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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • Looking at India-Pak ties through prism of Indus Waters Treaty

    Introduction

    For 65 years, the Indus Waters Treaty ensured the uninterrupted sharing of river waters between India and Pakistan despite wars and conflicts. Signed in 1960, with the World Bank as broker, it granted Pakistan control over nearly 80% of the Indus system waters while India retained rights over the eastern rivers. Yet, this arrangement, hailed by Nehru as a “gesture of peace,” was also criticized as appeasement. Today, the Treaty faces an existential challenge, as India, for the first time, suspends its obligations in response to cross-border terrorism. A fresh evaluation of the IWT reveals that Pakistan’s real concern is not water scarcity but the control of flows, a factor deeply tied to its obsession with Kashmir.

    Why in the News

    India, after decades of restraint, has finally exercised its strategic upper riparian advantage by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty following the April Pahalgam terror attack. This is a watershed moment: for the first time in 65 years, the Treaty, which survived four wars, terror attacks, and political turmoil, has been placed in abeyance. The move underscores a shift from India’s earlier magnanimity to a more assertive posture. It is significant because it challenges one of the few stable frameworks of India–Pakistan relations and introduces water as a core strategic lever, alongside terrorism and Kashmir.

    Why was the Indus Waters Treaty so Significant?

    1. Historic endurance: The Treaty survived four wars, repeated terror attacks, and decades of hostility.
    2. Unique distribution: Pakistan received 80% of Indus waters (western rivers) despite being the lower riparian.
    3. Nehru’s vision: Seen as a stabilizing act of peace, prioritizing development over disputes.
    4. Pakistan’s insecurity: Never fully celebrated, fearing India’s control as upper riparian.

    How Do India and Pakistan Perceive the Treaty Differently?

    1. India’s approach: Saw the Treaty as magnanimity; Nehru called it a “purchase of peace.”
    2. Criticism of India: S Jaishankar terms it appeasement, not peace.
    3. Pakistan’s strategy: Used Article IX dispute mechanism to obstruct Indian projects in J&K.
    4. Silent dissatisfaction: Despite receiving 80% waters, Pakistan avoided declaring victory to maintain a narrative of victimhood.

    What Drives Pakistan’s Deep Insecurity?

    1. Not water, but control: Pakistan’s fear lies in disruption of flows, not absolute shortage.
    2. Kashmir link: To control rivers, Pakistan desires physical control of J&K.
    3. Historic evidence: Gen Ayub Khan soon after the Treaty linked water insecurity with demand for Kashmir.
    4. Perverse use of IWT: Constant attempts to delay Indian projects in J&K despite India’s limited use of western rivers.

    Why Did the Treaty Survive for So Long?

    1. India’s responsibility: As the upper riparian, India ensured minimum flows and shared data.
    2. Asymmetry of burden: Pakistan had little responsibility upstream but leveraged dispute clauses downstream.
    3. Counterfactual concern: Survival of Treaty is doubtful if Pakistan had been upper riparian.
    4. Symbol of stability: Often cited globally as a model of cooperative water-sharing.

    What Could the Future Hold for the IWT?

    1. Pakistan’s likely strategy: Stonewall renegotiations, fearing worse outcomes.
    2. India’s new stance: Seeks bilateral renegotiation without World Bank involvement.
    3. Regional dimension: Pakistan may attempt to involve China (8% basin) and Afghanistan (6% basin).
    4. Strategic uncertainty: India may not disrupt flows but could introduce uncertainty, forcing Pakistan to rethink its terror policy.
    5. J&K projects: India likely to push through delayed hydro and irrigation projects without Pakistani consent.

    Conclusion

    The IWT, once a symbol of cooperation, now mirrors the fault lines of India–Pakistan relations. For decades, India upheld its obligations even at strategic cost. But by suspending the Treaty, India has signaled that goodwill cannot be one-sided, especially in the face of relentless terrorism. Water, development, security, and Kashmir are now deeply intertwined. The Indus basin, instead of being a bridge, risks becoming another battlefield in South Asia’s fraught geopolitics.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2015] Terrorist activities and mutual distrust have clouded India–Pakistan relations. To what extent the use of soft power like sports and cultural exchanges could help generate goodwill between the two countries? Discuss with suitable examples.

    Linkage: The Indus Waters Treaty itself was long considered a form of institutionalized soft power, surviving wars and terror. However, its suspension after the Pahalgam attack highlights how terrorism erodes even cooperative mechanisms. Just as cultural exchanges aim to build goodwill, water-sharing too depended on mutual trust — and both reveal how soft power collapses when hostility dominates.

  • [11th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The Way Forward on Katchatheevu, Palk Strait disputes

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: The Katchatheevu and Palk Strait disputes show how domestic pressures from Tamil Nadu, fishing community demands, political rhetoric, and cultural ties with Sri Lankan Tamils, directly shape India’s diplomatic posture with Colombo. Balancing these domestic concerns with treaty obligations and ecological imperatives defines the contours of India’s foreign policy. This reflects how internal politics often intersect with external relations in South Asia.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Katchatheevu and Palk Straits disputes highlight the fine balance India must strike between diplomacy, livelihood, and ecological sustainability. While political rhetoric often overshadows the nuanced reality, the recent revival of dialogue between India and Sri Lanka offers an opportunity to convert conflict into cooperation. This article unpacks the legal, ecological, and humanitarian dimensions of the issue and offers insights useful for UPSC Mains aspirants.

    Introduction

    India’s neighbourhood diplomacy has been historically guided by Panchsheel, the Non-Aligned Movement, SAARC, and now the Neighbourhood First Policy. Yet, challenges with Sri Lanka, notably the fisheries dispute in the Palk Straits and the sovereignty of Katchatheevu island, continue to test this vision. Prime Minister Modi’s April 2025 visit to Colombo revived discussions on these long-standing issues, calling for a “humane approach” that reconciles livelihoods and ecological imperatives. The stakes are high: peace in the Palk Straits is not just about maritime boundaries but about human security, sustainability, and regional goodwill.

    The Katchatheevu and Palk Strait Issue

    Katchatheevu Island Dispute

    • Katchatheevu island: A tiny, uninhabited islet (under 0.5 sq. miles) situated in the Palk Strait, legally ceded to Sri Lanka under the 1974 India-Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary Treaty.
      • Fishing rights vs sovereignty: While sovereignty is settled in Sri Lanka’s favour, Indian fishers, especially from Tamil Nadu, continue to demand access, leading to periodic clashes.
    • Palk Strait: A narrow stretch of sea separating Tamil Nadu from Sri Lanka’s Northern Province, rich in marine resources but ecologically fragile.
      • Conflict drivers: Indian bottom trawlers crossing the maritime boundary deplete fish stocks, harming both Indian artisanal fishers and Sri Lankan Tamil fishers.
      • Core issue: More than territory, it is a livelihood and ecological crisis, complicated by political rhetoric around Katchatheevu’s status.

    Livelihood and conservation at odds

    1. Shared history: Fishing communities of Tamil Nadu and Northern Sri Lanka have relied on the Palk Straits for centuries.
    2. Destructive practices: Indian mechanised bottom trawlers enter Sri Lankan waters, violating conservation norms.
    3. Legal framework: UNCLOS and FAO’s 1995 Code of Conduct prohibit destructive fishing; Sri Lanka banned bottom trawling in 2017.
    4. Ecological damage: Coral beds and shrimp habitats are destroyed; fish stocks are depleted.
    5. Internal conflict: Traditional Tamil Nadu artisanal fishers also lose out, creating intra-community livelihood clashes.

    Clearing the misconceptions around Katchatheevu

    1. Tiny territory: Katchatheevu is less than half a square mile, barren except for St. Anthony’s church.
    2. Treaty status: The 1974 India-Sri Lanka Maritime Boundary Treaty gave it to Sri Lanka; under international law, such treaties are binding.
    3. Legal precedents: Minquiers and Ecrehos (UK vs France, 1953) and Rann of Kutch (India-Pakistan, 1968) show administrative control outweighs historical claims.
    4. Clarification: Myths such as “Indira Gandhi gifting the island” are misleading; historical records supported Sri Lanka’s claim.
    5. Key point: Fishing rights are separate from sovereignty, and Katchatheevu is not the root of the dispute.

    Towards cooperative fisheries management

    1. Historic waters: Indian and Sri Lankan law recognise the Palk Straits as historic waters, giving stronger sovereign rights.
    2. UNCLOS Article 123: Mandates cooperation in semi-enclosed seas.
    3. Models for India-Sri Lanka:
      1. Baltic Sea Fisheries Convention (quota-sharing).
      2. Possible steps: Joint research station on Katchatheevu, regulated quotas, seasonal access, promotion of deep-sea fishing in India’s EEZ.

    Building empathy and fraternity

    1. Shared suffering: Sri Lankan Tamil fishers lost decades of livelihood during the civil war due to military restrictions.
    2. Goodwill memory: Tamil refugees were welcomed in Tamil Nadu during the conflict.
    3. Role of Tamil leaders: MPs and media in Sri Lanka can sensitise Tamil Nadu fishers to hardships across the strait.
    4. Narrative shift: Sri Lankan Tamils are not aggressors but fellow victims of history.

    India’s neighbourhood policy in action

    1. Diplomatic tradition: Panchsheel, NAM, SAARC, Neighbourhood First Policy.
    2. Way forward: Prioritise livelihood security, ecological sustainability, and treaty respect over populism.
    3. Multi-level engagement: Government-to-government, State/Provincial dialogue, community interaction.
    4. Larger vision: Transform Palk Straits from a zone of conflict to a symbol of cooperation.

    Conclusion

    The Katchatheevu issue is legally settled and should not distract from the real crisis, sustainable fisheries management in the Palk Straits. Balancing artisanal livelihoods, ecological imperatives, and regional goodwill requires cooperative frameworks and empathy. If pursued with prudence, India and Sri Lanka can convert disputes into opportunities, strengthening the Neighbourhood First Policy and ensuring that smaller conflicts do not overshadow South Asia’s collective future of peace and prosperity.

  • A joint and new journey along the SCO pathway

    Introduction

    The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), now the largest regional grouping after 24 years of evolution, witnessed its biggest summit in Tianjin with 23 countries and 10 international organisations participating. The presence of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping signalled a possible recalibration of bilateral ties amid a tense global order. This summit was not only about regional security but also about shaping global governance, fostering sustainable development, and exploring new pathways of cooperation.

    Why in the News

    The Tianjin SCO Summit is in the news because it marked the largest gathering in SCO’s history and produced high-yielding outcomes, such as the creation of security centres, a development bank, and long-term strategies in energy, green industry, and digital economy. Importantly, India and China engaged in dialogue during the diamond jubilee year of China-India diplomatic ties, projecting partnership rather than rivalry. This reflects a striking shift from the border tensions that have dominated headlines in recent years, positioning the summit as a turning point in regional cooperation and global governance.

    High-Yield Outcomes of the Tianjin Summit

    1. Tianjin Declaration: Announced creation of four security centres, including an Anti-drug Center and a Universal Countering Security Challenges Center.
    2. SCO Development Bank: Decision to set up a regional bank to finance cooperative projects.
    3. Fair Stance on Trade: SCO states collectively defended multilateral trading systems and WWII legacy.
    4. 10-Year Strategy: Leaders adopted a development strategy for the next decade.
    5. China’s Initiatives: Xi announced three platforms for energy, green industry, and digital economy; and three centres for innovation, higher education, and vocational training.

    How the Summit Shaped Global Governance

    1. Global Governance Initiative: Xi proposed principles such as sovereign equality, international rule of law, and multilateralism.
    2. People-Centered Approach: Emphasis on real actions for peace and justice.
    3. Leadership Platform: SCO positioned as a space to counter the “governance deficit” in world politics.

    India’s Role in the SCO

    1. Active Member since 2017: India has advanced SCO’s development agenda.
    2. Support for Presidency: India extended full support to China’s SCO presidency.
    3. Areas of Cooperation: Security, energy, green industry, and digital economy identified as convergence points.

    75 Years of India-China Ties

    1. Anniversary Diplomacy: Modi and Xi stressed partnership over rivalry.
    2. Dragon and Elephant Metaphor: Xi urged for “dragon and elephant to dance together.”
    3. Consensus vs Disagreement: Leaders agreed that consensus outweighs differences.

    Road Ahead for Bilateral Cooperation

    1. Strategic Mutual Trust: Resume dialogue mechanisms, embrace peaceful coexistence, and mutual respect.
    2. Expanding Exchanges: Focus on trade, investment, technology, culture, and people-to-people bonds.
    3. Good-Neighbourliness: Reinforce Panchsheel principles, keep border differences from overshadowing wider relations.
    4. Global South Leadership: India and China to lead BRICS presidencies, resist hegemony, and promote fairness in world order.

    Conclusion

    The Tianjin Summit reflects a recalibration of SCO’s role as a platform for regional stability and global governance. For India, it marks a moment of balancing rivalry with cooperation in ties with China. If trust and exchanges are consolidated, India-China relations can shape the future of Asia and the Global South. The challenge lies in ensuring border disputes do not overshadow wider opportunities.

    Value Addition

    Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) 

    • Establishment: Permanent intergovernmental organisation founded on 15 June 2001 in Shanghai by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. Predecessor: Shanghai Five (1996).
    • Charter: Adopted in 2002 (St. Petersburg), in force since 2003, laying down goals, principles, and structure.
    • Goals:
      • Strengthen trust, friendship, good-neighbourliness.
      • Promote cooperation in politics, economy, science, culture, education, energy, environment, etc.
      • Maintain peace, security, stability in the region.
      • Promote a fair, democratic international order.
    • Principles (Shanghai Spirit): Mutual trust, benefit, equality, consultation, respect for civilizational diversity, common development; externally—non-alignment, openness, non-targeting others.
    • Structure:
      • Council of Heads of State (CHS) – supreme body (annual).
      • Council of Heads of Government (CHG) – economic strategy, budget (annual).
      • Numerous sectoral mechanisms.
    • Permanent Bodies: Secretariat (Beijing) & Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS, Tashkent).
    • Membership:
      • 10 Members – India, China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.
      • 2 Observers – Afghanistan, Mongolia.
      • 14 Dialogue Partners – incl. Nepal, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Qatar, Maldives, etc.

    Key Takeaways from SCO Summit 2025

    • 24 Documents Approved – including Tianjin Declaration and SCO Development Strategy till 2035.
    • Security Cooperation – agreement on SCO Anti-Drug Center and Universal Center for Countering Challenges & Threats.
    • Counter-Terrorism – joint declaration condemned Pahalgam (India), Jaffer Express & Khuzdar (Pakistan) terrorist attacks – significant as Pahalgam was earlier omitted.
    • Membership Expansion – Lao PDR granted Dialogue Partner status; CIS given Observer status.
    • Cultural Capital – Cholpon-Ata (Kyrgyzstan) designated SCO Tourist & Cultural Capital (2025–26).
    • Civilisation Dialogue Forum – proposed by PM Modi to strengthen people-to-people ties & civilizational exchange.
    • Global Governance Initiative – proposed by Xi Jinping for multilateralism, just & equitable order, Global South leadership.
    • SCO Chairmanship – passed to Kyrgyz Republic (2025–26) with theme: “25 years of SCO: together for a stable world, development, prosperity.”

    What SCO Means for India’s Global and Regional Interests

    1. Strategic Pillars – PM Modi outlined India’s SCO vision as S–Security, C–Connectivity, O–Opportunity.
    2. Central Asia Engagement – SCO provides a rare forum to deepen ties with resource-rich Central Asia and expand India’s role as a pan-Asian player beyond the South Asian paradigm.
    3. Counter-Terrorism – Access to the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) helps India with intelligence-sharing against the “three evils” (terrorism, separatism, extremism), beyond Pakistan-centric frameworks.
    4. India–Russia Cooperation – SCO strengthens Delhi’s strategic proximity with Moscow, which backed India’s full membership in 2016.
    5. Balancing China – India’s presence acts as a countervailing force to Chinese dominance in Eurasia, supported by Russia.
    6. BRI Opposition – India continues to reject the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as it passes through Pakistan-occupied territory, asserting sovereignty concerns.
    7. Diplomatic Battlefield – While enabling multilateral engagement, SCO also reflects great-power rivalries, making it both an opportunity and a challenge for India.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] ‘Virus of Conflict is affecting the functioning of the SCO.’ In the light of the above statement, point out the role of India in mitigating the problems.

    Linkage: The SCO faces internal strains due to rivalries among major members, including China-Pakistan ties and regional security tensions. India has sought to mitigate these by emphasizing its three-pillared approach of Security, Connectivity, and Opportunity, pushing for counter-terrorism cooperation through RATS, and resisting divisive projects like BRI while promoting dialogue, civilizational exchange, and balanced economic engagement. Thus, India positions itself as a stabilizing force to preserve SCO’s collective agenda despite conflicts.

  • Power of Siberia 2 Pipeline

    Why in the News?

    Russia has announced a “legally binding” memorandum with China to build the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, highlighting closer Russia–China ties amid Western sanctions.

    Power of Siberia 2 Pipeline

    What are Power of Siberia Pipelines?

    • Power of Siberia 1: Operational pipeline from eastern Siberia to northern China; commercial exports since Dec 2019.
    • Specifications: Length over 5,100 km (3,968 km in Russia), diameter 1,420 mm, capacity 61 bcm/year (38 bcm contracted to China). Built to withstand –62°C, using 2.25 million tonnes of steel.
    • Gas Source & Route: Supplies from Chayanda field (Yakutia) and later Kovykta field; passes via Amur Gas Processing Plant; two tunnels cross under the Amur River into China, linking to Heihe–Shanghai pipeline.
    • Timeline: Construction began 2014, completed 2019, full 38 bcm deliveries by 2025.
    • Power of Siberia 2: Planned 2,600 km pipeline exporting 50 bcm/year from Yamal & western Siberia fields to China, via Mongolia (Soyuz Vostok segment).
    • Status: Gazprom–CNPC signed a binding memorandum. Pricing, financing, and timelines remain unsettled; deliveries may start by 2030.

    Geopolitical Significance:

    • Political Symbolism: Project showcases Russia–China partnership, snubs Western LNG, and reflects defiance of sanctions.
    • Strategic Showcase: Analysts call it political theatre — Russia grows more dependent on China, while China gains strategic leverage.
    [UPSC 2024] Consider the following statements:

    Statement-I: Sumed pipeline is a strategic route for Persian Gulf oil and natural gas shipments to Europe.

    Statement-II: Sumed pipeline connects the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea.

    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?”

    Options: (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I* (b) Both 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

     

  • Why is Kathmandu Burning

    Introduction

    On September 8–9, 2025, Nepal plunged into chaos as protests led by Generation Z escalated into violent clashes with security forces. What began as outrage against corruption and a controversial ban on 26 social media platforms quickly spiraled into a mass uprising that engulfed Kathmandu in flames. Former Prime Ministers’ homes were torched, ministers stripped and paraded, and jails broken open. With PM K P Sharma Oli’s resignation and President Ram Chandra Poudel in hiding, the nation faced a constitutional vacuum, raising concerns about the Army’s role and India’s strategic interests. This is the first major political uprising in Nepal led entirely by Gen Z — teenagers and youth born between 1996–2012. Unlike the Maoist insurgency of the past, this revolt was spontaneous, digitally mobilized, and directed against all senior political leaders.

    Generation Z and the Rise of Political Discontent

    1. Generation Z Mobilisation: The uprising was driven by youth anger at corruption, lack of jobs, and entrenched political elites since 2008.
    2. Digital Trigger: Outrage exploded after the government banned 26 social media platforms (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, X, etc.), cutting off their main channel of solidarity.
    3. Symbolic Rage: Anger was also directed at “Nepo Kids” — the privileged lifestyles of politicians’ children.
    4. Immediate Demands: Reinstatement of social media (achieved), broader demand for accountability and jobs.

    The Escalation of Protests into Violence

    1. State Response: Security forces fired on protesters, killing 19 young people, triggering mass fury.
    2. Attack on Leaders: Houses of five former Prime Ministers were torched (Oli, Prachanda, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhala Nath Khanal, Sher Bahadur Deuba).
    3. Fatalities: Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar (wife of ex-PM Khanal) died from burns; former PM Deuba and his wife (Foreign Minister Arzu Deuba) were assaulted.
    4. Dramatic Incidents: Protesters freed Rabi Lamichhane, a jailed critic of Oli, by burning Nakkhu Jail.
    5. Humiliation of Ministers: Finance Minister Bishnu Prasad Paudel and MP Eknath Dhakal were stripped and paraded.

    Leadership Vacuum and Constitutional Crisis

    1. PM’s Resignation: K P Sharma Oli resigned; President Poudel went into hiding.
    2. Army’s Stance: Army Chief Gen. Ashok Raj Sigdel urged calm, took charge of security, but avoided assuming political power.
    3. Possibility of Interim Government: Likely after negotiations with figures like Kathmandu Mayor Balen Shah, a Gen Z icon.
    4. Constitutional Crisis: Possibility of Parliament dissolution and collapse of 2015 Constitution.

    The Expanding Role of the Nepal Army

    1. Security Role: The Army has assumed charge of law and order.
    2. Political Caution: Unlike in past coups, the Army seems hesitant to directly seize political power.
    3. Facilitator Role: Likely to mediate between political leaders, ensure reconciliation, and protect civilian lives.

    Opposition in Disarray Amidst Youth Revolt

    1. Targeted Equally: All senior leaders, across party lines, faced wrath of protesters.
    2. Rising Leaders: Balen Shah (Mayor of Kathmandu, ex-rapper) and Rabi Lamichhane (RSP leader, ex-TV anchor) emerged as youth-backed alternatives.
    3. Monarchy Revival?: Former King Gyanendra Shah offered condolences, appealed for dialogue, subtly signaling a willingness to return to relevance.

    India’s Strategic Concerns Amidst Nepal’s Crisis

    1. Strategic Concern: India is deeply worried, given historical ties, open border, and Nepali diaspora in India.
    2. Delicate Position: India is seen as partisan since it backed Maoists and republicanism in 2008.
    3. Official Statement: PM Narendra Modi chaired the CCS meeting, stressing “stability, peace, and prosperity of Nepal” as vital for India.

    Conclusion

    Nepal’s Gen Z uprising marks the collapse of public trust in traditional politics and signals a generational shift. The combination of digital mobilization, corruption fatigue, and joblessness has produced an explosion that could reshape Nepal’s political order. For India, the crisis is both a challenge and an opportunity, a chance to rebuild goodwill through balanced diplomacy, while avoiding the mistakes of the past. The coming weeks will determine whether Nepal stabilizes through reconciliation or descends into prolonged instability.

    Value Addition

    Similarities between the recent Nepal Gen Z uprising (2025) and the Bangladesh student–youth revolution (July 2024) that toppled Sheikh Hasina’s government

    • Youth at the Centre
      1. Nepal: Led by Gen Z (born 1996–2012), angry at corruption, nepotism, and joblessness.
      2. Bangladesh: Led by students and young professionals, who launched protests against the quota system in government jobs, symbolising a deeper anger at authoritarianism.
      3. Similarity: In both, young people with no political baggage spearheaded the movement, showing a generational rejection of “old guard” politics.
    • Trigger through State Suppression
      1. Nepal: Anger exploded after government banned 26 social media platforms, silencing digital expression. Police firing killed 19 protesters, escalating violence.
      2. Bangladesh: Crackdowns on student protests with police brutality, tear gas, and arrests deepened the rage, leading to street battles.
      3. Similarity: In both cases, excessive state repression transformed peaceful protests into mass uprisings.
    • Anti-Elite and Anti-Nepotism Sentiment
      1. Nepal: Rage directed at “Nepo Kids”, children of politicians flaunting wealth and privilege.
      2. Bangladesh: Rage at the dynastic, 15-year-long rule of Sheikh Hasina, seen as nepotistic and authoritarian.
      3. Similarity: Both were anti-nepotism revolts, targeting corruption and political entrenchment.
    • Use of Digital Platforms for Mobilisation
      1. Nepal: Movement grew around Facebook pages like Next Generation Nepal, until banned.
      2. Bangladesh: Students used Facebook, X, and YouTube to coordinate protests, live-stream crackdowns, and rally global support.
      3. Similarity: Social media was the fuel of mobilisation, and attempts to suppress it only intensified anger.
    • Collapse of Established Order
      1. Nepal: PM K P Sharma Oli resigned, President went into hiding, houses of former PMs burned, Parliament dysfunctional.
      2. Bangladesh: PM Sheikh Hasina fled the country, Awami League leaders attacked, and Parliament dissolved.
      3. Similarity: Both witnessed a sudden collapse of political order, with leadership vacuum and uncertainty about interim arrangements.
    • Regional & International Concerns
      1. Nepal: India held a CCS meeting, worried about instability on its borders; China also watching closely.
      2. Bangladesh: India was concerned due to historic ties with Hasina, while the West pushed for democratic restoration.
      3. Similarity: In both, India was caught in a delicate diplomatic dilemma — balancing neutrality while protecting its strategic interests.

    Conclusion

    Both revolutions represent a South Asian pattern of youth-led, anti-elite uprisings, where corruption, joblessness, authoritarianism, and digital repression pushed Gen Z to revolt. They show that in fragile democracies, youth disillusionment can quickly destabilize entrenched regimes. For India, these crises in its immediate neighbourhood are warnings: political stability next door is fragile, and managing relations requires delicate, balanced diplomacy.

    Value Addition (II)

    • Comparative Lens: Similar to Arab Spring (2011) — youth-led, social media-driven protests.
    • Theory: Youth Bulge Hypothesis — large unemployed youth populations often drive political instability.
    • Reports: UNDP South Asia Human Development Report highlights youth aspirations and governance deficits.
    • Ethics (GS4): Crisis of legitimacy in governance when corruption and inequality erode public trust.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2012] Discuss the contentious issues that have caused the prolonged constitutional logjam in Nepal.

    Linkage: The 2012 question on Nepal’s constitutional logjam highlighted elite disputes over federalism and governance. The 2025 Gen Z uprising reflects how these unresolved issues have now spilled onto the streets, creating a constitutional vacuum. What was once a parliamentary deadlock has transformed into a popular revolt against the entire political class, deepening Nepal’s democratic fragility.

  • [pib] Universal Postal Union (UPU)

    Why in the News?

    At the 28th Universal Postal Congress in Dubai (2025), the Union Minister for Communications has unveiled the Unified Payments Interface (UPI)- UPU Integration Project.

    About Universal Postal Union (UPU):

    • Overview: A UN specialized agency and the primary forum for international postal cooperation.
    • Establishment: Created by the Treaty of Bern (1874). It is the second oldest international organization (after CCNR, 1815).
    • Headquarters: Bern, Switzerland.

    • Membership:

      • 192 member countries (as of 2025).
      • Any UN member state can join automatically.
      • Non-UN states may join with two-thirds approval from members.
      • India is a member since 1876.

    • Structure:

      • Congress: Supreme authority meets every 4 years.
      • Council of Administration (CA): Supervises activities between Congress sessions; studies regulatory and administrative issues.
      • Postal Operations Council (POC): Technical/operational body of 48 elected members.
      • International Bureau: Secretariat providing logistical and technical support.

    • Functions:

      • Coordinates postal policies across nations.
      • Sets rules for international mail exchanges.
      • Makes recommendations to boost global mail, parcel, and financial services.
      • Acts as advisory, mediator, and technical support agency for postal systems.

    Significance of the UPI–UPU Integration:

    • For India:

      • Strengthens India’s global leadership in digital payments innovation.
      • Positions India as a hub for low-cost remittance solutions.

    • For Global Postal System:

      • Adds digital financial services to the traditional postal network, enhancing its relevance in the digital era.
      • Strengthens India–UPU cooperation and demonstrates India’s ability to combine fintech innovation with global multilateral platforms.

    • For Migrants:

      • Enables fast, affordable, and secure cross-border remittances through post offices.
      • Reduces dependence on high-cost traditional remittance channels.
    [UPSC 2004] Match List I with List II and select the correct answer using the codes given below.

    List I (Agency)

    (A) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (B) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (C) United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) (D) Universal Postal Union (DPU)

    List II (Headquarters) 1. Nairobi 2. Vienna 3. Berne 4. New York

    Options: (a) 2 3 4 1 (b) 4 1 2 3 (c) 2 1 4 3 (d) 4 3 2 1*

     

  • [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.”