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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Gaza War Impact on IMEC

    Why in the News?

    India’s National Security Council Secretariat recently hosted envoys from the US, UAE, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy, Germany, Israel, Jordan, and the EU to review progress on the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).

    Gaza War Impact on IMEC

    About IMEC Project:

    • Part of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) for developing connectivity in emerging regions.
    • MoU signed on 10 September 2023 at the G20 New Delhi Summit.
    • Members: India, US, UAE, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Italy, European Union.
    • Aim: Integrate Asia, Middle East, and Europe to boost transport efficiency, reduce costs, create jobs, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and strengthen economic unity.
    • Structure:
      • East Corridor: India to Arabian Gulf.
      • Northern Corridor: Gulf region to Europe.
    • Key Ports:
      • India – Mundra, Kandla, Jawaharlal Nehru Port (Mumbai).
      • Middle East – Fujairah, Jebel Ali, Abu Dhabi, Dammam, Ras Al Khair.
      • Israel – Haifa.
      • Europe – Piraeus, Messina, Marseille.
    • Infrastructure includes: Railway links, ship-to-rail hubs, roads, electricity cables, hydrogen pipelines, and high-speed data cables.

    Impact of Gaza War:

    • Derailed work: Conflict from late 2023 halted stakeholder meetings and derailed western leg (Middle East–Europe) progress.
    • Jordan–Israel relations at historic low; Saudi–Israel normalisation stalled.
    • Regional rivalries (e.g., Saudi–UAE trade competition) hinder unified operational planning.

    Significance:

    • Economic: EU is India’s largest trading partner; corridor promises faster, cheaper trade with reduced emissions.
    • Strategic: Strengthens India’s role in West Asia and positions it as a connector between Europe and the Middle East.
    • Energy & Technology: Potential for clean hydrogen pipelines, electricity and data cable links.
    • Resilience: Provides alternative to Red Sea shipping routes vulnerable to disruptions.
    [UPSC 2025] India is one of the founding members of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a multimodal transportation corridor, which will connect:

    Options: (a) India to Central Asia to Europe via Iran* (b) India to Central Asia via China (c) India to South-East Asia through Bangladesh and Myanmar (d) India to Europe through Azerbaijan

     

  • [11th August 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Language Lessons

    [UPSC 2020] National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goals-4 (2030). It intended to restructure and re-orient the education system in India. Critically examine the statement.        

    Linkage: NEP 2020 broadly supports SDG-4 through its focus on universal access, equity, and quality, but faces implementation challenges due to India’s socio-cultural diversity and federal structure. The NEP 2020’s emphasis on multilingualism aligns with SDG-4 goals of inclusive and equitable quality education, but the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka cases show that its three-language policy faces resistance where it clashes with local linguistic and cultural priorities. This highlights the challenge of balancing national education reforms with state-specific needs while still aiming for SDG-4 targets

     

    Mentor’s Note:

    India’s language debate tests the balance between national policy goals and state linguistic autonomy, a key aspect of federalism. While NEP 2020’s three-language formula aims at unity through multilingualism, southern states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka favour a two-language model to protect cultural identity and shape education on their own terms. This is as much about governance and diversity as it is about language. This issue is highly relevant for UPSC GS Paper 2 – Governance, Constitution, Federalism, and Education Policy.

     

    Introduction:

    India’s education system is shaped not only by pedagogy but also by its multilingual and multicultural character. The NEP 2020 recommends a three-language policy, with at least two being native to India, aiming to promote linguistic diversity and national integration. However, Tamil Nadu’s State Education Policy (SEP) and Karnataka’s proposed SEP prioritize local languages + English over Hindi or any other third compulsory language, reflecting deep-rooted socio-political contexts. This ongoing debate exemplifies the delicate balance between national policy frameworks and state-specific educational priorities.

    The Two-Language Policy in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka:

    Tamil Nadu’s Approach

    1. Continues the two-language policy: Tamil + English.
    2. Makes Tamil compulsory up to Class 10 across all boards.
    3. Promotes critical thinking, digital literacy, climate education, and social justice.
    4. Focus on STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics) education and special support for tribal, disabled, and first-generation learners.
    5. Seeks uniform, high-quality public education as a priority.

    Karnataka’s Proposed Approach

    1. Kannada (or mother tongue) + English as compulsory languages.
    2. Medium of instruction: Kannada or mother tongue up to Class 5, preferably till Class 12.
    3. Discontinuation of the three-language policy (Hindi as third language removed).
    4. Development of state-specific curriculum, moving away from NCERT textbooks.
    5. Bilingual teaching methods for better learning outcomes.

    National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the Three-Language Policy

    NEP’s Recommendation:

    1. Three-language formula at school level.
    2. Two local languages (mother tongue/regional language).
    3. One other Indian language (often Hindi, though not mandatory).
    4. Based on the Kothari Commission (1968) suggestion to encourage multilingualism.

    Intended objectives:

    1. Promote national unity by encouraging communication across linguistic regions.
    2. Preserve linguistic diversity by ensuring regional languages remain central to education.
    3. Enhance linguistic versatility to prepare students for mobility within India.
    4. Strengthen early learning through mother tongue instruction in primary classes, as supported by UNESCO research.

    Criticism and Challenges:

    • Perceived Hindi Imposition:
      • In non-Hindi speaking states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, the inclusion of Hindi as the third language is seen as a political and cultural imposition.
      • Historical background: Tamil Nadu’s anti-Hindi agitations (1960s) shape continued resistance.
    • Demand for English as a Medium:
      • Parents and students increasingly prefer English-medium education for global competitiveness.
      • Concerns that a strong emphasis on Hindi may reduce the focus on English proficiency, which is linked to employment and higher education abroad.
    • Federalism Concerns:
      • Education is in the Concurrent List; States argue they should have autonomy to design curricula and decide language policy.
      • Central guidance seen as overreach into state cultural identity.
    • Implementation Gaps:
      • Shortage of qualified teachers for multiple languages.
      • Logistical difficulty in providing quality instruction in three languages, especially in rural schools.

    Constitutional & Federal Dimensions:

    1. Education is a subject in the Concurrent List.
    2. Article 345: States can adopt any one or more languages for official use.
    3. Article 351: Directive for development of Hindi.
    4. 8th Schedule: Recognizes 22 languages, protecting linguistic diversity.
    5. Cooperative Federalism: Centre and States must align education policy without overriding local aspirations.

    Critical Issues Beyond Language:

    1. Equity in Public Education: Need to strengthen government schools for uniform quality.
    2. Access & Inclusion: Support for marginalized communities.
    3. Curriculum Modernization: Integrating digital skills, climate education, and critical thinking.
    4. Resource Allocation: Pending ₹2,152 crore education funds for Tamil Nadu highlight fiscal federalism concerns.

    Conclusion:

    Language policies should respect India’s diversity and focus on improving education quality. The Centre must work with states, not over them, to improve schools, modernize curriculum, and ensure equal opportunities.

    Value Addition:

    Examples for Enrichment

    1. Kothari Commission (1968) – promoted three-language formula but warned against imposition.
    2. Sri Lanka’s language policy conflict – example of risks in linguistic dominance.
    3. World Bank Learning Poverty Index – shows importance of mother tongue teaching.
    4. ASER 2023: Mother tongue learning helps early literacy.
    5. UNESCO 2023 Report: Supports teaching in the local language for better outcomes

    Mapping Micro-Themes:

    GS-I Cultural diversity, linguistic identity, regionalism

    • Cultural Identity: Language as a marker of state pride
    GS-II Federalism, education policy under Concurrent List, Centre–State relations, Constitutional provisions on language

    • Federalism: Illustrates cooperative federalism challenges
    • Equity in Education: Inclusion for marginalized groups
    • Policy Dispute: Example of Centre–State tension on education
    GS-III Human capital development, role of education in economic growth
    GS-IV Ethics in policy: respect for diversity, fairness, inclusion

    Practice Mains Question

    “Language in education is both a cultural right and a tool for development. Discuss the recent shift of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka towards a two-language formula in the context of federalism and inclusive education.” (250 words)

     

  • Nominations to J&K Assembly

    Why in the News?

    The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) informed the J&K High Court that the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) can nominate five members to the J&K Legislative Assembly without the aid and advice of the elected government.

    About Nominations in State Assemblies:

    • Election Mode: Members are mainly directly elected from single-member constituencies.
    • Assembly Size: Ranges from 60–500 members; smaller States/UTs like Sikkim, Goa, Mizoram, and Puducherry have fewer by parliamentary approval.
    • Anglo-Indian Nomination (Abolished): Governors earlier nominated 1 Anglo-Indian member if under-represented; abolished by 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 (effective Jan 2020).
    • Rights of Nominated Members: Same rights/duties as elected members, except in matters needing a direct electoral mandate.
    • Prevalence: Most States have no nominated members; allowed only under special constitutional/legal provisions.
    • Parliamentary Nomination Abolition: Anglo-Indian nomination in Lok Sabha (2) and State Assemblies (1) also removed by the 104th Amendment.
    • Legislative Council Difference: In Vidhan Parishads, Governors nominate 1/6th members from literature, science, art, co-operatives, and social service.

    Exceptions for Jammu & Kashmir:

    • Special Provision: Under J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 (amended 2023), the Lieutenant-Governor can nominate:
      • Women: 2 women if under-represented.
      • Migrants: 2 Kashmiri migrants (including 1 woman).
      • PoJK Community: 1 member from Pakistan-occupied J&K community.
    • Seat Structure: Nominated members are in addition to elected members; Assembly = 114 elected + nominated (24 PoJK seats vacant).

    Legal Basis in J&K:

    • Statutory Provision: Sections 15, 15A, 15B of J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 (amended 2023) grant L-G nomination powers.
    • MHA Clarification:
      • Nature of Power: Statutory function at L-G’s discretion, without elected government’s aid/advice.
      • Precedent: Similar powers under Union Territories Act, 1963 (e.g., Puducherry).
      • Counting Rule: Nominated members are part of sanctioned Assembly strength.
    • Purpose: To ensure representation for displaced communities, marginalized groups, and women.
    [UPSC 2023] Consider the following statements in respect of election to the President of India:

    1. The members nominated to either House of the Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies of States are also eligible to be included in the Electoral College.

    2. Higher the number of elective Assembly seats, higher is the value of vote of each MLA of that State.

    3. The value of vote of each MLA of Madhya Pradesh is greater than that of Kerala.

    4. The value of of vote of each MLA of Puducherry is higher than that of Arunachal Pradesh because the ratio of total population to total number of elective seats in Puducherry is greater as compared to Arunachal Pradesh.

    How many of the above statements are correct?

    Options: (a) Only one* (b) Only two (c) Only three (d) All four

     

  • Revision of creamy layer income limit ‘need of the hour’:

    The Parliamentary Committee on Welfare of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) has reiterated the need to revise the “creamy layer” income ceiling for OBC reservation benefits. It called the revision the “need of the hour”, citing inflation and rising income levels, which have rendered the current ₹8 lakh per annum limit (fixed in 2017) inadequate. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE), however, stated that there is currently no proposal under consideration for a revision.

    Understanding the “Creamy Layer” Concept

    1. Introduced following the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment of the Supreme Court, which upheld 27% OBC reservation but excluded the socially advanced among them.
    2. The creamy layer criterion is an economic threshold: those above the prescribed annual family income are excluded from OBC reservation benefits.
    3. Initially set at ₹1 lakh (1993), it has been revised periodically, ₹2.5 lakh in 2004, ₹4.5 lakh in 2008, ₹6 lakh in 2013, ₹6.5 lakh in 2014, ₹8 lakh in 2017 (last revision)
      1. As per DoPT norms, revision should occur every 3 years.

    OBC Reservations in India: Historical Background

    Constitutional Foundation

    • Article 15(4): Allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
    • Article 16(4): Empowers the State to provide reservation in appointments or posts in favour of any backward class not adequately represented in State services.
    • Article 340: Empowers the President to appoint a commission to investigate conditions of backward classes and recommend measures.

    Significance of Revising the Creamy Layer Limit

    1. Social Justice: Ensures benefits reach those who truly need them, keeping pace with economic changes.
    2. Reducing Inequality: Supports more OBC families in accessing education, jobs, and government schemes.
    3. Compliance with Policy Guidelines: DoPT’s 1993 order mandates periodic revisions.

    Challenges

    1. Balancing Reservation Benefits: Avoiding over-expansion that may dilute benefits for the most marginalized.
    2. Economic vs. Social Backwardness: Income is only one indicator; social deprivation is harder to quantify.
    3. Political Consensus: Reservation policy changes are politically sensitive.

    Committee’s Concerns on the Current ₹8 Lakh Threshold

    • Erosion by Inflation: Rising basic income levels have reduced the effectiveness of the threshold.
    • Exclusion of Needy Segments: Many OBC families in need of reservation benefits are above ₹8 lakh but still economically disadvantaged in terms of education and access to resources.
    • Socio-Economic Goals: Wider coverage will help raise the social and educational status of more OBC families.

    Way Forward

    • Periodic & Transparent Revision: Institutionalize automatic inflation-indexed adjustments.
    • Comprehensive Backwardness Index: Incorporate education, occupation, and rural/urban disparities along with income.
    • Targeted Scholarships: Expand pre-matric support for lower classes to improve educational pipelines.
    • Better Data: Conduct regular socio-economic surveys for evidence-based policy.

     

    The creamy layer provision is a critical filter to ensure reservation benefits reach the truly disadvantaged among OBCs. With inflation and rising income levels, the current ₹8 lakh ceiling may no longer serve its purpose effectively. The Parliamentary Committee’s push for revision aligns with constitutional principles of equality and social justice, but implementation will require careful balancing of inclusivity, efficiency, and fairness.

     

    Value Addition

    Key Developments:

    1. First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar Commission, 1953) – recommended caste-based reservations, but not implemented due to lack of quantifiable data.
    2. Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission, 1979) – recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions, implemented in 1990.
    3. Indra Sawhney Case (1992) – capped total reservation at 50% and introduced the creamy layer exclusion for OBCs.

    Recent Trends

    1. The 102nd Constitutional Amendment (2018) gave constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
    2. The 105th Constitutional Amendment (2021) restored the power of states to identify OBCs for their own purposes.

     

    Mains Practice Questions:

    1. “Reservation for backward classes should be based on social and educational backwardness rather than economic criteria alone.” Discuss.
    2. The creamy layer in OBC reservation is a safeguard for ensuring equity within equity.’ Comment.

  • Government approves MERITE Scheme 

    Why in the News?

    The Union Cabinet has approved the Multidisciplinary Education and Research Improvement in Technical Education (MERITE) Scheme for implementation in 275 technical institutions across India.

    About MERITE Scheme:

    • Objective: Enhance quality, equity, and governance in technical education across all States and Union Territories, aligned with National Education Policy 2020.
    • Funding: Central Sector Scheme with ₹4,200 crore outlay (2025–26 to 2029–30), including ₹2,100 crore as World Bank loan.
    • Beneficiaries: About 7.5 lakh students; aims to boost institutional capacity in technical education.
    • Collaborations: Works with Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, All India Council for Technical Education, and National Board of Accreditation for implementation support.

    Key Features:

    • Institutional Coverage: Includes National Institutes of Technology, State Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics, and Affiliating Technical Universities.
    • Fund Transfer: Direct funding from a Central Nodal Agency to institutions.
    • Academic Focus: Multidisciplinary programs, updated curriculum, faculty training.
    • Gender Inclusion: Special programs for women faculty and reducing gender disparity.
    • Skill Alignment: Launch of labour market-oriented courses and blended learning models.
    [UPSC 2018] With reference to Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana, consider the following statements:

    1. It is the flagship scheme of the Ministry of Labour and Employment.

    2. It, among other things, will also impart training in soft skills, entrepreneurship, financial and digital literacy.

    3. It aims to align the competencies of the unregulated workforce of the country to the National Skill Qualification Framework.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only* (d) 1, 2 and 3

     

  • [8th August 2025] ​The Hindu Op-ed: Mending ties: On state visit of Philippines President to India

    Philippines’ President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s visit to India strengthened bilateral ties through a Strategic Partnership Agreement, focusing on defence cooperation, Indo-Pacific security, and future trade collaboration, while also serving broader strategic goals in ASEAN and Indo-Pacific diplomacy.

    Key Highlights of the Visit:

    1. Strategic Partnership Agreement: The Philippines becomes only the fifth country (after Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and South Korea) with which India has signed such an agreement.
    2. Maritime and Defence Cooperation: The Indian Navy held its first joint maritime exercise with the Philippine Navy in the South China Sea. India reaffirmed its support for the 2016 UNCLOS Arbitration Award favouring the Philippines in its dispute with China. Discussions were held to expand defence exports, especially BrahMos missiles and other Indian military hardware. New agreements include exchanges between all three services and Coast Guards.
    3. Connectivity and People-to-People Ties: Both countries agreed to begin direct flights and ease visa restrictions to facilitate travel and business.
    4. Economic and Trade Dimensions:
      • Bilateral trade remains modest at $3.3 billion (2024-25).
      • Investments are growing in technology and pharmaceuticals.
      • Talks to launch a Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) have been initiated.
      • India’s decision to revise the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA) reflects renewed trade diplomacy.

    India’s Broader Indo-Pacific Strategy:

    1. Indo-Pacific strategy beyond the spectrum of Quad: India’s engagement with the Philippines shows its intention to look beyond the Quad (India, USA, Japan, Australia) in Indo-Pacific diplomacy. India is pushing for multipolar partnerships, focused on maritime security, trade resilience, and a rules-based international order.
    2. ASEAN & Indo-Pacific Messaging: The Philippines is the incoming chair for ASEAN in 2026 and the coordinator for the ASEAN-India comprehensive strategic partnership. This gives India a crucial partner to enhance its engagement with the bloc.

    Dimensions of India-Philippines Relations

    Historical and Cultural Links:

    • Diplomatic relations were formally established on November 26, 1949, soon after both nations gained independence.
    • Historical ties and shared civilizational links, though not fully documented, point to a long-standing connection.
    • A Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1952.
    • India’s “Look East Policy” (1992) and subsequent “Act East Policy” (2014) have been instrumental in revitalizing and intensifying the relationship.
    • 2019: BrahMos missile deal initiated, the Philippines becomes the first foreign buyer

    Common Issues and Contemporary Challenges:

    • South China Sea Dispute: Both countries face challenges from China’s expansive territorial claims and assertive actions. India supports international law and a rules-based order, which aligns with the Philippines’ interests.
    • Terrorism and Maritime Security: Both nations are susceptible to terrorism and face non-traditional security threats, making cooperation in these areas crucial.
    • Economic Liberalization and Trade: Navigating the complexities of global trade, especially in the face of protectionist policies from major powers like the U.S., is a common challenge that both countries are addressing through initiatives like the potential PTA.

    The recent meeting has elevated India-Philippines ties to a new level, rooted in mutual concerns over regional security, strategic autonomy, and economic cooperation. As ASEAN dynamics evolve and geopolitical tensions rise, such partnerships provide stability and avenues for cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. India’s outreach to the Philippines affirms its commitment to an inclusive regional order and diversified diplomacy.

    Mains Practice Question:

    1. The recent elevation of India-Philippines relations to a Strategic Partnership is part of India’s larger Indo-Pacific vision. Discuss the significance of this development in the context of ASEAN, regional security, and India’s Act East Policy.

  • Doctrine of Legal Insanity

    Why in the News?

    The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a double murder convict citing legal insanity under Section 84 of the IPC (Section 22 BNS), stressing the need to distinguish it from medical insanity and improve mental health investigations.

    About Legal Insanity:

    • Definition: Legal insanity refers to a mental condition where the accused cannot understand the nature of the act or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offence.
    • Legal Basis: Codified under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860); based on the Mc’Naughten Rule (1843) from English law.
    • Presumption of Sanity: Law presumes every person is sane unless proven otherwise; burden of proof lies on the accused (Section 105, Indian Evidence Act).
    • Timing Requirement: Insanity must be present at the time of the offence—not before or after.
    • Legal vs. Medical Insanity: Legal insanity (court-recognised) is different from medical insanity (clinical diagnosis); only the former is valid for defence.
    • Terminology: Section 22 BNS uses the phrase “unsoundness of mind” instead of “insanity”.
    • Exclusions: Mental illness, abnormal behaviour, or psychiatric history alone do not qualify.
    • Test Applied: Based on cognitive incapacity—whether the person knew the nature, consequences, or wrongfulness (legal or moral) of the act.
    • Underlying Principle: Based on “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” – no crime without a guilty mind.

    Important Judicial Precedents:

    • Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration (1969): Insanity defence rejected—accused made rational statements and showed no mental disorder post-crime.
    • Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002): Accused had paranoid schizophrenia and was found incapable of understanding the act—acquitted under Section 84.
    • Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011): Court held that not all mentally ill persons qualify; only proven legal insanity is valid.
    • Kamala Bhuniya v. State of West Bengal (2015): Acquittal granted—prosecution failed to prove sanity; accused’s conduct supported unsoundness of mind.
    [UPSC 2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:

    1.When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such a prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right. 2.State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only* (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • [7th August 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Decoding China, the lessons for a vulnerable India

    Recent actions by China, such as the withdrawal of engineers from India, are not isolated events but a deliberate geo-economic manoeuvre. This strategy is driven by China’s apprehension of a rising India and its ambition to maintain a ‘unipolar Asia’. 

    Recent Actions Undertaken by China against India’s interest:

    1. Recalling over 300 Chinese engineers from iPhone manufacturing facilities in India.
    2. Restricting exports of rare earths and critical minerals to India.
    3. Informal trade restrictions on the export of capital equipment including high-end manufacturing equipment for electronics assembly heavy-duty boring machines and solar equipment to India.

    China’s Geo-economic Manoeuvre against India:

    “It is a meticulously calibrated stratagem, designed to arrest India’s burgeoning manufacturing ambitions.”

    • Impending Technology Transfer: The withdrawal of the Chinese engineers reflects China’s calculated move to Disrupt technology transfer and Stall India’s capacity-building in advanced electronics manufacturing. By pulling out talent, it ensures that ‘India’s learning curve in high-precision, high-efficiency manufacturing remains steep.’
    • Subtle yet potent strategy: As India positions itself in global supply chains through initiatives like Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes, any delay in technology adoption weakens India’s global competitiveness.
    • Weaponization of Supply Chains: By restricting exports of rare earths, critical minerals, and high-end manufacturing equipment, China leverages its control over global supply chains to disrupt India’s industrial ambitions. These informal trade restrictions are non-transparent and hence are hard to contest, create uncertainty and increase costs.
    • Weaponising Overcapacity: Price War as Strategy: China’s industrial overproduction is used deliberately to crash prices and drive out competition. BYD in electric vehicles is flooding global markets with ultra-cheap products. This makes it hard for nations like India to compete fairly, stalling local industries.

    Difference in Manufacturing Ecosystems of India and China:

    China

    India
    Systemic Industrial Dominance:

    1. Not accidental, but strategic: China’s industrial pre-eminence is not trivial, it has been built through decades of strong policies, investments, and planning.

    2. Covers critical and emerging sectors:

    Like, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Quantum computing, 6G telecommunications, Electric Vehicles (EVs)

    3. Controls global supply chains:

    China does not merely export goods, it orchestrates and controls global supply chains, from raw materials to finished products.

    4. Weaponising overcapacity: Overproduction (a sign of weakness elsewhere) is strategically used by China to lower global prices, making it hard for other countries to compete.

    5. Aggressive pricing = market capture:

    This stifles new competitors and helps China maintain dominance.

    6. Economic statecraft by China: China uses its manufacturing power as a geo-economic tool to stay ahead globally and protect its export-driven economy.

    		 Challenges Faced:

    1. Nascent Manufacturing Ecosystem:

    Compared to China, India is still in the early stages of becoming a global manufacturing power.

    2. Facing many hurdles: Poor infrastructure infrastructure lacunae)

    3. Complex government procedures (bureaucratic red tape)

    4. High import dependence: India still imports many critical components like Semiconductors, Sophisticated chips, Sensors, Engines

    5. Limited local capability:

    Even basic assembly-level manufacturing (referred to as “screwdriver technology“) depends on external help.

    6. “Make in India” needs outside support:

    While the goal is self-reliance, India is still not fully capable of producing independently, especially in high-tech sectors.

    India’s Strategic Dilemma: Even as India tries to de-risk from China by aligning with the West, it faces challenges like US tariff hikes on Indian goods and Exemptions given to China despite its pro-Russia stance. This underscores the need for true strategic autonomy building resilient internal capacities rather than over-dependence on foreign goodwill.

    Way Forward:

    Based on China’s strategy of weaponizing its supply chains, India should adopt a multi-pronged response to enhance its own strategic and economic resilience.

    1. Bolster Domestic Manufacturing: India must double down on initiatives like the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme to reduce its import dependence on high-value electronics and components.
    2. Diversify Supply Chains and Sourcing: Actively seek alternative suppliers and build resilient supply chains with like-minded countries to reduce over-reliance on a single nation for critical goods. For example, India is a part of the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI), a trilateral framework with Japan and Australia.
    3. Invest in Strategic Alliances: India should utilize multilateral platforms such as the Quad and forge bilateral partnerships to secure access to critical minerals and technologies.
    4. Boost Domestic Critical Mineral Exploration: It is essential to intensify domestic exploration and processing of critical minerals through missions like the National Critical Minerals Mission (NCMM) to achieve self-reliance.
    5. Leverage Economic Diplomacy: India should use trade agreements and international forums like the WTO to challenge informal trade restrictions and protect its emerging industries from coercive practices.

    China’s aggressive external policies are a direct result of its domestic problems, such as an aging population and economic overcapacity. This forces it to rely on exports, making any competitor like India a perceived threat. As Henry Kissinger said, “Empires have no interest in operating within an international system; they aspire to be the international system.” This highlights the need for India to build its own strategic autonomy and avoid relying on fragile alliances.

     

    Value Addition:

    Quotes by Famous Scholars that can be used in the India-China Relation Topic:

    1. “India lives in a tough neighbourhood. It needs to be wise, not merely strong.” — Shivshankar Menon

    2. “In geopolitics, economics is not just policy — it’s a weapon.” — Henry Kissinger

     

    Mains Practice Questions:

    GS2 (IR): “China’s geo-economic manoeuvres are a reflection of its internal compulsions and not just strategic rivalry.” Elucidate with reference to recent developments in India-China trade relations.

    GS3 (Economy): “India’s ambition to become a global manufacturing hub faces challenges both internal and external.” Discuss the role of strategic autonomy in achieving self-reliance in electronics and high-tech sectors.

  • Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty

    Why in the News?

    Russia officially announced its exit from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, marking a pivotal moment in the dismantling of Cold War-era nuclear arms control architecture.

    What is the INF Treaty?

    • Signed In: 1987 by United States President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
    • Purpose: Banned ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.
    • Impact: Led to the elimination of 2,692 missiles by June 1, 1991.
    • Verification: Allowed on-site inspections, setting a benchmark for arms control agreements.
    • Scope: Covered both nuclear and conventional missile systems.
    • Significance: Became a key pillar of post-Cold War strategic stability.

    Why did Russia exit the Treaty?

    Implications:

    • Collapse of Arms Control: Removes a pillar of nuclear restraint.
    • Resurgence of Arms Race: Possible missile deployments in Europe & Asia-Pacific.
    • Regional Threats: NATO countries & East Asia more vulnerable.
    • Proliferation Risk: May embolden China, India, and others.
    [UPSC 2011] The “New START” treaty was in the news. What is this treaty?

    (a) It is a bilateral strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty between the USA and the Russian Federation.*

    (b) It is a multilateral energy security cooperation treaty among the members of the East Asia Summit.

    (c) It is a treaty between the Russian Federation and the European Union for energy security cooperation.

    (d) It is a multilateral cooperation treaty among the BRICS countries for the promotion of trade.

     

  • [6th August 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The technocratic calculus of India’s welfare state

    The promise to deliver social welfare at scale, using data-driven algorithms, may be at the cost of ‘democratic norms’ and ‘political accountability’

    India’s welfare model is undergoing a silent but radical transformation. What was once a deliberative system grounded in rights and citizen needs is now morphing into a technocratic model governed by data, code, and efficiency. This shift raises a key question: Can dignity and justice survive when welfare becomes measurable but impersonal?

    From Entitlement to efficiency: The new welfare playbook

    Over the past decade, India has moved from rights-based entitlements to an algorithm-led delivery model—what scholars call a technocratic calculus.

    • Aadhaar: Over 1 billion enrolled; enables biometric verification to curb duplicate beneficiaries.
    • DBT (Direct Benefit Transfers): 1,206 schemes unified under Aadhaar; ₹3.48 lakh crore saved via leakages plugged.
    • CPGRAMS and grievance portals: 36 digital platforms now streamline complaints.

    That’s the infrastructure. But the implications run deeper. This marks a shift from deliberative welfare (based on rights and dialogue) to calculative welfare (based on metrics like coverage, leakage, speed).

    Promises vs. Perils:

    1. Efficiency vs. Empathy

    Welfare delivery is now fast, traceable, and auditable. But it risks treating citizens as data profiles, not as individuals with needs. Algorithms can’t ask moral questions. Bureaucrats avoid hard choices by letting systems decide.

    2. Political Accountability Diluted

    Leaders now point to dashboards instead of taking responsibility. Decisions on who deserves support are increasingly delegated to code.

    3. Institutions Under Strain

    • RTI backlog: Over 4 lakh pending cases (June 2024)
    • Vacant CIC posts: Weakens transparency
    • CPGRAMS: Acts more like a ticketing system, not a democratic grievance platform. Visibility is centralised, but not responsibility.

    4. Shrinking Social Sector Investment

    • Welfare spending has dropped from 21% to 17% of GDP (2014–2025)
    • For vulnerable groups (SCs, minorities, labour, nutrition), allocations shrank from 11% pre-COVID to just 3%
    • The paradox: as delivery gets smarter, commitments get thinner.

    The Deeper democratic concern:

    When welfare turns technical, it becomes less political. Philosopher Habermas warned of this: expert-rule can silence democratic debate. In India’s case, welfare governance is increasingly auditable, but less answerable.

    What Needs Fixing? 

    1. Embed human judgement in digital systems: Algorithms should aid, not override, political reasoning.
    2. Revive deliberative spaces: Local bodies, gram sabhas, and social audits must regain teeth.
    3. Reinvest in social sector spending: Efficiency must not justify austerity.
    4. Reimagine grievance redressal: Make platforms citizen-centric, not just data-driven.

    Way forward:

    1. Federal Pluralism: Empower States to design context-sensitive welfare regimes, reinforcing federalism and pluralism.
    2. Impact Audits: Institutionalise community-driven impact audits through Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan and Gram Panchayat Development Plans.
    3. Platform Cooperatives: Build platform cooperatives in all States with self-help groups as intermediaries, inspired by Kerala’s Kudumbashree.
    4. Civic Engagement: Incentivise civil society to promote grassroots political education and establish legal aid clinics for  stronger community accountability.
    5. Resilience Mechanisms: Strengthen and codify offline fallback systems, human feedback safeguards, and statutory bias audits.
    6. Digital Rights: Embed the “right to explanation and appeal” in digital governance frameworks, in line with UN Human Rights recommendations.

    Digital welfare is not the problem. The problem is when it replaces, not supports, democracy. India must blend technology with trust, efficiency with empathy, and code with conscience. Only then can welfare remain a tool for justice—not just for savings.

    Possible GS2 Mains Question:

    1. India’s welfare governance has shifted from rights-based entitlement to algorithmic delivery. Critically examine the democratic and institutional implications of this shift. Suggest reforms to align technology with constitutional values.