💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

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

    Why in the News

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

    What has China built on Antelope Reef?

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

    What is the Paracels archipelago?

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

    What is a naval bastion?

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

    What do the satellite images actually show?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Which states contest these waters and on what basis?

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

    “[2022] Which one of the following statements best reflects the issue with Senkaku Islands, sometimes mentioned in the news?

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

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

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

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

  • The US Research That Helped Power China’s Robot Revolution

    Why in the News

    China’s Unitree Robotics based the designs of its most successful quadruped robots on breakthroughs financed by the United States Army Research Laboratory, according to a former United States defence technology official and three researchers involved in the programme. The findings were published openly to advance the field, and the country that funded them has no mass producer of such robots, while the company that scaled them is now on the Pentagon’s list of Chinese military companies.

    What is the Robotics Collaborative Technology Alliance?

    1. What it was: The Robotics Collaborative Technology Alliance (RCTA) was a United States Army funded research consortium that ran from 2010 to 2020.
    2. Funding body: It was financed by the DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory (ARL) alongside other military programmes.
    3. Participants: It gathered government, academic and industry researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Boston Dynamics and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, among other research institutions.
    4. Lead commercial partner: General Dynamics Land Systems, the Michigan based defence manufacturer that builds Abrams M1 tanks.
    5. Publication practice: The programme’s findings were published openly to stimulate progress in the field, which is common practice in publicly funded research.

    What is an actuator?

    1. Definition: An actuator is the component that converts electrical power into the movement of a robot’s joint, combining a motor, a gearbox and control electronics.
    2. Why it decides the design: Actuator torque, weight and cost set what a legged robot can do and what it costs, which is why an actuator design published in detail is effectively a manufacturing blueprint.

    What is DARPA?

    1. Definition: The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the United States Department of Defense agency that funds high risk, early stage technology research with potential military application.
    2. Role here: DARPA financed the MIT laboratory work on which the later Army funded University of Pennsylvania advances were built.

    How did Army funded research travel from the laboratory to a Chinese manufacturer?

    1. 2016, motors moved into the legs: University of Pennsylvania researchers eliminated heavy central gearboxes and placed motors in the robots’ legs, which improved the machine’s ability to sense and respond to terrain.
    2. Built on DARPA funded work: That advance built on the MIT laboratory’s earlier work financed by DARPA.
    3. 2019, the Mini Cheetah: The MIT laboratory presented the Mini Cheetah, adding strength and the ability to perform backflips to the University of Pennsylvania features.
    4. The thesis that carried the design: Months earlier, an MIT researcher published a master’s thesis detailing the Mini Cheetah’s actuators.
    5. Copies within six months: Chinese firms were manufacturing actuator copies purchasable on the online retailer AliExpress within six months of that publication.
    6. Dimensional match: The dimensions of Unitree’s popular Go series were almost identical to the millimetre to the Mini Cheetah, per the MIT researcher involved in developing it.
    7. The scale product: The Army funded project became the first Unitree robot that had any kind of scale, per a former University of Pennsylvania researcher on the programme.
    8. 2023, the price point: Unitree’s $1,600 Go2 model, launched in 2023, let the company rapidly dominate the global quadruped robot market. Unitree was founded in 2016, three years before the Mini Cheetah was presented.

    What does the scale gap look like in numbers?

    1. Unitree’s volumes: The company sold more than 5,500 humanoids and 18,000 quadrupeds last year, per company filings.
    2. Valuation: Unitree is valued at about $9 billion ahead of its stock market debut, and its Shanghai initial public offering drew frenzied demand.
    3. United States output: No United States company has mass produced such robots, including Tesla, which has displayed prototypes of its Optimus humanoid for years.
    4. A different technology base: Boston Dynamics’ 2019 canine robot Spot used different technology from the Army funded line.
    5. The domestic commercialiser: Ghost Robotics commercialised the United States breakthroughs and supplies United States special forces with ruggedised robots, but its production is small and costly compared with Unitree’s.

    Why did the United States not capture the market it created?

    1. Capital preference: United States venture capital prefers high return software startups, which a robotics analyst described as a dropped ball on commercialising domestic research.
    2. Missing industrial inputs: The United States excels in innovation and software development but needs the capital, industrial base, highly skilled workforce and parts supply chains to scale up breakthroughs, per the dean of Penn Engineering.
    3. No production support after the research ended: The Army funded project kick-started the United States quadruped industry, but without support for large scale production Unitree consumed that space, per the former Army Research Laboratory director who oversaw it.
    4. Price competition threatens incumbents: Boston Dynamics argued in a Congressional hearing that China’s low pricing would drive United States firms out of the market.
    5. Asymmetry of actors: The contest is between private United States companies and a coordinated Chinese national strategy, per the founder of Ghost Robotics.

    What structural advantages does China’s manufacturing model carry?

    1. A stated ten year industrial plan: In 2015, China’s leadership set out a ten year plan to lead industries including green energy, electric vehicles and robotics.
    2. Tolerance for losses: Capital has since been channelled into risky bets on low margin advanced manufacturing.
    3. Critical minerals dominance: Rapid reverse engineering draws on China’s dominance in refining the critical minerals needed for magnets in robotics applications.
    4. Supplier density: Motors, gears and the artificial muscles known as actuators are supplied by a dense cluster of firms near Unitree’s base in Hangzhou.
    5. The pattern is not new: Backed by subsidies and component factory clusters, Chinese firms have already seized market share in solar panels, drones, electric vehicles and quantum communications, many of them first developed in the United States with government or military backing.

    How have United States authorities responded?

    1. June, Pentagon listing: The Pentagon added Unitree to its list of Chinese military companies, calling it a contributor to the Chinese defence industrial base.
    2. Effect of the listing: The designation falls short of a sanction but limits the United States military’s future use of Unitree technology.
    3. July, import ban: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) banned imports of future models of foreign made humanoid and quadruped robots, including those from Unitree.
    4. Chinese response: China has threatened to retaliate against the FCC ban, and its Washington embassy accused the United States of abusing administrative power and of market distortion and unilateral bullying.
    5. Company position: Unitree has said its robots are for civilian use, and one Unitree robot has been shown on Chinese state television armed and accompanying People’s Liberation Army troops on an exercise.

    Should publicly funded research be published openly when a rival scales it faster?

    1. Nothing was taken improperly: Unitree did nothing underhanded in using the Army research, since the programme’s findings were published openly by design.
    2. The funder’s own defence: The Army Research Laboratory stated the research strengthened the broader United States robotics ecosystem and informed subsequent work across government and the private sector.
    3. Researchers reject secrecy: None of the United States robotics researchers involved advocated keeping such government financed research secret, arguing publication is important to scientific and technological advancement.
    4. Their alternative prescription: Policymakers should focus on enabling companies to commercialise such advances quickly enough to compete.
    5. Trade barriers are insufficient: Most experts supported the import ban but said the policy alone cannot build an industry capable of catching up, since it would take more than trade barriers to boost robotics manufacturing.

    Challenges to commercialising publicly funded robotics research

    1. Open publication transfers advantage immediately: A detailed design published for scientific benefit is also a manufacturing specification, e.g. actuator copies drawn from the Mini Cheetah thesis were on sale within six months.
    2. Hardware startups cannot match software returns: Venture funding avoids capital heavy, low margin manufacturing, e.g. Ghost Robotics supplies United States special forces but produces at small volume and high cost.
    3. No domestic component cluster: Motors, gears and actuators must be sourced abroad when no local supplier base exists, e.g. the supplier density around Hangzhou has no United States equivalent.
    4. Critical mineral chokepoint: Magnet grade rare earths are refined almost entirely in one country, e.g. China’s April 2025 export controls on rare earth magnets disrupted automotive and electronics production worldwide.
    5. Trade restrictions do not create capacity: A ban removes a supplier without creating a substitute, e.g. the FCC July ban covers future imported models while no United States firm mass produces quadrupeds.
    6. Dual use ambiguity complicates policy: A civilian product can appear in a military role without the manufacturer changing its position, e.g. an armed Unitree robot appeared with People’s Liberation Army troops on state television while the company maintains its robots are civilian.
    7. Price competition ends domestic production: Cheaper imports remove the volume a domestic manufacturer needs to survive, e.g. Boston Dynamics warned a Congressional hearing that China’s pricing would drive United States firms out.

    Conclusion

    Publicly funded, openly published United States military robotics research became the design basis for the world’s largest quadruped robot manufacturer, based in China. The failure was not in the research or in its disclosure but in the absence of capital, supplier depth and skilled manufacturing capacity to commercialise it domestically. Export bans and military company listings restrict a competitor’s access without supplying any of those three, so the structural gap remains open.

    Question (2024, GS2): “The West is fostering India as an alternative to reduce dependence on China’s supply chain and as a strategic ally to counter China’s political and economic dominance. Explain this statement with examples.

    Linkage: This touches upon the global strategic response to China’s “revolution” in manufacturing and technology, highlighting the shift to move away from Chinese-dominated supply chains.

  • [19th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: Beyond America: Gulf states must build a regional order past the US security umbrella

    Question (2022, GS2): “How will I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE and USA) grouping transform India’s position in global politics?” 
    Linkage: This question explores how India integrates into new regional frameworks that include Gulf states (UAE) and Israel, illustrating the evolving security and economic partnerships in West Asia.

    Mentor Comment

    The United States President has threatened, for the second time, to bomb Oman, a long standing American ally that hosted talks between Washington and Tehran before the war was launched on 28 February. The threat against an ally exposes a conflict between an American security architecture built on bases across the Persian Gulf and a war in which those bases have become the principal liability of the states that host them.

    What is the American security umbrella in the Persian Gulf?

    1. What it is: The American security umbrella is the arrangement under which the United States guarantees the external security of the Persian Gulf monarchies through forward deployed forces, basing agreements and arms sales, in exchange for regional access and stable energy flows.
    2. Physical form: Over the years the United States built military bases across the Persian Gulf, hosting naval, air and command elements on the territory of partner states.
    3. Strategic premise: The arrangement rested on the assumption that an American presence deters Iran and that hosting American forces raises rather than lowers a host state’s security.
    4. Companion policy: It was paired with a decades old policy of containing Iran through sanctions, isolation and force posture.
    5. What the war has done to it: The foundations of this security architecture have been shaken, since American bases have turned out to be a liability in the hour of need.

    What is the Strait of Hormuz?

    1. What it is: The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, bordered by Iran to the north and Oman and the United Arab Emirates to the south.
    2. Why it matters: One fifth of the world’s seaborne oil passed through the Strait before the war, which makes its closure a global energy event rather than a regional one.

    What is the Fifth Fleet?

    1. What it is: The United States Fifth Fleet is the naval formation responsible for the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and parts of the Indian Ocean, headquartered in Bahrain.
    2. Why its damage matters: Its headquarters is the command node of the American naval presence in the region, so damage to it is a loss of command capacity and not only of infrastructure.

    What is a cold peace?

    1. What it is: A cold peace is a settlement in which former adversaries stop fighting and maintain functional diplomatic and economic contact without reconciling their underlying political differences or building trust.
    2. Why it is proposed here: It is the achievable objective between the Arab states and Iran, since containment has failed and full normalisation is not available.

    What triggered the threat against Oman?

    1. Oman’s original role: Oman hosted the talks between Washington and Tehran before the war was launched on 28 February, making it the diplomatic venue rather than a party to the conflict.
    2. Oman’s continuing role: Since the failed escalation, Oman, under American influence, has been talking to Iran seeking a settlement.
    3. Why the effort stalled: Iran, having survived two rounds of American bombings, refused to offer major concessions.
    4. The consequence for Oman: American frustration deepened with Oman precisely because Muscat could not deliver an Iranian concession it never had the power to extract.
    5. The nature of the threat: This is the second time the American leader has threatened to attack Oman, and the threat now falls on an ally for failing to produce a face saving deal.
    6. What the threat reveals: Instead of reassuring allies whose territory has been struck, Washington is threatening them, which is the clearest signal of declining influence in the region.

    Why has the Strait of Hormuz not reopened?

    1. Who closed it: Iran closed the Strait after it was attacked, making closure a retaliatory instrument rather than a negotiating opening position.
    2. The claimed breakthrough: When the American leader backed down from a threatened escalation after 13 days of bombing on Iran in July, he said the two sides were close to a deal on reopening the Strait.
    3. Iran’s position: Iran never said that it had agreed to any deal with the United States over the Strait.
    4. Iran’s stated preconditions: Iran issued several demands as preconditions for any agreement, including releasing frozen funds and issuing sanctions relief.
    5. The claim against the traffic data: The American President has repeatedly claimed the Strait was open, while traffic through the waterway is nowhere near pre war levels.
    6. Scale of what is blocked: The waterway carried one fifth of the world’s seaborne oil before the war, so the gap between claimed and actual traffic is a measurable global supply loss.

    What has the war done to America’s regional military position?

    1. Bases damaged or destroyed: At least 15 American bases are either damaged or destroyed.
    2. The command node hit: The damaged facilities include the Fifth Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain.
    3. Net effect on presence: The damage has substantially reduced America’s strategic presence in the region.
    4. How Iran achieved it: Tehran turned the American basing network into a liability by repeatedly striking the bases and their host countries.
    5. Iran’s own survival: Iran survived two rounds of American bombings and remained able to refuse major concessions afterwards.
    6. Failure of coercive signalling: From day one of the war, American threats and rhetoric did little to advance Washington’s strategic goals or to deter Iran.

    Why has the presence meant to protect Gulf states become the source of their danger?

    1. Both propositions held simultaneously: The bases were the guarantee of Gulf security and the reason Gulf territory was struck, and the war has resolved that ambiguity against the hosts.
    2. Iran’s targeting logic: By striking the bases and the host countries together, Tehran converted the guarantee into a cost borne by the host rather than by the guarantor.
    3. The guarantor’s response: Washington neither restored deterrence nor reassured the hosts, and has instead threatened one of them with bombing.
    4. The asymmetry of exposure: The host state’s territory, population and economy absorb the retaliation while the guarantor’s homeland does not.
    5. Why the old bargain cannot simply be repaired: Reassurance would require a demonstrated capacity to deter Iranian strikes, which two rounds of bombing failed to establish.
    6. The unresolved dependence: Gulf states have no alternative security provider of comparable capability, so recognising the failure of the arrangement does not by itself produce a substitute.

    Why has the containment of Iran failed?

    1. The record of the war: Iran absorbed two rounds of American bombing and emerged able to hold the Strait closed and to set preconditions for talks.
    2. Coercion produced no concession: Threats and rhetoric from the first day of the war neither advanced American goals nor deterred Iranian action.
    3. The cost fell on third parties: Containment’s enforcement damaged the host states of American bases rather than the target of the policy.
    4. Diplomacy was subordinated to pressure: Oman’s mediation was conducted under American influence rather than as an independent regional initiative, which limited what it could offer Tehran.
    5. The policy’s own premise collapsed: A decades old policy of isolating Iran cannot be sustained when the isolating power’s regional presence has been substantially reduced.

    What would a new regional order require?

    1. Recognition of the strategic reality: Countries in the region confront a new strategic reality in which the foundations of the old security architecture have been shaken.
    2. Abandoning containment: Gulf states must recognise that the decades old policy of containing Iran has failed.
    3. Looking past the umbrella: To ensure their own security and regional stability, the Persian Gulf countries need to look beyond the American security umbrella.
    4. The organising principle: The new order must be founded on a cold peace between the Arab states and Iran, not on reconciliation or on alliance.
    5. Regional rather than external authorship: The foundations have to be laid by the regional states themselves, since the external guarantor has demonstrated both limited capability and limited commitment.

    How does the Gulf’s shifting security order affect India’s interests?

    1. Energy dependence: India imports over 85 percent of its crude oil, and a large share of West Asian supply transits the Strait of Hormuz, so a closed Strait raises both price and freight and insurance costs.
    2. Diaspora exposure: About 90 lakh Indians live and work in the Gulf Cooperation Council states, the largest concentration of Indians anywhere outside India.
    3. Remittance dependence: The Gulf accounts for a substantial share of India’s annual remittance inflows, which exceeded $125 billion in recent years and are the country’s most stable external receipt.
    4. Trade and connectivity stakes: The India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor and India’s trade agreement with the United Arab Emirates both assume a stable and navigable Gulf.
    5. Balancing act with Iran: India’s Chabahar port investment and its connectivity route to Central Asia through Iran sit alongside its deepening partnerships with the Gulf monarchies and Israel.
    6. Strategic preference: A cold peace between the Arab states and Iran serves India better than either containment or open conflict, since India maintains working relationships across all three blocs.

    Challenges to building a new Persian Gulf regional order

    1. Absence of a regional security institution: The Gulf has no inclusive security organisation covering both the Arab states and Iran, e.g. the Gulf Cooperation Council formed in 1981 explicitly excludes Iran and Iraq.
    2. Sectarian and dynastic rivalry: Competition between Riyadh and Tehran runs through proxy conflicts that outlast any bilateral thaw, e.g. the Yemen conflict continued despite the Saudi Iran normalisation agreement brokered in Beijing in March 2023.
    3. Capability dependence on external suppliers: Gulf militaries are built on American platforms, training and sustainment, so autonomy is limited by the equipment they already own, e.g. Patriot and THAAD air defence systems in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates depend on American logistics chains.
    4. Intra Gulf divergence: The Gulf Cooperation Council states do not share a single position toward Iran, e.g. the blockade of Qatar between 2017 and 2021 was driven partly by differing approaches to Tehran.
    5. Nuclear file unresolved: No verification framework governs Iran’s nuclear programme after the collapse of the earlier agreement, e.g. the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of 2015 ceased to constrain enrichment after the American withdrawal in 2018.
    6. Energy chokepoint vulnerability: Any settlement leaves the Strait of Hormuz physically controllable by one party, e.g. one fifth of the world’s seaborne oil transited the Strait before Iran closed it.
    7. External power competition: China and Russia have expanding interests in the region and no shared framework with the United States, e.g. China brokered the Saudi Iran agreement of 2023 without American involvement.
    8. Domestic legitimacy constraints: Gulf rulers face internal opposition to accommodation with Iran and to visible dependence on foreign forces, e.g. Bahrain’s own political fault lines were exposed during the unrest of 2011.

    Conclusion

    The war has produced a result the Gulf states cannot reverse: at least 15 American bases damaged or destroyed including the Fifth Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain, the Strait of Hormuz still functionally closed, and an American guarantor now threatening an ally rather than reassuring it. The decades old policy of containing Iran has failed, and no external power is positioned to replace the security architecture that failure has hollowed out. What remains unresolved is whether the Persian Gulf states can construct a regional order on a cold peace with Iran while their own militaries, economies and rivalries still run through the arrangement they must replace.

  • [19th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: A changing Asia demands more from Delhi and Tokyo, together

    Question (2019, GS2): “‘The time has come for India and Japan to build a strong contemporary relationship, one involving global and strategic partnership that will have a great significance for Asia and the world as a whole.’ Comment.”
    Linkage: This question directly mirrors the article, asking for an evaluation of how a strengthened partnership between Delhi and Tokyo can influence the broader Asian and global landscape.

    Mentor Comment

    The Japanese Defence Minister’s visit to India this week comes as Tokyo abandons its self imposed military restraint and adopts an active regional military diplomacy. The visit exposes a gap between an India Japan defence relationship that carries the full institutional architecture of a Special Strategic and Global Partnership and a level of operational and industrial cooperation that has stayed slow and incremental.

    What is the India Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership?

    1. What it is: The Special Strategic and Global Partnership is the highest tier of India’s bilateral partnership framework with Japan, elevated to that designation in 2014 from the Strategic and Global Partnership established in 2006.
    2. Political apparatus: It rests on an Annual Summit between the two Prime Ministers, which India holds with very few countries.
    3. Security apparatus: It carries a 2+2 Foreign and Defence Ministerial Dialogue, a defence ministerial dialogue, a defence policy dialogue and service level staff talks.
    4. Operational apparatus: It includes regular exercises across the three services and a mutual logistics arrangement.
    5. Where it falls short: Defence industrial cooperation and operational coordination remain well behind the political rhetoric that the designation carries.

    What is the Official Security Assistance programme?

    1. What it is: Official Security Assistance is Japan’s grant mechanism, launched in 2023, for providing defence equipment and infrastructure to the armed forces of friendly countries, kept separate from its Official Development Assistance which cannot fund military use.
    2. What it signals: It marks the first time Japan has used military assistance as an instrument of statecraft, with early recipients including the Philippines, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Fiji.

    What is a counterstrike capability?

    1. What it is: A counterstrike capability is the ability to strike missile launch sites and related targets in an adversary’s territory after an attack has begun or is imminent, which Japan had previously renounced as inconsistent with an exclusively defensive posture.
    2. How Japan is acquiring it: Through purchase of American Tomahawk cruise missiles and simultaneous development of longer range indigenous weapons.

    What is the UNICORN naval communications antenna?

    1. What it is: UNICORN, the Unified Complex Radio Antenna, is an integrated composite mast that houses multiple communication and electronic warfare antennas inside a single stealth shaped structure, reducing a warship’s radar signature.
    2. Significance for the relationship: Its co development is the first bilateral defence co development project between India and Japan, announced during the Japanese Prime Minister’s Delhi visit last month.

    What is a Mogami class frigate?

    1. What it is: The Mogami class is a Japanese designed multi mission stealth frigate built for a small crew, combining anti submarine, mine countermeasure and surface warfare roles in a single hull.
    2. Why it matters here: Australia’s decision to acquire Japanese designed Mogami class frigates is the largest defence export Japan has secured since it eased its arms export restrictions.

    What is a logistics agreement?

    1. What it is: A logistics agreement, in this case the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement, allows the armed forces of two countries to use each other’s bases and facilities for supplies, refuelling, spares and services on a reimbursable basis.
    2. Operational effect: It extends the reach of each navy without new basing, which is the practical foundation for sustained joint operations in the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific.

    What is driving Japan’s shift away from military restraint?

    1. The primary driver: The rise of China as a great military power and Beijing’s growing political will to translate that power into concrete outcomes.
    2. The economic turning point: China overtook Japan as the world’s second largest economy in 2010, and its growing economic resources supported a massive expansion of military capabilities.
    3. The shared method of pressure: The People’s Liberation Army applies the same methods on Japan’s maritime frontier and along India’s contested Himalayan land border, namely persistent probing and the slow but definitive alteration of the territorial status quo.
    4. The compounding variable: The challenge from China is magnified for both capitals by the volatility of American policy, with the second American presidency reinforcing questions about the predictability of Washington’s regional commitments.
    5. What neither capital wants: Neither Tokyo nor Delhi seeks an Asia without America, since Japan remains deeply invested in its alliance with Washington and India sees a continuing American military presence as essential to a stable Asian balance.
    6. The policy turn: Japan’s prime minister who returned to office in 2012 accelerated the effort to adapt security policy to these circumstances.

    What did Japan’s old post war bargain look like?

    1. The basic trade: For much of the post war era Tokyo concentrated on economic reconstruction while relying on the United States for its security.
    2. Spending ceiling: Defence expenditure remained around 1 percent of gross domestic product.
    3. Export restriction: Arms exports were tightly restricted, effectively closing Japan’s defence industry to foreign customers.
    4. Force constraints: The Self Defence Forces operated within narrow political constraints on role, deployment and equipment.
    5. When it began to break: Those conditions began to change as the China challenge unfolded through the 2000s.

    What do Japan’s 2022 defence reforms actually contain?

    1. Spending target: Tokyo set the goal of raising defence related spending to around 2 percent of gross domestic product by 2027, and brought that target forward through additional spending last year.
    2. Counterstrike doctrine: Japan is acquiring long range counterstrike capabilities, including American Tomahawk missiles, alongside longer range indigenous weapons.
    3. Defensive layers: It is strengthening air and missile defence and building cyber and space capabilities.
    4. Unmanned systems and reach: It is investing in unmanned systems and in the capacity to operate farther from the Japanese islands.
    5. Industrial base: Tokyo is revitalising its defence industrial base and breaking down the old barriers between civilian technology and national security.
    6. Export liberalisation: It has eased restrictions on arms exports, which is what made a foreign frigate order possible.
    7. Security assistance: It has begun providing military equipment to friendly countries through the new Official Security Assistance programme.
    8. What the package amounts to: Taken together these changes are larger than a rearmament, because Tokyo is treating military power, defence technology, arms exports and security assistance as normal instruments of statecraft.

    What do Japan’s other partnerships demonstrate about the pace India Japan ties could reach?

    1. Australia, the frigate order: Australia’s decision to acquire Japanese designed Mogami class frigates is a breakthrough for a country that until recently imposed extraordinary restrictions on exporting weapons, and it shows that Japanese defence industry can now deliver a major platform to a partner.
    2. Australia, the access architecture: Canberra and Tokyo have expanded military exercises, reciprocal access, logistics and defence industrial cooperation, which is a deeper package than the logistics arrangement India and Japan currently hold.
    3. New Zealand: Japan is deepening defence ties with Wellington, and the Japanese Defence Minister came to Delhi after consultations in Canberra with his Australian and New Zealand counterparts, signalling a coordinated Indo Pacific circuit rather than a series of bilaterals.
    4. South Korea: Tokyo is reaching out to Seoul and other regional neighbours, which matters because it means Japan is willing to build security ties across historically difficult relationships.
    5. Europe: Japan is strengthening security engagement with European partners, extending the same instruments of exercises, access and industrial cooperation beyond Asia.

    What does the existing India Japan defence architecture already provide?

    1. Ministerial mechanism: A 2+2 dialogue bringing foreign and defence ministers of both countries into a single format.
    2. Sustainment mechanism: A logistics agreement giving each side reciprocal access to the other’s facilities for supplies and services.
    3. Exercise programme: Regular exercises across the three services, alongside participation in the trilateral and multilateral formats both countries belong to.
    4. The most recent political push: The Japanese Prime Minister’s Delhi visit last month called for more sophisticated exercises, stronger maritime domain awareness and deeper defence industrial cooperation.
    5. The first industrial output: That visit announced the first bilateral defence co development project, the UNICORN naval communications antenna.

    Why has the institutional architecture not translated into operational weight?

    1. The stated gap: India Japan defence cooperation has expanded and remains well behind the political rhetoric attached to the Special Strategic and Global Partnership.
    2. The slow node: Defence industrial cooperation has been painfully slow, which is why a single antenna counts as the first co development project after two decades of partnership.
    3. Exercises are not coordination: The armed forces exercise together without moving to operational coordination, so joint activity does not accumulate into joint capability.
    4. Asymmetric urgency: Japan is demonstrating greater purpose and urgency in responding to the changing balance of power, which places the burden of matching commitment on Delhi.
    5. The reassurance that removes the excuse: Unlike China, India has long welcomed the prospect of a stronger Japan, so there is no political obstacle on the Indian side to a larger partnership.
    6. Why a review agenda is insufficient: Treating the visit as an occasion to review bilateral exercises and exchanges repeats the incrementalism that produced the gap.

    Where should the partnership go next?

    1. Industrial ambition: Delhi and Tokyo need much greater ambition in joint research, development and coproduction of weapons and military technologies.
    2. Anti submarine warfare: Operational coordination should extend to anti submarine warfare, the domain where Japanese capability and Indian Ocean geography combine most directly.
    3. Maritime surveillance: Coordination in maritime surveillance would convert two separate domain awareness pictures into one.
    4. Air defence: Air defence cooperation follows from Japan’s investment in layered air and missile defence.
    5. Logistics: Logistics coordination would turn the existing agreement from an access arrangement into a sustained operating capability.
    6. Why now: The unfolding transformation of the Asian security environment is the reason the pace has to change, not the specific content of any one visit.

    Challenges to India Japan defence cooperation

    1. Slow defence industrial delivery: Joint projects take years to move from announcement to contract on both sides, e.g. the first bilateral co development project, the UNICORN antenna, was announced only last month after two decades of partnership.
    2. Technology transfer caution: Japan’s defence industry remains new to export and is protective of sensitive technology, e.g. the long negotiation over the US-2 amphibious aircraft never converted into an Indian order.
    3. Procurement process mismatch: India’s defence acquisition procedure and offset requirements do not align with Japanese corporate practice, e.g. Japanese firms have limited experience bidding into competitive Indian tenders with local content conditions.
    4. Cost sensitivity: Japanese platforms carry high unit costs relative to Indian budget norms, e.g. the US-2 aircraft’s price was a principal reason the proposal stalled.
    5. Divergence on Russia: India’s continued defence and energy relationship with Russia limits the sensitivity of technology Japan is willing to share, e.g. India’s Russian origin air defence and submarine fleet complicates interoperability planning.
    6. Dependence on American policy: Both partners calibrate against Washington’s commitments, so volatility in American policy slows their own planning, e.g. questions about the predictability of the second American presidency have reopened alliance debates in Tokyo.
    7. Domestic legal limits in Japan: Constitutional and legislative constraints on the Self Defence Forces still bound what Japan can commit to jointly, e.g. Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution continues to shape the scope of collective self defence.
    8. Chinese economic leverage: Both economies remain deeply linked to China, which raises the cost of visible security alignment, e.g. China’s rare earth export restrictions have exposed the vulnerability of both countries’ defence electronics supply chains.

    Conclusion

    Japan has changed the terms of its own security policy through the 2022 reforms, a spending target of around 2 percent of gross domestic product by 2027, counterstrike capabilities, eased arms exports and the Official Security Assistance programme, and has already converted that change into a frigate order from Australia. India and Japan possess the full institutional architecture of a security partnership, a 2+2 dialogue, a logistics agreement and tri service exercises, and have produced a single co development project in the UNICORN antenna. The gap is one of ambition rather than of instruments, and closing it means moving from exercises to operational coordination in anti submarine warfare, maritime surveillance, air defence and logistics.

  • Carbon Tax War? BRICS Challenges the EU

    Why in the News

    Environment and climate Ministers of the BRICS grouping adopted a joint statement opposing “unilateral, punitive, discriminatory and protectionist” climate measures, naming the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) among them. The statement lands in the first year in which CBAM actually charges money at the border, which converts an internal European climate instrument into a live trade cost for developing country exporters. The same document demands that developed countries deliver the adaptation finance they have already promised, linking the objection on trade to a claim on money.

    What is the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)?

    1. Definition: CBAM is an import levy on carbon intensive goods entering the European Union, priced against the emissions embedded in their production. It makes an importer pay for the carbon released abroad at the same price a European producer pays at home.
    2. Mechanism: Importers must purchase and surrender CBAM certificates matching the emissions embedded in each consignment. The certificate price is tied to the European carbon allowance price.
    3. Covered sectors: The mechanism applies to importers of iron and steel, aluminium, cement, fertilizers, hydrogen and electricity, the six sectors treated as most exposed to carbon costs.
    4. Timeline: CBAM was rolled out on 1 October 2023 with a reporting only phase, during which importers declared embedded emissions without paying. It entered its definitive phase from 1 January 2026, when the obligation to buy and surrender certificates began.
    5. Stated purpose: The European Union presents the measure as a means of preventing carbon leakage and of ensuring that its own climate ambition does not simply displace production abroad.

    What is carbon leakage?

    1. Definition: Carbon leakage is the shifting of carbon intensive production outside a jurisdiction because that jurisdiction’s climate policy raises production costs there and not elsewhere. Global emissions do not fall, they relocate.
    2. Why it drives border measures: A domestic carbon price without a border charge leaves domestic producers competing against untaxed imports. The border charge is the instrument used to close that gap.

    What is common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC)?

    1. Definition: CBDR-RC is the founding principle of the international climate regime under which all countries share responsibility for the climate problem, but not equally. Obligations are calibrated to a country’s historical contribution to emissions and to its present capacity to act.
    2. How it was invoked here: The joint declaration used CBDR-RC to argue that all cooperation commitments, from forest fire protocols to circular economy standards, remain voluntary and calibrated to each country’s national circumstances.

    What is the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG)?

    1. Definition: The New Collective Quantified Goal is the post 2025 climate finance target agreed under the climate convention, replacing the earlier annual finance commitment made to developing countries. It fixes how much money developed countries must mobilise, and for what.
    2. The specific commitment at issue: The Ministers urged wealthy nations to deliver on the NCQG reached at the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) held at Belem, Brazil, including the commitment to triple adaptation finance to developing countries by 2035.

    What did the 12th BRICS Environment Ministers’ Meeting actually decide?

    1. Venue and chair: The 12th BRICS Environment Ministers’ Meeting was held in New Delhi under India’s chairship, and adopted its positions through a joint statement.
    2. Participation: Environment and climate Ministers and senior officials from eleven countries took part: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Ethiopia.
    3. Position on border measures: Ministers recorded concern that carbon border measures such as CBAM “undermine developing countries’ efforts to address climate change and build resilience”, placing that language in the adaptation and climate resilience section of the statement.
    4. Quality of finance demanded: Support from developed countries must be “new, additional, predictable, adequate and accessible”, delivered through grants and concessional finance and without adding to the financial vulnerabilities of developing countries.
    5. Technical basis: The statement marked the culmination of a year of technical work by the BRICS Environment Working Group and its Contact Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development.
    6. Handover: India formally handed hosting duties for the 13th edition to China, which will lead the meeting in 2027.

    Why does the definitive phase matter so much for India’s exports?

    1. Concentrated exposure: Iron and steel account for about 90 percent of India’s exports to the European Union that fall within the CBAM framework, so a sectoral measure operates as a single sector measure for India.
    2. Evidence of behavioural change already: A June 2026 analysis in Nature Climate Change, built on shipment level trade data and facility level emissions estimates, found that high emission Indian steel firms cut their export quantities and revenues to the European Union during the reporting phase, while lower emission firms held their export levels.
    3. Cost now real, not notional: During the reporting phase the obligation was informational. From 1 January 2026 the exporter’s emissions intensity translates directly into a certificate purchase by the buyer.
    4. Collision with the trade opening: The BRICS position arrives as India and the European Union move to implement a free trade agreement negotiated earlier this year, so tariff concessions on one track sit beside a new carbon related compliance cost on the other.
    5. Adaptation finance is the counterweight: Adaptation finance is used to help countries and communities cope with climate impacts, including measures to strengthen water security, agriculture and infrastructure, which is the ground on which the bloc pressed its finance claim.

    What do other jurisdictions’ carbon border and pricing measures show?

    1. United Kingdom: A UK CBAM is legislated to begin on 1 January 2027, covering aluminium, cement, fertilisers, hydrogen and iron and steel. It uses a fixed sectoral levy rate linked to the UK carbon price rather than tradable certificates, and it excludes electricity.
    2. European Union: The border charge is paired with the phase out of free allowances under the EU Emissions Trading System between 2026 and 2034. The design feature that matters is the pairing: the border cost rises as European industry loses its free permits.
    3. China: The national Emissions Trading Scheme was expanded in 2025 from power generation to steel, cement and aluminium. A domestic carbon price gives exporters a payment that can be set off against a border charge, converting revenue that would otherwise leave the country.
    4. Turkey: Legislation in 2025 created a national Emissions Trading System explicitly to retain carbon revenue domestically instead of surrendering it to the European border charge.
    5. United States: There is no federal carbon price. Proposals such as the Foreign Pollution Fee Act would levy an import charge based on emissions intensity relative to United States producers, a border measure with no domestic carbon price behind it.

    Where does the BRICS position pull against its members’ own choices?

    1. Objection and integration run together: The bloc calls the measure protectionist while India simultaneously implements a free trade agreement with the same partner, so the objection is lodged inside a deepening trade relationship rather than outside it.
    2. A domestic carbon price weakens the objection: Members building their own carbon markets, including India and China, gain a set off against CBAM only by adopting the very instrument they describe as an imposition.
    3. The measure is producing decarbonisation, unevenly: Lower emission Indian steel firms held their European market share while high emission firms retreated, which is the outcome CBAM claims to seek and the outcome that concentrates the cost on the least prepared producers.
    4. Voluntary cooperation limits the bloc’s own leverage: Insisting that every cooperation commitment stays voluntary and nationally calibrated protects policy space, and it also denies the bloc a collective standard it could offer as an alternative to CBAM.
    5. Finance and trade are separate tracks: Tripling adaptation finance by 2035 does not compensate an exporter for a certificate cost paid in 2026, so the two demands in the statement address different constituencies.

    Challenges to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

    1. Extraterritorial reach without representation: The charge is designed by a regulator that exposed exporters have no vote over. e.g. iron and steel form about 90 percent of India’s CBAM covered exports to the European Union, so a single foreign rulebook governs the bulk of that trade.
    2. Measurement and verification burden: Embedded emissions must be computed at installation level and verified, which small suppliers cannot do unaided. e.g. small Indian foundries and rolling mills supplying European buyers must commission third party verification that costs more than their margin on the consignment.
    3. Carbon price divergence: A domestic carbon payment offsets the certificate cost only to the extent of its price. e.g. prices under India’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme are expected well below the European allowance price, leaving a large residual charge.
    4. Resource shuffling: A producer can reallocate output rather than cut emissions. e.g. a steelmaker can route its cleanest electric arc furnace line to the European Union and its blast furnace output to West Asia, lowering the reported figure without lowering total emissions.
    5. Downstream coverage gap: The mechanism covers raw materials but not most finished goods made from them. e.g. imported cars and machinery containing steel escape the charge while imported steel does not, creating an incentive to relocate downstream manufacturing outside the bloc.
    6. Trade law exposure: Developing countries argue the measure conflicts with the differentiation principle of the climate convention and with core trade disciplines. e.g. CBAM has been repeatedly contested in the World Trade Organization’s Committee on Trade and Environment by India, China, Brazil and South Africa.
    7. Revenue destination: The proceeds accrue to the imposing jurisdiction, not to the exposed exporter’s transition. e.g. CBAM revenue flows to the European Union budget while the BRICS statement asks for grant based adaptation finance, so the money moves in the opposite direction to the demand.

    Conclusion

    The definitive phase has converted a European domestic carbon price into a border cost carried largely by developing country exporters, and the BRICS statement is the first collective effort to frame that as a breach of differentiated responsibility rather than a technical trade irritant. The demand for tripled adaptation finance by 2035 sits alongside the objection because the bloc treats the two as one bargain. What remains unresolved is that neither the objection nor the finance demand reduces the certificate cost an Indian steel exporter pays in 2026, and only a credible domestic carbon price and lower emissions intensity will do that.

    Question (2025, GS3): “What are the challenges before the Indian economy when the world is moving away from free trade and multilateralism to protectionism and bilateralism? How can these challenges be met?”
    Linkage: The BRICS statement explicitly labels CBAM as a “protectionist” measure that converts a climate instrument into a trade cost, directly illustrating the challenge of rising protectionism.

  • 60 days on, a disturbing US-Iran stalemate

    Why in the News

    The 60 day window for the United States and Iran to agree a long term peace framework expired on 17 August 2026 with no agreement. Both sides had already shut that window through late June and July while trading strikes, and the Strait of Hormuz remains blockaded by Iran and counterblockaded by the United States. A deadlock that neither side can end now holds global oil and gas movement hostage.

    What is the US Iran Memorandum of Understanding of 17 June?

    1. What it was: An interim understanding signed on 17 June 2026 that declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts.
    2. The clock: It set a 60 day timeframe, extendable by mutual consent, within which a broader agreement was to be reached.
    3. What the broader deal covered: Limits on Iran’s nuclear programme on one side and the lifting of United States sanctions on the other.
    4. The disputed clause: Point 5 was read by Tehran as giving it the right to manage the Strait of Hormuz, which it shares with Oman. Washington rejected that reading.
    5. How it collapsed: Hostilities resumed once Iran began firing on vessels it said were using an unapproved route through the waterway.
    6. Status on expiry: No long term framework exists. The interim text is the only agreed document and it is no longer being observed.

    What is the Strait of Hormuz?

    1. Location: A narrow sea passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, bordered by Iran to the north and Oman and the United Arab Emirates to the south.
    2. Why it matters: About a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas moved through it before the war, with no overland route able to absorb that volume.

    What is a naval blockade?

    1. Definition: A blockade is the use of warships to stop shipping from entering or leaving a coast or a waterway.
    2. The two sided version here: Iran has closed the strait to traffic it has not approved. The United States has answered with a counterblockade of Iranian ports that it says it can sustain indefinitely by rotating ships.

    What is the Bab el Mandeb Strait?

    1. Location: The passage between Yemen and Djibouti that links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and so links Suez traffic to the Indian Ocean.
    2. Current state: The Yemen based Houthi group enforces a partial blockade there, which puts a second chokepoint on the same route at risk.

    What are strategic petroleum reserves?

    1. Definition: Underground crude oil stocks held by the State to cover consumption when imports are cut off by war, sanctions or a supply shock.
    2. How they work: The reserve is filled when prices are low and released into refineries when supply stops, so the shock reaches the economy slowly rather than at once.

    Why did the 60 day framework fail to hold?

    1. Interpretation, not intent: The understanding began to unravel largely over disagreement on how its own terms should be read, not over a refusal to talk.
    2. The strait stayed shut: The framework never reopened the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively blockaded since the Israel and United States attack of 28 February 2026.
    3. The war widened instead: The 60 day period saw the Houthis and Saudi Arabia begin attacking each other, extending the conflict to a second waterway.
    4. Escalation on the ground: Iranian drones struck the office of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s prime minister in northern Iraq on 17 August.
    5. Policy shift in Tehran: A senior Iranian official stated that Iran has moved from a defensive to a fully offensive posture and would strike to break the American naval blockade if diplomacy failed.
    6. Parallel track: Iran and Oman have separately negotiated the coordinates of a jointly managed route through the strait, and progress there has been slow.

    Which figures define the scale of the disruption?

    1. Transit collapse: Traffic through the strait fell to two vessels in a day against more than 130 daily before the conflict.
    2. Share of world energy: About one fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas flowed through the strait before the war.
    3. Timeline: The war was launched on 28 February 2026. The Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 17 June and its window closed on 17 August.
    4. Second chokepoint: Seven missiles were fired at the Bab el Mandeb Strait and the Mokha coastline in a single day, alongside Houthi claims of striking a Saudi landing ship and four patrol boats.
    5. Spillover count: The Kurdistan region of Iraq has been targeted more than 1,000 times by Iran and pro Iran armed groups since the war began.
    6. Environmental cost: A 160 km oil slick from a bulk carrier struck by a projectile spread off Qeshm island and threatened the Hara mangrove forests, a UNESCO biosphere reserve.
    7. India’s gas shift: Indian liquefied natural gas imports rose 15.4 percent to 7.08 million tonnes over May to July as Qatari supply collapsed.

    Why are both sides doubling down on economic warfare?

    1. Lesson learned in Washington: Bombing alone has not dislodged the government in Tehran, and the United States is running low on munitions.
    2. Lesson learned in Tehran: The United States has come to stay in the region, and ballistic missiles fired at American bases or at Israel will not change that.
    3. American instruments: Washington has rescinded sanction waivers on Iranian oil in the international market and threatens to hold its naval blockade of Iranian ports indefinitely.
    4. Iranian instrument: Tehran’s single point of leverage is the strait itself, which it can keep closed at low cost to its own military.
    5. Iran’s political bet: Tehran calculates that it can squeeze the American administration until the midterm elections and treats the stalemate as the new balance of power.
    6. The American constraint: With a midterm election approaching, the United States President must show that the pressure campaign is producing results without trapping the country in another foreign war.

    What do the positions of other States in the conflict demonstrate?

    1. Oman: It shares the strait with Iran and is negotiating a jointly managed route with Tehran, which makes a small mediating State the only working channel. The United States President has threatened to bomb Oman if it gets in the way of a deal.
    2. Gulf States and the Malacca model: Oman, backed by Gulf States, offered Iran a scheme of voluntary transit fees for using the strait, modelled on the arrangement used in the Strait of Malacca.
    3. Israel: It launched the war jointly with the United States on 28 February, which is why the closure of the strait is treated in Tehran as a response to an attack rather than an independent act.
    4. Saudi Arabia: It is now in direct exchange of fire with the Houthis, which shows how a bilateral war spreads to a second chokepoint through proxies.
    5. Yemen and the Houthis: A non State armed group enforces a partial blockade of the Bab el Mandeb using ballistic missiles and drones against naval and commercial shipping.
    6. Iraq and the Kurdistan region: Iranian drones and pro Iran armed groups have struck the autonomous region’s leadership more than 1,000 times, showing that the conflict travels through weak neighbouring States.
    7. Qatar: Its liquefied natural gas exports must cross the strait, which is why the shutdown forced buyers such as India to switch to United States, Nigerian, Omani and Angolan cargoes.

    Where does the stalemate turn against both sides?

    1. Each side believes time favours it: Tehran is waiting out the American electoral calendar. Washington is waiting for economic pain to force a concession.
    2. Neither can convert leverage: Neither party has gained decisive leverage to force a settlement, and neither can end the conflict on its own terms.
    3. Rhetoric against interest: The American position swings between threatening to bomb a mediating State and insisting that a negotiated settlement is possible.
    4. Cost falls on third parties: The deadlock means the rest of the world remains hostage to a conflict that neither side is capable of ending.
    5. Stalemate as an outcome: The likeliest result is not victory for either side but the deadlock itself becoming the new normal.
    6. Diplomacy is not a hedge: For States dependent on the strait, waiting for a settlement is a bet on two governments that have both chosen to wait.

    What does the stalemate demand of India?

    1. Managed so far: India has absorbed the consequences of the closure to date without a visible supply failure.
    2. Three interests exposed: A persisting stalemate puts India’s economic, energy and strategic interests at risk together, not one at a time.
    3. Diplomacy alone is insufficient: Negotiating access with either party does not remove the underlying dependence on a single waterway.
    4. Cut import dependence: India must reduce its overwhelming dependence on imported oil rather than manage each disruption as it arrives.
    5. Build larger reserves: Strategic petroleum reserve capacity has to be expanded well beyond present levels. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation is to reserve half of its 1.75 million tonne Mangaluru facility for strategic storage.
    6. Diversify and substitute: Gas sourcing has already shifted to the United States, Nigeria, Oman and Angola, and investment in alternative energy is the only durable substitute.

    Challenges to India’s energy security in a Hormuz disruption

    1. Single route concentration: A large share of Indian crude and gas passes one 21 nautical mile wide passage with no overland alternative. e.g. Qatari liquefied natural gas supply to India collapsed once the strait shut.
    2. Reserve cover is thin: Indian strategic reserves cover only a few days of national consumption against the 90 day standard used by International Energy Agency members. e.g. phase one caverns at Visakhapatnam, Mangaluru and Padur hold 5.33 million tonnes in total.
    3. Freight and insurance shock: War risk premiums and rerouting raise the landed cost of every cargo even when volumes are secured. e.g. Red Sea diversions around the Cape of Good Hope from 2024 added roughly two weeks to voyages from Europe.
    4. Currency and fiscal transmission: An oil price spike widens the current account deficit and pushes up subsidy and inflation pressure together. e.g. every $10 rise in the crude price is estimated to add close to 0.4 percent of gross domestic product to India’s import bill.
    5. Refinery configuration: Indian refineries are tuned to specific crude grades, so substitution is not simply a question of finding any seller. e.g. sour heavy Gulf grades cannot be replaced one for one by lighter Nigerian or United States crude.
    6. Diaspora and remittance exposure: About nine million Indians work in the Gulf, and a wider war puts both their safety and their transfers at risk. e.g. evacuation operations of the scale of Operation Ajay in 2023.
    7. Shipping and seafarer risk: Indian crews form a large share of global merchant manning and are directly exposed to attacks on commercial vessels. e.g. the drone strike on a merchant vessel in the Arabian Sea in December 2023.

    Conclusion

    The lapse of the 60 day window confirms that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is no longer a temporary interruption but the working balance of power between two governments that both expect the other to break first. For India the practical consequence is that the exposure is structural and cannot be negotiated away one shipment at a time. Reduced dependence on imported crude, a materially larger strategic reserve and a faster shift to alternative energy are the only responses that survive whichever way the deadlock ends.

    About Global Maritime Chokepoints

    1. Definition: A chokepoint is a narrow shipping channel through which a large share of world trade must pass, so a closure at that point reroutes or halts global flows.
    2. Strait of Hormuz: The single largest oil chokepoint, carrying roughly 20 million barrels a day of petroleum liquids before the war, about a fifth of world consumption.
    3. Strait of Malacca: The busiest passage between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, carrying most of the crude bound for China, Japan and South Korea.
    4. Bab el Mandeb: The Red Sea entrance that connects Suez traffic to the Indian Ocean, about 18 nautical miles wide at its narrowest.
    5. Suez Canal and Panama Canal: Artificial chokepoints whose closure adds thousands of nautical miles to a voyage. e.g. the Ever Given grounding blocked Suez for six days in March 2021.
    6. Turkish Straits and Danish Straits: The Bosphorus and Dardanelles carry Black Sea grain and Russian crude. The Danish Straits carry Baltic exports.
    7. India’s position: India lies alongside the Indian Ocean sea lanes that connect Hormuz and Malacca, which makes it both exposed to and capable of policing these routes.

    Treaty Framework Governing Passage Through International Straits

    1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: The framework treaty governing maritime zones, navigation rights and the settlement of maritime disputes.
    2. Article 3: Allows a coastal State a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles, which is why the Strait of Hormuz falls within Iranian and Omani waters.
    3. Article 37: Applies the transit passage regime to straits used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another.
    4. Article 38: Guarantees all ships and aircraft the right of transit passage, which cannot be suspended by the bordering States.
    5. Article 44: Bars States bordering a strait from hampering or suspending transit passage and requires them to publicise navigational hazards.
    6. Article 88 and Article 301: Reserve the high seas for peaceful purposes and bar the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State.
    7. Iran’s position: Iran signed but has not ratified the Convention, and argues that the transit passage regime does not bind a non party.

    Laws and Rules Governing India’s Oil and Gas Security

    1. Petroleum Act, 1934: Regulates the import, transport, storage, production and refining of petroleum and petroleum products.
    2. Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948: Governs the grant of exploration and production rights over petroleum and natural gas.
    3. Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976: Defines India’s maritime zones and the rights India exercises in each of them.
    4. Merchant Shipping Act, 1958: Governs registration, safety and manning of Indian flag vessels and the protection of Indian seafarers.
    5. Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006: Creates the downstream regulator for refining, transport, distribution and marketing, other than production.
    6. Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Allows the Union government to control the production, supply and distribution of petroleum products in a scarcity.
    7. Energy Conservation Act, 2001: Provides the legal base for efficiency standards and, after the 2022 amendment, for a domestic carbon credit trading scheme.

    Back2Basics: Strait of Hormuz

    1. Designation: A maritime chokepoint, tracked in the Places in News list as a strategic waterway rather than a protected area.
    2. Location: Between Iran on the north and Oman’s Musandam peninsula and the United Arab Emirates on the south.
    3. Connects: The Persian Gulf on one side to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea on the other.
    4. Dimensions: About 21 nautical miles wide at its narrowest, with inbound and outbound shipping lanes of about two miles each separated by a buffer.
    5. Littoral States: Iran, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq have no route to the open ocean except through it.
    6. Islands: Qeshm, Hormuz, Larak, and the disputed Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, held by Iran and claimed by the United Arab Emirates.
    7. Ecology: The Hara mangrove forests off Qeshm island, dominated by grey mangrove, form a UNESCO biosphere reserve.

    Government Initiatives

    1. Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited: Builds and operates India’s underground crude caverns. Phase one covers Visakhapatnam, Mangaluru and Padur with a combined 5.33 million tonnes.
    2. Strategic reserve phase two: Approved caverns at Chandikhol in Odisha and a second Padur facility, adding about 6.5 million tonnes of capacity.
    3. Hydrocarbon Exploration and Licensing Policy and Open Acreage Licensing Policy: Replace production sharing with a revenue sharing model and let bidders select blocks on their own initiative to raise domestic output.
    4. National Green Hydrogen Mission: Approved in 2023 to build five million tonnes of annual green hydrogen capacity by 2030 and cut fossil fuel imports.
    5. Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme: Substitutes imported crude with domestic ethanol. The 20 percent blending target was advanced to 2025 and met.
    6. PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana: Supports rooftop solar in one crore households, shifting household demand away from fossil generation.
    7. Overseas equity oil: ONGC Videsh Limited holds producing assets abroad so that a share of India’s crude comes from equity rather than the spot market.

    Key Facts about India’s Oil and Gas Dependence

    1. Import dependence: India imports over 85 percent of the crude oil it consumes and about half of its natural gas.
    2. Consumption rank: India is the third largest consumer of crude oil in the world after the United States and China.
    3. Refining capacity: India is the fourth largest refiner globally, with Jamnagar in Gujarat the largest single refining complex in the world.
    4. Main suppliers: Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United States are the largest sources of Indian crude imports.
    5. Gas sources: Qatar has been India’s largest supplier of liquefied natural gas, delivered under long term contracts through Hormuz.
    6. Reserve benchmark: International Energy Agency members hold 90 days of net import cover. India’s strategic reserves cover only a small fraction of that.
    7. Institutional link: India became an Association country of the International Energy Agency in 2017 and has sought full membership.

    Challenges in India’s Energy Security

    1. Import concentration by geography: A single region supplies a majority of Indian crude, so one regional conflict moves the whole import basket. e.g. West Asian suppliers accounted for the bulk of Indian crude before Russian barrels rose after 2022.
    2. Payment and sanctions exposure: Secondary sanctions can strand a supply relationship that is otherwise commercially sound. e.g. Indian refiners halted Iranian crude purchases in 2019 after the United States ended sanction waivers.
    3. Domestic production decline: Output from ageing fields keeps falling even as demand rises, widening the import gap. e.g. Mumbai High output has fallen steadily from its peak levels.
    4. Storage and pipeline gaps: Gas cannot reach demand centres without a completed grid, so imported cargoes are stranded at terminals. e.g. sections of the Urja Ganga pipeline in eastern India took over a decade to commission.
    5. Critical mineral dependence in the transition: A shift to electric mobility replaces oil dependence with lithium, cobalt and rare earth dependence. e.g. India imports nearly all of its lithium and cobalt requirement.
    6. Grid readiness for renewables: Variable solar and wind output needs storage and balancing capacity that does not yet exist at scale. e.g. curtailment of renewable generation in high output states during low demand hours.
    7. Price pass through politics: Retail fuel prices are politically managed, so a crude spike lands on oil marketing company balance sheets rather than consumers. e.g. under recoveries absorbed by public sector oil marketing companies during 2021 and 2022.

    Way Forward

    1. Expand strategic storage: Complete the phase two caverns and move Indian cover toward the 90 day benchmark used by International Energy Agency members.
    2. Commercialise reserve operation: Allow foreign and private participation in cavern filling so storage is built and rotated without full budgetary funding.
    3. Diversify supply geography: Hold standing contracts across West Asia, West Africa, the Americas and Russia so no single waterway carries a majority of volumes.
    4. Accelerate substitution: Scale ethanol blending, compressed biogas, green hydrogen and electric mobility so demand growth is not met by imported crude.
    5. Secure the sea lanes: Sustain Indian naval deployments for merchant escort in the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea, and expand maritime domain awareness sharing.
    6. Build the gas grid: Complete the national gas grid and city gas networks so imported and domestic gas reaches demand centres.
    7. Deepen mineral supply chains: Secure lithium, cobalt and rare earth supply through overseas assets and domestic processing so the energy transition does not create a fresh chokepoint.

    “[2026] Ships from which of the following countries have to cross the Strait of Hormuz to reach out to the Indian Ocean?
    1. Bahrain
    2. Syria
    3. Qatar
    4. Egypt
    (a) 1 and 2
    (b) 1 and 3
    (c) 2 and 3
    (d) 3 and 4

  • At Afghan embassy, Taliban diplomats mark 5th anniversary of victory day

    Why in the News

    The Afghanistan Embassy in New Delhi held a reception on 17 August 2026, marking five years of Taliban rule. Indian officials attended despite India continuing to withhold formal recognition of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

    The event highlights India’s growing working relationship with the Taliban without formal diplomatic recognition.

    What is a Chargé d’Affaires-led Mission?

    • Chargé d’Affaires: Diplomat heading a mission when no ambassador is accredited.
    • Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, it ranks below an ambassador.
    • An ambassador presents credentials to the Head of State, while a chargé d’affaires is accredited to the Foreign Ministry.
    • It allows diplomatic engagement without necessarily signalling formal recognition.
    • The Afghan mission in Delhi has operated under this arrangement since November 2025.

    What is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan?

    • Formal name used by the Taliban administration since August 2021.
    • India engages with the Taliban as a de facto authority but has not formally recognised it as Afghanistan’s government.

    How Has India-Taliban Engagement Evolved?

    • 2021: India closed its Kabul embassy and evacuated personnel.
    • 2022: India established a technical mission in Kabul.
    • 2025: Afghan Foreign Minister visited India.
    • India subsequently upgraded its Kabul mission to full embassy status.
    • November 2025: Taliban-appointed diplomats took charge of the Afghan Embassy in Delhi under a chargé d’affaires.
    • 2026: Embassy hosted its first public victory anniversary reception in Delhi.

    Why is India Engaging the Taliban?

    • Security: Maintains visibility over terrorist groups and developments affecting India.
    • Connectivity: Chabahar Port provides access to Afghanistan bypassing Pakistan.
    • Development assets: India has invested heavily in projects such as the Salma Dam, Zaranj-Delaram Highway and Afghan Parliament.
    • Regional competition: China, Russia, Iran and Central Asian countries are expanding engagement with Kabul.
    • Trade: Bilateral trade remains around $1 billion.

    “[2013, GS2, 10 marks] The proposed withdrawal of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from Afghanistan in 2014 is fraught with major security implications for the countries of the region. Examine in light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.”

  • Washington Warns Allies: Choose Between Pax Silica and Beijing’s AI Bloc

    Why in the News

    A draft United States letter warns the 35 signatories of its artificial intelligence (AI) Opportunity Statement that signing up to Beijing’s competing framework will exclude them from the American led Pax Silica coalition. The demand converts a supply chain initiative into a test of exclusive alignment. Kazakhstan, a potential source of critical minerals that has joined both coalitions, is the immediate trigger.

    What is the Pax Silica initiative?

    1. About: Pax Silica was launched by Washington last year to secure supply chains for AI models, semiconductors and critical minerals.
    2. Purpose: It was built for the technology rivalry with Beijing, treating minerals and chips as the inputs that decide who builds the most capable AI.
    3. Membership: About two dozen countries have joined, including close allies Japan, Australia and South Korea.
    4. Legal character: The framework is not binding, so membership carries no treaty obligation.
    5. The new condition: Members that also join Beijing’s rival body face exclusion from the coalition.

    What is the AI Opportunity Statement?

    1. About: A United States statement signed in June by 35 countries that wish to align AI cooperation with Washington.
    2. Coverage: Its signatories include members of the Pax Silica framework and other countries outside it, and the draft warning letter is addressed to this full list.

    What is the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization?

    1. About: A rival body launched in July by the Chinese President as a challenge to United States influence over the AI sector.
    2. Its offer: It promotes China’s open weight technology, positioning access to models rather than access to chips as the basis of membership.

    What are open weight AI models?

    1. About: Models whose trained parameters are published for download, allowing anyone to run and adapt them on their own hardware.
    2. Why it matters strategically: Adoption does not require a continuing commercial relationship with the developer, so influence spreads without any agreement being signed.

    What does the draft letter actually demand?

    1. A binary choice: Dozens of countries are to be told they must pick sides in the AI race with China.
    2. The penalty: Signing Beijing’s competing framework means exclusion from the United States led coalition.
    3. The stated objective: Washington hopes to starve China of resources in the race to build the most sophisticated AI.
    4. Why that matters: The most capable models are treated as usable for military or economic dominance, which is what makes inputs a security question.
    5. The evidentiary basis: The warning rests on an internal draft and a United States official, not on a published policy.

    Why do critical minerals sit at the centre of the AI race?

    1. Minerals precede chips: Semiconductors, servers and power systems depend on rare earths, gallium, germanium and graphite before any model can be trained.
    2. Refining, not mining, is the chokepoint: China dominates the midstream separation and refining stages even for ore mined elsewhere.
    3. Export controls as leverage: Beijing has used licensing of gallium, germanium, graphite and rare earth magnets as a direct policy instrument.
    4. Why Kazakhstan matters: It is a key potential source of critical minerals, which is why its dual membership set off alarm in Washington.
    5. The self limiting problem: Excluding a supplier country does not create refining capacity anywhere else.

    What do the individual signatories’ positions show about the cost of forcing a choice?

    1. Kazakhstan, the hedger: It is the only country so far known to have joined both initiatives, using its mineral endowment to sell access to both blocs rather than choose.
    2. Japan, the equipment supplier: A Pax Silica member whose firms control critical semiconductor manufacturing equipment, photoresists and wafer materials that no bloc can replace quickly.
    3. South Korea, the memory chip producer: A Pax Silica member whose memory chip makers run large fabrication capacity inside China, so exclusivity carries a direct commercial cost.
    4. Australia, the mining leg: A Pax Silica member with rare earth deposits and a dedicated critical minerals financing facility, but with separation capacity that has historically depended on offshore processing.
    5. China, the rival architecture: Beijing counters chip and minerals leverage with the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization and freely downloadable models.
    6. United States, the coalition builder: Washington combines export controls on advanced chips with Pax Silica membership, and now with the threat of exclusion.

    Why does the exclusivity demand cut against the United States’ own supply goal?

    1. Suppliers gain from hedging: A mineral rich state earns more by selling access to both coalitions than by picking one.
    2. A framework with no enforcement: Pax Silica is not binding, so exclusion is the only available lever and it is a blunt one.
    3. Open weight models cannot be fenced: Chinese models spread by download, so denying a country coalition membership does not deny it Chinese technology.
    4. Refining dependence persists: The coalition can exclude a supplier and still find that separation and processing run through China.
    5. Retaliation risk: Beijing can curtail exports of critical minerals essential to advanced technology production while Western supply chains are still being built.

    Where does India stand in the AI and critical minerals contest?

    1. Minerals Security Partnership: India joined the Minerals Security Partnership in June 2023, a United States convened grouping to catalyse investment in critical mineral supply chains.
    2. National Critical Mineral Mission: Approved in January 2025 with an outlay of about 16,300 crore rupees, it targets exploration, recovery from tailings and overseas asset acquisition.
    3. IndiaAI Mission: Approved in March 2024 with about 10,371 crore rupees, covering compute capacity, datasets, foundation model support and safe AI.
    4. Summit diplomacy: India chaired the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence and hosted its summit in New Delhi in December 2023, and was named the next AI summit host after the Paris AI Action Summit of February 2025.
    5. The strategic autonomy problem: India sits in United States aligned mineral platforms and in BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation alongside China, so an exclusivity demand of the Pax Silica kind directly conflicts with its standing position.

    Challenges to Pax Silica

    1. No enforcement mechanism: A framework that is not binding cannot police dual membership. e.g. Kazakhstan has joined both Pax Silica and the Chinese body without penalty so far.
    2. Substitution by the rival supplier: Excluded states can buy the same inputs and models from Beijing. e.g. China’s export licensing of rare earth magnets from April 2025 halted assembly lines at European car plants, demonstrating who controls the flow.
    3. Cost falls on allies first: Export control regimes hit allied firms’ revenues before they hit the target. e.g. Dutch lithography equipment makers lost a large share of their China sales after successive export restrictions.
    4. Midstream capacity cannot be built quickly: Mining new deposits does not solve separation and refining. e.g. Australian rare earth concentrate was long shipped to Malaysia for separation rather than processed at home.
    5. Price volatility deters new investment: Mineral projects need long horizons that commodity cycles destroy. e.g. lithium prices fell sharply from their 2022 peak, stalling announced projects worldwide.
    6. Open weight diffusion defeats membership rules: Model access spreads independently of any coalition. e.g. a Chinese open weight reasoning model released in January 2025 was downloaded and self hosted worldwide within weeks.
    7. Third country resistance to bloc politics: Middle powers resist being made to choose. e.g. several Global South states hold membership of both Western and Chinese digital and minerals platforms simultaneously.

    Conclusion

    The AI contest has moved from controlling exports of chips to controlling membership of coalitions, and the United States is testing whether exclusivity can be enforced on countries that hold the minerals. The instrument is weak, since Pax Silica binds no one, open weight models spread by download, and refining capacity stays with China regardless of who is excluded. Kazakhstan’s dual membership is the first demonstration that suppliers will hedge. For India, an exclusivity demand of this type collides directly with a foreign policy built on membership of competing platforms.

    “[2025] Consider the following statements:
    I. India has joined the Minerals Security Partnership as a member.
    II. India is a resource-rich country in all the 30 critical minerals that it has identified.
    III. The Parliament in 2023 has amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 empowering the Central Government to exclusively auction mining lease and composite license for certain critical minerals.
    Which of the statements given above are correct?
    (a) I and II only
    (b) II and III only
    (c) I and III only
    (d) I, II and III

  • [17th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: Mecca Pact Reshapes West Asia: Where Does India Stand?

    Why in the News

    A collective defence pact signed in Mecca between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan has altered the security architecture of West Asia. The pact pools Saudi capital, Pakistani military strength and Turkish defence technology, and is aimed at deterring Israel rather than Iran. India built a decade of gains in the region and now has no declared strategy to answer this realignment.

    What did India build in West Asia over the past decade?

    1. 2016, Saudi recognition: Saudi Arabia awarded India’s Prime Minister its highest civilian honour, marking a shift in the political relationship.
    2. 2021, I2U2: The I2U2 agreement was signed, tying India into a grouping with Israel, the United States and the UAE.
    3. 2024, Chabahar: Iran leased Chabahar port to India, giving overland access towards Afghanistan and Central Asia that bypasses Pakistan.
    4. The UAE relationship: India cultivated a special relationship with the UAE built on remittances from Indian expatriate workers, investments by Indian business in the UAE, and UAE strategic investments in India.
    5. Where they stand now: These are gains from the past, and India’s footprint is contracting one country at a time.

    Why is the region’s security order breaking down now?

    1. A war that spread: In the last four months the United States and Israel war with Iran escalated into a regional conflict.
    2. Iran against the Gulf: Iran attacked GCC countries, ending the assumption that the Gulf monarchies sit outside the fighting.
    3. Saudi strikes in Iraq: Saudi Arabia hit Iraqi militias.
    4. Attacks at sea: The Houthis attacked Saudi ships.
    5. Israeli strikes: Israel carried out strikes in multiple countries.
    6. The American umbrella in doubt: Gulf states are rethinking the efficacy of the United States security umbrella and now see a threat from both Iran and Israel.
    7. A schism over method: The Gulf is split between handling that threat through engagement, the UAE approach, and through deterrence, which Saudi Arabia is contemplating.

    How has Pakistan converted the regional crisis into diplomatic capital?

    1. The mediator role: Pakistan’s role as mediator in the United States and Iran conflict is earning it reputational benefits across the region.
    2. The timing: It entered when no one else could bring the United States President and the Iranians to the table.
    3. Who had failed first: Turkiye, Qatar and Egypt had all attempted mediation without success.
    4. The pact as the payoff: The Mecca collective defence pact follows directly from that diplomatic moment.
    5. The Israel risk for India: A future Israel and Pakistan war would draw India in, given the close India Israel partnership.
    6. The Turkiye risk for India: Greater Turkish support for Pakistan in a future India Pakistan conflict cannot be ruled out.

    What do the positions of individual regional states reveal about the new architecture?

    1. Saudi Arabia, deterrence and a new maritime force: Riyadh is moving from engagement to deterrence, supplies the capital leg of the Mecca pact, and is raising a Saudi led maritime force for the Red Sea that India is not part of.
    2. Turkiye, technology as leverage: Ankara contributes defence technology to the pact and runs a deepening military relationship with Pakistan that India has no channel to discuss.
    3. Pakistan, military manpower as currency: Islamabad supplies the military strength the pact rests on, converting an army into diplomatic capital with Gulf financiers.
    4. United Arab Emirates, engagement over deterrence: Abu Dhabi manages the Iran and Israel threat through engagement, and carries mounting differences with Saudi Arabia plus positions against United Nations recognised governments in conflicts as far away as Sudan.
    5. Iran, from partner to belligerent: Tehran leased Chabahar to India in 2024 and has since attacked GCC states, putting India’s connectivity asset inside an active war zone.
    6. Israel, strikes that created the pact: Israeli operations across multiple countries made three regional states conclude they are next, which is the design logic of the Mecca pact.

    Why does India’s current posture carry risk?

    1. The Israel bet: India’s approach rests on confidence in Israel’s victory, drawn from Israel’s proximity to the United States.
    2. The American consensus is shifting: Both Make America Great Again Republicans and Democratic Socialists now question the once unquestioned United States support for Israel.
    3. Israel alone: Whether Israel can prevail without assured American backing is unsettled.
    4. The UAE bet: The second pillar of India’s regional position is the UAE relationship, resting on remittances, elite investment and Emirati investment in India.
    5. UAE exposure: The UAE’s differences with Saudi Arabia and its Sudan positions place that pillar at risk.

    What are the choices before India?

    1. Formal alignment: India can sign military alliances with Israel and the UAE.
    2. The cost of alignment: That would damage what is left of India’s relationships with Iran and Saudi Arabia.
    3. Continued inaction: India can do nothing, which is the current position.
    4. Cost of inaction, seafarers: Indian merchant mariners continue to be killed in the Strait of Hormuz.
    5. Cost of inaction, shipping: More Indian ships sink in the Bab-el-Mandeb.
    6. Reputational cost: A great power in the making appears hobbled in its own immediate maritime neighbourhood.
    7. The third way: India can devise an active regional political strategy instead of choosing between alignment and drift.

    What would an active Indian regional strategy involve?

    1. Renewed engagement with Saudi Arabia: India has no explicit differences with Riyadh, which makes it the cheapest relationship to rebuild.
    2. Arab and Iran trust building: India can work to rebuild trust between Arab states and Iran, beginning with the UAE and Iran relationship.
    3. Jordan’s security: India can offer defensive technologies to Jordan at a time when United States munitions are running low.
    4. Lebanon peacekeeping: India can take a role in the future UN peacekeeping presence in Lebanon, with UNIFIL forecast to end.
    5. A back channel with Turkiye: India can share its red lines on Turkiye’s relationship with Pakistan through a quiet channel.
    6. Red Sea shipping with Egypt: If India cannot join the Saudi led maritime force, it can work with Egypt on a parallel effort to protect India bound shipping from the Suez Canal to Bab-el-Mandeb.
    7. A military presence: India can examine a presence in the Red Sea region, in Somaliland or Socotra.
    8. Exercises with the region: Existing military training exchanges can be scaled into joint drills and exercises with a range of regional states.
    9. A Special Envoy for West Asia: India can appoint one who draws all the threads together, rather than one confined to the Israel and Palestine peace process.

    Challenges to India’s West Asia Strategy

    1. The alliance trap: Any formal military alignment with one camp forecloses the other, since Iran and Saudi Arabia both read Indian alignment as a choice against them. e.g. India’s Chabahar development slowed each time United States sanctions pressure on Iran tightened.
    2. The Turkiye and Pakistan axis: Turkish defence technology transfers to Pakistan directly degrade India’s conventional edge. e.g. Turkish origin Songar armed drones were used against Indian positions during the May 2025 hostilities.
    3. Chokepoint exposure: India’s trade and energy routes converge on two narrow straits it cannot secure alone. e.g. Houthi attacks from late 2023 forced Indian bound shipping to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, raising freight and insurance costs.
    4. Attacks on Indian crewed shipping: Indian seafarers crew a large share of global merchant vessels and absorb the human cost of regional escalation. e.g. the drone strike on MV Chem Pluto off Porbandar in December 2023.
    5. Evacuation burden: Every escalation converts India’s diaspora presence into a mass evacuation operation. e.g. Operation Kaveri from Sudan in 2023 and Operation Sindhu from Iran and Israel in June 2025.
    6. No standing regional mechanism: India has no dedicated envoy or regional platform to convert bilateral goodwill into collective influence. e.g. the piece’s own recommendation for a Special Envoy for West Asia has no existing counterpart in the Indian system.
    7. Exclusion from new regional security structures: New arrangements are being built without Indian participation. e.g. the Saudi led Red Sea maritime force, which India is not part of.

    Conclusion

    West Asia’s security architecture is being rebuilt around a Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan pact designed to deter Israel, and India has no strategy that matches the scale of that change. Formal alignment with Israel and the UAE costs India Iran and Saudi Arabia, and inaction costs it seafarers, ships and standing. The workable route is an active regional political strategy built on renewed engagement with Riyadh, trust building between the Arab states and Iran, and a dedicated envoy. India’s capacity to shape the region survives, its window does not.

    West Asia in India’s Foreign Policy

    1. About: West Asia covers the Gulf monarchies, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Turkiye and the Levant, treated in Indian policy as an extended neighbourhood rather than a distant theatre.
    2. Policy label: India’s approach shifted from Look West to Link West, moving beyond oil and labour transactions towards defence, technology and investment partnerships.
    3. Energy: West Asia remains a principal source of India’s crude oil imports, and Qatar is India’s largest supplier of liquefied natural gas.
    4. Diaspora: About 9 million Indians live and work in the Gulf, the largest concentration of the Indian diaspora anywhere.
    5. Remittances: India is the world’s largest recipient of remittances, receiving over 100 billion dollars annually, with the Gulf a major contributor.
    6. Trade: The UAE is among India’s top three trading partners, and the India UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement took effect in May 2022.
    7. Connectivity: The India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) was announced on the margins of the G20 New Delhi Summit in September 2023.

    Back2Basics: Gulf Cooperation Council

    1. Formation: Established in 1981 at Abu Dhabi.
    2. Headquarters: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
    3. Members: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.
    4. Mandate: Coordination and integration among members in economic, defence, security and cultural affairs.
    5. Military arm: The Peninsula Shield Force, a joint military force raised in 1984.
    6. Economic instrument: A unified economic agreement and a customs union among the six members.
    7. India link: India is not a member, and engages the bloc through bilateral strategic partnerships and an India GCC ministerial mechanism.

    Government Initiatives for India’s West Asia Engagement

    1. Link West Policy: Reframes the Gulf and West Asia as a zone of strategic partnership rather than an energy and labour market alone.
    2. I2U2: Joint investment platform with Israel, the United States and the UAE across food security, clean energy and health.
    3. India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor: Rail and shipping corridor linking India to Europe through the Gulf, announced in September 2023.
    4. India UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, 2022: India’s first Gulf trade agreement, cutting tariffs on the bulk of traded goods.
    5. Chabahar long term contract, 2024: A ten year agreement for operating the Shahid Beheshti terminal, giving India a port outside the Strait of Hormuz.
    6. eMigrate portal and Pravasi Bharatiya Bima Yojana: Registration and mandatory insurance cover for Indian workers emigrating to Gulf destinations.
    7. Evacuation operations: Operation Sindhu, Operation Ajay and Operation Kaveri, evacuating Indians from Iran and Israel, Israel and Sudan respectively.
    8. Operation Sankalp: Indian Navy deployment in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf to escort Indian flagged merchant shipping.

    Key Facts about India and West Asia

    1. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly a fifth of global oil consumption and has no practical bypass for most Gulf exporters.
    2. The Bab-el-Mandeb is the southern gate of the Red Sea and the compulsory approach to the Suez Canal.
    3. Chabahar is Iran’s only oceanic port, on the Gulf of Oman, and lies outside the Strait of Hormuz.
    4. India’s overseas military logistics access includes Duqm in Oman, agreed in 2018.
    5. I2U2 was agreed in 2021 and held its first leaders summit in July 2022.
    6. India is not a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and was invited as guest of honour to its foreign ministers meeting at Abu Dhabi in 2019.
    7. The GCC has six members; the wider Arab League has 22.

    “[2025, GS2, 15 marks] “Energy security constitutes the dominant kingpin of India’s foreign policy, and is linked with India’s overarching influence in Middle Eastern countries.” How would you integrate energy security with India’s foreign policy trajectories in the coming years?”

  • India courts will decide extradition of Hasina, talks on to change course

    Why in the News

    Dhaka has made the extradition of the former Bangladesh Prime Minister a precondition for a planned bilateral visit, and Indian officials state the request must go before Indian courts rather than being settled diplomatically. The route runs through the India Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, 2013 and the Extradition Act, 1962. The tension is between a treaty designed to remove the political offence defence for serious crimes and a request whose political character is contested.

    What is the India Bangladesh Extradition Treaty, 2013?

    1. About: The treaty, signed in 2013, provides for extradition between India and Bangladesh for offences punishable by at least one year of imprisonment.
    2. Dual criminality: The conduct must constitute an offence in both countries for extradition to proceed.
    3. Political offence exception: Article 6 allows refusal where the offence is of a political character, subject to a list of carve outs.
    4. The carve outs: Twelve categories, including murder, terrorism related offences and kidnapping, are expressly excluded from the political offence defence.
    5. 2016 amendment: The evidentiary requirement was relaxed so that a warrant issued by a competent court of the requesting state suffices, without prima facie evidence.

    How does an extradition request actually proceed in India?

    1. Request stage: The request is received through diplomatic channels and processed by the Consular, Passport and Visa Division of the Ministry of External Affairs.
    2. Magisterial inquiry: The central government may direct a magistrate to conduct an inquiry into the request.
    3. Judicial finding: The magistrate reports whether a prima facie case for surrender is made out.
    4. Executive decision: The final surrender decision rests with the central government, which may still refuse.
    5. Judicial review: The order is subject to challenge in the High Court and the Supreme Court, which is what makes the process a judicial one in practice.

    Why is this request legally contested?

    1. Sentence in absentia: The International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh awarded a death sentence in November 2025 for crimes against humanity, delivered in absentia.
    2. Fair trial objection: In absentia trials and death sentences are challenged as inconsistent with international fair trial standards.
    3. Political character claim: The defence argues the prosecution arises from a change of government, engaging Article 6 of the treaty.
    4. Carve out counter: The offences charged fall within categories the treaty excludes from the political offence defence.
    5. Comparable precedent: The same fair trial objection was raised against the Syrian court’s in absentia death sentences delivered on 11 August 2026 for the Daraa crackdown.

    What is the diplomatic cost of the dispute?

    1. Visit at risk: The planned bilateral visit on 21 August is in doubt because extradition has been made a precondition.
    2. Regional forum linkage: The Bangladesh leadership was invited to a multilateral summit as chair of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation, so the bilateral rift affects a regional grouping.
    3. Trigger event: A press conference held in Delhi by the former Prime Minister on 5 August hardened Dhaka’s position.
    4. Possible resolution: Officials note the question becomes moot if the former Prime Minister returns to Bangladesh voluntarily in December as she has said she will.

    Challenges in India’s extradition practice

    1. Low success rate: India secures a small fraction of the fugitives it seeks. e.g. the prolonged proceedings in the United Kingdom over economic offenders sought by India.
    2. Prison conditions objection: Requested states refuse surrender citing Indian prison standards. e.g. the assurances India had to give on Barrack 12 of Arthur Road Jail in the Vijay Mallya proceedings.
    3. Human rights and death penalty bar: Many states will not extradite where the death penalty may be imposed. e.g. the assurances routinely sought by European states before surrender.
    4. Treaty coverage gaps: India has extradition treaties with a limited set of countries and arrangements with others. e.g. the absence of a treaty with several jurisdictions where fugitives relocate.
    5. Political offence litigation: The political character defence generates prolonged appellate litigation. e.g. the multi year appellate process in cases involving asylum claims.
    6. Reciprocity expectations: A refusal in one direction weakens the case for cooperation in the other. e.g. India’s own pending requests to Bangladesh for insurgent leaders sheltered across the border.

    Conclusion

    Routing the request to the courts converts a bilateral demand into a judicial question that the executive cannot concede quickly, which is itself the diplomatic outcome India has chosen. The treaty’s twelve carve outs make the political offence defence hard to sustain, while the in absentia death sentence supplies an independent ground for refusal. The next milestone is whether the 21 August visit proceeds, and whether a formal extradition request is filed for magisterial inquiry.

    Back2Basics: Extradition Act, 1962

    1. Governs the extradition of fugitive criminals from India to foreign states and the receipt of fugitives into India.
    2. Applies to treaty states under Chapter II, and permits extradition to non treaty states through a notified arrangement.
    3. Requires that the offence be an extradition offence, defined as one punishable with imprisonment of at least one year under the laws of both countries.
    4. Provides for a magisterial inquiry, with the magistrate reporting to the central government on whether a prima facie case exists.
    5. Bars extradition for an offence of a political character, subject to the exclusions in the applicable treaty.
    6. The Ministry of External Affairs is the central authority for processing requests.

    Way Forward

    1. Keep the process judicial: Insist on the statutory magisterial inquiry route, since a diplomatic surrender would set a precedent against India’s own pending requests.
    2. Seek assurances on sentence: Obtain an undertaking against execution before any surrender, consistent with international practice on capital cases.
    3. De link the bilateral agenda: Continue trade, connectivity and water cooperation tracks independently of the extradition question.
    4. Use the regional forum: Sustain engagement through the Bay of Bengal grouping so the bilateral rift does not stall regional cooperation.
    5. Press reciprocal requests: Pursue India’s own outstanding extradition requests to Bangladesh in the same process, establishing symmetry.

    [2013, GS2, 10 marks] The protests in Shahbag Square in Dhaka in Bangladesh reveal a fundamental split in society between the nationalists and Islamic forces. What is its significance for India?”