💥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.

  • Why is there no peace in Ukraine

    Introduction

    Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, several attempts at negotiations, from Belarus to Turkey, have collapsed. With Russia consolidating control over Ukrainian territories and Ukraine facing military constraints, the conflict shows signs of becoming a prolonged war. The Trump plan, recent Russian advances, and fatigue in Western capitals have complicated the strategic landscape, placing Ukraine at a turning point.

    Why in the news

    The Ukraine-Russia war has again entered headlines as Russia captured Pokrovske, marking the first major territorial gain after a year of stalled frontlines. Simultaneously, a 28-point U.S. peace proposal surfaced, offering recognition of Russian control over key territories. Ukraine is facing troop shortages, battlefield pressure, and delays in Western aid, making negotiations both urgent and politically difficult. Recent territorial losses, a disputed peace plan, and growing pressure on President Zelensky have reopened global debate on whether a ceasefire is achievable.

    Battlefield Dynamics and Stalled Negotiations

    1. Russian Consolidation: Russia captured Pokrovske after holding back Ukrainian forces for nearly a year; repositioned units in Kharkiv and Kherson and intensified attacks on Avdiivka and Kupiansk.
    2. Ukrainian Strain: Ukraine faces troop shortages, heavy attrition, and reduced Western ammunition deliveries; unable to meet battlefield demands.
    3. Failed Negotiations History: Talks in Belarus (Feb 28, 2022), Turkey (March 2022), and subsequent engagements collapsed due to disagreements over territory, NATO membership, and security guarantees.
    4. Renewed Russian Push: Russia resumed rotated forces, strengthened defensive lines, and maintained pressure across the east and south.

    Why Have Earlier Peace Efforts Failed?

    1. Maximalist Positions:
      1. Ukraine demanded withdrawal to 1991 borders and refusal of territorial concessions.
      2. Russia insisted on recognition of annexed territories and long-term security guarantees.
    2. NATO Membership Dispute: Ukraine’s insistence on future NATO membership remained unacceptable to Russia.
    3. Shifting War Outcomes: Early battlefield gains for Ukraine pushed negotiations aside; later Russian consolidation hardened Moscow’s stance.
    4. Domestic Political Costs: Zelensky faced internal political risk if he conceded territory or NATO flexibility.
    5. Western Signalling: Changes in Western messaging during 2022, especially from UK PM Boris Johnson’s Kyiv visit, reinforced Ukraine’s resolve to fight rather than negotiate.

    What Does the New Trump Peace Plan Propose?

    1. Territorial Recognition: Recognizes Russian control of current occupied territories (Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson).
    2. Ceasefire Framework: Calls for an initial ceasefire based on “current positions”.
    3. Security Guarantees: Ukraine would receive “reliable security guarantees”, though details remain unspecified.
    4. NATO Question: Prohibits Ukraine from joining NATO but proposes alternative security arrangements.
    5. Referendum Clause: Suggests that Ukraine may hold referendums under international supervision in disputed areas.
    6. Western Package: Encourages Washington to commit additional security assurances if Ukraine accepts concessions.
    7. Controversy: Critics argue it endorses annexation and weakens Ukrainian sovereignty.

    How Is Ukraine Responding to the Proposal?

      1. Zelensky’s Dilemma:
    • Fear of Loss of U.S. Support if he rejects the plan outright.
    • Domestic Resistance to territorial concessions or NATO withdrawal.
    1. Political Stakes: Any acceptance of the Trump plan risks severe political backlash within Ukraine and among its security elite.
    2. Military Reality Check: With Russia advancing and Western aid reduced, Ukraine risks losing more territory if negotiations are delayed.
    3. Unclear U.S. Position: The White House has neither endorsed nor dismissed the plan; Washington sends mixed signals.

    What Is Russia’s Current Strategy?

    1. Gradual Territorial Expansion: Small but steady advances across Donetsk and Kharkiv fronts.
    2. Exhaustion Approach: Prolonging the war to drain Ukrainian manpower and Western support.
    3. Diplomatic Pressure: Leveraging the Trump plan to portray Ukraine as unwilling to negotiate.
    4. Military Reconfiguration: Rotations, reorganized brigades, and fortified defensive lines to prepare for prolonged combat.

    Conclusion

    The Ukraine war remains locked between military stalemate and political impossibility. With Russia consolidating gains and Western support fluctuating, the window for meaningful negotiations narrows. The Trump plan introduces a new, but highly contentious, framework. For now, peace remains elusive due to incompatible security demands, shifting battlefield realities, and the political constraints of both Kyiv and Moscow.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] The expansion and strengthening of NATO and a stronger US-Europe strategic partnership works well for India. What is your opinion about this statement? Give reasons and examples to support your answer.

    Linkage: This PYQ aligns with the article’s focus on NATO’s revived strength and US-Europe unity shaped by the Ukraine war. It directly links to how these shifts hardened positions, prolonged conflict, and reshaped global security dynamics.

  • Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands Issue

    Why in the News?

    A China Coast Guard formation patrolled the Senkaku waters as Beijing escalated tensions with Japan over recent remarks on Taiwan.

    Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands Issue

    About the Senkaku–Diaoyu Islands Issue:

    • Location & Status: A small uninhabited island group in the East China Sea, claimed by Japan, China, and Taiwan.
    • Names: Japan calls them Senkaku, China Diaoyu, and Taiwan Diaoyutai.
    • Administration: Japan has administered the islands since 1972 after the Okinawa Reversion Agreement with the United States.
    • Geography: Consists of five islands and three rocks, covering ~7 sq km; the largest is Uotsuri.
    • Strategic Location: Situated near major shipping lanes linking East Asia to global trade routes.
    • Natural Resources: Surrounding waters believed to hold oil and natural gas deposits, highlighted in a 1969 UN report.
    • Fisheries: Rich fishing grounds add significant economic importance.
    • Geopolitical Value: Located at the junction of interests of Japan, China, Taiwan, and the United States, making it a strategic flashpoint.

    What is the Dispute?

    • Japanese Claim: Japan incorporated the islands in January 1895, asserting they were terra nullius based on surveys from 1885 that found no Chinese administration.
    • Chinese & Taiwanese Claim: Cite dynastic-era maps, navigation records, and Qing documents to argue sovereignty predates Japanese control.
    • Post–World War II Status: The US took control under the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, administering the islands as part of the Nansei Shoto region.
    • 1971 Shift: Transfer of Senkaku and Okinawa back to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement sparked protests from China and Taiwan.
    • Resource Trigger: China’s active claim strengthened after the 1969 UN report identified potential hydrocarbon reserves.
    • 2012 Escalation: Japan’s purchase of three privately owned islands led to widespread protests, attacks on Japanese businesses, and a surge in nationalist sentiment in China.
    • Current Tensions: Chinese Coast Guard vessels frequently enter surrounding waters to assert Beijing’s claim.
    • Broader Dynamics: Linked to nationalism, unresolved historical grievances, and strategic competition between China, Japan, and the United States across the Indo-Pacific.
    [UPSC 2022] Which one of the following statements best reflects the issue with Senkaku Islands, sometimes mentioned in the news?

    Options: (a) It is generally believed that they are artificial islands made by a country around South China Sea.

    (b) China and Japan engage in maritime disputes over these islands in East China Sea.*

    (c) A permanent American military base has been set up there to help Taiwan to increase its defence capabilities.

    (d) Though International Court of Justice declared them as no man’s land, some South-East Asian countries claim them.

     

  • [14th November 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Donald Trump shakes up the global nuclear order

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union.  Explain.

    Linkage: China’s denial of nuclear testing and its call for the U.S. to uphold the moratorium illustrate the sharper, more complex strategic rivalry between the two powers. This directly aligns with the PYQ’s theme that China poses a subtler and more challenging strategic threat to the U.S. than the Soviet Union.

    Mentor’s Comment

    This editorial examines how recent U.S. actions under Donald Trump have disrupted long-standing global nuclear norms, especially the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) framework. The article evaluates implications for global nuclear stability, India’s strategic environment, and emerging arms-race dynamics. It has been rewritten to suit UPSC Mains standards, with structured analysis, value addition, and exam-oriented elements.

    INTRODUCTION

    The global nuclear order, built since 1945 through treaties, moratoria, and non-proliferation norms, is undergoing significant strain. The U.S. announcement of resuming nuclear testing and redefining CTBT obligations marks a decisive departure from three decades of restraint. This shift impacts nuclear doctrines, arms control regimes, and the behaviour of declared and undeclared nuclear weapon states.

    WHY IN THE NEWS 

    The CTBT framework faces its sharpest crisis in 27 years after Donald Trump declared that the U.S. may resume nuclear explosive testing, reversing the long-standing global moratorium. This marks the first major deviation from post-Cold War consensus and directly challenges existing verification norms. With Russia abandoning CTBT ratification and China refusing explosive testing, the U.S. move risks triggering a new technological arms race, raising concerns for India’s regional security environment.

    How the Nuclear Order Evolved

    1. Post-1945 restructuring: Nuclear stockpiles reduced from ~65,000 warheads in the 1970s to ~12,500 today; nine states now possess nuclear weapons.
    2. NPT framework: NPT created a hierarchy between five permanent nuclear powers and later entrants such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
    3. Moratorium period: CTBT negotiations from 1993-96 led to a global halt on explosive tests despite the treaty never entering into force.

    Why the U.S. Nuclear Test Resumption Matters

    1. Resumption of explosive testing: President Trump instructed the U.S. DoE and DoD to prepare for renewed testing, reversing a voluntary halt maintained since 1992.
    2. Shift in doctrine: U.S. pursuit of low-yield warheads and submarine-launched cruise missiles signals a move to battlefield-oriented nuclear systems.
    3. Erosion of restraint: The U.S. argues Russia and China conduct “non-explosive yield tests,” challenging Washington’s previous compliance stance.

    Why the CTBT Is Facing Breakdown

    1. Treaty not in force: CTBT requires ratification by 187 signatory states; key holdouts include the U.S., China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
    2. Russia’s reversal: Russia withdrew CTBT ratification in 2023, citing U.S. non-ratification.
    3. Competing interpretations: China and Russia continue “zero-yield” testing; the CTBT Organization’s monitoring system detects global activity through 300+ stations.

    How New Technology Is Altering the Arms Race

    1. Low-yield weapons: U.S. development of W76-2 warheads creates escalation risks due to tactical usability.
    2. Unmanned and hypersonic systems: Renewed R&D on missile defence, high-tech cruise systems, and autonomous platforms challenges existing deterrence logic.
    3. Doctrinal changes: Nuclear powers pursue counterforce-oriented designs to survive adversary first strikes.

    Implications for India

    1. Regional chain reaction: Testing by the U.S., Russia, or China is likely to push Pakistan to follow, widening the deterrence gap with India.
    2. China-Pakistan axis: Deepening technological cooperation complicates India’s security environment.
    3. NPT/CTBT dilemma: India may face pressure on whether to revisit explosive testing if others abandon restraint.

    CONCLUSION

    The breakdown of CTBT norms marks the most significant shift in the nuclear order since the 1990s. Renewed explosive testing by major powers could trigger competitive modernization cycles and weaken global arms control regimes. For India, the challenge lies in balancing credible deterrence with adherence to restraint-based global norms.

    Value Addition

    What is CTBT?

    • A multilateral arms-control treaty that bans all nuclear explosions, for both civilian and military purposes.
    • Aims to freeze qualitative nuclear arms race by preventing the development of new warhead designs.

    When was it negotiated?

    • Negotiated at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) between 1993-1996.
    • Adopted by the UNGA on 10 September 1996.
    • Opened for signature on 24 September 1996.

    Why is it not in force?

    • CTBT will enter into force only when all 44 Annex-II states (states with nuclear capabilities at the time) ratify it.
    • As of today, 8 Annex-II states have not ratified/signed:
      U.S., China, India, Pakistan, DPRK, Israel, Iran, Egypt.
    • Because of this, the treaty remains legally incomplete, though politically influential.

    Key Provisions

    1. Total Prohibition
      • Bans all nuclear explosions, including:
        • High-yield tests
        • Low-yield tests
        • Subcritical tests (disputed)
      • Applies to all environments: underground, underwater, atmospheric, outer space.
    2. Verification Regime
      • International Monitoring System (IMS) with 300+ stations, using:
        • Seismic sensors
        • Hydroacoustic monitors
        • Infrasound detectors
        • Radionuclide sampling
      • International Data Centre (IDC) analyses global test signals.
      • On-site inspections permitted after treaty enters into force.
    3. Confidence-Building Measures
      • Exchange of information, calibration explosions, technical cooperation.

    Institutional Mechanism

    • CTBTO Preparatory Commission (CTBTO-PrepCom) established in 1997.
    • Manages:
      • IMS network construction
      • Data analysis
      • Training and inspection readiness
    • Works despite treaty not being in force.

    Significance

    • Creates the strongest global norm against nuclear testing since 1998.
    • Slows modernization of nuclear arsenals.
    • Provides scientific verification for early detection of clandestine tests.
    • Complements Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and FMCT debates.

     

  • 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.