Zaheer Mustafa

Prakash Karat’s recent statement advocating for fostering better India-China relations without forming a formal alliance underscores a multifaceted issue embedded within the broader context of geopolitics, domestic political considerations, economic interdependence, and historical tensions. The statement comes amidst longstanding disputes between the two nations that have been punctuated by territorial disagreements, economic dependencies, and episodes of diplomatic engagements. It merits careful analysis to unravel its implications and the layers of meaning it might carry.

India and China share a deeply complex relationship characterized by unresolved border disputes, economic interdependence, and differing political systems. Among the most contentious issues is the territorial dispute over Arunachal Pradesh and the Aksai Chin region. These disagreements, dating back to the mid-20th century, resulted in the Sino-Indian War of 1962, an event that profoundly influenced bilateral relations. More recently, the skirmishes in Galwan Valley in 2020 further highlighted the volatility and fragility of the relationship. While India has sought to strengthen its territorial claims and bolster its defense posture, China has continued to assert its own claims, creating an environment of mistrust that complicates any efforts at reconciliation.

Economically, the relationship between the two countries is marked by significant asymmetry. While India has a burgeoning economy with a diverse industrial base, it remains heavily reliant on China for certain goods and sectors. For instance, in 2024, India’s trade deficit with China reached $85.1 billion, underlining the extent of economic interdependence. This reliance is particularly pronounced in sectors like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and machinery. While economic engagement offers potential benefits, it also presents risks, as it allows China to wield considerable economic leverage. Critics argue that this dynamic could be exploited by China to advance its geopolitical objectives, particularly in the absence of trust and mutual respect.

Karat’s call for improved relations must also be viewed through the lens of India’s foreign policy objectives and its position in a multipolar world. India has historically pursued a policy of strategic autonomy, seeking to balance its relationships with major global powers without aligning too closely with any one bloc. In this context, fostering better ties with China could be seen as a pragmatic move to enhance India’s position in the global order. By engaging with China, India could potentially strengthen its negotiating position on global issues and counterbalance the influence of other powers, such as the United States. However, such engagement must be carefully calibrated to ensure that it does not compromise India’s core interests or exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.

The timing of Karat’s statement also raises questions about its political motivations. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), has experienced significant setbacks in recent years, particularly in its former strongholds of West Bengal and Tripura. These electoral defeats have left the party grappling with questions about its relevance and future direction. In this context, Karat’s remarks could be interpreted as an attempt to reposition the party and align its foreign policy stance with the broader national interest. By advocating for improved relations with China, the CPI(M) may be seeking to demonstrate its pragmatism and relevance in the current political landscape.

However, the CPI(M)’s historical alignment with China adds another layer of complexity to this narrative. The party has often been perceived as ideologically sympathetic to China’s communist regime, a perception that has fueled criticism from its political opponents. Karat’s emphasis on maintaining autonomy and avoiding formal alliances could be seen as an attempt to distance the party from its ideological ties and present a more balanced and pragmatic approach to foreign policy. Whether this shift will resonate with the broader electorate and enhance the party’s political fortunes remains to be seen.

The ongoing tariff discussions between India and China further underscore the strategic calculations at play. These negotiations, which aim to address trade imbalances and reduce economic dependency, have significant implications for both countries. For India, the discussions represent an opportunity to address its trade deficit and strengthen its economic position. For China, engaging in these talks could help mitigate the impact of its own economic challenges, including deflation and a housing market crisis. Karat’s advocacy for dialogue and engagement aligns with these broader economic imperatives, highlighting the potential benefits of a more collaborative approach.

At the same time, it is essential to consider the risks associated with closer engagement with China. The unresolved border disputes and instances of aggressive behavior, such as China’s construction of infrastructure in disputed areas, underscore the challenges of building trust and fostering genuine cooperation. Additionally, China’s track record of using economic leverage to advance its geopolitical objectives raises concerns about the potential consequences of deepening economic ties without addressing the underlying issues.

Karat’s statement also reflects broader debates about India’s role in the global order and its approach to navigating a multipolar world. As emerging powers like China and India seek to assert their influence on the global stage, the dynamics of their relationship will play a crucial role in shaping the contours of the international system. By advocating for improved relations without forming an alliance, Karat underscores the importance of strategic autonomy and the need for India to chart its own course in the face of complex global challenges.

In conclusion, Prakash Karat’s call for fostering better India-China relations offers a nuanced perspective on a multifaceted issue. While his proposal aligns with the principles of strategic autonomy and pragmatism, its feasibility and implications must be carefully examined. The unresolved territorial disputes, economic dependencies, and historical tensions between the two countries present significant challenges that must be addressed to build a foundation for genuine cooperation. At the same time, the potential benefits of improved economic and diplomatic engagement cannot be overlooked, particularly in the context of a rapidly evolving global order.

Ultimately, any shift in India’s approach to China must prioritize national interests and strategic autonomy. While dialogue and engagement offer a pathway to addressing shared challenges and advancing mutual interests, they must be accompanied by a clear-eyed assessment of the risks and a commitment to safeguarding India’s core interests. As India navigates the complexities of its relationship with China, the principles of pragmatism, resilience, and strategic autonomy will remain essential in shaping its foreign policy and securing its place in a multipolar world. Karat’s statement, while rooted in political and ideological considerations, serves as a reminder of the need for a balanced and forward-looking approach to one of India’s most complex and consequential relationships. 

Dr. Viswanath Pandey

The state of education in India, particularly in Andhra Pradesh, reflects the profound interplay of systemic inefficiencies, policy failures, and political narratives that often divert attention from genuine reforms. The deteriorating literacy rates, crumbling infrastructure, and declining enrolment rates expose a harsh reality—education has become more of a rhetorical tool for political gains rather than a domain of substantive improvement. The staggering decline in foundational literacy levels and student enrolment, coupled with policy missteps, raises serious concerns about the priorities of both state and central governments in fostering an environment conducive to learning and knowledge-building.

Andhra Pradesh’s education system presents a striking example of this crisis. The state caters to 68.15 lakh students across 58,535 schools, yet the inefficient distribution of resources has led to a fragmented structure. The presence of 12,512 single-teacher schools and 14,052 government schools with fewer than 20 students demonstrates the lack of strategic planning in allocating teachers and infrastructure. Enrolment in government schools has witnessed a drastic fall of 10.49 lakh between 2022 and 2024, with only 33.37 lakh students remaining. This decline is a clear indication of waning public trust in government schools, a consequence of the severe deterioration in educational quality. The foundational literacy crisis is evident in the fact that only 37.5% of Grade 5 students could read Grade 2 Telugu in 2024, a shocking drop from 57.1% in 2018, as per ASER reports. The state’s fall from first in Class III Language rankings in 2017 to 27th in 2021 in the National Achievement Survey further cements the argument that the education system has been neglected and left in shambles.

A critical aspect of this crisis is infrastructure. The Nadu-Nedu initiative, which was launched to revamp school infrastructure, remains incomplete, with projects worth Rs 7,876 crore left unfinished. Schools continue to struggle with inadequate facilities, and only 51.8% of them have proper compound walls, leaving students vulnerable to safety concerns. The government’s ambitious reforms, such as the shift to CBSE and the introduction of the TOEFL program, have failed to make an impact due to poor execution and lack of foresight. GO 117 has only exacerbated the issue, triggering an exodus of students from government schools. In intermediate education, the pass rate remains at a dismal 58% in 2024, while the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of 65.4% starkly lags behind states like Kerala, which boasts a GER of 88.1%. Higher education, too, suffers from neglect, with a GER of just 36.5%, faculty shortages, and declining NIRF rankings, painting a bleak picture of the state’s commitment to academic excellence.

The central government’s initiatives, particularly the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, aspire to address these issues by focusing on foundational literacy, inclusivity, and vocational training. However, the reality on the ground tells a different story. The NEP’s goal of allocating 6% of GDP to education remains a distant dream, with actual spending stagnating at around 4.64% as of 2020-21. The policy’s emphasis on multilingual education and global academic collaborations appears promising on paper but fails to translate into meaningful change in states like Andhra Pradesh. Implementation remains patchy, and political narratives continue to overshadow any substantive action that could improve education quality at the grassroots level.

Politics has deeply entrenched itself in the education sector, further derailing meaningful reforms. Andhra Pradesh Minister Nara Lokesh’s criticism of former Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy for prioritizing personal branding over actual educational reforms echoes a broader issue prevalent across Indian politics. The central government’s penchant for using public welfare schemes for political branding is also evident in the distribution of ration bags featuring the Prime Minister’s image under the PMGKAY scheme, as well as similar branding at petrol pumps in Uttar Pradesh. This trend of leveraging state-funded programs for electoral gains diverts focus from pressing issues such as education, healthcare, and employment, rendering governance more about optics than outcomes.

The distortion of the educational ecosystem is also apparent in the neglect of higher education and research. The discontinuation of increments for PhD scholars has dampened academic motivation, raising concerns about the government’s commitment to fostering a knowledge-driven economy. The stagnation in research funding further cripples India’s intellectual and scientific advancement, pushing scholars towards disillusionment and brain drain. The recent protests in Bihar against the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) illustrate the broader systemic inefficiencies plaguing the education system. The government’s response—marked by police crackdowns rather than structural reforms—demonstrates an alarming disregard for student grievances and the need for overhauling the education sector.

The governance model under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) reflects a prioritization of image-building over concrete educational reforms. Branding initiatives create an illusion of proactive governance, but the grim realities of declining literacy rates, poor infrastructure, and inadequate policy execution expose the hollowness of such optics. The tendency to engage in grand narratives rather than addressing ground-level challenges has led to an education system that is increasingly exclusionary and dysfunctional. The question that arises is whether a government that prioritizes political self-promotion over genuine educational progress can truly lead India towards a future rooted in knowledge, innovation, and intellectual growth.

In the larger scheme of things, the crisis in Andhra Pradesh’s education sector is emblematic of the challenges faced by the entire country. Policies like the NEP 2020 offer a theoretical roadmap for reform, but their potential impact is diluted by a lack of robust implementation mechanisms and political distractions. As Rajya Sabha member Sudha Murty rightly pointed out, teachers are the backbone of the education system, and their training and continuous evaluation are crucial for ensuring quality education. She stressed that mere infrastructural improvements are insufficient if the teachers themselves are not equipped with the latest teaching techniques and methodologies. The lack of examination-linked training sessions for educators exacerbates the issue, leading to a stagnation in teaching quality.

Ultimately, the solution lies in shifting the focus back to foundational literacy, infrastructure development, and equitable access to education. Policymakers must move beyond mere rhetoric and invest in long-term, substantive reforms that prioritize learning outcomes over political mileage. Without such a shift, India risks squandering its demographic dividend, leaving millions of students trapped in a cycle of poor education, limited opportunities, and unfulfilled potential. The government must recognize that education is not a tool for political propaganda but a fundamental right that shapes the future of the nation. Only when governance is driven by a commitment to educational excellence rather than electoral gains can India hope to build a society that thrives on knowledge, innovation, and progress.

(Writer, a Ph.D. in Sociology, is a well-recognised author and columnist. For past over three decades, he has served in various administrative and academic capacities at Banaras Hindu University).

Amit Pandey

The concept of a ceasefire in the Ukraine-Russia conflict continues to perplex the global community, raising more questions than answers about its feasibility, motivations, and broader implications. Why has the road to peace been riddled with so many obstacles, despite repeated attempts by the United States and other key players? What makes Donald Trump so optimistic about the latest ceasefire proposal, and does this optimism stem from a realistic strategy or a calculated political narrative? These are questions that demand critical examination, especially as the conflict reshapes the geopolitical and economic fabric of Europe and beyond.

At its core, the Ukraine crisis is a stark reminder of how deeply intertwined resource control, political leverage, and international alliances are in modern warfare. The mineral-rich regions of Ukraine have become a focal point of contention, with potential concessions on these assets serving as bargaining chips in peace negotiations. But can such compromises be the foundation of a sustainable ceasefire, or do they risk undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty? The hesitation of Ukraine’s President Zelensky to yield ground on these terms speaks volumes about the delicate balance between sovereignty and survival.

Meanwhile, the role of the United States and its allies presents a fascinating dichotomy. On one hand, the U.S., under Trump’s leadership, appears eager to broker peace, projecting itself as the ultimate mediator. On the other, the persistent failure of negotiations and the seemingly transactional approach to diplomacy cast doubt on America’s commitment to a fair resolution. Is the U.S. leveraging its influence in Ukraine for strategic gains, or is it genuinely invested in ending the bloodshed? Furthermore, how does Trump’s economic agenda, particularly amid a potential slowdown, factor into his push for a ceasefire? Could the specter of rising costs and declining global standing be compelling the U.S. to prioritize peace, even if it means pressuring Ukraine into a compromised position?

Adding to the complexity are the shifting dynamics within NATO and the European Union. With America’s role as a global leader increasingly under scrutiny, European nations are stepping up to play a more active role in the conflict’s resolution. France and Germany, in particular, have advocated for a more independent European strategy, emphasizing the need for regional security frameworks that do not overly rely on U.S. leadership. Does this signal a growing fissure within NATO, or is it a natural evolution of Europe’s geopolitical autonomy? And how might this recalibration influence Ukraine’s leverage—or lack thereof—in future negotiations?

Lastly, the economic toll of the conflict cannot be overstated. Ukraine faces staggering losses, with its GDP plummeting, infrastructure decimated, and millions displaced. While international aid has provided some respite, the long-term sustainability of such support is far from guaranteed. The question remains: at what point does the cost of war become unsustainable for all parties involved, and does this tipping point serve as the real catalyst for peace?

The U.S. Push for Ceasefire: Why is Trump Hopeful?

This marks the fourth or fifth attempt by the United States to broker a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia. Previous negotiations, including those conducted in Washington during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit, have faltered due to Ukraine’s refusal to concede key mineral-rich areas to Russian control. The question arises: Has Zelensky now been pressured into accepting these conditions, or is there an alternative formula that has instilled confidence in the Trump administration?

European diplomatic experts suggest that Trump’s optimism stems from multiple factors. Firstly, Trump’s administration has always emphasized economic pragmatism over military intervention. Unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, who maintained unwavering military support for Ukraine, Trump has consistently sought to reduce U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. Reports from The Guardian and Le Monde indicate that Trump’s negotiations involve a restructured territorial deal that provides security guarantees to Ukraine while subtly allowing Russia some form of economic or administrative control over disputed regions.

Additionally, Trump’s confidence may be linked to internal American political dynamics. With the U.S. economy experiencing a slowdown and growing domestic opposition to continued aid to Ukraine, Trump might view the ceasefire as a necessary move to bolster his political standing. A successful diplomatic resolution could be presented as a victory in his re-election campaign, proving that he can achieve what previous administrations could not.

Ukraine’s Reluctance and the Mineral Dispute

Ukraine’s refusal to relinquish control over its mineral-rich territories, particularly in the Donbas region, remains a critical obstacle in peace negotiations. This area, abundant in coal, natural gas, and rare earth minerals like lithium and titanium, is not only vital to Ukraine’s economy but also to global industries reliant on these resources. President Zelensky has consistently rejected territorial concessions, emphasizing that such compromises would jeopardize Ukraine’s sovereignty and set a dangerous precedent for future aggression. His stance reflects a broader concern that yielding to Russian demands could embolden expansionist policies, undermining international norms.

However, the devastating civilian toll from recent attacks has intensified pressure on Ukraine to reconsider its position. A report from Der Spiegel highlights that European Union leaders, particularly Germany and France, have been urging Ukraine to explore compromises. Prolonged conflict has strained Europe’s economic stability, with rising energy costs and disrupted supply chains impacting key industries. Germany, which has committed over €17 billion in aid to Ukraine, and France, facing domestic economic challenges, have signaled that their capacity to sustain military and financial support is waning. This shift raises questions about the long-term viability of Ukraine’s resistance without substantial external backing.

Critics argue that this pressure undermines Ukraine’s agency in negotiations. As geopolitical analyst Robert Muggah noted in February 2025, “Forcing Ukraine into concessions risks creating a fragile peace that could unravel under future provocations.” The economic stakes are equally significant; Ukraine’s GDP has contracted by over 30% since the war began, and its recovery hinges on retaining control over its resource-rich territories. The dilemma underscores the complex interplay between sovereignty, economic resilience, and international diplomacy, leaving Ukraine at a crossroads where every decision carries profound implications for its future and the global order.

Is There a Pressure Campaign on Ukraine?

One of the most significant aspects of this ceasefire proposal is the role of American and European lobbying efforts. Elon Musk’s recent statement that “Zelensky must not be president for much longer” has raised suspicions that Ukraine is being pressured into accepting a deal that benefits Western economic interests rather than its own sovereignty. Some analysts argue that Musk’s comments reflect the sentiments of influential business and political elites who see an opportunity to reshape Ukraine’s post-war economic structure in a manner that benefits U.S. and European investors.

Furthermore, diplomatic experts from The Financial Times have pointed out that NATO’s commitment to Ukraine has shown signs of wavering. While NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has reiterated support for Ukraine, recent moves by key European nations suggest a shift towards de-escalation. If NATO’s backing weakens, Ukraine may have little choice but to agree to a compromise.

NATO’s Role and the EU’s Strategic Calculations

One of the key questions surrounding this ceasefire attempt is whether it is driven by NATO’s internal pressures or by Trump’s independent diplomatic maneuvering. If the European Union and NATO nations feel that continued support for Ukraine is economically unsustainable, their policy direction could be subtly shifting towards pressuring Zelensky into a negotiated settlement. This would explain Trump’s renewed push, as he might be capitalizing on this shift to position himself as a successful dealmaker.

European diplomatic experts argue that Trump’s ceasefire proposal could be tied to a broader NATO recalibration. While Eastern European nations like Poland and the Baltic states remain committed to resisting Russian aggression, Western European powers such as France and Germany have increasingly voiced concerns over the prolonged economic impact of the war. Reports from Politico Europe indicate that some EU leaders have privately expressed frustration with Ukraine’s uncompromising stance, particularly on territorial concessions.

Economic considerations play a crucial role in the current negotiations. Trump’s administration has repeatedly signaled its unwillingness to continue large-scale financial aid to Ukraine, arguing that American taxpayers should not bear the burden of the conflict indefinitely. According to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. military assistance to Ukraine has exceeded $75 billion, a figure that is increasingly seen as politically unsustainable.

In Europe, inflationary pressures and energy concerns have also led to growing dissatisfaction with the war’s economic toll. The European Central Bank’s latest report suggests that prolonged conflict could destabilize European financial markets, leading to increased political pressure on EU leaders to push for a ceasefire.

The Business Strategy Behind the Ceasefire

Some geopolitical analysts argue that the ceasefire negotiations are not purely about diplomacy or humanitarian concerns but are, in fact, a strategic business maneuver. The U.S. and its allies could be seeking to gain economic leverage over post-war Ukraine through investment deals and reconstruction contracts. The Biden administration had previously discussed the possibility of U.S. firms playing a significant role in Ukraine’s reconstruction, a strategy that may now be repurposed under Trump’s leadership.

Furthermore, the global arms industry has benefited significantly from the conflict. With major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon seeing record profits, some critics argue that the U.S. military-industrial complex may be attempting to shift its focus from active conflict to post-war economic engagement.

The Potential Formulas for Ending the War

Given the complexities involved, what are the possible formulas for ending the war? According to experts from The Economist and The New York Times, the most likely scenarios include:

1. Territorial Compromise – Ukraine retains control over most of its territory but agrees to grant Russia economic access to key regions.
2. Internationally Monitored Ceasefire – A neutral entity, such as the United Nations, oversees a demilitarized zone between Ukraine and Russia.
3. European Security Guarantees – Ukraine receives NATO-like security assurances without formal membership, reducing Russian aggression risks.
4. Economic Reconstruction Deal – The U.S. and EU commit to a large-scale reconstruction package in exchange for Ukraine agreeing to a ceasefire.

The renewed ceasefire push raises fundamental questions about the nature of U.S. foreign policy under Trump. Is this a genuine attempt to end the war, or merely a strategic move to serve political and economic interests? Given the history of failed negotiations, skepticism remains high. However, if Ukraine is indeed being pressured into a deal that includes territorial concessions, the long-term implications could be profound.

Ultimately, whether this ceasefire materializes or collapses like its predecessors depends on multiple factors: Ukraine’s willingness to compromise, Russia’s military objectives, NATO’s strategic calculations, and Trump’s broader geopolitical strategy. As the world watches, the outcome of these negotiations could reshape the global order, influencing not just Ukraine’s future but also the broader balance of power between the West and Russia.

(Author is Managing Editor of The Emerging World)

Sanjay Pandey

The Jharkhand government’s decision to revise the cess rate on mineral-bearing land comes as a significant fiscal move aimed at bolstering state revenues. With mineral-rich states like Odisha and Chhattisgarh imposing higher cess rates, Jharkhand’s comparatively lower taxation has resulted in potential revenue losses over the years. The increase in cess on coal and iron ore-bearing land is expected to generate over Rs 15,000 crore in the financial year 2025-26, providing a substantial financial cushion for infrastructure development, healthcare, and other public welfare programs.

Jharkhand, home to nearly 40% of India’s mineral reserves, has long served as a crucial hub for coal and iron ore production. However, despite its mineral wealth, the state’s revenue collection from these resources has remained suboptimal. Until now, cess was levied at a mere Rs 100 per metric ton, significantly lower than the charges imposed in other states. Comparatively, Odisha charges Rs 150 per metric ton, and Chhattisgarh levies even higher rates, ensuring more substantial financial returns from mining activities. The decision to increase the cess aligns Jharkhand with its counterparts and rectifies an existing imbalance in revenue distribution.

One of the most immediate benefits of this move will be the state’s enhanced financial capacity to invest in public infrastructure. The additional revenue can be allocated to road networks, power supply, and railway connectivity, which are critical for ensuring efficient mineral transportation. Enhanced logistics will not only benefit mining corporations but also boost associated industries, generating employment opportunities in mining-adjacent sectors.

Another sector poised to benefit from the increased cess is healthcare. Jharkhand has persistently struggled with inadequate healthcare facilities, particularly in mining-dominated districts like Dhanbad, Bokaro, and West Singhbhum. Respiratory illnesses and other health hazards due to mining-related pollution are rampant, and the state’s medical infrastructure is ill-equipped to handle the burden. With an additional Rs 15,000 crore in projected revenue, the government could significantly upgrade healthcare facilities, ensuring better medical services for affected communities. Establishing specialized hospitals for mining-related diseases, improving rural healthcare centers, and deploying mobile health units could be direct results of this fiscal boost.

However, the decision is not without its economic challenges. Increased cess directly translates to higher production costs for mining companies, which could have cascading effects on market prices. Companies may pass on the additional costs to consumers, leading to inflationary pressures in sectors dependent on coal and iron ore. Industries like steel manufacturing, power generation, and construction could see a rise in input costs, affecting final product pricing. Given Jharkhand’s pivotal role in India’s energy sector, any cost escalation in coal could impact electricity tariffs, placing an additional financial burden on consumers.

On the other hand, proponents argue that the increase in cess is a necessary step toward economic self-reliance. States like Odisha have effectively utilized higher mineral taxation to fund social welfare programs and infrastructure development, demonstrating the long-term benefits of such a policy. Jharkhand can similarly channel the additional revenue into education, skill development, and employment generation, reducing its dependency on central government grants.

Despite concerns regarding inflation, the overall economic impact could remain balanced if the government strategically reinvests the revenue into industrial incentives. Offering tax rebates to small and medium enterprises, promoting alternative energy sources, and subsidizing key sectors affected by the cess hike could mitigate adverse economic consequences. Additionally, negotiations with mining companies to ensure corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives could lead to increased investments in local development projects.

Another crucial aspect to consider is the potential impact on Jharkhand’s mining competitiveness. Higher cess rates might deter new investments, with companies seeking more economically favorable locations. However, given that Jharkhand remains one of the most resource-rich states in India, the likelihood of large-scale industrial migration remains low. Moreover, if the revenue is effectively utilized to improve mining infrastructure and ease regulatory bottlenecks, the state could continue to attract investors despite the increased tax burden.

The success of this policy ultimately hinges on the state government’s efficiency in fund allocation and utilization. Transparent and accountable spending mechanisms must be established to ensure that the additional revenue genuinely benefits public welfare and economic growth. Implementing digital tracking systems for fund distribution, engaging independent auditors, and involving local communities in budget planning could enhance governance and public trust.

In conclusion, the decision to increase the cess on mineral-bearing land in Jharkhand marks a critical economic intervention with far-reaching implications. While it presents challenges, particularly in terms of potential inflation and industry response, the long-term benefits in revenue generation, infrastructure development, and healthcare enhancement outweigh the short-term hurdles. With careful policy execution, Jharkhand could leverage its natural resources more effectively, fostering sustainable economic growth and improving the quality of life for its residents.

( Author, a seasoned bilingual journalist, is an expert on Jharkhand’s sociopolitical landscape.He can be reached at pandeysanjay945@gmail.com)