Main articles/opinions analysis for UPSC 27 June 2025 | Legacy IAS

Contents :

1. Vaccination India
2. America’s plan in the ground of American proliferation

Vaccination India

Global context

• Vaccine Has for six large diseases (eg measles, polio, tbc) Doubled worldwide (1980–2023).
• Zero dose children (those who have not even received the first DTP vaccindosis) have fallen) Worldwide up to 75% During this period.
• The number of children on zero doses is seen as an important indicator of Performance of health inequality and immunization system.

Relevance: GS 2 (Health)

Practice question: Despite the considerable progress in the coverage of immunization, the large number of zero-dose of children in India reflects persistent socio-economic and geographical inequalities. Research the factors critically behind this trend and propose measures to meet India‘s obligations under the WHO‘S Immunization agenda 2030. (15 points, 250 words)

India’s position

• India had 1.44 million zero dose of children in 2023 – 2nd highest worldwide.
• India is one of the 8 countries that are good 50% of the global zero dose of children (~ 16 million).
• India’s large birth ecohort: 23 million babies born in 2023the The highest in the world.

Historical trends

• Zero dose rate in India fell from 33.4% (1992) → 10.1% (2016).
• Numbers recently fluctuated:
  • 2021 (post-known disruption): 2.7 million
• In Percentage conditions2023 Zero-dose speed is 6.2% From total births – a relatively low share given the absolute size.

Regional distribution

• High-Kurden States: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat.
• High tribal/northeast prevalence: Meghalaya, Navaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh.

Demographic inequalities

• Differences based on Gender, caste and divide in the countryside are reduced.
• However, high prevalence remains under:

Important challenges

• Not because of conflicts or vulnerable systems (in contrast to many countries with a high toil).
• Barriers:
  • Vaccine hesitation In specific communities
  • Access in tribal belts and urban slums
  • Migrant populations With low service outreach

Ahead

• India must half zero-dose numbers by 2030 (compared to the basic line of 1.4 million) to meet Who is IA2030.
• Required persistent, targeted efforts:
  • Urban-Slum and Tribal Area Immunisation Drives

America’s plan in the ground of American proliferation

Background: The AI ​​diffuser framework

• The AI ​​diffuser frame was introduced by the BIDEN -Administration to regulate AI -chip export and model weights.
• The treated AI in the same way as nuclear technologystrive to prevent opponents (such as China, Russia) from having access High-end computing powerAn important engine of AI options.
• Goal: Save our AI leadership by limiting global access to calculation-intensive hardware.

Relevance: GS 2 (International Relations), GS 3 (Technology)

Practice question: The dissolution of the US AI Diffusion Framework indicates a tactical herkalibration, no strategic shift in the AI ​​control policy. Discuss the implications of such evolving technology -driven checks on global cooperation, innovation and India‘S Strategic autonomy in the AI ​​domain. (15 points, 250 words)

Why the framework was withdrawn

• Withdrawn by the Trump government (2025), seen as a tactical turning backNo strategic shift.
• Key Flaws From the framework:
  • Undermined technological cooperation, even with allies.
  • Created Trust By signaling our dominance when setting rules.
  • Treated Civilian-Origin AI Tech as a purely military possession.
  • Encouraged solution Such as China’s Deepseek R1That achieved high performance with the help of low calculationdenying American controls.

Worldwide reactions and strategic shifts

• Allies began to strive technological sovereigntyinvest in alternative ecosystems To prevent over -dependence on the American AI infrastructure.
• For Indiawho was not preferred under the framework, the withdrawal is one Welcome.
• The Global Ai Race continued; The US is still planning China Access refusing To advanced AI technology.

Evolving American strategy: new forms of control

• Post-Framework, US Focus has shifted Enforcement with technologyNo broad trade bans.
• Recent promotions:
  • Extensive export checks (March 2025).
  • More companies added to the list (Blacklist).
  • New legislation introduced:
    • Surveillance functions on the chip.
    • Location To prevent distraction from AI chips to opponents.

Emerging concerns about technically driven checks

• Risks:
  • Privacy, ownership and security issues.
  • Reduced autonomy From buyers and users of AI hardware.
  • Potential inhibition of legitimate civil use.
• Could replicate the same problems with trust and sovereignty as the original framework.

Conclusion: strategic continuity, tactical change

• Withdrawal of the framework is No change in intentionbut one Change in approach.
• US AI -Control strategy continues to exist In new, possibly more subtle, forms.
• Not learning the past risks Ondermining our AI leadership” Allies alienateAnd Global decoupling accelerating In AI development.