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

Editorial 1: ​​​Tusks and tensions

Context

Kerala’s amendments to Wildlife Act may weaken national safeguards.

Introduction

Kerala’s amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 marks a turning point in India’s federal environmental governance. The move, rooted in recurring human–wildlife conflicts, seeks to devolve powers earlier held by the Union. However, this quest for federal autonomy raises concerns about weakening national safeguards, normalising lethal responses, and diluting ecological accountability.

Context and Federal Turning Point

• Kerala’s amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972signifies a watershed moment in India’s federal environmental governance.
• The Wild Life Protection (Kerala Amendment) Bill, 2025seeks to grant the State powers traditionally reserved for the Union, particularly concerning the declaration of certain animals as vermin.
• While this stems from real human–wildlife conflicts, it also reflects tensions between ecological prudence and federal autonomy.
• The move spotlights the friction between Centre and Stateover the management of species like the wild boar, long seen as a menace in Kerala’s densely interlaced farmlands and forests.

Provisions and State Empowerment

• The Bill proposes that the State governmentmay decide when a Schedule II animal has become vermin, thereby stripping it of protection for specific regions and time periods.
• It empowers the Chief Wildlife Wardento order that any animal causing serious human injury be killed, tranquillised, captured, or translocated.
• Such provisions are intended to respond swiftlyto recurring wild boar attacks, after unsuccessful appeals to the Centre for reclassification under the Central Act.
• However, this shift risks normalising lethal outcomesthat arise from human encroachment into wildlife habitats, rather than addressing root ecological imbalances.

Legal and Jurisprudential Dimensions

• The Centre’s authority under Section 62of the Central Act to declare vermin has often operated as a non-transparent veto, ignoring local ecological realities.
• Yet, transferring this discretion to Statesdoes not automatically ensure transparency or accountability.
• A robust jurisprudencemust examine whether non-lethal alternatives—like deterrence, compensation, or relocation—were credibly exhausted before authorising culling.
• Since wildlife falls in the Concurrent List, any State law conflicting with the Central Actrequires Presidential assent.
• The key constitutional question, therefore, is whether Kerala’s initiative re-creates national safeguardsin a devolved form or erodes them.

The Way Forward: Balancing Autonomy and Prudence

• A defensible federal settlementmust:
  • Preserve baseline protectionsand uphold international conservation commitments.
  • Empower Stateswith clearer and faster procedures for specific ecological contexts.
  • Promote non-lethal conflict-management toolkits, data-driven thresholds, and accountable decision-making.
  • Reward coexistencethrough incentive-based frameworks rather than lethal shortcuts.
• Declaring wild boars as verminor downgrading species like the bonnet macaque may yield temporary relief, but risk deepening cycles of ecological harm.
• Urgency must not replace reason—true federal devolutionshould strengthen, not substitute, national safeguards.

Conclusion

A balanced federal framework must preserve national conservation floors while enabling state-level flexibility. True devolution should empower States with transparent, data-driven, and non-lethal mechanisms, not justify ecological shortcuts. Kerala’s step highlights the need for cooperative environmental federalism—where urgency complements prudence, and autonomy strengthens, rather than substitutes, accountability and sustainability.

 

Editorial 2: ​​India needs a unified mental health response

Context

Current efforts in mental health remain largely fragmented and lack cohesive

Introduction

Every year on October 10, World Mental Health Day draws attention to the global burden of mental illness, affecting over one billion people—around 13% of the world’s population. India mirrors this challenge, recording a 13.7% lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders, underscoring the urgent need for awareness, early intervention, and stronger mental health systems.

India’s Comprehensive Efforts to Prioritise Mental Health

• Legal Reforms:The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 marks a landmark step in ensuring the right to mental health care, decriminalising suicide, mandating insurance coverage, and protecting patient dignity and autonomy. It benefits nearly 200 million Indians affected by mental illness.
• Judicial Backing:In Sukdeb Saha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court reaffirmed mental health as a fundamental right under Article 21, making it a constitutional obligation for the government to provide accessible, affordable, and quality care.
• Institutional Expansion:The District Mental Health Programme (DMHP) now covers about 767 districts, offering counselling, outpatient care, and suicide prevention, marking a decentralised approach to mental health governance.
• Technological & Educational Outreach:The Tele-MANAS 24×7 helpline has enabled over 20 lakh tele-counselling sessions, improving access in underserved regions, while the Manodarpan programme has reached over 11 crore students, promoting mental well-being and emotional resilience

Hurdles in India’s Mental Health Landscape

• Severe Treatment Gaps:The National Mental Health Survey (2015–16) revealed treatment gaps of 70%–92%across disorders — with an 85% gap in common conditions like depression and anxiety. This means millions remain untreated or under-treated, perpetuating chronic distress and disability.
• Acute Workforce Shortage:India has only 75 psychiatrists and 0.12 psychologists per 1,00,000 population, far below the WHO benchmark of three psychiatrists per 1,00,000 people. The urban concentration of specialists further limits access in rural and remote regions.
• Weak Programme Implementation:Although the District Mental Health Programme (DMHP) covers 767 districts, its operational efficiency varies widely across states. Many Primary Health Centres (PHCs) report stockouts of psychotropic medicines, and rehabilitation services meet less than 15% of national needs.
• Social Stigma and Dropouts:Over 50% of Indians still associate mental illness with personal weakness or shame, leading to care avoidance and premature dropout from treatment. This stigma contributes to productivity loss, estimated to cause economic losses exceeding $1 trillion by 2030.
• Low Budgetary Priority:While countries like Australia, Canada, and the UK allocate 8%–10% of their health budgets to mental health, India spends just 1.05%, constraining infrastructure, staffing, and outreach.
• Policy Gaps in Diagnosis:The WHO’s ICD-11 includes emerging disorders like complex PTSD, prolonged grief disorder, and gaming disorder, but India’s mental health guidelines do not, limiting tailored interventions.
• Limited Human Resource Innovation:Nations with mid-level mental health providers (e.g., nurse counsellors, community therapists) cover nearly 50% of counselling needs. In contrast, India’s system depends heavily on urban psychiatrists, leaving vast rural populations underserved.
• Poor Insurance and Digital Penetration:Mental health insurance covers under 15% of Indians, while Tele-MANAS—though promising with 53 active centres—requires deeper penetration and multilingual access to match global coverage levels of 80%.
• Inadequate Data and Surveillance:India lacks a robust mental health information system. Unlike developed nations with real-time monitoring frameworks, fragmented data collection and underfunded surveillancehinder policy planning and evaluation.

The Deep-Seated Problems in India’s Mental Health System

• Persistent Sociopolitical Stigma:Deep-rooted stigma surrounding mental illness continues to limit political prioritisation and slow policy innovation. Mental health is often underrepresented in public discourse, leading to tokenistic interventions rather than systemic reforms.
• Fragmented Institutional Coordination:Weak inter-ministerial collaboration among the Health, Education, Social Welfare, and Labour Ministries results in disjointed initiatives. The absence of an integrated mental health framework prevents consistent delivery across sectors such as schools, workplaces, and communities.
• Inadequate Research and Evidence Base:Mental health research funding remains marginal compared to overall health research budgets. This limits data-driven policymaking, context-specific programme design, and the evaluation of interventions.
• Insufficient Budgetary Commitment:Although allocations have increased, the 05% share of total health spending for mental health remains far below the WHO-recommended 5%, resulting in underfunded infrastructure, staff shortages, and limited outreach.
• Workforce Gaps and Resistance to Reform:The shortage of mental health professionals is worsened by resistance to mid-level provider roles, due to a specialist-dominated care model that overlooks task-sharingand community-based support.
• Rural Disparities:Nearly 70% of India’s population lives in rural areas, where mental health professionals and services are severely scarce. This urban–rural divide perpetuates unequal access, leaving the majority of the population underserved.

Steps to Strengthen India’s Mental Health System

• Enhance Budgetary Allocation:
  • Increase mental health spending to at least 5%of total health expenditure, in line with WHO recommendations.
  • Prioritise infrastructure development, workforce recruitment, and steady medicine supplyto close existing treatment gaps.
• Expand and Empower Workforce:
  • Train and deploy mid-level providerssuch as counsellors and community mental health workers to bridge urban–rural disparities.
  • Aim to surpass WHO’s minimum workforce densityby promoting task-sharing models and decentralised care delivery.
• Integrate Services into Universal Care:
  • Embed mental health within primary healthcareand universal insurance schemes to ensure affordable and accessible services
  • Strengthen continuum of carethrough early detection, referral, and rehabilitation within existing public health systems.
• Update Diagnostic and Policy Frameworks:
  • Adopt WHO’s ICD-11 classifications, including conditions such as complex PTSD, prolonged grief disorder, and gaming disorder, for comprehensive diagnosis and treatment.
  • Revise national policies and clinical guidelinesto reflect evolving mental health challenges.
• Establish Robust Monitoring and Evaluation:
  • Develop a cascade-based accountability systemat the district and State levels, with linked budgets and data dashboards.
  • Monitor treatment dropouts, service utilisation, and outcome effectivenessto inform resource allocation.
• Combat Stigma and Build Awareness:
  • Expand anti-stigma campaignsin schools, workplaces, and communities, promoting mental health literacy and early help-seeking behaviour.
  • Target 60% coverage of educational institutions by 2027for mental health awareness programmes.
• Foster Inter-Ministerial Coordination:
  • Create a unified mental health strategyintegrating the efforts of the Health, Education, Social Justice, and Labour Ministries.
  • Encourage policy convergenceto maximise impact, reduce duplication, and ensure sustained institutional commitment.

Conclusion

India stands at a critical juncture where fragmented efforts must evolve into a unified national mental health response. Bridging treatment gaps, expanding workforce capacity, and ensuring adequate funding are essential to translate policy into impact. Integration of mental health into primary care, data-driven governance, and anti-stigma initiatives can transform access and awareness. Ultimately, a coordinated, inclusive, and adequately resourced framework is vital to ensure that mental well-being becomes a fundamental pillar of India’s public health system and social justice vision.