UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 9 January 2026

Opening Monument Conservation to the Private Sector – India’s Shift towards a PPP Model

January 9, 2026

Monument Conservation Latest News

In a significant policy shift, the Government of India is set to allow private sector participation in the core conservation of protected monuments, a domain hitherto monopolised by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
This move aims to address capacity constraints, improve efficiency, and mobilise CSR funding for heritage conservation, while retaining regulatory oversight with the ASI.

Key Developments

The Ministry of Culture is empanelling private conservation architects and agencies through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, closing on January 12.
Over 20 private heritage conservation agencies from across the country have applied.
After empanelment, corporate donors contributing via the National Culture Fund (NCF) will be allowed to directly engage conservation agencies of their choice.
The conservation work will be undertaken within ASI-prescribed frameworks and under its overall supervision.

How the New Model Will Work

Eligibility criteria for conservation architects:
- Experience in conservation or restoration of centrally protected monuments under ASI, State Archaeology Departments, CPWD or State PWD.
- Experience in heritage projects of PSUs, municipal corporations, and private palaces or buildings (minimum 100 years old).
Role of donors and agencies:
- Donors provide funds to the NCF under CSR provisions.
- Donors have independence to select empanelled conservation architects.
- Projects must adhere to approved Detailed Project Reports (DPRs), timeframes fixed by donors, and established conservation norms.
- Execution will be carried out by private agencies, under guidance of conservation architects, supervision of ASI or concerned government agencies.

Reasons for the Shift - Limitations of the Existing ASI Model

Monopoly and capacity constraints:
- ASI is responsible for conserving around 3,700 protected monuments.
- It has been the sole agency for preparing DPRs, executing conservation works.
- This led to slow project implementation, delays in utilisation of CSR funds.
Performance of the NCF:
- Established in 1996 with an initial corpus of ₹20 crore, the fund has received ₹140 crore in donations so far.
- It has funded about 100 conservation projects - 70 completed, almost 20 ongoing.
- The corporate donors faced difficulties due to weak compliance timelines.

What is News Compared to Earlier Initiatives

The earlier ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme allowed corporates to become Monument Mitras but was limited to tourist amenities (toilets, ticketing, cafes, signage).
For the first time, private donors are being allowed into core conservation work of monuments.
The Ministry has identified 250 monuments requiring conservation. Donors may choose from the list, or propose monuments based on regional or thematic preference (subject to approval).

Global Parallels (Best Practices)

United Kingdom: Churches Conservation Trust with strong private participation.
United States: Active involvement of private organisations and funding in heritage protection.
Germany and Netherlands: Heritage foundations supported by private funding.
These models reflect Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) under strong state regulation.

Challenges and Way Ahead

Risk of commercialisation of heritage: Transparent audits and periodic reviews of projects. Promote community and academic involvement alongside corporates.
Ensuring uniform conservation: Develop clear conservation guidelines and SOPs.
Potential conflicts: Between donor preferences and archaeological integrity.
Need for robust monitoring mechanisms: To prevent dilution of ASI’s authority. Strengthen ASI’s role as a regulator and knowledge authority.
Capacity constraints: Capacity-building and certification of conservation professionals.

Conclusion

Opening monument conservation to the private sector marks a paradigm shift in India’s heritage governance, moving towards a PPP-based, capacity-enhancing model.
While the ASI retains supervisory control, private participation is expected to accelerate conservation, improve fund utilisation, and create a national talent pool in heritage management.
Success, however, will depend on strong regulation, accountability, and adherence to conservation ethics.

Source: IE

Monument Conservation FAQs

Q1: What is the rationale behind allowing private sector participation in the core conservation of protected monuments?

Ans: It aims to address ASI’s capacity constraints, improve efficiency, ensure timely utilisation of CSR funds, etc.

Q2: How does the new monument conservation model balance private participation with state control?

Ans: Private agencies execute conservation through donor funding, while ASI retains regulatory oversight.

Q3: What is the difference between the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme and the new private participation framework?

Ans: ‘Adopt a Heritage’ focused on tourist amenities, whereas the new framework allows private donors to engage in core conservation work.

Q4: What challenges could arise from corporatisation of heritage conservation in India?

Ans: Risks include commercialisation of heritage, uneven conservation standards, donor influence over archaeological integrity, etc.

Q5: How do global practices support India’s move towards a PPP model in heritage conservation?

Ans: Countries like the UK, US, Germany and the Netherlands successfully use private funding and foundations for heritage management.

ISRO’s Space Programme – Building Industrial-Scale Capability

January 9, 2026

Space Programme Latest News

India’s space programme is at a crucial juncture as the national space agency faces the challenge of sustaining high-frequency, complex missions at an industrial scale.

India’s Space Programme: A Phase of Maturity

Over the past decade, India’s space programme has achieved a remarkable breadth of accomplishments despite operating with modest budgets compared to global peers.
Reliable launch services using the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) have become routine, while heavier and more complex missions have been executed using the GSLV and LVM-3 platforms.
Successful lunar landing capabilities, a dedicated solar observatory, and advanced Earth observation collaborations have positioned India among a select group of spacefaring nations.
These achievements reflect a shift from experimental missions to operational reliability.
However, sustained success has also raised expectations, pushing the space programme into a phase where the ability to execute missions consistently and at scale has become as important as technological breakthroughs.

Rising Mission Complexity and Capacity Constraints

As India prepares for upcoming programmes such as human spaceflight, advanced lunar exploration, and next-generation launch vehicles, mission complexity is increasing rapidly.
These programmes demand higher launch frequencies, parallel project execution, and faster turnaround times.
However, the current launch cadence and integration capacity have emerged as structural bottlenecks.
A limited number of launches in recent years has highlighted constraints in testing infrastructure, manufacturing depth, and project scheduling.
When delays or anomalies occur in one mission, they often cascade across unrelated programmes, slowing the overall pace of development.
This challenge underlines the need for greater industrial integration, expanded testing facilities, and a workflow capable of absorbing setbacks without disrupting the entire mission pipeline.

Need for Industrial-Scale Execution

The next phase of India’s space journey requires a transition from mission-centric execution to system-level industrial performance.
This involves separating design, integration, and operational roles more clearly and expanding the industrial supply chain for structures, avionics, and propulsion systems.
An industrial-scale approach would allow routine missions to proceed independently of experimental or research-oriented projects.
It would also reduce dependence on a single institutional bottleneck and enable higher mission throughput.
Such a shift is essential for achieving long-term goals such as reusable launch systems and high-payload capabilities.

Governance Challenges in a Liberalised Space Sector

India’s space sector has undergone liberalisation in recent years, with the creation of new institutions to promote private participation and commercialisation.
While roles have been outlined on paper, practical governance challenges remain.
The absence of a comprehensive national space law has led to ambiguity in authorisation, liability, insurance, and dispute resolution.
As a result, the national space agency often continues to function as a default regulator, technical certifier, and problem-solver, even in areas that should ideally be handled by specialised bodies.
Clear statutory backing for regulatory and commercial institutions would reduce institutional overload and allow the core space agency to focus on frontier technologies and strategic missions.

Competitiveness in a Rapidly Evolving Global Space Economy

Globally, the space sector is shifting towards higher launch frequencies, partial reusability, and rapid satellite manufacturing.
Competitiveness now depends not only on engineering excellence but also on cost efficiency, production depth, and access to capital.
India’s future launch systems are being designed with reusability and heavy-lift capability in mind, reflecting this changing environment.
However, building and operating such systems requires advanced manufacturing ecosystems, robust qualification infrastructure, and sustained investment.
Recent declines in private investment highlight the difficulty of financing long-gestation space hardware projects, underscoring the need for targeted funding mechanisms and long-term policy stability.

Way Forward for India’s Space Programme

The success of India’s space ambitions will depend on whether its institutions can evolve from executing individual landmark missions to functioning as a resilient industrial system.
Engineering capability, regulatory clarity, manufacturing depth, and financial support must mature together.
If this transition is achieved, India will be able to deliver complex missions routinely, strengthen its global competitiveness, and unlock new opportunities in science, security, and commercial space activities.

Source: TH

Space Programme FAQs

Q1: Why is industrial-scale capability important for India’s space programme?

Ans: It enables consistent, high-frequency mission execution without systemic delays.

Q2: What are the main capacity challenges facing India’s space sector?

Ans: Limited launch cadence, testing infrastructure constraints, and supply chain bottlenecks.

Q3: Why is governance reform important in the space sector?

Ans: Clear legal authority reduces institutional overload and improves role clarity.

Q4: How is global competition changing space operations?

Ans: Emphasis has shifted to cost efficiency, reusability, and rapid manufacturing.

Q5: What determines the future success of India’s space ambitions?

Ans: The ability to transition from mission-based achievements to sustained industrial performance.

Trump Pulls US Out of Global Bodies: How US Exit from Global Bodies Reshapes World Order

January 9, 2026

US Exit from Global Bodies Latest News

President Donald Trump has ordered the United States to withdraw from 66 international organisations, including several UN agencies and the International Solar Alliance led by India and France.
Calling these bodies “redundant” and contrary to US interests, Trump directed immediate action through a formal memorandum to all federal agencies.
India’s assessment is that the immediate fallout will be reduced funding and weakened leadership across these institutions, from the World Health Organization to UNESCO.
The resulting vacuum is expected to create space for China, which has the resources and institutional capacity to expand its influence within global governance structures.

Why the US Is Pulling Out of International Organisations

Trump’s Core Argument: Cost Without Control - Since beginning his second term, Donald Trump has argued that the United States contributes disproportionately to global organisations while having limited influence over their agenda.
- He describes this as “globalist” and misaligned with US interests.
Allegations of Pro-China Bias - Trump has repeatedly accused international bodies of favouring China, despite Washington being the largest or among the largest financial contributors. He claims US funding indirectly supports institutions that shield or empower Beijing.
The WHO Exit as a Precedent - This reasoning underpinned the US withdrawal from the World Health Organization in January 2025. The US cited WHO’s failure to reform and its alleged inability to remain independent of political influence from member states.
Funding Disparities Highlighted - The US pointed to payment imbalances, noting that China—despite having over three times the US population—contributes nearly 90% less to the WHO, reinforcing Trump’s view that the burden-sharing system is unfair.
Broader Policy Direction - The WHO exit set the template for a wider retreat from international organisations, reflecting Trump’s preference for unilateral action and transactional global engagement over multilateral governance.

US Exit from the Global Climate Framework

President Donald Trump’s memo lists the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) among bodies the US will exit.
- The UNFCCC underpins global climate cooperation and led to later accords such as the Paris Agreement.
The US would be the first country to leave the UNFCCC, forfeiting influence over negotiations that shape major economic policy and opportunities.
The move follows a broader retreat: last year, the United States skipped the UN’s annual climate summit for the first time in nearly 30 years, signalling reduced engagement in multilateral climate action.

Withdrawal from UN Women and UNFPA

The US will also exit UN Women and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports family planning and maternal and child health in over 150 countries. US funding for UNFPA was cut last year.

Funding Cuts and UN Impact

Exiting these bodies entails further funding reductions.
President Trump has already curtailed most voluntary US contributions, diminishing both American involvement and financial support across the United Nations system.

How Trump Seeks to Project Power Outside Global Institutions

Tariffs and Military Power as Primary Tools - Despite withdrawing from major international organisations, President Donald Trump is unlikely to step back from global influence. His administration continues to rely on tariff threats and military power as key instruments.
- In 2025 alone, the US carried out military actions in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran, signalling readiness to use force when deemed necessary.
Selective Multilateral Engagement - US officials have indicated that a complete withdrawal from the United Nations is unlikely. Washington wants to remain part of forums that set global standards, especially because China holds veto power at the UN. Staying engaged allows the US to counter Chinese influence from within.
Strategic Retention of Key Bodies - Trump is expected to maintain ties with technical and regulatory bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union, International Maritime Organization, and International Labour Organization, where standards shape global commerce and technology—and where rivalry with China is intense.
Diplomacy Backed by Force - Diplomacy is preferred, but military action remains an option—citing Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro as an example where diplomacy failed.
NATO and Strategic Posturing - Trump’s push to acquire Greenland has raised concerns within NATO, but he has insisted the US will remain committed to the alliance.
- His broader message underscores a belief that US power—economic and military—remains the ultimate guarantor of influence, even as institutional engagement narrows.

Source: IE | IE | TH

US Exit from Global Bodies FAQs

Q1: Why did Trump order a US exit from global bodies?

Ans: The US exit from global bodies reflects Trump’s belief that America pays disproportionately while multilateral institutions pursue agendas misaligned with US interests.

Q2: Which major organisations are affected by the US exit from global bodies?

Ans: The US exit from global bodies includes WHO, UNESCO, UNFCCC, UN Women, UNFPA, and the International Solar Alliance led by India and France.

Q3: How does the US exit from global bodies affect the UN system?

Ans: The US exit from global bodies reduces funding and leadership capacity, creating institutional gaps and weakening global governance mechanisms across health, climate, and development.

Q4: Why is China expected to benefit from the US exit from global bodies?

Ans: China may benefit as the US exit from global bodies creates leadership and funding vacuums that Beijing can fill using its financial resources and diplomatic influence.

Q5: Can the US still exert global power despite the US exit from global bodies?

Ans: Yes, despite the US exit from global bodies, Washington continues using tariffs, military power, and selective participation in strategic institutions to shape global outcomes.

Gadgil Report on Western Ghats: Why the Gadgil Report Still Shapes Environmental Debate

January 9, 2026

Gadgil Report Latest News

Eminent ecologist Madhav Gadgil passed away at 83 in Pune, leaving behind a lasting environmental legacy.
Among his many contributions, his role as chair of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) remains the most influential.
Although the panel’s report was rejected by the then government, Gadgil consistently advocated for safeguarding the fragile Western Ghats from unregulated development.
Years on, the report’s warnings and recommendations continue to resurface in public debate, especially after landslides and ecological disasters in the region, underscoring its enduring relevance.

A Prescription for Protecting the Western Ghats

The Western Ghats stretch from Gujarat to Kerala and Tamil Nadu and act as the water tower of peninsular India.
Major rivers like the Cauvery, Godavari, Krishna, Periyar and Netravathi originate here.
The region is a global biodiversity hotspot with high endemism, hosting species found nowhere else.

Why the WGEEP Was Set Up

In March 2010, the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) was constituted due to the region’s ecological sensitivity, complex geography and growing threats from climate change and unregulated development.
The panel’s formation was triggered by a 2010 meeting of the Save Western Ghats movement in the Nilgiris, attended by then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh. The deliberations led to the creation of WGEEP.
The panel was tasked with:
- assessing the ecology of the Western Ghats, identifying ecologically sensitive areas,
- recommending ecologically sensitive zones, and
- proposing conservation, rejuvenation and governance mechanisms for sustainable development.

Recommendations of the Gadgil Panel

Entire Western Ghats as Ecologically Sensitive - The Gadgil-led panel designated the entire 1,29,037 sq km of the Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA), reflecting the region’s overall ecological fragility.
Three-Tier Sensitivity Zoning - The Ghats were divided into three categories — ESZ 1, ESZ 2 and ESZ 3 — based on levels of ecological sensitivity, with stricter controls in the more fragile zones.
Restrictions on Development Activities - The panel proposed banning genetically modified crops, new special economic zones and new hill stations across ESZs.
- It called for no new mining licences and the phase-out of existing mines within five years in ESZ 1 and 2, and a complete ban on new quarrying in ESZ 1.
Limits on Infrastructure Expansion - New railway lines and major roads were to be avoided in ESZ 1 and 2, except where absolutely essential, to minimise ecological disruption.
Creation of a Statutory Authority - The report recommended setting up a 24-member Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) under the Environment Protection Act to regulate, manage and plan activities across all ecologically sensitive zones in the six Western Ghats States.
Composition of the Authority - The proposed authority was to include domain and resource experts, along with representatives from key nodal ministries, ensuring coordinated, multi-state environmental governance.

Political Opposition to the Gadgil Panel Report

The Gadgil panel submitted its draft report in March 2011 and the final version in August 2011.
The report was not made public and was instead shared with State governments for comments.
- Environmental groups challenged the secrecy through RTI applications.
- After intervention by the Chief Information Commissioner and subsequent court proceedings, the report was finally made public in May 2012.
Gadgil argued that the report promoted inclusive development and recommended placing its proposals before Gram Sabhas to move away from exclusionary models of conservation and growth.

State-Level Resistance

The report faced strong opposition from Kerala and Maharashtra.
Maharashtra objected to the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority, calling it a parallel structure to existing institutions.
Kerala argued that declaring large areas as ecologically sensitive would hurt agriculture and livelihoods in districts such as Idukki and Wayanad.
Political leaders and the Catholic Church warned of economic disruption and displacement of local communities.

The Kasturirangan Panel and the Scaled-Down Western Ghats Plan

After widespread opposition to the Gadgil report, the Environment Ministry set up a High-Level Working Group in 2012 under space scientist K. Kasturirangan to review the recommendations.

Key Recommendations of the 2013 Report

The Kasturirangan panel proposed declaring about 56,825 sq km of the Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive.
It supported curbs on mining, polluting industries, thermal power plants, and large townships, but adopted a narrower approach than the Gadgil panel.
Unlike the earlier report, the panel identified specific villages as ecologically sensitive and released state-wise lists, making the proposal more targeted and administratively feasible.

Policy Deadlock Continues

Based on the report, the Centre has issued six draft ESA notifications, the latest in August 2024.
However, disagreements with States persist, and a committee led by former Director General of Forests Sanjay Kumar is still working to finalise the boundaries.

Source: IE | TH

Gadgil Report FAQs

Q1: What is the Gadgil Report and why is it significant?

Ans: The Gadgil Report is a landmark environmental study that classified the entire Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive, shaping India’s conservation debates despite political rejection.

Q2: Why was the Gadgil Report prepared?

Ans: The Gadgil Report was prepared to assess ecological fragility of the Western Ghats and recommend sustainable development amid rising threats from mining, infrastructure, and climate change.

Q3: What were the key recommendations of the Gadgil Report?

Ans: The Gadgil Report recommended classifying the Western Ghats into sensitivity zones, banning mining and destructive projects, and creating a statutory Western Ghats Ecology Authority.

Q4: Why did States oppose the Gadgil Report?

Ans: States opposed the Gadgil Report fearing restrictions on agriculture, infrastructure, hydropower, and livelihoods, arguing it would harm regional economies and create parallel authorities.

Q5: How does the Gadgil Report remain relevant today?

Ans: The Gadgil Report resurfaces after landslides and floods, as its warnings highlight how ignoring ecological limits worsens disasters in the Western Ghats.