💥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.

  • [20th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: A Palestinian state is the foundation for regional peace

    Question (2018, GS2): “India’s relations with Israel have, of late, acquired a depth and diversity, which cannot be rolled back. Discuss.”
    Linkage: This question directly evaluates India’s strategic partnership with Israel. Historically, India’s West Asia policy was heavily anchored in support for the Palestinian cause and the two-state solution. This question asks candidates to analyze how India’s relations with Israel have de-hyphenated from its stance on Palestine, expanding into robust defense, agricultural, and technological cooperation.

    Mentor Comment:

    United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted in November 2025, established a Board of Peace for Gaza, and its annex acknowledges a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood once Gaza redevelopment advances and Palestinian Authority reform is carried out. The tension this exposes is that every subsidiary conflict in West Asia turns on a Palestinian state that the war since October 2023 has pushed further out of reach.

    What is the two-state solution, and what does it actually require?

    1. Core formula: The two-state solution proposes two sovereign states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in defined borders with mutual recognition.
    2. The asymmetry inside the phrase: One of the two states already exists, so the operative task is not maintaining a balance but creating a second state that does not yet exist.
    3. The three qualifying tests: A Palestinian state must be sovereign, independent and viable, meaning it must control its own territory, conduct its own external relations and possess an economic base capable of sustaining a state.
    4. The claimed consequence: Peace and stability in the region are treated as unattainable until this second state comes into being.

    What is Resolution 2803 and the Board of Peace?

    1. Instrument: United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted in November 2025, set up a Board of Peace (BoP) as the transitional oversight mechanism for the Gaza Strip.
    2. The statehood clause: Its annex states that while Gaza redevelopment advances and the Palestinian Authority (PA) reform programme is faithfully carried out, conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

    Why are the region’s separate conflicts treated as one unresolved question?

    1. Gaza: Israel’s war on Gaza is framed not as a discrete security operation but as the most violent expression of an unsettled sovereignty question.
    2. Hezbollah: Hezbollah began launching rockets and missiles at Israel immediately after Israel’s Gaza campaign opened following 7 October 2023, tying the northern front directly to the Palestinian question.
    3. Iran: The Iran war, Iranian arms supply to Hezbollah and Iranian hostility to Israel are held to rest on the denial of Palestinian self-determination rather than on theological difference.
    4. The Houthi factor: The Houthi phenomenon in the Red Sea is treated as a further derivative of the same unresolved dispute.
    5. Arab normalisation: Israel’s relations with its Arab neighbours will remain strained until it accepts the reality of a Palestinian state, in the same way Arab states have reconciled to the reality of Israel.
    6. The secondary issues: Once an irreversible road map to Palestinian statehood is accepted by all parties, disputes such as freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz become far easier to resolve.

    What are the historical roots of regional hostility towards Israel?

    1. The Balfour Declaration, 1917: British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine expressly limited the indigenous Arab population to civil and religious rights, converting a holy land claim into a homeland project.
    2. The founding grievance: Hostility rests on the fact that Israel was created and imposed on the region at the expense of the indigenous Arab population.
    3. The 1947 partition offer: Palestinians were offered a state under the United Nations resolution of 1947 and on later occasions and rejected each offer, a record an Israeli Foreign Minister summarised as the Arabs never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
    4. The counter-reading of that rejection: Rejection of a partial offer by a party that holds the underlying title is treated as a defensible refusal rather than as proof of intransigence, since the Zionist slogan itself described the territory as land without people for a people without land.
    5. The Holocaust and western guilt: Israel’s creation is attributed substantially to the Holocaust and to the sense of guilt felt by western countries, most of which, including the United States, had barred the entry of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.
    6. No inherited religious enmity: Islam and Judaism carry no record of perpetual enmity, since the Koran names prophets and patriarchs from the Hebrew bible including Moses and Abraham, the Crusades were fought between Muslims and Christians with Jews not party to them, Jews were persecuted in countries professing Christianity, and the Arabs bore no responsibility for the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany and its collaborators.

    Why does a Shia axis support a Sunni movement?

    1. The alignment: Hezbollah, a Shia movement, and Iran, a Shia-majority country, both support Hamas, a Sunni movement.
    2. The explanation: The alignment rests on a shared commitment to the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people rather than on sectarian affinity.
    3. Where Israel sits in that logic: Israel attracts hostility as the only power standing in the way of an independent Palestine, not as a religious adversary.
    4. Iran was not always hostile: Under the Shah, Iran’s relations with Israel were cordial and a sizeable Jewish community lived in Iran.
    5. The residual community: About 15,000 Jews remain in Iran, and Iran’s Constitution reserves a seat for the Jewish community in Parliament.
    6. The conditional off-ramp: If Israel accepts a Palestinian state, Hezbollah loses its stated reason to disrupt life in northern Israel and Iran loses its reason to supply Hezbollah with weapons.

    Why has the war since October 2023 pushed statehood further away rather than closer?

    1. Collapse of domestic support: Whatever limited support existed within Israel for the concept of a Palestinian state has evaporated since the Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli civilians in October 2023.
    2. The cost of the response: Israel’s disproportionate and ruthless strikes on Gaza after 7 October have almost isolated Israel internationally.
    3. The physical precondition destroyed: The Gaza Strip has been devastated, and with it the territorial and administrative base on which a Palestinian state would have to be built.
    4. The time horizon pushed out: The possibility of Palestine emerging has receded by many years and possibly decades.
    5. The resulting deadlock: Peace and stability in the region have become an illusion precisely because the instrument that was to deliver security has removed the conditions for a settlement.
    6. The development cost: Without peace and stability, the region’s people cannot realise the development potential that new technologies offer.

    Why is external mediation, not bilateral negotiation, the only viable route?

    1. The bargaining asymmetry: The stronger side normally insists on a bilateral approach and the weaker side prefers an outside agency, which is why Israel has insisted on bilateral talks while simultaneously saying there is no one on the other side to negotiate with.
    2. The only power with leverage: The United States is the only external power with the required influence and residual goodwill with both sides.
    3. The honest broker objection answered: No broker is genuinely honest, but even a non-honest broker can sell a transaction to the satisfaction, or the equal dissatisfaction, of both parties.
    4. The single precedent that worked: The only period of real progress came with the Oslo Accord of 1993, negotiated through the mediation and good offices of Norway.
    5. What Oslo produced: Under Oslo the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally recognised Israel and the Palestinian Authority was created, and it is a reformed version of that Authority that is now proposed as a caretaker government of Palestine.
    6. Oslo’s downstream effects: The Accords paved the way for Jordan’s recognition of Israel and eventually for the Abraham Accords.
    7. The second broker: The United Nations remains the other viable mediator, and although Israel has declared the United Nations Secretary-General persona non grata, Israel owes its existence to the United Nations, and positions in international relations evolve with situations.
    8. The leadership obstacle: The current Israeli Prime Minister voted against the Oslo Accords and remains opposed to the idea of a Palestinian state.

    Conclusion

    The West Asian conflict system is not a set of separate wars but one unresolved sovereignty question, and every subsidiary conflict persists because a sovereign, independent and viable Palestinian state has not been created. Resolution 2803 has restored a conditional pathway to statehood in Security Council language, but the material base for that state in Gaza has been destroyed. What remains unaddressed is the absence of leadership on any side willing to accept mediation and convert a conditional pathway into an irreversible road map.

    What is the Right of Self-Determination in International Law?

    1. About: Self-determination is the right of a people to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
    2. Rationale: It exists to convert the political fact of a distinct people under external or alien rule into a legal claim, so that statehood does not depend solely on the consent of the controlling power.
    3. Charter basis: It is recorded in Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the United Nations Charter and in Common Article 1 of the two 1966 International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
    4. External self-determination: The right of a people to determine its international status, including independence, association or integration with another state.
    5. Internal self-determination: The right of a people to choose its own government and to pursue development within an existing state, without a claim to secession.
    6. Uti possidetis juris: The principle that new states inherit the administrative boundaries existing at the moment of independence, which limits the redrawing of borders by force.

    Key Concerns Regarding the Right of Self-Determination

    1. Conflict with territorial integrity: The right runs directly against the principle of territorial integrity of existing states, and international law provides no settled test for which prevails.
    2. No agreed definition of a people: There is no accepted legal test for what constitutes a people entitled to the right, which allows both over-claiming and denial.
    3. Selective recognition: Recognition of statehood is a political act by individual states, so identical factual situations attract different outcomes depending on great power alignment.
    4. Enforcement gap: A recognised right of self-determination carries no enforcement mechanism where the controlling power is protected by a Security Council veto.
    5. Viability threshold: A territory may satisfy the legal criteria for statehood yet lack contiguous territory, revenue base or control over borders, leaving nominal sovereignty without effective sovereignty.

    Key Milestones in the Palestine Question

    1. 1917: The Balfour Declaration records British support for a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
    2. 1947: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 proposes partition of Mandate Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state with Jerusalem under international administration.
    3. 1948: The State of Israel is declared, followed by the first Arab-Israeli war.
    4. 1967: The Six Day War brings the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and Sinai under Israeli control, and Security Council Resolution 242 sets out the land for peace principle.
    5. 1993: The Oslo Accord, mediated by Norway, brings mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization and creates the Palestinian Authority.
    6. 1994: Jordan recognises Israel, following Egypt’s earlier recognition under the 1979 peace treaty.
    7. 2012: The United Nations General Assembly upgrades Palestine to a non-member observer State.
    8. 2020: The Abraham Accords normalise Israel’s relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, later extended to further states.
    9. 2025: Security Council Resolution 2803 creates the Board of Peace for Gaza and records a conditional pathway to Palestinian statehood.

    India’s Position on Palestine and the Two-State Solution

    Source: Backgrounder, India-Israel Relations Backgrounder.docx

    1. Long-standing principled support: India maintains a long-standing principled support for the Palestinian cause and for a negotiated two-state solution.
    2. De-hyphenation: India separates its Israel policy from its Palestine policy, engaging each on its own terms rather than treating support for one as opposition to the other.
    3. Recognition timeline: India recognised the State of Israel in 1950 but withheld full diplomatic relations for four decades, shaped by its support for the Palestinian cause, its ties with Arab states and its energy dependence on West Asia.
    4. Normalisation in 1992: Full diplomatic relations were established in January 1992, in the post-Cold War context and alongside India’s economic liberalisation.
    5. The 2017 signal: The first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel, in July 2017, elevated the relationship to a Strategic Partnership and notably did not include Ramallah, which signalled de-hyphenation.
    6. Voting record: India has continued to vote for Palestinian causes at the United Nations even while deepening its ties with Israel.
    7. The Gulf balance: India’s energy imports, remittance inflows and a large diaspora in Gulf states require its Israel ties to be balanced against Arab partners.
    8. Strategic autonomy: India frames the Israel relationship as issue-based cooperation and not as alignment against any third party.

    Back2Basics: The Palestinian Authority

    1. Origin: The Palestinian Authority was created under the 1993 Oslo Accord as an interim self-governing body for parts of the West Bank and Gaza.
    2. Parent body: It was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which formally recognised Israel under the same Accord.
    3. Mandate: It exercises civil and, in designated areas, security administration, with the Oslo framework dividing the West Bank into Areas A, B and C by degree of Palestinian and Israeli control.
    4. Interim design: It was designed as a transitional arrangement pending a final status agreement covering borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements, which was never concluded.
    5. Current relevance: A reformed Palestinian Authority is the body named in Resolution 2803 as the vehicle through which a pathway to statehood would run.
    6. Territorial split: Its writ has not extended to Gaza since the 2007 split with Hamas, which is itself a constraint on any single Palestinian government.

    Challenges to a Two-State Settlement

    1. Absence of contiguous territory: A viable Palestinian state requires territorial contiguity that settlement expansion has progressively removed, e.g. the West Bank’s division into Areas A, B and C leaves Palestinian-administered zones as separated enclaves.
    2. Physical destruction of the state base: Reconstruction must precede governance, since the administrative and economic base has been destroyed, e.g. the devastation of the Gaza Strip after the campaign that followed 7 October 2023.
    3. Divided Palestinian leadership: No single Palestinian authority commands both territories, e.g. the Palestinian Authority governs parts of the West Bank while Gaza has been under Hamas control since 2007.
    4. Collapse of political constituencies: Domestic support for a Palestinian state has evaporated inside Israel, e.g. the shift in Israeli opinion after the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians in October 2023.
    5. Leadership opposition at the top: The settlement requires assent from leaders personally committed against it, e.g. the current Israeli Prime Minister voted against the Oslo Accords and remains opposed to Palestinian statehood.
    6. Veto-protected deadlock: Security Council action is constrained by permanent member vetoes, e.g. repeated vetoes of ceasefire and membership resolutions have prevented enforceable outcomes.
    7. Spoiler incentives on both flanks: Armed actors gain standing from continued conflict and lose it from a settlement, e.g. Hezbollah’s rocket campaign against northern Israel began only after the Gaza war opened.
    8. Refugee and Jerusalem questions unresolved: Final status issues deferred at Oslo remain untouched, e.g. the right of return and the status of East Jerusalem were left to a final agreement that was never negotiated.

    Way Forward

    1. Convert the conditional clause into a road map: Translate the Resolution 2803 annex language on a credible pathway into a sequenced, dated and irreversible road map accepted by all parties.
    2. Restore a single Palestinian administration: Complete the Palestinian Authority reform programme so that one reformed administration can serve as a caretaker government across both territories.
    3. Anchor mediation in an external broker: Retain United States mediation, supplemented by United Nations involvement, rather than allowing a return to bilateral talks that the bargaining asymmetry makes unproductive.
    4. Sequence reconstruction with governance: Tie Gaza reconstruction financing to the standing up of civil administration, policing and revenue functions, so that physical rebuilding creates state capacity rather than only shelter.
    5. Use regional normalisation as leverage: Make further Arab normalisation with Israel conditional on measurable progress on the statehood pathway, so the Abraham Accords framework reinforces rather than bypasses the Palestinian question.
    6. Sustain India’s dual-track engagement: Maintain principled support for a negotiated two-state solution alongside development assistance to Palestine and cooperation with Israel, which protects India’s standing across West Asia.

    “[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 Answer: (b)”

  • India to build hospital in West Bank, seeks to deploy field hospital in Gaza

    Why in the News

    India and Palestine broke ground on 19 August for a 200 seat super speciality hospital in Arrabeh city in the Jenin Governorate of the northern West Bank, during the first high level Indian visit to the affected region since the conflict broke out in October 2023. India simultaneously sought the deployment of an Indian field hospital in the Gaza Strip and reiterated its support for a negotiated two state solution. Palestine used the visit to back India's bid for a non permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for 2028 to 2029.

    What does India's development package for Palestine cover?

    1. The hospital: A 200 seat super speciality hospital funded by India, to be built in Arrabeh city in the Jenin Governorate of the northern West Bank, with construction work launched jointly on 19 August.
    2. The field hospital: India has sought the deployment of an Indian field hospital in the Gaza Strip, discussed with Palestinian officials during the visit.
    3. Health sector support: Essential medicines and anti cancer drugs, an Artificial Limb Fitment Camp, and a consignment of medicines handed over to the Palestinian Ministry of Health during the visit.
    4. Beyond health: A vocational training centre, the provision of artificial limbs for amputees in Gaza, and talks on medical equipment including dialysis machines, some of which are expected to be moved into Palestine through Jordan.

    What is the two state solution?

    1. The proposition: It is the framework under which an independent State of Palestine would exist alongside the State of Israel, with agreed borders, security arrangements and a settlement on Jerusalem and refugees.
    2. India's position on it: India supports a negotiated two state solution, and has restated that position through every phase of the current conflict.

    What did the Ramallah visit deliver?

    1. The rank of the visit: The Secretary in charge of Consular, Passport, Visa and Overseas Indian Affairs in the Ministry of External Affairs is the highest ranking Indian diplomat to visit the West Bank since the attack of 7 October 2023.
    2. Where it took place: Ramallah, the administrative headquarters of the Palestinian Authority, with a meeting held there with the Palestinian Foreign Minister.
    3. The officials met: The Minister of Health and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Palestine, and a call on the Prime Minister of Palestine on 19 August.
    4. The positions restated: India's consistent support for the Palestinian people, its support for a negotiated two state solution, and a pitch for addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
    5. The deliverable launched: The groundbreaking ceremony for the super speciality hospital in Jenin, carried out jointly by the Indian and Palestinian teams.
    6. What Palestine asked for: The Palestinian Ambassador to India said Palestine welcomes New Delhi's help towards key infrastructure projects in the region.

    Why does Palestine's backing of India's UNSC bid matter?

    1. The specific endorsement: The Palestinian Ambassador to India said Palestine backs India's bid for a non permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2028 to 2029 term.
    2. The wider position stated: Palestine has appealed, as a country of the global South, for India to be among the countries holding a permanent seat on a reformed Council.
    3. The reasoning offered: The endorsement was tied to India's global standing as a major economy and a political power.
    4. What Palestine seeks in return: Palestinians hope India will use its influence, including its ties with Israel, to push forward the peace process.
    5. Why it counts in a Council election: A non permanent seat requires a two thirds majority in the General Assembly, so endorsements from within the Asia Pacific group and the wider global South build the coalition a candidacy needs.

    How does India balance its Palestine policy with its Israel ties?

    Source: Backgrounder, India-Israel Relations Backgrounder.docx, supplemented

    1. The stated policy: India maintains long standing principled support for the Palestinian cause and a two state solution, balanced against deepening ties with Israel, a policy described as the de hyphenation of Israel from Palestine.
    2. When de hyphenation was signalled: The first ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel in July 2017 elevated the relationship to a Strategic Partnership, and notably did not include Ramallah.
    3. What the Israel relationship carries: Israel is among India's top defence suppliers alongside Russia, France and the United States, with merchandise trade anchored in diamonds, chemicals, defence equipment, high technology and agriculture, and a Free Trade Agreement under negotiation.
    4. Where the friction sits: Reports of Indian military shipments to Israel during the Gaza conflict draw domestic and diaspora criticism, and India's energy imports, remittances and large diaspora in the Gulf require careful balancing of Israel ties with Arab partners.
    5. How India frames it: India describes the relationship as issue based cooperation rather than alignment against any third party, which is its strategic autonomy formulation.
    6. What the present visit adds, supplemented: Restoring a high level Indian presence in Ramallah after nearly three years, and pairing it with a physical asset in the West Bank, gives the Palestine half of the balance a visible deliverable rather than a stated position alone.

    Challenges to India's engagement in Palestine

    1. Physical access to Gaza: A field hospital cannot be deployed without a functioning crossing and security guarantees from the parties in control of it. e.g. medical equipment including dialysis machines is expected to reach Palestine only through Jordan.
    2. Construction in a contested territory: Building in the northern West Bank exposes a project to demolition orders, permit refusals and military operations. e.g. the Jenin Governorate, where the Arrabeh hospital is sited, has been the site of repeated large scale Israeli operations.
    3. Balancing against defence ties with Israel: Visible development assistance to Palestine sits beside a defence relationship with Israel that domestic critics read as inconsistent. e.g. reports of Indian military shipments to Israel during the Gaza conflict drawing domestic and diaspora criticism.
    4. Fiscal and delivery capacity of the Palestinian Authority: A completed hospital requires recurrent staffing and operating budgets from an authority under fiscal stress. e.g. the vocational training centre and artificial limb programmes also depend on Palestinian institutions for continuity after handover.
    5. Gulf balance: India's energy imports, remittances and a large diaspora in Gulf states constrain how far it can lean toward either party. e.g. India's calibrated positions at the United Nations through successive phases of the Gaza conflict.
    6. Dependence on a stalled peace process: Development assistance cannot substitute for a political settlement, so the same infrastructure is at risk in the next round of hostilities. e.g. the India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor, announced at the 2023 G20 New Delhi Summit, whose progress regional conflict has slowed.
    7. Competing donor crowding: Reconstruction finance in Gaza and the West Bank is dominated by much larger Gulf and Western donors, which limits the visibility of Indian contributions. e.g. India's assistance is delivered through discrete projects rather than through a large reconstruction fund.

    Conclusion

    India's Palestine policy has for two decades rested on a stated position on the two state solution, and this visit converts part of that position into physical assets in health and vocational training. Palestine's endorsement of India's non permanent Security Council candidature for 2028 to 2029, coupled with its request that India use its ties with Israel to advance the peace process, prices that assistance in diplomatic terms. The next milestones are the finalisation of modalities for the Gaza field hospital deployment and the completion of the Jenin hospital construction.

    India-Israel Relations

    Source: Backgrounder, India-Israel Relations Backgrounder.docx

    1. Recognition and normalisation: India recognised the State of Israel in 1950 but withheld full diplomatic relations for four decades, and full ties were established in January 1992, when India opened its embassy in Tel Aviv and Israel opened its mission in New Delhi.
    2. Elevation to Strategic Partnership: The relationship was elevated to a Strategic Partnership during the first ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel in July 2017, followed by a reciprocal visit by the Israeli Prime Minister in 2018.
    3. Defence as the anchor: Israel is among India's top defence suppliers, with cooperation covering the Barak-8 medium range surface to air missile jointly developed with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Heron and Searcher unmanned aerial vehicles, Harop and Harpy loitering munitions, radars, electronic warfare systems and precision guided munitions.
    4. The Kargil precedent: Cooperation proved decisive during the 1999 Kargil conflict, when Israel supplied laser guided munitions and reconnaissance support at short notice.
    5. Trade profile: Bilateral trade grew from about 200 million United States dollars in 1992, largely diamonds, to several billion dollars diversified across refined petroleum, chemicals, textiles and machinery from India, and defence equipment, high technology, potash and fertilizers from Israel.
    6. Agriculture and water: The India Israel Agricultural Action Plan operates Centres of Excellence across Indian States transferring drip irrigation, precision farming and protected cultivation, alongside Israeli expertise in desalination and wastewater recycling.
    7. Minilateral and connectivity architecture: The I2U2 grouping of India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the United States, launched in 2021 to 2022 for food security and clean energy, and the India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor announced at the 2023 G20 New Delhi Summit, with Israel as a key transit node.
    8. The Abraham Accords effect: The normalisation of Israel's ties with several Gulf states in 2020 eased India's balancing act between Israel and the Arab world.

    Key Facts about India and Palestine

    1. Early recognition of the PLO: India was the first non Arab state to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, in 1974.
    2. Recognition of the State of Palestine: India recognised the State of Palestine in 1988.
    3. Representative Office: India opened its Representative Office to Palestine in Gaza in 1996, and shifted it to Ramallah in 2003.
    4. First Prime Ministerial visit: The first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Palestine took place in February 2018, to Ramallah.
    5. Institutional gifts: Indian assistance has built the Palestine India Techno Park and a centre of excellence in information and communications technology at Al Quds University, along with a school in Abu Dis and support to the Palestine Institute of Diplomacy.
    6. Multilateral contributions: India contributes annually to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and extends training slots under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation programme to Palestinian officials.
    7. Voting record: India has consistently supported resolutions on Palestinian self determination at the United Nations General Assembly while abstaining on several resolutions that name parties for condemnation.

    Back2Basics: Non Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council

    1. What it is: The United Nations Security Council has fifteen members, five permanent with the veto and ten non permanent without it.
    2. Term: Non permanent members serve a term of two years and are not eligible for immediate re election.
    3. Who elects them: The United Nations General Assembly, by a two thirds majority of members present and voting.
    4. Regional distribution: The ten seats are allocated across the African group, the Asia Pacific group, the Latin American and Caribbean group, the Western European and Others group, and the Eastern European group, with five seats filled each year.
    5. India's record: India has served eight terms as a non permanent member, the most recent being 2021 to 2022, and is contesting the 2028 to 2029 term.
    6. What the seat carries: A non permanent member may preside over the Council in rotation, chair subsidiary bodies and sanctions committees, and vote on all resolutions, but holds no veto.
    7. The reform demand: India, along with Brazil, Germany and Japan in the G4 grouping, seeks permanent membership with expanded representation for Africa, Asia and Latin America.

    Way Forward

    1. Secure access guarantees for the Gaza field hospital: Modalities settled with all parties controlling the crossings are the precondition for deployment, without which the offer stays on paper.
    2. Build operating capacity alongside infrastructure: Pairing the Jenin hospital with training for Palestinian medical staff and a recurrent equipment supply line prevents a completed building without the workforce to run it.
    3. Route assistance through predictable channels: Formalising the Jordan transit route for medical equipment reduces the dependence on ad hoc clearances for each consignment.
    4. Sustain principled support for a two state solution: A consistent public position protects India's standing across West Asia irrespective of how the Israel relationship develops.
    5. Convert the Palestinian endorsement into a Council coalition: Following the endorsement with sustained outreach to the Asia Pacific group and the wider global South is what turns a statement of support into the two thirds majority the 2028 to 2029 election requires.
    6. Insulate long term cooperation from conflict cycles: Multi year funding commitments for health and vocational training projects prevent each round of hostilities resetting the assistance programme.
    7. Broaden beyond health: Extending assistance into water, agriculture and information technology training, where India already has delivery experience in Palestine, diversifies the partnership beyond a single sector.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[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 Answer: (b)”

    # Compiled Articles, 20 August 2026 (Part 5, Items 25 to 30)

  • China completes first stage of ‘military base’ at disputed South China Sea reef

    Why in the News

    China has completed the first phase of construction on Antelope Reef in the Paracels archipelago, building a man-made island in the disputed South China Sea that analysts say will form part of its largest military base. The tension it exposes is that Chinese state media describe the feature as serving civilian needs such as weather forecasting and scientific research, while satellite imagery shows a wharf, a deep water harbour, a helicopter pad and the first excavation for a runway.

    What has China built on Antelope Reef?

    1. The feature: Antelope Reef is a reef in the Paracels archipelago in the northern South China Sea, now reclaimed into a man-made island.
    2. The stage reached: The first phase of construction is complete, with barges and dredgers having left after at least six months of work in the waterway.
    3. What is visible: Satellite images reviewed by Reuters show the reclaimed feature in outline for the first time, with building work started in the southeast corner including a helicopter pad.
    4. The imagery source: The images showing the southeast corner construction were taken on 19 July by Vantor, a commercial provider of satellite images.

    What is the Paracels archipelago?

    1. What it is: The Paracels are a group of islands, reefs and banks in the northern South China Sea, distinct from the Spratlys archipelago further south.
    2. Who holds them: China has occupied all the Paracels since 1974, when it forced off the navy of the former South Vietnam, and Vietnam claims the entire grouping as its own.

    What is a naval bastion?

    1. The concept: A bastion is a protected ocean area close to home ports within which a navy shields its nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines from rival attack.
    2. Why it matters here: Antelope could help support any Chinese bid to create bastions in the South China Sea, avoiding the need to send submarines out into the western Pacific where they are exposed.

    What do the satellite images actually show?

    1. Island dimensions: The reclaimed island is nearly 6 km long, with a straight line of coast longer than 3 km that some analysts see as a potential runway.
    2. Runway work under way: A study published this week by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that the first excavation work for a new runway appeared to have already started.
    3. Harbour infrastructure: A wharf stretching 680 m fronts a deep water harbour, with one satellite image showing a coast guard ship alongside.
    4. Aviation infrastructure: Construction of buildings has started in the southeast corner of the island, including a helicopter pad.
    5. The timeline of the work: An open source intelligence tracker first highlighted dredging at the reef in early January and reported spotting initial signs of work in December, with dredgers and barges departing after at least six months.
    6. Official silence: China's defence ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and China has yet to acknowledge construction of a new military base.

    Why is the northern South China Sea strategically different from the Spratlys?

    1. The Taiwan linkage: The northern part of the South China Sea would be particularly important in a Taiwan conflict scenario, which places Antelope Reef in an ideal position.
    2. Command priority raised: The importance of the South China Sea and of the Southern Theater Command has been elevated in the last year by the Central Military Commission, China's top military panel, largely in relation to Taiwan.
    3. Defensibility: Antelope could prove one of the Chinese military's most important features in the South China Sea, larger than neighbouring Woody Island and easier to defend than the network of bases further south in the Spratlys.
    4. Basing for strategic assets: Chinese military planners might prefer to keep weapons such as H-6 strategic bombers in the Paracels and closer to the Chinese mainland rather than on the Spratlys.
    5. The existing Paracels network: Woody Island has served as the traditional administrative centre for China in the South China Sea and has at times housed jet fighters and surface-to-air missiles, while Triton Island, also in the Paracels, hosts extensive long-range surveillance devices.

    What does the build-up mean for submarine operations and nuclear deterrence?

    1. The bastion function: Antelope could support Chinese efforts to create protected ocean areas in the South China Sea to defend its nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines.
    2. The protection logic: Bastions close to home ports shield submarines from exposure to rival attack, removing the need to send them into the western Pacific.
    3. The surveillance role: The island build-up is likely to house extensive surveillance equipment.
    4. The effect on rivals: That surveillance could complicate submarine operations by the United States and Vietnam, both of which are active in the area.
    5. The escalation implication: A feature that protects a second-strike capability changes the risk calculus of any confrontation, since attacking it touches nuclear deterrence rather than only conventional assets.

    Why do China's stated purpose and the observed build-out point in different directions?

    1. The official account: Chinese state media have said Antelope will serve civilian needs such as weather forecasting and scientific research.
    2. The scholarly framing: A Chinese South China Sea scholar described the construction work as "modest" in an opinion piece published in the official China Daily in June, arguing that rather than militarisation the purpose is peaceful and constructive, making the waters safer for everyone who depends on them.
    3. The precedent for that framing: The same explanation mirrors China's previous accounts of its build-up in the Spratlys, in waters also claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei.
    4. The professional reading: Regional security analysts and military attaches say the feature is more likely to strengthen China's military hold on the northern part of the vital waterway.
    5. What the physical evidence supports: A 680 m wharf on a deep water harbour, a helicopter pad, a 3 km straight coastline and runway excavation are assets of military utility, not of weather forecasting.
    6. The unresolved point: China has not acknowledged constructing a military base, so the gap between the stated purpose and the observed capability remains formally unclosed.

    Which states contest these waters and on what basis?

    1. Vietnam, the Paracels claim: Vietnam claims the entire Paracels grouping as its own, and China took full control of the group in 1974 by forcing off the navy of the former South Vietnam.
    2. Vietnam, the specific protest: Vietnam's Foreign Ministry has previously asserted its sovereignty claim to Antelope, saying in March that it resolutely opposes such actions and has made representations.
    3. Vietnam, the counter build-up: Vietnam has moved in recent years to expand its own network of bases in the Spratlys archipelago.
    4. The Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei: All four join Vietnam in claiming waters in the Spratlys where China has previously built up features.
    5. The United States, the outside actor: The completion shows the South China Sea as an increasingly militarised arena of contest between China and the United States and its allies, as both jostle for advantages that could prove critical in any future conflict over Taiwan.

    Conclusion

    The completion of the first construction phase on Antelope Reef marks the conversion of a submerged reef into a 6 km island with harbour, aviation and probable runway infrastructure in the northern South China Sea. China has not acknowledged the feature as a military base, and construction of buildings and runway excavation continue in its southeast corner. The next stage to watch is whether the 3 km straight coastline is completed as an operational runway, which would confirm the feature as part of the largest Chinese military base in the waterway.

    The South China Sea Dispute: An Overview

    1. What it is: The South China Sea is a marginal sea of the western Pacific bounded by China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Vietnam, and its islands, reefs and banks are subject to overlapping sovereignty claims.
    2. The principal groupings: The main contested features are the Paracels in the north, occupied entirely by China since 1974, and the Spratlys in the south, where features are held by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Taiwan.
    3. Scale of the trade stake: The waterway carries a very large share of global seaborne trade and is the principal route between the Indian Ocean and Northeast Asia through the Strait of Malacca.
    4. Resource stake: The seabed holds hydrocarbon deposits and the waters support fisheries that are a primary protein source for the littoral populations.
    5. The Chinese claim line: China asserts historic rights within a broad dashed line encompassing most of the sea, a claim not defined by coordinates and not grounded in the maritime zones of the law of the sea.
    6. The mode of contest: The dispute is conducted principally through island building, coast guard and maritime militia presence and survey activity, rather than through declared naval action.
    7. India's stake: India's trade and energy flows transit the region, Indian public sector exploration blocks lie off Vietnam, and India has consistently supported freedom of navigation and settlement in accordance with the law of the sea.

    Laws and Instruments Governing the South China Sea

    1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS): The framework treaty defining the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, continental shelf and high seas, and establishing the dispute settlement machinery under which claims are adjudicated.
    2. Article 121 distinguishes an island, which generates a full exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, from a rock that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life, which generates only a territorial sea.
    3. Article 60 provides that artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands and generate no territorial sea of their own.
    4. Annex VII provides for arbitral tribunals, the route under which the Philippines brought its 2013 case.
    5. Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, 2002: A political declaration between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China committing parties to exercise self-restraint and refrain from actions that complicate disputes, without binding legal force.
    6. Code of Conduct in the South China Sea: The successor instrument under negotiation since 2002 between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China, intended to be binding, still not concluded.
    7. International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters and other International Maritime Organization instruments: Govern safety of navigation and pollution prevention for shipping transiting the waterway.

    China's Wider Maritime Expansion and India's Response

    Source: Backgrounder, Indian_Ocean_Blue_Economy.docx

    1. String of Pearls: Chinese ports and bases at Gwadar in Pakistan, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Chittagong in Bangladesh, and Sittwe and the Coco Islands in Myanmar, plus a military base in Djibouti.
    2. Naval expansion: The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy had over 340 battle force ships by 2021, surpassing the United States fleet in numbers.
    3. Connectivity instrument: The Maritime Silk Road under the Belt and Road Initiative extends Chinese commercial and strategic influence across the Indian Ocean Region.
    4. Survey presence: Chinese research vessels such as Shi Yan 6 and Yuan Wang 5 have conducted surveillance activity near India.
    5. India's counter architecture, Necklace of Diamonds: India has developed naval access at Chabahar in Iran, Duqm in Oman, Changi in Singapore, Sabang in Indonesia, Assumption Island in Seychelles and Agalega in Mauritius.
    6. SAGAR, 2015: Security and Growth for All in the Region, launched in 2015, rests on five pillars covering safety and security of Indian territories, deepening cooperation with maritime neighbours, collective action against traditional and non-traditional threats, sustainable development, and regional primary responsibility for regional stability.
    7. MAHASAGAR, 2025: Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions, announced in March 2025, expands SAGAR from the Indian Ocean Region to the broader Global South across three pillars of trade for development, capacity building and mutual security.
    8. Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative, 2019: Launched by India at the East Asia Summit in Bangkok in 2019, structured around seven pillars including maritime security, maritime ecology, maritime resources, capacity building, disaster risk reduction, science and technology cooperation, and trade connectivity and maritime transport.

    Back2Basics: The South China Sea Arbitration, 2016

    1. The case: The Philippines instituted arbitration against China in 2013 under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.
    2. The forum: The tribunal was constituted under Annex VII and administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.
    3. The award date: The tribunal issued its award in July 2016.
    4. Core finding on the claim line: The tribunal held that China's claim to historic rights within the dashed line had no legal basis under the Convention, since any such rights were extinguished where incompatible with the exclusive economic zone regime.
    5. Finding on features: It held that none of the Spratly features generated an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, since none qualified as an island capable of sustaining human habitation or economic life of its own.
    6. Finding on construction: It found that China's island building had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated obligations to preserve and protect the marine environment.
    7. Compliance position: China did not participate in the proceedings and has rejected the award as null and void, and the Convention provides no enforcement mechanism against a non-complying party.

    Key Facts about the South China Sea

    1. Principal archipelagos: The Paracels, the Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal and the Pratas Islands are the four main contested groupings.
    2. Chinese administrative seat: Woody Island in the Paracels serves as China's traditional administrative centre in the South China Sea.
    3. Choke point: The Strait of Malacca connects the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean and is one of the world's busiest shipping choke points.
    4. The Paracels takeover: China has occupied all the Paracels since 1974, following the Battle of the Paracel Islands against the navy of the former South Vietnam.
    5. Claimant states: China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei maintain overlapping claims, with Indonesia contesting Chinese claims in waters off the Natuna Islands.
    6. The 2002 and pending instruments: The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties dates to 2002 and the binding Code of Conduct has been under negotiation ever since.
    7. Freedom of navigation operations: The United States conducts freedom of navigation operations in the waterway to contest excessive maritime claims.

    Challenges to Maritime Order in the South China Sea

    1. No enforcement of adjudicated outcomes: A binding award carries no enforcement machinery against a permanent Security Council member, e.g. China rejected the 2016 arbitral award and has continued reclamation since.
    2. Reclamation creates facts that law cannot reverse: Physical occupation and construction alter the situation on the ground faster than any legal or diplomatic process, e.g. the completion of a nearly 6 km island on Antelope Reef within about six months of dredging.
    3. The Code of Conduct remains unconcluded: The binding instrument intended to restrain conduct has been negotiated without result for over two decades, e.g. the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties of 2002 has still not been converted into a Code.
    4. Divided claimant positions: Claimant states cannot present a unified position because several have bilateral economic dependence on China, e.g. the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has repeatedly failed to issue a joint communique naming Chinese actions.
    5. Grey zone coercion below the threshold of conflict: Coast guard and maritime militia vessels are used in ways that avoid triggering an armed conflict response, e.g. water cannon and blocking actions against Philippine resupply missions at Second Thomas Shoal.
    6. Civilian framing of military assets: Dual-use construction blurs the legal category of a feature, e.g. Antelope Reef is officially described as serving weather forecasting and scientific research while carrying a helicopter pad and a 680 m wharf.
    7. Nuclear dimension raising escalation risk: Bastion construction ties a local territorial dispute to strategic deterrence, e.g. protected areas for nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines make any confrontation at sea harder to contain.
    8. Environmental destruction with no remedy: Reclamation destroys reef systems permanently and no restitution mechanism exists, e.g. the 2016 tribunal found severe harm to the coral reef environment with no consequent remediation.

    Way Forward

    1. Conclude a binding Code of Conduct: Convert the 2002 Declaration into a legally binding Code with dispute settlement provisions, so restraint rests on obligation rather than on declaration.
    2. Institutionalise transparency: Expand shared maritime domain awareness and public release of satellite imagery, so that construction cannot proceed unobserved and civilian framings can be tested against evidence.
    3. Insist on the Convention as the reference framework: Maintain that all claims and activities must conform to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, including its treatment of artificial islands and of rocks.
    4. Strengthen claimant coordination: Support capacity building for smaller claimant coast guards so that individual states are not left to face grey zone pressure alone.
    5. Sustain freedom of navigation: Continue routine transits and joint exercises by extra-regional powers that use the waterway, so that excessive claims are not consolidated by acquiescence.
    6. Advance India's own maritime architecture: Continue the SAGAR and MAHASAGAR agenda and the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative, so that India's stake in a rules-based maritime order is backed by capability and partnerships rather than by statement alone.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022] Which one of the following statements best reflects the issue with Senkaku Islands, sometimes mentioned in the news? (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. Answer: (b)”