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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • [9th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Iran and India, ancient civilizations and new horizons

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] In what ways would the ongoing US-Iran Nuclear Pact controversy affect the national interest of India? How should India respond to this situation?

    Linkage: The article’s emphasis on Iran’s resilience against Western domination, its right to peaceful nuclear energy, and India–Iran civilisational partnership directly connects to the US–Iran Nuclear Pact controversy. Sanctions and U.S. pressure affect India’s energy security, INSTC access, and strategic autonomy. Thus, India’s calibrated diplomacy in balancing ties with both Iran and the West becomes central to safeguarding its national interest.

    Mentor’s Comment

    In the midst of global flux, Ambassador Iraj Elahi’s reflections on Iran–India relations remind us that ancient civilisations have the potential to shape modern geopolitics in profound ways. This piece dissects his arguments, from the erosion of Western dominance to the rise of South-South cooperation, and places them in the larger canvas of India’s foreign policy and civilisational outreach. For UPSC aspirants, it offers deep insights into international relations, civilisation studies, and contemporary global order debates.

    Introduction

    The global order is in transition. Once dominated by Western powers, especially the United States, the world now witnesses a shift toward multipolarity. The unchecked use of force, sanctions, and manipulation of global institutions by the West has weakened its legitimacy. In this changing landscape, ancient civilisations such as India and Iran are being called upon to offer not only an alternative but a humane, participatory and just global order. Their shared values of spirituality, peace, and cultural resilience form the foundation of this partnership.

    The Crisis of the Western-led Order

    1. Declining dominance: The West, especially the U.S., is losing control over its classic instruments, global finance, technological monopoly, human rights discourse, and global media.
    2. Crisis indicators: Blatant violations of international law, unchecked use of force, trade wars, and environmental destruction signal deep systemic decay.

    Why the Global South is Rising

    1. Civilisational awakening: Countries are resisting domination and discrimination by relying on local models and indigenous technology.
    2. Strategic autonomy: Defence and security strengthening in Global South nations marks a push against dependence on external powers.
    3. India and Iran as torchbearers: Both ancient civilisations embody resilience — from India’s Non-Aligned Movement to Iran’s Islamic Revolution.

    Civilisational Wisdom and Shared Values

    1. Cultural resilience: Despite military defeats, both India and Iran influenced their conquerors with governance, literature, and art.
    2. Shared ethos: Belief in the triumph of good over evil, respect for diversity, spiritual growth, and commitment to peace.
    3. Historical struggles: India’s anti-colonial resistance and Iran’s oil nationalisation highlight their fight against domination.

    Palestine and the Question of Justice

    1. Central issue: The Palestinian struggle is projected as the frontline battle of the Global South against Western hypocrisy.
    2. Iran’s stance: Defence of Palestine and its right to nuclear energy are framed as defences of sovereignty and law.
    3. Global South solidarity: Palestine becomes a metaphor for resistance against occupation and expansionism.

    India–Iran in Multilateral and Regional Frameworks

    1. BRICS potential: Seen as a counterweight to Western economic dominance, sanctions, and dollar hegemony.
    2. INSTC: More than a trade corridor; envisioned as a civilisational bridge linking Eurasia, Africa, and South Asia, with stabilising effects on West Asia.
    3. Opposition to U.S. role: Iran critiques American interventions in West Asia and South Asia for fuelling instability and terrorism.

    Conclusion

    As the world transitions into multipolarity, the call for civilisational powers such as India and Iran to lead is both symbolic and strategic. Their partnership, rooted in resilience, peace, and spiritual values, has the potential to redefine the Global South’s trajectory. By working through BRICS, INSTC, and other platforms, they can craft a participatory global order, one that replaces domination with dignity, and hierarchy with equality.

    Value Addition

    India-Iran Relations

    Historical & Civilisational Links

    1. Ancient ties: Both are among the world’s oldest civilisations, with exchanges in philosophy, art, architecture, and literature.
    2. Cultural influence: Persian language, miniature painting, Sufi traditions, and Mughal architecture in India reflect deep Iranian impact.
    3. Shared values: Spirituality, diversity, peace, and civilisational resilience.

    Strategic & Economic Cooperation

    1. Energy security:
      • Iran was once India’s second-largest crude oil supplier.
      • Post-U.S. sanctions, imports dropped, but Iran remains vital for India’s energy diversification.
    2. Chabahar Port:
      1. India’s first overseas port project.
      2. Provides access to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan.
      3. Part of the larger International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
    3. INSTC:
      1. Connects India to Russia and Europe via Iran.
      2. Cuts transport cost by ~30% and time by ~40%.

    Geopolitical & Regional Significance

    1. Balancing act: India walks a fine line between the U.S.–Iran rivalry and its ties with Israel and the Gulf States.
    2. Afghanistan: India and Iran cooperated closely for stability, particularly post-U.S. withdrawal.
    3. West Asia: Iran acts as a counterbalance to Sunni-dominated Gulf powers; India’s diaspora and trade interests lie across the region.

    Multilateral Engagement

    1. BRICS: Iran is a member of BRICS and became a full member along with other countries starting January 1, 2024, following an expansion agreement at the 2023 Johannesburg Summit.
    2. SCO membership: Both nations share platforms for regional security and connectivity.
    3. NAM legacy: Shared anti-colonial and non-aligned credentials.

    Challenges in the Relationship

    1. U.S. sanctions: Reduced oil imports, halted investments in Chabahar and other projects.
    2. Strategic competition: Iran–China 25-year pact and deepening Tehran–Beijing ties raise concerns for India.
    3. Regional volatility: Palestine, Syria, Yemen conflicts complicate India’s balancing approach.

    Ethical & Civilisational Diplomacy Dimension

    1. Civilisational diplomacy: Both countries advocate a just, humane, participatory order in contrast to Western domination.
    2. Palestine issue: Shared concern in Global South solidarity, though India has nuanced its position due to ties with Israel.
    3. Spiritual diplomacy: Shared heritage in Sufi and mystical traditions strengthens people-to-people bonds.

  • US to update MTCR export control policies 

    Why in the News?

    The United States is preparing to reinterpret the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) to expand exports of heavy attack drones, like the MQ-9 Reaper, to partner countries.

    About Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR):

    • Formation: Established in 1987 by the G-7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, USA) to prevent the spread of missiles and UAVs capable of delivering nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
    • Membership: Today, 35 countries are members; India joined in 2016.
    • Nature: Not a treaty but a voluntary political understanding where members implement export control guidelines.

    • Coverage:

      • Category I items: Complete missile/UAV systems with ≥500 kg payload and ≥300 km range, major subsystems, and production facilities (exports presumed denied).
      • Category II items: Less sensitive or dual-use components/technologies; exports subject to national discretion under strict licensing.
    • Purpose: To limit missile proliferation while allowing peaceful space and aviation cooperation.

    About the Recent Policy Change on MTCR:

    • US Reinterpretation (2025):

      • Large unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the MQ-9 Reaper will be treated as “aircraft” instead of missile systems.
      • This removes the “strong presumption of denial” that earlier restricted their export under MTCR.
    • Objective: To make the US the leading drone supplier, countering competition from China, Israel, and Turkiye.

    • Implications:

      • Opens the door for Foreign Military Sales (FMS) of heavy attack drones to partners like Saudi Arabia, India, and Indo-Pacific allies.
      • Still subject to US reviews for regional stability, end-use monitoring, tech security, and human rights compliance.
      • Facilitates India–US space and defence cooperation, lowering barriers for joint ventures and technology partnerships.
    [UPSC 2022] Consider the following:

    1. Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank 2. Missile Technology Control Regime 3. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

    India is a member of which of the above?

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

     

  • Katchatheevu Island Dispute

    Why in the News?

    Sri Lankan President Dissanayake’s visit to Katchatheevu Island, the first ever visit by a head of state, revived debates on the island’s history and ownership.

    Katchatheevu Island Dispute

    About Katchatheevu Island:

    • Overview: Small uninhabited island of about 285 acres in the Palk Strait, ~33 nautical miles from Jaffna (Sri Lanka) and close to Ramanathapuram (Tamil Nadu).
    • History: Once under the Raja of Ramnad (TN), later became disputed during British rule.
    • Agreements: Under 1974 and 1976 pacts, India (under Indira Gandhi govt.) recognised Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and gave up traditional fishing rights.
    • Religious Site: Home to St. Anthony’s Catholic Shrine, visited annually by Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen during a joint festival with visa waiver.
    • Ecology: Though barren and unsettled, serves as a resting point for fishermen and supports marine biodiversity.

    Disputes around Katchatheevu:

    • Fishing Conflicts: Tamil Nadu fishermen often cross into Sri Lankan waters due to declining catch in Indian waters, leading to frequent arrests by the Sri Lankan Navy.
    • Bottom-Trawling Issue: Indian trawlers use bottom-trawling, banned in Sri Lanka, which damages marine ecosystems and escalates tensions.
    • Political Demands: All TN political parties have demanded retrieval of the island.
    • National Politics: Issue often resurfaces during elections, with claims that earlier governments “easily gave away” Katchatheevu.
    • Official Position: India clarified in 2013–14 that no sovereign territory was ceded since the island was disputed, not fully under India’s control.
    • Core Problem: Lies not in sovereignty but in unsustainable bottom-trawling practices and the livelihood crisis faced by Tamil Nadu fishermen.
    [UPSC 2020] Consider the following statements:

    1. The value of Indo-Sri Lanka trade has consistently increased in the last decade.

    2. “Textile and textile articles” constitute an important item of trade between India and Bangladesh.

    3. In the last five years, Nepal has been the largest trading partner of India in South Asia.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (2020)

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

     

  • [6th Spetember 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: India’s Strategic autonomy in a multipolar world

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2014] With respect to the South China Sea, maritime territorial disputes and rising tension affairs the need for safeguarding maritime security to ensure freedom of navigation and even flight throughout the region. In this context, discuss the bilateral issues between India and China.

    Linkage: India’s stance on the South China Sea highlights strategic autonomy — upholding freedom of navigation under UNCLOS while resisting China’s expansive claims. Bilateral tensions persist, from border clashes (2020) to disputes over India’s oil exploration with Vietnam in contested waters. Yet, India balances deterrence through the Quad and cooperation via BRICS/SCO, reflecting a cautious but autonomous approach.

    Mentor’s comment

    Strategic autonomy is more than just a diplomatic catchphrase for India, it is the lifeline of its foreign policy in an era of multipolar flux. As India seeks to balance ties with the United States, China, and Russia, while also positioning itself as the voice of the Global South, the concept is no longer theoretical but a daily practice. For UPSC aspirants, understanding this evolving doctrine is essential to connect historical continuities with present-day challenges of geopolitics, economy, and technology.

    Introduction

    Strategic autonomy, once confined to the academic realm of international relations, has become a core principle of India’s foreign policy. Rooted in India’s colonial history and first institutionalized through Nehru’s Non-Alignment Movement, it has today evolved into a doctrine of multi-alignment, pragmatism, and resilience. In a world where U.S. unipolarity is waning, China is rising, and Russia is recalibrating its global role, India faces both opportunities and constraints. The essence of strategic autonomy lies in navigating this turbulent multipolarity while safeguarding sovereignty, growth, and global aspirations.

    The Evolution and Relevance of Strategic Autonomy

    1. Historical roots: Emerged from India’s colonial subjugation and Nehru’s vision of non-alignment.
    2. Cold War practice: Balanced ties with both blocs while retaining independence.
    3. Contemporary shift: Modi-era “multi-alignment” emphasizes flexibility with powers like the U.S., Russia, and China.
    4. Core principle: Not isolationism but adaptability in safeguarding national interests.

    How the Global Order Shapes India’s Autonomy

    1. Fragmented multipolarity: Decline of U.S. dominance, rise of China, Russia’s revisionism, and West’s internal divisions.
    2. Volatility in partnerships: U.S. unpredictability under Trump strained trade ties and increased pressure on India over Russia.
    3. Fluid environment: India must recalibrate ties to secure territorial integrity, economic growth, and regional stability.

    India’s Engagement with the United States

    1. Deepened partnership: Defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, joint exercises, and technology transfers.
    2. New initiatives: Quad, Indo-Pacific dialogues, I2U2, and IMEC reflecting shared concerns about China.
    3. Friction points: Trade tariffs, sanctions, and pressure to reduce Russia ties.
    4. India’s stance: Balanced engagement, cooperative yet assertively independent.

    India’s Balancing Act with China

    1. Security challenge: Border clashes of 2020 ended the façade of benign coexistence.
    2. Dual reality: China remains India’s major trading partner despite tensions.
    3. Strategic response: Strengthened border infrastructure, deepened Indo-Pacific ties, and indigenous defence push.
    4. Diplomatic engagement: Continued participation in BRICS, SCO to balance rivalry with dialogue.

    India’s Enduring Partnership with Russia

    1. Historical solidarity: Long-standing defence cooperation rooted in Cold War ties.
    2. Ukraine conflict test: Continued oil imports and weapons purchases despite Western criticism.
    3. Autonomous approach: Diversification of defence imports without abandoning Russia.
    4. Core principle: Refusal to choose sides in binary contests.

    Strategic Autonomy in the Global South Context

    1. Voice of the Global South: Asserted during India’s G20 presidency in 2023.
    2. India’s stance: “Non-West” but not “anti-West”, balancing pragmatism with plural democracy.
    3. Resonance abroad: Other rising powers too seek agency, not vassalage, in global politics.

    Domestic and Technological Dimensions of Autonomy

    1. Internal constraints: Political polarisation, economic vulnerabilities, institutional weaknesses.
    2. Modern domains: Cyber threats, AI warfare, space competition, data sovereignty.
    3. Recent steps: Indigenous platforms, critical minerals security, global tech governance participation.

    Conclusion

    Strategic autonomy is not about standing alone, but about standing tall. It requires balancing ties with major powers, investing in national capacity, and adapting to new-age domains of competition. India’s rise as a sovereign pole in the multipolar order rests on maintaining autonomy without succumbing to bloc politics. The essence is not isolation, but resilience, the art of walking the tightrope with clarity, confidence, and conviction.

    Value Addition

    Definition of Strategic Autonomy

    General Definition:

    • Strategic autonomy is a nation’s ability to pursue independent foreign and security policies, making sovereign decisions without being bound by external pressures, alliances, or blocs.
    • MEA perspective: It is about “maximizing national interest through diversified engagements” — not neutrality, not isolation, but flexibility and resilience.

    Evolution of Strategic Autonomy in India

    • Colonial Context: India’s colonial past created a deep-rooted desire to preserve independence in foreign policy.
    • Nehruvian Non-Alignment (1950s–1970s)
      • Core principle: India would not align with any Cold War bloc.
      • 1955 Bandung Conference and NAM (1961 Belgrade) institutionalized this vision.
      • Quote (Nehru, 1946): “We propose, so far as we can, to keep away from the power politics of groups, aligned against one another.”
    • Indira Gandhi Era (1970s–1980s)
      • Tilt towards USSR (1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation).
      • Still claimed non-alignment, but practice became more pragmatic.
    • Post-Cold War Recalibration (1990s–2000s)
      • Unipolar U.S.-dominated world; India liberalised economy and sought closer U.S. ties while keeping Russia engaged.
      • “Strategic autonomy” re-emerged as India avoided being a U.S. ally despite growing partnership.
    • 21st Century: Multi-Alignment
      • India now engages multiple powers simultaneously: U.S. (Quad, I2U2, IMEC), Russia (defence, energy), China (BRICS, SCO), EU (trade), Global South (voice in G20).
      • Current doctrine: “Autonomy through diversification”, maintaining flexibility across issues.

    Multi-Alignment in India’s Foreign Policy

    • Overview: Instead of non-alignment (staying out of blocs), India today practices multi-alignment — engaging with all major powers, often simultaneously, without exclusive commitment.
    • Examples:
      • Quad (U.S., Japan, Australia, India) → Indo-Pacific security.
      • BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) → financial/strategic cooperation.
      • SCO (Russia, China, Central Asia) → security & regional stability.
      • I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE, U.S.) → technology, infrastructure, food security.
      • IMEC → new economic corridor connecting India–Middle East–Europe.

    Key Quotes for Value Addition

    • Jawaharlal Nehru (1946): “We propose, so far as we can, to keep away from the power politics of groups, aligned against one another.” (Origin of non-alignment).
    • Atal Bihari Vajpayee (2003, as PM): “India and the United States may disagree on some issues, but as sovereign countries, we have the right to pursue our national interests.” (Strategic autonomy in U.S. ties).
    • Dr. Manmohan Singh (2005, PM): “Our strategic autonomy does not mean isolation. It means engaging all major powers on equal terms.”
    • S. Jaishankar (External Affairs Minister):
      • “Multi-alignment is the call of the day. Strategic autonomy in today’s multipolar world means engaging America, Russia, China, Europe, and others — each on its own merit.”
      • “Partnerships must be based on interests, not sentiment, not inherited obligations.”
      • “We are non-West, but not anti-West.” (G20 context, 2023).
    • Shivshankar Menon (Former NSA & diplomat):
      • “Strategic autonomy is not a slogan. It is the art of being flexible in a world where alliances are rigid, and sovereignty is contested.”
      • “For India, autonomy lies in not choosing sides but choosing our interests.”

  • India-China: the making of a border

    Introduction

    The India–China boundary, stretching for about 3,488 km, is one of the longest disputed borders in the world. Unlike clearly demarcated international frontiers, this boundary runs through the Himalayas and remains unsettled in large parts. The two major areas of dispute are Aksai Chin in the western sector, occupied by China but claimed by India, and Arunachal Pradesh (particularly the Tawang tract) in the eastern sector, claimed by China but under Indian control. Rooted in the legacies of the British and Manchu empires, the boundary was never precisely defined. After independence, India relied on British-era maps while China pressed for historical and strategic claims. This divergence led to the 1962 war and continues to shape relations between the two Asian powers.

    Why the India–China border issue matters

    The unresolved India–China border remains a major geopolitical challenge in Asia. Unlike other international boundaries, this border runs through inhospitable Himalayan terrain where neither country historically maintained a permanent presence. The 1962 war, following India’s rejection of Chinese proposals, left scars of mistrust. Later attempts, such as Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 Beijing visit, restored engagement but not resolution. The dispute is about sovereignty, strategy, and national prestige, making it a flashpoint with global implications.

    The imperial legacy and a contested border

    1. Colonial inheritance: The India–China border was a product of the British and Manchu empires, drawn imprecisely through the Himalayas.
    2. Absence of settlement: After independence, India relied on colonial maps and dismissed Chinese calls for negotiations.
    3. Strategic miscalculation: India’s faith in maps was not supported by control on the ground, leaving space for China’s proactive steps in Aksai Chin.

    The emergence of conflict in Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh

    1. Chinese presence in Aksai Chin: China constructed a highway from Xinjiang to Tibet through Aksai Chin, asserting de facto control.
    2. Indian assertion in Tawang: India occupied Tawang citing the 1914 Simla Convention and the McMahon Line signed with an independent Tibet.
    3. Proposals for compromise: In 1959, Beijing suggested a Line of Actual Control (LAC) with a 20 km troop pullback; in 1960, Zhou Enlai proposed a swap—Aksai Chin for Arunachal recognition.
    4. Breakdown and war: India rejected these offers; attempts to reclaim Aksai Chin triggered the 1962 war, where India lost ground in Ladakh but retained the McMahon Line in the east.

    Post-war developments and early engagement

    1. Dormancy period: After 1962, both sides avoided border contact for more than a decade.
    2. China Study Group: In 1975, India formed this high-level body to map the border with satellite imagery and direct patrolling.
    3. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s outreach: In 1979, Vajpayee visited Beijing, the first senior Indian leader to do so since 1962, initiating cautious normalisation.
    4. Revival of Chinese proposals: Deng Xiaoping in 1980 reiterated Zhou’s swap idea, but India, led by Indira Gandhi, rejected it due to mistrust.

    The stalemate in negotiations during the 1980s

    1. Unproductive talks: From 1981, both sides engaged in negotiations—India sought sector-wise talks, while China insisted on a package deal.
    2. Demand for Tawang: By 1985, Beijing linked concessions in Ladakh with Indian concessions over Tawang, central to China’s Tibet policy.
    3. Operation Falcon: In 1986, India forward-deployed troops at Namka Chu, displaying improved military preparedness since 1962.
    4. De-escalation: Both sides eventually pulled back, but the demand for Tawang revealed fundamental divergence.

    Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 visit and a new framework

    1. Strategic reset: Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to Beijing marked a shift from linking normalisation to border resolution.
    2. Framework for dialogue: Both sides agreed to restore relations while deferring the border issue to a Joint Working Group (JWG).
    3. Principle of accommodation: Premier Li Peng emphasised “mutual understanding and mutual accommodation (MUMA),” while Gandhi sought a “fair and reasonable” settlement.
    4. Peace as priority: Peace and tranquillity were prioritised, enabling cooperation in other fields despite the unsettled boundary.

    Conclusion

    The India–China border dispute is a story of missed chances, mistrust, and strategic recalibration. From Aksai Chin to Tawang, an imperial legacy evolved into a sovereignty dilemma. While Deng Xiaoping and Rajiv Gandhi shifted the relationship towards peace, fundamental differences endure. History shows that strategic patience, military preparedness, and calibrated diplomacy remain the keys to managing this difficult relationship.

    Value Addition

    Institutional Mechanisms

    1. China Study Group (1975): Established by India to monitor the border with satellite mapping and patrolling points.
    2. Joint Working Group (1988): Created after Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to sustain structured dialogue on the boundary issue.
    3. Later confidence-building agreements (1993, 1996, 2005): Though not in this article, they flowed from this trajectory and institutionalised border management.

    Policy Evolution

    1. Jawaharlal Nehru: Over-reliance on colonial maps and dismissal of negotiations.
    2. Atal Bihari Vajpayee: Cautious outreach to normalise ties in 1979 despite tensions.
    3. Indira Gandhi: Strong mistrust post-1962, refusal to accept “territorial swaps.”
    4. Rajiv Gandhi: Pragmatic reset in 1988, separating normalisation from boundary resolution.

    Line of Actual Control (LAC)

    1. Definition: The de facto boundary separating Indian and Chinese forces, first formally acknowledged in 1959 by China.
    2. Nature: Not mutually agreed or demarcated on the ground, leading to “differing perceptions.”
    3. Relevance: Key to understanding recurring standoffs such as Galwan (2020), though beyond this article’s timeframe.

    Case Study Relevance

    1. Aksai Chin: Illustrates how geography and strategic imperatives (road connectivity to Tibet) drive China’s claims.
    2. Tawang: Demonstrates cultural and religious dimensions (Tibetan Buddhism, Dalai Lama’s birthplace links).
    3. Operation Falcon (1986): A case study in how improved military readiness altered China’s calculus.
    4. Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 visit: A model of pragmatic diplomacy—normalisation without immediate resolution.

    Way Forward

    1. Institutional strengthening: Reviving and empowering mechanisms like the Joint Working Group and Special Representatives dialogue.
    2. Confidence-building: Expanding agreements on patrolling norms, hotlines, and disengagement to avoid clashes.
    3. Strategic balance: Maintaining military preparedness (as shown in Operation Falcon) while keeping diplomacy open.
    4. Engagement beyond the border: Deepening cooperation in trade, technology, and multilateral forums to build trust.
    5. Mutual accommodation: Drawing from Deng Xiaoping and Rajiv Gandhi’s vision of a “fair, reasonable, mutually acceptable” settlement to guide long-term resolution.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2017] ‘China is using its economic relations and positive trade surplus as tools to develop potential military power status in Asia’, In the light of this statement, discuss its impact on India as her neighbor.

    Linkage: China’s occupation of Aksai Chin and insistence on Tawang show how strategic control is tied to economic leverage, such as road connectivity and infrastructure. Its trade surplus with India fuels military modernisation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). For India, this creates a dual challenge of managing unresolved borders while countering China’s economic–military power projection in Asia.

  • In news: Strait of Malacca

    Why in the News?

    Singapore’s PM has acknowledged India’s intent to join the Malacca Straits Patrol (currently undertaken by Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore).

    In news: Strait of Malacca

    About Strait of Malacca:

    • Location: Narrow waterway in Southeast Asia, between the Malay Peninsula (northeast) and Sumatra, Indonesia (southwest).
    • Length & Width: Extends about 800–900 km; width varies from 65 km in the south to 250 km in the north.
    • Depth: The southern end is narrow and shallow, usually less than 37 m deep, posing navigational challenges.
    • Geological Setting: Part of the Sunda Shelf formation, created after post-glacial sea level rise around 2.6 million years ago.
    • Key Ports: Hosts major hubs like Singapore, Port Klang, Penang, and Melaka, making it one of the busiest shipping lanes globally.

    Strategic and Economic Importance:

    • Global Chokepoint: Links the Indian Ocean (Andaman Sea) with the Pacific Ocean (South China Sea), forming a vital maritime chokepoint.
    • Trade Corridor: The shortest sea route between the Middle East/Africa and East Asia, critical for global commerce.
    • Volume of Trade: Handles about 60% of world maritime trade, including large-scale oil shipments from the Middle East to China, Japan, and Southeast Asia.
    • Economic Impact: Any disruption could severely affect supply chains and energy security worldwide.
    • Geopolitical Significance: Attracts competing interests of India, China, the US, and ASEAN states, making it a hotspot for regional and global strategic rivalry.
    [UPSC 2010] Which one of the following can one come across if one travels through the Strait of Malacca ?

    Options: (a) Bali (b) Brunei (c) Java (d) Singapore*

     

  • Highlights of the Global Peace Index, 2025

    Why in the News?

    India has ranked 115th in the Global Peace Index, 2025 published by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).

    About Global Peace Index (GPI):

    • Publisher: Released annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), Sydney.
    • Coverage: Ranks 163 countries/territories, representing 99.7% of world population.
    • Indicators: Based on 23 metrics grouped under three domains:
      • Societal Safety & Security (crime, terrorism, political stability).
      • Domestic & International Conflicts.
      • Degree of Militarisation (defence spending, arms imports, personnel).
    • Launch: First published in 2007; now a key global benchmark for peace, stability, and security.

    Key Highlights of GPI 2025:

    • Top 10: Iceland (1st), Ireland, New Zealand, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Portugal, Denmark, Slovenia.
    • India’s Position: Ranked 115th (score 2.229), an improvement from 116th in 2024 (+0.58%).
    • Neighbour Comparison:
      • Pakistan – 144th (much lower).
      • Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh – higher than India, reflecting stronger peace metrics.
    • Least Peaceful: Russia, Ukraine, Sudan, DR Congo, Yemen, hit by wars, humanitarian crises, and instability.
    • Regional Insights:
      • Europe dominates top ranks.
      • Singapore is only Asian country in top 10.
      • South America shows gains (Argentina, Peru).
      • South Asia, Middle East, Africa remain volatile.
    [UPSC 2023] Consider the following pairs:

    1. North Kivu and Ituri: War between Armenia and Azerbaijan

    2. Nagorno-Karabakh: Insurgency in Mozambique

    3. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia: Dispute between Israel and Lebanon

    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

    Options: (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None*

     

  • Unmistakable shift (India signalled a change in foreign policy stance at SCO Summit)

    Introduction

    India’s foreign policy has historically oscillated between balancing great power politics and safeguarding its strategic autonomy. The 2025 SCO Summit in China witnessed a landmark moment: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first bilateral engagement with Chinese President Xi Jinping since the 2020 military standoff. The visit not only revived dormant dialogues but also underscored India’s shifting posture in a multipolar world marked by U.S. sanctions, instability in West Asia, and contestations within Eurasia.

    Significance of Indian Prime Minister’s Visit to China

    1. Seven-year gap: PM Modi had not travelled to China since 2017, making this a major diplomatic breakthrough.
    2. First bilateral since standoff: Meeting with Xi Jinping was the first since the 2020 military confrontation along the LAC.
    3. Three-year SCO absence: Modi’s return to SCO after three years shows India’s willingness to re-engage with a grouping seen as anti-Western.
    4. Optics of bonhomie: Images with Xi and Putin evoked memories of the inactive Russia-India-China trilateral, signalling recalibration.

    Revival of India-China Bilateral Engagement

    1. Troop disengagement: Both leaders endorsed the normalisation process initiated in October 2024.
    2. Boundary resolution: Agreed to fast-track talks between Special Representatives.
    3. Connectivity revival: Resumption of direct flights and visa facilitation announced.
    4. Economic ties: Leaders stressed on building trade relations to stabilise world commerce.
    5. Mutual trust rhetoric: Modi stressed ties based on “mutual trust, respect and sensitivity”, while Xi used the metaphor of “Dragon and Elephant” coming together.

    External Drivers of India’s Foreign Policy Recalibration

    1. U.S. tariffs and sanctions: American restrictions and mistrust of the Trump administration nudged India to diversify partnerships.
    2. Strategic compulsion: India managed to side-step concerns like China’s support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, UNSC/NSG opposition, and shielding of terrorists.
    3. Multipolar optics: India’s engagement at SCO signals balancing between West and Eurasia.

    Key Outcomes of the 2025 SCO Summit

    1. Tianjin declaration: Strong language against cross-border terrorism, including condemnation of the Pahalgam attack (India) and Balochistan attacks (Pakistan).
    2. West Asian crisis: SCO united on humanitarian crisis in Gaza and condemned U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran.
    3. China’s push: Xi proposed an SCO Development Bank.
    4. India’s push: Modi proposed a Civilisational Dialogue among SCO members.
    5. India’s reservation: Continued opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) paragraph.

    Missed Diplomatic Opportunities at the Summit

    1. Skipped SCO Plus: Indian Prime Minister did not attend the extended “SCO Plus” Summit, limiting engagement with neighbourhood and Global South leaders.
    2. Regional bonding gap: While optics were strong, substantive regional outreach was diluted.

    Conclusion

    The SCO Summit underscored India’s willingness to recalibrate its foreign policy in a changing world order. Modi’s visit after years of distance marked a thaw with China, greater Eurasian engagement, and assertion of India’s independent foreign policy despite U.S. pressures. However, missed opportunities in broader outreach and unresolved trust deficits with China remain cautionary notes.

    Value Addition

    Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)

    Historical Background

    1. Successor to: SCO is the successor to the Shanghai Five, formed in 1996 between China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan.
    2. Formation: Established in 2001 in Shanghai by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
    3. Expansion: India and Pakistan joined as full members in 2017; Iran became a member in 2023.
    4. Observers & Dialogue Partners: Afghanistan, Belarus, Mongolia, and others engage as observers; several countries (e.g., Turkey, Sri Lanka) are dialogue partners.

    Strategic Importance of SCO for India

    1. Geopolitical Balancing: Provides a platform to engage with China and Russia while maintaining ties with the West (Quad, U.S.).
    2. Regional Security: Key forum for counter-terrorism cooperation, especially in light of cross-border terrorism and instability in Afghanistan.
    3. Eurasian Connectivity: Enhances India’s presence in Central Asia, a region rich in energy resources.
    4. Multipolar World Order: Strengthens India’s narrative of strategic autonomy and non-alignment in new form.

    Key SCO Mechanisms

    1. Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS): Headquartered in Tashkent, focuses on counter-terrorism intelligence sharing.
    2. Economic Cooperation: Proposals for SCO Development Bank, regional trade, and connectivity projects (though India resists BRI-linked initiatives).
    3. Cultural and Civilisational Dialogues: Shared platforms for people-to-people exchanges, education, and cultural diplomacy.

    India’s Challenges within SCO

    1. China Factor: Difficult to expand cooperation given border disputes and China’s Pakistan tilt.
    2. Pakistan Factor: Its membership often leads to diplomatic blockages on issues like terrorism.
    3. BRI Opposition: India consistently refuses to endorse the Belt and Road Initiative, creating friction.
    4. Russia-China Axis: Russia’s growing dependence on China may dilute India’s influence in the bloc.

    Contemporary Relevance

    1. Energy and Trade: Central Asia is crucial for energy diversification; SCO provides a gateway.
    2. Geopolitical Flux: With U.S.-China rivalry and West Asia instability, SCO’s role in Eurasian stability gains importance.
    3. Soft Power Opportunity: India uses SCO to promote civilisational dialogue, yoga, Ayurveda, and cultural diplomacy.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] Critically examine the aims and objectives of SCO. What importance does it hold for India?

    Linkage: The article directly illustrates the objectives of SCO—counter-terrorism (Tianjin declaration), multipolarity, and Eurasian stability. It highlights India’s balancing act—reviving ties with China, opposing BRI, and pushing for civilisational dialogue. Thus, the SCO Summit outcomes reflect both the scope and constraints of SCO’s importance for India in strategic, economic, and security domains.

  • In news: Sudan’s Darfur Region

    Why in the News?

    A landslide in Sudan’s western Darfur region reportedly wiped out a village, killing an estimated 1,000 people.

    In news: Sudan’s Darfur Region

    About Darfur Region:

    • Location & Size: Western Sudan; borders Chad, Libya, CAR; spans about 493,000 sq. km (nearly France-sized).
    • Geography: Predominantly arid/semi-arid; desert north, fertile south. Highly vulnerable to drought, desertification, and climate change.
    • Administrative Units: Divided into five states — North, South, West, Central, East Darfur.
    • Demographics: Mixed ethnic groups — Arab pastoralists and non-Arab farming communities.
    • Capital: El Fasher, main hub for administration, economy, and humanitarian operations.

    Ongoing Conflict & Crisis:

    • Origins of Uprising: Armed rebellion began in 2003 (SLM, JEM) against political and economic marginalization.
    • Janjaweed & RSF: Janjaweed militias, accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing, later evolved into Rapid Support Forces (RSF), now central to instability.
    • Humanitarian Crisis: Since 2003, region has seen mass killings, displacement, refugee flows, ranked among the worst global humanitarian crises.
    • Current Instability: Renewed 2023 violence between RSF and rival groups worsened agriculture, aid, and governance.
    • Regional Impact: Conflict spills into Chad and CAR, destabilizing the Sahel region.
    • Natural Disasters: Alongside conflict, disasters like the 2025 Darfur landslide (~1,000 deaths) add to human suffering.
    [UPSC 2024] Consider the following statements:

    Statement-I: There is instability and worsening security situation in the Sahel region.

    Statement-II: There have been military takeovers/coups d’état in several countries of the Sahel region in the recent past.

    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statement?

    a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I

    b) Bothe Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I

    c) Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect

    d) Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

     

  • [26th August 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: India-Japan Ties, Old Partners, New Priorities

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC GS II] 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: The question calls for examining India–Japan relations as a global and strategic partnership. The current visit, with Japan’s ¥10 trillion investment, defence cooperation, and Indo-Pacific focus, shows this vision materialising. It highlights how the partnership now goes beyond economics to shape Asian stability and world geopolitics.

    Mentor’s Comment

    PM Modi’s Japan visit signals India’s strategic clarity amid global flux. Japan’s unprecedented investment pledge, technology transfer, and defence cooperation position it as India’s most reliable Indo-Pacific partner when U.S. unpredictability and China’s mistrust loom large.

    Introduction

    India–Japan ties are deepening at a crucial juncture. With a ¥10 trillion ($68 billion) Japanese investment plan and renewed security cooperation, the partnership goes beyond economics. It reflects India’s balancing act between Tokyo, Beijing, and Washington, showcasing strategic autonomy in an uncertain world.

    Why is this visit significant?

    • Historic Japanese pledge: A ¥10 trillion ($68 billion) investment plan, among Tokyo’s most ambitious commitments to New Delhi.
    • Technology transfer: Includes next-generation E10 series Shinkansen for the Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail, reflecting economic plus technological collaboration.
    • Timing amid flux: Visit comes just before Modi’s participation in the SCO Summit in China, showcasing strategic balancing.
    • U.S. uncertainty: With Trump’s erratic second term, the visit highlights India’s recalibration of partnerships, reinforcing Japan as a dependable anchor.

    Japan’s Investment and Economic Partnership

    • Massive infrastructure push: ¥10 trillion investment spread across infrastructure, manufacturing, clean energy, and technology.
    • High-speed rail corridor: Japan’s E10 Shinkansen trains for Mumbai–Ahmedabad project symbolise trust and long-term collaboration.
    • Supply chain resilience: Economic Security Initiative expands cooperation on semiconductors, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, and clean energy.
    • Digital partnership: Upgradation to cover artificial intelligence and startup ecosystems, placing India-Japan ties at the cutting edge of innovation.

    Strategic and Defence Cooperation

    • Security framework revision: 2008 Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation to be updated in line with today’s realities.
    • Indo-Pacific commitment: Reinforces shared vision of a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific.
    • Maritime security and resilience: Japan remains central to India’s Indo-Pacific strategy amid an uncertain Quad trajectory.

    The China Factor and Strategic Balancing

    • Dual engagement: Modi’s Tokyo visit followed by Beijing trip reflects India’s ability to compartmentalise relations.
    • Confidence-building with China: Resumption of flights, visa relaxations, and trade measures post-Galwan.
    • Message of balance: India signals that deepening ties with Japan need not preclude dialogue with China.

    The U.S. Factor and Quad Challenges

    • Unpredictability under Trump 2.0: Threatens to erode years of steady New Delhi–Washington cooperation.
    • Quad dilution: U.S. disengagement risks weakening the grouping’s strategic coherence.
    • India-Japan partnership: Emerges as ballast to sustain Indo-Pacific momentum even when U.S. commitment wavers.

    Broader Political and Diplomatic Significance

    • Beyond economics: Japan’s engagement shows that consistent, long-term cooperation delivers real outcomes.
    • Diplomatic flexibility: India demonstrates ability to pursue multiple alignments without losing clarity.
    • Anchor role of Japan: Unlike Washington’s inconsistency or Beijing’s mistrust, Tokyo provides stability, resources, and shared values.

    Conclusion

    The Prime Minister’s Japan visit reflects one of the enduring features of Indian diplomacy, flexibility with clarity. By securing massive investment, strengthening defence ties, and reinforcing Indo-Pacific strategies, India positions Japan as its anchor partner in uncertain times. The visit sends a broader signal: India is capable of balancing great power politics while advancing its economic and strategic priorities. For UPSC, it is a live example of strategic autonomy in action.