19th June News Analysis- The Hindu

Uttarakhand — a hotbed for helicopter accidents

Current context:

A Spike in Helicopter Disasters in Uttarakhand

In 2025, Uttarakhand has emerged as a critical hotspot for helicopter accidents, with five incidents reported in just two months — a disturbing pattern highlighting persistent systemic failures in the aviation sector.

The most recent tragedy occurred during a Kedarnath pilgrimage flight, killing seven people, including a two-year-old child. This follows the May 2025 crash in Uttarkashi, where six pilgrims en route to Gangotri died. In the same month:

• A near-miss incident in Badrinath narrowly avoided catastrophe.
• An AIIMS air ambulance crashed but resulted in no fatalities.
• In June 2025, another Kedarnath-bound helicopter made an emergency landing due to a technical snag.

These events revive concerns from October 2022, when three crashes in quick succession (including one near Kedarnath) claimed 13 lives, including defence personnel in Arunachal Pradesh and pilgrims.

Features of the news report: Chronic Crisis, Regulatory Oversight, and Pattern Recognition

1. Repetition of Accidents in Specific Regions

• The Chardham route (Kedarnath, Badrinath, Gangotri, Yamunotri) repeatedly features in fatal or near-fatal crashes.
• Operators frequently flying in rugged Himalayan terrain, often in unpredictable weather, are central to many accidents.

2. Operator-Specific Lapses

• The recently crashed helicopter was operated by Aryan Aviation Pvt. Ltd., also involved in:
  • A 2022 Kedarnath crash (7 killed)
  • A 2019 crash due to overhead cable collision
• Negligence charges have been filed against two senior Aryan Aviation officials.

3. Human and Technical Factors

• Accidents are often attributed to pilot error, poor maintenance, and non-adherence to flight protocols.
• Other risks include harsh or sudden weather, technical failures, and collision with local utility cables, common in mountainous regions.

Explained: factual & data-based insights from 1990 to 2023

1. Accidents & Casualties

• 14 commercial helicopter crashes occurred in Uttarakhand between 1990 and 2023.
• 165 people died, and 126 were injured during this period.
• Many incidents involved helicopters ferrying pilgrims to Kedarnath or Gangotri.

2. Location Pattern (Map 1):

• Northeastern hill regions and Uttarakhand’s pilgrimage zones show high accident concentration.

3. Causes of Crashes (Chart 3):

• Pilot Error / Improper Handling: Leading cause of accidents
• Maintenance Failures: Second most common
• Harsh Weather Conditions: Third highest contributor
• Other Causes: Include technical snags, wire entanglement, and violation of flight rules

4. Time and Flight Phase (Charts 4 & 5):

• Majority of crashes occur in daylight (not in low visibility), disproving assumptions about night-time risk.
• Cruise and landing phases are most dangerous; take-off and climb phases are relatively safe.

Wider context and safety audits

• Despite a general decline in helicopter accidents in India over the decades, Uttarakhand’s terrain, pilgrimage rush, and safety lapses maintain high-risk conditions.
• In a positive note, India’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) safety audit improved its “Effective Implementation” score to 85%, up from 70%.
  • Suggests better national-level compliance, though regional/private operations still lag.

Conclusion

The recent spike in helicopter accidents in Uttarakhand—five in just two months of 2025—highlights a persistent aviation safety crisis that transcends isolated incidents. Despite improvements in India’s overall aviation safety profile, regional operators, particularly in high-risk zones like Uttarakhand’s pilgrimage routes, continue to operate under inadequate safety protocols, poor maintenance practices, and insufficient regulatory oversight. The repeated involvement of certain private operators underscores systemic accountability failures. Given the challenging terrain, unpredictable weather, and heavy seasonal traffic, there is an urgent need for stringent enforcement of flight regulations, advanced pilot training, technical audits, and publicly transparent safety reviews. Without structural intervention, these avoidable tragedies are bound to recur, undermining public trust and risking more lives.

Airborne dangers: why breath should not be taken for granted

Current Context :

Post-COVID global attention has sharply shifted to aerobiology—the science of biological particles in the air—as increasing scientific and public awareness points to airborne transmission of diseases and the critical importance of proper breathing techniques. This resurgence is driven by both scientific discoveries and revival of ancient practices that recognize breathing not just as a life function but as a powerful therapeutic tool. New research shows that incorrect breathing contributes to chronic health issues, and experts are advocating preventive health strategies based on conscious, corrected breathwork.

Features of the News

1. Airborne Transmission Revisited

• Initial COVID-19 public health advice underestimated the role of airborne spread.
• Shift from droplet-based understanding to recognition that aerosolized breath transmits pathogens more efficiently than thought.

2. Scientific & Historical Insights into Aerobiology

• Carl Zimmer’s book Air-Borne traces the history of air-transmitted diseases.
• Cites research from Louis Pasteur, aviation pioneers like Lindbergh, and bio-warfare tactics using airborne pathogens like anthrax.

3. Breath as a Vital Yet Overlooked Process

• Breath initiates and concludes life, repeated 25,000 times/day, yet often ignored.
• Prem Rawat and ancient traditions (Yoga, Buddhism) highlight its spiritual and physiological depth.

4. Breathing Dysfunction in Modern Populations

• 9 out of 10 people breathe incorrectly, worsening chronic diseases (asthma, anxiety, etc.).
• Hospitals treat breathing emergencies, but preventive breath education is largely absent.

5. Rediscovery of Ancient Techniques

• Books like James Nestor’s Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art show how nasal breathing, tape-sealing, and breath exercises (Buteyko, alternate nostril breathing) can reduce snoring and disease symptoms.
• Yoga breathing (pranayama) is now backed by neuro-physiological evidence.

6. A Case for Preventive Breath-Centered Medicine

• Breathing is emerging as a preventive therapy that could balance body systems.
• Yet modern medicine hasn’t fully embraced this knowledge.

Explained

COVID-19 and the Shift in Disease Transmission Models

• Early COVID-19 response failed to recognize airborne transmission, despite scientific warnings.
• Aerosol vs. Droplet: Aerosols float longer and travel further, making airborne spread more dangerous and widespread.

Scientific Sources Referenced

• Carl Zimmer’s Air-Borne: Reveals how air is a biological medium carrying pathogens.
• References to Louis Pasteur’s germ experiments and aviation biology studies.
• Discussion on biological warfare via airborne diseases like anthrax and smallpox.

Breathing Patterns and Their Impacts

• James Nestor’s findings: Incorrect breathing increases health risks.
  • Nasal breathing enlarges nasal cavities over time.
  • Snoring can be reduced from 4 hours to 10 minutes/day via breath correction.

Validation from Ancient Wisdom

• Buddha and Patanjali’s pranayama emphasize breath as a link between body and consciousness.
• Breathing practices being scientifically validated today (e.g., Buteyko, resonant breathing).
• Recognition that breath therapy can mitigate diseases like asthma, psoriasis, anxiety.

Neglect in Modern Medicine

• Hospitals focus on crisis care, not daily breathing dysfunction.
• Preventive breath care could help reduce strain on healthcare systems if institutionalized.

Conclusion:

This article re-establishes breathing not just as a physiological necessity, but as a transformative health practice grounded in science and tradition. With new research showing that most people breathe incorrectly and suffer the consequences, there is a strong case for re-integrating breathing education into public health frameworks, both as a preventive medicine and as a way to prepare for future airborne pandemics.

Failed summit

Current Context :

India participated in the G-7 Outreach Session in Kananaskis, Canada, during a time when the summit revealed major fault lines among the world’s most advanced economies. Despite being invited at the last minute, Prime Minister Modi attended the meeting. However, the summit was marked by geopolitical disunity, lack of consensus, and diplomatic underperformance, raising serious questions about India’s strategic gains from such participation.

Features of the News

Disunity within the G-7

• The summit failed to take a united stand on Ukraine, Israel-Gaza conflict, and Iran.
• U.S. President Trump’s actions — from advocating for Russia and China’s inclusion to rejecting anti-Israel language — deepened rifts among members.
• A joint communiqué could not be released; instead, only a Chair’s Summary was issued on key issues.

 U.S. Disruption and Trump’s Controversial Role

• Trump proposed expanding G-7 to “G-9” including Russia and China — contrary to group consensus.
• He walked back his “Peace-time President” stand by openly backing Israel’s aggression.
• The U.S. rejected de-escalation language in the Gaza context and refused to criticize Israel, but condemned Iran.

Minimal Outcome for India

• No specific commitments or recognition of India’s concerns — especially no reference to terrorism.
• India had hoped for strong statements on counter-terrorism, Khalistani extremism, and transnational repression.

India-Canada Reset Attempt

• PM Modi met with Canadian PM Mark Carney; agreed to restore High Commissioners post-Nijjar fallout.
• However, Canada has not altered its stance on the Nijjar killing case or Khalistan-linked extremism.
• The G-7 statement on Transnational Repression (TNR) subtly echoed allegations made by Canada against India, along with references to China, Iran, and Russia.

Misallocation of Diplomatic Resources

• India’s participation limited to one outreach session after travelling over 11,000 km.
• Editorial calls for a reassessment of the utility and returns from such high-profile but non-influential forums.

Explained

G-7: Origin and Purpose

• Formed in 1975, G-7 includes: U.S., U.K., Germany, France, Canada, Italy, and Japan.
• Intended as a club of the world’s most advanced economies to coordinate on global economic and security issues.
• India is not a member but is regularly invited to Outreach Sessions.

Disrupted Agenda of G-7 (2025)

• Canada hosted the summit amid domestic political flux; Mark Carney’s government came to power just before the event.
• Deep internal divisions made consensus on major global issues impossible:
  • No joint position on Israel-Palestine
  • Disagreements over Russia-Ukraine war
  • Conflicting stances on China’s role in world trade

Transnational Repression & India-Canada Tensions

• TNR Statement in G-7 vaguely refers to “foreign interference and repression” — implicitly aimed at:
  • India (over Nijjar case)
  • China (Uyghur repression, overseas monitoring)
  • Russia (exile assassinations)
  • Iran (diaspora threats)
• No country was named, but India is among the countries indirectly criticized.

Diplomatic Takeaway for India

• Meeting with Carney restored diplomatic channels, but not strategic trust.
• India’s core concerns — terrorism and security — were ignored.
• Editorial critiques resource misallocation for a symbolic presence with minimal strategic gain.

Conclusion:

The 2025 G-7 Summit exposed growing irrelevance of the grouping’s influence on pressing global issues, and the lack of tangible benefits for India’s participation. With increasing geopolitical fragmentation and the dominance of U.S. unilateralism, India must critically evaluate the cost-benefit of attending G-7 summits. Engagements that do not yield policy influence or geopolitical support may be diplomatically wasteful, especially when India’s own priorities — like counterterrorism, multipolarity, and strategic autonomy — are sidelined.

A fair share

Current Context:

The Sixteenth Finance Commission (SFC), headed by Arvind Panagariya, is tasked with recommending the formula for tax devolution from April 1, 2026 onward. A key issue it faces is the States’ collective demand to increase their share in the divisible pool from 41% to 50%, citing fiscal strain and limited revenue autonomy, especially post-GST. However, the Union government has been increasingly relying on non-shareable cesses and surcharges, effectively reducing the States’ actual share in central tax revenue.

Devolution of Finances to states

Features of the News

1. States’ Demand for Higher Vertical Devolution

• 22 out of 28 States (including BJP-ruled ones) have demanded an increase in their share of the divisible pool to 50%, up from the current 41%.

2. Rise in Non-Divisible Revenue Instruments

• Share of cesses and surcharges in Centre’s gross tax revenue:
  • 2015–2020: ~12.8%
  • 2020–2024: ~18.5%
• This has brought down the effective share of States to ~31%, down from 35% in the previous period.

3. Impact of GST on State Revenues

• GST has reduced States’ independent tax powers, making them more reliant on central devolution.
• Despite decent GST performance, States’ fiscal space remains constrained.

4. Concerns with the Horizontal Devolution Formula

• Southern and economically progressive States feel penalized due to high weightage to population and income distance.
• Perception of unfairness as responsible governance leads to reduced allocations.

5. Centre’s Reluctance

• Panagariya noted that increasing the devolution to 50% would “upset too many carts,” implying budget strain on defence and capital expenditure.
• Indicates Centre’s resistance to increasing vertical share, possibly maintaining 41%.

Explained

Vertical vs. Horizontal Devolution

• Vertical devolution: Division of taxes between Centre and all States.
• Horizontal devolution: Distribution among individual States.

Key Financial Data

• Current vertical devolution: 41%
• Effective real share due to cesses/surcharges: ~31% (2020–24)
• Previous real share: ~35% (2015–20)

GST and States’ Revenue Constraints

• Post-GST regime centralized taxation power under CGST and IGST.
• Loss of autonomy in indirect taxes, particularly VAT, octroi, and entry tax.

Structural Issues in Horizontal Allocation

• Population figures from 2011 Census used — penalizes States with successful population control.
• High weightage to “income distance” benefits poorer States, but demotivates performing States.

Suggested Reforms

• Modest increase in vertical share (e.g., from 41% to 45–46%).
• Cap on cesses and surcharges — possibly fix them as a percentage of gross revenue.
• Include excess collection under cesses/surcharges in divisible pool.
• Reform horizontal distribution formula — balance need, performance, and area.

Conclusion:

The 16th Finance Commission has the opportunity to redefine India’s fiscal federalism compact. Maintaining the status quo of 41% would signal central reluctance and weaken cooperative federalism. A modest upward revision, structural reform of horizontal allocation, and regulation of non-shareable revenues like cesses/surcharges are vital to ensure fairness, accountability, and efficiency in India’s fiscal architecture.