers, and marginalisation of developing countries.
• Negotiation imbalance: The agreement could shift focus away from unresolved issues like agricultural subsidies, and public stockholding for food security.
• China angle (strategic concerns):
  • Link with BRI: Around 98 of 128 IFD members are also part of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
  • Implications: Standardisation of investment rules may strengthen China’s geo-economic influence, enhance operational ease for cross-border infrastructure networks, and overlap in India’s neighbourhood.

India’s Tactical Position:

• Public stockholding issue:
  • India demands a permanent solution on food security subsidies linked to schemes like Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY).
  • WTO rules cap subsidies at 10% of production value, and India relies on the Peace Clause (Bali, 2013) to avoid legal action.
• Negotiation strategy: India may use its opposition to IFD as a bargaining chip, and seek concessions on agriculture and food security.

Challenges:

• External: Growing global consensus in favour of IFD. Pressure from developing nations needing investment. For example, African bloc potentially shifting stance.
• Internal:
  • Balancing development priorities (FDI inflows) and strategic autonomy.
  • Risk of diplomatic isolation, and reduced influence in WTO negotiations.

Way Forward:

• Calibrated engagement: India should avoid outright rejection and instead engage constructively in shaping IFD provisions.
• Safeguarding multilateralism: Push for stronger consensus-based safeguards, and protection of developing country interests.
• Strategic bargaining: Leverage IFD negotiations to secure permanent solution on public stockholding, and progress on agricultural reforms.
• Alternative coalitions: Strengthen alliances with Global South, and like-minded countries (e.g., South Africa).
• Domestic reforms: Improve ease of doing business to attract FDI independently of the IFD framework.

Conclusion:

• The IFD Agreement represents a critical inflection point in global trade governance, reflecting a shift from multilateralism to flexible plurilateralism.
• India’s resistance stems from systemic concerns over equity, sovereignty, and strategic autonomy, rather than mere opposition to investment facilitation.
• Going forward, India must adopt a pragmatic and balanced approach—defending its core interests while avoiding isolation—to remain an influential voice in shaping the future of the WTO and global economic order.

Context

• India’s 2026–27 Union Budget, along with its new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the European Union, represents a pivotal moment for Ayurveda and other traditional systems of medicine.
• These developments signal a transition from viewing Ayurveda as an alternative practice to integrating it into both the national healthcare system and the global medical marketplace.
• While this expansion reflects ambition and opportunity, it also raises important questions about scientific credibility, regulatory standards, and the balance between tradition and evidence.

Strengthening Ayurveda within India

• Increased Budgetary Support
  • The Indian government’s growing commitment to Ayurveda is evident in the significant rise in funding for the AYUSH Ministry, which has nearly doubled over the past five years.
  • This financial expansion reflects a policy shift aimed at embedding traditional medicine within the mainstream healthcare system rather than treating it as a parallel alternative.
• Institutional Development and Research
  • The announcement of three new All-India Institutes of Ayurveda marks an important step toward institutionalising traditional medicine.
  • These institutes are expected to function as centres of excellence, combining patient care with advanced research and education, much like premier institutions in modern medicine.
  • Additionally, the expansion of the National AYUSH Mission aims to modernise dispensaries, integrate AYUSH clinics into government hospitals, and strengthen drug-testing infrastructure.
  • Together, these measures are designed to enhance both accessibility and quality.

Global Expansion through the India–EU FTA

• Opportunities in International Markets
  • The India–EU FTA provides Ayurveda with unprecedented global exposure.
  • It allows Indian practitioners to offer services in certain European countries and enables Indian companies to establish Ayurvedic clinics abroad.
  • The agreement also opens the possibility of mutual recognition of safety certifications, potentially simplifying the export of Ayurvedic products.
• Regulatory Challenges and Expectations
  • However, entering global markets also means operating within stringent regulatory frameworks. Ayurveda, as part of Traditional, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine (TCAM), will be evaluated based on international standards of safety, efficacy, and quality.
  • This transition requires regulatory harmonisation and adherence to scientific norms that govern global healthcare systems.

The Imperative of Scientific Evidence

• Bridging the Gap Between Claims and Proof
  • A major challenge in Ayurveda’s global journey is the gap between traditional claims and scientific validation.
  • Without robust evidence, there is a risk of legal disputes, reputational harm, and the reinforcement of stereotypes about unscientific practices.
• Need for Independent Research
  • Currently, much of the research on AYUSH systems is conducted or overseen by the same institutions that promote them, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.
  • To build global credibility, Ayurveda must undergo rigorous, independent scientific evaluation. This includes:
    • Independently funded clinical trials
    • Transparent research methodologies
    • Peer-reviewed publications
    • Willingness to publish negative findings
  • Such measures are essential for establishing trust in international markets.

Rethinking the Debate: Science and Tradition

• Beyond the Colonial Argument
  • Criticism of scientific scrutiny is sometimes framed as resistance to Western epistemological dominance.
  • While colonial history did marginalise indigenous medical systems, equating all demands for evidence with cultural bias is misleading.
  • Scientific evaluation should not be seen as a threat but as a necessary step toward validation and acceptance.
• Science as Strength, Not Threat
  • Demanding empirical evidence does not diminish tradition; rather, it strengthens it.
  • By engaging with scientific methods, Ayurveda can demonstrate its efficacy and relevance in a global context, thereby enhancing its legitimacy.

Coexistence of Medical Systems

• Distinct Conceptual Frameworks
  • Ayurveda and modern biomedicine are based on fundamentally different understandings of the body and health.
  • Ayurveda views the body as an interconnected system influenced by environmental, dietary, and social factors, with health defined as a state of equilibrium.
  • In contrast, biomedicine focuses on anatomical localisation and targeted interventions.
• Complementarity Rather Than Competition
  • The relationship between these systems should not be seen as oppositional. Instead, they can function as complementary approaches:
  • Biomedicine offers precision and targeted treatment
  • Ayurveda provides a holistic and integrative perspective
  • Together, they can broaden the understanding of health and enhance the scope of care.

Conclusion

• Ayurveda’s expansion, supported by domestic policy and international agreements, represents a transformative moment in India’s healthcare landscape.
• The future of Ayurveda depends not on assertion or cultural pride alone, but on its willingness to embrace rigorous evaluation, transparency, and intellectual openness.
• By focusing on dialogue between tradition and science, India has the opportunity to position Ayurveda as a credible and valuable contributor to global healthcare.
• Ultimately, its success will be determined by evidence, integrity, and the courage to be critically examined.

Context

• Election campaigns often produce memorable slogans, some of which fade quickly while others leave a lasting imprint on political discourse.
• The phrase double-engine sarkar is one such slogan that has gained prominence in recent years.
• It suggests that governance becomes more efficient when the same political party is in power at both the Union and State levels.
• While this idea appears harmless at first glance, it raises important constitutional questions about the nature of India’s federal structure and the principle of equal governance.

Understanding the Double-Engine Concept

• At its core, the double-engine idea promotes coordination between the Centre and the States.
• It implies that shared political leadership leads to smoother decision-making and faster development.
• In principle, such cooperation aligns with the idea of cooperative federalism, however, the slogan carries a deeper and more problematic implication.
• It suggests that States governed by parties different from the one ruling at the Centre may face disadvantages in terms of development and resource allocation.
• This transforms a concept of cooperation into one of conditional governance.

Constitutional Foundations of Federalism

• India’s Constitution establishes a federal system in which the Union and the States operate as partners within clearly defined spheres.
• The Union government represents the entire nation, not just politically aligned States.
• Public funds collected through taxation belong to the Republic as a whole. Citizens across all States contribute equally, regardless of their political choices.
• Therefore, the distribution of resources must be impartial and based on constitutional principles rather than political considerations.
• Any deviation from this principle undermines the idea of equal citizenship.

Fiscal Federalism and Institutional Safeguards

• Role of the Finance Commission
  • To ensure fairness in resource distribution, the Constitution provides for the Finance Commission under Article 280.
  • This body recommends how Union revenues should be shared among States based on objective criteria such as income levels, population, and fiscal capacity.
  • Its primary purpose is to prevent political bias in fiscal transfers.
• Emerging Concerns
  • Recent debates highlight growing tensions in fiscal federalism.
  • Southern States have raised concerns that the use of updated population data in allocation formulas may penalise them for successfully controlling population growth.
  • Additionally, the increasing reliance on cesses and surcharges, funds not shared with States, has reduced the overall pool of resources available for distribution.

Federal Friction in Governance

• Gubernatorial Delays
  • Another area of concern is the role of Governors in the legislative process. In several States, Governors have delayed granting assent to Bills passed by elected legislatures.
  • Such delays effectively stall governance and raise questions about the misuse of constitutional offices for political purposes.
  • Judicial interventions have clarified that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent and must act within constitutional limits. These rulings reinforce the authority of elected legislatures.
• The Delhi Governance Experience
  • The governance challenges in Delhi further illustrate federal tensions.
  • Conflicts between the elected government and the Lieutenant-Governor have led to administrative gridlock, often requiring judicial intervention.
  • This situation demonstrates how institutional mechanisms can be used to hinder governance when political alignment is absent. 

A Pattern of Centralisation

• When viewed together, issues in fiscal transfers, gubernatorial delays, and governance conflicts, a broader pattern emerges.
• The double-engine slogan reflects a reality where political alignment increasingly influences governance outcomes.
• While the formal structure of federalism remains intact, its spirit is gradually being weakened.
• This represents a shift from cooperative federalism to a more centralised and politically conditioned system.

The Path Forward: Need for Structural Reforms

• Addressing these issues requires systemic changes rather than temporary solutions.
• Key reforms could include:
  • Strengthening the binding nature of Finance Commission recommendations
  • Establishing fixed timelines for Governors to act on Bills
  • Revitalising intergovernmental bodies such as the Inter-State Council
• These measures would reinforce the constitutional framework and promote genuine cooperative federalism.

Conclusion

• Political slogans are a natural part of democratic elections, but they must not undermine constitutional values.
• The double-engine sarkar narrative, by linking development to political alignment, risks distorting electoral choice and weakening the principle of equal citizenship.
• India’s federal democracy depends not on political uniformity but on the fairness and integrity of its institutions.