daily editorial analysis for 2 December 2025

The New Action Plan on AMR Needs a Shot in the Arm

Context

• India’s National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (NAP-AMR 2.0) for 2025–29 arrives at a moment when AMR affects human health, veterinary practices, aquaculture, agriculture, waste systems and food chains.
• NAP-AMR 2.0 offers a strong scientific and strategic foundation, but its success hinges on robust Centre–State coordination.
• Antibiotic residues, resistant organisms and environmental discharge circulate across soil, water, livestock and markets, making AMR a quintessential One Health challenge that demands coordinated governance across sectors.

Evolution and Achievements of the First Plan

• The 2017 National Action Plan marked a major step in recognising AMR as a national priority.
• It advanced multi-sectoral engagement, expanded surveillance networks, improved laboratories and promoted stewardship.
• Importantly, it embedded AMR within a One Health framework that linked human, animal and environmental health.
• However, implementation remained uneven. Only a few States, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Sikkim and Punjab, developed formal State Action Plans, and even fewer advanced towards full implementation.
• Most States continued to rely on fragmented, sector-specific actions.
• The limited progress stemmed from the fact that health services, pharmacy regulation, veterinary oversight, agricultural practices, food-chain safety and waste governance fall largely under State jurisdiction.

NAP-AMR 2.0: Advances and Strengthened Vision

• NAP-AMR 2.0 provides a more implementation-oriented and operationally specific framework. It outlines clearer timelines, resource planning and responsibilities.
• A critical improvement is the explicit recognition that the private sector delivers a major share of human and veterinary health services, and its involvement is essential for national AMR control.
• The plan deepens its One Health approach by strengthening attention to food systems, environmental contamination and waste management, which are major pathways for resistant organisms.
• It proposes integrated surveillance systems across human, animal, agricultural and environmental sectors, promoting more harmonised monitoring.
• In governance, NAP-AMR 2.0 elevates national oversight by placing intersectoral coordination under NITI Aayog through a dedicated Coordination and Monitoring Committee.
• It emphasises that every State and Union Territory should establish State AMR Cells and prepare State Action Plans aligned with the national framework, supported by a national dashboard for tracking progress.
• These shifts indicate a growing understanding of AMR as a multi-departmental development challenge, not just a technical health issue.

Persistent Gaps: The Missing Centre–State Mechanism

• Despite major improvements, a core structural limitation remains.
• The plan urges States to create AMR Cells and Action Plans but does not establish a mechanism to ensure compliance.
• There is no formal Centre–State review platform, no statutory requirement for States to notify plans, no joint monitoring process, and no financial incentives linked to implementation, such as under the National Health Mission.
• Because most AMR determinants lie under State authority, this absence of accountability structures is a critical weakness.
• Without mechanisms for political engagement and administrative follow-through, even a well-designed plan risks achieving limited impact.

The Path Forward: The Need for a Unified and Accountable Structure

• Effective implementation requires a clear Centre–State architecture.
• A national–State AMR council, chaired by the union Health minister and guided by NITI Aayog, could serve as the apex decision-making and review body connecting human health, veterinary systems, agriculture, aquaculture, food safety and environmental governance.
• State participation would strengthen if the Union Government formally requested all States to prepare and notify State AMR Action Plans with defined timelines and annual reviews.
• High-level communication through Chief Secretaries can elevate AMR on administrative agendas.
• Additionally, conditional financial support under the NHM, even modest, can enhance surveillance, stewardship, infection control and laboratory strengthening.

Conclusion

• AMR spreads through hospitals, farms, markets, food systems and waste streams; therefore, national plans cannot succeed without strong State participation.
• India now has an opportunity to build a coordinated, accountable model for AMR control that could serve as an international example.
• With political commitment, integrated governance and sustained support, NAP-AMR 2.0 can become a transformative milestone rather than a statement of intent.

The New Action Plan on AMR Needs a Shot in the Arm FAQs

Q1. Why is AMR considered a One Health challenge in India?
Ans. AMR is a One Health challenge because resistant organisms and antibiotic residues spread through humans, animals, food systems and the environment. 

Q2. What was a key limitation of the first National Action Plan on AMR?
Ans. A key limitation was that most States did not develop or implement comprehensive State Action Plans.

Q3. How does NAP-AMR 2.0 improve on the earlier plan?
Ans. NAP-AMR 2.0 improves on the earlier plan by providing clearer timelines, integrated surveillance and stronger multisectoral coordination.

Q4. What major governance gap remains in NAP-AMR 2.0?
Ans. The major governance gap is the absence of a formal Centre–State accountability mechanism to ensure State-level implementation.

Q5. What step could strengthen State participation in AMR control?
Ans. State participation could strengthen if the Union Government mandates State Action Plans and links progress to financial incentives.

 Source: The Hindu

---

The Need for ‘Heart-Resilient’ Urban Planning

Context

• On October 8, 2025, India’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) observed World Habitat Day under the theme Urban Solutions to Crisis.
• Even as national missions such as the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U) and the Smart Cities Mission advance, a quieter emergency is unfolding: a surge in cardiovascular disease and diabetes across urban India.
• Cardiovascular ailments now account for major urban deaths, with prevalence nearly twice that of rural regions and increasing cases among individuals under 50.

The Urban Living Paradox: Opportunity and Ill-Health

• Urban life promises mobility and opportunity, yet long commutes, polluted air, shrinking green cover and rising stress shape unhealthy routines.
• Access to care remains uneven because hospital distribution follows profit rather than need, with high-income neighbourhoods attracting most facilities while vast areas remain underserved.
• This creates an urban paradox, prosperity for some, heightened lifestyle disease risks for many.

Fragmented Urban Planning and Its Health Consequences

• India’s rapid urbanisation has been accompanied by fragmented planning. Transport networks, housing developments, and environmental systems often evolve in isolation.
• Such disjointed growth locks in sedentary lifestyles, increases emissions, and reduces access to natural spaces.
• Expressways deepen car dependence; concentrated fast-food zones shape unhealthy diets; and gridlocked roads intensify exposure to PM2.5, a major trigger for heart attacks and strokes.
• Without health-oriented design, cities unintentionally create environments that endanger cardiovascular health.

Towards Health-Centred Urban Design

• Integrated planning offers a path toward healthier cities.
• The experience of global Healthy Cities initiatives shows that embedding health into urban governance reduces chronic disease risks.
• Coordinating land use, mobility, environment and public health can reshape Indian cities into more resilient and human-centred spaces.
• Five pillars underpin heart-healthy urban planning:
  • Walkability and Active Mobility: Shaded sidewalks, cycling lanes and safe pedestrian crossings encourage routine physical activity, lowering hypertension and diabetes risk.
  • Green Infrastructure: Tree cover, urban forests and parks cool neighbourhoods, filter air and reduce heat stress, cutting pollution-linked cardiovascular events.
  • Mixed Land Use: Combining residential, commercial and recreational spaces reduces commute times and promotes active living, making neighbourhoods more liveable.
  • Robust Public Transport: Affordable, clean-energy systems cut emissions, shorten sedentary travel and improve access for low-income groups.
  • Healthy Food Ecosystems: Local markets, community gardens and limits on junk-food advertising improve dietary choices and support heart-friendly habits.
• Together, these interventions create compact, green and transit-friendly urban environments that support healthy lifestyles and reduce pollution.

Invisible Threats and Technological Remedies

• Many urban risks remain unseen but deadly. PM2.5 from vehicles and industry, heat trapped by concrete-heavy layouts, and inadequate water and waste systems significantly worsen cardiovascular health.
• Without intervention, Asia could face a 91% rise in cardiovascular mortality by 2050.
• Holistic planning can mitigate these threats. Expanding green cover improves ventilation; renewable energy lowers emissions; and modern water and waste systems reduce toxic exposure.
• Digital tools, AI-enabled sensors, heat-mapping platforms and citizen-reporting apps, make invisible risks visible, enabling targeted urban action and strengthening public preparedness.

Equity: The Foundation of a Healthy City

• Cardiovascular disease disproportionately affects low-income communities, which endure the worst air quality, the least greenery, the poorest connectivity and the scarcest health services.
• The disease burden among marginalised groups has risen sharply, underscoring structural inequities.
• To create healthier cities, equity must anchor all planning decisions.
• Prioritising vulnerable neighbourhoods, conducting equity audits and ensuring community involvement can prevent green gentrification, where improvements displace those they aim to benefit.
• Such participation strengthens trust, embeds prevention in daily life and supports national health initiatives.

Conclusion

• Cardiovascular disease reflects not only individual choices but the design of cities themselves.
• The air people breathe, the routes they travel and the spaces they inhabit shape health outcomes profoundly.
• As India seeks urban solutions to its crises, the most enduring one lies in building cities that protect and strengthen the human heart.

The Need for ‘Heart-Resilient’ Urban Planning FAQs

 Q1. Why are cardiovascular diseases rising rapidly in urban India?

Ans. Cardiovascular diseases are rising rapidly in urban India because pollution, long commutes, sedentary lifestyles and stress combine to create high health risks.

Q2. How does fragmented urban planning worsen health outcomes?
Ans. Fragmented planning worsens health outcomes because disconnected systems in transport, housing and environment reinforce sedentary habits, increase emissions and limit access to green spaces.

Q3. What role does green infrastructure play in heart-healthy cities?
Ans. Green infrastructure plays a crucial role because trees, parks and urban forests cool neighbourhoods, filter polluted air and reduce heat stress.

Q4. Why is equity essential for healthy urban environments?
Ans. Equity is essential because low-income communities face the worst pollution, the least greenery and poor access to health care, making them more vulnerable to cardiovascular disease.

Q5. How can digital tools support healthier urban planning?
Ans. Digital tools support healthier urban planning by mapping pollution and heat, enabling early detection of risks and guiding targeted interventions.

Source: The Hindu

---

Shrinking Fiscal Space of States - Trends in Tax Devolution and Finance Commission Transfers

Context

• The debate on states’ fiscal autonomy has intensified in recent years, particularly in the backdrop of changes introduced by the 14th, 15th, and 16th Finance Commissions (FCs).
• States argue that their fiscal space is shrinking, especially due to rising non-sharable cesses and surcharges, evolving devolution formulas, and post-GST structural issues.
• Fiscal space consists of states’ own revenue receipts and the total transfers that they receive from the Centre, including the FC transfers.

Understanding Fiscal Transfers - Components and Trends

• Structure of transfers

  • Transfers from the Centre to the states consist of tax devolution (largest share) and FC and non-FC grants.
  • Tax devolution and FC grants (tied, untied, sector-specific grants) are determined by the FC whereas non-FC grants are at the discretion of the central government.
  • States’ own revenue receipts (SORR) consists of both tax and non-tax revenues.

• Combined revenue receipts

  • Measured as the sum of Centre and states’ revenue receipts, used to assess relative fiscal space.

Major Changes Across Finance Commissions (14th FC - A Landmark Shift):

• States’ share in the divisible pool increased from 32% (13th FC) to 42%.
• States’ share in combined revenue receipts rose from average of 15% (13th FC) to 19.2%, that is an increase of 4.25 percentage points.
• The share of states after transfers (fiscal space) increased from 63.85 to 68.08% of combined revenue receipts. Thus, the relative shares of Centre and states were reversed.

15th Finance Commission - A Mild Contraction

• Fall in States’ fiscal space

  • States’ share of aggregate revenue receipts fell from 68.08% (14th FC) to 67.39% - a drop of 0.70 percentage points.

• Reasons for decline

  • Reduction in tax devolution share - fell by 1.05 percentage points to 18.2%.
  • Rise in cesses and surcharges - these are non-sharable, reducing states’ share in the divisible pool.
  • Decline in states’ own revenue receipts - fell by 0.47 percentage points.
  • It may be noted that for the 15th FC period, the number of states had been reduced to 28 (post J&K bifurcation).
  • Offsetting increase in FC and non-FC grants - net fall in transfers is only 0.23 percentage points.

Sharper Impact on High-Income States

• States considered

  • Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu.

• Trends

  • From 13th to 14th FC, there is no net change in fiscal space, but higher transfers offset by lower SORR.
  • From 14th to 15th FC, fall in the fiscal space of high-income states, amounting to 0.38 percentage points of combined revenue receipts (decline in SORR - 0.25 percentage points, decline in transfers - 0.13 percentage points).

• Causes of decline

  • Higher cesses and surcharges, reducing sharable pool.
  • Horizontal devolution formula potentially less favorable.
  • Post-GST issues like GST 2.0 reforms (rate reductions) and the discontinuation of the GST compensation cess.

Key Challenges

• Rising non-sharable cesses and surcharges: Dilutes the divisible pool, and reduces predictability of transfers.
• Declining States’ own revenue: As they depend on the Centre increases, and GST structural issues affect buoyancy.
• Horizontal devolution concerns: High-income states claim that the FC transfer formula penalizes efficiency. For example, distance criterion in the horizontal distribution may disadvantage developed states.
• Greater expenditure responsibilities: Fiscal stress post-COVID on social sector, infrastructure, climate adaptation.
• GST compensation cess withdrawal: Affects fiscal capacity of manufacturing-heavy and consumption-heavy states.

Way Forward

• Reforming the transfer architecture: Ensure equitable yet efficiency-enhancing distribution. Hopefully, the 16th FC has taken into account these concerns and modified the weight attached to the distance criterion in the horizontal distribution.
• Limiting non-sharable levies: The Centre should curb excessive use of cesses and surcharges, and move towards greater transparency and predictability.
• Strengthening revenue buoyancy: Improve GST compliance and widen base. Enhance states’ own tax capacity (property tax, excise reforms).
• Cooperative federalism: Institutionalise Centre-state dialogue on fiscal reforms. Strengthen GST Council mechanisms for compensation alternatives.
• Rationalising expenditure: Outcome-based budgeting, better targeting of subsidies.

Conclusion

• Factors such as rising cesses and surcharges, changes in devolution formulas, and GST-related challenges have constrained states’ autonomy.
• As the 16th Finance Commission submits its recommendations, ensuring a balanced, predictable, and equitable system of fiscal transfers is essential for strengthening fiscal federalism.
• This will improve development outcomes, and enable both the Union and states to meet mounting socio-economic challenges.

Shrinking Fiscal Space of States FAQs

Q1. How did the 14th Finance Commission impact the fiscal space of states?

Ans. It significantly expanded states’ fiscal space by raising their share in the divisible pool from 32% to 42%.

Q2. What explains the slight decline in states’ fiscal space during the 15th FC period?

Ans. The decline was due to reduced tax devolution, increased non-sharable cesses and surcharges, and a drop in states’ own revenue receipts.

Q3. Why do high-income states claim their fiscal space has shrunk in recent years?

Ans. High-income states experienced reduced transfers and declining own revenues, partly due to an unfavourable devolution formula.

Q4. How have GST-related developments affected state finances post-GST 2.0 reforms?

Ans. Post-GST 2.0 rate reductions and the discontinuation of the GST compensation cess have reduced GST revenue buoyancy for states.

Q5. What measures can strengthen fiscal federalism in India in light of recent trends?

Ans. By limiting cesses/surcharges, improving tax buoyancy, revisiting the devolution formula, and ensuring predictable, equitable transfers via the 16th FC.

Source: IE