💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
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.

  • Civil War in Sudan

    Why in the News?

    The United Nations Secretary-General has warned that the civil war in Sudan is “spiralling out of control” after the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) seized the strategic Darfur city of El-Fasher.

    Civil War in Sudan

    About the Civil War in Sudan:

    • Outbreak: Began in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti).
    • Causes: Rooted in Sudan’s failed democratic transition after the 2019 overthrow of Omar al-Bashir and the October 2021 military coup.
    • Immediate Trigger: Power struggle over RSF integration into the national army under the proposed political framework agreement.
    • Conflict Spread: Fighting engulfed Khartoum, Omdurman, and Darfur, causing massive civilian casualties and infrastructure collapse.
    • Humanitarian Toll: Over 8.5 million displaced, famine conditions emerging, and public health systems near total breakdown.
    • Atrocities: Both sides accused of war crimes, ethnic killings, and looting, particularly in Darfur.
    • Territorial Shift: RSF’s capture of El-Fasher (2025) consolidated its control over western Sudan.
    • Foreign Actors: Egypt supports SAF; UAE and Russia’s Wagner Group back RSF, fuelling proxy dynamics.

    What Lies Ahead?

    • Risk of Partition: Sudan may split RSF holding the west, SAF dominating the northeast, leading to de-facto fragmentation.
    • Regional Destabilisation: Prolonged conflict could spill into the Horn of Africa and Red Sea corridor, worsening insecurity.
    • Political Outlook: Civilian transition appears remote; both factions remain focused on military dominance.
    • Economic Collapse: Inflation above 250%, agricultural failure deepening food insecurity.
    • Regional Impact: Refugee influx threatens Chad, South Sudan, and Ethiopia with cross-border instability.
    [UPSC 2024] Consider the following pairs: Country Reason for being in the news
    1. Argentina Worst economic crisis
    2. Sudan War between the country’s regular army and paramilitary forces
    3. Turkey Rescinded its membership of NATO
    How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?
    Options: (a) Only one pair (b) Only two pairs* (c) All three pairs (d) None of the pairs

     

  • India-US seal 10 year defense partnership framework

    Introduction

    India and the United States have signed a 10-year defence partnership framework (2025-2035), signaling a new phase in their strategic collaboration. The pact provides a unified vision and policy direction for deepening cooperation across logistics, supply chains, joint production, and technology sharing. It underscores the commitment to a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific, amid growing regional tensions and China’s assertive rise.

    Why in the News

    This is a landmark development in India-US relations, marking the first-ever decade-long institutionalized defence framework between the two nations. It reflects a qualitative shift from transactional defence cooperation to a strategic partnership architecture. By formalizing continuity in defence ties, the framework aims to sustain policy alignment, interoperability, and deterrence capabilities in the Indo-Pacific, making it a cornerstone for regional stability.

    Deepening Defence Convergence

    1. Framework Vision: Provides unified strategic direction to strengthen defence cooperation and stability across all military domains (land, air, sea, cyber, and space).
    2. Interoperability Focus: Prioritizes joint logistics, training, and maintenance mechanisms between forces, ensuring mission readiness and operational synergy.
    3. Symbolic Continuity: Extends beyond annual dialogues or ad hoc exercises, ensuring defence engagement remains insulated from political transitions.
    4. Technology Integration: Encourages co-production and co-development of high-end defence platforms such as Super Hercules, Globemaster, Chinooks, Apaches, and M777 howitzers.

    Evolution of India-US Defence Partnership

    1. Early Frameworks: The 2015 framework initiated by PM Modi and President Obama laid the foundation for institutional defence cooperation.
    2. Key Milestones:
      • LEMOA (2016): Enabled reciprocal logistics access.
      • COMCASA (2018): Facilitated secure communications interoperability.
      • BECA (2020): Enabled real-time geospatial intelligence sharing.
    3. 2025 Framework Significance: Builds upon these foundational agreements, institutionalizing long-term coordination on strategy, logistics, and supply chain resilience.

    Strategic Significance for the Indo-Pacific

    1. Regional Stability: Anchors both nations’ commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, countering coercive or unilateral actions.
    2. Maritime Domain Awareness: Supports enhanced naval cooperation and situational awareness across key maritime chokepoints.
    3. Military Exercises: Expands the scope of Yudh Abhyas and Malabar exercises for joint readiness.
    4. Quad Convergence: Aligns with broader QUAD objectives in maintaining rules-based order and crisis response architecture.
    5. Geoeconomic Angle: Bolsters defence supply chains and manufacturing cooperation amid China-centric dependencies.

    Institutional and Industrial Collaboration

    1. Defence Production: Boosts joint manufacturing of key platforms, LCA Tejas engines, MQ-9B drones, and advanced radar systems.
    2. Private Sector Linkages: Encourages collaboration between Indian and US defence industries, including Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and General Electric (GE).
    3. R&D Synergy: Promotes innovation under the India-US Defence Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) to co-develop futuristic technologies.
    4. Skill Transfer: Enhances training, skill-building, and exchange programs for defence personnel.

    Diplomatic and Strategic Implications

    1. Policy Continuity: Reinforces long-term strategic trust and shared security outlook.
    2. Strategic Deterrence: Strengthens collective deterrence against regional instability in the Indo-Pacific.
    3. Bilateral Reliability: Demonstrates resilience of India-US defence ties beyond short-term political cycles.
    4. Global Relevance: Projects both nations as key stakeholders in shaping Indo-Pacific architecture for the 21st century.

    Conclusion

    The 10-year India-US Defence Partnership represents a strategic deepening and institutional maturity of bilateral defence relations. It embodies both nations’ shared vision of collective security, deterrence, and technological partnership in the Indo-Pacific. By ensuring interoperability and policy continuity, it not only strengthens defence preparedness but also cements India’s emergence as a regional security anchor and a global strategic partner of the United States.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] What is the significance of Indo-US defence deals over Indo-Russian defence deals? Discuss with reference to stability in the Indo-Pacific region.

    Linkage: The question is important as it reflects India’s shifting defence axis from Russia to the US amid Indo-Pacific power realignments. It continues UPSC’s recurring theme of India’s strategic autonomy and evolving role in global security architecture.

  • The complicated history of U.S-Pakistan relations

    Introduction

    The U.S.-Pakistan relationship has oscillated between strategic intimacy and mutual distrust. Built on Cold War exigencies, it evolved through shared military interests, geopolitical bargains, and recurring disappointments. As new global alignments emerge, Pakistan’s dual engagement with China and the U.S. once again tests the durability and intent of its foreign policy choices.

    Evolution of the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Partnership

    1. Cold War Origins: Pakistan aligned with the U.S. through SEATO (1954) and CENTO (1955), positioning itself as a frontline ally against communism.
    2. Military and Economic Aid: U.S. assistance included arms, technology, and infrastructure funding, strengthening Pakistan’s military elite.
    3. Transactional Nature: The partnership thrived on mutual utility rather than shared values; Pakistan sought defense support; the U.S. sought regional leverage.

    Impact of Shifting U.S. Priorities during and after the Cold War

    1. Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (1979): The U.S. re-engaged Pakistan as a base for arming Mujahideen fighters. Aid and weapon transfers surged.
    2. Post-Withdrawal Abandonment: After Soviet withdrawal, Washington invoked sanctions under the Pressler Amendment (1990) over Pakistan’s nuclear program, halting delivery of F-16 aircraft.
    3. Cycle of Engagement and Sanctions: Every phase of cooperation was followed by punitive measures, reflecting deep distrust.

    9/11 and the Recasting of the U.S.-Pakistan Ties

    1. Post-9/11 Alignment: Pakistan became a major non-NATO ally in the U.S.-led “War on Terror,” receiving over $30 billion in aid.
    2. Military Dependence: U.S. logistics for operations in Afghanistan relied heavily on Pakistani routes and intelligence.
    3. Strategic Mistrust: U.S. accused Pakistan of harboring militants while receiving counter-terrorism aid, the Osama bin Laden incident (2011) deepened suspicion.

    Trump’s Policy Reversal and Conditional Engagement

    1. Harsh Rhetoric: In 2018, Donald Trump accused Pakistan of “lies and deceit”, suspending over $300 million in military aid.
    2. Focus on “Double Game”: The U.S. alleged Islamabad’s duplicity, fighting terrorism publicly while sheltering terror networks privately.
    3. China Factor: Trump’s tilt towards India and containment of China indirectly alienated Pakistan, pushing it further into Beijing’s orbit.

    The China Variable and Strategic Realignment

    1. Deepening Sino-Pak Ties: The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and defense collaboration highlight Pakistan’s strategic drift eastward.
    2. U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021): Reignited Pakistan’s regional leverage but also increased scrutiny of its Taliban links.
    3. Balancing Act: Pakistan now seeks to balance its Chinese dependence with limited U.S. engagement to avoid isolation.

    Sanctions, Contradictions and Mutual Suspicion

    1. Sanctions Regime: U.S. invoked multiple sanctions, Symington (1977), Pressler (1990), and Brown (1995) Amendments targeting nuclear proliferation.
    2. Contradictory Approach: Despite sanctions, Washington relied on Pakistan’s logistics during Afghan conflicts, exposing policy inconsistency.
    3. Enduring Distrust: Mutual dependence persisted but never matured into stable diplomacy, defined by suspicion rather than trust.

    India’s Dimension in the Context of U.S.-Pakistan Relations

    Positive Implications for India

    1. Strategic Leverage: Weakening U.S.-Pakistan ties strengthened India’s position as a reliable democratic partner in South Asia.
    2. Defence Cooperation: India gained access to advanced U.S. defence technology, joint exercises (like Malabar), and strategic dialogues (2+2 format).
    3. Global Standing: Partnership in QUAD and Indo-Pacific frameworks enhanced India’s geopolitical influence.
    4. Counterterrorism Support: U.S. alignment with India’s stance against cross-border terrorism increased diplomatic pressure on Pakistan.

    Negative Implications for India

    1. Regional Instability: Strained U.S.-Pakistan ties can destabilize Afghanistan, indirectly impacting India’s security interests.
    2. China-Pakistan Nexus: The gap left by U.S. withdrawal pushed Pakistan deeper into China’s orbit via CPEC and military cooperation.
    3. U.S. Policy Unpredictability: Frequent shifts in U.S. South Asia policy raises doubts about long-term reliability.
    4. Reduced Mediation Influence: India faces difficulty in balancing ties with both U.S. and Russia amid sanctions and defence dependencies.

    Way Forward

    1. Strategic Autonomy: Maintain balanced ties with all major powers while safeguarding national interests.
    2. Regional Dialogue: Promote multilateral frameworks including Afghanistan and Central Asia to counter instability.
    3. Deepened Indo-U.S. Cooperation: Expand collaboration in critical tech, energy, and intelligence without compromising sovereignty.
    4. Focus on Neighbourhood: Strengthen regional engagement to offset Pakistan’s external alignments and ensure South Asian stability.

    Conclusion

    The U.S.-Pakistan relationship remains an exemplar of “strategic utility without strategic trust.” Despite recurring phases of cooperation, both nations continue to perceive each other through transactional lenses. As Pakistan deepens ties with China and the U.S. recalibrates Indo-Pacific priorities, their future engagement will depend on how Islamabad reconciles its global ambitions with domestic constraints and regional realities.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2019] What introduces friction into the ties between India and the United States is that Washington is still unable to find for India a position in its global strategy, which would satisfy India’s national self-esteem and ambitions’. Explain with suitable examples.

    Linkage: U.S.-Pakistan ties were transactional and interest-driven, creating India’s distrust of U.S. intentions. This history causes friction in U.S.-India ties, as India seeks equality while the U.S. retains a hierarchical outlook.

  • [23rd October 2025] The Hindu Oped: Immigration and the politics of fear

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] Indian diaspora has a decisive role to play in the politics and economy of America and European Countries.” Comment with examples.

    Linkage: This article explores how anti-immigration politics in the West, particularly in the UK and US, are reshaping narratives around migrants and minorities, directly affecting the Indian diaspora’s political influence, integration, and image abroad. It also relates to how domestic nativism in developed nations influences India’s soft power and global engagement strategy.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The debate on immigration has taken a darker turn across the Western world, shifting from managing illegal immigration to rejecting legal migrants on cultural or racial grounds. This piece examines the rise of fear-driven politics in the United Kingdom and the United States, where populist leaders exploit insecurities about identity and belonging. It connects these global trends to India’s own discourse on “infiltrators,” highlighting how such politics corrodes the moral and spiritual foundation of nationhood. For UPSC aspirants, this article is a rich resource for themes under GS Paper 2 (Polity & Governance, International Relations) and GS Paper 4 (Ethics & Society).

    Introduction: The New Politics of Immigration

    Immigration has always been an emotionally charged issue, balancing national security, cultural identity, and humanitarian values. But the tone of the conversation has changed drastically. Once focused on border control and illegal entry, the global discourse, led by figures like Donald Trump and echoed by British leaders, is now turning against legal migrants themselves. The recent developments in the United Kingdom, coupled with populist rhetoric in the U.S., mark a disturbing shift from policy debates to identity-based fear-mongering. It signals a new era where politics thrives on division, and where the very definition of nationhood is under siege.

    Why in the News?

    At the UN General Assembly, U.S. President Donald Trump openly urged Europe to “end the failed experiment of open borders,” marking the first time an American leader exported his anti-immigrant ideology so aggressively to other nations. The U.K. soon reflected similar sentiments, not just against illegal immigrants but against those living legally under Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). The political shift shows how nativist populism has evolved from fringe rhetoric to mainstream governance, posing moral and democratic questions for societies that once celebrated diversity.

    How Has Immigration Politics Shifted in the UK?

    1. Shift from legality to identity: The focus has moved from illegal immigration control to questioning legal migrants’ right to belong.
    2. Historic continuity: Britain has witnessed recurring anti-immigrant waves, from Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech to Brexit’s “Take Back Control” slogan.
    3. Turning point: Trump’s UN speech and UK’s Reform Party rhetoric signify a pivot, from economic capability to cultural exclusion.

    What Recent Events Sparked the Debate?

    1. Mass rallies: Far-right leader Tommy Robinson led a 1,50,000-strong “Unite the Kingdom” rally, posing as a free speech movement but fuelled by anti-immigration anger.
    2. Imported ideology: French politician Eric Zemmour warned of the “great replacement”, the idea that European people are being replaced by immigrants from Muslim-majority regions.
    3. Policy proposal: Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party proposed scrapping Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) and replacing it with stricter five-year visas.
    4. Consequences: Even current ILR holders and retirees would face uncertainty, eroding the social contract between the state and its residents.

    How Has the Labour Government Responded?

    1. Raising the bar: New Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood extended ILR eligibility from 5 to 10 years, with higher English proficiency, employment verification, and volunteering requirements.
    2. Moral hierarchy: This creates a two-tier society, citizens who live freely and migrants forced to constantly prove their worth.
    3. Political motive: Labour’s move reflects a competitive hardline stance to match Reform UK’s popularity and counter populist fear politics.

    How Is Race Re-entering the Immigration Discourse?

    1. Racial undertones: Conservative politician Robert Jenrick’s remark about “not seeing another white face” reveals how immigration rhetoric is slipping into racial anxiety.
    2. From migrants to race: The debate is no longer about work permits or visas; it’s now about who belongs and who looks British.
    3. American parallels: Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship and the spectacle of deporting Indian immigrants in shackles echo the same moral crisis, dehumanisation of the “other.”

    What Lessons Does This Hold for India?

    1. Mirroring patterns: In India too, discourse on “infiltrators” and “termites” has been used for populist mobilisation.
    2. Ernest Renan’s vision: The 19th-century philosopher described a nation as a “spiritual principle”, based on shared memories and mutual consent, not race or religion.
    3. Moral erosion: When “present consent”, the will to live together, is weakened, nations lose their moral foundation.
    4. Performative cruelty: Treating migration as a threat rather than a socio-economic phenomenon serves political ends, not human progress.

    Conclusion

    The politics of fear around immigration reflects a deeper crisis, of identity, belonging, and moral leadership. When democratic societies redefine “worthiness” in racial or cultural terms, they betray the inclusive principles that built them. In both the West and India, the challenge is not just managing immigration but reaffirming what it means to be a nation. As Renan reminded us, a nation exists not by blood or border, but by the desire to live together. Upholding that desire, amid fear and division, is the true test of our times.

  • US-Russia to extend the New START Treaty

    Why in the News?

    U.S. President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to extend the New START Treaty with Russia by one year, until February 2027, as the treaty is due to expire next February.

    About the New START Treaty:

    • About: New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START); Bilateral nuclear arms control pact between the United States and Russia.
    • Signed: April 8, 2010, in Prague by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev; Came into Force: February 5, 2011.
    • Initial Duration: 10 years, set to  be expired in February 2021; extended by 5 years to February 2026.
    • Proposed Further Extension: To February 2027, as hinted by U.S. President Donald Trump.
    • Objective: Limit and verify the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons to ensure predictability and strategic stability between the two nuclear superpowers.
    • Ceilings:
      • 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads.
      • 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers.
      • 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers and bombers combined.
    • Verification Regime:
      • Regular on-site inspections.
      • Biannual data exchanges.
      • Notifications of movement or deployment of nuclear assets.
      • Telemetry sharing for missile tests.
    • Administering Authority: U.S. Department of State and Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs under a joint commission.
    • Scope: Applies only to strategic (long-range) nuclear forces, not tactical nuclear weapons.
    • Historical Context:
      • Successor to START I (1991) and START II (1993).
      • Last remaining arms control treaty after the collapse of the INF Treaty (2019) and U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty (2001).
    • Significance: Serves as the final legal constraint on the two largest nuclear arsenals, reducing risk of an unconstrained arms race.

    Implications of Extending the New START

    • Maintains Strategic Stability: Retains verifiable limits on the world’s two largest nuclear stockpiles, reducing risk of escalation or miscalculation.
    • Prevents Arms Race: Avoids a strategic vacuum that could lead to rapid weapon modernization and expansion by both nations.
    • Diplomatic Leverage: Provides a diplomatic window for future multilateral disarmament talks, possibly involving China and other nuclear powers.
    • Global Signalling: Reinforces commitment to nuclear restraint and non-proliferation under the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
    • Risks of Non-Extension:
      • Collapse of all bilateral arms control between the U.S. and Russia.
      • Accelerated nuclear modernization programs.
      • Weakened global disarmament norms and potential CTBT irrelevance.

  • Why Trump’s proposed stabilization force in Gaza will not find things easy

    Introduction

    With the Gaza conflict entering its third year, US President Donald Trump’s “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict” , a 20-point roadmap, has reignited global discussion on Palestine’s future. While both Israel and Hamas have agreed to an immediate ceasefire and prisoner exchange, the second, more ambitious part, a long-term peace framework and deployment of an International Stabilisation Force (ISF), faces deep geopolitical and operational challenges. The ISF, envisioned as a temporary yet long-term internal security mechanism under a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump, is supposed to oversee “terror-free areas” handed over from Israel’s Defence Forces (IDF). But historical evidence from Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Iraq shows why such an effort may fail before it even begins.

    What is the International Stabilisation Force (ISF)?

    1. Temporary but long-term mechanism: The ISF is designed to act as a “temporary” yet enduring internal security arrangement, forming part of a larger apolitical Palestinian committee.
    2. Trump’s oversight: It would be supervised by a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump, tasked with ensuring security transition in Gaza.
    3. Mandate confusion: The ISF’s deployment is proposed “immediately” after Israeli Defence Forces withdraw from designated “terror-free zones.”
    4. Not UN-mandated: Unlike traditional UN peacekeeping forces, the ISF would lack international legitimacy and neutrality, as it is not under the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) authorisation.

    Why is the ISF Not Comparable to UN Peacekeeping?

    1. Absence of neutrality: International peacekeeping has always required UN-mandated neutrality; the ISF, dominated by US and allied interests, lacks this legitimacy.
    2. Hostility in the region: Due to Arab hostility towards the US and Israel’s disregard for UN mandates, any non-UN force would face rejection from regional actors.
    3. UN precedent: Since 2004, UNSC resolutions have repeatedly called for peacekeeping only under UN authority, especially within occupied Palestinian territories until a two-state solution is achieved.
    4. Contradiction with global norms: Past experiences, from NATO’s ISAF in Afghanistan to multinational forces in Lebanon, show that non-UN interventions invite political opposition and legitimacy crises.

    Why is Implementation Difficult in Palestine?

    1. Israel’s selective compliance: Israel has historically undermined UN peacekeeping mandates (e.g., UNIFIL in Lebanon) and is unlikely to cooperate fully with an externally led force.
    2. Hamas’ rejection of disarmament: Hamas has refused to disarm without Israel’s full withdrawal, a non-negotiable precondition.
    3. Political vacuum: There are no strong Palestinian institutions capable of ensuring political control and governance in post-conflict Gaza.
    4. UNSC resolutions ignored: While resolutions call for a two-state solution and prohibit occupation, Israel’s actions, including settlements and security zones, contravene these commitments.
    5. Lack of Arab consensus: Arab states remain divided on participation in any force seen as legitimising Israeli occupation.

    What Lessons Do Historical Precedents Offer?

    1. Afghanistan (2001–2021): The NATO-led ISAF mission initially succeeded in stabilising Kabul but failed to create self-sustaining security institutions; the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
    2. Lebanon (1982–2000): The Multinational Force (MNF), dominated by the US and UK, withdrew amid heavy local opposition and attacks, transferring responsibility to the UN’s UNIFIL.
    3. Iraq (post-2003): The absence of a UN framework led to severe legitimacy deficits, insurgency, and long-term instability.
    4. These precedents underscore that external interventions without inclusive local ownership often end in strategic failure.

    What Are the Broader Challenges in Trump’s Plan?

    1. Contradictory goals: Trump’s plan envisions Israel’s partial withdrawal but simultaneously retains security control, an inherent contradiction.
    2. Palestinian exclusion: The proposal does not recognise any Palestinian political institutions or grant them meaningful authority.
    3. Legal limitations: Without UNSC authorisation, the ISF would lack the legal basis to operate or enforce peace.
    4. Regional optics: Arab and Islamic states would perceive this as another Western attempt to militarise peace under the guise of “stabilisation.”

    Conclusion

    Trump’s proposed International Stabilisation Force may appear bold on paper, but it suffers from a crisis of legitimacy, political trust, and historical amnesia. Without a UN mandate, regional consensus, or Palestinian participation, the plan risks deepening divisions rather than healing them. As history shows, no external force can impose peace where sovereignty and justice remain unresolved.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] ‘Terrorism has become a significant threat to global peace and security.’ Evaluate the effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council’s Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) and its associated bodies in addressing and mitigating this threat at the international level.

    Linkage: Trump’s proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF), lacking a UN mandate, underscores the limits of ad-hoc coalitions in tackling terrorism, contrasting with the UNSC-CTC’s institutional approach to coordinated, legitimate counter-terrorism efforts. It highlights the need for UN-backed, multilateral mechanisms over unilateral interventions for sustainable global peace.

  • With US withdrawing from multilateralism, India has both risks and opportunities

    Introduction

    The United Nations (UN) was envisioned in 1945 as the cornerstone of a rules-based global order. Yet, 80 years later, it faces one of its gravest challenges. US President Donald Trump’s second term has unleashed a sweeping retreat from multilateralism, leaving the UN structurally weakened and financially strained. His push for sovereignty-driven unilateralism, withdrawal from critical agreements and institutions, and deep funding cuts have left a vacuum increasingly filled by China. For India, this turbulence is both a threat and an opportunity to shape a new multilateralism.

    Trump’s Shift from Multilateralism to Unilateralism

    1. America First Doctrine: Trump has framed sovereignty as the fundamental principle of international relations, rejecting supra-nationalism.
    2. UN Critique: He claims to have done “a better job than the UN Security Council” in maintaining peace, boasting of “ending seven wars” within eight months of his second term.
    3. First-term precedent: Withdrawals from the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, Human Rights Council, Iran Nuclear Deal signalled this trend.
    4. Second-term escalation: Guided by Project 2025 (Heritage Foundation manifesto), Trump has cut >80% of US contributions to UN operations, including peacekeeping and global health.

    How is the UN Being Undermined?

    1. Massive Funding Cuts: US contributions slashed from 22% to a fraction, crippling UN’s financial base.
    2. Institutional Withdrawals: Exit from WHO, UNESCO, Human Rights Council and halting support for the Paris Agreement & Climate Loss and Damage Fund.
    3. Policy Rejection: No support for sustainable development or climate mitigation under Trump’s agenda.
    4. Domestic Politics Spillover: Appeals to his populist base that frames liberals as “war party” and paints the UN as an obstruction.

    China’s Expanding Role in Global Governance

    1. Strategic Positioning: Beijing systematically places its nationals in influential leadership, technical, and administrative posts.
    2. New Initiatives: Promotes “Global Development, Global Security, Global Civilisation, Global Governance” — aligned with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
    3. Funding Power: Contributes around $680 million (~20% of UN budget), second only to the US.
    4. Outcome: While not yet supplanting US dominance, Chinese activism is making Beijing an indispensable player.

    Decline of Multilateralism: A Structural Problem

    1. Historical High Point: Around 2000 with WTO launch & Millennium Development Goals.
    2. Erosion Factors: Populist nationalism, US-China rivalry, US-Russia vetoes paralyzing UNSC, and transatlantic divisions.
    3. Current Paralysis: Even humanitarian crises are stalled by veto politics.
    4. Reform Blockage: Calls for UNSC expansion remain frozen, while agencies face financial crisis and inefficiencies.

    India’s Opportunities and Responsibilities

    1. Financial Contribution Gap: India contributes $38 million (<1%), far below its stature as the world’s 4th largest economy.
    2. Comparative Figures: US: $820 million (22%), China: $680 million (20%).
    3. Strategic Priorities: Instead of old demands (like UNSC expansion), India should focus on:
      1. AI governance
      2. North-South coalitions
      3. UN reforms for efficiency
    4. Moral Leadership: As a long-standing Global South champion, India must pay more and lead more to shape new rules.

    Conclusion

    The UN at 80 stands fragile, buffeted by American retreat and Chinese ambition. Trump’s second-term disruption has turned long-standing weaknesses into systemic crises. Yet, neither the US nor China enjoys universal legitimacy. For India, the moment is decisive: it can no longer lament but must shoulder the responsibility of building a multilateralism that works in an age of rivalry and rapid change.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2019] Too little cash, too much politics, leaves UNESCO fighting for life. Discuss the statement in the light of US’ withdrawal and its accusation of the cultural body as being ‘anti-Israel bias’.

    Linkage: It highlights how US funding withdrawal and political accusations cripple UN agencies like UNESCO, leaving them under-resourced and delegitimised. Similarly, Trump’s second-term cuts — over 80% reduction in US contributions and exits from WHO, UNESCO, HRC — show how financial muscle and politics erode multilateral institutions.

  • U.K, Australia and Canada recognise Palestine state in seismic shift

    Introduction

    On September 22, 2025, Britain, Australia, and Canada formally recognised Palestine as a sovereign state, a step that Portugal and potentially France are expected to follow at the UN General Assembly. This unprecedented shift, especially by G-7 members like the U.K. and Canada, alters decades of Western foreign policy and signals mounting pressure on Israel after nearly two years of the Gaza war that began with Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack. While hailed as historic by Palestinians, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the move as an “absurd reward for terrorism.”

    Why is this development historic?

    1. First G-7 recognition: U.K. and Canada became the first G-7 nations to officially recognise Palestine, breaking with the long-standing Western alignment with Israel.
    2. Sharp contrast with past policy: For decades, Western countries had deferred recognition pending a negotiated two-state solution; this marks a direct policy shift.
    3. Conflict backdrop: The recognition comes amid international outrage over prolonged violence in Gaza since 2023, highlighting the urgency for peace.
    4. Special burden: The U.K.’s Deputy PM admitted Britain carries a “special responsibility” due to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which paved the way for Israel’s creation.

    Why did the U.K., Australia, and Canada take this step?

    1. Reviving peace hopes: Leaders like Keir Starmer emphasised the recognition as a way to keep the two-state solution alive.
    2. International pressure: Growing calls for humanitarian accountability in Gaza pushed these governments to act.
    3. Alignment with Europe: Portugal announced recognition the same day, and France is expected to follow, indicating a coordinated Western European push.

    What has been Israel’s reaction?

    1. Harsh opposition: PM Netanyahu warned that calls for Palestinian statehood “endanger Israel’s existence.”
    2. Terrorism narrative: Israel frames recognition as a “reward for terrorism” in reference to Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack.
    3. UN strategy: Netanyahu vowed to fight this recognition diplomatically at the ongoing UN General Assembly.

    What role does history play in this debate?

    1. Balfour Declaration, 1917: U.K.’s role in facilitating Israel’s creation still casts a shadow over West Asia’s conflict.
    2. Decades of stalemate: Palestinian statehood has been promised but deferred since the Oslo Accords of the 1990s.
    3. Burden of colonial legacy: Britain’s recognition is seen as part-redressal for its historical role.

    How does this reshape global geopolitics?

    1. U.S.–Western divide: Recognition creates divergence between U.S. policy (still opposed) and its closest allies like the U.K. and Canada, weakening the coherence of the Western bloc.
    2. Global South solidarity: Developing nations, many of whom already recognise Palestine, view this as overdue Western alignment, strengthening South–North convergence on justice and decolonisation.
    3. UN spotlight: With the General Assembly opening, Palestine’s legitimacy is expected to dominate the global agenda, elevating the conflict as a test case for multilateralism.
    4. Regional fault lines: Arab states may gain renewed diplomatic leverage, while Israel risks isolation beyond its traditional U.S. support base, potentially altering Middle East power balances.
    5. Strategic recalibration for India and Asia: Asian powers like India and China will have to navigate between historical solidarity with Palestine and strong bilateral partnerships with Israel, testing their strategic autonomy.
    6. Narrative of international law and legitimacy: Recognition by major Western democracies strengthens the normative argument for Palestinian statehood, challenging Israel’s framing of the issue as a security-only concern.

    Conclusion

    The recognition of Palestine by the U.K., Australia, and Canada is more than symbolic; it could catalyse a chain reaction of Western nations acknowledging Palestinian sovereignty. While it reignites hope for a two-state solution, it also risks deepening fault lines with Israel and the U.S.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] India’s relations with Israel have, of late, acquired a depth and diversity, which cannot be rolled back.” Discuss

    Linkage: The recognition of Palestine by U.K., Australia, and Canada highlights how global powers are recalibrating their West Asia policies, creating new pressures on countries like India. While India recognised Palestine in 1988, it has simultaneously built deep and diverse ties with Israel in defence, agriculture, and technology. This mirrors the PYQ’s core theme—India’s Israel relationship is now structurally entrenched, even as balancing Palestine’s cause remains a diplomatic necessity.

  • [20th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The Saudi-Pakistan pact is a dodgy insurance policy

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2018] In what ways would the ongoing US–Iran Nuclear Pact controversy affect the national interest of India? How should India respond to this situation?

    Linkage: The Saudi–Pakistan SMDA, like the earlier US–Iran Nuclear Pact controversy, reshapes West Asian alignments and directly impacts India’s energy security, diaspora safety, and regional stability. Just as India had to balance between Iran, the U.S., and Gulf partners in 2018, it must now carefully hedge between Riyadh and Islamabad while safeguarding its own strategic interests.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) signed between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in September 2025 has been described as a pact of optics rather than substance. Its timing, context, and asymmetrical calculations raise questions on whether it strengthens West Asian security or merely signals short-term adjustments. For UPSC aspirants, this episode provides insights into the shifting geopolitics of South West Asia, Pakistan’s strategic opportunism, Saudi Arabia’s security dilemmas, and India’s balancing role.

    Introduction

    On 17 September 2025, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Premier Shahbaz Sharif signed the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) in Riyadh, with Field Marshal Asim Munir in attendance. While presented as a landmark pact, its real significance lies in the optics of security reassurance amid the shifting sands of Middle Eastern politics. Both nations have a chequered past of military cooperation, rooted in shared faith but divided by divergent threat perceptions. The agreement’s asymmetrical benefits, U.S. undertones, and implications for India make it geopolitically consequential.

    Why is the SMDA in the news and why is it significant?

    1. First major pact in decades: The last high-point of Saudi–Pakistan defence ties was in the 1979–89 period, when 20,000 Pakistani troops protected Saudi Arabia and the Holy Harams.
    2. Optical reassurance: The SMDA is viewed more as a symbolic gesture than a substantive alliance, designed to show unity amidst rising threats from Iran, Yemen, and Israel.
    3. Geopolitical urgency: Triggered by the September 9 Israeli air strike in Doha (Qatar), the pact signals waning U.S. credibility as a security guarantor for the Gulf.
    4. Big deal: Pakistan is now a declared nuclear state, raising speculation of nuclear cooperation with Riyadh, though practical transfer remains improbable.

    What has been the history of Saudi-Pakistan defence cooperation?

    1. Golden phase (1979–89): 20,000 Pakistani soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect the monarchy and act against Iran and Yemen.
    2. Saudi view: Treated Pakistani forces as paid Praetorian Guards, limiting their autonomy.
    3. Pakistani view: Resented lack of command; exclusion of Shia troops created tensions.
    4. 1990 onwards: Pakistan refused Saudi requests during major crises (Iraq’s Kuwait invasion, Yemeni war), limiting its role to protecting the Holy Harams.

    How has the United States influenced the SMDA?

    1. Pentagon as the guarantor: U.S. historically underpinned Saudi–Pak defence ties “over-the-horizon.”
    2. Trump’s role: In June 2025, Field Marshal Munir’s “private lunch” with Trump in Washington signalled Washington’s blessing.
    3. Israeli factor: Saudi Arabia wanted a U.S. defence pact and nuclear technology in exchange for recognising Israel. The Hamas attack on Israel in Oct 2023 derailed the plan, leaving the SMDA as a consolation prize.
    4. Credibility gap: The U.S. failure to defend Qatar against Israeli strikes exposed fragility in Gulf security guarantees.

    What are Riyadh’s calculations from the SMDA?

    1. Avoid Arab troops: Past experience with Arab/Turkish troops created risks of “political pollination.
    2. Massive arms imports: Saudi Arabia has ordered $100 billion worth of U.S. weapons in 2025.
    3. Nuclear hedge: Pakistan’s nuclear capability could deter Iran if it goes nuclear.
    4. Chinese factor: Pakistan’s ties with China may complicate Riyadh’s trust.
    5. Realistic expectation: Riyadh foresees smaller Pakistani footprints than before, given past frictions.

    What are Islamabad’s calculations from the SMDA?

    1. Asymmetrical gains: No intention to fight Saudi wars against Iran, Yemen, or Israel.
    2. Strategic opportunism: Exploit Saudi insecurity to gain funds, oil, defence hardware, and training.
    3. Personal aggrandisement:Pakistan’s military elite aim to monetise “IOUs” from Riyadh and Washington.
    4. Regional calculus: Hopes trilateral axis will offset its strategic disadvantage against India.

    What does the SMDA mean for India?

    1. Energy linkages: India is the third-largest oil importer and among Saudi’s top trade partners.
    2. Diaspora factor: Largest expatriate community in Saudi Arabia, valued for skills and neutrality.
    3. Diplomatic capital: Post-2014 outreach has created defence and intelligence-sharing frameworks.
    4. Saudi balancing act: Riyadh assured Reuters that ties with India remain “robust,” acknowledging India’s nuclear status and geoeconomic heft.
    5. Implication: India must remain vigilant, building greater Arabian Sea synergies to counterbalance tactical moves by Pakistan.

    Conclusion

    The Saudi–Pakistan pact is less a robust security alliance and more a political insurance policy, crafted in haste amid shifting regional dynamics. While it temporarily reassures Riyadh and monetarily benefits Islamabad, its sustainability remains doubtful due to divergent threat perceptions, nuclear sensitivities, and overlapping U.S.–China rivalries. For India, the SMDA underscores the need to strengthen its energy diplomacy, diaspora leverage, and strategic partnerships with Riyadh, while maintaining watchfulness over Pakistan’s manoeuvres.

  • US revokes sanctions waiver on Chabahar Port

    Why in the News?

    The U.S. has ended the 2018 waiver that let India use Iran’s Chabahar Port for Afghanistan’s reconstruction, revoking it within 10 days.

    US revokes sanctions waiver on Chabahar Port

    About Chabahar Port:

    • Location: Deep-water port in Sistan-Baluchistan province of Iran, on the Gulf of Oman at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz.
    • Unique Feature: The only Iranian port with direct access to the Indian Ocean.
    • Distances: Kandla Port, Gujarat – 550 nautical miles, Mumbai – 786 nautical miles from Chabahar.
    • Structure: Comprises Shahid Beheshti and Shahid Kalantari terminals.
    • Connectivity Potential: Its proximity to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India and position on the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) gives it the ability to become a major commercial hub.
    • INSTC: A multi-modal route linking the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea via Iran, and onward to northern Europe via Russia.

    India’s Engagements for Chabahar Port:

    • Tripartite Agreement (2016): India, Iran, and Afghanistan agreed to develop the Shahid Beheshti terminal, marking India’s first foreign port project.
    • Infrastructure Goals: Develop the port and build a rail line to Zahedan, bypassing Pakistan to reach Afghanistan and Central Asia.
    • Recent Developments: In May 2024, India Ports Global Ltd (IPGL) signed a 10-year lease to operate Shahid Beheshti.
    • Commitments: India pledged $120 million in equipment and a $250 million credit line.
    • Operations: India supplied 6 harbour cranes; facilitated shipments of 2.5 million tonnes of wheat and 2,000 tonnes of pulses to Afghanistan.

    Implications of US Sanctions for India:

    • Economic Setback: Jeopardises India’s ₹200 crore investment and future projects.
    • Connectivity Loss: Cuts India’s only direct maritime gateway to Afghanistan, Central Asia, and INSTC.
    • Strategic Impact: Weakens India’s counter to China’s Gwadar Port in Pakistan under CPEC.
    • Diplomatic Strain: Risks tensions with Iran (strategic partner) and the United States (major trade partner).
    • Operational Challenges: Sanctions may deter shippers, insurers, and suppliers, slowing port activity.
    [UPSC 2017] What is the importance of developing Chabahar Port by India?

    Options: (a) India’s trade with African countries will enormously increase.

    (b) India’s relations with oil-producing Arab countries will be strengthened.

    (c) India will not depend on Pakistan for access to Afghanistan and Central Asia *

    (d) Pakistan will facilitate and protect the installation of a gas pipeline between Iraq and India