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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: BilateralXNeighbourhood

  • External Affairs Minister tells UN General Assembly that bids to claim immunity for terrorism will not stand

    Why in the News

    India told the United Nations General Assembly that attempts to normalise terrorism and claim immunity from its consequences will not stand. Pakistan’s Prime Minister had raised Kashmir there a day earlier and called India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty an act of war.

    What is the Indus Waters Treaty and why is it in abeyance?

    1. River division: The treaty divides the Indus basin rivers between India and Pakistan, working like a title deed over river water.
    2. Origin in Partition: Partition left the works feeding the canals in India and the irrigated land in Pakistan, so the two signed in 1960 with the World Bank as a signatory.
    3. What changed: India put the treaty in abeyance after the Pahalgam terror attack of April 2025, stopping performance without ending it. Revival needs Pakistan credibly ending cross border terrorism.
    4. The takeaway: India has tied Pakistan’s water share to ending terrorism, so a water settlement now turns on behaviour rather than geography.

    What did India put to the Assembly on terrorism?

    1. Serial practitioner charge: India named Pakistan a serial practitioner of terrorism.
    2. State sponsorship of terrorism: India called terrorism with state backing and cross border reach a direct affront to the global order, and said sponsoring governments must be held accountable.
    3. Self defence and terror financing: India said it will exercise self defence, that friendship cannot coexist with terrorism and that terror financing must be exposed.

    How did India answer the Kashmir claim?

    1. Right of Reply: India answered through the Right of Reply, a state’s short answer to another’s speech at the Assembly.
    2. Territorial position restated: India described Jammu and Kashmir as an Indian Union Territory, an integral and inalienable part of India.
    3. Plebiscite claim rejected: Pakistan asked the United Nations to deliver a plebiscite, a vote on which country a territory joins. India rejected that and the alleged demographic change.
    4. The counter charge: India recalled that the 9/11 mastermind lived beside Pakistan’s premier army academy, and said Pakistan claims to uphold security by day and carries out terrorism by night.
    5. Rights inside Pakistan: India pointed to killings in Rawalakot in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and to the treatment of minorities there.

    What does the weaponisation of everything mean?

    1. Weaponisation of everything: India used the phrase for economic links turned into instruments of pressure, so countries far from the West Asia, Russia Ukraine and Israel Gaza conflicts are penalised.
    2. Chokepoints in six domains: Extreme competition creates chokepoints, single points others must pass through, in finance, market access, supply chains, technology, resources and connectivity.
    3. Tariffs on Russian energy buyers: A new United States law authorises tariffs up to 100 per cent on Russian energy buyers, including India, so nations are de risking and diversifying.
    4. Global South and sea lanes: Developing countries face a 4F crisis, insecurity of food, fuel, fertiliser and finance. India has lost over 10 seafarers in the Strait of Hormuz and Black Sea.
    5. Stability, security and predictability: Peace is more than the absence of war, and weakens if stability, security or predictability is undermined.

    Challenges

    1. Abeyance has no treaty basis: The treaty carries no clause letting one side suspend it, so the step rests on political decision.
    2. Limited physical leverage: India lacks the storage and diversion capacity on the western rivers to change flows quickly.
    3. Assembly statements bind nobody: A General Assembly speech creates no obligation, so accountability depends on other forums.

    Way Forward

    1. Build what the treaty allows: Complete the storage and power projects the treaty already permits on the western rivers.
    2. Terror financing route: Take Pakistan’s record to the Financial Action Task Force, which grades countries on countering terror financing.
    3. Secure the sea lanes jointly: Expand naval escort cooperation and attack reporting with Indian Ocean partners.

    Conclusion

    The Assembly exchange has turned a water sharing treaty into counter terrorism pressure. Watch whether another member state adopts that condition, because pressure applied alone can be waited out.

    Back2Basics: Indus Waters Treaty

    1. Rivers to each side: The Ravi, Beas and Sutlej go to India, the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab to Pakistan.
    2. What India may still do: India may use the western rivers for non consumptive purposes, limited irrigation and run of the river power, which stores no water.
    3. How a dispute is settled: The Permanent Indus Commission handles questions first, differences go to a Neutral Expert and disputes to a Court of Arbitration.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2016, GS1, 12.5 marks] Present an account of the Indus Water Treaty and examine its ecological, economic and political implications in the context of changing bilateral relations.”

  • SLINEX-26: India-Sri Lanka Maritime Exercise

    SLINEX-26: India-Sri Lanka Maritime Exercise

    Why in the News?

    The 13th edition of the Sri Lanka-India bilateral maritime exercise, SLINEX-26, is being conducted at Visakhapatnam from 17-21 September 2026.

    Key Highlights

    • Exercise: SLINEX-26
    • Edition: 13th
    • Venue: Visakhapatnam
    • Dates: 17-21 September 2026
    • Participating navies:
      • Indian Navy: INS Kavaratti and INS Jyoti
      • Sri Lanka Navy: SLNS Sindurala
    • Exercise has two phases:
      1. Harbour Phase : Professional interactions, Cross-deck visits, Sharing of best practices, Yoga, Sports, and Cultural activities
      2. Sea Phase : Coordinated activities at sea, Operational synergy, Interoperability between the two navies

    About SLINEX

    • Conceptualised in 2005.
    • Provides a platform for:
      • Maritime cooperation
      • Interoperability
      • Mutual understanding
      • Sharing of best practices

    Strategic Significance

    • SLINEX-26 supports India’s MAHASAGAR vision and aims to strengthen cooperation for a secure, stable and inclusive maritime environment.
    • It also reinforces the enduring maritime partnership between India and Sri Lanka.

    Prelims Quick Revision

    • SLINEX: India-Sri Lanka bilateral maritime exercise.
    • Conceptualised: 2005
    • 2026 edition: 13th
    • SLINEX-26 venue: Visakhapatnam
    • Indian ships: INS Kavaratti + INS Jyoti
    • Sri Lankan ship: SLNS Sindurala
    • Two phases: Harbour Phase + Sea Phase
    • Linked with India’s MAHASAGAR vision.

  • The 1991 treaty violated by Pak ship that collided with Indian vessel

    Why in the News

    A Pakistani ship closed on an Indian Navy vessel and collided with it in international waters. India has summoned Pakistan’s Charge d’Affaires over the conduct and placed it in direct contravention of Article 10 of the 1991 Agreement between India and Pakistan on Advance Notice on Military Exercises, Manoeuvres and Troop Movements. Article 10 bars naval ships and submarines of the two countries from closing within three nautical miles of each other while operating in international waters. The last comparable episode was in 2011, when the Pakistan Navy ship PNS Babur brushed past the Indian Navy frigate INS Godavari in the Gulf of Aden and damaged the frigate’s helicopter safety net. The contested point is whether a set of confidence building measures written in the late 1980s and early 1990s still restrains conduct at sea, when the only consequence of a breach is a diplomatic protest.

    What is the 1991 Agreement on Advance Notice on Military Exercises, Manoeuvres and Troop Movements?

    1. Purpose: The agreement establishes a standing mechanism for the two countries to inform each other about military exercises and troop movements. Its stated object is to prevent a crisis arising from a misreading of the other side’s intentions.
    2. Scope: It lays down rules for the land, naval and air forces of both countries. Major exercises close to the other’s territory are to be avoided, and where they take place the other party is to be informed.
    3. Naval threshold: A major naval exercise is defined as one involving six or more ships of destroyer or frigate size and above, exercising in company and crossing into the other country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (the maritime belt extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline, over which a coastal State holds resource rights).
    4. Article 10: Naval ships and submarines of the two countries are not to close less than three nautical miles from each other in international waters, so as to avoid an accident. One nautical mile is about 1.85 km.

    Why did the two countries build this agreement when they did?

    1. Nuclear weapons programmes: Accelerating weapons work on both sides through the 1980s raised the cost of any war to a level neither government could absorb. That escalation is what made a standing notification mechanism attractive to both.
    2. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: The December 1979 invasion made Pakistan and the United States keen to avoid disturbance on Pakistan’s eastern border with India. Pakistan’s western commitment created the space for an eastern arrangement.
    3. Exercise Brass Tacks IV: India carried out a massive military exercise in Punjab and Rajasthan along the India-Pakistan border in January 1987, mobilising some 150,000 troops. The scale of the exercise alarmed Pakistan and produced the specific demand for advance notice that the 1991 treaty answers.
    4. Clarification rights: The agreement allows either side to seek clarification on the assembly of forces, and on the direction, extent and duration of an exercise. That right is the operative response to the uncertainty Brass Tacks IV created.

    What else does the confidence building architecture of this period contain?

    1. Joint commission, 1983: The Agreement for the establishment of a joint commission between India and Pakistan was signed on 10 March 1983. It was the first of the structured bilateral mechanisms of this phase.
    2. Agreement on the Prohibition of Attack against Nuclear Installations and Facilities, 1988: Finalised on 31 December 1988, it bars each country from attacking the other’s nuclear installations. The two sides exchange lists of their nuclear installations every 1 January, and that exchange has continued without a break since 1992.
    3. Cultural Cooperation Agreement, 1988: Signed on the same day as the nuclear installations agreement. It shows the period’s approach of pairing a military restraint measure with a civilian one.
    4. Agreement on Prevention of Air Space Violations, 1991: Signed on 6 April 1991, the same day as the advance notice agreement, it also permits over flights and landings by military aircraft. Air and land restraint were therefore settled together, and the naval rule sits inside the same package.

    What does the recurrence of naval incidents show about the agreement’s reach?

    1. Long gap between incidents: The previous close quarters episode was in 2011 in the Gulf of Aden, far from either country’s coast. The rule has held for long stretches, which is why each breach is treated as a signal rather than as routine.
    2. Distance from the exercise framework: Both incidents occurred during ordinary deployments, not during a notified major exercise. The agreement’s notification machinery is built for planned exercises and does not reach the day to day operations where contact actually happens.
    3. Response limited to protest: India’s recorded response in both cases was a diplomatic communication. No joint inquiry, shared navigational record or agreed finding of fault follows a breach.

    Challenges to the 1991 Agreement

    1. No verification or monitoring machinery: The agreement provides for notification and for clarification on request, and creates no inspection body or joint verification procedure. Eg. Neither side produced an agreed account of the 2011 PNS Babur and INS Godavari incident, which closed without a finding.
      The Fix: Attach a standing naval point of contact on each side with a fixed timeline for exchanging navigational data after a close quarters incident.
    2. No incidents at sea instrument: Article 10 fixes a separation distance and prescribes nothing about signalling, manoeuvring or harassment at close range. Eg. The United States and the Soviet Union addressed exactly these behaviours through the Incidents at Sea Agreement of 1972, which India and Pakistan have no equivalent of.
      The Fix: Negotiate a dedicated incidents at sea agreement covering signalling procedure and prohibited manoeuvres, separate from the exercise notification framework.
    3. Dependence on the political climate: Each measure in this architecture survives only while the wider relationship permits it, and none carries a self executing renewal. Eg. The composite dialogue that carried most bilateral confidence building work has been suspended for extended periods after terror attacks.
      The Fix: Insulate the technical measures from the political dialogue by giving the military to military channels their own standing mandate.
    4. Silence on non-state and hybrid activity: The instruments of this period address regular forces and declared exercises, and say nothing about maritime infiltration, unattributed vessels or fishing fleet incidents. Eg. The 26 November 2008 Mumbai attackers reached the city by sea after hijacking a fishing trawler.
      The Fix: Extend the notification framework to a maritime incident register covering non-naval vessels operating in the other country’s declared zones.
    5. Asymmetry in the dispute settlement route: A breach produces a summons, and the agreement names no arbiter, no penalty and no suspension clause. Eg. India’s protest in the present case ends with the summons, whatever the outcome of the collision.
      The Fix: Provide for a joint review at the level of the two naval headquarters within a fixed period of any reported breach of Article 10.

    Conclusion

    The 1991 Agreement remains in force, and both navies continue to operate in the same international waters. India’s response has stopped at a summons, which is the whole of what the instrument provides. The gap the collision exposes is procedural rather than political: the two countries have a rule on separation at sea and no shared means of establishing what happened when it is broken. What to watch is whether the exchange of nuclear installation lists due on the next 1 January proceeds as usual, since that is the one measure of this architecture that has run unbroken and is the readiest indicator of whether the rest still holds.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “Terrorist activities and mutual distrust have clouded India-Pakistan relations. To what extent the use of soft power like sports and cultural exchanges could help generate goodwill between the two countries? Discuss with suitable examples.”

  • China’s open AI advantage may not last forever

    China’s open AI advantage may not last forever

    Why in the News

    Indian startups are rebuilding their products on Chinese open weight foundation models, with Qwen, DeepSeek and Kimi delivering large cost savings and lagging the American frontier by about six months. Reporting from July 2026 records Indian companies increasingly switching to Chinese large language models (LLMs) to contain Artificial Intelligence (AI) costs, with startups cutting costs by an order of magnitude. This open weight release is neither charity nor a workaround for chip export controls, and rests on five reinforcing logics that make the strategy durable. The tension is that durable is not permanent, and the assessment set out here is that China will begin graduating access to its frontier open weight models around late 2028.

    What is an open weight model?

    1. What is released: The trained parameters of the model are published, so anyone can download the model and run it on their own hardware.
    2. How it differs from an interface: A proprietary model is reached through an interface the provider controls, and the provider can price it, restrict it or withdraw it. A downloaded model keeps working whatever the provider later decides.
    3. What it enables: The holder can fine tune the model on its own data and modify its behaviour, which a provider controlled interface does not permit.
    4. Why the distinction is strategic: The choice between the two forms decides whether capability sits with the user or with the supplier.

    How far have Indian firms moved onto Chinese models?

    1. Products rebuilt on Chinese foundations: Indian startups are constructing their products on Qwen, DeepSeek and Kimi rather than on American frontier models.
    2. Performance is close enough: These models run almost as well as the American frontier and trail it by roughly six months, which is within tolerance for most commercial applications.
    3. The cost difference is not marginal: One venture investor cited startups cutting costs by an order of magnitude, which changes what is affordable rather than trimming a bill.
    4. The switch is deliberate: The stated reason for the move is cost containment rather than any assessment of capability.

    What are the five logics behind China’s open weight strategy?

    1. Cost: DeepSeek trained its R1 model for $294,000, a fraction of what American frontier laboratories incur, with distillation from American models and architectural efficiency breakthroughs compressing research spending.
    2. Prestige: DeepSeek’s January 2025 release wiped roughly a trillion dollars off American technology stocks, and open weighting has since been converted into diplomacy through the 29 country World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) bloc and 5,000 training slots offered to developing countries.
    3. Commoditisation: American laboratories monetise proprietary weights, so free models good enough for most commercial work attack their pricing power. Chinese firms need not beat the competing product, only destroy the ability to charge for it.
    4. Capital: Financial repression traps household savings in state banks that lend cheaply to strategic sectors, producing the same subsidisation and overcapacity that flattened the global solar and electric vehicle markets. In AI it produced 820 LLMs registered with China’s cyberspace authority by early 2026.
    5. Infrastructure: Free models drive adoption, which drives demand for the complementary products China dominates in energy, cloud and physical infrastructure. Alibaba’s cloud revenue grew 34 percent year on year while it gave Qwen away.

    What conditions would make Beijing close the gates?

    1. The consultation is already under way: Chinese regulators led by the Ministry of Commerce have been consulting Alibaba, Bytedance and Zhipu on limiting the transfer of training data abroad and on whether foreign users should continue to freely download model weights.
    2. Consolidation: Beijing can coordinate five firms and cannot coordinate 800, and the state news agency has announced the shift from the “Hundred Model War” to the “Top Five Basic Models”. American export controls, by raising costs for Chinese laboratories, are accelerating the very consolidation that makes restriction feasible.
    3. Lock in: Restricting access before global developers are deeply embedded in the Chinese cloud stack would send them elsewhere and break the flywheel. That threshold is currently far from being reached.
    4. Saturation: Once the pricing power of frontier American laboratories is sufficiently commoditised, and open weight releases from Meta, Mistral, Nvidia and others sustain the pressure independently, further Chinese releases buy nothing. The gap here is narrowing and still exists.

    What would graduated restriction actually look like?

    1. Not a switch: The likely outcome is a set of graduated pathways rather than a single closure, appearing from around late 2028.
    2. Embargoed weights: Frontier models served through an interface first, with the weights released only after a six month embargo.
    3. Licensing above a capability threshold: Commercial licensing required beyond a stated capability level, with smaller distilled models left free as the entry route.
    4. Scaffolding withheld: Model weights released openly while tool use and agentic scaffolding, which is what turns a model into a working system, are held back.
    5. Preferential access: Members of the WAICO bloc receiving access on better terms than non members, which converts model access into a membership benefit.

    What should India do with the open window?

    1. Price in the switching costs: The open ecosystem should be used on the assumption that access terms will change, so the cost of moving between stacks is budgeted now rather than discovered later.
    2. Model agnostic architecture in the public sector: Government departments and regulated sectors should be built on abstraction layers and harnesses that work across stacks, so a change of supplier becomes a configuration change.
    3. A routing layer instead of hardware subsidies: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) should consider running a public sector routing service across models, in place of offering compute subsidies on slices of graphics processing units.
    4. Atmashakti rather than self sufficiency: Effort should concentrate where India can actually win, in applications, industrial and language data, edge inference silicon design and domain specific fine tuning. This is self strength built in a few selected segments, in place of full self sufficiency that India cannot afford and does not need.
    5. Use the window diplomatically: India should shape open weight norms in multilateral forums while the commons is still open and Beijing still needs legitimacy for it.

    Challenges to India’s reliance on open weight models

    1. Dependence is being built into production systems: Cost driven adoption embeds a foreign model in products that cannot be rewritten quickly when terms change. Eg. Startups rebuilding their core products on a single model family carry the switching cost inside their architecture.
      The Fix: Require an abstraction layer in any publicly funded AI deployment, so the model can be swapped without rebuilding the application.
    2. Diffusion is mistaken for capability: Rapid adoption of adequate models raises productivity and builds no domestic ability to produce the next model. Eg. Most Indian AI activity sits in applications rather than at the frontier.
      The Fix: Tie public procurement preference to firms that contribute datasets, evaluations or fine tuned models back into a shared national repository.
    3. Language and data coverage is thin: A model trained elsewhere performs worse on Indian languages and on Indian administrative data, which is where public sector value lies. Eg. Low resource Indian languages remain weakly represented in the training corpora of major open models.
      The Fix: Treat curated Indian language and sectoral datasets as the national asset to fund, since a data advantage survives a change of model supplier.
    4. Compute access is governed elsewhere: The hardware needed to fine tune or serve a large model at scale is subject to export controls set by other governments. Eg. Advanced processor supply to India and to China is determined by controls neither country sets.
      The Fix: Prioritise edge inference silicon design, where India can build a position that does not depend on access to frontier training hardware.
    5. Security review of downloaded models is weak: An openly released model can carry behaviour that surfaces only under specific conditions, and there is no standing capability to test for it. Eg. Backdoor behaviour triggered by particular inputs has been demonstrated in publicly released models.
      The Fix: Mandate evaluation of any model used in a regulated sector against a published test suite before deployment.

    Conclusion

    The open models now cutting Indian costs are being given away because a strategic competition is currently being fought that way, and that is the fact to plan against rather than the saving to celebrate. India can take the cost advantage and still owe itself an architecture that survives the moment the giving stops. The marker to watch is the Chinese consultation on foreign downloads of model weights, since a decision there arrives well before any formal restriction does.

    Government Initiatives for Artificial Intelligence in India

    1. IndiaAI Mission: Approved in 2024 with an outlay of Rs 10,371 crore and implemented by IndiaAI under MeitY, it builds compute, datasets, skills and startup financing as a single ecosystem programme.
    2. IndiaAI Compute: A national AI compute grid of over 38,000 graphics processing units, offering eligible users up to 40 percent lower compute costs.
    3. AIKosh: A national repository of non personal datasets and models, carrying thousands of datasets across sectors including agriculture, health, climate and governance.
    4. IndiaAI Safety Institute: The national trust framework within the mission, covering bias mitigation, privacy, explainability and AI governance.
    5. India AI Impact Summit 2026: Hosted by India under the mission, it repositions the global discussion from AI safety towards AI for development and convenes Global South participation.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    [2023] “Introduce the concept of Artificial Intelligence (AI). How does AI help clinical diagnosis? Do you perceive any threat to privacy of the individual in the use of AI in healthcare?”

  • Xi, Modi agreed both nations should be partners: Wang Yi

    Why in the News

    China and India should be partners. China’s Foreign Minister has described that as the most important consensus reached by the Chinese President and the Prime Minister when they met on the sidelines of the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi. The meeting closed the Chinese President’s first visit to India in seven years, and it was the third leaders’ meeting since the border agreement of October 2024. The two sides agreed to jointly maintain peace and tranquility in border areas and to support each other as rotating chair of BRICS. What is unsettled is whether a relationship rebuilt through air links, pilgrimage routes and summit language holds while the boundary question itself stays where it is.

    What did the two leaders agree on?

    1. Border areas: The two leaders agreed to jointly maintain peace and tranquility in border areas.
    2. BRICS chairmanships: Each country will support the other as rotating chair of the grouping. China takes over as BRICS chair for 2027.
    3. Multilateral coordination: The two sides agreed to strengthen coordination within the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the G20.
    4. A multipolar order: They agreed to advance cooperation across the Global South, promote a more multipolar world order, and act as a stabilising force in a period of global uncertainty.
    5. Mutual development: The Chinese President said the two countries can draw on each other’s strengths, support one another and pursue common development.
    6. Scale of the constituency: The improvement in relations has been welcomed by over 2.8 billion people of both nations, and is cast as an essential pillar of stronger cooperation across the Global South.

    What terms has India set for the reset?

    1. Independent foreign policy: India has an independent foreign policy and will not allow any force to engage in anti China activities on its territory. China’s Foreign Ministry cited that statement approvingly.
    2. The three mutuals: Future ties are to be guided by mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interest.
    3. Differences and disputes: Differences should not be allowed to become disputes.
    4. A new chapter: The Prime Minister described the talks as the beginning of a new chapter in bilateral relations.

    Where does the boundary question sit in this framing?

    1. Subordinated to the wider relationship: China’s Foreign Minister, who is also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, said the border issue should be viewed in proper perspective within the broader context of the bilateral relationship.
    2. India’s stated approach: India has always approached relations with China from a strategic standpoint.
    3. The sequence of meetings: The two leaders met at Kazan in Russia in 2024 and again in September 2025, and the New Delhi meeting was their third since the breakthrough in ties.
    4. What the language covers: The agreed formulation extends to peace and tranquility in border areas, and carries no statement on the boundary itself.

    How is connectivity between the two countries being restored?

    1. Direct flights: China Southern Airlines announced the resumption of passenger services on the Guangzhou to New Delhi route from 21 September, after a six year break.
    2. Why they had stopped: Direct air service was suspended after the Covid pandemic and after tensions following the Doklam and Galwan standoffs.
    3. Pilgrimage route: The Kailash Mansarovar Yatra resumed in 2024, following the border understanding.

    Challenges to the India China normalisation

    1. Trade imbalance: India’s merchandise deficit with China is its largest with any trading partner, and it widens as electronics and machinery imports grow. Eg. Solar modules, electronic components and active pharmaceutical ingredients are sourced overwhelmingly from Chinese suppliers.
      The Fix: Tie any market access concession in the reset to measurable movement on the non tariff barriers facing Indian pharmaceutical and agricultural exports.
    2. Border infrastructure asymmetry: Road, rail and airfield construction on the Chinese side of the Line of Actual Control outpaces India’s build out in the same sectors. Eg. The Sichuan Tibet railway and forward airfield upgrades opposite Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh.
      The Fix: Hold the Border Roads Organisation’s project list to dated completion milestones reported annually.
    3. Third country military supply: China’s defence supply relationship with Pakistan runs irrespective of the state of its relations with India. Eg. JF 17 combat aircraft and naval frigates supplied to Pakistan.
      The Fix: Raise third country military supply as a standing item in the Special Representatives dialogue rather than leaving it to summit level language.
    4. Dependence on leader level understanding: The reset rests on understandings between two leaders rather than on an institutional mechanism that survives a crisis. Eg. The border agreements of 1993 and 1996 did not prevent the 2020 standoff in eastern Ladakh.
      The Fix: Require the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India China Border Affairs to report publicly after each round.

    Conclusion

    The relationship has been restored at the level of contact rather than at the level of the dispute. Flights, pilgrimages and chairmanship courtesies are reversible instruments, and each of them was withdrawn once already. The thing to watch is whether the standing border mechanisms meet and produce a recorded outcome before the next leaders’ meeting, because that is the only part of this reset that cannot be undone by a single incident.

    Back2Basics: The border agreement of October 2024

    1. An understanding between India and China on patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh.
    2. It addressed the friction points at Depsang and Demchok, where patrolling had been blocked since 2020.
    3. It led to disengagement of troops at those points and the resumption of coordinated patrolling.
    4. It reopened the space for leader level meetings and for the phased restoration of pilgrimage and travel links.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2014, GS2, 12.5 marks] With respect to the South China sea, maritime territorial disputes and rising tension affirm the need for safeguarding maritime security to ensure freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region. In this context, discuss the bilateral issues between India and China.”

  • India & China are at a Nash equilibrium. Will it hold – that’s the question

    Why in the News

    India and China issued an Eight Points of Outcomes and Consensus statement on the border on 25 August 2026, directing their negotiators to seek an early and substantial harvest on the boundary question. The Prime Minister and the Chinese President then met at the just concluded 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi. Read together, the statement and the two national readouts indicate that the two sides have settled into a Nash equilibrium on the border. The assessment is that neither can improve its position by negotiation and neither can improve it by force, so the current line holds by default rather than by agreement. The tension is that a stable outcome nobody chose is also an outcome nobody is defending, and two specific contingencies could remove it.

    What is a Nash equilibrium?

    1. Nash equilibrium, defined: A Nash equilibrium is an outcome in a non cooperative game in which no player’s expected outcome can be improved by changing one’s own strategy.
    2. Application to the India China border: India and China at least tacitly recognise that in any foreseeable future neither can aspire to or achieve a better position in the border quarrel.
    3. Room left for friction along the LAC: The two sides may still spar diplomatically and militarily on occasion, as they have since 2013, and the intermittent exchange of words and of hardware over the high Himalaya can only move the Line of Actual Control (LAC) slightly.

    Why has 45 years of negotiation produced only one agreement?

    1. Continuity of negotiation since 1981: India and China have been negotiating a border deal almost without interruption since 1981.
    2. The three negotiating mechanisms: The Secretary and Vice Minister level talks (1981-88), the Joint Working Group (1989-2005) and the Special Representative Mechanism (2003 to the present).
    3. The pace of engagement: Over more than 45 years the two sides have met once a year on average.
    4. The 2005 agreement as the single substantive outcome: The 2005 Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India China Boundary Question is the single substantive outcome of that entire period.

    What did the 2005 agreement actually fix?

    1. A package deal principle: A settlement would be reached as a package, meaning nothing is settled until everything on the border is settled.
    2. The political settlement standard: The final agreement would be a political settlement.
    3. Criteria the settlement must weigh: It would consider strategic concerns, history, national sentiment, practicality, geography and the interests of settled populations in the borderlands.

    What is the package deal principle?

    1. The rule itself: A package deal principle requires that every sector of a disputed boundary be settled in a single agreement, so no stretch of the border is treated as closed on its own.
    2. Why a package rule was adopted: It stops either side from banking a concession in an easy sector and then reopening a hard one, since a party that has already pocketed a gain has no reason to compromise on what is left. Eg. The 2005 agreement applies the principle across the western, middle and eastern sectors together.
    3. What an early harvest does inside it: An early harvest lets negotiators work one sector at a time, and the result stays provisional until the remaining sectors are agreed. Eg. The August 2026 eight point statement directs an early and substantial harvest without altering the ratification condition.
    4. What the principle rules out: A standalone sectoral treaty, a partial exchange of territory, and any agreed line that takes legal effect before the whole boundary is settled.

    What does the August 2026 eight point statement change?

    1. Early harvest and the package rule: The statement directs negotiators to seek an early and substantial harvest on the border, and this does not violate the package deal idea.
    2. Sector by sector sequencing: It suggests the two sides focus on success in one area instead of negotiating everything everywhere at once, and then move on to another section of the border.
    3. The ratification condition: Under the 2005 agreement, each sectional success would only be finally accepted and ratified when the entire border is settled.
    4. The BRICS summit readouts: Nothing in the two readouts from the leaders’ meeting alters either the 2005 agreement or the eight point early harvest statement.

    Why can neither side improve its position by negotiation or by force?

    1. India’s maximal objective: India seeks to recover Aksai Chin up to its original claim and to keep everything it holds in the other sectors.
    2. China’s maximal objective: China seeks Arunachal Pradesh all the way to the southern slopes, which is most of the State, and to keep everything else it holds.
    3. Limits of diplomatic bargaining: It is inconceivable that Indian or Chinese negotiators can achieve their maximal objectives, so diplomatic bargaining now or in the future cannot close the gap.
    4. Conquest as an unavailable option: India cannot conquer Aksai Chin up to its original claim line, and China cannot conquer Arunachal Pradesh up to the southern slopes.
    5. Terrain, climate and logistics: Terrain, climate, logistics and military defences make any dramatic and lasting military gain almost impossible.
    6. Basis of the current stability: Short of extremely bad strategy by commanders or internal political chaos that distracts from deterrence, the status quo on the border is stable.

    What could break the equilibrium?

    1. The succession to the Dalai Lama: Beijing will eventually appoint its preferred Dalai Lama and the Tibetans will almost certainly choose their own, leaving New Delhi caught in the middle.
    2. The 1962 precedent: India China tensions could consequently spiral, and China could lash out as it did in 1962, when instabilities in Tibet were a factor leading to war.
    3. An India Pakistan conflict that pulls China in: In 2025 New Delhi detected a Chinese helping hand to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, and in a future South Asian confrontation China might be more openly involved.
    4. A two front war for India: New Delhi or Beijing could then be drawn into a fight that threatens the status quo, and for India that means a two front war.
    5. Insulation offered by the present détente: The current détente promises trade, visas, supply chain resilience and river water cooperation, and the open question is whether those gains can insulate the relationship from a Tibet transition or a South Asian conflict.

    Challenges to a settlement of the India China boundary

    1. The line itself is undefined on the ground: The 3,488 km LAC has never been mutually delineated, so patrolling limits rather than a map decide where each side believes it may go. Eg. Friction points such as the Depsang Plains and Charding Ninglung Nala remain unresolved even after disengagement elsewhere.
      The Fix: Complete the exchange of maps sector by sector as a technical exercise separated from the sovereignty claim, so incidents arise from choice rather than from ambiguity.
    2. The two sides inherit different colonial alignments: In the western sector India relies on the Johnson Line of 1865 while China claims the Macartney MacDonald Line of 1899, so each reads the same ground from a different document. Eg. In the eastern sector the LAC follows the McMahon Line drawn at the Simla Convention of 1914, which China does not accept.
      The Fix: Anchor the negotiation on the 2005 agreement’s own criteria of settled populations and practicality, since neither colonial line can be conceded by the other side.
    3. Ground realities are being changed while talks continue: Incremental construction alters what a future settlement would have to ratify, which reduces the incentive to conclude one. Eg. Dual use border villages and road networks shift the position on the ground without a single formal claim being advanced.
      The Fix: Extend the confidence building agreements to cover permanent construction within an agreed depth of the LAC, with mutual verification.
    4. Economic dependence cuts against leverage: A widening trade imbalance gives the larger supplier a channel of pressure that has nothing to do with the border. Eg. India’s trade deficit with China reached an all time high of about $112.16 billion in March 2026, with the bulk of imports being industrial goods.
      The Fix: Convert the China plus one opening into domestic capacity in the specific intermediate goods where import dependence is highest, so the deficit narrows at the source.
    5. China Pakistan axis as an embedded third party: China’s relationship with Pakistan turns any India Pakistan conflict into a potential two front problem, which is the precise contingency the article identifies. Eg. Infrastructure built under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor runs through territory India claims.
      The Fix: Build the capability and the deployment posture for a simultaneous two front contingency, so the possibility does not itself become a bargaining lever.

    Conclusion

    A stalemate that holds because neither side can improve on it is not the same thing as a settlement, and it carries no mechanism of its own to survive a shock. The whole of the negotiating record, from 1981 to the eight point statement, has produced one agreement on principles and no agreed line. What should now be examined is whether the gains from the present détente can be built into insulation against the two contingencies named, the succession in Tibet and a South Asian conflict that draws China in. The marker to watch is whether the early harvest approach produces a settled sector, since that is the first test of whether sequencing can do what package bargaining could not.

    India China Relations in Brief

    1. The diplomatic starting point: On 1 April 1950 India became the first country outside the socialist bloc to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.
    2. The founding framework: The Panchsheel Agreement of 29 April 1954 set out five principles, mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non aggression, mutual non interference, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.
    3. The rupture and the reopening: The 1962 border conflict was a serious setback, and the Prime Minister’s visit in 1988 began a phase of improvement in bilateral relations.
    4. The Peace and Tranquility Agreement of 1993: The Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control was signed in 1993.

    Back2Basics: Operation Sindoor

    1. Scope of the strikes: Indian armed forces strikes launched on 6 and 7 May 2025 against terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied territory.
    2. Trigger, the Pahalgam attack: It followed the terror attack at Pahalgam on 22 April 2025.
    3. Targets struck: Leadership and headquarters of the Lashkar e Taiba and Jaish e Mohammed networks were targeted, along with Pakistani military assets.
    4. Policy declared after the operation: India declared that any future act of cross border terrorism emanating from Pakistan would be treated as an act of war, and that nuclear blackmail would no longer be a restraining factor.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 15 marks] “China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has transformed South Asia from a regional space into a theatre of great power competition.” Analyse the strategic implications of the BRI for India’s security and regional influence in South Asia.”

  • India, Sri Lanka sign three defence sector MoUs during Rajnath’s visit

    Why in the News

    India and Sri Lanka have signed three Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) on defence equipment and training. The agreements cover the upgradation of L70 guns for the Sri Lanka Air Force and cooperation between the National Cadet Corps and the National Defence Colleges of the two countries. They follow the seven MoUs signed during the Prime Minister’s visit to Sri Lanka in 2025, one of which was an overarching defence sector agreement. This is the first visit by an Indian Defence Minister to Sri Lanka in nearly 40 years. Colombo used the meeting to repeat that its territory will not be used against India’s security interests, and to state that it enters agreements with countries around the world as a sovereign State.

    What do the three agreements cover?

    1. Air defence equipment: One MoU covers the upgradation of L70 guns for the Sri Lanka Air Force. The L70 is a 40 mm towed anti-aircraft gun of Bofors design, in service with air defence units across South Asia.
    2. Cadet training: A second covers cooperation between the National Cadet Corps of the two countries, the youth military training organisations that run school and college level cadet programmes.
    3. Professional military education: The third covers cooperation between the National Defence Colleges, which train senior officers and civil officials in national security strategy.

    What else did the two sides take up?

    1. The scope of the talks: The Defence Minister and the Sri Lankan President held extensive discussions on strengthening the defence, economic, maritime and regional partnerships between the two countries.
    2. Narcotics: The Sri Lankan President briefed the visiting Defence Minister on an islandwide programme recently launched to combat drug trafficking.
    3. Fisheries: The two leaders paid special attention to the fisheries issue in the Palk Strait.

    How did Colombo frame its assurance to India?

    1. The security assurance repeated: The Sri Lankan President recalled his interactions with the Prime Minister and reiterated that Sri Lanka would never allow its territory to be used for activities inimical to India’s security interests.
    2. A sovereignty qualifier alongside it: His office stated that Sri Lanka takes its decisions considering both national and regional interests.
    3. Room left for other partners: The same statement said Sri Lanka enters agreements with countries around the world as a sovereign State, remaining mindful of regional security.

    Challenges to India-Sri Lanka defence cooperation

    1. The fisheries dispute cuts against the security relationship: Bottom trawling by Indian vessels in Palk Bay waters produces arrests of Indian fishermen by the Sri Lanka Navy every year. Eg. Sri Lankan authorities detained hundreds of Indian fishermen and dozens of boats in 2024.
      The Fix: Convert the Joint Working Group on Fisheries into a scheduled mechanism with a funded deep-sea transition plan for Tamil Nadu trawler owners.
    2. Third-country naval access remains unsettled: Port calls by foreign research and survey vessels sit outside the bilateral defence understanding and are settled politically each time. Eg. The Chinese vessel Yuan Wang 5 docked at Hambantota in August 2022, and Sri Lanka later announced a one-year moratorium on foreign research vessels from January 2024.
      The Fix: Agree a standing notification and clearance protocol for survey and research vessels, so each visit follows a rule rather than a negotiation.
    3. Colombo’s fiscal position limits what it can absorb: Defence modernisation competes with debt servicing. Eg. Sri Lanka defaulted on its external debt in April 2022 and entered an International Monetary Fund programme in March 2023.
      The Fix: Structure transfers as grant-funded upgrades and training rather than as credit lines that add to the external debt stock.
    4. Political turnover reopens settled agreements: An understanding reached with one government has been cancelled by the next. Eg. The 2019 agreement with India and Japan to develop the East Container Terminal at Colombo Port was cancelled by Sri Lanka in 2021.
      The Fix: Anchor cooperation in institution-to-institution channels such as the annual defence dialogue and the Colombo Security Conclave, so continuity does not rest on one leadership.

    Conclusion

    Defence cooperation with Colombo has moved from a framework agreement to named equipment and training projects. Colombo has given the assurance India wanted and has paired it with a stated right to sign agreements elsewhere. Those two positions have not yet had to be reconciled in a concrete case, and the next one will define the limit of the assurance. The fisheries question is the immediate test, since both sides flagged it at this meeting and neither resolved it.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022, GS2, 10.0 marks] India is an age-old friend of Sri Lanka.’ Discuss India’s role in the recent crisis in Sri Lanka the light of the preceding statement.”

  • ‘Early Harvest’ — larger but not necessarily safer

    ‘Early Harvest’ — larger but not necessarily safer

    Why in the News

    India and China have revived the formulation of an “Early and Substantial Harvest” on the boundary question in a joint document. The 25th round of talks between the Special Representatives (SRs), the designated political channel for the India-China boundary question, was held in Beijing. The readouts issued that evening avoided the phrase. An “Eight Points of Outcomes and Consensus” released a day later restored it. Point 3 tasked the Expert Group on Boundary Delimitation and the Working Group on Border Management with advancing discussions on an Early and Substantial Harvest of boundary delimitation and border management. Both bodies were set up a year ago under the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC), the official level channel that manages border affairs between the two foreign ministries, and their first task is still to agree on their own terms of reference. The phrase is India’s own coinage, and its reappearance does not establish that Beijing has accepted the Indian version of it rather than a partial settlement confined to the stretches where the two claims already coincide.

    What is an “Early and Substantial Harvest”?

    1. A partial settlement taken ahead of a full one: It settles the boundary in the sectors where the two positions are closest, and leaves the harder sectors for later negotiation.
    2. India’s own formulation: After Beijing proposed settling the Sikkim Sector alone, India responded around 2019 with a counter proposal covering the Sikkim Sector together with the entire Middle Sector, with the boundary delineated along the watershed. China rejected it.
    3. The version China was willing to take: In later discussions Beijing agreed to include the Sikkim Sector and some undisputed areas of the Middle Sector only, which India found unacceptable.

    Why does a sector by sector settlement cut against India’s negotiating position?

    1. Beijing accepting India’s terms would be expensive for it: The Indian formulation requires China to give up its claim to roughly 2,450 square kilometres in the Middle Sector, all of it south of the watershed boundary, covering Barahoti, Giu-Kaurik, Nilang-Jadhang, Sangcha Malla and Lapthal.
    2. The likelier outcome is an “agreement with holes”: A settlement can nominally cover both sectors while being confined to stretches where the claims already coincide, leaving the trijunctions and the contested pockets of the Middle Sector undefined.
    3. The asymmetry runs one way: India concedes ground where its own position is strong, with no movement in the Eastern and Western Sectors, where Beijing holds to “dong tiao xi rang”, meaning meaningful adjustments by India in the East and corresponding concessions by China in the West.
    4. It abandons the package principle: Article III of the Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question, 2005 calls for a package settlement covering all sectors, precisely because the four sectors are strategically interlinked and require cross sector give and take.

    Is the Sikkim Sector the settled case it is presented as?

    1. The agreed basis is internally contradictory: Both sides accept the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890 as the basis of the alignment. Article I of that Convention makes the watershed crest the boundary in its first sentence, then names Mount Gipmochi as the starting point on the Bhutan frontier in its second.
    2. The map record favours the watershed reading: British Indian maps of 1907 and 1913 placed the trijunction not at Gipmochi but roughly 6.5 kilometres to its north, on the true watershed crest.
    3. The two readings point to different trijunctions: India and Bhutan treat the watershed principle as controlling and place the trijunction at Batang La. China uses the literal reference to Gipmochi to push the trijunction south, onto the Jampheri Ridge.
    4. Silence would be read as concession: A Sikkim delimitation built on the 1890 text, unless it expressly repudiates Gipmochi, would be read in Beijing as India conceding the southern trijunction.

    What would a Sikkim settlement do to Bhutan and to the Siliguri Corridor?

    1. India loses the standing to counsel Bhutan: Even a settlement that reserves the trijunction leaves India having settled out of turn nearby, which weakens its case against a bilateral Bhutan China deal.
    2. China’s standing offer to Bhutan gains momentum: Beijing’s package proposal would relinquish about 495 sq km of its claims in northern Bhutan in exchange for Bhutan ceding about 269 sq km in the northwest, including the Doklam Plateau.
    3. The strategic consequence is a line of sight: That exchange deepens China’s presence in the Chumbi Valley and opens a path to the Jampheri Ridge, from which the entire Siliguri Corridor, India’s sole overland link to its northeastern States, comes under direct observation.
    4. The ground has already shifted: Since the 2017 Doklam standoff China has spent years building roads, villages and military facilities across western Bhutan, and has gained de facto control over Doklam.

    What would a genuine Early and Substantial Harvest require?

    1. Delineation on the highest watershed principle: The principle must apply across the entire stretch in both sectors, not selectively along the segments where the two positions already converge, since selective delineation serves no Indian purpose.
    2. Trijunctions kept out of the mandate: Batang La and any comparable point adjacent to a third country in the Middle Sector must be explicitly excluded from the Expert Group’s mandate and settled only in consultation with the country concerned, as the 2012 Common Understanding between the two SRs stipulates.
    3. Terms of reference that extend the Indian proposal: The mandate must carry the 2019 proposal forward in good faith rather than dilute it beyond recognition. Without acceptance of the highest watershed principle, silence on the trijunction is filled on the ground in Beijing’s favour in Bhutan.

    What do the Eight Points leave unanswered?

    1. Package and piecemeal have not been reconciled: The Chinese readout reiterates a commitment to a package settlement, and no explanation has been offered for how that sits with a sector by sector approach.
    2. An Expert Group has been created without a framework: Article X of the 2005 Agreement requires the SRs to arrive at an agreed framework for a boundary settlement, which is then to provide the basis for delineation and demarcation by officials and surveyors of the two sides. No agreed framework exists yet.
    3. The operative word is not in the treaty: The 2005 Agreement does not use the term “delimitation” at all, and Chinese usage treats delimitation and demarcation as interchangeable. The open question is whether the SRs will pursue the agreed framework or leave it in abeyance while officials run a partial delimitation without one.

    What else did the Eight Points carry, and what did they leave out?

    1. Incremental measures that belong to a separate track: Additional meeting points and hotlines for the General Level Mechanisms in the Eastern and Middle Sectors, continued pilgrimage and border trade, and a September meeting on trans border rivers are confidence building measures, not boundary settlement, and conflating the two in public discussion overstates the progress.
    2. Silence on the upstream dam: The document says nothing about the Medog County project on the Yarlung Tsangpo River. It records only that both sides will maintain communication on trans border river issues, including hydrological data sharing and renewal of the relevant memoranda of understanding, with no progress reported.
    3. The risk the September meeting has to raise: The project is the world’s largest hydropower plant, is being built close to the border in the Eastern Sector, and sits in a highly earthquake prone zone. Eg. The flash floods in Nepal on 26 August underscored what failure in such terrain does downstream.
    4. The 2005 Agreement is the only substantive result of the process: Twenty three years of SR talks have produced that one instrument, and China has sought to reinterpret and undermine it since its conclusion.

    Challenges to an “Early and Substantial Harvest” settlement

    1. Nothing binds a partial settlement to the completion of the rest: A sector closed early removes the negotiating currency that was meant to buy movement elsewhere. Eg. The 1993 and 1996 agreements on peace and tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control did not prevent the 2020 standoff in eastern Ladakh.
      The Fix: Write a linkage clause into the terms of reference making entry into force of any sectoral delimitation conditional on an agreed framework for the remaining sectors.
    2. Delimitation on paper is not demarcation on the ground: A settled alignment still has to be surveyed and pillared across high altitude terrain where the two sides use different survey baselines. Eg. Friction points such as the Depsang Plains and Charding Ninglung Nala remain unresolved even after disengagement in eastern Ladakh.
      The Fix: Constitute joint survey teams on an agreed geodetic datum before any delimitation text is initialled.
    3. Infrastructure asymmetry keeps building while talks continue: Negotiation does not freeze construction, so the ground position moves during the negotiation itself. Eg. China’s dual use border villages along the Line of Actual Control settle civilians in disputed pockets and create a permanent presence.
      The Fix: Tie each stage of the Expert Group’s work to verified parity in border infrastructure and force levels, reported to the WMCC.
    4. No domestic ratification route exists for a territorial settlement: A boundary agreement alters the territory of the Union without any settled parliamentary process to approve it. Eg. Transferring enclaves under the 2015 Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh required the 100th Constitutional Amendment.
      The Fix: Commit in advance to placing any boundary settlement before Parliament, so the negotiating mandate carries domestic legitimacy rather than acquiring it afterwards.

    Conclusion

    India’s boundary diplomacy now carries two objectives that do not sit together. One is to demonstrate movement after a long period without any. The other is to keep every sector on the table, so that a concession in one can be paid for in another. A settlement that closes the ground where India’s case is strongest, while the Eastern and Western Sectors stay frozen on Beijing’s terms, satisfies the first and forfeits the second. What to watch is whether the negotiating mandate now being drafted is narrow enough to keep third country trijunctions outside it, because silence on a trijunction is settled on the ground rather than at the table.

    About the India-China Boundary Question

    1. An undefined line, not a boundary: The Line of Actual Control (LAC) runs about 3,488 km and has never been mutually delineated or demarcated, which is why patrolling patterns rather than an agreed line determine where standoffs occur.
    2. Western Sector: India relies on the Johnson Line of 1865 while China claims the Macartney-MacDonald Line of 1899. China occupies about 38,000 sq km of Aksai Chin.
    3. Eastern Sector: The alignment follows the McMahon Line drawn at the Simla Convention of 1914. China claims about 90,000 sq km of Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet”.
    4. The first framework instrument: The Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control, 1993 committed both sides to resolve the question peacefully and to keep forces to a minimum along the line.

    Challenges in India-China Relations

    1. A structurally lopsided trade relationship: India’s trade deficit with China reached an all time high of $112.16 billion in March 2026, which limits how much economic leverage India can apply in a political dispute. Eg. 98.5% of Indian imports from China are industrial goods, so a supply disruption transmits straight into Indian manufacturing.
      The Fix: Tie production linked incentive disbursement in electronics, pharmaceutical intermediates and capital goods to verified reduction in single source imports.
    2. Market access is not reciprocal: Indian information technology and pharmaceutical firms face opaque non tariff barriers in the Chinese market while Chinese goods enter India freely. Eg. Indian generic drug approvals in China have moved slowly despite India being the largest supplier of generics globally.
      The Fix: Make market access parity a stated precondition in every sectoral dialogue, with a published register of pending Indian applications in China.
    3. Beijing blocks India’s multilateral advancement: China withholds consensus on India’s entry to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and opposes a permanent seat for India on the United Nations Security Council. Eg. It repeatedly placed technical holds on listing Pakistan based terrorists at the UN, delaying the designation of Masood Azhar until 2019.
      The Fix: Build the plurilateral route instead, converting Quad, Indo Pacific and export control group partnerships into standing sponsorship of India’s candidature.
    4. The China Pakistan axis converts a bilateral dispute into a two front problem: The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a corridor of about $62 billion linking Kashgar to Gwadar, passes through territory India claims. Eg. It runs through Gilgit Baltistan, which is why India has formally protested the corridor’s alignment.
      The Fix: Sustain the two front capability build up through the Vibrant Villages Programme and border road completion, rather than treating the western and northern borders as separate planning theatres.

    [2026, GS2, 15 marks] “China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has transformed South Asia from a regional space into a theatre of great power competition.” Analyse the strategic implications of the BRI for India’s security and regional influence in South Asia.”

  • India rejects Hague court’s Indus Waters Treaty ruling, says it has no jurisdiction

    Why in the News

    The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague has held that the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 remains “fully in force”. The award directs India to observe its obligations under the treaty, including those on the design and operation of its hydro-electric projects on the Western Rivers. It also imposes interim measures barring India from concreting the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant dam wall and power intake structure above certain levels until 90 days after the Neutral Expert’s final decision, expected in July 2027. The award answers India’s decision to hold the treaty in abeyance after the Pahalgam terror attack, a decision the tribunal examined and found unsupported by any of the grounds advanced. The Ministry of External Affairs has rejected the award in full and described the tribunal as illegally constituted in breach of the treaty. The tension is that the award’s own expiry is keyed to the Neutral Expert, the one forum India does take part in, so two processes now govern the same dam on incompatible terms.

    What did the arbitral award decide?

    1. The treaty was held to remain in force: The Court of Arbitration found that the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960 continues to bind both parties in full.
    2. No ground for abeyance was accepted: It examined the reasons India advanced for placing the treaty in abeyance and held that none of them could justify suspension or termination.
    3. The award covers status and interim relief together: It was issued as the Status of the Indus Waters Treaty and Order on Interim Measures concerning the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant.
    4. The construction limits were unanimous: The Court decided without dissent to bar concreting of the Ratle dam wall and power intake structure above specified levels.
    5. The relief was granted on Pakistan’s application: The tribunal was acting on Pakistan’s plea both on the status of the treaty and on measures concerning the Ratle project.

    On what grounds does India reject the tribunal?

    1. The tribunal’s establishment is itself called a treaty violation: The Ministry of External Affairs holds that the very establishment of the arbitral body is a grave violation of the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960.
    2. The World Bank is said to have acted beyond the treaty: The Ministry states that the court was constituted by the World Bank in patent breach of the terms of the treaty.
    3. Non-participation has been consistent: India has never recognised this body in law. It has never appeared before the tribunal and takes no cognisance of its pronouncements.
    4. Jurisdiction over a sovereign decision is denied: The Ministry holds that the court cannot pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions, and that its orders will have no effect on the projects India is undertaking.
    5. The abeyance decision stands: India has reiterated that its decision to hold the treaty in abeyance remains in force.

    Why does the treaty’s dispute ladder produce two forums at once?

    1. The Permanent Indus Commission is the first step: The treaty requires the commissioners of both countries to take up a question before any external forum is approached.
    2. A Neutral Expert settles a technical difference: Article IX sends a listed technical question to a Neutral Expert appointed by the World Bank, whose decision is final and binding on the points referred.
    3. A Court of Arbitration settles a legal dispute: A matter outside the Neutral Expert’s list goes to a seven member Court of Arbitration under Annexure G, with two arbitrators named by each country and three umpires.
    4. Both forums were seized of the same projects: The World Bank appointed a Neutral Expert and constituted a Court of Arbitration in 2022 over the Kishenganga and Ratle projects, on separate requests made by India and by Pakistan.
    5. The award defers to the forum India accepts: The tribunal tied the expiry of its own interim measures to the Neutral Expert’s ruling, so the body India rejects has made its order run on the timetable of the process India joined.

    Challenges to India’s abeyance of the Indus Waters Treaty

    1. The treaty text carries no exit or suspension clause: Article XII permits termination only through a ratified treaty between both governments, so abeyance is a position asserted outside the instrument rather than a right within it. Eg. The treaty survived the conflicts of 1965, 1971 and 1999 without either side suspending it.
      The Fix: Convert the position into a formal proposal for modification under Article XII and open the negotiation that article provides for, so the claim rests on a treaty route rather than outside one.
    2. Storage capacity does not exist to give the position effect: India’s permitted storage on the Western Rivers is largely unbuilt, so withholding water is not physically available even where it is legally asserted. Eg. The Indus system carries roughly 135 million acre feet a year, and India’s live storage on the Western Rivers is a small fraction of that volume.
      The Fix: Complete the permitted storage and flushing works on the Chenab and the Jhelum first, so the legal position is matched by works that can act on it.
    3. Non-appearance leaves the record to one side: A tribunal proceeding in the absence of a party decides on the evidence only the other party filed. Eg. India did participate in the Kishenganga arbitration, and the 2013 award fixed a minimum environmental flow India was able to build to.
      The Fix: Enter a limited appearance contesting jurisdiction alone, which preserves the objection and still puts India’s technical record before the tribunal.
    4. India is a lower riparian on another transboundary system: A precedent for unilateral suspension by an upper riparian is one India is exposed to on the rivers that reach it from Tibet. Eg. The Brahmaputra rises in Tibet and India has no water sharing treaty with China, only memoranda on hydrological data sharing.
      The Fix: Pair the treaty position with a push for a binding flow and data guarantee on the Brahmaputra, so the standard India asserts is one it also demands.
    5. The first cost of restricting flows lands inside India: Holding back water without storage backs it up in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab rather than in Pakistan. Eg. Reservoir flushing at Salal and Baglihar in May 2025 altered flows on the Chenab for a matter of days before normal releases resumed.
      The Fix: Confine any restriction to the desilting and flushing operations the treaty already permits, which recover generation capacity without creating an upstream flood risk.

    Conclusion

    India and the tribunal are now operating on premises that cannot both hold. One holds that the treaty binds and that the abeyance changes nothing. The other holds that the tribunal has no legal existence and that its orders change nothing. The unresolved tension is that both positions point at the same dam, and neither side controls a mechanism that can make the other’s position irrelevant.

    Back2Basics: Permanent Court of Arbitration

    1. Establishment: Created by the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1899, making it the oldest standing institution for international dispute settlement.
    2. Seat: It is headquartered at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.
    3. What it is not: It is neither a court with sitting judges nor a United Nations body. It supplies a registry and a panel of arbitrators for tribunals the parties themselves constitute.
    4. India’s link to it: India is a party to the 1899 Convention, and the institution provides registry services for tribunals formed under the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2016, GS1, 12.5 marks] Present an account of the Indus Water Treaty and examine its ecological, economic and political implications in the context of changing bilateral relations.”

  • Lanka beckons, but for refugees in TN, too much time and distance lie in between

    Lanka beckons, but for refugees in TN, too much time and distance lie in between

    Why in the News

    Sri Lanka’s Cabinet has removed the longstanding legal obstacle to the voluntary return of refugees who fled the civil war without valid passports or through unauthorised departure points. Returnees whose Sri Lankan nationality is established may enter through an authorised port after clearance by the State Intelligence Service. Those cleared will not face prosecution under immigration law merely for having left the country without authorisation, and the decision applies to everyone who left before 19 May 2009, the day the civil war ended. The tension is that the barrier being removed was never the operative one: nearly 90,000 Sri Lankan refugees remain in India, and what holds them is land, livelihood and the fact that a large share of them were born here.

    Why did the legal bar matter in practice?

    1. Prosecution on arrival was real: As late as August 2025, four returnees were detained on arrival in Sri Lanka because they had originally left the country illegally.
    2. International endorsement: The United Nations welcomed the decision as an important step towards the “safe and dignified return” of Sri Lanka’s people.
    3. No package is attached: The Cabinet decision does not spell out any new resettlement package, so it removes a criminal exposure and adds no material support.
    4. Movement has already begun: 246 people belonging to 46 families returned between July 2025 and February 2026 without facing official pushback.

    What is the scale and profile of the refugee population in India?

    1. The total: Nearly 90,000 Sri Lankan refugees live in India.
    2. The camp population: More than 58,000 live in 103 camps spread across 29 districts of Tamil Nadu, including one special camp within the Tiruchi Central Prison complex.
    3. Outside the camps: Another 30,000 live outside the camp system.
    4. Duration and birthplace: Nearly 73 percent of those in camps have been in India for more than 30 years, and 44 to 46 percent were born in India.

    What does the return data show?

    1. The early years: Annual returns ran at 1,673 in 2011, 1,264 in 2012, 711 in 2013, 396 in 2014 and 452 in 2015.
    2. A brief recovery: They rose to 852 in 2016 and 1,520 in 2017, then fell to 1,283 in 2018 and 963 in 2019.
    3. The collapse: Returns dropped to 196 in 2020, 96 in 2021, 208 in 2022, 326 in 2023, 203 in 2024 and 92 in 2025.
    4. No response to the decision: About 400 refugees returned over the past two years, 36 are currently on the waiting list from applications filed over nine months, and no surge in applications has been reported since the Cabinet decision.

    Why is return still not attractive?

    1. The obstacle is economic: The reluctance to return turns on Sri Lanka’s economic crisis and uncertainty over livelihoods rather than on immigration law.
    2. Most have nothing to return to: Only around 15 to 20 percent of the refugees own land in Sri Lanka.
    3. The return grant has shrunk: The repatriation grant fell from Rs 11,250 per person to Rs 8,000 because of the United Nations funding crunch.

    What conditions do refugees face in India?

    1. Registration never ends: Refugees remain registered with the police and subject to periodic renewals, sometimes weekly, more than three decades after arrival.
    2. Movement is timed: Camp residents may leave the premises at 6 a.m. and are generally required to return by 6 p.m., with curbs on travel outside Tamil Nadu.
    3. Housing was provided: The State government gave refugee families houses of 320 square feet.
    4. No documents means no economy: Without a ration card or a voter identity card, a camp resident cannot take a loan or register a vehicle, so earnings do not convert into assets.

    Return or a durable solution in India?

    1. The first generation weighs both: Those who arrived as children measure land, shelter, employment and their children’s education against a settled but restricted life in India.
    2. The second generation splits: Some born in India who have never visited Sri Lanka want to leave for want of work, since a government job is closed to them and private wages are low.
    3. What most are asking for: A large share hope India will offer a durable status here, including citizenship or dual citizenship, rather than requiring return.
    4. India has no framework to offer it: India has no refugee specific statute, so residence is administered under the Foreigners Act, 1946 through executive policy that can be varied without legislation.

    What remains unsettled on the Sri Lankan side?

    1. The military has not withdrawn: A visible military presence remains in the north, where the Tamil population is concentrated.
    2. Complaints continue: Tamil groups report surveillance, unresolved land disputes and restrictions around political activity.
    3. The political demands are unmet: Tamil parties are demanding greater devolution, land release and a new Constitution addressing long standing Tamil aspirations.

    Challenges to the voluntary repatriation of Sri Lankan refugees

    1. Voluntariness cannot be verified without monitoring: A return that is legally voluntary becomes coerced in practice where conditions in the host country deteriorate. Eg. Rohingya returns from Bangladesh have repeatedly stalled over exactly this verification problem. Fix. Allow a neutral agency to interview departing families at the point of exit and to monitor them for a fixed period after arrival.
    2. Land restitution is the binding constraint: Returnees find their plots occupied by the military, by the state or by other occupants, so a grant buys no place to live. Eg. Land in the Valikamam North high security zone near Jaffna was released to owners only in stages after 2015, decades after acquisition. Fix. Publish a title verification and release timetable for each returning family before departure rather than after arrival.
    3. Documentation gaps block proof of nationality: Those who left as infants or were born in camps often hold no Sri Lankan birth record, so establishing nationality becomes the first hurdle. Eg. Children born in Tamil Nadu camps are registered with Indian civil authorities, which does not by itself establish Sri Lankan nationality. Fix. Run consular documentation camps inside the settlements, so nationality is settled before an application is filed.
    4. Support depends on a shrinking international budget: Repatriation assistance is tied to international agency funding rather than to a bilateral commitment, so it contracts whenever donor budgets contract. Eg. Humanitarian funding cuts in 2025 forced agencies to reduce per capita assistance across South Asian operations. Fix. Convert repatriation support into a bilateral package with a fixed per family entitlement agreed between the two governments.
    5. Qualifications earned in India do not transfer: Schooling and degrees obtained in Tamil Nadu are not automatically recognised in Sri Lanka, which strands the generation most able to work. Eg. A graduate degree earned in India needs equivalence certification before it can be used for employment or further study in Sri Lanka. Fix. Agree a mutual recognition arrangement for school and university qualifications as part of the return framework.

    Conclusion

    What to watch is whether the Sri Lankan government attaches a resettlement package covering land and housing to its decision, since removing a prosecution risk changes nothing that a returning family actually lives on. The second question sits on India, and it is whether renewable police registration eventually gives way to a durable status for the generation that has known no other country.

    Back2Basics

    1. What it does: Adopted in 1951, it defines who qualifies as a refugee and sets out the rights of refugees and the obligations of the states hosting them.
    2. Core protection: Article 33 states the principle of non refoulement, which bars returning a refugee to a territory where their life or freedom would be threatened.
    3. The Protocol: The 1967 Protocol removed the original limitation to events occurring in Europe before 1951, making the Convention universal in scope.
    4. India’s position: India is not a party to the Convention or its Protocol, though it has served repeated terms on the executive committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

    [2022, GS2, 10 marks] India is an age-old friend of Sri Lanka.’ Discuss India’s role in the recent crisis in Sri Lanka the light of the preceding statement.