Daily Editorial Analysis 25 October 2025

The Mirage of Port-Led Development in Great Nicobar

Context

• The proposal to build a major transshipment port at Galathea Bay in Great Nicobar has been heralded as a symbol of India’s maritime resurgence.
• Supporters claim it will transform the country into a regional hub for trade and security, reducing dependence on foreign ports such as Colombo and Singapore.
• Behind this vision lies a powerful appeal to national ambition and strategic pride. Yet beneath the rhetoric of progress and self-reliance, the project rests on fragile economic foundations and faces formidable geographical and logistical challenges.
• Its promise of prosperity and influence, when examined closely, begins to dissolve into illusion.

Critique of Great Nicobar Project

• Overstated Advantages and Structural Flaws

  • The rationale behind the Great Nicobar port rests on the assumption that new infrastructure automatically attracts maritime traffic.
  • This assumption has already been disproven by India’s own experience with Vallarpadam Port in Kerala, which failed to draw transshipment business despite significant investment.
  • Successful hubs depend on far more than capacity, they thrive on network connectivity, feeder links, stable cargo bases, and long-term carrier loyalty.
  • These factors develop over years of commercial integration and cannot be built overnight.
  • Galathea Bay lacks nearly all of these preconditions. It has no industrial hinterland, no urban or logistics base, and no nearby manufacturing zone to generate cargo.
  • Every container would need to be shipped in and out, creating dependence on costly feeder services that do not yet exist.
  • Geography further compounds the problem. The site lies about 1,200 kilometres from the Indian mainland, too remote to sustain efficient or profitable operations.

• Strategic Ambiguities and Misplaced Priorities

  • Supporters have often sought refuge in the argument of strategic necessity.
  • Establishing a strong presence in Great Nicobar, they suggest, would enhance India’s surveillance capacity and strengthen its deterrence posture in the eastern Indian Ocean.
  • Yet India already maintains an active naval base there, INS Baaz, which fulfils precisely these objectives.
  • The addition of a commercial port adds little to military readiness while introducing a range of logistical and environmental complications.
  • If strategic expansion is the real goal, it should be pursued openly and through dedicated defence channels rather than masked as a commercial enterprise.
  • The blending of military and economic justifications risks diluting both, turning strategy into rhetoric and development into pretext.

• The Myth of a Seamless Maritime Arc

  • Another central claim envisions Great Nicobar forming part of a triad of new ports, alongside Vizhinjam in Kerala and Vadhavan in Maharashtra, that together would create a “seamless maritime arc.”
  • This vision collapses under scrutiny. Each of these ports occupies a distinct commercial environment.
  • Vizhinjam benefits from its proximity to international shipping lanes and may plausibly attract some traffic from Colombo through improved efficiency.
  • Vadhavan, situated near industrial hubs on the western coast, has a natural economic hinterland.
  • Great Nicobar, by contrast, is cut off from industrial corridors and shipping networks, with no organic cargo base to sustain continuous operations.
  • Treating it as the keystone of an integrated maritime system ignores the geographical and economic realities that determine how ports actually function.

A Cautionary Lesson in Misplaced Ambition

• The Great Nicobar project exemplifies how grand visions of national transformation can falter when detached from economic and logistical reality.
• Its geographic isolation, lack of connectivity, and fragile commercial logic make it ill-suited to the role envisioned for it.
• A world-class terminal with few takers will generate neither development nor influence; it will instead serve as a monument to misplaced ambition.
• Infrastructure, no matter how modern, cannot substitute for an ecosystem of trade networks, industry linkages, and operational efficiency.

Conclusion

• The vision of Great Nicobar as a gateway to India’s maritime dominance rests on a seductive but unsound logic.
• Building capacity does not guarantee connectivity; strategic ambition cannot override structural geography.
• Sustainable maritime growth demands coordination between infrastructure, industry, and environment, not isolated projects driven by symbolism.
• The Great Nicobar port, far from representing progress, risks becoming a cautionary tale of how development divorced from context can undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve.

The Mirage of Port-Led Development in Great Nicobar FAQs

 Q1. What is the main argument against building the Great Nicobar port?
Ans. The main argument is that the port’s economic and logistical foundations are weak, making its promised benefits of trade and strategic influence unrealistic.

Q2. Why is Galathea Bay considered unsuitable for a major transshipment hub?
Ans. Galathea Bay is geographically isolated, lacks an industrial hinterland, and would face high operating costs due to its remoteness from major trade routes.

Q3. How does the Great Nicobar project blur the line between economic and strategic goals?
Ans. It presents a commercial port as a way to enhance national security, even though India’s existing naval base already fulfills that role.

Q4. What lesson can be learned from the failures of other Indian ports like Vallarpadam and Krishnapatnam?
Ans. These examples show that infrastructure alone cannot attract shipping traffic without strong trade networks, carrier commitments, and cost efficiency.

Q5. What is the broader message about development planning?
Ans. True progress requires aligning ambition with economic reality, environmental awareness, and logistical feasibility.

Source: The Hindu

Respect the Health Rights of India’s Children 

Context

• The deaths of twenty-five children in Madhya Pradesh due to contaminated cough syrup have cast a long shadow over India’s healthcare system.
• More than a tragedy, the incident is a mirror reflecting the deep cracks in the nation’s regulatory and ethical framework governing paediatric medicines.
• While public outrage has focused on the culpability of one doctor and the meagre ₹2.54 commission that allegedly cost young lives, the true issue lies far deeper, in India’s systemic neglect of child-specific pharmaceutical oversight.

Systemic Gaps in Regulation and Children as “Therapeutic Orphans”

• Systemic Gaps in Regulation

  • Despite the Union Health Ministry’s ban on certain cough syrups for children under four, the circulation of contaminated formulations exposes failures at multiple levels of governance.
  • The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) and state drug regulators share overlapping jurisdictions that often result in diluted accountability.
  • The tragedy underscores the urgent need to strengthen coordination, transparency, and enforcement within these institutions to prevent such incidents from recurring.

• Children as Therapeutic Orphans

  • Children have historically been treated as therapeutic orphans, a term coined by Harry Shirkey to describe their marginalisation in pharmaceutical research.
  • Unlike adults, children’s bodies process drugs differently, yet clinical trials rarely include paediatric subjects due to ethical and logistical barriers.
  • Consequently, paediatric dosages are often extrapolated from adult data, leading to risks of overdose and toxicity.
  • The absence of dedicated paediatric drug development and testing makes tragedies like the recent one tragically predictable.

Legal and Policy Framework: Gaps and Opportunities

• India boasts a wide array of child-focused policies, from the National Policy for Children (1974) to the India Newborn Action Plan (2014), but these primarily focus on labour protection and sexual abuse, not pharmacological safety.
• In contrast, international frameworks such as the European Union’s Paediatric Use Marketing Authorisation (PUMA) and the United States’ Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) provide clear guidelines and incentives for paediatric drug research.
• India, however, operates only on general guidelines, with no statutory framework to govern paediatric medicines. This regulatory vacuum leaves millions of Indian children exposed to untested, substandard, or mis prescribed drugs.

The Economics of Health and the Need for Essential Medicines

• Unsafe medicines exacerbate the economic vulnerabilities of poor families, who often rely on cheap over-the-counter (OTC) drugs due to inadequate healthcare access.
• The essential medicines concept, introduced by the World Health Organization (WHO), aims to ensure availability, affordability, and quality of critical drugs.
• However, India’s Essential Medicines List for Children (EMLc) remains outdated and inconsistently implemented.
• A systematic revision based on Indian epidemiological and genetic data is urgently needed to safeguard children’s right to health and prevent health-induced poverty among vulnerable families.

The Way Forward: Towards a Holistic Framework

• A truly protective system must rest on three pillars: regulation, research, and awareness.
• Regulation: Strict pharmacovigilance mechanisms and zero-tolerance policies against counterfeit or contaminated drugs are essential.
• Research: Paediatric pharmacology must be grounded in India-specific data, recognizing that global findings cannot simply be transplanted into the Indian context.
• Awareness: Continuous education for caregivers, pharmacists, and healthcare workers, along with clear labelling and dosage protocols, is crucial for safe medicine use.
• These measures together can build a robust and transparent paediatric drug safety infrastructure capable of protecting India’s children.

Conclusion

• The deaths of these 25 children are not isolated misfortunes but symptoms of a structural failure.
• As India aspires to be the pharmacy of the Global South, it bears an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure the safety of the medicines it manufactures, both for its own children and for those abroad.
• To neglect paediatric pharmacovigilance is to betray the constitutional promise of Article 39(f), the duty to secure for every child the opportunity to grow in health, safety, and dignity.
• The nation owes its children not just grief, but governance, not just sorrow, but systemic reform. Only then can India truly claim to protect the most vulnerable among its citizens.

Respect the Health Rights of India’s Children FAQs

 Q1. What incident prompted the discussion on paediatric drug safety in India?
Ans. The discussion was prompted by the deaths of 25 children in Madhya Pradesh after consuming contaminated cough syrup.

Q2. Why are children called “therapeutic orphans”?
Ans. Children are called “therapeutic orphans” because most medicines are tested on adults, leaving children without proper research on safe dosages and effects.

Q3. What major weakness does India’s drug regulation system have?
Ans. India’s drug regulation system suffers from overlapping responsibilities between central and state agencies, which leads to poor accountability and enforcement.

Q4. How do international policies differ from India’s approach to paediatric drugs?
Ans. International policies like the EU’s PUMA and the US’s BPCA provide clear guidelines and incentives for paediatric drug research, whereas India lacks a specific legal framework.

Q5. What three pillars are essential for protecting children’s medicine safety?
Ans. The three essential pillars are regulation, research, and awareness.

Source: The Hindu

‹ ›

Attracting Indian-Origin Scientists – The Promise and Pitfalls of India’s New Research Scheme

Context

• The Government of India is considering a new scheme to attract Indian-origin researchers and faculty in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields to return and work in Indian institutions.
• The initiative aims to capitalize on restrictive research policies in the US under the Trump administration and strengthen India’s domestic research ecosystem.

Background – Harnessing NRI Talent

• India has earlier attempted to involve NRI scientists through short-term collaborations, but such programs were largely unsuccessful.
• The new plan envisions long-term engagement, offering positions in premier research institutions (IITs, research institutes) and substantial set-up grants for research infrastructure.
• Globally, many countries are creating similar pull factors to attract researchers from the US.

Opportunities – A Win-Win Proposition

• The scheme could bring highly skilled scientific talent back to India.
• It would help strengthen domestic research capacity, build global linkages, and instill pride among the diaspora in contributing to nation-building.
• The program could potentially reduce India’s “brain drain” and create a “brain gain” effect.

Challenges and Concerns

• Bureaucratic and institutional barriers

  • Cumbersome procurement rules, tendering processes, and delays in fund disbursement often discourage research productivity.
  • Administrative red tape forces scientists to spend more time on paperwork than on actual research.
  • Hiring procedures for technical staff are highly restrictive and multilayered.

• Institutional culture and adjustment

  • Returnee scientists may struggle to adapt to the existing organizational culture of Indian institutions.
  • Differences in work ethics, research environment, and salary structures could lead to professional dissatisfaction.

• Quality of life issues

  • Poor urban infrastructure, pollution, housing difficulties, and educational challenges for children can act as major deterrents.
  • Many research institutions are in polluted metros, worsening the attractiveness of relocation.

• Impact on existing faculty

  • Preferential treatment for returnees (higher pay, better labs, grants) may cause resentment among existing staff, leading to institutional disharmony.

Comparative Perspective – Learning from China’s Example

• China’s “Thousand Talents Plan” successfully attracted overseas researchers with lavish funding, housing, and simplified visas.
• India differs in –
  • Scale and quality of institutions: China has many globally ranked universities.
  • R&D spending: China invests 2.7% of GDP, while India invests only 0.65%.
• However, resentment among native scientists against preferential treatment of returnees has emerged even in China.

Way Forward

• Increase R&D spending: India must significantly raise its investment in research and innovation.
• Ease of doing research: Simplify procurement, funding, and hiring procedures — creating a “single-window” system for research facilitation.
• Strengthen universities: Expand focus beyond elite institutes (IITs, IISc) to state and central universities to build a broader base of scientific manpower.
• Improve infrastructure and quality of life: Ensure livable conditions—housing, schooling, air quality—for returnee scientists.
• Institutional equity: Design schemes that integrate returnees without alienating existing staff, maintaining morale and collaboration.

Conclusion

• The proposed scheme to attract Indian-origin researchers is well-intentioned and timely, aiming to turn global academic challenges into India’s opportunity.
• However, without systemic reforms in research funding, administration, and institutional culture, it risks becoming another symbolic initiative.
• For India to truly become a scientific and technological powerhouse, it must create conditions where both resident and returning scientists can thrive — ensuring that our own “sea turtles” find a nurturing ocean at home.

 Attracting Indian-Origin Scientists FAQs

Q1. What is the Government of India’s proposed scheme to attract Indian-origin scientists and faculty in STEM fields?

Ans. The scheme aims to provide incentives to encourage Indian-origin researchers to return and strengthen India’s domestic research ecosystem.

Q2. What major administrative challenges could hinder the success of this scheme?

Ans. Bureaucratic red tape in fund disbursement, complex procurement rules, and rigid hiring procedures.

Q3. How might the preferential treatment of returning researchers affect existing institutional staff?

Ans. It could create resentment and demoralization among existing faculty due to perceived inequality in privileges and opportunities.

Q4. What lessons can India learn from China’s “Thousand Talents Plan”?

Ans. India can emulate China’s strong funding support and simplified visa processes but must also avoid creating resentment among local scientists.

Q5. What long-term reforms are essential for India to become a global scientific and technological powerhouse?

Ans. Increased R&D spending, ease-of-doing-research reforms, strengthening universities, and improving living conditions for scientists are vital.

Source: IE