💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • [23rd October 2025] The Hindu Oped: Immigration and the politics of fear

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] Indian diaspora has a decisive role to play in the politics and economy of America and European Countries.” Comment with examples.

    Linkage: This article explores how anti-immigration politics in the West, particularly in the UK and US, are reshaping narratives around migrants and minorities, directly affecting the Indian diaspora’s political influence, integration, and image abroad. It also relates to how domestic nativism in developed nations influences India’s soft power and global engagement strategy.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The debate on immigration has taken a darker turn across the Western world, shifting from managing illegal immigration to rejecting legal migrants on cultural or racial grounds. This piece examines the rise of fear-driven politics in the United Kingdom and the United States, where populist leaders exploit insecurities about identity and belonging. It connects these global trends to India’s own discourse on “infiltrators,” highlighting how such politics corrodes the moral and spiritual foundation of nationhood. For UPSC aspirants, this article is a rich resource for themes under GS Paper 2 (Polity & Governance, International Relations) and GS Paper 4 (Ethics & Society).

    Introduction: The New Politics of Immigration

    Immigration has always been an emotionally charged issue, balancing national security, cultural identity, and humanitarian values. But the tone of the conversation has changed drastically. Once focused on border control and illegal entry, the global discourse, led by figures like Donald Trump and echoed by British leaders, is now turning against legal migrants themselves. The recent developments in the United Kingdom, coupled with populist rhetoric in the U.S., mark a disturbing shift from policy debates to identity-based fear-mongering. It signals a new era where politics thrives on division, and where the very definition of nationhood is under siege.

    Why in the News?

    At the UN General Assembly, U.S. President Donald Trump openly urged Europe to “end the failed experiment of open borders,” marking the first time an American leader exported his anti-immigrant ideology so aggressively to other nations. The U.K. soon reflected similar sentiments, not just against illegal immigrants but against those living legally under Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). The political shift shows how nativist populism has evolved from fringe rhetoric to mainstream governance, posing moral and democratic questions for societies that once celebrated diversity.

    How Has Immigration Politics Shifted in the UK?

    1. Shift from legality to identity: The focus has moved from illegal immigration control to questioning legal migrants’ right to belong.
    2. Historic continuity: Britain has witnessed recurring anti-immigrant waves, from Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech to Brexit’s “Take Back Control” slogan.
    3. Turning point: Trump’s UN speech and UK’s Reform Party rhetoric signify a pivot, from economic capability to cultural exclusion.

    What Recent Events Sparked the Debate?

    1. Mass rallies: Far-right leader Tommy Robinson led a 1,50,000-strong “Unite the Kingdom” rally, posing as a free speech movement but fuelled by anti-immigration anger.
    2. Imported ideology: French politician Eric Zemmour warned of the “great replacement”, the idea that European people are being replaced by immigrants from Muslim-majority regions.
    3. Policy proposal: Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party proposed scrapping Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) and replacing it with stricter five-year visas.
    4. Consequences: Even current ILR holders and retirees would face uncertainty, eroding the social contract between the state and its residents.

    How Has the Labour Government Responded?

    1. Raising the bar: New Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood extended ILR eligibility from 5 to 10 years, with higher English proficiency, employment verification, and volunteering requirements.
    2. Moral hierarchy: This creates a two-tier society, citizens who live freely and migrants forced to constantly prove their worth.
    3. Political motive: Labour’s move reflects a competitive hardline stance to match Reform UK’s popularity and counter populist fear politics.

    How Is Race Re-entering the Immigration Discourse?

    1. Racial undertones: Conservative politician Robert Jenrick’s remark about “not seeing another white face” reveals how immigration rhetoric is slipping into racial anxiety.
    2. From migrants to race: The debate is no longer about work permits or visas; it’s now about who belongs and who looks British.
    3. American parallels: Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship and the spectacle of deporting Indian immigrants in shackles echo the same moral crisis, dehumanisation of the “other.”

    What Lessons Does This Hold for India?

    1. Mirroring patterns: In India too, discourse on “infiltrators” and “termites” has been used for populist mobilisation.
    2. Ernest Renan’s vision: The 19th-century philosopher described a nation as a “spiritual principle”, based on shared memories and mutual consent, not race or religion.
    3. Moral erosion: When “present consent”, the will to live together, is weakened, nations lose their moral foundation.
    4. Performative cruelty: Treating migration as a threat rather than a socio-economic phenomenon serves political ends, not human progress.

    Conclusion

    The politics of fear around immigration reflects a deeper crisis, of identity, belonging, and moral leadership. When democratic societies redefine “worthiness” in racial or cultural terms, they betray the inclusive principles that built them. In both the West and India, the challenge is not just managing immigration but reaffirming what it means to be a nation. As Renan reminded us, a nation exists not by blood or border, but by the desire to live together. Upholding that desire, amid fear and division, is the true test of our times.

  • International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT)

    Why in the News?

    Iran has officially ratified the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT), signalling a major policy shift toward international financial reintegration.

    Why such move by Iran?

    • Economic Isolation: Iran’s blacklisting by FATF in 2020 and U.S.-led sanctions have severely restricted its banking access, trade, and foreign investment.
    • Reformist Agenda: President Pezeshkian’s government seeks economic stabilization through engagement, not confrontation, with Western institutions.
    • Trade Barriers: Even traditional allies like Russia and China face difficulty trading with Iran due to its non-compliance with FATF norms.
    • Diplomatic Leverage: CFT accession signals willingness to reform and could help Tehran negotiate sanction relief or trade facilitation.
    • Political Balance: The government faces domestic opposition from hardliners who fear the law will expose Iran’s support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, but reformists view it as essential for economic recovery.

    About the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT):

    • Adopted: 1999 by the UN General Assembly; entered into force in 2002.
    • Parties: Ratified by 188 countries including India, making it one of the most widely accepted anti-terror treaties.
    • Objective: To criminalize, prevent, and punish the financing of terrorism and enhance international cooperation against terror-linked financial networks.
    • Definition: Financing terrorism includes collecting or providing funds—directly or indirectly—with intent or knowledge that they will be used for terrorist acts causing death or injury to civilians or non-combatants.
    • Key Provisions:
      • States must criminalize terror financing in domestic law.
      • Freeze, seize, and confiscate assets linked to terrorism.
      • Ban misuse of banking secrecy to block investigations.
      • Facilitate extradition, legal cooperation, and mutual assistance.
      • Ensure political or ideological motives cannot justify terrorist financing.
    • Legal Mechanism: Creates obligations for states to report suspicious transactions and cooperate across jurisdictions for enforcement.

    FATF and CFT: Complementary Global Frameworks

    • CFT (1999): Provides the legal foundation, obligating states to define and criminalize terror financing under international law.
    • FATF (1989): Provides the operational and policy framework, setting 40 detailed recommendations for implementation, monitoring, and compliance.
    • Interaction:
      • FATF requires its members to implement CFT obligations in national systems.
      • CFT establishes criminalization and cooperation, while FATF ensures compliance, enforcement, and evaluation.
    • Iran’s Case:
      • FATF blacklisted Iran for failure to adopt CFT and AML standards.
      • Ratification of CFT is Iran’s first step toward FATF re-evaluation and possible removal from the blacklist.
      • Compliance would enable Iranian banks to restore correspondent relations and resume limited international transactions.

  • Turning Tides: Pakistan-Afghanistan Tensions

    Introduction

    When the Taliban recaptured Kabul in August 2021, Pakistan perceived it as a strategic victory after two decades of covert support to the insurgents. However, the celebration was short-lived. Four years later, Pakistan faces an unprecedented internal security crisis, with over 2,400 people killed in militancy-related violence in 2025 alone. The rise of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and recent Pakistani airstrikes on Kabul (October 2025) signal a dangerous escalation — and a stark reversal of the country’s long-standing policy of using non-state actors as strategic assets.

    Why in the News?

    For the first time, Pakistan bombed Kabul, directly targeting militants across the Afghan border. This marks a major policy shift, as Islamabad traditionally treated the Taliban as an ally and buffer against India. The strikes came while Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi was visiting India, adding a symbolic twist to regional alignments. The scale of violence, with over 2,414 deaths this year, underscores the depth of Pakistan’s internal crisis and its failure to control militancy in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. This development has drawn comparisons to India’s own doctrine of cross-border strikes, raising questions about whether Pakistan is now borrowing from a playbook it once condemned.

    The Illusion of Strategic Depth

    1. Taliban Patronage: Pakistan’s military establishment nurtured the Afghan Taliban for decades, offering refuge and logistical support during their insurgency against the U.S.-backed Afghan government.
    2. Strategic Depth Doctrine: Islamabad’s rationale was to create a friendly regime in Kabul that could serve as a buffer against India and offer “strategic depth” in case of war.
    3. Backfiring Reality: Instead, the Taliban’s rise empowered the TTP, an ideologically aligned but operationally separate entity, turning Pakistan’s proxy into its nemesis.

    How the Taliban’s Return Changed the Equation

    1. End of Patron-Client Relationship: Once in power, the Taliban sought state-to-state relations, not subservience to Pakistan’s military agenda.
    2. Durand Line Dispute: Kabul never recognized the Durand Line, reigniting border tensions that colonial history had left unresolved.
    3. TTP Empowerment: Inspired by the Afghan Taliban’s triumph, the TTP now demands enforcement of strict Islamic law and reversal of the merger of tribal areas with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
    4. Refugee Crisis: Pakistan’s decision to deport thousands of Afghan refugees further worsened ties, adding a humanitarian dimension to political hostility.

    Pakistan’s New Doctrine: Borrowing from India?

    1. Airstrikes as Deterrence: By bombing Kabul, Pakistan appears to be testing a new counter-terrorism strategy, directly holding Afghanistan responsible for cross-border militant attacks.
    2. India Parallel: The move is reminiscent of India’s 2016 and 2019 strikes on Pakistani territory after terror attacks in Uri and Pulwama.
    3. Diplomatic Irony: The timing, coinciding with the Afghan FM’s India visit, highlights shifting regional equations where India engages diplomatically, and Pakistan responds militarily.

    The Security Crisis within Pakistan

    1. Rising Violence: The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province has become the epicenter of TTP-led insurgency.
    2. Contradictory Policy: Pakistan’s dual policy of fighting terrorism while nurturing militants targeting its neighbors has eroded domestic stability.
    3. Blowback Effect: Militancy now threatens Pakistan’s political order, economic recovery, and regional credibility.
    4. Qatar-Brokered Ceasefire: A fragile truce mediated by Qatar hints at the international community’s anxiety over a new South Asian flashpoint.

    Why Pakistan’s Strategy is Self-Defeating

    1. Cycle of Violence: Airstrikes may offer short-term political gains but deepen long-term instability.
    2. Internal vs External Conflict: Pakistan’s greatest threat now emanates from within its borders, not across them.
    3. Loss of Moral Credibility: Its past of backing non-state actors undercuts its legitimacy when accusing others of the same.
    4. Strategic Isolation: Continued conflict risks alienating even traditional allies like China and Gulf states, who seek regional stability.

    Conclusion

    Pakistan’s experiment with militant patronage has collapsed under its own contradictions. The strategic depth doctrine that once defined its Afghan policy has morphed into a strategic liability. Peace in Pakistan cannot be achieved through bombs over Kabul, but through a coherent internal reform of its security, political, and ideological ecosystem. As the editorial aptly concludes, “Pakistan cannot ensure internal security by bombing Afghanistan.”

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] The proposed withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from Afghanistan in 2014 is fraught with major security implications for the countries of the region. Examine in light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.

    Linkage: The 2013 PYQ and this 2025 editorial both explore the Afghan theatre as a pivot of regional security, then, in anticipation of instability; now, in its full manifestation. Both are invaluable for analysing India’s neighbourhood policy, counter-terror strategy, and regional diplomacy in the post-US Afghanistan order.

  • [18th October 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Better global governance led by China and 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 problems.

    Linkage: This PYQ is important as it tests India’s diplomatic balance within the SCO, amid regional rivalries. The article connects by showing how the Xi–Modi meeting and Global Governance Initiative reflect India’s role in restoring trust and strengthening multilateralism within the SCO framework.

    Mentor’s Comment

    As the world enters a phase of geopolitical churn and institutional fatigue, the call for a reformed, people-centric global governance system grows louder. The 75th anniversary of India-China diplomatic ties and the 80th year of the UN offer a historical moment: two Asian giants, once colonised, now rising powers, can redefine global order. For UPSC aspirants, this theme bridges multilateral diplomacy, global reforms, and India’s evolving foreign policy—key areas across GS Paper 2 and IR essays.

    Introduction

    The year 2025 marks a milestone in both bilateral and global history. India and China, home to over 2.8 billion people, commemorate 75 years of diplomatic relations, even as the United Nations celebrates its 80th anniversary. Against the backdrop of unilateralism and weakening multilateralism, the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) proposed by China, with India’s cooperation, offers a blueprint for a more equitable international order. As Asia’s two leading powers move from rivalry to partnership, their convergence could transform the world’s governance architecture, symbolising a decisive shift toward multipolarity and shared prosperity.

    Why is the India-China cooperation in 2025 a landmark moment?

    1. Historical Context: The two leaders, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, have met 18 times since 2014, an unprecedented frequency symbolising sustained engagement despite border tensions.
    2. Symbolic Restoration: The bilateral meeting at the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan (2024) and now at the 25th SCO Summit in Tianjin (2025) reflects a conscious reset in relations.
    3. Global Expectation: Their 19th meeting during the Tianjin Summit is being seen globally as a moment to restore balance to multilateral decision-making, especially amid Western dominance fatigue.
    4. Public Diplomacy: Both sides emphasise “partners, not rivals,” signaling a shift from competition to cooperation.

    What is changing in the global governance discourse?

    1. Erosion of Trust: The early 21st century witnessed rising unilateralism, protectionism, and hegemonism, eroding faith in international institutions.
    2. UN at 80: The UN system, though foundational, now faces criticism for its limited representation of developing nations and sluggish response to global crises.
    3. Reform Imperative: The question before humanity is not just “who governs” but “how governance is shared.” The article highlights the need for reform without rupture, evolving existing systems rather than replacing them.
    4. Asia’s Moment: The decline of Western dominance and the rise of Asia and Eurasia are redefining the rules of the game, with India and China at the center.

    What is the Global Governance Initiative (GGI)?

    1. New Vision: The GGI, announced by President Xi at the Tianjin SCO Summit, aims to correct the deficit in global governance by promoting a fair, inclusive order.
    • Five Core Principles:
      1. Sovereign Equality: Respect for all nations’ independence and dignity; greater democracy in international relations.
      2. Rule of Law: Equal application of international law and rejection of double standards.
      3. Multilateralism: Strengthening the UN as the core platform for global decision-making.
      4. People-Centric Approach: Governance should prioritise well-being, safety, and fulfillment of citizens globally.
      5. Real Results Orientation: Developed nations must shoulder more responsibility, while developing nations must cooperate for shared solutions.
      6. Essence: The GGI is not about creating parallel institutions but reforming and improving existing ones to respond effectively to modern challenges.

    How can India-China cooperation strengthen multilateralism?

    1. Shared Responsibilities: Both countries, as major developing economies and SCO/BRICS members, bear the responsibility to defend international fairness and justice.
    2. Strategic Coordination: The leaders’ dialogue stresses communication on major international and regional issues to bridge divides in the Global South.

    Complementary Visions:

    1. China’s “community of shared future for mankind”
    2. India’s “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (One Earth, One Family, One Future)
    3. Together, they embody the moral and developmental leadership needed for a post-Western global order.
    4. Practical Gains: Resumption of direct flights, maintenance of border stability, and enhanced trade cooperation show concrete steps toward normalisation.

    What challenges lie ahead for India-China collaboration?

    1. Trust Deficit: Lingering border disputes and differing political models may slow strategic trust-building.
    2. Competing Ambitions: While both aspire to leadership in the Global South, perception management and narrative balance will be crucial.
    3. Western Reaction: The West may perceive India-China cooperation as a counterweight to transatlantic power, potentially complicating India’s strategic autonomy.
    4. Need for Institutionalisation: Long-term progress demands institutional mechanisms, track-II dialogues, multilateral coordination cells, and joint UN reform working groups.

    Conclusion

    The India-China partnership in 2025 signals more than a diplomatic milestone, it represents a potential rebalancing of world order. As the UN turns 80, the call for shared leadership between emerging powers grows urgent. If pursued with mutual trust and strategic maturity, the GGI-led collaboration can make the 21st century truly an Asian century rooted in equity, inclusivity, and sustainability. In a fractured world, cooperation, not competition, may be the only path to survival and progress.

  • UN Global Geospatial Information Management for Asia and the Pacific (UN-GGIM-AP)

    Why in the News?

    India has been elected as Co-Chair of the Regional Committee of the United Nations Global Geospatial Information Management for Asia and the Pacific (UN-GGIM-AP) for a three-year term till 2028.

    About UN-GGIM-Asia and the Pacific (UN-GGIM-AP):

    • Objective: Maximises social, economic, and environmental benefits of geospatial data through regional collaboration, innovation, and policy harmonisation.
    • Overview: It is one of the five regional committees under the UN Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM).
    • Function: Serves as the highest inter-governmental platform in the region for joint decision-making on geospatial data generation, governance, and utilisation.
    • Mandate: Coordinates geospatial policy, promotes data standardisation, and supports applications in sustainable development, disaster management, and environmental monitoring.
    • Establishment: Formed in 1995 as the Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and the Pacific (PCGIAP); rebranded in 2012 following UN-GGIM’s global launch in 2011.
    • Membership: Comprises 56 national geospatial agencies from across the Asia-Pacific region.
    • Secretariat: Hosted by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP) since 2018, providing institutional and technical support.

    India’s Role and Significance:

    • Leadership Role: India elected Co-Chair (2025–2028), reflecting global recognition of its geospatial governance and digital mapping expertise.
    • Strategic Influence: Strengthens India’s position in regional policy formation, data ethics, and standardisation frameworks.
    • Policy Alignment: Complements India’s National Geospatial Policy 2022, Digital India, and PM GatiShakti National Master Plan initiatives.
    • Regional Contribution: India to lead capacity-building, data interoperability, and open-access frameworks for disaster management and climate resilience.
    • Institutional Integration: Links ISRO’s remote sensing and Survey of India’s ground mapping to regional development goals.
    • Global Impact: Positions India as a knowledge hub in geospatial innovation and ensures its active role in defining global spatial data standards for sustainable growth.
    [UPSC 2023]  Consider the following infrastructure sectors :

    1. Affordable housing 2. Mass rapid transport 3. Health care 4. Renewable energy

    On how many of the above does UNOPS Sustainable Investments in Infrastructure and Innovation (S3i) initiative focus for its investments?

    Options: (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three* (d) All four

     

  • Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

    Why in the News?

    The 19th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Mid-Term Ministerial Meeting was recently held in Kampala, Uganda.

    About the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

    • Overview: A grouping of states not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc, established to uphold sovereignty, independence, and neutrality during the Cold War.
    • Formation: Founded in 1961 at Belgrade, Yugoslavia, emerging from the 1955 Bandung Conference (Indonesia) which laid down the Ten Principles of Bandung as its ideological foundation.
    • Founding Leaders:
      1. Jawaharlal Nehru (India)
      2. Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt)
      3. Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia)
      4. Ahmed Sukarno (Indonesia)
      5. Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana)
    • Membership:
      • 120 countries: 53 from Africa, 39 from Asia, 26 from Latin America & the Caribbean, and 2 from Europe.
      • Includes Palestine as a member and 17 observer nations with 10 observer organisations.
      • Represents nearly 60% of UN membership, making it the second-largest intergovernmental bloc after the UN.
    • Structure: NAM functions without a permanent secretariat, charter, or budget, relying on rotational leadership and consensus-driven decision-making.

    Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

    India’s Contemporary Role in NAM:

    • India advocates for reinvigorating NAM as a platform for South-South cooperation in technology, trade, and climate resilience.
    • It seeks to make NAM relevant in a multipolar world, focusing on digital equity, global governance reforms, and sustainable development.
    • India views NAM not as an anti-West bloc but as a forum of balanced autonomy, promoting strategic non-alignment and global partnership in the 21st century.
    [UPSC 2009] Among the following Presidents of India, who was also the Secretary General of Non-Aligned Movement for some period ?

    Options: (a) Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (b) Varahairi Venkatagiri (c) Giani Zail Singh * (d) Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma

     

  • The future of the IMEC

    Introduction

    In an era where connectivity defines power, the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) emerged as a visionary project connecting India’s western ports with Europe via the Arabian Peninsula. Envisaged as a multi-modal corridor encompassing maritime, rail, energy, and digital infrastructure, IMEC sought to integrate economies across continents while promoting peace and prosperity in a historically volatile region.

    However, the optimism that surrounded IMEC’s launch quickly met the harsh reality of geopolitics. The October 7 Hamas attacks and subsequent Israel–Gaza war exposed the fragility of West Asian stability, placing IMEC’s implementation in question. Yet, beyond the uncertainty lies an opportunity for India to reshape its connectivity vision, adapting routes and partnerships to new global dynamics.

    Why in the News

    The IMEC has resurfaced in policy discussions as its viability faces uncertainty amid the deteriorating West Asian security environment. The October 7 Hamas–Israel conflict disrupted regional optimism nurtured by the Abraham Accords and slowed progress on IMEC’s proposed transnational links. At the same time, climate-driven Arctic trade routes and Red Sea disruptions by the Houthis are redrawing global shipping patterns, forcing India and its partners to reconsider IMEC’s configuration. The issue is critical as the corridor represents both an economic and strategic counterweight to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

    The Strategic Vision Behind IMEC:

    1. Comprehensive Connectivity: IMEC aims to upgrade maritime routes between India and the Arabian Peninsula and establish high-speed rail links from UAE ports to Haifa, Israel, via Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
    2. Integration with Europe: From Haifa, goods would be shipped to Europe’s Mediterranean ports, ensuring faster, secure, and sustainable trade connectivity.
    3. Beyond Transport: The corridor also includes plans for a clean hydrogen pipeline, electricity cable, and high-speed undersea digital cable, linking energy and digital ecosystems across three continents.
    4. Strategic Objective: IMEC provides a non-Chinese, rules-based alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), enhancing India’s strategic outreach and economic influence.

    The Geopolitical Context of 2023:

    1. Favourable Climate: The Abraham Accords (2020) created optimism for regional peace, bringing Israel and several Arab states closer. This atmosphere facilitated multilateral cooperation frameworks such as I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE, U.S.), paving the way for IMEC.
    2. India’s Upward Trajectory: India’s improving ties with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, coupled with strong U.S. relations, allowed it to play a central role in IMEC’s conception.
    3. Global Endorsement: The corridor was launched at the G-20 Summit in Delhi, with support from the EU, France, Germany, Italy, and Saudi Arabia, underscoring India’s emergence as a trusted global partner.

    The Security Setback and Regional Volatility

    1. Conflict Shock: Within weeks of IMEC’s announcement, the Hamas–Israel conflict erupted, reversing the post-Abraham optimism.
    2. Regional Fallout: Israel’s military operations strained ties with Arab countries, undermining cross-border infrastructure cooperation.
    3. Red Sea Disruptions: The Houthi attacks on cargo ships forced rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope, increasing transit time and cost.
    4. Lesson: The events underscore that geopolitical stability remains the cornerstone of connectivity, and corridors like IMEC must remain adaptable to shifting realities.

    Europe’s Changing Maritime Interests

    1. Arctic Openings: Climate change has opened new northern sea routes, shortening Asia–Europe shipping times. Beneficiaries include Russia, the U.S., China, and northern European nations.
    2. Mediterranean Anxiety: Countries like Italy, dependent solely on the Mediterranean, fear economic marginalisation if Arctic routes dominate trade.
    3. Strategic Importance of IMEC: Hence, Mediterranean states see IMEC as a means to sustain their maritime relevance and diversify trade partnerships.
    4. India’s Role: For India, the Mediterranean remains vital, as Arctic routes offer no immediate logistical advantage.

    Why IMEC Still Matters for India

    1. Economic Scale: With $136 billion in annual trade, the EU remains India’s largest trading partner, highlighting the need for resilient connectivity.
    2. Supply Chain Resilience: IMEC offers a secure, shorter route connecting India to Europe while reducing dependence on the Red Sea–Suez chokepoint.
    3. Strategic Leverage: Enhanced engagement with Arab economies can dilute Pakistan’s influence and integrate India deeper into West Asia’s economic architecture.
    4. Innovation Space: As a multi-member initiative, IMEC allows India to propose new routes via Saudi Arabia and Egypt, adapting to political flux.

    Challenges and the Way Forward

    1. Security Dependencies: Ongoing instability in Gaza and Israel poses a persistent threat.
    2. Financial and Political Coordination: Multi-country infrastructure projects face coordination delays, regulatory inconsistencies, and funding constraints.
    3. Need for Parallel Efforts: India must also upgrade domestic ports and logistics infrastructure, including Sagarmala and Dedicated Freight Corridors, to complement IMEC.
    4. Diplomatic Continuity: Sustaining dialogue through I2U2 and G-20 cooperation can help preserve IMEC’s spirit even if its routes evolve.

    Conclusion

    The IMEC’s future will depend not merely on the pacification of West Asia but on the political agility and diplomatic imagination of its members. While the corridor’s physical routes may shift, its strategic essence remains intact, to build resilient, diversified, and sustainable connectivity between India and Europe. For India, IMEC is more than an infrastructure project; it is a statement of intent, to be at the centre of global supply chains and a stabilising power in a fractured world.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is viewed as a cardinal subset of China’s larger ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative. Give a brief description of CPEC and enumerate the reasons why India has distanced itself from the same.

    Linkage: While China’s CPEC runs through disputed territory, making India wary, the IMEC shows how India is building its own clean, safe, and cooperative route to connect with Europe. It’s India’s way of staying in the global connectivity game—on its own terms.

  • [15th October 2025 ] The Hindu Op-ed: Powering up the Australia-India clean energy partnership

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Clean energy is the order of the day. Describe briefly India’s changing policy towards climate change in various international fora in the context of geopolitics.

    Linkage: The India–Australia Renewable Energy Partnership (REP) exemplifies India’s evolving climate diplomacy — shifting from being a climate “follower” to a global clean energy collaborator. It reflects how India aligns geopolitical strategy with green transition, using partnerships like REP to ensure both sustainability and supply chain autonomy.

    Mentor’s Comment

    At a time when the world is rethinking its clean energy priorities amidst climate vulnerabilities and geopolitical flux, the Australia–India Renewable Energy Partnership (REP) emerges as a beacon of cooperative strength. This article examines how two Indo-Pacific democracies can forge a resilient, balanced, and future-ready clean energy ecosystem — turning climate ambition into implementable strategy.

    Introduction

    In a decade defined by climate urgency and energy transition, India and Australia are deepening collaboration in renewable energy to reduce carbon footprints and diversify critical supply chains. With Australia’s Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen visiting New Delhi, both nations are poised to convert their shared climate vision into tangible outcomes under the India–Australia Renewable Energy Partnership (REP). The partnership arrives at a pivotal moment when the Indo-Pacific region is reeling under frequent climate disasters and when overdependence on China for clean energy inputs threatens energy security.

    Why This Is Big News

    The India–Australia clean energy partnership represents a strategic shift from bilateral intent to operational collaboration. It marks the first large-scale joint response by the two democracies to build resilient, China-independent supply chains for renewable technologies.

    This is significant because the Indo-Pacific averages nearly 10 climate disasters per month, and projections show up to 89 million climate refugees by 2050. Both countries now aim not merely for targets but for structural autonomy in critical minerals, hydrogen, and solar ecosystems — signalling a new phase of climate diplomacy.

    A Climate-Vulnerable Region

    1. Harshest impacts: The Indo-Pacific region witnesses some of the world’s most severe climate consequences, with recurring floods, cyclones, and droughts.
    2. Alarming projections: Between 1970–2022, it averaged 10 climate-related disasters monthly; by 2050, 89 million people may be displaced.
    3. India’s leadership: India targets 500 GW of non-fossil electricity by 2030 (with 280 GW solar) and has achieved 50% non-fossil capacity already — five years ahead of schedule.
    4. Australia’s climate push: It has raised its emission-reduction ambition to 62–70% below 2005 levels by 2035, aligning with its net-zero goal.

    The Supply Chain Challenge

    1. Dependence on China: China refines 90% of rare earth elements and manufactures 80% of global solar modules, giving it near-monopoly power.
    2. India’s dilemma: Faces import dependence for rare earth magnets and battery materials, affecting EV and wind sectors.
    3. Australia’s gap: Despite being rich in lithium, cobalt, and rare earths, it lacks refining and downstream industries.
    4. Pandemic exposure: The COVID-19 crisis exposed global supply fragility; China’s export restrictions further underlined the danger of single-country dependence.
    5. Industry impact: Example, an Indian EV manufacturer’s production halved in July due to component shortages.

    What the Renewable Energy Partnership (REP) Offers

    1. Comprehensive framework: REP spans eight key areas, solar PV, green hydrogen, energy storage, circular economy, solar supply chains, two-way investments, and capacity building.
    2. Collaborative platforms: Introduces a Track 1.5 Dialogue, connecting policy, industry, and academia to translate ideas into pilot projects.
    3. Focus areas: Promotes joint R&D, investment in refining, hydrogen economy, and cross-training of skilled personnel.
    4. Strategic significance: Seeks to create an Indo-Pacific clean energy hub resilient to geopolitical shocks.

    Complementary Strengths: Why Collaboration Works

    Australia’s edge:

    1. Critical mineral base — rich in lithium, rare earths.
    2. Stable regulations and a focus on green jobs under its Net Zero Jobs Plan.

    India’s advantage:

    1. Demographic dividend — 65% population below 35 years.
    2. PLI schemes and Skill India fostering clean-tech manufacturing.
    3. Expanding domestic demand for solar, hydrogen, and battery systems.

    Synergistic model: Together, they can integrate Australia’s minerals with India’s manufacturing and labour pool, creating a regional clean energy ecosystem that is both inclusive and secure.

    Why This Partnership Matters for the Indo-Pacific

    1. Climate resilience: Joint efforts show that democracies can lead energy transitions without autocratic dependencies.
    2. Geopolitical signalling: It strengthens Quad cooperation (India–Australia–Japan–US) by aligning clean energy goals.
    3. Economic dividends: Builds green value chains that can generate jobs and diversify trade beyond fossil fuels.

    Conclusion

    The Australia–India Renewable Energy Partnership is more than a bilateral initiative, it is a climate-security compact for the Indo-Pacific. By combining Australia’s resource advantage with India’s innovation and manpower, both nations can anchor a sustainable energy future independent of geopolitical coercion. In doing so, they not only contribute to global net-zero targets but also demonstrate how democratic collaboration can address shared vulnerabilities with foresight and resilience.

  • Complacity not diplomacy-India’s engagement with Taliban

    Introduction

    The exclusion of women journalists from Taliban press conferences in New Delhi was not an accident, it was symbolic of a deeper issue: legitimizing a regime whose ideology is built on the deliberate erasure of women’s existence. As Afghan women face persecution, violence, and disappearance from every public sphere, the silence of democratic nations like India risks validating gender apartheid.

    Why is this issue in the news?

    The controversy erupted when India hosted two Taliban press conferences in New Delhi, where female journalists were initially excluded. The event coincided with a People’s Tribunal on the Women of Afghanistan in Madrid, where survivors testified to the Taliban’s gender-based persecution, recognized as a crime against humanity. The contrast between India’s engagement and the global condemnation of Taliban policies underscores a moral and diplomatic crisis.

    How has the Taliban institutionalized the erasure of women?

    1. Systematic exclusion: Since their 2021 return, the Taliban banned women from most public-sector jobs, secondary schools, and universities.
    2. Legalized oppression: The 2024 Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Law formally declared women’s voices “forbidden” in public.
    3. Economic silencing: A 2025 Afghanistan Media Support Organisation survey found that 93% of women journalists lost their jobs, with more than 42% leaving journalism altogether.
    4. Violence and fear: Women activists are detained, beaten, and their husbands tortured, part of a deliberate campaign to erase their visibility and livelihood.

    Why is India’s stance seen as complicit rather than diplomatic?

    1. Normalization of misogyny: Hosting Taliban officials while Afghan women pleaded for recognition signals tacit acceptance of their regime.
    2. Moral inconsistency: While democracies like Spain and Canada host tribunals condemning Taliban atrocities, India’s diplomatic outreach stands in stark contrast.
    3. Diplomatic short-sightedness: By engaging the Taliban without human rights conditionalities, India risks legitimizing gender apartheid as a form of governance.

    What does this reveal about the global response to women’s rights?

    1. Erosion of feminist diplomacy: Nations increasingly prioritize geopolitical pragmatism over gender justice.
    2. Media complicity: Even in New Delhi, the Taliban’s media interaction mirrored their exclusionary ethos, showing that patriarchal silencing transcends borders.
    3. Selective outrage: While Western nations condemn the Taliban, many still negotiate covertly for strategic or security reasons, diluting international accountability.

    What lessons does this hold for India’s foreign policy and democracy?

    1. Moral leadership deficit: India’s silence undermines its self-image as the voice of the Global South and defender of democratic rights.
    2. Gender and diplomacy linkage: True diplomacy must integrate gender-sensitive ethics, ensuring no engagement legitimizes systemic violence.
    3. Internal reflection: A democracy’s foreign policy mirrors its domestic respect for women’s agency. India’s global credibility depends on aligning words with action.

    Conclusion 

    India’s engagement with the Taliban marks a dangerous shift from moral diplomacy to moral compromise. As Afghan women’s rights are being erased, India’s silence echoes complicity, not neutrality. True diplomacy must speak truth to power, not share its platform. Democracies cannot afford to normalize gender apartheid; silence here is not strategy, it is surrender.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] The proposed withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from Afghanistan in 2014 is fraught with major security implications for the countries of the region. Examine in light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.

    Linkage: India’s current engagement with the Taliban reflects the security vacuum created after the ISAF withdrawal, forcing New Delhi to balance strategic interests with moral responsibility. As the article shows, this has turned India’s Afghan policy from cautious realism into a test of its ethical diplomacy and regional credibility.

  • With new Great Game, India must engage with the Taliban and Kabul

    Introduction

    Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi arrived in New Delhi on an official visit, his first since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021.

    The visit represents a major recalibration in India’s Afghanistan policy, as New Delhi cautiously engages the Taliban regime without formal recognition. India’s approach blends strategic pragmatism and regional security concerns, focusing on maintaining influence in Afghanistan’s evolving geopolitical environment while avoiding premature diplomatic endorsement.

    India-Taliban Ties: A Quick Recap

    1. India never formally recognized the Taliban regime prior to or after 2021.
    2. Initial contacts date back to the late 1990s (e.g., during the IC-814 hijacking), but India’s engagement remained limited due to Pakistan’s dominance over the Taliban.
    3. Post-2021, India has maintained pragmatic engagement of humanitarian aid, infrastructure projects, and limited diplomatic outreach without providing de jure recognition.

    India’s Post-2021 Approach- Diplomatic Balancing and Western Response:

    1. India adopted a “cautious engagement” policy: restoring a technical mission in Kabul, resuming aid delivery, and holding diplomatic contacts.
    2. In 2025, India announced plans to reopen its embassy in Kabul, initially with a Chargé d’affaires, avoiding formal recognition.
    3. India’s silence on human rights and women’s issues during diplomatic talks reflects strategic restraint, balancing ideological concerns with geopolitical necessity.
    4. The Western response is ambivalent. India’s engagement is scrutinized to ensure it does not inadvertently legitimize the Taliban or dilute India’s democratic credentials.

    Taliban and Its Geopolitical Realignments (2024–2025):

    1. China: First major power to exchange ambassadors with the Taliban (2024); deepening economic, mining, and infrastructure ties.
    2. Russia: Moving to delist Taliban as a terrorist group; promoting counterterror cooperation.
    3. Iran: Accepts Taliban rule pragmatically, balancing internal crises with regional influence.
    4. Pakistan: Relations strained — Taliban criticism of Pakistani interference; cross-border tensions with TTP.
    5. United States: Under Trump 2.0, US policy is transactionally disengaged; leaves India more space to engage diplomatically.

    India’s Strategic Objectives in Engaging the Taliban:

    1. Maintain influence in Afghanistan to protect long-term investments (infrastructure, education, healthcare).
    2. Prevent Afghan territory from being used for anti-India terrorism.
    3. Counter Pakistan–China influence by remaining a relevant actor in Afghan affairs.
    4. Enable connectivity and trade, via Chabahar port and regional transit routes.
    5. Promote soft power through development cooperation, scholarships, and cultural engagement.

    Challenges and Diplomatic Constraints:

    1. Non-recognition dilemma: Engagement without recognition may be seen as de facto endorsement by critics.
    2. Human rights dissonance: Taliban’s restrictions on women’s rights conflict with India’s democratic values.
    3. Visa and mobility barriers: Lack of operational consular services hampers people-to-people ties and educational exchanges.
    4. Aid delivery limitations: Security, monitoring, and distribution bottlenecks constrain effective humanitarian impact.
    5. Geopolitical competition: Pakistan and China retain deeper leverage in Afghan affairs; India must navigate their influence.

    Way Forward:

    1. Engagement without endorsement: Maintain diplomatic contact while tying cooperation to counterterror assurances.
    2. Humanitarian focus: Channel aid for women and children through UN/trusted NGOs to avoid legitimizing Taliban governance.
    3. Regional coalition building: Leverage multilateral forums (SAARC, SCO, QUAD) to strengthen India’s Afghan policy.
    4. Expand economic roles: Prioritize mining, power, and infrastructure projects to anchor Indian presence.
    5. Broaden diplomatic contacts: Engage Afghan civil society, minorities, and regional stakeholders for balanced outreach.

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2013] The proposed withdrawal of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from Afghanistan in 2014 is fraught with major security implications for the countries of the region. Examine in light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.

    Linkage: The instability in Kabul, coupled with the influence of external state and non-state actors, directly impacts India’s internal security landscape, especially concerning terrorism, border security challenges, and the potential linkage between organized crime and drug trafficking. Therefore, questions may assess India’s strategic autonomy, humanitarian diplomacy, connectivity projects (like Chabahar), and counter-terrorism strategies, requiring candidates to demonstrate applied knowledge linking foreign policy decisions with internal stability.