💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2-19.Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests, Indian diaspora.

  • Trump administration seeks to restrict internships for international students (CPT rules)Trump administration seeks to restrict internships for international students (CPT rules)

    Trump administration seeks to restrict internships for international students (CPT rules)Trump administration seeks to restrict internships for international students (CPT rules)

    Why in the News

    The Trump administration issued a memo, dated August 24, directing US universities to restrict Curricular Practical Training (CPT) work authorisations for international students. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), part of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said it had observed a rise in CPT authorisations that appear to violate the rule permitting CPT only where the training is an integral, curriculum-linked requirement. The memo warned that non-compliant institutions could lose certification to enrol foreign students, prompting the University of California, Los Angeles and the University of California, Berkeley to pause certain CPT applications.

    Why does the CPT restriction matter for Indian students?

    1. Indian students form a large share of the affected pool: Indian nationals are among the largest cohorts of international students in the United States, concentrated in graduate programmes in science, technology, engineering and business where CPT and its post-study counterpart, Optional Practical Training, are commonly used to gain early work experience.
    2. CPT often bridges study and full-time employment: Many international students use CPT internships to secure the practical experience and employer relationships that later translate into full-time job offers and sponsored work visas, so tighter CPT rules narrow that pathway at its earliest stage.
    3. Institutional caution creates immediate uncertainty: Universities such as UCLA and UC Berkeley pausing CPT applications while they review the guidance leaves currently enrolled students without a clear timeline for authorisations they may need for the coming term.

    Challenges the CPT tightening creates

    1. Ambiguity in what counts as curriculum-integral training: The memo does not precisely define the line between legitimate curriculum-linked internships and authorisations SEVP considers a violation, leaving universities to interpret the standard conservatively. Eg. UC Berkeley’s international office described the August 24 memo as “more narrow in focus” and “more restrictive in nature” than earlier guidance, without full clarity on the new threshold. Fix. SEVP could issue detailed, program-specific criteria for curriculum integration, developed in consultation with universities, rather than a general compliance warning.
    2. Institutional risk pushes universities toward blanket caution: Because non-compliance risks an institution’s certification to enrol any foreign student, universities have an incentive to pause CPT broadly rather than assess applications individually, even where most are legitimate. Eg. UCLA paused certain CPT authorisations altogether while it determines next steps, affecting students beyond those the memo specifically targets.

    What is Curricular Practical Training (CPT)?

    Work authorisation tied to the curriculum: Curricular Practical Training is a work authorisation available to international students on an F-1 visa that allows off-campus employment or internships considered an integral part of an established academic curriculum, distinct from Optional Practical Training, which applies mainly after a course of study is completed.

  • Can India build a strategic fuel system?

    Why in the News

    Disruptions related to West Asia have exposed a vulnerability in India’s energy security system. India imports large quantities of crude oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), but its ability to store, move and release these fuels during a prolonged disruption differs sharply by fuel. Against this, the government is considering a decade long strategic fuel programme that would add about 28 MT (million tonnes) of crude oil storage, 9 MT of LNG storage and 4 MT of LPG storage. The programme remains under consideration and should be treated as a proposed target rather than committed capacity.

    What is India’s proposed strategic fuel storage programme?

    1. Scale of the proposal: The decade long programme would add about 28 MT of crude oil storage, 9 MT of LNG storage and 4 MT of LPG storage, roughly 41 MT of combined new capacity.
    2. Purpose: The reserves are intended to provide nearly two months of crude oil and LNG demand cover and about six weeks of LPG demand cover during a prolonged supply disruption.
    3. Status: The programme remains under consideration and is a proposed target, not committed capacity.

    How much strategic fuel storage does India already have?

    1. Crude storage is the most developed: Phase I of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve provides 5.33 MT of underground capacity, with actual storage of about 3.37 MT, or roughly 63 to 64 percent utilisation, across Visakhapatnam, Mangaluru and Padur. A further 6.5 MT has been approved under Phase II at Chandikhol and Padur.
    2. Execution has lagged on Chandikhol: Work on the Chandikhol project remains slow amid ongoing land acquisition requirements and the finalisation of commercial public private partnership frameworks.
    3. LPG storage is a fraction of the proposed target: The Visakhapatnam and Mangaluru caverns together provide about 0.14 MT of capacity, so a proposed 4 MT reserve would represent roughly a thirty fold increase in underground LPG capacity.
    4. Natural gas has no underground storage at all: India currently has no operational underground gas storage facility, and its gas security instead depends on domestic production, LNG imports, import terminals, commercial inventories and pipelines.
    5. Capacity is not the same as usable inventory: A facility has a physical capacity, but the fuel it actually holds can vary, and not all inventory is immediately accessible. During a crisis, the critical measure is how much fuel is available and at what withdrawal rate it can reach consumers.

    What does the proposed 9 MT of LNG storage actually mean?

    1. Regasification capacity is not the same as strategic inventory: India already has substantial LNG import and regasification infrastructure, but a regasification terminal’s capacity to convert LNG into natural gas does not itself constitute strategic inventory.
    2. LNG storage and underground gas storage work differently: LNG is stored as a cryogenic liquid at around 162 degrees Celsius below zero, requiring specialised insulated tanks and management of boil off gas. Underground gas storage instead regasifies the LNG first and injects the resulting natural gas into a depleted reservoir or cavern.
    3. A narrower stress test already exists: A study by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) and the International Copper and Fertiliser (ICF) group examined how much additional LNG infrastructure would be needed to supply priority consumers for a stress period of 20 days by 2030, estimating a requirement of about 0.56 to 0.6 MT of LNG equivalent, achievable with roughly eight additional LNG tanks at a combined cost of about 1 billion dollars.
    4. The proposed reserve is an order of magnitude larger: Against the same study’s projection of roughly 58 MT of annual LNG imports, the proposed 9 MT works out to about 56 days of import cover, which is the basis for describing it as nearly two months of LNG import cover, not two months of India’s total gas consumption.

    Does all of India’s gas storage have to take the form of LNG tanks?

    1. A portfolio approach is possible: India could eventually use a combination of surface LNG tanks and underground natural gas storage rather than LNG tanks alone.
    2. A parallel proposal targets import terminals directly: A separate proposal from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas would require LNG import terminals to maintain storage capacity 10 percent above their normal operating requirement, with the additional capacity available to the government during supply or price disruptions.
    3. Depleted reservoirs offer the largest potential volumes: Depleted oil and gas reservoirs, which account for 74 percent of global working gas volume, could provide much larger volumes of underground gas storage, while salt caverns allow faster injection and withdrawal, making them more suited to shorter duration balancing.
    4. India has candidate geology but not yet usable storage: India’s sedimentary basins, including Krishna, Godavari, Cambay, Mumbai Offshore and Rajasthan, offer potential locations, but moving from geological potential to usable storage requires subsurface investigation, site selection, engineering, construction, testing, filling and pipeline integration. Rajasthan’s salt bearing formations have similarly been investigated for solution mined caverns, with suitability depending on depth, thickness, purity, geometry, groundwater and mechanical properties.

    What does the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve show about storage as a system?

    1. Scale achieved through salt caverns: The United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve holds an authorised capacity of 714 million barrels across 60 salt caverns.
    2. Storage works only as part of an infrastructure system: The American reserve functions as an integrated network of caverns, pipelines, marine terminals and refineries, showing that strategic storage is fundamentally an infrastructure system and not simply an underground space.

    How mature are India’s crude and LPG storage systems?

    1. Crude is the most mature component: India already operates underground crude caverns and has developed the associated engineering capabilities.
    2. LPG presents a much larger scaling challenge: LPG storage is technically proven in India, but a proposed 4 MT reserve would require a substantial network of new caverns or other storage facilities, together with import terminals, pipelines, pumping systems and bottling infrastructure.
    3. The Mangaluru cavern illustrates the complexity involved: Underground construction requires geological and hydrogeological investigation, rock mechanics analysis and groundwater management, particularly where work takes place alongside operating surface facilities.

    How is India strengthening the logistics that move fuel once it is stored?

    1. India is investing to reduce reliance on foreign shipping: State run oil refiners and the Shipping Corporation of India plan to invest 1.5 to 2 billion dollars in a joint venture to acquire 59 ships.
    2. Sourcing is being diversified too: Indian Oil is expanding sourcing through new 2027 agreements with Algeria and increased purchases from the United States, while exploring direct stakes in Very Large Gas Carriers to secure greater control over its supply chain.
    3. New pipelines are expanding delivery, not storage: The PNGRB has authorised approximately 1,800 km of new LPG pipelines across six States, involving investment of around 0.7 billion dollars. These pipelines improve connections between supply sources and inland markets and reduce dependence on road movement, but they do not themselves add strategic storage.
    4. Every storage form depends on connectivity to be useful: Underground gas storage is useful only if it can inject into and withdraw from the gas grid at the required rate. LNG tanks are useful only when regasification and downstream pipelines can move the gas onward, and LPG caverns require connections to bottling and distribution systems.

    Who pays for building and running the strategic reserves?

    1. The reported cost remains unconfirmed: A reported 42 billion dollar programme, which the government has yet to confirm, combines infrastructure capital expenditure with the cost of purchasing and maintaining strategic fuel inventories, with more than half expected to go towards storage infrastructure and the balance towards purchasing and filling the reserves.
    2. A cess has been ruled out: Financing is a genuine challenge, and the government has rejected reports that a cess would be charged to pay for the reserves.
    3. Replenishment carries its own cost and risk: Stocks released during a crisis would need to be replenished, potentially when commodity and freight prices are higher, so the policy needs to settle who owns and finances the inventory, minimum stock obligations, emergency release authority, and who bears replenishment and price risk.
    4. A mixed commercial and strategic model could ease the burden: A model that combines commercial and strategic use of the same capacity could reduce the public financing burden, provided the commercially used capacity remains available during emergencies.

    Is storage capacity alone enough for India’s energy security?

    1. Building capacity is only part of the equation: A strategic reserve is effective only if India can access the fuel, transport it inland, and replenish stocks after a release.
    2. Energy security depends on an integrated framework: Reserves buy time, shipping brings the next cargo, pipelines deliver fuel inland, and governance decides how emergency releases are executed, so the real test of the programme is its ability to coordinate all these elements at once when a crisis hits.

    Conclusion

    India’s existing storage differs sharply by fuel, with crude the most developed, LPG a limited underground footprint, and natural gas without any operational underground facility. The proposed 28 MT of crude, 9 MT of LNG and 4 MT of LPG storage would mark a major expansion, but the programme remains under consideration, and its value will depend as much on shipping, pipelines and financing arrangements as on the storage capacity itself.

    Back2Basics: Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB)

    1. Governing law: PNGRB was set up under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006.
    2. Jurisdiction: It regulates the downstream petroleum and natural gas sector, including refining, processing, storage, transport, distribution, marketing and sale of petroleum products and natural gas, excluding production and exploration.
    3. Mandate: It authorises and lays down technical and safety standards for gas and LPG pipelines and city gas distribution networks, and protects consumer interests while promoting competitive markets.
    4. Relevance here: It is the regulator behind the LPG pipeline authorisations and the LNG stress test study referenced in this item.

    [2025] “Energy security constitutes the dominant kingpin of India’s foreign policy, and is linked with India’s overarching influence in Middle Eastern countries.” How would you integrate energy security with India’s foreign policy trajectories in the coming years?”

  • $100,000 fee for H-1B: The new legal route Trump is pursuing

    $100,000 fee for H-1B: The new legal route Trump is pursuing

    Why in the News

    The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a new $103,265 fee on H-1B visa petitions, using a rulemaking route after a court struck down an earlier attempt to impose the same fee. The earlier fee had relied on a presidential proclamation, which a US court found exceeded executive authority. The administration is now pursuing the same outcome through a formal DHS rulemaking process instead. The move directly affects Indian workers, who receive the largest single-country share of H-1B visas, and sets up a tension between the United States’ stated intent to restrict low-cost skilled immigration and its technology sector’s dependence on Indian software professionals.

    What is the new legal route, and why does it matter?

    1. Rulemaking instead of proclamation: DHS is now proposing the fee through the standard federal rulemaking process, which carries stronger legal footing than a presidential proclamation but takes longer and includes a public comment period.
    2. Same fee, different vulnerability: A fee approved through rulemaking is harder to strike down in court than one imposed by proclamation, since it follows the procedure Congress has authorised for agency rule changes.

    What is the impact on Indian workers?

    1. Concentration of exposure: Indian nationals receive the largest single-country share of H-1B visas each year, so a steep new fee disproportionately raises the cost of hiring or transferring Indian technology professionals to the United States.
    2. Employer cost shift: US employers typically bear the H-1B fee, not visa applicants. The increase is likely to reduce new H-1B filings for Indian applicants rather than being absorbed by individual workers directly.

    Conclusion

    The Department of Homeland Security’s shift to a rulemaking process to reimpose the $100,000-plus H-1B fee is a more durable attempt to restrict skilled immigration than the earlier proclamation. The outcome for Indian workers now depends on the rulemaking’s public comment period and eventual finalisation, not merely a court challenge.

    Back2Basics: H-1B visa

    1. The H-1B is a US non-immigrant visa category for foreign workers in speciality occupations, typically requiring at least a bachelor’s degree in a related field.
    2. It is issued under an annual numerical cap, allocated through a lottery when applications exceed the cap.
    3. Indian nationals have consistently received the largest single-country share of H-1B approvals, concentrated in information technology roles.

    “[2023, GS2, 10 marks] Indian diaspora has scaled new heights in the West. Describe its economic and political benefits for India.”

  • US moves to codify over $100,000 H-1B visa fee via formal regulation

    Why in the News

    The United States Department of Homeland Security has formally proposed codifying an H-1B visa fee of $1.03 lakh, above $100,000, through a regular rule-making regulation, after an earlier presidential proclamation imposing the same fee level was blocked in court. Moving the fee from a presidential proclamation to a formally proposed regulation is a procedural shift meant to give the fee a firmer legal footing than a proclamation, which a US court had already found vulnerable to challenge. The change carries direct consequences for India’s technology workforce and diaspora, given how heavily Indian professionals rely on the H-1B route for US deployment.

    Why did the fee move from a presidential proclamation to a formal regulation?

    1. The original proclamation was blocked in court: The Department of Homeland Security’s earlier attempt to impose the fee through a presidential proclamation was challenged and blocked by a US court, on grounds relating to the limits of executive authority to impose such a fee without going through the standard rule-making process.
    2. A formal regulation follows a different legal process: Proposing the fee through the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment rule-making process, rather than through a proclamation, is intended to give the fee the procedural legitimacy a court is more likely to uphold.
    3. Fee level unchanged at $1.03 lakh: The proposed regulation retains the same fee level, just above $100,000, that the blocked proclamation had sought to impose.

    Why does this fee level matter for India specifically?

    1. India accounts for the largest share of H-1B beneficiaries: Indian nationals have consistently received the largest share of H-1B visas issued each year, making any structural change to the visa’s cost the single most consequential US immigration policy shift for India’s technology workforce.
    2. The fee changes the economics of onsite deployment: A fee above $100,000 per visa is large enough to change whether US technology and consulting firms find it cost-effective to bring Indian professionals onsite under H-1B status, as opposed to hiring locally or shifting the work offshore to India-based teams.
    3. Affects both large IT services firms and individual professionals: Indian information technology services companies that rely on H-1B deployment for onsite client work face a direct cost increase, while individual professionals seeking to move to the United States independently face the fee as a personal barrier to entry.

    Conclusion

    Formalising the $1.03 lakh H-1B fee through regulation, rather than through the proclamation a court already blocked, is a procedural change intended to make the fee durable against further legal challenge. If the regulation survives its own notice-and-comment and legal review process, it stands to reshape how Indian technology firms and professionals use the H-1B route going forward.

    Back2Basics: H-1B visa

    1. A non-immigrant US visa category that allows US employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations requiring a bachelor’s degree or higher in a specific field.
    2. Subject to an annual numerical cap, allocated through a lottery when applications exceed the cap, which they typically do each year.
    3. Indian nationals have historically received the largest share of H-1B visas issued annually, reflecting India’s large pool of technology and engineering professionals.
    4. Sponsoring employers must attest to paying the prevailing wage for the role, a requirement meant to prevent the visa from being used to undercut US wages.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023, GS2, 10 marks] Indian diaspora has scaled new heights in the West. Describe its economic and political benefits for India.”

  • The Mecca pact is for joint defence. Against whom?

    Why in the News

    Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan have signed a Joint Defence Agreement, referred to in this analysis as the “Mecca pact,” carrying a mutual-defence clause compared to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, under which an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. The comparison to Article 5 raises the immediate question the headline poses, against which threat the pact is actually directed, with Houthi forces, Iran, and Israel named as the candidate threats it is read against. The pact’s timing also intersects with a separate memorandum of understanding on the Iran nuclear deal, adding a second thread India has to track alongside the pact itself.

    What does the Joint Defence Agreement commit its signatories to?

    1. A mutual-defence clause modelled on collective-security logic: The agreement’s central provision commits Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan to treat an attack on any one signatory as an attack on all three, the same collective-defence logic that underlies Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty establishing NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the military alliance built around that mutual-defence guarantee among its member states).
    2. Brings together a nuclear-armed state and two major regional military powers: Pakistan’s status as a nuclear-armed state, combined with Saudi Arabia’s financial weight and Turkey’s military capacity, gives the pact a combined military profile larger than any one of the three could offer bilaterally.
    3. Formalises a defence relationship that predates the pact: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a long-standing defence relationship, including reported Saudi financial support for Pakistan’s military and nuclear programmes over past decades, which the new agreement puts into a formal, named framework.

    Against which threats is the pact actually directed?

    1. Houthi forces in Yemen: Houthi missile and drone attacks have targeted Saudi Arabia and shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden for years, making the Houthis the most immediate, active threat the pact’s signatories face along their own borders and sea lanes.
    2. Iran, as the region’s other major military power: Saudi Arabia’s regional rivalry with Iran, sharpened further by the 2026 US-Israel strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, gives Saudi Arabia reason to seek a codified defence guarantee involving Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent.
    3. Israel, given the pact’s timing after West Asia’s 2026 escalation: The pact follows a period of intense regional escalation involving Israel, Iran, and Iran-backed proxies, a context in which any new Gulf-Pakistan defence arrangement is inevitably read partly through an Israel lens even without an explicit reference to it.

    How does the pact intersect with the separate Iran nuclear deal memorandum of understanding?

    1. Parallel track on Iran’s nuclear programme: A separate memorandum of understanding addressing Iran’s nuclear programme is under discussion around the same period as the Mecca pact, giving the region two live tracks, a defence pact among Sunni-aligned states and a nuclear negotiation track involving Iran, that could pull regional alignments in different directions depending on how each concludes.
    2. Pact could complicate, or could reinforce, de-escalation efforts: A formal defence pact perceived as directed at Iran could harden Tehran’s position in the parallel nuclear talks, or it could give Saudi Arabia the security assurance needed to support a negotiated outcome rather than an escalatory one.

    What does the pact mean for India?

    1. Pakistan gains a codified Saudi and Turkish security backer: A mutual-defence commitment involving Pakistan changes the calculus of any future India-Pakistan military confrontation, since an escalation with Pakistan could now, at least in principle, draw a response from Saudi Arabia or Turkey under the pact’s terms.
    2. Turkey’s inclusion adds a NATO-member dimension: Turkey’s own NATO membership means a pact linking a NATO member’s mutual-defence commitment to Pakistan introduces an additional layer of complexity into how India reads any future crisis involving Pakistan.
    3. India’s own West Asia relationships face a balancing test: India maintains a Special Strategic Partnership with both Saudi Arabia and Israel and a distinct, cooperative relationship with Iran; a pact that positions Saudi Arabia more explicitly within a defence framework alongside Pakistan tests India’s ability to keep engaging all three without one relationship undercutting another.

    Conclusion

    The Mecca pact’s Article 5-style mutual-defence clause is read here as most plausibly directed at the combination of Houthi forces and Iran, with Israel present in the background given the region’s 2026 escalation, rather than at any single named adversary. For India, the pact’s most consequential feature is not who it targets but that it gives Pakistan a codified Saudi and Turkish security backer, a shift India’s own West Asia balancing act will now have to account for.

    India and West Asia

    1. About: West Asia, encompassing the Gulf Cooperation Council states, Iran, and Israel, is a region where India pursues parallel Special Strategic Partnerships with rival powers, a policy sometimes described as India’s “de-hyphenation” approach to the region.
    2. Energy and economic weight: The region supplies close to 60 percent of India’s crude oil and about 70 percent of its LPG and LNG needs, and the Gulf Cooperation Council bloc was India’s largest trading-partner bloc in 2024-25 at $178 billion in bilateral trade.
    3. Diaspora and remittance stakes: Roughly 9 to 10 million Indians live and work across West Asia, a diaspora whose remittances form a major share of India’s total inward remittance flows.
    4. Strategic connectivity stakes: The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and Iran’s Chabahar Port both depend on regional stability, giving India a direct interest in how any new defence alignment in the region affects that stability.

    Challenges in India’s West Asia policy

    1. Regional volatility complicates strategic autonomy: Escalating conflicts, most recently the 2026 US-Israel strikes on Iran and Iran’s retaliatory closure of the Strait of Hormuz, force India to react to swings in the region’s security situation that it does not control. Eg. Nearly 700 Indian seafarers were reported stranded near the Strait of Hormuz during the 2026 crisis. Fix. Maintain standing evacuation and diplomatic-contingency protocols for Indian nationals and shipping specific to a Hormuz or Red Sea closure scenario.
    2. Energy import dependence leaves India exposed to regional shocks: India imports roughly 85 percent of its crude oil needs, a significant share from West Asia, exposing it directly to price spikes and supply disruption from regional conflict. Eg. Brent crude crossed $120 a barrel during the 2026 Hormuz blockade. Fix. Accelerate diversification of crude and LNG sourcing alongside continued build-out of strategic petroleum reserves.
    3. A new Pakistan-linked defence pact narrows India’s room with Saudi Arabia: A formal Saudi-Pakistan-Turkey defence agreement puts a security commitment to Pakistan inside the same framework as India’s own strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia. Eg. Saudi Arabia has historically also provided financial support tied to Pakistan’s defence establishment. Fix. Use the India-Saudi Strategic Partnership Council to seek explicit reassurance that the pact’s mutual-defence clause is not read as extending to an India-Pakistan contingency.
    4. Connectivity projects remain hostage to regional conflict: IMEC’s viability depends on a stable transit route through West Asia, and continuing conflict renders the corridor commercially non-viable in the near term. Eg. The corridor’s planned Israel-linked Mediterranean leg is directly exposed to any renewed Israel-related escalation. Fix. Prioritise near-term investment in the corridor’s less conflict-exposed segments, such as Gulf-to-India maritime links, while the land-transit leg remains unviable.
    5. Balancing three rival partnerships simultaneously: India’s parallel Special Strategic Partnerships with Saudi Arabia and Israel, alongside its distinct cooperative ties with Iran, require continuous diplomatic management to prevent one relationship’s demands from constraining another. Eg. India’s Chabahar Port investment in Iran periodically runs up against US sanctions pressure tied to India’s separate ties with Washington. Fix. Seek issue-specific, sanctions-compliant carve-outs for Chabahar-related transactions, as India has previously secured for humanitarian trade with Iran.

    Back2Basics: Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty

    1. The provision of the North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, under which an armed attack against any one member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is treated as an attack against all members, triggering a collective self-defence response.
    2. Has been formally invoked only once in NATO’s history, following the September 2001 attacks on the United States.
    3. Serves as the reference model against which other mutual-defence clauses, including the one in the Saudi-Turkey-Pakistan Joint Defence Agreement, are commonly compared.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 10 marks] With the waning of globalization, post-Cold War world is becoming a site of sovereign nationalism. Elucidate.”

  • Trump’s Kim gambit deepens doubts among Asian allies over U.S. reliability

    Why in the News

    The United States has scaled down joint military drills with South Korea, held back a Taiwan arms sale, and renamed its Indo-Pacific Command to Pacific Command, moves that together are prompting Asian allies, including India, to grow markedly more cautious about defence deals with Washington. Each of these steps individually could be explained on its own terms, but taken together they read as a broader recalibration of how far the United States is willing to commit to its Asian security partnerships, a question with direct consequences for any country structuring its own defence planning around US supply and support.

    What are the specific steps raising doubts about US reliability?

    1. Scaled-down joint drills with South Korea: The United States has reduced the scope of its joint military exercises with South Korea, a long-standing alliance partner, a step that signals reduced day-to-day military engagement even where the formal alliance commitment remains in place.
    2. A held-back Taiwan arms sale: An arms sale to Taiwan has been held back rather than proceeding on the schedule Taiwan’s own defence planning had anticipated, raising questions about how firmly the United States intends to back Taiwan’s deterrence posture.
    3. Renaming of Indo-Pacific Command to Pacific Command: The renaming drops the explicit reference to the Indo-Pacific framing that has anchored US strategic messaging toward India and South East Asia in recent years, a symbolic shift that regional partners are reading as a substantive one.

    Why does this affect India specifically?

    1. India has been expanding defence cooperation with the United States: India’s defence relationship with the United States has deepened through agreements such as the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) and joint technology initiatives, cooperation premised on the United States being a dependable long-term supplier and partner.
    2. Reliability concerns raise the cost of dependence on any single supplier: A partner State that appears to be recalibrating its regional commitments gives India reason to weigh diversifying defence procurement and technology partnerships rather than deepening reliance on the United States alone.
    3. Fits a broader pattern of transactional US engagement: The Taiwan and South Korea moves are being read in the region as consistent with a more transactional US approach to its security commitments generally, rather than as isolated, country-specific decisions.

    Conclusion

    The cumulative effect of scaled-down South Korea drills, a held-back Taiwan arms sale, and the Indo-Pacific Command’s renaming is a regional perception that US security commitments in Asia are less assured than they were, a perception India and other regional partners are factoring into how much they now diversify away from reliance on Washington alone. How the United States responds to this perception, through renewed reassurance or further recalibration, will shape the pace of that diversification.

    Back2Basics: Indo-Pacific Command

    1. The United States’ unified combatant command responsible for military operations across the Indo-Pacific region, previously named Pacific Command before being renamed Indo-Pacific Command in 2018 to reflect India’s growing strategic weight in US regional planning.
    2. Covers the geographic area from the west coast of the United States to the western border of India, encompassing the bulk of the Indo-Pacific theatre.
    3. Its 2018 renaming was itself read as a signal of the “Indo-Pacific” framing’s rise in US strategic vocabulary, making any reversal of that name symbolically significant.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 10 marks] With the waning of globalization, post-Cold War world is becoming a site of sovereign nationalism. Elucidate.”

  • Kurdish-led SDF integrates into Syrian state, ending years of de facto autonomy

    Why in the News

    The head of the Kurdish led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced on 20 August 2026 that the force is being integrated into the Syrian state. The announcement completes a deal signed after clashes in January. That deal folds Kurdish military and civilian institutions into state structures. The force was the de facto army of the Kurds’ autonomous administration in northern and northeastern Syria and had been backed by Washington since its creation. Its dissolution ends years of de facto Kurdish autonomy and marks a major consolidation of control by the government in Damascus. What is unresolved is the mechanism of integration itself, which the announcement did not describe.

    Who are the Syrian Democratic Forces?

    1. A United States backed force created in 2015: The SDF was formed at the instigation of the United States. Washington was impressed by the Kurdish fighters who had defeated the Islamic State (IS) group at Kobane in the north. Washington was also seeking a reliable partner against the jihadists.
    2. Who it was composed of: It brought together Kurds and Arabs under one command and amassed around 1,00,000 fighters at its peak.
    3. What it controlled: It held swathes of Syria’s oil rich north and northeast as the armed wing of the Kurds’ autonomous administration.
    4. Its standing among Syrian forces: It was Syria’s most highly trained and organised force for years.

    What are the People’s Protection Units (YPG)?

    1. The Kurdish core of the SDF: The YPG is the Kurdish militia at the centre of the SDF, with some 30,000 members, alongside the all female Women’s Protection Units.
    2. Its origins: The YPG was formed in 2011 by veterans of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. One of those veterans later headed the SDF.

    What is the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)?

    1. A Kurdish militant organisation based in Turkey: The PKK waged a decades long insurgency against the Turkish state and is the organisation Ankara treats the Syrian Kurdish forces as an extension of.
    2. Its formal renunciation of violence: Following a call by its jailed leader, the PKK formally renounced its armed struggle against Turkey in May last year, drawing a line under four decades of violence that claimed some 50,000 lives.

    How did the force become the ground army against the Islamic State?

    1. It led the campaign rather than supporting it: The SDF spearheaded the battle against the Islamic State after its formation.
    2. When that campaign ended: The group was defeated territorially in Syria four years after the SDF was created.
    3. What the campaign bought the Kurds: Being the West’s ground partner against the jihadists is what converted a militia into an internationally supported administration holding territory.

    What sequence of losses brought the force to the integration deal?

    1. The January clashes: Kurdish forces lost large chunks of territory to government troops in clashes in January. The two sides then signed a deal to integrate Kurdish military and civilian institutions into the state.
    2. The loss of two provinces: Arabs within the SDF’s ranks defected en masse after the Syrian President’s army took control of Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, both previously Kurdish held.
    3. The resulting strength: Those defections left the force at half the strength it had before, according to a Syria specialist cited on the numbers.

    What does the January agreement require of the force?

    1. Expulsion of foreign cadre: The agreement stipulates that the SDF commit to expelling all non Syrian PKK leaders and members from the country.
    2. Why a small number matters: Their numbers are estimated in the hundreds to low thousands, and they have held significant influence in command and administrative roles.
    3. What the SDF chief acknowledged: He accepted that thousands of young Kurdish men and women from other parts of Kurdistan, meaning areas of Iran, Iraq and Turkey, had supported the force.
    4. What he said had already happened: Those forces withdrew at the SDF’s request and according to a practical plan, which he described as the beginning of a new phase in the region.

    Why has Turkey treated the force as a security threat?

    1. Repeated cross border operations: The Kurdish force faced repeated Turkish invasions between 2016 and 2019, with Ankara stating that it wanted to push these fighters away from its border.
    2. The organisational link Ankara asserts: Turkey has long viewed the SDF as linked to the PKK. The SDF denies the link, and analysts hold that the PKK directs the YPG behind the scenes.
    3. Why the expulsion clause is central: Removing non Syrian cadre is the condition that addresses Ankara’s stated objection without requiring a Turkish operation.

    Is integration a settlement or the end of Kurdish leverage?

    1. The mechanism was left unstated: The SDF chief did not mention the mechanism by which the force and the Kurdish security forces were integrated into the ranks of the Syrian state, after months of wrangling between the two sides.
    2. How the outcome is read: A Washington based expert on the Kurds described dissolution as a bitter end that marks the end of Kurdish strength in Syria.
    3. What changed the balance: The Kurds had long dreamt of autonomy before the 2024 fall of Bashar al-Assad, and that fall saw Washington drop them in favour of the new authorities in Damascus.
    4. Who gains: The integration is a major victory for the Syrian President. He has been working to cement control over all of Syria since the ouster of his predecessor.

    Conclusion

    The most capable non state force in Syria has agreed to dissolve into the state that it spent a decade holding territory against, and the Kurdish claim to autonomy has been settled in favour of central control. The immediate status is an announced integration with the mechanism undisclosed and the expulsion of non Syrian cadre still to be verified. What remains unresolved is whether Kurdish rights are protected inside the Syrian state now that the leverage that secured them has been given up.

    West Asia and India’s Stakes in the Region

    1. Energy dependence: The region supplies nearly 60 percent of India’s crude oil and about 70 percent of its liquefied petroleum gas and liquefied natural gas requirements.
    2. The diaspora: Around 10 million Indians live and work across West Asia, and the region contributes roughly 38 percent of India’s global remittances.
    3. Trade weight: India’s trade with the Gulf Cooperation Council stood at 178 billion dollars in 2024-25, making the bloc India’s largest trading partner grouping.
    4. The security spillover: Instability in Syria, Yemen and Iraq creates vacuums that transnational terror groups exploit, which is how a distant civil conflict becomes an Indian security concern.

    Key Facts about the Kurds

    1. The largest stateless people: The Kurds number an estimated 25 to 35 million and are spread across Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, with no state of their own.
    2. The promise that lapsed: The Treaty of Sevres of 1920 envisaged a Kurdish state, and the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 that replaced it dropped the provision.
    3. Autonomy in Iraq: The Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq is a constitutionally recognised autonomous region with its own parliament and security forces.

    Challenges in West Asia’s Conflict Zones

    1. State fragility outlasts the fighting: Collapsed administrations cannot deliver services even after a ceasefire holds. Eg. The war has pushed Lebanon and Syria towards state collapse, with millions of new refugees moving towards Jordan and Turkey. Fix. Sequence reconstruction finance against verified restoration of civil administration rather than against political settlements alone.
    2. Territorial defeat does not end an insurgency: Militant organisations survive in detention camps, sleeper networks and ungoverned desert. Eg. Thousands of Islamic State fighters and their families remain in camps in northeastern Syria under uncertain custody. Fix. Agree an international framework for repatriation, prosecution and rehabilitation of foreign fighters and their dependants.
    3. Energy chokepoints transmit conflict to distant economies: A blockade at a strait converts a regional war into a global price shock. Eg. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz during the 2026 crisis pushed Brent crude past 120 dollars a barrel. Fix. Build supply routes that bypass the Gulf and hold strategic petroleum reserves sized to a full quarter of imports.
    4. External patrons keep local conflicts running: Rival outside powers arm competing factions, so a war outlasts the local balance of forces. Eg. The Yemen conflict has run since 2015 on Iranian backing for the Houthis against a Saudi led coalition. Fix. Tie arms transfer approvals to compliance with a monitored ceasefire rather than to the patron’s own interest.
    5. Upstream water control converts scarcity into leverage: Dam building on shared rivers gives one riparian state control over the flows another receives. Eg. Turkey’s Southeastern Anatolia Project has cut Euphrates flows reaching Syria and Iraq. Fix. Negotiate a binding basin wide allocation treaty with a joint monitoring body.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2018] Consider the following pairs : Towns sometimes mentioned in news | Country 1. Aleppo – Syria 2. Kirkuk – Yemen 3. Mosul – Palestine 4. Mazar-i-sharif – Afghanistan Which of the pairs given above are correctly matched? (a) 1 and 2 (b) 1 and 4 (c) 2 and 3 (d) 3 and 4 ANSWER: (b)”

  • US: Will impose toughest sanctions in history on Iran

    Why in the News

    The United States Treasury Secretary announced on 20 August 2026 that Washington will impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran, to be layered on an existing naval blockade, with the stated objective of collapsing the Iranian government. The United States President separately warned that any country whose financial institutions, businesses, airports or government entities provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face economic consequences. That warning converts a bilateral war into a compliance problem for every third country that trades with Iran.

    What are secondary sanctions?

    1. Definition: Secondary sanctions penalise persons and firms in third countries for dealing with a sanctioned state, even where that dealing is lawful in their own jurisdiction. They extend a national measure into an extraterritorial one.
    2. How they bite: The penalty is exclusion, since a firm that trades with the target loses access to the sanctioning state’s financial system, markets and correspondent banking.
    3. Why the currency matters: Their reach depends on the sanctioning state’s currency being used for settlement, which is why United States measures affect countries that have no dispute with Washington.

    What is a naval blockade?

    1. Definition: A naval blockade is the use of warships to prevent vessels entering or leaving a state’s ports or coastline. It operates through force, unlike sanctions, which operate through law and financial exclusion.

    What does the announced sanctions package actually threaten?

    1. Stated severity: The United States Treasury Secretary said Washington will impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran.
    2. Combination with the blockade: He described the approach as combining the existing blockade on Iran with the new sanctions, rather than replacing one with the other.
    3. Stated objective: He said the approach would work in Iran and that Washington was going to collapse the government there.
    4. Announced framing: The United States President promised economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale, although details were scant.
    5. Detail still pending: The Treasury Secretary said he would hold a press conference on Monday to set out the specifics.

    Why does the lifeline warning make this a problem for third countries?

    1. The categories named: The warning covers any country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran.
    2. The threatened consequence: Such a country would itself face economic consequences, stated as tremendous in scale.
    3. The timing: The warning was issued on Wednesday, ahead of the sanctions announcement, which places third countries on notice before the measures are published.
    4. Breadth of the categories: Airports and government entities extend the threat beyond banking to transport and to state to state dealings.
    5. Absence of a threshold: No minimum value or category of transaction was specified, so the scope of what counts as a lifeline remains undefined.

    Why have the two ceasefires failed to hold?

    1. Origin of the war: The United States began the war alongside Israel nearly six months before the sanctions announcement.
    2. Two attempts: The United States and Iran twice announced ceasefire deals, in April and in June.
    3. Their stated purpose: Both aimed to restore the free flow of shipping through Hormuz as a path towards ending the conflict.
    4. Both collapsed: Both deals quickly crumbled, even as Israel largely withdrew from the fighting.
    5. Leadership transition in Tehran: A 40 day commemoration ceremony for the former Iranian Supreme Leader was held in Karbala on 20 August 2026, attended by Iran’s Parliament Speaker.

    What is Iran’s counter-position?

    1. Characterisation of the measures: Iran’s foreign ministry condemned the fresh United States economic and trade sanctions, saying they targeted ordinary Iranians.
    2. The legal charge: The ministry described the measures as economic terrorism and as crimes against humanity.
    3. Attribution of motive: The Iranian Foreign Minister called the announcement an attempt to divert American public opinion from domestic financial problems, including record debt and rising interest rates.
    4. The wider claim: He argued that American economic terrorism threatens the global economy and the national sovereignty of countries around the world.
    5. The retained lever: Tehran continues its own economic pressure campaign by keeping the Strait of Hormuz largely closed.

    Why has Oman become the pivot of the Hormuz question?

    1. A separate negotiation: Iran has been negotiating an agreement on managing the Strait of Hormuz with Oman, and has said several times in recent weeks that an agreement was close.
    2. The American response: The United States President responded to those negotiations on Monday by warning that he might bomb the Gulf state if it gets in the way.
    3. The anomaly in that threat: Oman is a longstanding United States security partner, which makes the threat a warning to an ally rather than to an adversary.
    4. Oman’s stated position: The Omani Foreign Minister said lasting security in the strait required a permanent peace in the region and rejected further escalation.
    5. Its diplomatic posture: He made the statement after meeting his Japanese counterpart, which places the strait’s management within a wider set of energy importing interests.

    What does the escalation mean for India?

    1. Energy route exposure: A large share of India’s crude, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) imports transits the Strait of Hormuz, so the strait’s closure raises India’s landed energy costs regardless of who supplies the cargo.
    2. Precedent of forced exit: India stopped importing Iranian crude in May 2019 after United States waivers under the sanctions regime lapsed, ending what had been one of its largest supply relationships.
    3. Connectivity investment at risk: India signed a ten year contract in May 2024 to operate the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar port in Iran, an asset whose viability depends on the sanctions environment.
    4. Corridor implications: The International North South Transport Corridor to Russia and Central Asia runs through Iranian territory, so secondary sanctions affect a route India built to bypass Pakistan.
    5. Existing exposure to secondary measures: India has already navigated the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, 2017 over its purchase of the S-400 air defence system, which shows the compliance question is not new.

    Challenges to a sanctions-led approach

    1. Poor record at producing regime change: Comprehensive sanctions rarely dislodge governments and often consolidate them. Eg. Cuba has been under a United States embargo since 1962 without a change of political system.
    2. Humanitarian burden falls on civilians: Restrictions on banking and shipping obstruct food and medicine even when formally exempted. Eg. Iran’s foreign ministry stated that the measures targeted ordinary Iranians and amounted to crimes against humanity.
    3. Evasion through parallel networks: Targets build shadow fleets, front companies and barter arrangements that blunt enforcement. Eg. United States sanctions on Hezbollah have repeatedly targeted courier networks and exchange houses used as fronts for cash movement.
    4. Erosion of the sanctioning currency’s role: Extraterritorial reach pushes third countries to settle trade outside the dollar. Eg. India has implemented the Special Rupee Vostro Account framework for invoicing, payment and settlement of international trade in rupees.
    5. Alliance friction: Threats against partners weaken the coalition needed for enforcement. Eg. The United States President warned he might bomb Oman, a longstanding American security partner, over its Hormuz negotiations with Iran.
    6. Counter escalation by the target: A sanctioned state with a chokepoint can impose costs on the sanctioning coalition’s own economies. Eg. Iran keeps the Strait of Hormuz largely closed, which carries 20 percent of global oil and 20 percent of global LNG.
    7. Legal contestation of extraterritoriality: Third states dispute the authority of one country to regulate transactions between two others. Eg. The European Union’s Blocking Statute was updated in 1996 and again in 2018 to shield European firms from United States extraterritorial sanctions on Iran.

    Conclusion

    The United States has moved from military coercion to declared economic warfare against Iran, pairing an existing naval blockade with sanctions described as the toughest in history and aimed openly at collapsing the government in Tehran. The lifeline warning extends the measures to third countries, while Iran retains its own lever by keeping the Strait of Hormuz largely closed and negotiating its management with Oman. The next milestone is the United States Treasury Secretary’s announced press conference on Monday setting out the details, with the Iran Oman understanding on the strait the other outstanding variable.

    About Economic Statecraft

    1. About: Economic statecraft is the use of economic instruments, positive and negative, to change another state’s behaviour without resorting to force.
    2. Rationale: It exists because military action is costly and diplomatic protest is weak, so states seek an intermediate instrument that imposes real cost while remaining below the threshold of war.
    3. Positive inducements: Aid, trade preferences, market access and investment offered to secure a policy change.
    4. Comprehensive sanctions: Blanket restrictions on trade and finance with an entire economy, which impose broad cost but weak targeting.
    5. Targeted or smart sanctions: Asset freezes, travel bans and entity listings aimed at named individuals, firms and sectors, designed to spare the general population.
    6. Primary sanctions: Prohibitions binding on the sanctioning state’s own persons, firms and jurisdiction.
    7. Secondary sanctions: Penalties on third country persons for dealing with the target, which give a national measure global reach.
    8. Multilateral sanctions: Measures mandated by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII, binding on all member states.

    Key Concerns Regarding Economic Statecraft

    1. Sovereignty and extraterritoriality: Secondary sanctions require states to enforce another state’s foreign policy inside their own jurisdiction. Eg. The French bank BNP Paribas paid about $8.9 billion to United States authorities in 2014 for processing transactions involving Sudan, Iran and Cuba.
    2. Humanitarian spillover: Financial de-risking by banks blocks exempted humanitarian trade because compliance officers avoid any exposure to a sanctioned jurisdiction. Eg. The Swiss Humanitarian Trade Arrangement was created in 2020 because ordinary banking channels would not carry payments for food and medicine to Iran.
    3. Fragmentation of the payments system: Repeated use of currency dominance as leverage accelerates the construction of alternative settlement channels and reduces future leverage. Eg. Russia built the System for Transfer of Financial Messages in 2014 as a domestic substitute for international bank messaging channels.
    4. Weak exit mechanism: Sanctions are politically easy to impose and hard to lift, so they persist beyond the objective they were designed to achieve. Eg. The Jackson Vanik amendment of 1974 remained applicable to Russia until its repeal in 2012, long after the emigration restrictions it targeted had ended.
    5. Measurement problem: There is no agreed method to establish that a policy change was caused by sanctions rather than by other pressures, which makes evaluation contested. Eg. Iranian oil exports fell sharply after the reimposition of sanctions in 2018 while the nuclear programme expanded, leaving both outcomes attributed to the same measures.

    Laws and Instruments Governing Sanctions

    1. Charter of the United Nations, 1945: Article 41 empowers the Security Council to decide measures not involving the use of armed force, including complete or partial interruption of economic relations, which are binding on all member states.
    2. International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 1977: The principal United States statute allowing the President to declare a national emergency and regulate or block transactions with foreign persons.
    3. Iran Sanctions Act, 1996: Originally the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, it introduced penalties on foreign firms investing in Iran’s energy sector, establishing the secondary sanctions template.
    4. Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, 2010: Widened the reach of energy sector sanctions and brought refined petroleum supply to Iran within their scope.
    5. Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, 2017: Codified sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea and limited the President’s discretion to waive them.

    India’s Measures to Manage Sanctions and Energy Risk

    1. Special Rupee Vostro Account framework: A Reserve Bank of India mechanism for invoicing, payment and settlement of international trade in rupees, reducing dependence on third currency settlement.
    2. Chabahar port agreement: A ten year contract signed in May 2024 to operate the Shahid Beheshti terminal, giving India a sea route to Afghanistan and Central Asia that bypasses Pakistan.
    3. International North South Transport Corridor: A multimodal ship, rail and road route linking India to Russia and Central Asia through Iran, shortening transit time against the Suez route.
    4. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Underground crude caverns at Visakhapatnam, Mangaluru and Padur operated by Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited to cushion supply interruptions.
    5. Supplier diversification: Term and spot procurement spread across Russian, West Asian, West African and American grades to reduce dependence on any single sanctioned or chokepoint dependent source.

    Key Facts about United States Iran Relations

    1. 1979 Islamic Revolution: Ended the monarchy and was followed by the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran and the severing of diplomatic relations.
    2. 1984 designation: The United States designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, which triggered a standing set of trade and aid restrictions.
    3. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, 2015: Concluded in July 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 group, it limited Iran’s enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief.
    4. 2018 withdrawal: The United States withdrew from the agreement in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions under a maximum pressure strategy.
    5. India’s exit from Iranian crude: India ended imports of Iranian crude oil in May 2019 after United States waivers expired.
    6. Strait of Hormuz weight: The strait carries about 20 million barrels of oil a day, 20 percent of global oil and 20 percent of global LNG.

    Back2Basics: Strait of Hormuz

    1. Designation: A maritime chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea.
    2. Littoral states: Iran lies on the northern shore and controls seven of the eight islands in the strait, while Oman controls the southern entrance through the Musandam exclave.
    3. External presence: The United States Fifth Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain, acts as the external guarantor of transit through the strait.
    4. Energy weight: It carries the highest concentration of energy flow of any chokepoint in the world.
    5. Comparative chokepoints: The Strait of Malacca carries 23.7 percent of global seaborne trade and 80 percent of China’s energy imports, Bab el Mandeb carries 8.7 percent of global trade as the sole southern gateway to the Suez Canal, and the Suez Canal itself carries 12 percent of global maritime commerce with closure adding 9 to 17 sailing days.

    Challenges in the West Asian Security and Energy Order

    1. Chokepoint dependence with no land alternative: Pipeline bypasses cover only a fraction of the volume that moves by sea. Eg. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz affects 20 million barrels a day, which no existing pipeline network can absorb.
    2. Non state armed actors controlling shorelines: Sea lanes can be closed by groups that hold coastline without holding a state. Eg. The Houthis control the eastern Yemeni shore of Bab el Mandeb in practice.
    3. Proxy networks that survive sanctions on the principal: Financial pressure on a state does not disable the armed groups it funds. Eg. The United States redesignated Hezbollah for service to the Iranian government under the command of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force.
    4. Overlapping external guarantors: Multiple outside powers with competing objectives raise the risk of miscalculation. Eg. The United States threatened to strike Oman over its Hormuz talks while relying on Omani mediation with Iran.
    5. Absence of a regional security architecture: There is no equivalent of a regional organisation with dispute settlement authority for the Gulf. Eg. The management of the Strait of Hormuz is being negotiated bilaterally between Iran and Oman rather than through any regional body.
    6. Energy revenue concentration in importing economies: Importing states have limited fiscal room to absorb a price shock. Eg. Every $1 per barrel increase raises India’s oil import bill by up to $2 billion on an annualised basis.
    7. Recognition and legitimacy disputes: Contested political authority complicates any negotiated settlement. Eg. Iran’s own leadership transition was marked by a 40 day commemoration for the former Supreme Leader in August 2026.

    Way Forward

    1. Seek carve outs early rather than after listing: India should engage the United States Treasury on humanitarian, food and connectivity carve outs before the sanctions text is notified.
    2. Protect the Chabahar exemption: Press for the continuation of the project specific exemption that has allowed the Shahid Beheshti terminal to operate, given its Afghanistan and Central Asia connectivity function.
    3. Accelerate non dollar settlement channels: Expand the Special Rupee Vostro Account framework and rupee invoicing so that legitimate trade is not hostage to correspondent banking access.
    4. Diversify the maritime route, not only the supplier: Build term contracts with Atlantic basin and West African producers whose cargoes do not transit Hormuz.
    5. Support de-escalation through the Oman channel: Back a negotiated framework for managing the strait, since reopening it does more for importing economies than any adjustment to sanctions design.
    6. Insulate the corridor investments: Structure International North South Transport Corridor participation through non sanctioned entities and multilateral instruments to limit exposure.
    7. Build reserve depth ahead of escalation: Complete Phase II of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that a sanctions driven supply interruption does not translate immediately into a price shock.

    “[2018, GS2, 15] In what ways would the ongoing US-Iran Nuclear Pact Controversy affect the national interest of India? How should India respond to this situation?”

  • Iran war pushes India’s oil & gas import bill up 43%

    Why in the News

    India’s net oil and gas imports rose 43.4 percent in value in April to July of the current financial year, to $57.8 billion from $40.3 billion a year earlier. Import volumes barely moved, so the increase is almost entirely a price effect created by supply tightness and stifled energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz. With 88.3 percent of crude requirement met by imports, India has prioritised supply security over price, and the cost of that choice lands on the trade balance.

    What are net oil and gas imports?

    1. How the figure is built: Net oil and gas imports are arrived at by deducting petroleum product exports from oil, natural gas and petroleum product imports.
    2. Why the deduction matters: India is a net exporter of petroleum products because of its refining capacity, so gross import figures overstate the true external drain.
    3. What it still includes: India also imports some petroleum products, notably liquefied petroleum gas, so the netting does not remove product imports entirely.
    4. Why it is the tracked number: It measures the actual foreign exchange outgo on energy, which is what feeds into the trade balance and the current account.

    What is the Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell?

    1. What it is: The Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell (PPAC) is the data and analysis body under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. It compiles India’s official import, consumption, production and pricing statistics for petroleum and natural gas.

    What is liquefied natural gas?

    1. What it is: Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is natural gas, primarily methane, cooled to minus 162 degrees C so that it becomes liquid and can be shipped in cryogenic carriers. It must be regasified at a terminal in the importing country before use.
    2. How it is priced: Spot LNG in Asia is priced against the Japan Korea Marker, with Henry Hub and the Title Transfer Facility serving the American and European markets.

    What is liquefied petroleum gas?

    1. What it is: Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is propane and butane, produced as a byproduct of oil refining or natural gas processing, and used for domestic cooking, industrial heating and autogas.
    2. How it is priced: It is priced against the Saudi Aramco Contract Price, which is loosely linked to Brent crude.

    Why did the import bill rise 43 percent when volumes barely moved?

    1. Volumes were nearly flat: Oil and LNG imports were only marginally higher in volume terms across April to July.
    2. Crude price did the work: The average landed price of imported crude was about $106 per barrel in April to July, sharply higher than about $68 per barrel in the corresponding period of last year.
    3. Value rose without volume: The crude oil import bill surged by over 56 percent year on year to $63.4 billion even as volumes rose only slightly, to 81.9 million tonnes or about 600 million barrels, from 81.5 million tonnes.
    4. The stated priority: India has been prioritising supply security over price considerations, so it imported at extremely high rates rather than curtail volumes.
    5. Product trade moved the same way: Petroleum product export volumes fell while export value rose, and product import volumes fell faster than product import value, both reflecting high international prices.

    How did each component of the energy trade basket move?

    1. Crude oil imports, volume: 81.9 million tonnes against 81.5 million tonnes a year earlier, a rise of 0.5 percent.
    2. Crude oil imports, value: $63.4 billion against $40.5 billion, a rise of 56.5 percent.
    3. Petroleum product imports, volume: 9.0 million tonnes against 16.4 million tonnes, a fall of 45.1 percent.
    4. Petroleum product imports, value: $5.6 billion against $7.6 billion, a fall of 26.3 percent.
    5. LNG imports, volume: 11,867 million standard cubic metres against 11,269 million standard cubic metres, a rise of 5.3 percent.
    6. LNG imports, value: $5.6 billion against $4.5 billion, a rise of 24.4 percent.
    7. Petroleum product exports, volume: 16.5 million tonnes against 20.1 million tonnes, a fall of 17.9 percent.
    8. Petroleum product exports, value: $16.7 billion against $12.4 billion, a rise of 34.7 percent.
    9. Net oil and gas imports: $57.8 billion against $40.3 billion, a rise of 43.4 percent.

    How exposed is India’s energy basket to the Strait of Hormuz?

    1. Crude dependence: India depends on imports to meet over 88 percent of its crude oil requirement, and its dependence on imported oil for the four months ended July was 88.3 percent, almost flat year on year.
    2. Gas dependence: About half of India’s natural gas consumption is met by imports, brought in as LNG.
    3. Share routed through the strait: Around 40 percent of India’s crude oil imports, 60 percent of its LNG imports and 90 percent of its LPG imports came from West Asia through the strait.
    4. Where the disruption showed: Petroleum product imports declined 45.1 percent in volume to 9.0 million tonnes because supply of major products India imports, such as LPG, was hit by the West Asia conflict.
    5. Why exports fell: India’s petroleum product export volumes fell almost 18 percent year on year to 16.5 million tonnes as domestic fuel supplies were prioritised amid the global supply crunch.

    Why does an oil price shock transmit into the wider economy?

    1. The volume multiplier: India annually imports 1.8 to 2 billion barrels of oil, so every $1 per barrel increase raises the oil import bill by up to $2 billion on an annualised basis.
    2. Share of total imports: Energy imports are a major component of India’s overall imports, so any meaningful increase moves the aggregate import number.
    3. Trade balance and current account: A higher energy bill widens the merchandise trade deficit and feeds directly into the current account deficit.
    4. Inflation channel: Higher landed crude costs pass into transport and freight costs and into the prices of petroleum linked goods.
    5. Exchange rate channel: A larger dollar outgo on energy adds to demand for foreign exchange and weighs on the rupee’s exchange rate.

    Challenges to managing India’s oil and gas import bill

    1. Demand is price inelastic in the short run: Refiners cannot cut crude intake without cutting fuel supply, so a price shock passes straight into the bill. Eg. Crude import volumes rose 0.5 percent even as the crude bill rose 56.5 percent in April to July.
    2. Concentration of LPG sourcing: A single region supplies almost the entire LPG import basket, leaving no substitute route in a disruption. Eg. The West Asian share of India’s LPG imports moves entirely through the Strait of Hormuz, with no second corridor available if the strait closes.
    3. Fixed rupee excise blocks pass through of relief: Central excise duty is levied as a fixed amount per litre rather than as a percentage, so falling crude prices accrue to revenue rather than to consumers. Eg. When Brent fell from $80 to $60 per barrel in early 2025, Delhi petrol fell by only about Rs 2 to 3 per litre.
    4. Strategic reserve cover below international norms: The buffer available to ride out a supply interruption is short of the accepted benchmark. Eg. India’s total crude cover of 74 days sits below the International Energy Agency norm of 90 days of net import cover.
    5. No strategic reserve for gas at all: The gas basket has an operational buffer but no strategic cushion. Eg. India’s LNG storage tanks at regasification terminals give roughly 10 days of operational buffer, with no strategic LNG reserve in existence.
    6. Spot LNG volatility deters utilisation: When spot prices spike, importers switch to coal or fuel oil, stranding regasification capacity. Eg. India’s roughly 42.5 million tonnes per annum of LNG regasification capacity runs at 60 to 65 percent utilisation because switching becomes rational above $15 per MMBtu.
    7. Refinery configuration ties India to sour crude sources: Indian refineries have invested in desulphurisation capacity built around Middle Eastern grades, which limits how fast the basket can be re-sourced. Eg. Most Middle Eastern crude India buys is priced against Dubai and Oman, and Saudi, Iraqi and UAE grades track that benchmark.

    Conclusion

    India’s net oil and gas import bill rose to $57.8 billion in April to July from $40.3 billion a year earlier, a 43.4 percent increase driven almost wholly by price rather than volume. At 88.3 percent crude import dependence and with the West Asian shares of crude, LNG and LPG all routed through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint disruption converts directly into a macroeconomic shock. The figures are provisional data from the Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, and the next reading will show whether the price effect persists once Hormuz flows normalise.

    About India’s Crude Oil Procurement and Pricing

    1. Who buys: State owned refiners account for 73 percent of India’s procurement through Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, with private refiners Reliance Industries and Nayara Energy accounting for 27 percent.
    2. How buying works: Each refiner independently forecasts demand two to three months ahead and negotiates bilaterally with suppliers such as Rosneft, Saudi Aramco and Iraq’s State Organisation for Marketing of Oil.
    3. How it is priced: All contracts are priced as Brent plus or minus a negotiated discount, and Middle Eastern grades track the Dubai and Oman benchmark.
    4. Where crude lands: Crude is received by tanker at Paradip, Mumbai, Kochi and Vadinar.
    5. Quality determines price: Sulphur content and American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity, the measure of a crude’s density, together determine refining cost and product yield, with sweet crude defined as sulphur content below 0.5 percent and sour crude requiring additional processing.

    Regulatory Framework Governing India’s Petroleum and Natural Gas Sector

    1. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas: The apex policy body, which sets the framework for exploration, refining, marketing, pricing and strategic reserves, awards production sharing contracts, and exercises ownership over the public sector oil companies.
    2. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board: Regulates refining, processing, storage, transportation, distribution, marketing and sale of petroleum products and natural gas, authorises City Gas Distribution networks, and determines pipeline tariffs on a common carrier basis.
    3. Directorate General of Hydrocarbons: The technical regulator for upstream exploration and production, which manages block allocations, monitors production sharing contracts, verifies reserves, approves field development plans and maintains the National Data Repository.
    4. Oil Industry Development Board: Funded by a statutory cess on domestic crude production, it finances oil industry development and wholly owns Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited, which operates the underground reserve caverns.
    5. Deregulated retail pricing: Petrol was deregulated in 2010 and diesel in 2014, so the Ministry does not directly set retail pump prices.

    Government Initiatives in the Petroleum and Gas Sector

    1. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Phase I comprises 5.33 million tonnes of crude across three underground rock caverns at Visakhapatnam, Mangaluru and Padur, with a Phase II commercial cum strategic expansion under public private partnership models.
    2. Hydrocarbon Exploration and Licensing Policy, 2016: Replaced the earlier New Exploration Licensing Policy with a uniform licence covering all hydrocarbons, open acreage licensing and revenue sharing in place of production sharing.
    3. Administered Price Mechanism for domestic gas: The Ministry sets the administered price for domestic natural gas indexed monthly at 10 percent of the Indian Crude Basket price, following the Kirit Parikh Committee recommendations, subject to a floor and ceiling for legacy fields.
    4. Direct Benefit Transfer for LPG: LPG is subsidised through direct transfer, with Rs 300 per cylinder for Ujjwala beneficiaries.
    5. City Gas Distribution expansion: India’s city gas distribution network now covers 98 cities, supplying compressed natural gas for vehicles and piped natural gas for households from a mix of domestic gas and regasified LNG.

    Key Facts about Global Oil Benchmarks and India’s Reserves

    1. Brent crude: North Sea origin, 38 API and 0.37 percent sulphur, traded on the Intercontinental Exchange in London, accounting for 75 to 80 percent of global oil trade and serving as the reference against which all other grades are a premium or discount.
    2. West Texas Intermediate: Cushing, Oklahoma origin, 39.6 API and 0.24 percent sulphur, traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, accounting for 15 to 20 percent of global trade and typically Brent minus $0 to $5 per barrel.
    3. Dubai and Oman: Persian Gulf origin, 31 to 33 API and 1.0 to 2.0 percent sulphur, traded on the Dubai Mercantile Exchange, accounting for 5 to 10 percent of global trade and typically Brent minus $5 to $15 per barrel.
    4. Why OPEC does not set the price: OPEC controls 40 percent of production but Brent sets 75 to 80 percent of global prices, since markets price oil hundreds of thousands of times a day while OPEC announces targets once and has no enforcement mechanism against quota cheating.
    5. Reserve position: India’s total crude cover is 74 days, made up of 9.5 days from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 64.5 days of oil marketing company commercial stocks, against the International Energy Agency norm of 90 days.
    6. LPG and LNG cover: LPG cavern capacity of about 140,000 tonnes gives roughly 22 days of cover against consumption of about 3 million tonnes a month, while LNG has about 10 days of operational buffer and no strategic reserve.
    7. Volatility of spot gas: The Japan Korea Marker swung from $3 per MMBtu in mid 2020 to $70 per MMBtu in August 2022.
    8. Committee recommendation on storage: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Petroleum in December 2023 recommended equipping refineries with two to three days of smaller strategic storage at five to six additional locations, which could add 15 to 20 days of capacity.

    Back2Basics: Strait of Hormuz

    1. Location: A narrow sea passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and onward to the Arabian Sea.
    2. Control: Iran controls the northern shore and seven of the eight islands in the strait, Oman controls the southern entrance, and the United States Fifth Fleet acts as the external guarantor of transit.
    3. Oil traffic: About 20 million barrels a day pass through it, amounting to 20 percent of global oil movement.
    4. Gas traffic: It carries 20 percent of global LNG trade, which makes closure hit gas hardest given Qatar’s dominance in LNG supply.
    5. Strategic character: It carries the highest concentration of energy flow of any maritime chokepoint in the world.

    Challenges in India’s Energy Security

    1. Stagnant domestic crude production: Falling domestic output pushes import dependence upward regardless of demand. Eg. Cess collections of the Oil Industry Development Board have declined in real terms because domestic crude production has stagnated.
    2. Regulatory conflict of interest: The same ministry sets the pricing environment and owns the companies whose losses that environment creates. Eg. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas simultaneously regulates the sector and holds ownership rights over Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.
    3. Gaps in the regulatory perimeter: No single regulator covers the full chain from wellhead to pump. Eg. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board has no jurisdiction over upstream exploration, wellhead gas pricing or LPG retail pricing.
    4. Upstream reservoir disputes slow output: Technical disputes between operators delay field development and carry royalty implications. Eg. The gas migration dispute between ONGC and Reliance Industries in the Krishna Godavari basin required adjudication by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons.
    5. Chokepoint concentration across all three fuels: Crude, LPG and LNG share the same maritime chokepoint, so diversification of supplier does not diversify route. Eg. LPG moves with crude tankers or on dedicated carriers through the same Strait of Hormuz.
    6. Tax structure blunts price signals: Taxes form roughly 60 percent of the retail pump price, weakening the link between global prices and consumer behaviour. Eg. Delhi petrol at Rs 96 to 97 per litre carried Rs 13 of central excise and Rs 15 to 18 of State value added tax before the crisis.
    7. Storage build out lags the exposure: Reserve expansion depends on capital and cavern geology, both of which take years. Eg. Phase II of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is being pursued through public private partnership because budgetary funding alone has not delivered the capacity.

    Way Forward

    1. Complete Phase II of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Bring the commercial cum strategic caverns on stream to move total cover towards the 90 day International Energy Agency norm.
    2. Adopt the refinery level storage recommendation: Implement the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s December 2023 proposal on refinery level storage, which remains a recommendation rather than sanctioned capacity.
    3. Create a strategic gas reserve: Extend the reserve architecture to LNG, which today has only an operational buffer at regasification terminals.
    4. Shift excise from a fixed levy to an ad valorem levy: This would let consumers receive part of the benefit when crude prices fall, restoring the price signal.
    5. Diversify sourcing away from a single chokepoint: Expand term contracts with Atlantic basin, West African and North American suppliers so that a Hormuz disruption does not strike crude, LNG and LPG supply simultaneously.
    6. Raise domestic production through open acreage: Accelerate block awards under the Hydrocarbon Exploration and Licensing Policy to arrest the decline in domestic output.
    7. Separate ownership from regulation: Move ownership of the public sector oil companies out of the administering ministry so that pricing policy is not set by their shareholder.

    “[2025, GS2, 15] “Energy security constitutes the dominant kingpin of India’s foreign policy, and is linked with India’s overarching influence in Middle Eastern countries.” How would you integrate energy security with India’s foreign policy trajectories in the coming years?”

  • Five years after Taliban takeover, life in Afghanistan marred by many struggles

    Why in the News

    Five years have passed since the Taliban entered Kabul on 15 August 2021, ending the United States led military presence and the Islamic Republic that had governed Afghanistan for two decades. The Taliban have converted military victory into durable control of institutions, borders and revenue, without converting it into recognition, economic recovery or rights for women. That gap defines the position every state now has to work around, including India.

    What is a de facto government?

    1. Definition: A de facto government is an authority that exercises effective control over a territory and its population without being formally recognised as its lawful government by other states. Control is a question of fact, recognition a question of law.
    2. What recognition does: Recognising a government endorses its authority to represent the state internationally, while withholding recognition does not deny that the state itself exists.
    3. Why states still transact: Border management, humanitarian delivery and consular work require dealing with whoever controls territory, which produces engagement without recognition.
    4. What non recognition costs the authority: It blocks the state’s seat at international organisations, access to central bank reserves held abroad and formal sovereign borrowing.

    What is the Islamic State-Khorasan Province?

    1. What it is: The Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP) is the regional branch of the Islamic State operating in Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Central Asia, formed in 2015.
    2. Its relationship with the Taliban: It rejects the Taliban’s authority as insufficiently doctrinaire and is an armed rival rather than an ally, which is why the Taliban conduct operations against it.

    What has actually changed in Afghanistan’s security situation since 2021?

    1. The war ended: The most immediate change was the end of the war between the Taliban and the then Afghan government.
    2. The withdrawal and the collapse: The United States and NATO completed their military withdrawal in August 2021, and Afghan security forces collapsed soon afterwards.
    3. Consolidation of control: The Taliban control Afghanistan’s major government institutions, security forces and borders, and armed opposition groups have not been able to mount a significant nationwide challenge.
    4. No comparable conflict: There is now no nationwide armed conflict comparable to the fighting that took place before 2021.
    5. What it means on the ground: Roads previously affected by battles and checkpoints are generally more accessible, and the risk of being caught in clashes between the Taliban and government forces has fallen.

    Why has the end of the war not meant the end of violence?

    1. A surviving armed rival: The Islamic State-Khorasan Province remains active and has carried out attacks against civilians, Taliban officials and foreign nationals.
    2. Counter operations: The Taliban have carried out operations against the group, which makes the conflict internal rather than against a foreign force.
    3. Deteriorating relations with Pakistan: The two countries have repeatedly accused each other of allowing militant groups to operate from their territory.
    4. Frequency of border clashes: Clashes along the border have become more frequent since 2021.
    5. A reversal of the earlier relationship: Pakistan had been an important supporter of the Taliban for years, but since 2021 Islamabad’s concerns over militant attacks and border security have increasingly complicated relations with Kabul.

    How far have restrictions on women gone, and what do they cost in the long run?

    1. The initial assurance: When the Taliban took control in 2021 they said they would respect women’s rights under their interpretation of Islamic law.
    2. What followed: Restrictions on women have steadily increased rather than stabilised at the level announced.
    3. Education: Girls remain barred from secondary education and higher education.
    4. Employment and movement: Women have been excluded from many areas of employment and face restrictions on movement and on access to public spaces, affecting almost every aspect of participation in public life.
    5. The pipeline effect: Girls unable to complete school cannot move on to university or professional training, which means fewer women will enter professions such as medicine, teaching, journalism and public administration.

    Why is economic stability not the same as economic recovery?

    1. The pre 2021 base: International aid accounted for a significant part of government spending and economic activity before the takeover.
    2. The shock: The withdrawal of foreign troops and the sudden reduction in aid created a major economic shock, and there were fears that the Afghan economy could collapse.
    3. What the Taliban did instead: The administration increased domestic revenue collection, tried to expand trade with neighbouring countries, invested in infrastructure and attempted to raise economic activity within the country.
    4. The result: Afghanistan has achieved a degree of economic stability since the severe crisis that followed the takeover, but stability is not recovery.
    5. What stability leaves untouched: Poverty remains widespread, unemployment remains a major problem, and humanitarian assistance continues to be important for millions of Afghans.
    6. A new pressure: The country is dealing with the return of large numbers of Afghans from Pakistan and Iran, whose arrival has created additional pressure on housing, employment and public services.

    What do other countries’ positions show about the limits of non-recognition?

    1. The general position: The Taliban regime has not received widespread international recognition, and most countries continue to avoid formally recognising it as Afghanistan’s legitimate government.
    2. The stated grounds: The main concerns are restrictions on women, the absence of an inclusive political system, and questions about terrorism and human rights.
    3. Russia: Russia has formally recognised the Taliban regime, making it the outlier among major powers.
    4. China and the United Arab Emirates: Both have accepted Taliban appointed ambassadors, which is operational acceptance short of formal recognition.
    5. Western governments: Several Western governments have maintained contact with Taliban officials without extending recognition.
    6. The common driver: Countries have increasingly had to deal with the Taliban because they control Afghanistan, which shows that control eventually compels engagement even where it does not compel recognition.

    What explains India’s shift from distance to pragmatic engagement?

    1. The posture: India has followed a cautious but increasingly pragmatic approach towards the Taliban since they returned to power in August 2021.
    2. The line held: New Delhi did not recognise the Taliban regime, and has expanded diplomatic engagement without altering that position.
    3. Return of presence: India reopened its diplomatic mission in Kabul in 2022.
    4. Continuing assistance: India continued providing humanitarian assistance, including food, medicines and other supplies.
    5. The turning point: The engagement became more significant in 2025 with the visit of the Taliban Foreign Minister.
    6. Why Afghanistan matters: Security is one of India’s biggest concerns in relation to Afghanistan, and Pakistan is the other factor shaping the calculation.

    Challenges to India’s Afghanistan policy

    1. Engagement without recognition has no legal footing: Agreements reached with an unrecognised authority cannot be enforced or registered internationally. Eg. India’s diplomatic mission in Kabul, reopened in 2022, operates as a technical mission rather than a full embassy.
    2. Overland access runs through a hostile neighbour: India has no land route to Afghanistan that does not cross Pakistan. Eg. India’s wheat consignments to Afghanistan required specific Pakistani transit permission in 2022 for movement through the Wagah crossing.
    3. Dependence on a sanctioned transit route: The alternative sea and land corridor runs through Iran, which carries its own sanctions exposure. Eg. India’s ten year contract of May 2024 to operate the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar depends on a project specific sanctions exemption.
    4. Stranded development assets: India built infrastructure whose upkeep now depends on an authority it does not recognise. Eg. The Afghan Parliament building inaugurated in 2015 and the Afghan India Friendship Dam at Salma completed in 2016 both sit under Taliban administration.
    5. Reputational cost of engaging a rights violating authority: Expanded contact runs against India’s own stated positions on women’s rights. Eg. Girls in Afghanistan remain barred from secondary and higher education while diplomatic engagement expands.
    6. Competition from states willing to recognise: Recognition buys influence that engagement alone does not. Eg. Russia formally recognised the Taliban regime, and China and the United Arab Emirates accepted Taliban appointed ambassadors.
    7. Terrorism risk that engagement cannot eliminate: Groups hostile to India retain sanctuary regardless of the state of India Kabul relations. Eg. The Islamic State-Khorasan Province has attacked foreign nationals in Afghanistan, including a Sikh gurdwara in Kabul in June 2022.

    Conclusion

    Five years after the takeover, the Taliban hold Afghanistan’s institutions, borders and security forces, have arrested the economic collapse that was predicted, and face no nationwide armed challenge. They have not obtained recognition, have not converted stability into recovery, and have deepened rather than relaxed the restrictions that keep recognition out of reach. The unresolved question is whether states that must deal with a de facto authority can extract any change in its conduct through engagement alone, since Russia’s recognition and India’s non recognition have so far produced the same behaviour from Kabul.

    “[2013, GS2, 10] The proposed withdrawal of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from Afghanistan in 2014 is fraught with major security implications for the countries of the region. Examine in light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.”