·The Hindu·15 marks·250–350 wordsPolityS&T

Critically evaluate India's Programme for Prevention and Control of Leptospirosis (PPCL) in addressing state-specific and inter-state disparities in zoonotic disease burden.

In this answer
  1. Strengths in addressing disparities
  2. Persistent gaps

Leptospirosis, a bacterial zoonosis spread through rodent urine contaminating soil and water, is tackled by the NCDC-run Programme for Prevention and Control of Leptospirosis (PPCL), now covering 12 States and 2 UTs across 181 districts [1]. Its record is one of solid diagnostic groundwork undermined by uneven state capacity.

Strengths in addressing disparities

  • Endemic-state targeting: coverage of Gujarat, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, later widened to Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Odisha and West Bengal, corrects the early southern-coastal bias [1].
  • Lab network: five dedicated laboratories across Kerala, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Tamil Nadu take diagnostic capacity to weaker states [1].
  • Capacity building: hands-on trainings, national clinical guidelines and assured drug-and-diagnostic supply standardise case management [1].
  • Inter-sectoral coordination across health, veterinary and agriculture departments embeds a One Health logic [1].

Persistent gaps

  • Reported burden tracks surveillance strength, not true incidence — over half of India's leptospirosis studies come from six southern states, leaving northern endemic pockets understudied [2]. Kerala's high case count reflects aggressive logging; silence elsewhere may mean blindness, not safety.
  • Environmental surveillance is the least explored domain of zoonoses in India, so rodent-reservoir and water-interface data guiding state-specific action are thin [2].
  • Diagnosis leans on the microscopic agglutination test, with sparse molecular detection, limiting early case capture in low-capacity districts [2].
  • Weak disaster convergence: after the 2018 Kerala floods, 641 per 100,000 flood-exposed persons were infected, against a global baseline near 15 per 100,000 — PPCL lacks a flood-triggered prophylaxis protocol [3].
  • Occupational focus is thin for paddy, livestock and farm workers who bear the burden [3].

PPCL has built the scaffolding of a national zoonoses programme but still measures where it can see rather than where disease is. Converging it with IDSP-linked sentinel expansion, molecular diagnostics, environmental surveillance and a disaster-triggered chemoprophylaxis protocol under a formal One Health committee [2] would turn uneven reporting into equitable protection — advancing SDG-3's promise of health security for the last worker in the field.

Sources

  1. 1Programme for Prevention and Control of Leptospirosis — National Centre for Disease Control, MoHFWprogramme objective, 12 States + 2 UTs / 181 districts coverage, five labs, training, guidelines, inter-sectoral coordination
  2. 2Leptospirosis in India: insights on circulating serovars, research lacunae and proposed strategies to control through One Health approach (PMC, NIH)research/reporting skew to six southern states, unexplored environmental surveillance, MAT-dependent diagnosis, One Health committee proposal
  3. 3Analysing the outbreaks of leptospirosis after floods in Kerala, India (PMC, NIH)2018 flood post-exposure incidence of 641 per 100,000 vs global baseline, occupational risk groups
Practice
10 questions on this article
Check the answer for each question, or reveal all at once.
Practice MCQs →

More from this note

More on Polity