What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: Questionable cheer

Context

The government may struggle to achieve its fiscal deficit goals.

Introduction

India’s Q1 FY2025-26 GDP growth at 7.8% has exceeded expectations, surprising analysts and even the Reserve Bank of India, which projected only 6.5%. While the headline numbers indicate resilience, sectoral trends reveal a mixed picture, with services driving growth but manufacturing showing contradictory signals. The data highlight both opportunities and challenges in sustaining momentum through the rest of the year.

Q1 GDP Growth Surprise

• India’s GDP growth in Q1 FY2025-26 stood at 7.8%, surprising analysts and policymakers.
• This was higher than the RBI’s August 6 forecast of 6.5%, missing the mark by 3 percentage pointsjust weeks before release.
• The sharp divergence raises questions about the RBI’s forecasting accuracy.

Manufacturing Sector Performance

• Growth rate:Manufacturing grew 7% in Q1, on a high base of 7.6% last year.
• Possible reasons:
  • Some argue growth was driven by pre-deadline production ahead of U.S. tariffs.
  • However, with merchandise exports up only 1.6%, domestic demand seems the likelier driver.
• Contradictions in data:
  • Index of Industrial Production (IIP) grew 3%vs. 4.3% last year.
  • Steel consumption slowed sharply.
  • Vehicle sales contracted:
    • Private vehicles: -5.4%
    • Commercial vehicles: -0.6%
    • Two-wheelers: -6.2%
    • Three-wheelers: 1%(flat)
  • Freight movement weakened:
    • Railway freight: 5%vs. 5% last year
    • Air freight: 4%vs. 13.9% last year
  • Inference:While headline growth looks strong, underlying sector data show a mixed and slowing trend.
  • Services sector performance remained robust.
  • Reinforces the heavy dependence of India’s economyon services to sustain growth.

Government Growth Outlook

• Chief Economic Adviser  Anantha Nageswaranreaffirmed FY2025-26 growth projection at 6.3%-6.8%.
• Implication: With 8% already achieved in Q1, the government expects slower growth Nominal GDP growth:Reported at 8.8%, implying inflation of just ~1% in Q1.
• Raises doubts about whether price levels are being captured accuratelyin official statistics.
• Fiscal implications:Lower nominal growth makes fiscal deficit targets harder to meet.
  • Pressure heightened by expected revenue loss from upcoming GST rate cuts.

Key Takeaways

• Q1 GDP growth of 8% is encouraging, but comes with contradictory signals.
• Manufacturing growth requires deeper scrutiny due to conflicting indicators.
• Services remain the backbone of the economy.
• Concerns over data robustness, inflation capture, and fiscal pressures

Conclusion

The Q1 GDP figures bring optimism, but deeper analysis reveals structural weaknesses, statistical concerns, and looming fiscal challenges. Strong services growth is encouraging, yet manufacturing and consumer demand require closer scrutiny. With slower growth expected in coming quarters and GST-related revenue pressures, policymakers must focus on boosting domestic demand, improving data quality, and ensuring fiscal discipline to sustain India’s economic momentum.

 

Editorial 2: Noise pollution is rising but policy is falling silent

Context

To combat rising noise pollution, cities must adopt a rights-centered approach that prioritizes citizens’ well-being.

Introduction

In Indian cities, urban noise pollution is fast turning into a critical but under-recognized public health issue. With decibel levels persistently breaching standards in schools, hospitals, and housing areas, it poses a direct threat to the constitutional assurance of peaceful and dignified living.

Comparative Approaches to Urban Noise Governance: India vs. Europe

Aspect	India (NANMN & CPCB)	Europe (EEA & Policy Action)
Launch & Purpose	In 2011, CPCB launched the National Ambient Noise Monitoring Network (NANMN) as a real-time noise data platform.	European Environment Agency (EEA) systematically monitors noise-induced illnesses, mortality, and economic impact.
Current Status	After a decade, NANMN works more as a passive repository than a tool for policy reform. Data is scattered across dashboards with little enforcement.	Noise data directly shapes policies, leading to redesigns in speed limits, zoning frameworks, and stricter enforcement.
Key Problems	– Flawed sensor placement: Many mounted 25–30 feet high, violating CPCB’s 2015 guidelines. – Lack of accountability: Data often biased or incomplete, remaining politically and administratively inert.	Data is actively used to guide public health measures and urban planning.
Economic Impact	No systematic valuation; regulatory fragmentation and institutional silence prevail.	EEA estimates the annual cost of noise pollution at €100 billion, highlighting its economic and health burden.
Governance Issues	– RTI queries unanswered. – State Pollution Control Boards work in silos. – Even in large states like Uttar Pradesh, Q1 2025 data is not public.	Coordinated action at national and EU levels, ensuring transparency and public access to data.

Apathy, neglect, serious questions

• Not just environmental neglectbut also constitutional failure — violating Article 21 (right to life with dignity) and Article 48A (duty of environmental protection).
• The Noise Pollution Rules, 2000exist but enforcement is largely symbolic.
• WHO safe limits: 50 dB(A) by day, 40 dB(A) by night in silent zones; Indian cities like Delhiand Bengaluruoften record 65–70 dB(A) near sensitive institutions.
• Infrastructure growth, traffic, late-night drilling, and crane operationsworsen the crisis, defying regulations.
• The Supreme Court (2024)reaffirmed that excessive noise infringes fundamental rights, citing Noise Pollution (V), In Re (2005).
• Silence zonesbecoming epicentres of noise exposes weak state capacity and lack of civic respect.
• Ecological costs: A 2025 studyfound urban noise and light disrupted common mynas’ sleep and song patterns, weakening social signalling.
• This reflects not only avian distressbut a breakdown in ecological communication systems, signalling erosion of urban environmental ethics.

Civic fatigue and the politics of silence

• Noise as politics: Urban noise is not merely a technical concern, but a deeply political issuetied to civic rights and governance.
• Normalization of noise: Honking, drilling, and loudspeakersare now accepted as background irritants, leading to civic fatigue and weak public outrage.
• Invisibility of noise: Unlike smog or garbage, sound leaves no visible trace, only mental stress, disturbed sleep, and health risks.
• Public health impact: Children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing conditionsare most vulnerable to noise-induced harm.
• Legal framework gaps: The Noise Pollution Rules, 2000exist but are rarely updated to match today’s urban realities.
• Fragmented execution: Poor coordinationamong municipal bodies, traffic police, and pollution boardsweakens enforcement.
• Policy need: India requires a National Acoustic Policy, similar to Air Quality Standards, with:
  • Defined permissible decibel levelsacross zones.
  • Regular auditsand monitoring.
  • Local grievance redress mechanisms.
• Enforcement challenge: Without inter-agency synergy, regulation will remain sporadic and symbolic

Adopt a culture of ‘sonic empathy’

• Tackling urban noiseis not just regulatory, it is a cultural challenge requiring a shift toward sonic empathy.
• Public educationmust go beyond slogans — integrating schools, driver training, and community spaces — to embed noise sensitivity like seatbelt norms.
• Silenceshould be redefined as the presence of care, not merely the absence of sound.
• Decentralise NANMNby giving local bodies real-time data access and accountability.
• Tie monitoring to enforcementthrough penalties, zoning compliance, and construction controls.
• Institutionalise awarenessby evolving campaigns like “No Honking Day” into sustained civic behaviour shifts.
• Urban planningmust embed acoustic resilience, prioritising sonic civility alongside growth and mobility.

Conclusion

Silence should not be viewed as something to be imposed; rather, it must be enabled through thoughtful design, effective governance, and collective democratic will. For India, adopting a rights-based approach to urban noise is essential. Without such a framework, the vision of smart cities risks remaining incomplete, as they may continue to be unliveable in terms of sound and acoustic well-being.