The Hindu Gist - 18th August, 2026
1 . Losing forest for trees
The concern is not simply that India is planting too few trees, but that forest policy is increasingly equating greening with tree-counting. The CAG’s assessment of the Green India Mission (GIM) exposes this implementation gap, while the experience of the Aravallis shows why plantations cannot substitute for restoration of a degraded ecosystem.
The Plantation–Restoration Gap
- GIM, conceived to improve India’s forests, has achieved little against its intended targets: of the 4 million ha identified for improvement, only 0.11 million ha was managed; expansion of forest cover achieved barely 4% of the target.
- The problem is deeper than poor target achievement: planting trees is not equivalent to restoring forests.
- GIM’s intended convergence with CAMPA funds and MGNREGA labour for plantation and land-restoration activities did not materialise, weakening implementation.
- The larger policy failure is a focus on accountancy—hectares and rupees—rather than the “worth of a living forest.”
- Forest governance must shift from input/output-based afforestation to outcome-based ecological restoration.
Why “Green Cover” Can Be Misleading?
- ISFR 2023 recorded a gain of 1,445 sq km in green cover, but only 156 sq km was actual forest; 1,289 sq km represented “tree cover outside recorded forests.” Hence, tree cover ≠ forest cover ≠ natural forest.
- The concern is also qualitative: dense canopy is thinning into scrub, meaning numerical expansion can coexist with ecological degradation.
- The Aravallis provide the clearest illustration: degraded hills, mining, encroachment and invasive vilayati kikar (Prosopis juliflora) cannot be restored simply through a “Green Wall” of fresh planting.
- Satellite-based measurement can capture hectares and rupees, but may not adequately capture biodiversity, habitat quality, ecological interactions and ecosystem functionality.
From “Planting More” to Restoring Ecosystems
- Restoration must recreate the ecological processes and functions lost through degradation—not merely establish tree plantations.
- Priorities should include:
- native vegetation and biodiversity rather than merely increasing tree numbers;
- restoration of habitat, soil and water systems;
- addressing mining and encroachment before plantation;
- long-term monitoring of whether a planted area actually develops into a functioning ecosystem.
- Schemes such as “Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam”, which reported 140 crore saplings planted, can contribute to greening, but the meaningful metric is ultimately survival and ecological recovery, not the number planted.
India’s forest policy needs to reconcile climate mitigation with biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration. Forests are not merely carbon sinks; they provide water regulation, soil conservation, livelihoods, habitat and climate resilience.
2. Why Adivasis are resisting the Ken-Betwa River-Linking Project?
The Ken-Betwa River Linking Project, particularly the Daudhan Dam, is intended to transfer water from the Ken basin to the Betwa basin to address regional water scarcity and support irrigation and development. However, its implementation has generated resistance among Adivasi and other affected communities in the Panna–Chhatarpur region, primarily over displacement, compensation, loss of land and forests, livelihood insecurity and inadequate participation in rehabilitation decisions.
Displacement, Livelihood & Rights Concerns
- The project seeks to address Bundelkhand’s chronic water stress, improve irrigation and provide wider developmental benefits.
- However, the Daudhan Dam and associated works will lead to submergence of villages and forest areas, creating displacement of local communities.
- For Adivasis, displacement means more than loss of a physical asset—it threatens “janmabhoomi”, livelihoods, forests and community life.
- This creates a benefit–burden asymmetry: the benefits of water infrastructure accrue across the region, while the immediate costs are concentrated on project-affected communities.
Livelihood, Forest & Cultural Security
- Forests provide communities with mahua, tendu, fuel, fodder and other forest produce, making them an important component of livelihood security.
- Hence, forest submergence involves both ecological loss and livelihood loss, which cannot be adequately captured through monetary compensation.
- The affected landscape also represents ancestral and cultural space; relocation can therefore produce cultural dislocation and loss of community networks.
- The project highlights the limitation of treating rehabilitation as merely “house + compensation” rather than rebuilding the entire livelihood ecosystem.
Rights, Participation & Governance Deficit
- Resistance has been intensified by concerns over consultation, compensation, rehabilitation and participation in project decisions.
- The demand for land-for-land, house-for-house and livelihood security reflects the gap between legal compensation and what communities consider genuine rehabilitation.
- Concerns over joint surveys of land and houses underline the importance of accurate identification of affected assets and beneficiaries.
- Reported grievances regarding demolition without adequate notice/compensation further undermine trust in the rehabilitation process.
- The case highlights the importance of Gram Sabha participation and Forest Rights Act safeguards wherever applicable.
Ecological Costs of Large Infrastructure
- The project involves substantial forest diversion/submergence, raising concerns over biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem services.
- The reported estimate of around 23 lakh trees to be felled highlights the scale of ecological intervention, while also raising the broader question of whether tree numbers alone capture the value of a mature forest ecosystem.
- The proximity to the Panna Tiger Reserve adds significance to concerns regarding habitat and wildlife.
- Thus, the real environmental cost includes not merely trees lost, but habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss, carbon storage and forest-dependent livelihoods.
- Environmental appraisal should account for ecological externalities and ecosystem services, rather than treating forests simply as land available for diversion.
Way Forward: “Development with Dignity”
- Participatory planning: Ensure meaningful engagement with affected Gram Sabhas and communities before irreversible decisions.
- Rights-basedResettlement and Rehabilitation: Move beyond cash compensation towards land/housing, livelihood restoration, community resources and social infrastructure.
- Transparent assessment: Conduct credible social-impact and ecological assessments, including cumulative impacts.
- Resettlement before displacement: Ensure rehabilitation arrangements are functional before physical displacement.
- Grievance redressal: Independent mechanisms for disputes over land surveys, compensation and rehabilitation can rebuild trust.
- Minimise ecological footprint: Explore project/design alternatives that reduce forest submergence and habitat disruption.
- Benefit-sharing: Ensure affected communities receive a tangible share of the project’s developmental gains.
Water security should not come at the cost of livelihood insecurity; infrastructure must pursue development with dignity, participation and ecological responsibility.
The Indian Express Gist - 18th August, 2026
1 . Notices to actors: What law says on surrogate ads
The Maharashtra FDA issued show-cause notices to actors Shah Rukh Khan, Ajay Devgn and Tiger Shroff for allegedly endorsing surrogate advertisements for Vimal Elaichi, linked to a product category prohibited in the State. The issue brings together surrogate advertising, consumer protection, celebrity accountability and public-health regulation.
Surrogate Advertising & Regulatory Gap
- Surrogate advertising occurs when a prohibited/restricted product is promoted indirectly by advertising another product/service under the same or similar brand identity.
- Maharashtra has prohibited gutkha and tobacco/nicotine-containing pan masala under Section 30(2)(a), Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; the prohibition was renewed in July 2026.
- The Vimal Elaichi campaign raises the question whether advertising a permitted product under a brand strongly associated with a prohibited product amounts to indirect promotion.
Celebrity Endorsement → Accountability
- The FDA has asked the actors to explain their role and association with the campaign, indicating that celebrity participation can attract scrutiny when the endorsement facilitates prohibited promotion.
- Under the CCPA Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements, manufacturers, advertisers and endorsers can face penalties for misleading advertisements.
- Penalties can extend up to ₹10 lakh for first contravention and ₹50 lakh for subsequent contraventions; CCPA can also prohibit an endorser from making endorsements for 1 year, extending to 3 years for subsequent contravention.
- Celebrity endorsements involve not merely commercial freedom, but also ethical responsibility, since celebrities exercise considerable influence over consumer behaviour, especially among youth.
Public Health vs Commercial Freedom
- The larger concern is the use of advertising to normalise products associated with tobacco consumption and addiction through attractive branding and celebrity appeal.
- Regulation therefore seeks to prevent indirect normalisation even where the advertisement technically features an ostensibly permissible product.
- At the same time, regulation must maintain clarity, proportionality and due process, particularly in determining whether an actor knowingly participated in prohibited promotion.
- Thus, the regulatory challenge is to balance freedom of commercial expression with the State’s obligation to protect public health.
2. NASA’s Moon Base: What India will gain by joining
NASA’s Moon Base programme under Artemis seeks to establish a sustained human presence on the Moon. India, a signatory to the Artemis Accords (2023), can use this cooperation to accelerate its space capabilities, while balancing strategic autonomy, resource governance and indigenous priorities.
Strategic, Scientific & Technological Gains
- Marks a shift from short-duration missions to sustained human presence, involving habitats, power, communications, transportation and long-duration research.
- Can complement Gaganyaan, lunar missions and Bharatiya Antariksh Station (BAS), saving India substantial time and resources; independently developing comparable capabilities could require “about a decade’s worth of technology development.”
- Builds capabilities in human spaceflight, life-support, robotics, communications, logistics and lunar technologies.
- Generates “cascading dividends across sectors” through applications in AI, advanced manufacturing, robotics and communications.
- Strengthens India’s position as a responsible space power and deepens India–US technological cooperation.
Geopolitical, Strategic Autonomy & Resource Concerns
- Around 70 countries have joined the Artemis Accords; India was an early signatory in 2023, giving it a role in emerging lunar norms.
- With Russia and China outside the Artemis framework, lunar exploration increasingly reflects wider geopolitical competition.
- Participation can strengthen India’s strategic flexibility and multi-alignment, rather than implying alignment with one bloc.
- Growing lunar activity raises questions over resource extraction, commercialisation and equitable access; India must remain engaged in shaping future rules.
- The objective should be “cooperation without strategic dependence”—international collaboration without technological lock-in or excessive dependence on one ecosystem.
3. The Centre-states tussle over the Mines and Minerals Bill
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 has triggered a Centre–State dispute over taxation of mineral resources. The Bill seeks to address specified levies on mineral-bearing land and outstanding mining dues, following the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling recognising States’ power to tax mineral rights.
Centre–State Dispute: Fiscal Federalism at Stake
- The 2024 Supreme Court ruling overturned the earlier India Cement position and affirmed States’ power to levy taxes on mineral rights.
- The Bill seeks to extinguish unpaid/unrecovered dues arising from such levies; estimates cited put outstanding dues across the mining sector at around ₹2 lakh crore.
- States’ concern: loss of a significant source of revenue and possible erosion of their fiscal autonomy.
- Centre’s concern: unchecked State-level levies may increase the cost of critical minerals, feeding into inflation and infrastructure costs.
- The dispute reflects the tension between State fiscal autonomy and nationally coordinated mineral-resource governance.
Revenue, Industry & Resource Governance Concerns
- The proposed amendments could impose greater fiscal certainty on industry by resolving multiple and retrospective/contested levies.
- However, industry argues that a mineral-bearing land tax could become the biggest additional burden on mining companies.
- The Centre argues that pending State-level levies have created legal uncertainty and large contingent liabilities, making investment decisions difficult.
- States fear that revenue loss could weaken their fiscal capacity, especially mineral-producing States; Jharkhand cited mining revenue at about 9% of its own tax revenue (2024–25).
- The issue is not merely taxation but the balance between ease of doing business, resource mobilisation and cooperative federalism.
Way Forward: Cooperative Mineral Federalism
- Evolve a reasonable and transparent framework that gives States predictable mineral revenues while preventing excessive or overlapping taxation.
- Use Centre–State consultation to settle pending claims rather than unilaterally eroding States’ revenue rights.
- Ensure that mineral taxation remains compatible with competitive mining costs and critical-mineral security.
- Provide States with mechanisms for predictable revenue-sharing/compensation where reforms reduce legitimate mineral revenues.
- Create greater legal and fiscal certainty for investors while respecting the constitutional distribution of powers.
India needs a model of “cooperative mineral federalism” where resource-rich States retain meaningful fiscal benefits while national interests in critical minerals, investment and infrastructure are protected.
4. Why India is finding it difficult to buy critical mineral assets abroad, expand footprint
India is seeking overseas critical-mineral assets to secure supplies for its clean-energy and high-technology transition. However, the efforts of Khanij Bidesh India Ltd. (KABIL) have faced hurdles ranging from high asset valuations and financial constraints to political and regulatory risks in resource-rich countries.Why India needs overseas critical-mineral assets?
- India’s domestic reserves are insufficient to meet the growing demand for critical minerals, making overseas acquisition important for supply security.
- Minerals such as lithium are crucial for batteries, EVs, renewable energy and strategic technologies.
- KABIL, incorporated in 2019, was created to identify, acquire and develop overseas mineral assets.
- Its recent efforts span Argentina, Australia, Vietnam, Mali and Chile, but several projects have faced delays or failed bids.
Why overseas acquisition is difficult?
- High valuations & competition: Critical-mineral assets attract intense global competition, pushing up acquisition costs.
- Financial constraints: Large upfront investment and uncertain returns can limit KABIL’s ability to compete with global mining majors.
- Resource nationalism: Host countries may impose tighter controls over strategically important mineral resources.
- Political & regulatory risks: Changes in government policy, taxation, mining rules and local regulations can affect project viability.
- Uncertain geology & commercial viability: Exploration risks make large overseas investments difficult to justify.
- Geopolitical risks: Investments in politically unstable or strategically sensitive countries carry additional uncertainty.
Way Forward: From acquisition to resource diplomacy
- Strengthen KABIL’s financial capacity so it can compete for strategically important assets rather than losing viable projects because of funding constraints.
- Adopt a portfolio approach — combine high-risk exploration with commercially viable producing assets.
- Build partnerships with state-owned and private mining companies in resource-rich countries.
- Move beyond ownership towards long-term offtake agreements, joint ventures and technology partnerships where outright acquisition is financially difficult.
- Develop stronger country-specific risk assessment covering political, regulatory, geological and commercial risks.
- Integrate overseas mineral strategy with domestic recycling, exploration, processing and refining to reduce import vulnerability.
- Treat critical minerals as a component of strategic economic diplomacy, using India’s partnerships to secure reliable and diversified supply chains.
