💥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.

  • [14th April 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Will Trump’s tariffs bring in a recession?

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2018] How would the recent phenomena of protectionism and currency manipulations in world trade affect macroeconomic stability of India?

    Linkage:  Trump’s administration was known for implementing protectionist trade policies, primarily through tariffs, starting around that period as discussed in the article. The question asks about the impact of “protectionism” on “macroeconomic stability,” which is directly linked to concerns about a potential recession.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  The U.S. has been a strong supporter of free trade and a key driver of globalization since the mid-20th century. However, in a surprising shift, President Donald Trump took drastic action on April 2, calling it “Liberation Day,” by drastically changing U.S. trade policy. Until 2024, the U.S. had a low tariff rate of 2 to 3% on imports for two decades. But on April 2, Trump announced that the U.S. would now charge a minimum of 10% tariff on all imports. For imports from around 60 countries, the tariffs would be much higher, called “reciprocal” tariffs. These include a 20% tariff on the European Union (EU), 27% on India, and 46% on Vietnam.

    Today’s editorial analyzes how the U.S. tariffs will affect India and the rest of the world. This topic is useful for GS Paper 2 and 3 in the UPSC Mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    On April 2, U.S. President Trump announced that the U.S. would start charging at least 10% tariffs on all imports.

    What change did Trump announce on April 2 regarding U.S. tariffs?

    • Introduction of a Minimum 10% Tariff on All Imports: Trump declared that the U.S. would levy a minimum 10% tariff on all imported goods, ending decades of low tariff policy. Eg: A previously tariff-free $100 imported item would now cost $110 with the new 10% tariff.
    • “Reciprocal” Tariffs for Select Countries: Tariffs would be significantly higher for around 60 countries, based on what the U.S. perceives as unfair trade practices. Eg: Imports from India now face a 27% tariff, Vietnam 46%, and China a staggering 145%.
    • Highest Tariffs Targeted at China: China, the largest source of U.S. imports, was hit hardest — facing 145% tariffs, as part of an aggressive move to reduce trade deficits and pressure China economically. Eg: A $100 Chinese product would now cost $245 after the new tariff.

    How did markets respond?

    • Stock Markets Nosedived: The announcement caused panic among investors, leading to sharp declines in stock markets around the world. Eg: The U.S. stock market dropped significantly, with major indices like the Dow Jones and S&P 500 seeing large declines as investors feared the impact of the tariffs.
    • Increased Economic Uncertainty: The abrupt tariff increases created a sense of economic uncertainty, particularly regarding trade relations and the global supply chain. Eg: The value of the U.S. dollar fluctuated, with the dollar weakening against several currencies as concerns about a trade war heightened.
    • Commodity Prices Rose: The market anticipated higher costs for goods, especially imported items, leading to a rise in the price of key commodities. Eg: Goods like electronics and consumer products became more expensive, reflecting the expected rise in tariffs and trade barriers.

    What could be the chance of recession after US tariffs? 

    • Reduced Consumer Spending Due to Higher Prices: Higher tariffs make imported goods more expensive, which can lead to inflation and reduced purchasing power among consumers. This slowdown in consumer spending—a key driver of the U.S. economy—can drag growth. Eg: A $1,000 smartphone imported from China may now cost $2,450 due to 145% tariffs, making consumers delay or avoid big purchases.
    • Strained Global Supply Chains and Business Uncertainty: Companies reliant on international supply chains may face higher input costs and uncertainty, leading to reduced investments, production delays, and job cuts.Eg: U.S. auto manufacturers sourcing parts from Asia may cut production or delay expansion due to rising costs and disrupted logistics.
    • Global Retaliation and Slowing Trade: Other countries may retaliate with their own tariffs, triggering a trade war that slows global trade and weakens demand for U.S. exports, increasing the risk of a global economic downturn. Eg: If the EU or China impose counter-tariffs on U.S. agricultural or tech exports, American farmers and companies may face losses, increasing joblessness and recession risk.

    Why is China better prepared for a trade war?

    Reason Why China Is Better Prepared Example
    Diversified Export Markets Reduced reliance on U.S. by expanding trade with Asia, Europe, and Africa. U.S. share in China’s exports dropped from 21% (2006) to 16.2% (2022).
    Lower Export Dependence on GDP Exports now form a smaller part of China’s economy, reducing vulnerability. Export-to-GDP fell from 35% (2012) to 19.7% (2023).
    Focus on Tech & Innovation Heavy investment in AI, EVs, and domestic tech industries to cut foreign dependence. Made in China 2025 boosted self-reliance in high-tech sectors.
    Manufacturing Shift to Neighbors Relocating production to East Asia (e.g., Vietnam) to bypass U.S. tariffs. Maintains supply chains while avoiding direct U.S. tariffs.
    Strong Forex Reserves & Bond Holdings Large reserves used to buy U.S. treasury bonds, ensuring financial strength. U.S. dollar assets reduce trade/finance risks and secure China’s position.

    How will higher U.S. tariffs impact India’s exports? 

    • Reduced Export Earnings: Higher U.S. tariffs could decrease India’s export earnings as Indian goods would become more expensive for U.S. consumers, potentially leading to lower demand. Eg: Products like textiles and gems & jewelry, which are major export items to the U.S., might see a drop in sales due to increased tariffs.
    • Impact on Key Sectors: India’s manufacturing sectors, such as automobiles and electrical machinery, might face stiffer competition due to higher tariffs, reducing their ability to compete in the U.S. market. Eg: Indian automobile exports, especially in segments like small cars, might struggle as U.S. tariffs raise the prices and reduce competitiveness.
    • Diversification of Export Markets: Since the U.S. accounts for 21.8% of India’s total exports, any tariff hike could push India to explore new markets outside the U.S., reducing the impact of the tariff increase. Eg: India might increase its focus on the European Union or Southeast Asian markets, where demand for Indian goods remains strong.
    • Pharmaceutical and Service Exports Unaffected: Higher tariffs on goods may not impact India’s pharmaceutical and services exports as significantly, as they are major contributors to India’s trade surplus with the U.S. Eg: Generic medicines and IT services, such as software development, will likely continue to thrive in the U.S. market despite higher tariffs on other goods.
    • Pressure on Domestic Industry: Increased tariffs could also drive higher production costs in India, as it may face higher input costs for raw materials imported from the U.S. This could hurt the competitiveness of India’s export products. Eg: Sectors like steel and chemicals, which rely on U.S. exports for raw materials, may see a rise in production costs, potentially reducing profit margins.

    When did the U.S. maintain low tariffs?

    • Post-World War II Period (1945–1970s): After World War II, the U.S. championed free trade and maintained low tariffs to encourage global economic recovery and integrate global markets. During this period, the U.S. was seen as the chief architect of globalization. Eg: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), established in 1947, played a crucial role in reducing global tariffs, and the U.S. led many rounds of negotiations to lower its own import duties.
    • 1980s to Early 2000s: During this period, particularly under the Clinton administration, the U.S. kept tariffs low to support global trade liberalization and its dominant position in the world economy. This made the U.S. an attractive market for exports and facilitated the growth of international trade. Eg: The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed in 1994 between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico aimed to eliminate tariffs and increase trade between the countries, further reinforcing the U.S.’s low-tariff approach.

    Why was it seen as the chief architect of globalisation during that time?

    • Promotion of Free Trade Agreements: The U.S. led the establishment of various international trade agreements to reduce tariffs and promote open markets. It actively negotiated trade deals that facilitated the movement of goods, services, and capital across borders. Eg: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), later replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, was strongly influenced by the U.S. and aimed at creating a more liberalized global trade system.
    • Economic Influence and Dollar Dominance: The U.S. played a dominant role in global finance, with the dollar as the primary global reserve currency. This position helped facilitate international trade and investment, as countries around the world held U.S. dollars for foreign exchange and international transactions. Eg: Countries like China and Japan invested heavily in U.S. Treasury bonds, reinforcing the U.S.’s economic influence and fostering the expansion of global markets.
    • Technological and Industrial Leadership: The U.S. led technological innovation and industrial development, particularly in sectors like technology, finance, and manufacturing. This leadership helped drive global supply chains, with many countries relying on the U.S. for both innovation and as a key export market. Eg: U.S. tech giants such as Microsoft, Apple, and Google set the global stage for the digital economy, helping integrate economies worldwide into a globalized tech ecosystem.

    Way forward: 

    • Diversify Export Markets: India and other countries should explore new markets outside of the U.S., especially in emerging economies and regional trade agreements, to reduce dependency on the U.S. and mitigate the effects of tariff hikes. Eg: Strengthening ties with the European Union, Southeast Asia, and Africa could help reduce reliance on the U.S. market.
    • Enhance Domestic Innovation and Self-Sufficiency: Countries should focus on boosting domestic production, innovation, and technological advancements to reduce vulnerability to external trade barriers and tariffs. Eg: India could prioritize self-reliance in sectors like pharmaceuticals, electronics, and renewable energy to counter tariff pressures.

  • [5th April 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A case for the Global South in securing Ukraine peace

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2019] The long-sustained image of India as a leader of the oppressed and marginalised Nations has disappeared on account of its new found role in the emerging global order”. Elaborate.

    Linkage:  India’s historical role as a voice for the “Global South” and how its current global positioning might be perceived differently. This article argues for the Global South to take a leading role, which resonates with India’s past image.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  As the Ukraine war moves toward a fragile ceasefire, the big question is who will ensure lasting peace. Western countries suggest a European-led peacekeeping force, but Russia rejects NATO troops. Instead, nations from the Global South—Africa, Asia, and Latin America—could lead a neutral UN mission, showing they can help maintain global peace and stability.

    Today’s editorial looks at how countries from the Global South could lead a peacekeeping mission in the Ukraine war. This topic is useful for General Studies Paper 2 in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    The war in Ukraine gives the Global South a chance to show it can be a fair and trusted force in bringing peace and stability to the world.

    Why is a Global South-led peacekeeping mission preferred over a European-led one in Ukraine?

    • Neutrality and Trustworthiness: Global South countries are not directly involved in the Ukraine war and have largely remained neutral, making them more acceptable to both parties Example: India maintains diplomatic ties with both Russia and Ukraine — PM Modi met both leaders within weeks, signalling impartiality.
    • Avoiding NATO-Russia Tensions: European-led missions are viewed by Russia as NATO extensions, which could escalate rather than resolve the conflict. Example: Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov warned that European troops would “fuel the conflict,” not ease it.
    • Strong UN Peacekeeping Experience: Global South nations have a proven record in UN peacekeeping across various conflict zones. Example: The African Union has led missions in Somalia and Sudan; India has contributed over 2,90,000 peacekeepers to UN missions.
    • Public Opposition in Europe: European populations are reluctant to support troop deployments in Ukraine, limiting the viability of a European-led mission. Example: French citizens largely opposed Macron’s suggestion to send French troops for peacekeeping earlier this year.
    • Symbol of Multipolar Global Order: A Global South-led mission would demonstrate their growing role in global governance and diplomacy. Example: Countries like Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa are part of BRICS and actively engage in UN initiatives, signalling rising influence.

    Why does Russia oppose European or NATO-led peacekeeping forces in Ukraine?

    • Perceived NATO Expansion: Russia sees any European-led force as a cover for NATO expansion, violating its red lines on NATO’s eastward movement. Example: Moscow described a European-led mission as a “NATO Trojan horse” — a disguised attempt to increase NATO’s footprint in Ukraine.
    • Threat to Russian Security: A European or NATO presence near Russian borders is seen as a direct security threat, escalating tensions. Example: Russia strongly reacted when NATO troops were deployed in Eastern Europe after 2014, citing encirclement fears.
    • Lack of Impartiality: Russia considers NATO countries partial and hostile, incapable of mediating fairly between Ukraine and Russia. Example: NATO nations have supplied Ukraine with weapons and intelligence, eroding their neutrality in Russia’s view.
    • Potential for Escalation: Deploying NATO-aligned forces could turn peacekeepers into targets, risking direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. Example: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that NATO troops in Ukraine would “further fuel the conflict.”
    • Undermining Diplomatic Efforts: Russia believes a NATO role in peacekeeping would delegitimize any ceasefire, making negotiations harder. Example: Russia has supported talks in neutral venues like Riyadh, avoiding NATO-influenced settings for peace discussions.

    Which Global South countries are suited for peacekeeping in Ukraine, and what proves their capability?

    • India has vast experience in UN peacekeeping, having contributed over 2,90,000 troops to 50+ UN missions. Example: In 2007, India deployed the first all-women peacekeeping contingent to Liberia, showcasing professionalism and inclusivity.
    •  Brazil has led several UN missions, especially in Latin America and Africa, and is known for diplomatic balance. Example: Brazil commanded the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) from 2004 to 2017, showing leadership in volatile environments.
    •  South Africa: With deep regional peacekeeping experience via the African Union and UN, South Africa balances diplomacy with force. Example: South Africa has contributed troops to peacekeeping missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO) under challenging conditions.
    • Indonesia has a consistent record of contributing troops and police to UN missions, emphasizing neutrality and professionalism. Example: It currently contributes forces to UN missions in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Central African Republic (MINUSCA).
    • Chile specializes in demining and post-conflict reconstruction, vital for Ukraine’s recovery. Example: Chilean experts have worked with UN missions on landmine removal in post-war zones, a skill urgently needed in Ukraine.

    How can India’s peacekeeping legacy support a UN mission in Ukraine?  

    • Reputation for Neutrality: India maintains balanced diplomatic relations with Russia, Ukraine, and the West, making it a credible and neutral peacekeeping leader. Example: PM Modi’s meetings with both President Putin and President Zelenskyy within weeks reflect India’s impartial diplomatic posture.
    • Extensive Peacekeeping Experience: India is one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping, with over 2,90,000 troops having served in 50+ missions worldwide. Example: India’s leadership in UN missions in South Sudan (UNMISS) and Congo (MONUSCO) shows operational effectiveness in complex conflict zones.
    • Pioneering Gender-Inclusive Peacekeeping: India was the first country to deploy an all-women police contingent in a UN mission. Example: In 2007, Indian women peacekeepers served in Liberia, enhancing community trust and addressing gender-based issues in post-conflict societies.

    Way forward:

    • Leverage India’s Neutral Diplomatic Standing: India can lead or coordinate a Global South-led mission due to its balanced ties with Russia, Ukraine, and the West — ensuring credibility and acceptance by all parties. e.g. India’s PM meetings with both Putin and Zelenskyy show diplomatic neutrality.
    • Utilize India’s Peacekeeping Expertise:
       India should offer experienced troops, including women contingents, to promote trust, inclusivity, and effectiveness in conflict zones. e.g. India’s success in UNMISS and the all-women unit in Liberia reflect its capability.

  • Heard and McDonald Islands

    Why in the News?

    Donald Trump imposed a 10% tariff on imports from the Heard and McDonald Islands, despite no human presence there for nearly a decade.

    About the Heard and McDonald Islands

    • The Heard and McDonald Islands are located in the Southern Ocean, approximately 4,100 km south-west of Perth, Australia, and 1,600 km to the north of the Antarctic coast.
    • The islands are unincorporated external territories of Australia, meaning they are not part of any Australian state but are directly administered by the Australian government.
    • The islands are home to seals, penguins, and albatrosses, and serve as crucial breeding grounds for these species.
    • The islands have been designated as UNESCO World Heritage Sites due to their ecological significance, particularly their rich biodiversity.
    • Heard Island:
      • Heard Island spans an area of approximately 368 square kilometers.
      • The island’s highest point is Mawson Peak, an active volcano standing 2,745 meters (9,006 feet) above sea level.
      • Mawson Peak is one of the most active volcanoes in the southern hemisphere, with eruptions as recent as 2016.
    • McDonald Islands:
      • It is much smaller, covering only 2.5 square kilometers.
      • Geological Nature: These islands are volcanic and part of the same volcanic chain as Heard Island.
      • Climate
      • Both islands experience an extremely cold subantarctic climate, with heavy winds, snow, and ice for much of the year.
      • Temperatures rarely exceed 5°C (41°F) even in summer.

    Strategic Significance

    • The islands are strategically located between Australia and Antarctica, important for monitoring the Southern Ocean, vital for global biodiversity and climate studies.
    • They play a key role in scientific research, particularly in volcanology, glaciology, and climate change, with Australia operating a research station on Heard Island.
    • The islands are protected under the Antarctic Treaty System, ensuring no military activity or commercial exploitation in the region.
    • Rich in marine resources, the surrounding waters are also safeguarded to prevent overfishing and environmental harm.
    • Their geopolitical importance grows as international competition and territorial claims around Antarctica and the Southern Ocean increase.

  • India holds fire as Trump announces tariffs

    Why in the News?

    India faces lower U.S. tariffs than its rivals, making its exports more competitive. This can help expand market share and strengthen trade ties, possibly securing better terms through a future Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA).

    India faces lower U.S. tariffs than its rivals, making its exports more competitive. This can help expand market share and strengthen trade ties, possibly securing better terms through a future Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA).

    Why did Trump impose “reciprocal tariffs” on countries like India?

    • Addressing Trade Deficits: Trump viewed large U.S. trade deficits as a national emergency and sought to correct them. Eg: India had a $30+ billion trade surplus with the U.S. in 2019, prompting higher tariffs.
    • High Tariffs by Trading Partners: Claimed that countries like India imposed higher tariffs on U.S. goods while enjoying low tariffs in return. Eg: India’s 52% tariff on U.S. goods (as per Trump’s claim) led to a 27% tariff on Indian exports.
    • Legal Justification Under IEEPA (1977): Used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs as a response to economic threats. Eg: Trump declared April 2 as “Liberation Day”, marking U.S. retaliation against trade imbalances.
    • Targeting Specific Sectors with Unfair Trade Practices: Accused India of protecting key industries with high tariffs and non-tariff barriers. Eg: India’s high tariffs on motorcycles (100% in 2017, later reduced to 30%) were cited as unfair.
    • Political Strategy for U.S. Domestic Industry: Aimed to protect American jobs and industries by reducing competition from low-cost imports. Eg: Tariffs targeted India’s gems, jewelry, and textiles sectors to favor U.S. producers.

    Why was India’s response to the U.S. tariffs muted compared to others?

    • Ongoing Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) Talks: India was engaged in negotiations with the U.S. for a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) and did not want to escalate tensions. Eg: The Commerce Ministry stated that India values its Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership with the U.S. and remained committed to BTA discussions.
    • Lower Tariff Impact Compared to Regional Competitors: India’s 27% tariff penalty was lower than those imposed on Vietnam (46%), Thailand (37%), Bangladesh (37%), and Sri Lanka (44%), offering a slight comparative advantage. Eg: Indian exports faced less severe tariffs than competitors, reducing the immediate urgency for a retaliatory response.
    • Focus on Exploring New Trade Opportunities: Instead of retaliation, India sought to leverage shifting global trade patterns and assess how the tariffs might create new export opportunities. Eg: The Commerce Ministry stated that it was studying “opportunities that may arise due to this new development.”
    • Avoiding Direct Confrontation with a Key Strategic Partner: India prioritized maintaining strong diplomatic and strategic ties with the U.S., especially given their defense, geopolitical, and economic partnerships. Eg: Unlike China or the EU, which threatened countermeasures, India’s official statement was measured and non-confrontational.
    • Selective Impact on Indian Industries: While some sectors like gems and jewelry were hit hard, others, such as automobiles and auto parts, were not significantly affected, reducing the immediate urgency for a strong reaction. Eg: The Gems & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) called for a quick resolution but did not demand aggressive retaliation.

    Which Indian sectors are most affected by the 27% U.S. tariff?

    • Gems & Jewelry Industry: The U.S. accounts for over 30% of India’s $32 billion annual gems and jewellery exports, making it the hardest-hit sector. Eg: The Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) warned that sustaining India’s $10 billion export volume to the U.S. would be challenging.
    • Textile & Apparel Sector: India is a major exporter of textiles and garments to the U.S., and higher tariffs could reduce price competitiveness against rivals like Vietnam and Bangladesh. Eg: The tariff increase could lead to order cancellations or a shift in sourcing to lower-tariff countries.
    • Processed Food & Agricultural Exports: India exports rice, tea, spices, and processed food to the U.S., which are now subject to higher tariffs, making them more expensive for American consumers. Eg: Indian basmati rice and processed mango products could face a drop in demand due to higher costs.

    How could India gain a comparative advantage? (Way forward) 

    • Lower Tariff Impact Compared to Competitors: India’s 27% tariff is lower than Vietnam (46%), Thailand (37%), Bangladesh (37%), and Sri Lanka (44%), making Indian goods relatively cheaper in the U.S. market. Eg: Indian textile and leather exports could remain more competitive than those from Bangladesh or Vietnam.
    • Potential Market Share Expansion: Higher tariffs on regional competitors may shift U.S. import preferences toward India, increasing Indian exports in affected sectors. Eg: If Bangladesh’s apparel exports become too costly, U.S. buyers may turn to Indian manufacturers for sourcing.
    • Strengthened Trade Relations with the U.S: By maintaining a measured diplomatic response and continuing trade negotiations, India can secure long-term benefits through a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA). Eg: A favorable BTA could lead to tariff reductions or exemptions for key Indian industries like pharmaceuticals and IT services.

    Mains PYQ:

    Question: How would the recent phenomena of protectionism and currency manipulations in world trade affect the macroeconomic stability of India? [UPSC 2022]

    Linkage: The potential impact of protectionist measures (like tariffs) on India’s economy.

  • [1st April 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Why are tensions high in the Arctic?

    PYQ Relevance:

    Question: “If the last few decades were of Asia’s growth story, the next few are expected to be of Africa’s.” In the light of this statement, examine India’s influence in Africa in recent years. [UPSC 2021]

    Linkage: The broader context of competition for influence in the continent. 

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  The Arctic has been isolated for centuries, but climate change is melting ice, which leads to opening access to valuable resources like oil, gas, and rare earth metals. Melting ice is also creating new trade routes. Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic has no strong legal protections, leading to territorial claims and military activity, increasing global tensions.

    Today’s editorial discusses the geopolitical impact of climate change in the Arctic. This topic is relevant for GS Paper 2 (International Relations) and GS Paper 3 (Environment).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Global experts are concerned about increasing tensions in the Arctic, cautioning that if not controlled, they might cause conflict in the area.

    arctic

    What are the key factors driving increased geopolitical tensions in the Arctic?

    • Climate Change & Melting Ice: The Arctic ice cap is shrinking, making previously inaccessible natural resources and trade routes viable. Example: The opening of the Northeast Passage along Russia’s coast could significantly reduce shipping times between Asia and Europe.
    • Competition for Natural Resources: The region holds an estimated 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of untapped natural gas, along with rare earth minerals. Example: Greenland has significant deposits of rare earth elements, attracting interest from China and the U.S.
    • Territorial Disputes & Overlapping Claims: Countries are extending their maritime boundaries under UNCLOS to claim more of the Arctic seabed. Example: Russia, Canada, and Denmark have overlapping claims to the Lomonosov Ridge, a key Arctic seabed area.
    • Military Posturing & Strategic Control: Nations are increasing their military presence to assert dominance and protect interests. Example: Russia has expanded its Arctic military bases and deployed nuclear-powered icebreakers, while NATO has increased Arctic exercises.
    • New Maritime Trade Routes & Geopolitical Rivalry: The melting ice is opening faster, alternative shipping lanes, bypassing traditional routes like the Suez Canal. Example: China is promoting the Polar Silk Road via the Northeast Passage, while Russia maintains strict control over Arctic navigation.

    Who are the primary stakeholders controlling different regions of the Arctic?

    • Arctic Coastal Nations (Arctic Council Members): Eight countries control Arctic land and territorial waters: Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S. Example: Russia has the largest Arctic coastline and controls key ports, while Canada claims sovereignty over the Northwest Passage.
    • International Governance & UNCLOS: The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regulates maritime claims, allowing nations to extend seabed claims if proven as a continental shelf extension. Example: Russia, Canada, and Denmark have all submitted overlapping claims to the Arctic seabed under UNCLOS.
    • Non-Arctic Global Powers & Observers: Non-Arctic nations like China, India, the UK, and the EU monitor Arctic developments due to strategic interests in trade routes and resources. Example: China declared itself a “Near-Arctic State” in 2018 and is investing in icebreaker ships to influence Arctic shipping lanes.

    Where do territorial disputes and conflicting claims arise among Arctic nations?

    • Competing Seabed Claims under UNCLOS: Arctic nations claim extended seabed areas beyond their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) by proving geological extensions of their continental shelves. Example: Russia, Canada, and Denmark (via Greenland) have overlapping claims to the Lomonosov Ridge in the central Arctic Ocean.
    • Northwest Passage Dispute (Canada vs. U.S.): Canada considers the Northwest Passage part of its internal waters, granting it control over navigation. The U.S. and other nations claim it is an international strait, allowing free passage. Example: The U.S. has conducted “freedom of navigation” operations in the passage, challenging Canada’s sovereignty.
    • Svalbard Archipelago (Norway vs. Russia): Norway administers Svalbard under the Svalbard Treaty (1920), granting access to signatory nations for commercial activities. However, Russia argues for broader rights. Example: Russia continues to expand mining operations in Svalbard and has politically challenged Norway’s restrictions on military activity there.
    • Greenland Sovereignty & U.S. Interest (Denmark vs. U.S.): The U.S. has questioned Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland and previously attempted to purchase the island due to its strategic location and rare earth minerals. Example: In 2019, then-U.S. President Donald Trump expressed interest in buying Greenland, leading to diplomatic tensions with Denmark.
    • Barents Sea & Arctic Borders (Norway vs. Russia): Russia and Norway have had disputes over their maritime boundary in the Barents Sea, an area rich in oil, gas, and fisheries. Example: A 2010 agreement settled much of the dispute, but tensions persist, especially with increasing Russian military activity near Norwegian waters.

    Why is the Arctic considered strategically important for global powers?

    • Rich Natural Resources: The Arctic is estimated to hold 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its untapped natural gas, along with rare earth elements, phosphates, and fisheries. Example: Russia has significantly invested in Yamal LNG projects, while Greenland has attracted interest from China and the U.S. for its rare earth deposits.
    • New Trade Routes Due to Melting Ice: The Northeast Passage (along Russia’s coast) and the Northwest Passage (through Canada) could drastically reduce global shipping distances, saving billions in transportation costs. Example: China’s “Polar Silk Road” seeks to use the Northeast Passage for trade, reducing travel time between East Asia and Europe by 40% compared to the Suez Canal route.
    • Military & Geopolitical Significance: The Arctic provides strategic military advantages, including submarine deployment zones, early warning radar systems, and missile defense capabilities. Example: Russia has established new Arctic military bases, the U.S. has expanded its Thule Air Base in Greenland, and NATO has increased military exercises in the region.

    How are nations like Russia, China, and NATO asserting their influence in the Arctic region?

    • Russia: Militarization and Territorial Claims: Russia has the largest Arctic military presence, including nuclear-powered icebreakers, air bases, and missile defense systems. It has also made territorial claims under UNCLOS to extend its control over the Arctic seabed. Example: In 2007, Russia planted its flag on the Arctic seabed at the North Pole and continues to expand its Arctic military bases, such as in Franz Josef Land and the Kola Peninsula.
    • China: Economic Investments and Strategic Partnerships: China, though not an Arctic nation, calls itself a “Near-Arctic State” and is expanding its influence through investments in Arctic infrastructure, scientific research, and trade routes (Polar Silk Road). Example: China has invested in Arctic mining projects in Greenland and collaborated with Russia on LNG projects, like the Yamal LNG plant. It is also building nuclear-powered icebreakers.
    • NATO: Strengthening Military Presence and Alliances: NATO has intensified military exercises and surveillance in the Arctic, especially after Finland and Sweden joined the alliance following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Example: In 2024, NATO conducted large-scale Arctic military drills near the Russian border in Finland and strengthened defense ties with Canada and Norway.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthening Arctic Governance & Diplomacy: Enhance international cooperation through the Arctic Council and UNCLOS to manage territorial disputes, resource exploration, and environmental challenges. Example: Establish legally binding agreements for sustainable Arctic resource extraction and conflict resolution mechanisms to prevent geopolitical tensions.
    • Balancing Economic Development with Environmental Protection: Promote responsible Arctic development by enforcing strict environmental regulations while ensuring indigenous rights and sustainable economic activities. Example: Encourage renewable energy projects, scientific research, and eco-friendly shipping practices to mitigate the impact of Arctic exploitation.

  • [29th March 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Advantage China in Africa’s nuclear energy market race 

    PYQ Relevance:

    Question: “If the last few decades were of Asia’s growth story, the next few are expected to be of Africa’s.” In the light of this statement, examine India’s influence in Africa in recent years. [UPSC 2021]

    Linkage: The broader context of competition for influence in the continent. 

    Mentor’s Comment:  The Russia-Ukraine war highlighted the need for energy security, affecting even Africa. As African leaders rethink their energy sources, nuclear power is becoming a key solution. Currently, South Africa has Africa’s only nuclear plant, but countries like Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya plan to adopt nuclear energy. By 2035, Africa could generate 15,000 MW, attracting $105 billion in investments.

    Today’s editorial talks about how African countries are changing their energy sources and how China is becoming a major player in Africa. This content would help in GS Paper 2 International relation.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    With several African nations reshaping their energy sources. China is likely to become their top choice for partnership, offering financial support, technology, and infrastructure to expand their nuclear energy sector.

    What are the key factors driving Africa’s shift toward nuclear energy?

    • Energy Security & Reduced Dependence on Imports: The Russia-Ukraine war exposed energy vulnerabilities, forcing African nations to diversify energy sources. Example: South Africa relies on coal but is now exploring nuclear expansion to ensure stable energy supply.
    • Expanding Electricity Access: Many African countries face severe power shortages, affecting economic growth and quality of life. Example: Nigeria has frequent blackouts and signed an MoU with China to develop nuclear power plants.
    • Clean Energy Transition & Climate Goals: African nations aim to reduce carbon emissions and shift from fossil fuels to meet global climate commitments. Example: Uganda plans a 2 GW nuclear plant to support its clean energy goals by 2031.
    • Economic & Industrial Growth: Nuclear energy can power industries, create jobs, and attract foreign investments. Example: Ghana is developing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) with U.S.-based NuScale Power to boost industrialization.
    • Foreign Investment & Technological Advancements: Countries like China, Russia, and the U.S. are investing in Africa’s nuclear sector, providing funding and expertise. Example: Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger signed nuclear agreements with Russia’s Rosatom to develop their energy sector.

    Which countries are leading the race to invest in Africa’s nuclear market, and why?

    • China – The Dominant Player: Offers easy financing and infrastructure development under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Example: Nigeria & Uganda signed MoUs with China to build nuclear power plants, with Uganda planning a 2 GW nuclear plant by 2031.
    • Russia – Strategic Engagement: Through Rosatom, Russia has signed agreements with multiple African nations, leveraging its nuclear expertise. Example: Egypt’s El Dabaa nuclear plant is being built by Rosatom, though progress is slow due to economic challenges.
    • United States – Seeking a Foothold: Organizing the US-Africa Nuclear Energy Summit (USANES) to strengthen ties and push for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Example: Ghana partnered with NuScale Power and Regnum Technology Group to develop SMRs.
    • France – Losing Influence: Historically dominated Africa’s nuclear sector but is now struggling to maintain relevance, especially in Francophone Africa. Example: South Africa’s Koeberg nuclear plant was built by a French consortium, but new projects are going to other players.
    • South Korea – Emerging Contender: Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP) is actively exploring opportunities in Africa’s nuclear energy sector. Example: South Korea is negotiating to supply nuclear reactors to various African countries, competing with China and Russia.

    How is China strengthening its dominance in Africa’s nuclear energy sector?

    • Financial Support & Infrastructure Investment: China provides easy financing and builds transmission networks through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Example: Uganda signed an MoU with China in 2024 for a 2 GW nuclear plant, with the first 1 GW unit expected by 2031.
    • Training & Scholarships for African Engineers: The China Atomic Energy Authority, in cooperation with the IAEA, offers nuclear training programs for African students. Example: Since 2012, African students have been trained in Chinese nuclear procedures and technology, making China a preferred partner.
    • State-Owned Companies Leading Expansion: China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) and China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) spearhead projects across Africa. Example: Nigeria signed a deal with CNNC in 2024 to develop nuclear power plants, covering design, construction, and maintenance.
    • Comprehensive Agreements Beyond Just Nuclear Plants: China integrates nuclear power development with broader energy and infrastructure investments, making deals attractive. Example: Kenya is considering China for both a research reactor and potential future nuclear plants as part of wider infrastructure projects.
    • Exploiting Gaps Left by Other Players: With France losing influence and Russia struggling financially, China steps in with better financing and execution capacity. Example: Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, despite approaching Russia’s Rosatom, may turn to China for funding and technology due to Russia’s economic constraints.

    Where are African countries planning to build new nuclear plants, and what are their projected timelines?

    • Egypt – El Dabaa Nuclear Plant: Egypt is building a large nuclear plant with help from Russia’s Rosatom.The first reactor is expected to start working by 2028.
    • Uganda – 2 GW Nuclear Power Plant: Uganda signed an agreement with China in 2024 to build a big nuclear plant. The first part (1 GW) should be ready by 2031.
    • Nigeria – Future Nuclear Plants: Nigeria signed an agreement with China in 2024 to develop nuclear energy. The timeline is not confirmed yet.
    • Kenya – Research Reactor: Kenya plans to build a small research reactor by 2030 to learn more about nuclear energy. It has not yet chosen a partner for a full power plant.
    • Ghana – SMRs & Large Reactor: Ghana is working with U.S. company NuScale for small reactors and China for a big reactor. The exact timeline is still unclear.

    Why is India’s access to African uranium becoming more challenging?

    • Growing Chinese Influence: China is investing heavily in Africa’s nuclear sector, securing long-term uranium supply deals. Example: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) funds energy projects, strengthening its ties with uranium-rich nations like Namibia and Niger.
    • Geopolitical Realignments: Many African nations are aligning with China and Russia, reducing India’s negotiating power. Example: Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger have strengthened ties with Russia, which may affect India’s access to uranium deals.
    • Competition from Other Global Players: France, Russia, and the U.S. are also competing for uranium resources, making it harder for India to secure long-term agreements. Example: France has historical control over Niger’s uranium exports, limiting India’s access.
    • Economic & Infrastructure Constraints: India lacks direct investment in African uranium mining compared to China, which provides infrastructure and financial support. Example: China’s CNNC (China National Nuclear Corporation) has mining rights in Namibia, while India only has agreements without major investments.
    • Security & Political Instability: Many uranium-rich African countries face political instability and security risks, making long-term agreements uncertain. Example: Niger’s 2023 military coup created uncertainty in uranium exports, impacting India’s potential deals.

    What should India do to secure a uranium supply from Africa? (Way forward)

    • Increase Direct Investment in Mining & Infrastructure: India should partner with African nations to develop uranium mines, processing facilities, and infrastructure instead of just relying on purchase agreements. Example: India can invest in Namibia’s uranium mining sector, similar to how China’s CNNC has secured long-term rights.
    • Strengthen Bilateral & Multilateral Agreements: India must negotiate long-term uranium supply deals with African nations through trade pacts and diplomatic engagement. Example: India can expand its agreements under India-Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) to secure uranium from Niger, Malawi, and South Africa.
    • Leverage India’s Civil Nuclear Agreements & Technology: India should offer nuclear technology collaboration to African nations as an incentive to secure uranium supply. Example: Partnering with Ghana and Kenya on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) could help India gain better access to uranium sources.

  • India must address illegal emigration with empathy and urgency

    Why in the News?

    The U.S. deporting dozens of Indians for being illegal immigrants is not unexpected or new.

    What are the reasons behind it? 

    • Illegal Immigration Enforcement: The deportations are part of intensified Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations aimed at identifying, detaining, and deporting individuals who are in the U.S. without proper documentation.
    • Large-Scale Illegal Migration – Many Indians, particularly from Gujarat, Punjab, and Haryana, attempt to enter the U.S. illegally through Mexico and Canada due to economic distress and job shortages.

    What is the potential impact of US immigration policies on Indian students and professionals?

    • Legal Migration Channels: The Indian government is keen on ensuring that legal migration channels to the U.S. for Indian nationals are not restricted by the U.S. administration. These legal routes include H-1B visas for skilled workers and visas for students.
    • Deterrence of Illegal Migration: Both the U.S. and India are engaged in deterring illegal migration while creating more avenues for legal migration from India to the U.S.
    • Increased Deportations: Deportation of Indian nationals from the United States surged by 400% in the past three years. In 2024, 1,529 Indians were deported, a significant jump from 292 in 2021.
    • Impact on Undocumented Indians: Approximately 725,000 undocumented Indians reside in the U.S., primarily from Punjab and Gujarat. As of November of the previous year, 20,407 undocumented Indians were either facing final removal orders or were held in detention centers of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    How will this impact the USA? 

    • Labour Market Disruptions:  Deportations can create labor shortages in sectors reliant on immigrant workers, such as construction and hospitality. (Example: Indian workers contribute significantly to the U.S. IT and service industries.)
    • Diplomatic Tensions:  Large-scale deportations may strain U.S.-India relations, especially if handled insensitively. (Example: The use of military flights for deportations sparked protests from other countries like Colombia.)

    How might the deportation of Indian nationals affect the political landscape in India? 

    • Domestic Political Fallout: The deportation of thousands of Indians could become a political issue, with opposition parties blaming the government for failing to create adequate job opportunities at home.
    • Diplomatic Challenges: The mass deportations could strain India-U.S. relations, particularly if deportees face harsh treatment, triggering diplomatic interventions.
    • Public Backlash: The use of military flights and reports of inhumane treatment, such as shackling, may create anti-U.S. sentiment among the Indian public.
    • State-Level Political Implications: States with high numbers of deportees (Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana) may experience political unrest, with local governments facing pressure to provide jobs and reintegration support.
    • Rise in Anti-Illegal Migration Policies: The Indian government may be compelled to introduce stricter measures against illegal immigration and human trafficking networks, affecting those attempting to migrate illegally.
    • Impact on Indian Diaspora Relations: The large-scale return of undocumented migrants could impact remittances, economic support for families, and the broader perception of Indian migrants globally.

    What should India do? (Way forward)

    • Strengthen Domestic Employment Opportunities: Implement targeted economic reforms, boost job creation in high-migration states (Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana), and address the root causes driving illegal migration, such as agricultural distress and unemployment.
    • Enhance Public Awareness & Legal Migration Channels: Conduct awareness campaigns on the risks of illegal immigration while expanding safe and legal pathways for skilled migration through bilateral agreements with the U.S. and other countries.
    • Engage in Diplomatic & Policy Advocacy: Strengthen diplomatic efforts to ensure fair treatment of deported individuals, negotiate favourable visa policies for Indian professionals and students, and collaborate with the U.S. on workforce mobility solutions.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q ‘Indian diaspora has a decisive role to play in the politics and economy of America and European Countries’. Comment with examples. (UPSC IAS/2020)

  • [5th February 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The U.S.’s WHO exit, a chance to reshape global health

    PYQ Relevance:

    Q) Critically examine the role of WHOin providing global health security during the Covid-19 pandemic. (UPSC CSE 2020)

     

    Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on Bridging Healthcare Gaps (2015), and WHO Initiatives (2020).

    The US is the largest contributor to WHO, providing about 18% of its funding. The withdrawal is expected to jeopardize critical health programs, particularly those addressing tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and other health emergencies.

    Today’s editorial emphasizes the need for member states to collaborate more effectively in light of reduced US involvement, ensuring that global health priorities remain addressed despite funding challenges. This content can be used to present the significance of multilateral collaboration and its impact on international policy and governance with respect to Health.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    After the USA’s withdrawal from WHO, it is time for the countries in the global south to support WHO and initiate collaborative actions to reshape the global health agenda.

    What are the Potential Impacts of the US Withdrawal from WHO?

    • Disruption of Funding and Programs: The US contributes nearly 18% of WHO’s budget (~$1 billion annually), supporting critical health programs like immunization, tuberculosis control, and pandemic preparedness.
      • The withdrawal will likely disrupt ongoing projects aimed at combating health challenges such as HIV/AIDS and polio eradication.
    • Weakened Global Health Response: WHO’s ability to coordinate responses to health crises will be significantly impaired without US support. This includes reduced resources for disease surveillance and emergency operations in regions facing outbreaks or health threats.
    • Impact on Global Health Leadership and Collaboration: The absence of the US may create a leadership vacuum within WHO, allowing other nations (e.g., China) to increase their influence.
      • This shift could alter international collaboration dynamics and lead to fragmented approaches to public health challenges.
    • Repercussions for Low-Income Countries: Marginalized communities in low-income countries may face disproportionate impacts due to reduced funding from WHO. These communities rely heavily on WHO for access to essential health services, and the withdrawal signals a deprioritization of global health initiatives, exacerbating existing inequalities.
      • The overall effectiveness of global health initiatives may decline as WHO struggles with funding constraints and could slow long-term progress toward key health goals, such as disease eradication and comprehensive vaccination programs, ultimately affecting global health security.

    How might the withdrawal reshape international health diplomacy?

    • Shift in Global Health Leadership: The absence of the US may create a leadership vacuum within WHO, potentially allowing countries like China to increase their influence in global health governance.
      • This shift could alter the dynamics of international collaboration, with other nations stepping up to fill the void left by the US.
    • Increased Geopolitical Tensions: The withdrawal could intensify competition between the US and China for influence in global health matters.
      • China’s initiatives, such as the Health Silk Road, may gain traction as it seeks to position itself as a leader in global health, thereby reshaping alliances and partnerships among countries.
    • Impact on Multilateral Cooperation: The US’s exit may weaken multilateral cooperation on critical health issues, leading to fragmented responses to global health challenges.
      • Countries may become less willing to collaborate on shared health threats without US leadership, which could hinder effective pandemic preparedness and response efforts.
    • Loss of Diplomatic Leverage: By withdrawing, the US relinquishes its role as a key influencer in shaping global health policies and initiatives.
      • This could diminish its ability to advocate for public health programs that align with its interests and values, allowing other nations to take a more prominent role in setting global health agendas.
    • Disproportionate Effects: The low-income countries that rely heavily on WHO for support may face greater challenges without US involvement.

    What reforms or changes might be necessary within WHO in light of this withdrawal?

    • Diversification of Funding Sources: WHO should encourage member states to increase their assessed contributions, which currently cover less than 20% of its budget. This could help reduce reliance on any single donor, particularly the US.
      • WHO can seek to expand its voluntary contributions from other countries and private organizations to fill the financial gap left by the US withdrawal.
    • Strengthening Governance and Accountability: Implementing more transparent financial management practices can help restore trust among member states and ensure that funds are allocated effectively.
      • Establishing an independent oversight body to review WHO’s operations and decision-making processes may help address concerns about political influence and enhance accountability.

    What opportunity do India have in this situation?

    • Increased Leadership Role: India can take a prominent leadership position within WHO, representing the Global South.
      • For Example, through the Vaccine Maitri initiative, India facilitated vaccine exports during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating its commitment to global health equity and influencing health policies.
    • Strengthening Domestic Capabilities: The withdrawal allows India to bolster its healthcare infrastructure and research capabilities.
      • For Example, significant investments in indigenous vaccine production, such as Covaxin and Covishield, have positioned India as a major player in global vaccine supply chains, enhancing self-reliance and healthcare outcomes.
    • Enhanced Collaboration with Emerging Economies: India can forge stronger partnerships with other emerging economies to collaboratively address global health challenges.
      • For Example, engagement with countries like Brazil and South Africa through the IBSA Dialogue Forum can focus on shared issues like antimicrobial resistance and maternal health, enhancing collective responses to public health threats.
    • Leveraging Pharmaceutical Strength: India’s robust pharmaceutical industry can fill gaps left by reduced WHO funding.
      • Known as the “pharmacy of the world,” India supplied affordable vaccines during the pandemic, reinforcing its reputation as a key player in global healthcare by continuing to produce low-cost medications.

    Way Forward: India can not only mitigate the impacts of the US withdrawal but also can significantly contribute to shaping a more equitable global health landscape.

  • Places in news: Kurdistan Region

    Why in the News?

    India has dispatched a humanitarian aid consignment to the Kurdistan region of Iraq.

    Kurdistan Region

    What is the Kurdistan Region?

    • The Kurdistan Region refers to areas inhabited by ethnic Kurds, primarily in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey.
    • The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) administers Iraqi Kurdistan, an autonomous region in northern Iraq.
    • The Kurds, a distinct ethnic and linguistic group, have long sought independence and greater autonomy.
    • Geographical Significance:
      • Spans across Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, covering the Zagros Mountains and fertile plains.
      • Rich in oil and natural gas, particularly in Iraqi Kurdistan, making it geopolitically significant.
      • Controls key border regions and trade routes, influencing regional stability.
    • Political Implications:
      • The Kurdish struggle for autonomy has led to tensions with central governments, particularly in Iraq and Turkey.
      • Kurdish forces (Peshmerga) have played a key role in fighting ISIS and maintaining security in northern Iraq.
      • The KRG has diplomatic ties with Western countries but lacks full sovereignty.

    Ongoing Dispute:

    • The Kurdish independence movement faces opposition from Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria, fearing territorial fragmentation.
    • Iraq rejected the 2017 Kurdistan independence referendum, leading to military and economic retaliation.
    • Turkey continues military operations against Kurdish groups, considering them a security threat.
    • The Turkey-ISIS-Kurd relationship remains controversial, with allegations that Turkey indirectly enabled ISIS against the Kurds.

     

    PYQ:

    [2018] The term “two-state solution” is sometimes mentioned in the news in the context of the affairs of:

    (a) China

    (b) Israel

    (c) Iraq

    (d) Yemen

  • Places in News: Sudan’s Darfur Region

    Why in the News?

    At least 70 people were killed in a drone strike on the last working hospital in Sudan’s North Darfur capital.

    About the Darfur Region

    Details
    • Conflict-prone region in western Sudan, affected by ethnic violence and resource conflicts since 2003.
    • Site of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, with mass killings and displacement.
    • Home to multiple ethnic groups, with tensions between Arab pastoralists and non-Arab farming communities.
    • Janjaweed militias, backed by the Sudanese government, accused of genocide and mass atrocities.
    • Rapid Support Forces (RSF), formerly Janjaweed, play a key role in ongoing instability.
    • Renewed violence in 2023, worsening the humanitarian situation.
    Geographical Location
    • Located in western Sudan, bordering Chad, Libya, and the Central African Republic.
    • Covers an area of about 493,180 sq. km, nearly the size of France.
    • Predominantly arid and semi-arid, with desert in the north and more fertile land in the south.
    • Climate-driven water and grazing conflicts, worsened by desertification and climate change.
    • Composed of five states: North, South, West, Central, and East Darfur.
    • El Fasher is the capital and largest city, serving as an administrative and humanitarian hub.
    Impact of Conflict
    • Politically marginalized for decades, leading to armed uprisings against Sudan’s government.
    • Conflict escalated in 2003 with rebel groups like the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) demanding greater autonomy.
    • Remains a stronghold of rebel activity, contributing to Sudan’s broader instability.
    • Ongoing violence impacts regional security, affecting neighboring countries like Chad and the Central African Republic.

     

    PYQ:

    [2024] Consider the following statements :

    Statement-I: There is instability and worsening security situation in the Sahel region.

    Statement-II: There have been military takeovers/coups d’état in several countries of the Sahel region in the recent past.

    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statement?

    a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I

    b) Bothe Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I

    c) Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect

    d) Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct