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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • Return of the G2: Trump, China and the mirage of a bipolar world

    INTRODUCTION

    The reference to a “G2” resurfaced when US President Trump publicly announced that “The G2 will be convening shortly,” signalling a possible US-China duopoly in global decision-making. The Trump-Xi Busan meeting revived an older idea first articulated by economist C. Fred Bergsten in 2005. However, despite dramatic optics, the summit lacked institutional depth and showcased a transactional, spectacle-driven diplomatic approach. The renewed G2 talk generated global unease, especially among allies and emerging economies, given the risks of marginalisation and disruption of regional balances in the Indo-Pacific.

    WHY IN THE NEWS 

    Trump’s declaration that the US and China would meet as a “G2” revived the idea of a US-China duopoly at a moment of systemic geopolitical flux. The Busan meeting created significant global debate because, despite high-profile optics and selective trade concessions (soybean purchases, tariff relief, fentanyl cooperation), there were no structural commitments or conflict-management mechanisms. The sudden bypassing of broader multilateral processes unsettled allies and intensified concerns of shrinking strategic space for countries like India, especially amid shifting economic projections that show a long-term move toward a tripolar world rather than a bipolar G2.

    G2 Revival: What Does the Busan Moment Signify?

    1. Performative Diplomacy: Trump framed the meeting as a G2 encounter, signalling a claim to architect a new global order driven by bilateral spectacle rather than institutional negotiations.
    2. Transactional Bargains: China resumed US soybean imports; the US eased select tariffs and technology restrictions; cooperation was pledged on fentanyl precursors and rare-earth supply chains.
    3. Absence of Structure: No new institutions, principles, or crisis-management mechanisms were created, making the meeting high on optics but low on structural impact.

    China’s Strategic Calculus Behind the G2 Optics

    1. Symbolic Parity: Great-power parity aligns with China’s long-term ambition for equal status with the US, enhancing its global narrative.
    2. Economic Off-ramp: Tariff relief and tech flexibility help stabilise China’s domestic economy amid headwinds such as overcapacity and slowing productivity.
    3. Controlled Ambiguity: China avoided endorsing a formal duopoly, using strategic ambiguity to retain flexibility while cultivating Global South networks.

    Structural Fragility of a US-China Duopoly

    1. Deep Bilateral Contradictions: Taiwan, technology dependence, and military rivalry create structural barriers to stable cooperation.
    2. Lack of Institutional Grounding: No formal mechanisms exist to manage disputes or align long-term strategic objectives.
    3. Risk to Alliances: The G2 idea signals that alliances are expendable, undermining confidence among US partners in Asia and Europe.

    Global Implications of the G2 Notion

    1. Destabilising for Allies: Japan, South Korea, Australia fear erosion of regional balance if the US deprioritises alliances.
    2. Institutional Marginalisation: G2 bypasses multilateral institutions, weakening global governance frameworks.
    3. Supply-Chain Reconfiguration: A US-China bilateral alignment could redirect global supply chains, adversely affecting Indo-Pacific economies.

    Why the G2 Idea Alarms India

    1. Risk of Strategic Sidelining: A bilateral shortcut between the US and China may marginalise India despite its rising economic weight.
    2. Supply Chain Dependence: India’s dependence on Chinese imports (electronics, APIs, critical minerals) becomes more vulnerable.
    3. Quad Uncertainty: A possible thaw between the US and China creates ambiguity around the Indo-Pacific strategy and Quad commitments.
    4. Manufacturing Disadvantage: Reduced US pressure on China undercuts India’s ambition to position itself as a credible alternative manufacturing hub.

    Long-term Trend: A Tripolar, Not Bipolar, World

    1. Economic Projections: PwC and Goldman Sachs project by 2050 a tripolar structure: China (1st), India (2nd), US (3rd) in PPP terms.
    2. Limits on China’s Rise: Demographic contraction and industrial overcapacity constrain China’s long-term dominance.
    3. India’s Structural Advantages: Young workforce, expanding market, tech ambitions support India’s rise as a major economic pole.
    4. US Position: Innovation strength persists, but political polarisation and ageing demographics slow future growth.

    CONCLUSION

    Trump’s revival of the G2 is more spectacle than substance, reflecting a transitional phase rather than a durable geopolitical redesign. Structural contradictions, alliance concerns, and global economic shifts limit the feasibility of a US-China duopoly. The long-term trajectory points to broader multipolarity, with India emerging as a critical pole in global politics. The Busan moment thus underscores the instability of great-power bargains that bypass wider global participation and institutional frameworks.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] “The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union.” Explain.

    Linkage: The PYQ statement directly connects to intensifying US-China strategic rivalry, which shapes the global balance of power, technology races, and Indo-Pacific security dynamics. It is highly relevant for GS-II (IR) as it influences India’s strategic space, Quad calculus, supply-chain realignments, and the emerging multipolar world order.

  • Operation Pawan  

    Why in the News?

    • For the first time, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Upendra Dwivedi paid homage at the National War Memorial to soldiers who died during Operation Pawan (1987–1990).
    • Event held on 25 November 2025.

    What was Operation Pawan?

    • A major military operation launched by the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka.
    • Objective: Disarm the LTTE under the Indo–Sri Lanka Accord (1987).
    • Duration: October 1987 – 1990.

    Background

    • Under the Indo–Sri Lanka Peace Accord (July 1987):
      • India agreed to deploy IPKF to enforce peace in Northern & Eastern Sri Lanka.
      • The LTTE initially agreed to surrender weapons but soon reneged.

    Casualties in Operation

    • Hundreds of Indian soldiers killed, and over 1,000 injured.
    • One of India’s largest overseas military operations.

    National War Memorial

    • Location: New Delhi, near India Gate.
    • Dedicated to soldiers of post-Independence operations including:
      • 1947–48, 1962, 1965, 1971 wars
      • Kargil 1999
      • IPKF operations, and counter-insurgency missions.

    Importance of the IPKF Mission 

    • First large-scale out-of-country deployment of Indian forces.
    • Political and military complexities:
      • Fighting LTTE, once seen sympathetically by India.
      • Hostile terrain and guerrilla warfare challenges.
    Operations undertaken by the Army towards upliftment of the local population in remote areas to include addressing of their basic needs is called:  (2024)

    (a) Operation Sankalp 

    (b) Operation Maitri 

    (c) Operation Sadbhavana 

    (d) Operation Madad

    This question is highly relevant as it tests the specific format of knowledge required for Operation Pawan (the name and mission of a defence action).

  • [26th November 2025] Hindu OpED Trump-MbS summit- $1 trillion among friends

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union. Explain.

    Linkage: The Trump-MbS summit reflects the U.S. strategy of rebuilding alliances to counter China’s growing influence in West Asia, where Beijing has expanded economically and diplomatically. The revived U.S.-Saudi partnership strengthens America’s geopolitical position in a region where China had begun to outpace it.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Trump-Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) summit marks a major inflection in West Asia’s geopolitical landscape. The article examines the renewed U.S.-Saudi alignment, its military-economic scale, its contrast with earlier strains, and its strategic implications for India. This simplified yet UPSC-rich analysis helps aspirants understand the evolving balance of power in West Asia and its global consequences.

    WHY IN THE NEWS 

    The article is significant because the U.S.-Saudi bilateral relationship has revived after years of drift, culminating in Trump’s first West Asia visit where both sides advanced $242 billion defence deals and $270 billion investment commitments, a scale unseen since the 1945 FDR-Saudi pact. The summit signals the return of transactional, high-value U.S.-Saudi cooperation, a sharp contrast to the Biden years of friction, Khashoggi tensions, and Saudi diversification toward China and Russia. This reset represents one of the largest bilateral economic-military consolidations globally, reshaping energy, security, and global power equations.

    INTRODUCTION

    The U.S.-Saudi partnership has historically shaped post-Second World War geopolitics, especially in energy and security. The Trump-MbS summit renews this legacy by combining massive defence sales, investment promises, and realignment on regional issues such as Iran, sanctions, and energy security. The revived partnership represents both strategic opportunity and geopolitical recalibration.

    What drives the renewed U.S.-Saudi strategic alignment?

    1. Historic continuity: Reconnects with the 1945 FDR-Ibn Saud “oil-for-security” pact revived in 2005 and 2025.
    2. Exceptional summit chemistry: Trump and MbS elevated bilateral commitments during Trump’s first regional visit.
    3. High-value agreements: $242 billion military commitments and $270 billion investment forum deals signal unprecedented scale.
    4. Shared interests: Addresses U.S. need for Gulf stability and Saudi need for defence, investment, and autonomy.

    How has the bilateral relationship evolved from past highs and lows?

    1. Historical tensions: 1973 oil embargo, 1980s missile purchases from China, Yemen war tensions, and the Khashoggi killing strained ties.
    2. Biden-era rifts: Public criticism of Saudi human rights issues pushed Riyadh closer to China and Russia.
    3. Saudi diversification: Riyadh’s engagement with Xi Jinping and Middle Eastern summits signal multipolar diplomacy.
    4. Return to U.S. orbit: Trump’s visit and renewed defence-economic convergence restore traditional alignment.

    What are the key outcomes of the Trump-MbS summit?

    1. Massive defence deals: Commitment to supply $242 billion in U.S. military equipment.
    2. Investment surge: MbS aims to raise Saudi investments in the U.S. economy from $600 billion to $1 trillion.
    3. Energy cooperation: Coordination on oil production to maintain a moderate, sustainable price.
    4. AI & tech collaboration: U.S. and Saudi firms advance “future-ready AI projects,” including AI chips.
    5. Regional stabilisation agenda: Coordination on Iran, Yemen ceasefire, and navigation security.

    What are the emerging regional geopolitical implications?

    1. U.S.-Saudi-Russia triangle: Saudi alignment tempers Russian oil revenue by stabilising global oil prices.
    2. Sanctions dynamics: U.S.-Saudi cooperation supports enforcement of sanctions on Iran and Venezuela.
    3. Security architecture: Signals continuity of U.S. commitment to Gulf security despite regional volatility.
    4. NATO+ narrative: U.S. sees Saudi as a “major non-NATO ally,” pushing deeper defence integration.

    What does this recalibration mean for India?

    1. Energy stability: Coordinated U.S.-Saudi oil policy keeps prices moderate, critical for India’s energy security.
    2. Defence + tech prospects: Saudi Vision 2030 and U.S. tech investments open new opportunities for Indian firms.
    3. Strategic partnership: India needs to accelerate the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Saudi Arabia.
    4. Geopolitical balancing: India must navigate U.S.-Saudi rapprochement while maintaining ties with Iran and Russia.

    CONCLUSION

    The Trump-MbS summit revives a historic partnership at a scale unmatched in recent years. By combining large defence contracts, investment flows, and re-alignment on energy security, the U.S.-Saudi partnership is again central to West Asian geopolitics. For India, this moment offers both opportunity and the need for strategic agility.

     

  • INS Sahyadri–HMAS Ballarat in AUSINDEX 2025

     Why in the News?

    INS Sahyadri of the Indian Navy and HMAS Ballarat of the Royal Australian Navy participated in the AUSINDEX 2025 bilateral maritime exercise in the Northern Pacific, strengthening India–Australia defence cooperation and enhancing interoperability.

    What is AUSINDEX?  

    • Bilateral naval exercise between India and Australia
    • First held in 2015
    • Aims at maritime cooperation, interoperability, and security
    • Conducted alternately in India and Australia / designated oceanic regions

    AUSINDEX 2025 

    • Location: Northern Pacific
    • Participants:
    • INS Sahyadri – Shivalik-class guided-missile stealth frigate
    • HMAS Ballarat – Anzac-class frigate
    • Focus areas:
        • Anti-submarine warfare (ASW)
        • Gunnery drills
        • Advanced flying operations
        • Joint maritime manoeuvres
    • Objective: Boost interoperability and reaffirm commitment to a free, open, inclusive Indo-Pacific
    With reference to India’s defence, consider the following pairs: (2025)

    I. Dornier-228 : Maritime patrol aircraft 

    II. IL-76 : Supersonic combat aircraft III. C-17 Globemaster 

    III : Military transport aircraft 

    How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched? 

    (a) Only one 

    (b) Only two 

    (c) All the three 

    (d) None

  • [22nd November 2025] The Hindu Op-ED: The new direction for India should be toward Asia

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] 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 question is relevant as the article highlights India’s discomfort with Western strategic pressure and the U.S. attempt to position India as a counter-weight to China. It directly links to the theme that India must prioritise Asian partnerships based on autonomy rather than being shaped by Western geopolitical expectations.

    Mentor’s Comment

    India’s foreign policy stands at its most decisive turning point in decades. Recent global summits have marked a visible discomfort in Western partnerships and a stronger inclination toward Asian platforms such as SCO, BRICS, and ASEAN. If sustained, this pivot could influence not only India’s security and economy but also the balance of power across the 21st century.

    Introduction

    India is emerging as a global economic heavyweight. At a time when geopolitical polarization between the West and China is intensifying, India is being pushed to define where its long-term interests lie. The article argues that India’s most strategic future lies within the Asian ecosystem, economically, technologically and militarily, rather than within Western-led institutional frameworks.

    Why in the News

    Diplomatic signals at recent top summits have shown a clear turning point: India expressed discomfort with the U.S. stance on Russia-China while showing greater comfort engaging Asian multilateral platforms. This reverses decades of Western strategic centrality and marks the first open debate about whether India should integrate with a U.S.-dominated global order or anchor its future with Asia’s rapidly rising power architecture.

    Is India undergoing a decisive Asian pivot?

    1. Growing tilt toward Asian blocs: India’s policy space is increasingly shaped by negotiations with China and Russia rather than the U.S. and Europe.
    2. Limits of multialignment exposed: External pressure from the U.S. forces India to re-evaluate whether neutrality remains viable.

    Why is Western strategic centrality fading for India?

    1. Summit unease and leadership signalling: Interactions at the G-7 and Busan Summit highlighted visible discomfort between Indian and U.S. leadership.
    2. U.S. pressure on trade and Russia policy: Washington expects India to align its tariff playbook and Russian relations to Western priorities.
    3. Security divergence: U.S.-driven defence expectations conflict with India’s commitment to independent threat assessment.

    Why does Asia offer a stronger pathway for India’s growth?

    1. Demographic and economic centre of gravity: Two-thirds of global population and global wealth lie in Asia, creating large consumer and innovation markets.
    2. Rise of continental and maritime platforms: BRICS, SCO and ASEAN integrate security with economic restructuring outside WTO constraints.
    3. Technological and industrial complementarities: Asian RCEP supply chains, semiconductor hubs, manufacturing and defence technologies align with India’s development goals.

    What hard decisions are demanded from India now?

    1. Strategic autonomy based on Indian capacity: Policy alignment must reflect national strengths rather than expectations of great powers.
    2. Growth-labour dynamic within Asia: Asia offers the highest growth rate and workforce depth but demands competitiveness and industrial performance from India.
    3. Reducing dependency on imported defence systems: Innovation in AI, cyber capability, missiles and marine strength becomes essential.

    How does the global AI and military innovation race shape India’s choices?

    1. Shift from land-based warfare to technology-centric warfare: Cyber, naval and AI superiority determine 21st-century power projection.
    2. Asian innovation ecosystem more open than Western models: Western blocs impose regulatory constraints while Asia prioritises co-development and technology transfer.
    3. Defence industrialisation as a growth multiplier: AI-driven defence manufacturing advances both national security and economic output.

    Conclusion

    India is not compelled to choose between the West and Asia, but strategic realities suggest that Asia provides the most fertile ground for technological development, economic partnerships and military advancement. A calibrated pivot anchored in strategic autonomy and innovation may be the key to India becoming a rule-shaping, rather than rule-following, global power by mid-century.

  • NSA hosts 7th meeting of Colombo Security Conclave in Delhi

    Why In The News?

    At the 7th NSA-level Colombo Security Conclave meeting, member states prioritised cooperation on five pillars: maritime security, counterterrorism and radicalisation, trafficking and transnational crime, cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, aiming to strengthen regional security coordination.

    About Colombo Security Conclave (CSC):

    • Regional Grouping: A security platform comprising India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Mauritius; Seychelles is an observer.
    • Objective: To enhance regional security and address transnational threats of common concern.
    • Origin: Began in 2011 as the Trilateral Maritime Security Cooperation between India, Maldives, Sri Lanka.
    • Hiatus: Became inactive after 2014 due to India-Maldives tensions.
    • Revival: Rebranded as CSC in 2020; Mauritius and later Bangladesh joined.
    • Participation: Involves NSAs and Deputy NSAs of member states.
    • Key Areas of Cooperation:
      • Maritime safety and security
      • Counterterrorism and radicalisation
      • Combating trafficking and transnational organised crime
      • Cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure
      • Humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
    [UPSC 2017] Consider the following in respect of Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS)

    1. Inaugural IONS was held in India in 2015 under the chairmanship of the Indian Navy.

    2. IONS is a voluntary initiative that seeks to increase maritime co-operation among navies of the littoral states of the Indian Ocean Region.

    Which of the above statements is/are correct ? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only* (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • India needs to ‘connect, build and revive’ with Africa

    Introduction

    India’s partnership with Africa is embedded in shared anti-colonial history, South-South cooperation, and long-standing developmental commitments. Over the last decade, India’s diplomatic presence, investments, training initiatives, and cultural engagement have expanded across the continent. However, shifting geopolitical equations, intensifying global competition, and Africa’s rising economic potential demand an upgraded, value-driven, and sustained approach. The article argues that India must now “connect, build and revive” its Africa policy to maintain its strategic foothold and align with Africa’s aspirations.

    Why in the News?

    A decade after hosting the largest-ever India-Africa Forum Summit, India’s engagement with Africa is again at a pivotal moment. India has added 17 new missions, trade has crossed USD 100 billion, and investment flows are surging. Yet Indian trade still lags behind China, and many flagship promises made in 2015 require renewed momentum. As Africa is set to become home to one-fourth of the world’s population by 2050, the scale, urgency, and strategic importance of India’s outreach makes this moment historically significant.

    How has India’s outreach to Africa evolved in the past decade?

    1. Expanded diplomatic footprint: India added 17 new missions across Africa, enhancing its on-ground presence and bilateral engagement.
    2. Rising investment flows: India’s investment stock has crossed USD 100 billion, making it among Africa’s top five investors.
    3. Growth in trade partnerships: Bilateral trade has crossed USD 100 billion, demonstrating the growing economic synergy.
    4. Enhanced defence cooperation: Joint naval exercises such as AIMKEME (April 2025) saw participation from navies of Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, and Tanzania.
    5. Stronger multilateral alignment: India played a key role in enabling African Union membership in the G20, elevating Africa’s global voice.

    Why is Africa emerging as a strategic priority for India?

    1. Demographic transformation: By 2050, one in four people on Earth will be Africa, a major consumer, labour, and talent base.
    2. Economic potential: Africa will be the world’s third-largest economy, creating opportunities in technology, health, infra, and manufacturing.
    3. Geopolitical influence: Africa’s global role is expanding, and India aims to support African representation in global institutions and peacekeeping operations.
    4. Shared developmental priorities: From education to digital public goods, India’s model aligns naturally with African development aspirations.

    What challenges persist in India-Africa trade relations?

    1. Lag behind China: India’s trade with Africa is expanding but still far behind China, which has deeper and wider market penetration.
    2. Logistical hurdles: Indian firms often face bureaucratic delays, small balance sheets, and scalability issues.
    3. Fragmented strategy: India’s UPID, digital stack, and trade missions have strengths but lack coordinated continental impact.
    4. Competition from Europe and Asia: New entrants are building deeper financial and infrastructural linkages across the continent.

    How is India building capacity and knowledge partnerships in Africa?

    1. Human capital initiatives: India’s most enduring export to Africa is human capital, created through scholarships, training programs, and institutional partnerships.
    2. Education & digital training: The new IIT Madras campus in Zanzibar is a flagship example of education-based cooperation.
    3. Decadal knowledge ecosystems: Pan-African e-Network and India’s ITEC programme continue to train thousands across African nations.
    4. Institutional bridges: African experts, ministers, and students working in India create lasting diplomatic and economic linkages.

    What future steps should India take to revitalise momentum?

    1. Move from promises to real outcomes: Lines of credit must become visible, viable, and deliverable rather than symbolic.
    2. Build the India-Africa Digital Corridor: Collaboration on UPI, Aadhaar-stack, and digital payments can create a shared digital infrastructure.
    3. Reinforce the institutional base: Revive the summit-based momentum of IAFS and reintroduce regular leadership exchanges.
    4. Integrate private sector participation: Encourage start-ups, MSMEs, and fintech companies to expand into African markets.
    5. Strengthen maritime cooperation: The Western Indian Ocean is becoming central to supply-chain security and blue-economy partnerships.

    Conclusion

    India’s partnership with Africa is rooted in trust, shared history, and developmental solidarity. But the world around both regions is changing rapidly. Africa’s demographic rise, digital aspirations, and geopolitical importance demand that India convert intent into implementation. “Connect, build, and revive” offers a timely blueprint for elevating India-Africa relations into a mature, inclusive, and futuristic partnership, one that benefits both regions and strengthens India’s global standing.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Explain the reasons for the growth of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?

    Linkage: Judiciary is one of the most important topics for GS-II. This PYQ tests how failures of the lower judiciary, delay, pendency, and weak remedies, drive the rise of PILs and expand the Supreme Court’s role. The article directly shows these systemic gaps, explaining why litigants bypass subordinate courts and seek relief through PILs.

  • Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands Issue

    Why in the News?

    A China Coast Guard formation patrolled the Senkaku waters as Beijing escalated tensions with Japan over recent remarks on Taiwan.

    Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands Issue

    About the Senkaku–Diaoyu Islands Issue:

    • Location & Status: A small uninhabited island group in the East China Sea, claimed by Japan, China, and Taiwan.
    • Names: Japan calls them Senkaku, China Diaoyu, and Taiwan Diaoyutai.
    • Administration: Japan has administered the islands since 1972 after the Okinawa Reversion Agreement with the United States.
    • Geography: Consists of five islands and three rocks, covering ~7 sq km; the largest is Uotsuri.
    • Strategic Location: Situated near major shipping lanes linking East Asia to global trade routes.
    • Natural Resources: Surrounding waters believed to hold oil and natural gas deposits, highlighted in a 1969 UN report.
    • Fisheries: Rich fishing grounds add significant economic importance.
    • Geopolitical Value: Located at the junction of interests of Japan, China, Taiwan, and the United States, making it a strategic flashpoint.

    What is the Dispute?

    • Japanese Claim: Japan incorporated the islands in January 1895, asserting they were terra nullius based on surveys from 1885 that found no Chinese administration.
    • Chinese & Taiwanese Claim: Cite dynastic-era maps, navigation records, and Qing documents to argue sovereignty predates Japanese control.
    • Post–World War II Status: The US took control under the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, administering the islands as part of the Nansei Shoto region.
    • 1971 Shift: Transfer of Senkaku and Okinawa back to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement sparked protests from China and Taiwan.
    • Resource Trigger: China’s active claim strengthened after the 1969 UN report identified potential hydrocarbon reserves.
    • 2012 Escalation: Japan’s purchase of three privately owned islands led to widespread protests, attacks on Japanese businesses, and a surge in nationalist sentiment in China.
    • Current Tensions: Chinese Coast Guard vessels frequently enter surrounding waters to assert Beijing’s claim.
    • Broader Dynamics: Linked to nationalism, unresolved historical grievances, and strategic competition between China, Japan, and the United States across the Indo-Pacific.
    [UPSC 2022] Which one of the following statements best reflects the issue with Senkaku Islands, sometimes mentioned in the news?

    Options: (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.

     

  • [14th November 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Donald Trump shakes up the global nuclear order

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union.  Explain.

    Linkage: China’s denial of nuclear testing and its call for the U.S. to uphold the moratorium illustrate the sharper, more complex strategic rivalry between the two powers. This directly aligns with the PYQ’s theme that China poses a subtler and more challenging strategic threat to the U.S. than the Soviet Union.

    Mentor’s Comment

    This editorial examines how recent U.S. actions under Donald Trump have disrupted long-standing global nuclear norms, especially the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) framework. The article evaluates implications for global nuclear stability, India’s strategic environment, and emerging arms-race dynamics. It has been rewritten to suit UPSC Mains standards, with structured analysis, value addition, and exam-oriented elements.

    INTRODUCTION

    The global nuclear order, built since 1945 through treaties, moratoria, and non-proliferation norms, is undergoing significant strain. The U.S. announcement of resuming nuclear testing and redefining CTBT obligations marks a decisive departure from three decades of restraint. This shift impacts nuclear doctrines, arms control regimes, and the behaviour of declared and undeclared nuclear weapon states.

    WHY IN THE NEWS 

    The CTBT framework faces its sharpest crisis in 27 years after Donald Trump declared that the U.S. may resume nuclear explosive testing, reversing the long-standing global moratorium. This marks the first major deviation from post-Cold War consensus and directly challenges existing verification norms. With Russia abandoning CTBT ratification and China refusing explosive testing, the U.S. move risks triggering a new technological arms race, raising concerns for India’s regional security environment.

    How the Nuclear Order Evolved

    1. Post-1945 restructuring: Nuclear stockpiles reduced from ~65,000 warheads in the 1970s to ~12,500 today; nine states now possess nuclear weapons.
    2. NPT framework: NPT created a hierarchy between five permanent nuclear powers and later entrants such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
    3. Moratorium period: CTBT negotiations from 1993-96 led to a global halt on explosive tests despite the treaty never entering into force.

    Why the U.S. Nuclear Test Resumption Matters

    1. Resumption of explosive testing: President Trump instructed the U.S. DoE and DoD to prepare for renewed testing, reversing a voluntary halt maintained since 1992.
    2. Shift in doctrine: U.S. pursuit of low-yield warheads and submarine-launched cruise missiles signals a move to battlefield-oriented nuclear systems.
    3. Erosion of restraint: The U.S. argues Russia and China conduct “non-explosive yield tests,” challenging Washington’s previous compliance stance.

    Why the CTBT Is Facing Breakdown

    1. Treaty not in force: CTBT requires ratification by 187 signatory states; key holdouts include the U.S., China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
    2. Russia’s reversal: Russia withdrew CTBT ratification in 2023, citing U.S. non-ratification.
    3. Competing interpretations: China and Russia continue “zero-yield” testing; the CTBT Organization’s monitoring system detects global activity through 300+ stations.

    How New Technology Is Altering the Arms Race

    1. Low-yield weapons: U.S. development of W76-2 warheads creates escalation risks due to tactical usability.
    2. Unmanned and hypersonic systems: Renewed R&D on missile defence, high-tech cruise systems, and autonomous platforms challenges existing deterrence logic.
    3. Doctrinal changes: Nuclear powers pursue counterforce-oriented designs to survive adversary first strikes.

    Implications for India

    1. Regional chain reaction: Testing by the U.S., Russia, or China is likely to push Pakistan to follow, widening the deterrence gap with India.
    2. China-Pakistan axis: Deepening technological cooperation complicates India’s security environment.
    3. NPT/CTBT dilemma: India may face pressure on whether to revisit explosive testing if others abandon restraint.

    CONCLUSION

    The breakdown of CTBT norms marks the most significant shift in the nuclear order since the 1990s. Renewed explosive testing by major powers could trigger competitive modernization cycles and weaken global arms control regimes. For India, the challenge lies in balancing credible deterrence with adherence to restraint-based global norms.

    Value Addition

    What is CTBT?

    • A multilateral arms-control treaty that bans all nuclear explosions, for both civilian and military purposes.
    • Aims to freeze qualitative nuclear arms race by preventing the development of new warhead designs.

    When was it negotiated?

    • Negotiated at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) between 1993-1996.
    • Adopted by the UNGA on 10 September 1996.
    • Opened for signature on 24 September 1996.

    Why is it not in force?

    • CTBT will enter into force only when all 44 Annex-II states (states with nuclear capabilities at the time) ratify it.
    • As of today, 8 Annex-II states have not ratified/signed:
      U.S., China, India, Pakistan, DPRK, Israel, Iran, Egypt.
    • Because of this, the treaty remains legally incomplete, though politically influential.

    Key Provisions

    1. Total Prohibition
      • Bans all nuclear explosions, including:
        • High-yield tests
        • Low-yield tests
        • Subcritical tests (disputed)
      • Applies to all environments: underground, underwater, atmospheric, outer space.
    2. Verification Regime
      • International Monitoring System (IMS) with 300+ stations, using:
        • Seismic sensors
        • Hydroacoustic monitors
        • Infrasound detectors
        • Radionuclide sampling
      • International Data Centre (IDC) analyses global test signals.
      • On-site inspections permitted after treaty enters into force.
    3. Confidence-Building Measures
      • Exchange of information, calibration explosions, technical cooperation.

    Institutional Mechanism

    • CTBTO Preparatory Commission (CTBTO-PrepCom) established in 1997.
    • Manages:
      • IMS network construction
      • Data analysis
      • Training and inspection readiness
    • Works despite treaty not being in force.

    Significance

    • Creates the strongest global norm against nuclear testing since 1998.
    • Slows modernization of nuclear arsenals.
    • Provides scientific verification for early detection of clandestine tests.
    • Complements Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and FMCT debates.

     

  • ​Fishing troubles: On India, Sri Lanka, the Palk Bay fishing issue

    Introduction

    The Palk Bay, a narrow strip separating Tamil Nadu from Sri Lanka, has historically been a shared fishing zone. However, repeated arrests of Indian fishermen for crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) underline a persistent challenge. Bottom trawling, a destructive fishing practice, has been the core issue fueling ecological degradation, diplomatic tension, and economic distress. The recent arrest on November 9, 2024, reopens the debate on reconciling traditional livelihoods with sustainable and legal marine resource use.

    Why in the news?

    The arrest of 14 Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy marks another flashpoint in the Palk Bay fishing dispute. This incident is significant because:

    1. Persistence of conflict: Despite decades of talks, fishermen from both nations continue to cross maritime boundaries for catch-rich zones.
    2. Scale of problem: Over 128 fishermen from Tamil Nadu remain in Sri Lankan custody, with boats seized.
    3. Diplomatic urgency: The issue features regularly in bilateral meetings, yet lacks a lasting policy resolution.
    4. Ecological threat: The practice of bottom trawling continues to damage coral beds and marine biodiversity, making it a cross-border environmental crisis.

    Why do Tamil Nadu fishermen continue to cross the IMBL?

    1. Livelihood dependence: For thousands of families, fishing remains the only sustainable income source. The depletion of nearshore fish stocks has pushed them toward Sri Lankan waters.
    2. Cost-pressure fishing: Each voyage involves high operational costs, forcing fishermen to maximize yield through fast, large-scale trawling.
    3. Traditional persistence: The term “tradition” is often invoked to justify trawling, despite its destructive ecological footprint.
    4. Rapid voyages: Quick trawling runs enhance profitability but heighten the risk of arrest and confiscation.

    What is bottom trawling and why is it destructive?

    1. Definition: Bottom trawling involves dragging weighted nets along the seabed.
    2. Ecological damage: It destroys coral reefs, seabed habitats, and fish spawning grounds.
    3. Stock depletion: Leads to overfishing and long-term decline of commercially valuable species.
    4. Conflict trigger: Sri Lankan fishermen, especially from the Northern Province, oppose bottom trawling as it depletes shared marine resources vital for their post-war recovery.

    What are the diplomatic and institutional mechanisms in place?

    1. Joint Working Group (JWG) on Fisheries: Met in Colombo on October 29, 2024 to address arrests and sustainable fishing practices.
    2. Bilateral discussions: Fishermen’s representatives met counterparts in March 2024, but lacked formal sanction or actionable outcomes.
    3. Pending initiatives: The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna-led People’s Power Party in Sri Lanka, in power for over a year, has yet to show urgency in resolving the dispute.

    What policy solutions have been suggested?

    1. Research collaboration: Proposal for a Palk Bay Research Station for ecosystem monitoring and sustainable fishing methods.
    2. Technology transition: Gradual shift from bottom trawling to deep-sea fishing and small-boat operations.
    3. Incentivization: Financial and policy support to Tamil Nadu fishermen to switch to non-destructive gear and practices.
    4. Diplomatic liberalism: New Delhi may consider easing travel and fishing permits within limits to facilitate safe, sustainable livelihoods.
    5. Regulatory measures: Imposing a progressive ban on bottom trawling in Indian waters to signal intent and compliance.

    Conclusion

    The Palk Bay issue is not merely a border dispute, it is a test of India’s ability to balance livelihood protection with ecological responsibility and regional diplomacy. Persuading fishermen to abandon bottom trawling requires education, compensation, and innovation, not coercion. A cooperative framework, rooted in mutual trust and science-based regulation, can transform a contentious boundary into a shared zone of prosperity and peace.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] In respect of India-Sri Lanka relations, discuss how domestic factors influence foreign policy.

    Linkage: Domestic political pressures from Tamil Nadu fishermen and state parties shape India’s diplomatic stance toward Sri Lanka. This internal-external linkage influences how New Delhi balances livelihood concerns with bilateral maritime cooperation.