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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • [20th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The Saudi-Pakistan pact is a dodgy insurance policy

    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 Saudi–Pakistan SMDA, like the earlier US–Iran Nuclear Pact controversy, reshapes West Asian alignments and directly impacts India’s energy security, diaspora safety, and regional stability. Just as India had to balance between Iran, the U.S., and Gulf partners in 2018, it must now carefully hedge between Riyadh and Islamabad while safeguarding its own strategic interests.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) signed between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in September 2025 has been described as a pact of optics rather than substance. Its timing, context, and asymmetrical calculations raise questions on whether it strengthens West Asian security or merely signals short-term adjustments. For UPSC aspirants, this episode provides insights into the shifting geopolitics of South West Asia, Pakistan’s strategic opportunism, Saudi Arabia’s security dilemmas, and India’s balancing role.

    Introduction

    On 17 September 2025, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Premier Shahbaz Sharif signed the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) in Riyadh, with Field Marshal Asim Munir in attendance. While presented as a landmark pact, its real significance lies in the optics of security reassurance amid the shifting sands of Middle Eastern politics. Both nations have a chequered past of military cooperation, rooted in shared faith but divided by divergent threat perceptions. The agreement’s asymmetrical benefits, U.S. undertones, and implications for India make it geopolitically consequential.

    Why is the SMDA in the news and why is it significant?

    1. First major pact in decades: The last high-point of Saudi–Pakistan defence ties was in the 1979–89 period, when 20,000 Pakistani troops protected Saudi Arabia and the Holy Harams.
    2. Optical reassurance: The SMDA is viewed more as a symbolic gesture than a substantive alliance, designed to show unity amidst rising threats from Iran, Yemen, and Israel.
    3. Geopolitical urgency: Triggered by the September 9 Israeli air strike in Doha (Qatar), the pact signals waning U.S. credibility as a security guarantor for the Gulf.
    4. Big deal: Pakistan is now a declared nuclear state, raising speculation of nuclear cooperation with Riyadh, though practical transfer remains improbable.

    What has been the history of Saudi-Pakistan defence cooperation?

    1. Golden phase (1979–89): 20,000 Pakistani soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect the monarchy and act against Iran and Yemen.
    2. Saudi view: Treated Pakistani forces as paid Praetorian Guards, limiting their autonomy.
    3. Pakistani view: Resented lack of command; exclusion of Shia troops created tensions.
    4. 1990 onwards: Pakistan refused Saudi requests during major crises (Iraq’s Kuwait invasion, Yemeni war), limiting its role to protecting the Holy Harams.

    How has the United States influenced the SMDA?

    1. Pentagon as the guarantor: U.S. historically underpinned Saudi–Pak defence ties “over-the-horizon.”
    2. Trump’s role: In June 2025, Field Marshal Munir’s “private lunch” with Trump in Washington signalled Washington’s blessing.
    3. Israeli factor: Saudi Arabia wanted a U.S. defence pact and nuclear technology in exchange for recognising Israel. The Hamas attack on Israel in Oct 2023 derailed the plan, leaving the SMDA as a consolation prize.
    4. Credibility gap: The U.S. failure to defend Qatar against Israeli strikes exposed fragility in Gulf security guarantees.

    What are Riyadh’s calculations from the SMDA?

    1. Avoid Arab troops: Past experience with Arab/Turkish troops created risks of “political pollination.
    2. Massive arms imports: Saudi Arabia has ordered $100 billion worth of U.S. weapons in 2025.
    3. Nuclear hedge: Pakistan’s nuclear capability could deter Iran if it goes nuclear.
    4. Chinese factor: Pakistan’s ties with China may complicate Riyadh’s trust.
    5. Realistic expectation: Riyadh foresees smaller Pakistani footprints than before, given past frictions.

    What are Islamabad’s calculations from the SMDA?

    1. Asymmetrical gains: No intention to fight Saudi wars against Iran, Yemen, or Israel.
    2. Strategic opportunism: Exploit Saudi insecurity to gain funds, oil, defence hardware, and training.
    3. Personal aggrandisement:Pakistan’s military elite aim to monetise “IOUs” from Riyadh and Washington.
    4. Regional calculus: Hopes trilateral axis will offset its strategic disadvantage against India.

    What does the SMDA mean for India?

    1. Energy linkages: India is the third-largest oil importer and among Saudi’s top trade partners.
    2. Diaspora factor: Largest expatriate community in Saudi Arabia, valued for skills and neutrality.
    3. Diplomatic capital: Post-2014 outreach has created defence and intelligence-sharing frameworks.
    4. Saudi balancing act: Riyadh assured Reuters that ties with India remain “robust,” acknowledging India’s nuclear status and geoeconomic heft.
    5. Implication: India must remain vigilant, building greater Arabian Sea synergies to counterbalance tactical moves by Pakistan.

    Conclusion

    The Saudi–Pakistan pact is less a robust security alliance and more a political insurance policy, crafted in haste amid shifting regional dynamics. While it temporarily reassures Riyadh and monetarily benefits Islamabad, its sustainability remains doubtful due to divergent threat perceptions, nuclear sensitivities, and overlapping U.S.–China rivalries. For India, the SMDA underscores the need to strengthen its energy diplomacy, diaspora leverage, and strategic partnerships with Riyadh, while maintaining watchfulness over Pakistan’s manoeuvres.

  • Turmoil, tragedy, and tenacity in Nepal

    Introduction

    In early September 2025, Nepal was rocked by its most intense youth uprising since the end of monarchy in 2008. Peaceful demonstrations against corruption and inequality, largely organised online, escalated into violent clashes, leaving 73 dead and vital government institutions in flames. The resignation of Oli and the appointment of Sushila Karki as interim Prime Minister has opened a critical transition. The protests underscore the growing role of Gen Z digital activism in reshaping political landscapes.

    Timeline of the protests

    1. 4 Sept 2025: Government orders registration/ban of 26 social media platforms (trigger).
    2. Early Sept (pre-8): Weeks of online organising; #NepoBabies and related trends circulate.
    3. 8 Sept 2025 (Day 1): Large peaceful gatherings at Maitighar Mandala; clashes erupt; official reports of first deaths (≈19 reported that night).
    4. 9 Sept 2025 (Day 2): Violence spreads; Parliament, Supreme Court, Singha Durbar attacked and some set on fire; casualty and injury figures climb.
    5. 10–12 Sept 2025: Army deployed to secure cities; Home Minister and Oli resign; negotiations with youth representatives begin.
    6. 12–14 Sept 2025: Sushila Karki sworn in as interim prime minister; Parliament dissolved; elections scheduled for March (caretaker mandate announced).

    How did legal restraints on digital space ignite a national revolt?

    1. Trigger — Social Media Ban: On 4 September 2025, the government ordered the blocking/registration of 26 social media platforms, including X, Facebook, and Instagram.
    2. Impact: This cut off Gen-Z’s primary space for organisation, expression, and economic activity, seen as a direct assault on civic freedom.
    3. Outcome: Scattered anger was transformed into coordinated protests.
    4. Example: Youth groups used Discord and TikTok to plan assemblies at Maitighar Mandala and coordinate marches towards Parliament.

    What were the structural grievances behind the uprising?

    1. Corruption & Elitism: Perceptions of elite capture, misuse of resources, and impunity fuelled resentment.
    2. Symbol of Rage: The #NepoKids / #NepoBabies campaign exposed politicians’ children flaunting luxury while ordinary youth faced precarity.
    3. Example: Viral clips contrasting lavish lifestyles with student unemployment intensified outrage.
    4. Data: Transparency International (2025): Nepal ranked 107/180 on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI score: 34).

    Why did peaceful protests become deadly and destructive?

    1. Escalation: Initially peaceful gatherings on 8 September were dispersed using tear gas and reportedly live ammunition.
    2. Violence: Retaliatory riots followed; demonstrators targeted symbols of state power.
    3. Example: On 9 September, Parliament, Supreme Court, and Singha Durbar were set ablaze; crucial judicial records were damaged.
    4. Data: 72–73 deaths reported, with hundreds injured, mostly between ages 19–24.

    What immediate political fallout followed the unrest?

    1. Leadership Change: Home Minister resigned on 8 Sept; PM K.P. Sharma Oli stepped down on 9 Sept.
    2. Caretaker Transition: The Army mediated negotiations; Parliament was dissolved.
    3. Interim PM: Sushila Karki, former Chief Justice, sworn in on 12 Sept 2025, mandated to hold elections within six months.
      • Karki visited hospitals, assured investigations, and pledged accountability and timely polls.

    How did digital tools shape both mobilisation and misinformation?

    1. Mobilisation: Platforms like Discord, TikTok, and hashtags enabled rapid outreach, meme-culture, and youth identity in protests.
    2. Creativity: Anime/manga flags and viral videos energised Gen-Z demonstrations.
    3. Misinformation: False reports and AI-generated images (e.g., Pashupati Temple “burning”) created panic and confusion.
    4. Example: Fake claims about a senior politician’s family being killed circulated widely before being disproved.

    What are the main challenges facing Nepal’s interim rulers?

    1. Legitimacy Concerns: Traditional political parties, deposed MPs, and royalist factions question the constitutional mandate of the interim set-up.
    2. Balancing Act: The government must address youth expectations of anti-corruption and inclusivity while ensuring political buy-in from entrenched elites.
    3. Stability: Conducting free and fair elections by March 2026 without undermining the democratic spirit of Gen-Z protests remains the foremost task.
    4. Example: Political parties and royalists have already raised doubts over Karki’s legitimacy despite broad youth support.

    Implications for Nepal (domestic)

    • Political Legitimacy and Party Renewal
      • The protests revealed a deep erosion of trust in established parties.
      • Unless political parties reform and integrate youth aspirations into institutional politics, cycles of protest could continue.
      • Revamping youth wings and embracing inclusivity may be crucial for long-term stability.
      • (Echoes analysts’ calls for parties to redefine themselves in light of 1990 and 2006 lessons.)
    • Rule of Law and Accountability
      • Strong demands exist for independent investigations into the use of excessive force and arson during protests.
      • The credibility of Nepal’s democracy depends on whether security forces and political elites are held accountable.
      • Sushila Karki’s pledge to investigate abuses and compensate victims sets both a legal and moral benchmark.
    • Economic and Social Policy Pressure
      • With youth unemployment at 20%, migration pressures, and widening inequality, socio-economic grievances remain central.
      • The interim government faces urgent pressure to deliver short-term relief (jobs, anti-corruption crackdowns) while laying the groundwork for structural reforms in education, employment, and inclusivity.
      • Failure to deliver may reignite unrest and deepen distrust in democratic institutions.

    Implications for South Asia (regional)

    • Contagion Risk and Inspiration:
      • The Nepali uprising reflects a wider Gen-Z dissent pattern in Asia.
      • Similar youth-led movements in Sri Lanka (2022), Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines have challenged entrenched elites.
      • Nepal’s protests may inspire emulation across borders, intensifying regional instability.
    • Cross-Border Diplomacy & Stability:
      • Political turbulence in Kathmandu could strain bilateral relations with neighbours.
      • Instability may disrupt migration flows, remittances, and border trade.
      • Governments in South Asia may reassess youth policy, unemployment measures, and digital freedoms to preempt unrest.
    • Policy Lessons on Digital Platforms:
      • Nepal’s ban highlights the risks of hard regulation of social media.
      • Neighbouring states will closely observe whether bans quell dissent or provoke backlash.
      • The episode may shape future regional digital governance frameworks balancing free expression with misinformation control.

    Conclusion

    Nepal’s Gen Z uprising is both tragic and transformative. It highlights the power of digital natives to hold governments accountable, but also the dangers of violence and misinformation. The coming months will test whether Nepal can channel this energy into transparent, inclusive governance or relapse into instability.

    PYQ Linkage:

    [UPSC 2012] Discuss the contentious issues that have caused the prolonged

    constitutional logjam in Nepal.

    Linkage: The 2025 Gen Z protests in Nepal show that unresolved constitutional questions of inclusiveness, accountability, and representation remain central even after the 2015 Constitution. The uprising exposed youth anger at elite capture and exclusion of caste, ethnic, and gender groups — echoing the very fault lines that prolonged Nepal’s constitutional logjam post-2008 monarchy abolition. Thus, the recent turmoil is a continuation of the older struggle for a truly inclusive and accountable Nepali state.

  • Should India overlook boundary issues while normalizing ties with China?

    Introduction

    The India-China relationship has historically oscillated between cautious cooperation and sharp confrontation. The latest Modi–Xi meeting on the sidelines of the SCO Summit reopened bilateral trade, air connectivity, and emphasised peace at the border. Yet, the memory of the 2020 Galwan clashes looms large. At stake is the central question: Can India afford to set aside the boundary dispute for the sake of wider cooperation, or would that compromise its strategic autonomy and long-term security?

    Why is this debate in the news?

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s China visit marks the first high-level attempt in five years to restore normalcy after Galwan. The move is significant as it reflects India’s willingness to restart engagement despite recent military tensions and China’s continued strategic partnership with Pakistan. The revival of trade and connectivity signals pragmatism, but it raises the question of whether unresolved boundary tensions can remain compartmentalised. This sharp contrast with the hostility of recent years makes the issue both urgent and unprecedented.

    Can India normalise ties without resolving the boundary issue?

    1. Historical Precedent (1988, 1990s): Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to Beijing in 1988 initiated the idea of cooperation in other domains while border talks continued separately. Both sides agreed to maintain peace and tranquility along the LAC despite unresolved sovereignty disputes.
    2. Galwan Disruption (2020): The deadly clash exposed the fragility of this arrangement and highlighted China’s aggressive posture, a setback far greater than earlier skirmishes.
    3. Current Diplomatic Push: Since 2020, both countries have restored disengagement through buffer zones, with the 2024 Border Patrol Agreement marking an important breakthrough, including restoration of patrol rights in Demchok and Depsang.

    What explains China’s actions and insecurities?

    1. Article 370 Effect: Chinese analysts linked Galwan to India’s constitutional move in Jammu & Kashmir, which Beijing opposed.
    2. Economic Competition: During the U.S.-China trade war, Beijing feared India aligning with Washington to grab supply-chain opportunities.
    3. India’s Growth Factor: China increasingly perceives India’s demographic dividend and economic rise as a potential threat, at a time when its own population is shrinking.
    4. Manufacturing Prowess: Despite insecurities, China’s dominance is overwhelming—accounting for 45% of global manufacturing output, highlighted by India’s Economic Survey 2024-25.

    How fragile is the current normalisation?

    1. Possibility of Galwan-2: Any fresh military clash could derail progress entirely, as mistrust remains deep-rooted.
    2. Chinese Perception of India: Beijing no longer treats India as a peer but as a regional player to be managed, often subordinated to its ties with Pakistan.
    3. Infrastructure Build-up: China continues rapid military expansion on the Tibetan plateau, forcing India to invest heavily in its own LAC infrastructure.
    4. Diplomatic Asymmetry: Even as dialogue continues, China shows little real interest in a final border settlement.

    Can India-China cooperation coexist with China’s South Asia strategy?

    1. China’s Trilateral Mechanisms: Beijing is building frameworks like Pakistan-China-Afghanistan and Pakistan-China-Bangladesh, which aim to sideline India.
    2. Strategic Rivalry: China views India as a long-term competitor; India counters with its own diplomatic cards.
    3. Interdependence Factor: Despite rivalry, both economies remain connected—India dependent on China’s manufacturing, and China wary of India’s market potential.

    Conclusion

    India cannot afford to overlook the boundary issue entirely, as sovereignty and security form the bedrock of foreign policy. Yet, pragmatic engagement, through trade, connectivity, and multilateral platforms, remains equally important. A calibrated approach that safeguards territorial integrity while leveraging cooperation where possible may be the most realistic path forward.

    PYQ Relevance:

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

    Linkage: The South China Sea tensions highlight China’s assertive behaviour in territorial disputes, which parallels its aggressive stance on the India-China boundary issue, especially after Galwan. Just as freedom of navigation is contested in the maritime domain, peace and tranquility along the LAC is fragile despite agreements like the 2024 Border Patrol pact. Thus, bilateral issues centre on sovereignty, security dilemmas, and China’s attempts to limit India’s strategic space in both continental and regional contexts.

  • US revokes sanctions waiver on Chabahar Port

    Why in the News?

    The U.S. has ended the 2018 waiver that let India use Iran’s Chabahar Port for Afghanistan’s reconstruction, revoking it within 10 days.

    US revokes sanctions waiver on Chabahar Port

    About Chabahar Port:

    • Location: Deep-water port in Sistan-Baluchistan province of Iran, on the Gulf of Oman at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz.
    • Unique Feature: The only Iranian port with direct access to the Indian Ocean.
    • Distances: Kandla Port, Gujarat – 550 nautical miles, Mumbai – 786 nautical miles from Chabahar.
    • Structure: Comprises Shahid Beheshti and Shahid Kalantari terminals.
    • Connectivity Potential: Its proximity to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India and position on the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) gives it the ability to become a major commercial hub.
    • INSTC: A multi-modal route linking the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea via Iran, and onward to northern Europe via Russia.

    India’s Engagements for Chabahar Port:

    • Tripartite Agreement (2016): India, Iran, and Afghanistan agreed to develop the Shahid Beheshti terminal, marking India’s first foreign port project.
    • Infrastructure Goals: Develop the port and build a rail line to Zahedan, bypassing Pakistan to reach Afghanistan and Central Asia.
    • Recent Developments: In May 2024, India Ports Global Ltd (IPGL) signed a 10-year lease to operate Shahid Beheshti.
    • Commitments: India pledged $120 million in equipment and a $250 million credit line.
    • Operations: India supplied 6 harbour cranes; facilitated shipments of 2.5 million tonnes of wheat and 2,000 tonnes of pulses to Afghanistan.

    Implications of US Sanctions for India:

    • Economic Setback: Jeopardises India’s ₹200 crore investment and future projects.
    • Connectivity Loss: Cuts India’s only direct maritime gateway to Afghanistan, Central Asia, and INSTC.
    • Strategic Impact: Weakens India’s counter to China’s Gwadar Port in Pakistan under CPEC.
    • Diplomatic Strain: Risks tensions with Iran (strategic partner) and the United States (major trade partner).
    • Operational Challenges: Sanctions may deter shippers, insurers, and suppliers, slowing port activity.
    [UPSC 2017] What is the importance of developing Chabahar Port by India?

    Options: (a) India’s trade with African countries will enormously increase.

    (b) India’s relations with oil-producing Arab countries will be strengthened.

    (c) India will not depend on Pakistan for access to Afghanistan and Central Asia *

    (d) Pakistan will facilitate and protect the installation of a gas pipeline between Iraq and India

     

  • Highlights of the Global Innovation Index, 2025

    Why in the News?

    The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has released the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2025.

    About the Global Innovation Index (GII):

    • Overview: Annual ranking of 139 economies by their innovation capacity and success.
    • Publishers: Jointly by Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
    • Origin: First published in 2007.
    • Indicators: Uses 80+ metrics across 7 pillars.
    • Structure:
      • Innovation Input Sub-Index: Institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication.
      • Innovation Output Sub-Index: Knowledge and technology outputs, creative outputs.
    • Purpose: Helps governments evaluate how effectively R&D, education, and infrastructure are translated into innovation outcomes.

    Key Highlights of GII 2025:

    • Global R&D growth: Slowed to 2.9% (2024) and 2.3% (2025 projection), down from 4.4% earlier; lowest since the 2010 financial crisis.
    • Top Performers: Switzerland (1st), Sweden (2nd), United States (3rd), followed by Republic of Korea, Singapore, United Kingdom, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, and China (10th).
    • China: Surpassed Switzerland in knowledge and technology outputs; 2nd highest in R&D expenditure; world leader in patent filings.
    • Regional Trends: Europe dominates with 15 of top 25 economies; Southeast, East Asia and Oceania (SEAO) region has 6 economies in top 25.
    • India: Ranked 38th globally with a score of ~40.5; top among lower-middle income countries and in Central & Southern Asia.
      • Strengths: Knowledge and technology outputs (22nd), market sophistication, and human capital and research.
      • Weaknesses: Business sophistication, infrastructure, and institutions remain lagging.
    [UPSC 2019] The Global Competitiveness Report is published by the:

    Options:

    (a) International Monetary Fund  (b) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development  (c) World Economic Forum * (d) World Bank

     

  • Let Griger counters, not guesses, shape Iran Actions

    Introduction

    The nuclear question has once again moved to the forefront of global geopolitics. Following the U.S. strikes on Iran’s underground nuclear site at Fordow in June 2025, the E3 (Britain, France, Germany) invoked the “snapback” clause of the 2015 nuclear deal, citing Iranian violations. If diplomacy falters, UN sanctions on enrichment, arms transfers, finance, and shipping will return, escalating global risks. The crisis is magnified by the absence of verified facts after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) staff withdrew from Iran. In this environment of speculation and heightened risks, verification, not guesswork, must anchor diplomacy.

    Why is this news significant?

    The crisis is not just another Middle Eastern standoff; it is unprecedented in multiple ways. For the first time since 2015, the snapback clause has been triggered, threatening the revival of stringent UN sanctions. The crisis has exposed the vacuum of verified facts, as IAEA inspectors have been expelled, leaving the world to act on rumors. The stakes are global from oil markets and shipping insurance to regional stability and nuclear proliferation. For India, the challenge is sharper: ensuring uninterrupted oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, stability in its extended neighborhood, and the safety of 8 million Indian citizens in West Asia.

    Why does the absence of IAEA verification matter?

    1. Verification as the hinge of diplomacy: IAEA access substitutes speculation with facts and provides baselines for negotiations.
    2. Market stability: Comparable IAEA presence in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia plant calmed global markets; similar oversight in Iran could reduce volatility.
    3. Iran’s sovereignty concerns: Iran argues that inspectors compromise sovereignty and risk enabling strikes — past Israeli and U.S. strikes followed IAEA disclosures.
    4. Parliamentary resistance: Such episodes have hardened Iranian domestic opposition to IAEA cooperation.

    What are the risks if Iran withdraws from the NPT?

    1. Legal vacuum: Withdrawal strips the IAEA of legal authority to inspect Iranian sites.
    2. Escalation to uncharted territory: Harder sanctions, further isolation, and the military option returning to the table.
    3. Global instability: From oil prices to nuclear proliferation, the fallout would be worldwide.

    How is India placed in this unfolding crisis?

    1. Bridge-builder role: As a long-standing IAEA Board member with ties across divides, India is well-positioned to facilitate consensus.
    2. SCO and BRICS engagement: India joined others in condemning U.S.-Israel strikes, supporting a multilateral call for technical IAEA access.
    3. Technical contribution: India’s IAEA-certified Tarapur facility could analyze samples under safeguards, providing credible support.
    4. Energy and diaspora stakes: Protecting oil supplies and ensuring the safety of Indians abroad makes stability in West Asia non-negotiable for New Delhi.

    What are the choices before the global community?

    1. Diplomatic opening: Iran’s recent agreement with the IAEA in Cairo (Sept 9, 2025) and allowing inspectors at Bushehr offer small openings.
    2. Snapback pause: If Iran extends verification to bombed sites, E3 may pause the snapback, shifting momentum back to diplomacy.
    3. Alternative — escalation: Failure of diplomacy risks sanctions, military standoffs, and cycles of strike and counterstrike.

    Conclusion

    The Iran nuclear standoff represents a defining moment for global non-proliferation and regional stability. What the world requires today is not speculation, but credible verification, structured dialogue, and sustained diplomacy. For India, the stakes go beyond principles of international order to immediate concerns of energy security, diaspora protection, and regional peace. By using its credibility in multilateral forums and offering technical expertise, India can position itself as a constructive stakeholder. Ultimately, the crisis will test whether global powers can rise above unilateralism and competing interests to uphold collective security and prevent a slide into escalation.

    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 ongoing U.S.-Iran nuclear pact controversy directly impacts India’s energy security, diaspora safety in West Asia, and regional stability. Escalation could disrupt oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz and complicate India’s strategic balance between the U.S., Iran, and Gulf states. India must respond with measured diplomacy, supporting verification through the IAEA while safeguarding its vital national interests.

  • WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies

    Why in the News?

    The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies has entered into force on 15 September 2025, three years after adoption in June 2022.

    What is the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies?

    • Nature: First WTO treaty centred on environmental sustainability, designed to reduce harmful subsidies that drive illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and overfishing.
    • Core Prohibitions:
      • Subsidies for IUU fishing vessels or operators.
      • Subsidies for fishing in overfished stocks, unless linked to recovery plans.
      • Subsidies for high-seas fishing in areas outside coastal state jurisdiction or Regional Fisheries Management Organizations.
    • Transparency: Members must provide detailed reports on fish stocks, fleets, catch volumes, and subsidies.
    • Transition Period: Two years allowed for developing countries and least developed countries before full implementation.
    • Phased Approach: Called “Fish One”, to be followed by “Fish Two” covering overcapacity and fleet subsidies.
    • Global Significance: Contributes to Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, which seeks elimination of harmful subsidies to protect global fish stocks.

    India and this Agreement: 

    • Position: India welcomed the treaty, noting it is one of the lowest fisheries subsidizers despite its large fishing community.
    • Equity Argument: Urged that historic subsidizers and industrial fishing nations take greater obligations, based on polluter pays principle and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).
    • Sector Context: India’s fisheries are dominated by millions of small-scale, traditional fishers dependent on coastal resources, requiring fair treatment.
    • Benefits for India:
      • Curbing IUU fishing by foreign industrial fleets, protecting coastal livelihoods.
      • Allowing space for stock-rebuilding subsidies tied to sustainability.
      • Ensuring fair competition for Indian traditional fishers in global trade.
    [UPSC 2015] The terms ‘Agreement on Agriculture’, ‘Agreement on the application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’ and ‘Peace Clause’ appear in the news frequently in the context of the affairs of the

    Options: (a) Food and Agricultural Organization (b) United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (c) World Trade Organization* (d) United Nations Environment Programme

     

  • India secures International Seabed Authority (ISA) exploration contract

    Why in the News?

    India has secured the world’s first International Seabed Authority (ISA) licence to explore polymetallic sulphur nodules in the Carlsberg Ridge, northwest Indian Ocean.

    India’s Engagement with ISA:

    • Exploration Contracts:
      1. 2002 – Polymetallic nodules, Central Indian Ocean Basin (valid till 2027).
      2. 2016 – Polymetallic sulphides, Indian Ocean Ridge (valid till 2031).
      3. 2025 – First global licence for polymetallic sulphides in Carlsberg Ridge.
    • Pending Application: Afanasy-Nikitin Seamount (ANS), Central Indian Ocean.
    • Strategic Goals:
      • Secure access to critical minerals (nickel, cobalt, manganese, copper).
      • Balance energy transition needs with environmental safeguards.
      • Counter competing claims (e.g., China in the Indian Ocean).
    • Role in ISA: Active participant in Mining Code negotiations; pushes for sustainable, equitable exploration.

    About International Seabed Authority (ISA):

    • Establishment: Created under UNCLOS (1982) and the 1994 Agreement on Part XI; Based in Kingston, Jamaica.
    • Membership: 168 States (including India) + EU; the US is NOT a member or party to UNCLOS.
    • Mandate:
      • Regulate exploration/exploitation of minerals in the Area (beyond national jurisdictions, ~54% of oceans).
      • Ensure benefits for all humankind.
      • Protect marine environment from mining impacts.
      • Promote marine scientific research.
    • Regulatory Framework: Guided by the Mining Code (licensing, EIA, sustainability standards).
    • Functions:
      • Grants 15-year exploration contracts (extendable).
      • Monitors compliance of contractors.
      • Balances resource use with environmental safeguards.

    About Carlsberg Ridge:

    • Location: A mid-ocean ridge in the northwest Indian Ocean (Arabian Sea region).
    • Extent: Covers ~3,00,000 sq. km, stretching from Rodrigues Island (SW Indian Ocean) to the Owen fracture zone.
    • Tectonic Setting: Boundary between the Indian Plate and the Arabian Plate.
    • Critical Minerals: Deposits contain manganese, cobalt, nickel, copper, vital for clean energy, electronics, and defence.

     

    [UPSC 2021] Consider the following statements:

    1. The Global Ocean Commission grants licenses for seabed exploration and mining in international waters.

    2. India has received licenses for seabed mineral exploration in international waters.

    3. ‘Rare earth minerals’ are present on the seafloor in international waters.

    Which of the statements given above are correct?

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

     

  • In news: Bank for International Settlements (BIS)

    Why in the News?

    The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has cautioned that record-high global share prices appear detached from concerns over rising government debt.

    About the Bank for International Settlements (BIS):

    • Establishment: Formed in 1930, making it the world’s oldest international financial institution.
    • Role: Known as the “central bank for central banks”, serving only central banks & international organisations, not private entities or governments.
    • Headquarters: Basel, Switzerland; offices in Hong Kong & Mexico City.
    • Membership: Owned by 63 central banks, covering ~95% of global GDP.
    • Purpose: Promotes international monetary and financial cooperation and ensures global monetary stability.
    • Functions:
      • Platform for policy coordination & information sharing among central banks.
      • Provides banking services: reserve management, gold/forex transactions, liquidity support.
      • Acts as trustee/agent in global financial operations.
      • Conducts research, training, and seminars on financial stability.
      • Hosts Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), which frames Basel norms.

    India and the BIS:

    • Membership: Represented by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a full member.
    • Representation: RBI Governor participates in BIS Board of Governors meetings.
    • Participation:
      • Engages in BIS research & policy discussions.
      • RBI officials join working groups on supervision, stability, and fintech.
    • Basel Norms: India, via RBI, has adopted Basel standards on capital adequacy, liquidity & risk management.
    • Innovation Hub: Collaborates with BIS on digital payments, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and cross-border fintech solutions.
    [UPSC 2015] ‘Basel III Accord’ or simply ‘Basel III’ often seen in the news, seeks to

    Options: (a) develop national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

    (b) improve banking sector’s ability to deal with financial and economic stress and improve risk management*

    (c) reduce the greenhouse gas emissions but places a heavier burden on developed countries

    (d) transfer technology from developed countries to poor countries to enable them to replace the use of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration with harmless chemicals

     

  • Scarborough Shoal in South China Sea

    Why in the News?

    China’s State Council has approved the creation of a national nature reserve at Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Dao in Chinese, Bajo de Masinloc/Panatag Shoal in the Philippines).

    About Scarborough Shoal:

    • Geography: A triangle-shaped chain of reefs and rocks in the South China Sea, about 200 km from Luzon (Philippines) and 800+ km from Hainan (China).
    • Status: Uninhabited but strategic, located near shipping lanes carrying $3 trillion in trade annually.
    • Significance: The lagoon shelters boats, and surrounding waters hold rich fish stocks vital for Zambales and Pangasinan communities.

    Disputes about it:

    • Sovereignty Claims: Both China and the Philippines claim ownership.
    • 2016 Arbitration Ruling: Permanent Court of Arbitration (The Hague) held China’s nine-dash line claim invalid, declaring Scarborough a traditional fishing ground under UNCLOS; China rejected the verdict.
    • Philippines’ Grounds: Lies within Manila’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), making China’s reserve “illegitimate and unlawful.”
    • International Response: The US, Japan, Australia, and Canada conduct naval patrols/drills supporting the Philippines and freedom of navigation.
    [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.