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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • [11th November 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A celebration of India-Bhutan ties

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Discuss the geopolitical and geostrategic importance of Maldives for India with a focus on global trade and energy flows. Further, also discuss how this relationship affects India’s maritime security and regional stability amidst international competition.

    Linkage: This PYQ reflects the same strategic framework as India-Bhutan relations; where geography, stability, and mutual trust drive India’s Neighbourhood First and Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR) vision.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The 70th birth anniversary of Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the fourth King of Bhutan, serves as a moment to celebrate not just a monarch’s life but the enduring India-Bhutan partnership that he helped shape. His leadership modernised Bhutan and deepened one of South Asia’s most stable and mutually respectful bilateral relationships built on trust, hydropower diplomacy, and shared values of sustainable development and cultural harmony.

    Introduction

    The former King of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, turned 70 on November 11, 2025. Revered by his people as a Bodhisattva King, he ruled Bhutan from 1972 until his abdication in 2006 in favour of his son, King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. Known for introducing the concept of Gross National Happiness (GNH) and steering Bhutan into the modern era, his legacy also symbolizes the deep and evolving friendship between India and Bhutan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Thimphu for the celebrations marks the continuation of this historic bond. This underlines India’s Neighbourhood First Policy and commitment to strengthening Himalayan partnerships.

    The Legacy of a Sage King

    1. Modernisation of Bhutan: King Jigme Singye Wangchuck guided Bhutan into the 21st century with policies balancing economic progress, environmental sustainability, and cultural preservation.
    2. Buddhist Leadership Ethos: Revered almost like a Buddha, he was loved for his humility and focus on inner happiness, embodied in the philosophy of Gross National Happiness.
    3. Abdication for Reform: His voluntary abdication in 2006 for his son represented a rare act of democratic foresight, leading Bhutan towards constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

    India-Bhutan Relations: A Model of Neighbourhood Diplomacy

    1. Neighbourhood First Priority: Bhutan was the first foreign country visited by PM Modi in 2014 after assuming office, highlighting Bhutan’s symbolic and strategic importance.
    2. Mutual Cultural Affinity: The relationship is grounded in shared civilizational ethos, Buddhism, and trust, rather than transactional diplomacy.
    3. Joint Celebrations: Modi’s participation in the birthday celebrations reflects India’s continued recognition of Bhutan as a trusted Himalayan partner.

    Hydropower Diplomacy: The Cornerstone of Economic Partnership

    1. Strategic Energy Partnership: India and Bhutan have developed one of South Asia’s most successful hydropower cooperation models, with electricity from Bhutan’s rivers exported to India.
    2. Economic Impact: Projects like the Punasangchhu-I and Punasangchhu-II hydropower projects contribute significantly to Bhutan’s GDP and India’s clean energy imports.
    3. Job Creation and Development: Revenue from hydropower has raised Bhutan’s per capita income, reflecting a sustainable model of bilateral interdependence.
    4. Private Sector Expansion: Future projects are likely to be developed by private Indian companies in collaboration with Bhutanese partners, expanding beyond state-led initiatives.

    Issues of National Security and Strategic Alignment

    1. Advisory Role of the King: Former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck continues to play a strategic advisory role (K4) on national security and foreign policy.
    2. Security Cooperation: India’s Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) works closely with Indian defence forces to secure borders and enhance counter-insurgency cooperation.
    3. Operation All Clear (2003): Bhutan’s successful military operation, supported by India, removed insurgent groups from its territory; a hallmark of trust-based defence partnership.
    4. Geopolitical Balance: Bhutan continues to balance relations with India while cautiously managing ties with China, guided by India’s support in maintaining sovereignty and stability.

    India’s Continued Developmental Support

    1. Hydropower Assistance: India remains Bhutan’s largest partner in hydropower development, ensuring energy security for both nations.
    2. Community Development Projects: Support extends to education, healthcare, and monastic infrastructure, reinforcing India’s soft power in the region.
    3. Trade and Connectivity: India’s assistance in roads, border management, and trade routes enhances regional connectivity under the BBIN framework.

    Conclusion

    The celebration of King Jigme Singye Wangchuck’s 70th birthday is more than an homage to a revered monarch, it is a testament to the unbroken trust, shared development, and mutual respect between India and Bhutan. The hydropower-driven partnership continues to set an example of how small states and large neighbours can coexist through equality, respect, and common vision. As India continues to invest in Bhutan’s progress, this Himalayan partnership stands as a model of enduring regional cooperation and spiritual kinship.

  • Financial Sector Assessment (FSA) Report by World Bank

    Why in the News?

    The World Bank’s November 2025 Financial Sector Assessment (FSA) Report says India must deepen financial reforms and boost private capital to reach its $30 trillion economy goal by 2047.

    What is the Financial Sector Assessment (FSA) Report?

    • Overview: It is a joint evaluation by the IMF and World Bank under the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), launched in 1999 to review a country’s financial stability and institutional soundness.
    • Objective: Assesses the resilience, inclusiveness, and stability of the financial system, analysing how well it supports sustainable and equitable growth.
    • Scope: Covers banks, NBFCs, insurance, capital markets, and payment systems, along with regulation, supervision, and crisis management frameworks.
    • Methodology: Uses stress tests, policy diagnostics, and supervisory assessments to evaluate financial soundness and regulatory effectiveness.
    • Frequency: Conducted every 5–7 years, tracking policy reforms and emerging risks in both advanced and emerging economies.

    Key Highlights: India’s FSA Report 2025

    • Improved Stability: Found India’s financial system more diversified, inclusive, and resilient than in 2017, aided by regulatory reforms.
    • Reform Success: Credited India for recovering from the 2010s banking crisis and COVID-19 shocks through RBI’s tighter supervision of banks and NBFCs.
    • Regulatory Strengthening: Praised the extension of RBI’s authority over cooperative banks and scale-based regulation for NBFCs.
    • Digital Financial Inclusion: Highlighted India’s UPI, Aadhaar, and Jan Dhan ecosystem as global benchmarks for financial access and gender inclusion.
    • Capital Market Expansion: Reported capital markets’ size rising from 144% to 175% of GDP since 2017, driven by investor confidence and strong infrastructure.
    • Policy Recommendations: Advised improving credit-risk management, developing conduct-risk oversight for mutual funds, and empowering self-regulatory bodies.
    • Private Capital Mobilization: Urged creation of credit-enhancement and securitization platforms to attract global long-term investors.
    • Strategic Vision: Emphasized that continued reforms, deeper markets, and financial integration are essential to achieving India’s $30 trillion economy goal by 2047.
    [UPSC 2015] Which one of the following issues the ‘Global Economic Prospects’ report periodically?
    Options:
    (a) The Asian Development Bank
    (b) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
    (c) The US Federal Reserve Bank
    (d) The World Bank*

     

  • Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO)

    Why in the News?

    China has rejected President Trump’s claim of secret nuclear tests, reaffirming its commitment to the CTBT amid renewed U.S. calls for nuclear testing and revived Cold War–style tensions.

    About Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO):

    • Establishment: Formed in 1996 under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) to build and operate a verification regime ensuring compliance with the global ban on nuclear explosions.
    • Headquarters: Vienna, Austria.
    • Mandate: To monitor adherence to the CTBT through a global verification system capable of detecting any nuclear test anywhere in the world.
    • Verification System: Operates the International Monitoring System (IMS) with 337 facilities, including seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasound, and radionuclide stations to detect underground, underwater, or atmospheric nuclear tests.
    • Data Centre: The International Data Centre (IDC) analyses and distributes real-time data to member states, providing early warning of suspicious activities.
    • Preparatory Commission: Functions until the CTBT formally enters into force, maintaining operational readiness and supporting states’ verification capabilities.
    • Scientific Applications: The IMS also contributes to tsunami warning systems, atmospheric research, and disaster response, reinforcing the CTBTO’s global utility beyond disarmament.

    Back2Basics: How are CTBT and NPT related?

    • Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are closely linked pillars of the global nuclear arms control regime:
      1. Shared Goal: Both aim to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote disarmament.
      2. Scope Difference: The NPT focuses on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful nuclear use; the CTBT bans all nuclear explosions for any purpose.
      3. Chronological Link: The NPT (1970) came first, creating the legal framework for non-proliferation; the CTBT (1996) built on it by prohibiting testing, reinforcing the NPT’s disarmament pillar.
      4. Verification and Compliance: The CTBT adds technical verification through the International Monitoring System, complementing NPT’s safeguards under the IAEA.
      5. Disarmament Pathway: Ratification of the CTBT is often viewed as a key step toward fulfilling Article VI of the NPT, which obliges nuclear powers to pursue disarmament.

    Status of the Treaty and Ratification Gap:

    • Adoption: It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996 and opened for signature on September 24, 1996.
    • Membership: As of 2025, 187 states have signed and 178 have ratified the treaty.
    • Enforcement: It will become legally binding only after 44 specific “Annex 2” states, those with nuclear technology at the time ratify it.
    • Pending Ratifications: Eight critical states have not ratified the treaty- China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and the United States (signatories but unratified), and India, Pakistan, and North Korea (non-signatories).
    • Recent Setback: In 2023, Russia revoked its ratification, though it continues to observe a testing moratorium, weakening the treaty’s political momentum.
    • Global Compliance: Despite legal limbo, a de facto moratorium on nuclear testing has largely held since the 1990s; only North Korea has violated it with tests since 2006.
    • Significance: The CTBT remains a cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime, its verification network providing both deterrence and transparency even without formal legal enforcement.
    [UPSC 2015] Consider the following countries:

    1.  China 2. France 3. India 4. Israel 5. Pakistan

    Which among the above are Nuclear Weapons States as recognized by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

    (a) 1 and 2 only * (b) 1, 3, 4 and 5 only  (c) 2, 4 and 5 only  (d) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

     

  • Bangladesh’s accession to the UN Water Convention

    Why in the News?

    In 2025, Bangladesh became the first South Asian nation to join the UN Water Convention (Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes).

    About UN Water Convention:

    • Overview: Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, adopted in Helsinki (1992) and enforced in 1996 under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).
    • Globalisation: Originally regional (Europe, Central Asia); opened to all UN Member States in 2016 after a 2013 amendment, becoming a global treaty for transboundary water governance.
    • Objective: Promotes sustainable management of shared water resources and conflict prevention through cooperative mechanisms.
    • Key Goals: Implements SDG-6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG-16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) via equitable water sharing and joint management.
    • Obligations for Parties:
      • Prevent and reduce transboundary pollution and unsustainable extraction.
      • Use shared waters equitably and reasonably.
      • Coordinate national and transboundary water management policies.
      • Establish joint bodies or commissions for shared basins.
    • Institutional Mechanism: Managed by the UNECE Secretariat, which organises meetings, facilitates implementation, and promotes basin-level cooperation among signatories.
    • Legal Character: Functions as a framework convention, complementing rather than replacing bilateral treaties (e.g., Indus Waters Treaty, Ganga Treaty).
    • Significance: Serves as a legal and institutional mechanism for Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), regional peacebuilding, and climate-resilient governance.
    • Related Instruments: Inspired the UN Watercourses Convention (1997); both operate in complementary scopes within international water law.

    Why did Bangladesh join (2025):

    • First in South Asia: Became the first South Asian nation to ratify the Convention amid escalating water stress and climate vulnerability.
    • Hydrological Dependence: Over 90% of river inflows come from outside Bangladesh, mainly India and China, making Dhaka highly vulnerable to upstream interventions.
    • Upstream Projects: Concerns over China’s Motuo Hydropower Project (Yarlung Tsangpo/Brahmaputra) and India’s unresolved Teesta water-sharing dispute drove the decision.
    • Environmental Risks: 60% of population exposed to floods; half live in drought-prone areas, heightening need for cooperative governance.
    • Legal Context: Bangladesh’s 2019 High Court ruling granting rivers legal personhood reinforced its institutional focus on water rights.
    • Strategic Motivation: Seeks global legal recourse, access to data-sharing mechanisms, and international funding for climate adaptation and water security.

    Implications for India:

    • Shift from Bilateralism: India prefers bilateral river treaties (e.g., Indus, Ganga). Bangladesh’s multilateral engagement introduces scope for third-party mediation, contrary to India’s stance.
    • Ganga Treaty Renewal (2026): Bangladesh may invoke “equitable utilisation” to seek a higher share of Ganga waters under Convention norms.
    • Teesta River Pressure: The stalled Teesta agreement could face renewed international pressure, citing fairness and sustainability principles.
    • Regional Domino Effect: Likely to motivate Nepal and Bhutan to join, potentially transforming South Asia’s hydro-diplomatic architecture.
    • Strategic Concerns: Bangladesh’s simultaneous trilateral cooperation with China and Pakistan raises apprehensions of a Beijing-influenced hydro-bloc.

  • Civil War in Sudan

    Why in the News?

    The United Nations Secretary-General has warned that the civil war in Sudan is “spiralling out of control” after the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) seized the strategic Darfur city of El-Fasher.

    Civil War in Sudan

    About the Civil War in Sudan:

    • Outbreak: Began in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti).
    • Causes: Rooted in Sudan’s failed democratic transition after the 2019 overthrow of Omar al-Bashir and the October 2021 military coup.
    • Immediate Trigger: Power struggle over RSF integration into the national army under the proposed political framework agreement.
    • Conflict Spread: Fighting engulfed Khartoum, Omdurman, and Darfur, causing massive civilian casualties and infrastructure collapse.
    • Humanitarian Toll: Over 8.5 million displaced, famine conditions emerging, and public health systems near total breakdown.
    • Atrocities: Both sides accused of war crimes, ethnic killings, and looting, particularly in Darfur.
    • Territorial Shift: RSF’s capture of El-Fasher (2025) consolidated its control over western Sudan.
    • Foreign Actors: Egypt supports SAF; UAE and Russia’s Wagner Group back RSF, fuelling proxy dynamics.

    What Lies Ahead?

    • Risk of Partition: Sudan may split RSF holding the west, SAF dominating the northeast, leading to de-facto fragmentation.
    • Regional Destabilisation: Prolonged conflict could spill into the Horn of Africa and Red Sea corridor, worsening insecurity.
    • Political Outlook: Civilian transition appears remote; both factions remain focused on military dominance.
    • Economic Collapse: Inflation above 250%, agricultural failure deepening food insecurity.
    • Regional Impact: Refugee influx threatens Chad, South Sudan, and Ethiopia with cross-border instability.
    [UPSC 2024] Consider the following pairs: Country Reason for being in the news
    1. Argentina Worst economic crisis
    2. Sudan War between the country’s regular army and paramilitary forces
    3. Turkey Rescinded its membership of NATO
    How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?
    Options: (a) Only one pair (b) Only two pairs* (c) All three pairs (d) None of the pairs

     

  • BRICS Pay and the Push to De-dollarize Global Finance

    Why in the News?

    Since 2014, BRICS nations have worked to cut dependence on the U.S. dollar, launching the New Development Bank (NDB), Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), and now BRICS Pay to promote local currency trade and rival the SWIFT system.

    BRICS Pay and the Push to De-dollarize Global Finance

    About BRICS Pay Initiative:

    • Overview: BRICS Pay is a proposed cross-border digital payment and settlement platform developed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) to facilitate trade in local currencies and reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and the SWIFT network.
    • Origins: The idea emerged after the 2014 Fortaleza Summit, where BRICS established its own financial architecture, the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA).
    • Purpose: To enable direct financial transactions among member nations using local currencies, minimizing the role of Western-controlled financial systems and avoiding U.S.-led sanctions.
    • Development Path:
      • 2017: BRICS agreed to enhance currency cooperation via swaps, local currency settlements, and direct investments.
      • Early 2020s: The BRICS Payments Task Force (BPTF) was created to design interoperable systems.
      • 2024 Kazan Summit: Leaders highlighted strengthening of correspondent banking networks and settlements in local currencies under the BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative.
    • Prototype: A demo of BRICS Pay was unveiled in Moscow (October 2024), marking a concrete step toward implementation.
    • Supporting National Systems:
      • India: Unified Payments Interface (UPI)
      • China: Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS)
      • Russia: System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS)
      • Brazil: Pix instant payment system
    • Strategic Importance: The initiative seeks to establish a self-reliant financial network, bypass SWIFT, and enhance monetary sovereignty among emerging economies.

    Back2Basics: Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) System

    • Establishment: Founded in 1973 by 239 banks from 15 countries to standardize and secure cross-border financial communications.
    • Headquarters: La Hulpe, Belgium.
    • Nature: A messaging network, not a bank, it does not hold or transfer funds but enables secure interbank communication for financial transactions.
    • Coverage: Connects over 11,000 financial institutions across 200+ countries, making it the largest international payment messaging system.
    • Operation:
      • Assigns each member a Bank Identifier Code (BIC) of 8–11 characters.
      • Standardizes message formats to ensure seamless global financial communication.
      • Facilitates fund transfer instructions, trade settlements, and foreign exchange operations.
    • Governance:
      • Supervised by G10 central banks, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the National Bank of Belgium.
      • Managed by a 25-member board of directors, representing about 3,500 member institutions.
    • Strategic Role:
      • Forms the backbone of global finance, allowing efficient movement of capital.
      • Exclusion from SWIFT acts as a powerful economic sanction tool, isolating nations (e.g., Russia and Iran) from the international financial system.
    • Significance: SWIFT’s dominance reflects Western control over global finance, making it a central target for alternative networks like BRICS Pay, China’s CIPS, and Russia’s SPFS that seek a multipolar monetary order.

     

    [UPSC 2023] With reference to the Central Bank digital currencies, consider the following statements:

    1. It is possible to make payments in a digital currency without using US dollar or SWIFT system.

    2. A digital currency can be distributed with a condition programmed into it such as time-frame for spending it.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

     

  • What are the challenges with the High Seas Treaty

    Introduction

    The High Seas Treaty, formally known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement, establishes a legal framework to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas outside national control. It covers nearly two-thirds of the ocean’s surface. Adopted under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, it aims to address threats from climate change, overfishing, and pollution through tools like Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). Ratified by over 60 nations in 2024, it will come into effect in January 2026. This makes it one of the most comprehensive global conservation instruments after the Paris Agreement.

    Why in the News? 

    The High Seas Treaty being ratified by 60+ nations represents a historic step in ocean governance, a domain previously beyond formal protection. For the first time, the international community has agreed on a legally binding mechanism to preserve marine life that exists outside any country’s jurisdiction. This is strikingly different from the earlier regime under UNCLOS, which lacked clear provisions for protecting biodiversity.

    What is the High Seas Treaty About?

    1. Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ): Creates an all-inclusive framework to conserve and manage marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries.
    2. Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs): Recognised as a common heritage of humankind, ensuring equitable benefit-sharing between nations.
    3. Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs): Establishes Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to safeguard biodiversity and improve climate resilience and food security.
    4. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs): Mandates prior assessment of projects with potential cross-border or cumulative ecological impact.
    5. Capacity Building and Technology Transfer: Facilitates scientific collaboration, especially for developing nations, combining modern science and indigenous knowledge.

    Major Challenges with the High Seas Treaty

    1. Uncertainty over Core Principles
      1. Common Heritage vs. Freedom of High Seas: The “common heritage” principle promotes equitable access and benefit-sharing, while “freedom of the high seas” allows unrestricted navigation and resource use.
      2. Partial Application: The treaty applies the “common heritage” principle only partially, especially for MGRs, reflecting a compromise rather than resolution.
      3. Result: Creates ambiguity in rights and responsibilities of states in exploration, research, and benefit distribution.
    2. Ambiguity in Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs) Governance
      1. Undefined Governance Mechanism: Earlier, no clear framework existed for using or sharing MGRs.
      2. Biopiracy Concerns: Developing nations fear exploitation by developed countries, who could monopolize genetic discoveries and profits.
      3. Equity Gap: The lack of clarity risks excluding Global South nations from scientific and commercial benefits.
    3. Implementation and Enforcement Gaps
      1. Jurisdictional Complexity: The high seas lie beyond national boundaries, making monitoring and enforcement difficult.
      2. Institutional Limitations: While UNCLOS provides a broad legal foundation, there’s no dedicated global enforcement body to ensure compliance.
      3. Dependence on Voluntary Reporting: Could weaken accountability, especially in regulating corporate activities.
    4. Financial and Technological Inequities
      1. Unequal Capabilities: Developing countries lack access to marine technologies for monitoring and sustainable use.
      2. Technology Transfer Gap: The treaty mandates capacity-building, but without specific funding mechanisms, commitments may remain rhetorical.
      3. Risk: Could widen the North-South divide in ocean research and benefit sharing.
    5. Balancing Conservation and Development
      1. Sustainable Use vs. Conservation: Striking a balance between environmental protection and economic opportunities (like deep-sea mining or biotechnology) remains contentious.
      2. Unclear Prioritization: Without clear hierarchy between ecological and developmental objectives, policy conflicts may persist.

    Conclusion

    The High Seas Treaty represents a landmark effort to bring order and justice to the global commons. Yet, the true test lies in resolving philosophical ambiguities and ensuring equitable implementation. Without robust funding, technology sharing, and accountability mechanisms, it risks becoming another well-intentioned but weak global accord. For India, aligning its Blue Economy strategy with the treaty’s framework will be key to ensuring both ecological and economic dividends.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Discuss global warming and mention its effects on the global climate. Explain the control measures to bring down the level of greenhouse gases which cause global warming, in the light of the Kyoto Protocol, 1997.

    Linkage: Both Kyoto Protocol and High Seas Treaty are UN-backed frameworks aimed at addressing global commons issues, air and ocean respectively.

  • India’s exit from the Ayni Airbase in Tajikistan

    Why in the News?

    ​India’s complete pullout from the Ayni Airbase in Tajikistan (in 2022), its sole foreign military post, drew sharp opposition’s criticism.

    India’s exit from the Ayni Airbase in Tajikistan

    About Ayni Airbase:

    • Location: Situated 10 km west of Dushanbe, Tajikistan, near the Afghanistan border via the Wakhan Corridor, and about 20 km from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
    • Also known as: Known as Gissar Air Base or Gissar Military Aerodrome; originally a Soviet-era base later modernised by India.
    • Development by India: Upgraded by India in the early 2000s under a bilateral agreement with Tajikistan; India invested ~USD 100 million to extend the runway (3,200 m), build hangars, depots, and control systems.
    • Operational Role: Hosted IAF helicopters and Su-30MKI fighters, with ~200 Indian personnel managing repair and training operations; also supported humanitarian and evacuation missions, notably during the 2021 Taliban takeover.
    • Predecessor: Replaced Farkhor Airbase (1998–2008), India’s earlier base used for supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

    Strategic Significance of the Airbase:

    • Forward Presence: Gave India surveillance and strike reach over Afghanistan and Pakistan’s western front.
    • Regional Leverage: Enhanced India’s defence footprint in Central Asia, countering China’s BRI and Russian influence.
    • Operational Hub: Supported the then anti-Taliban Northern Alliance and India’s broader Connect Central Asia Policy (2012).
    • Evacuation & Logistics Node: Enabled rapid crisis evacuation and regional logistical operations.
    • Geopolitical Symbolism: Marked India’s aspiration for a continental strategic presence; its closure reflects shrinking influence west of the Himalayas amid Russia–China consolidation.

    Reasons for India’s Exit:

    • Lease Expiry: The bilateral lease expired in 2022 and was not renewed by Tajikistan.
    • External Pressures: Russia and China discouraged Tajikistan from extending India’s presence.
    • Strategic Shift: Diminished relevance post-Taliban’s return (2021) and collapse of India’s Afghan network.
    • Operational Constraints: High costs, limited autonomy, and dependence on Russian logistics reduced viability.
    • Reorientation: Strategic focus moved toward the Indo-Pacific and maritime partnerships.
    [UPSC 2022] Consider the following countries :

    1. Azerbaijan 2. Kyrgyzstan 3. Tajikistan 4. Turkmenistan 5. Uzbekistan

    Which of the above have borders with Afghanistan?

    Options: (a) 1, 2 and 5 only (b) 1, 2, 3 and 4 only (c) 3, 4 and 5 only* (d) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

     

  • [1st November 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The case for a board of peace and sustainable security

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Terrorism has become a significant threat to global peace and security. Evaluate the effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council’s Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) and its associated bodies in addressing and mitigating this threat at the international level.

    Linkage: The BPSS proposal aligns with the recurring UPSC theme of UN reform and institutional effectiveness. It can serve as an additional point in answers evaluating the effectiveness of the UNSC and its bodies like the CTC.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The United Nations, despite its founding vision to preserve peace, faces a persistent structural crisis, peace agreements fail, transitions stall, and conflicts reignite. In this context, former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s proposal for a “Board of Peace and Sustainable Security (BPSS)” marks a profound call for institutional reform. This article dissects the argument, structure, and implications of this proposed board through a UPSC-relevant analytical framework.

    Introduction

    The UN Security Council (UNSC), envisioned to prevent conflict and sustain global peace, continues to struggle with institutional paralysis and outdated structures. Across continents, peace efforts collapse because international systems abandon political engagement too early.
    A new institutional vision, a Board of Peace and Sustainable Security (BPSS), is proposed to infuse continuity, coordination, and political strategy into global peace efforts.

    Why in the news?

    As the UN marks its 80th anniversary, its credibility is under intense scrutiny. While conflicts proliferate, peace agreements remain fragile and transitional mechanisms fail. The UNSC’s structural limitations, lack of political continuity, and inability to sustain long-term engagement make reform urgent. The proposed Board of Peace and Sustainable Security aims to fill this vacuum by institutionalising sustained political engagement before, during, and after conflict. This is significant because it represents one of the first major reform ideas that seeks to integrate peacekeeping with political strategy and regional cooperation, without challenging UNSC authority.

    A clearly defined institutional purpose

    1. Institutional void: The UNSC lacks sustained political engagement capacity. The BPSS would institutionalize political accompaniment beyond peace agreements.
    2. Complementary role: It would not replace or challenge the UNSC or Secretary-General but reinforce implementation and coordination.
    3. Mandate: Ensures continuity in peace efforts by reinforcing national and regional ownership of peace processes and reducing relapse into conflict.
    4. Scope: Works on reinforcing national capacities, coordinating peacekeeping with regional organizations, and ensuring peace agreements translate into durable political outcomes.

    Why is reform of the UN system urgent?

    1. Loss of continuity: Peacebuilding institutions within the UN lose momentum due to ad-hoc missions. BPSS seeks to sustain political engagement beyond immediate crises.
    2. Structural inertia: Waiting for comprehensive UNSC reform delays urgent action; thus, pragmatic institutional innovation is required within existing frameworks.
    3. Authority for change: Under Article 22, the UN General Assembly already holds power to create subsidiary bodies like BPSS without requiring Charter amendments.
    4. Reform from within: Instead of replacing the UNSC, BPSS enhances coordination, ensuring peace agreements transition into stable governance systems.

    What will make the Board credible and representative

    1. Rotational membership: Around two dozen member states, elected for fixed terms, representing all regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Caribbean, West Asia).
    2. Avoiding elite capture: The body should represent inclusivity, not hierarchy, ensuring small and middle powers have a say.
    3. Regional linkages: Works with regional hubs (Addis Ababa, Jakarta, Brasilia, New York) to ensure peace processes reflect local ownership.
    4. Consultative participation: Civil society and regional organizations will have a structured role in deliberations, enhancing legitimacy and field coordination.

    How will the BPSS function in practice?

    1. Style of functioning: Not another bureaucratic forum, but a continuing engagement body ensuring follow-through once UN missions end.
    2. Operational continuity: Prevents premature withdrawal of peacekeeping efforts; sustains political engagement through periodic review and coordination.
    3. Integration: Works in coordination with the Secretary-General, Peacebuilding Commission, and UNSC to align peacekeeping with political strategies.
    4. Focus on youth and fragile states: Ensures peace presence remains where political institutions are nascent.
    5. Conflict prevention: Reduces relapse risk by merging early-warning with long-term political strategies and governance support.

    How will the BPSS strengthen sustainable security?

    1. Beyond short-term peacekeeping: Moves from reactive missions to proactive stability frameworks.
    2. Sustainable security concept: Integrates security, governance, and development rather than treating them in silos.
    3. Inclusive approach: Aligns local, regional, and global stakeholders, reflecting the interconnected nature of modern conflicts.
    4. Institutional learning: Retains experience from past missions to inform future interventions.
    5. Principled reform: Sustains political momentum, not episodic intervention, ensuring peace is treated as an ongoing political project.

    Conclusion

    The proposed Board of Peace and Sustainable Security reimagines peace not as an event but as a process requiring sustained political accompaniment. It seeks to anchor peacekeeping within a strategy of governance, development, and institutional resilience. This reform is not just administrative, it represents a return to the original ideals of the UN Charter, adapting them for a multipolar and conflict-prone world. Sustainable peace demands political continuity, inclusivity, and long-term commitment, principles the BPSS embodies.

  • India-US seal 10 year defense partnership framework

    Introduction

    India and the United States have signed a 10-year defence partnership framework (2025-2035), signaling a new phase in their strategic collaboration. The pact provides a unified vision and policy direction for deepening cooperation across logistics, supply chains, joint production, and technology sharing. It underscores the commitment to a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific, amid growing regional tensions and China’s assertive rise.

    Why in the News

    This is a landmark development in India-US relations, marking the first-ever decade-long institutionalized defence framework between the two nations. It reflects a qualitative shift from transactional defence cooperation to a strategic partnership architecture. By formalizing continuity in defence ties, the framework aims to sustain policy alignment, interoperability, and deterrence capabilities in the Indo-Pacific, making it a cornerstone for regional stability.

    Deepening Defence Convergence

    1. Framework Vision: Provides unified strategic direction to strengthen defence cooperation and stability across all military domains (land, air, sea, cyber, and space).
    2. Interoperability Focus: Prioritizes joint logistics, training, and maintenance mechanisms between forces, ensuring mission readiness and operational synergy.
    3. Symbolic Continuity: Extends beyond annual dialogues or ad hoc exercises, ensuring defence engagement remains insulated from political transitions.
    4. Technology Integration: Encourages co-production and co-development of high-end defence platforms such as Super Hercules, Globemaster, Chinooks, Apaches, and M777 howitzers.

    Evolution of India-US Defence Partnership

    1. Early Frameworks: The 2015 framework initiated by PM Modi and President Obama laid the foundation for institutional defence cooperation.
    2. Key Milestones:
      • LEMOA (2016): Enabled reciprocal logistics access.
      • COMCASA (2018): Facilitated secure communications interoperability.
      • BECA (2020): Enabled real-time geospatial intelligence sharing.
    3. 2025 Framework Significance: Builds upon these foundational agreements, institutionalizing long-term coordination on strategy, logistics, and supply chain resilience.

    Strategic Significance for the Indo-Pacific

    1. Regional Stability: Anchors both nations’ commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific, countering coercive or unilateral actions.
    2. Maritime Domain Awareness: Supports enhanced naval cooperation and situational awareness across key maritime chokepoints.
    3. Military Exercises: Expands the scope of Yudh Abhyas and Malabar exercises for joint readiness.
    4. Quad Convergence: Aligns with broader QUAD objectives in maintaining rules-based order and crisis response architecture.
    5. Geoeconomic Angle: Bolsters defence supply chains and manufacturing cooperation amid China-centric dependencies.

    Institutional and Industrial Collaboration

    1. Defence Production: Boosts joint manufacturing of key platforms, LCA Tejas engines, MQ-9B drones, and advanced radar systems.
    2. Private Sector Linkages: Encourages collaboration between Indian and US defence industries, including Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and General Electric (GE).
    3. R&D Synergy: Promotes innovation under the India-US Defence Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) to co-develop futuristic technologies.
    4. Skill Transfer: Enhances training, skill-building, and exchange programs for defence personnel.

    Diplomatic and Strategic Implications

    1. Policy Continuity: Reinforces long-term strategic trust and shared security outlook.
    2. Strategic Deterrence: Strengthens collective deterrence against regional instability in the Indo-Pacific.
    3. Bilateral Reliability: Demonstrates resilience of India-US defence ties beyond short-term political cycles.
    4. Global Relevance: Projects both nations as key stakeholders in shaping Indo-Pacific architecture for the 21st century.

    Conclusion

    The 10-year India-US Defence Partnership represents a strategic deepening and institutional maturity of bilateral defence relations. It embodies both nations’ shared vision of collective security, deterrence, and technological partnership in the Indo-Pacific. By ensuring interoperability and policy continuity, it not only strengthens defence preparedness but also cements India’s emergence as a regional security anchor and a global strategic partner of the United States.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] What is the significance of Indo-US defence deals over Indo-Russian defence deals? Discuss with reference to stability in the Indo-Pacific region.

    Linkage: The question is important as it reflects India’s shifting defence axis from Russia to the US amid Indo-Pacific power realignments. It continues UPSC’s recurring theme of India’s strategic autonomy and evolving role in global security architecture.