05 July 2025: Indian Express Editorial Analysis

1. Like Salt to Wound
(Source: Editorial Page, The Indian Express)

Topic: GS Paper 2: India–US Relations, WTO & Trade Negotiations; GS Paper 3: Agriculture (GM crops, agri-trade), Technology in Agriculture, Food Security

Context

The editorial discusses US pressure on India to open its markets to genetically modified (GM) soyabean and maize. The issue highlights the contradictions in Indian agricultural policy, where Indian farmers are denied access to GM technology while being asked to compete with heavily subsidized and technologically advanced American imports. This comes amidst trade lobbying under the Trump administration and exposes larger debates around biosecurity, farmer interests, and global agri-politics.

US Trade Pressure and GM Crops

• The US is lobbying for access to the Indian agri-market for its GM soyabean and maize, driven by both political and economic incentives.
• The pressure is backed by the economic stakes of the US corn-belt, including exports worth $24.5 billion (soyabean) and $13.7 billion (maize) in 2024.
• Additional maize-related exports like ethanol, maize meal, and dried distillers grains amplify the economic urgency from the US side.

Indian Farmer’s Dilemma: Denied Technology, Forced Competition

• Indian soyabean yields are three times lower than those in the US. This makes US soyabean far more competitive.
• India imports around 5 million tonnes of soyabean oil annually, a strategic necessity for edible oil security and feed.
• However, GM soyabean is banned in India, despite its advantages like pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, and higher yields.
• As a result, Indian farmers are at a disadvantage, lacking access to the same productivity tools their US counterparts use.
• The yield gap is particularly visible in maize, where states like Bihar have lower per-hectare production than US states like Iowa or Illinois.

The Contradiction in Indian Policy

• On the one hand, India imports GM-derived feed and oil (from soy and maize), but on the other, it restricts domestic cultivation of the same GM crops.
• This inconsistency undermines India’s dairy and poultry sector, which depends on high-protein feed like soymeal.
• India’s policy indecision and political sensitivities (often related to anti-GMO sentiment) have prevented the adoption of GM tech, despite scientific approval in other nations.

GM Technology: What It Offers

GM soyabean and maize varieties offer:

• Resistance to pests and herbicides

• Higher productivity per acre

• Reduced losses and lower chemical usage
  • US farmers have adopted these technologies at scale, increasing competitiveness in export markets.

Broader Implications for India

• Denial of GM technology creates a situation where Indian farmers face global competition without equal tools, increasing economic stress.
• It raises questions of scientific temperament, regulatory transparency, and alignment between agri-policy and trade policy.
• The editorial criticizes India’s lack of political will and over-reliance on non-scientific sentiment, which may now be hurting the country’s agricultural and trade interests.

Conclusion and Way Forward

• India must rationalize its policy on GM crops, balancing biosecurity and public concerns with the need for farmer competitiveness.
• The current policy hurts farmers by denying them access to technology while exposing them to global market competition.
• As India aspires to be a leader in global agricultural trade and food security, it must embrace scientific innovations, ensure transparent regulation, and equip its farmers with fair tools, not handicaps.

Practice Question: (GS-3 | 15 Marks | 250 Words) India’s reluctance to adopt GM crops has exposed its farmers to global competition without technological parity. Critically examine the impact of this policy inconsistency on India’s agricultural productivity and trade competitiveness.

Also Read: The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 05 July 2025

2. Not Even Band-Aid

(Source: Editorial Page, The Indian Express)

Topic: GS Paper 2: Governance (Centre–State Relations, Policy Implementation) GS Paper 3: Environment (Pollution Control, Urban Planning)

Context

The editorial critiques the Centre’s directive to ban fuel supply to end-of-life vehicles (older than 10 years for diesel and 15 years for petrol) in Delhi-NCR, and the Delhi Government’s resistance to the move. The broader issue highlighted is India’s lack of a coordinated and well-thought-out anti-pollution policy, especially in the urban context, where piecemeal actions are taken instead of structural reforms.

The Centre’s Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles

• The Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) ordered a halt on fuel supply to vehicles older than 10 years (diesel) and 15 years (petrol) starting July 1, 2025.
• This move was aimed at reducing vehicular emissions — a major contributor to Delhi’s poor air quality.
• However, Delhi’s Environment Minister termed the directive “counterproductive”, warning that it might lead to:
  1. Illegal petrol sourcing from neighbouring states
  2. Disruption of livelihoods for lower-income populations relying on old vehicles, especially two-wheelers
  3. Creation of a parallel, informal fuel economy

Centre–State Blame Game and Policy Gaps

• The issue reflects larger governance failures between the Centre, CAQM, and Delhi government.
• Delhi CM raised valid concerns over the impact of the move on urban poor, but no viable alternative plans or comprehensive EV policies were offered either.
• The CAQM shifted the burden of implementation to petrol pump dealers under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a move that was legally contested.

Challenges in Ground Implementation

The Petrol Dealers Association approached the Delhi High Court, stating they lacked the legal authority to enforce the ban.
The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, used to identify violators, failed multiple trials:

• Sensors malfunctioned

• Data was mismatched or unavailable on the Vahan portal

• Poor integration with the fuel station network
  • The result was a policy disconnected from infrastructure readiness and ground realities.

Larger Urban Pollution and Transport Failures

• Delhi’s pollution control policies have lacked long-term vision and consistent implementation.
• Urban planning continues to suffer from car-centric development, sprawling expansion, and poor public transportation infrastructure.
• Instead of retrofitting regulations, the city needs sustained investment in mass transit, non-motorized mobility, and electrification of vehicles.
• The BJP government in Delhi, like its predecessors, has largely continued piecemeal and reactionary policies.

Recommendations and Way Forward

To address Delhi’s pollution crisis meaningfully, India must adopt a comprehensive, data-backed urban transport and pollution mitigation strategy. This includes:

• Phased retirement of polluting vehicles with proper alternatives and social protection
• Robust infrastructure for vehicle tracking and regulation (e.g., upgraded ANPR systems)
• Public transport revitalization, especially electric buses and last-mile connectivity
• Political consensus and coordination between Centre and State governments to implement durable environmental reforms

Practice Question: (GS-3 | 10 Marks | 150 Words) Delhi’s approach to vehicular pollution control has remained fragmented and reactionary. Critically examine the institutional and policy challenges that hinder effective urban environmental governance in India.

Read more – 04 July 2025 : Indian Express Editorial Analysis