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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • Is U.S. imperialism a threat to the world?

    Why in the News?

    The U.S. recently carried out unprovoked attacks on three Iranian nuclear sites during a 12-day war with Iran. These actions, especially under a renewed Trump administration, have restarted discussions about U.S. imperialism and how it affects the global balance of power.

    Note: Imperialism is a policy or ideology by which a powerful country extends its control over weaker territories politically, economically, or militarily, often for strategic or resource-driven gains.

    Is U.S. imperialism a threat to the world?

    U.S. imperialism is often viewed as a threat to global stability for the following reasons:

    • Violation of International Law: The U.S. has engaged in unilateral military interventions without UN approval, undermining global legal norms. Eg: The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on unverified claims of weapons of mass destruction and violated the UN Charter.
    • Destabilization of Regions: U.S. actions often leave countries in prolonged conflict, weakening state institutions and increasing terrorism or refugee crises. Eg: U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Libya led to power vacuums and regional instability.
    • Erosion of Multilateralism: By acting outside global institutions, the U.S. encourages disregard for international cooperation, weakening collective decision-making. Eg: Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (2017) under the Trump administration weakened global climate unity.

    Why does the U.S. view China’s rise as a threat?

    • Economic Rivalry: China’s rapid growth and its emergence as the world’s second-largest economy ($20 trillion GDP) challenge U.S. dominance in trade, infrastructure (e.g. Belt and Road Initiative), and manufacturing.
    • Technological Competition: China’s progress in semiconductors, AI, and green technologies (e.g. leading in renewables and EVs) threatens U.S. supremacy in global innovation and strategic industries.
    • Geopolitical Influence: China’s expanding presence in global institutions and alliances like BRICS and SCO counters U.S.-led systems. Its assertiveness in the South China Sea and strategic investments in Africa and Latin America reflect an alternative world order.

    What challenges does bipolarity pose for rising powers like India?

    • Reduced Strategic Autonomy: In a U.S.-China bipolar world, India may face pressure to align with one power bloc, limiting its independent foreign policy. Eg: India’s participation in Quad may strain ties with China-dominated SCO and BRICS.
    • Limited Global Influence: Bipolarity can marginalize middle powers in global decision-making, making consensus harder. Eg: India’s efforts in climate negotiations may be overshadowed by U.S.-China disagreements.
    • Geopolitical Vulnerability: Tensions between major powers can destabilize regional security, impacting India directly. Eg: Escalation in the Indo-Pacific due to U.S.-China rivalry increases India’s strategic risks.

    Why is the Global South crucial amid failing multilateralism?

    • Collective Voice Against Hegemony: As traditional multilateral institutions like the UN or WTO lose credibility, the Global South offers a platform for developing nations to assert their interests. Eg: BRICS expansion allows emerging economies to challenge Western dominance in global financial systems.
    • Alternative Frameworks for Cooperation: The Global South promotes minilateralism and regional alliances to address shared challenges like debt, climate change, and trade inequities. Eg: India’s role in the International Solar Alliance (ISA) reflects South-South cooperation in climate governance.
    • Safeguarding Sovereignty and Development Needs: It helps countries resist coercive trade or security alignments and focus on inclusive development models. Eg: G77 bloc resists WTO reforms that could harm public procurement protections vital to developing economies.

    How can India balance strategic ties and Global South leadership? (Way forward) 

    • Pursue Strategic Autonomy: India must maintain an independent foreign policy despite partnerships like Quad. Eg: It joined the BRICS Bank while deepening ties with the U.S., showcasing multi-alignment.
    • Take Principled Stands in Global Forums: India should speak out against violations of international law even by allies. Eg: India’s silence on U.S. strikes in Iran undermines its credibility as a Global South leader.
    • Champion Collective South-South Agendas: India can lead in climate justice, debt relief, and trade equity for developing countries. Eg: Through initiatives like the International Solar Alliance and Voice of Global South Summit.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2023] The expansion and strengthening of NATO and a stronger US-Europe strategic partnership works well in India.’ What is your opinion about this statement? Give reasons and examples to support your answer.

    Linkage: The expansion of NATO and strengthening of the US-Europe strategic partnership represent key elements of U.S.-led alliances and its approach to global security. This directly relates to the U.S. acting as the “world’s sole superpower” engaged in “aggressive military behaviour” and violating the international order.

  • [3rd July 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Rephasing global development finance

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2014] Some of the International funding agencies have special terms for economic participation stipulating a substantial component of the aid to be used for sourcing equipment from the leading countries. Discuss on merits of such terms and if, there exists a strong case not to accept such conditions in the Indian context.

    Linkage: This question directly addresses the modalities and conditionalities of “international funding agencies” which are a core aspect of global development finance. This article  highlights that the “rephasing global development finance” is necessary due to several factors, including the “shrinking ODA and debt crisis”, the profound decline in the “flow of global development finance”.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  India’s development cooperation with the Global South is undergoing a significant reorientation. After years of steadily expanding economic assistance, rising from $3 billion in 2010–11 to $7 billion in 2023–24, the government is signaling a major policy shift. The Finance Ministry has red-flagged the continued use of Lines of Credit (LoCs), which have historically been a key engagement tool under the Indian Development and Economic Assistance Scheme (IDEAS). With the global liquidity crisis, rising debt distress in developing nations, and a sharp decline in traditional Official Development Assistance (ODA) from major donors like the U.S. and U.K., India is now pushing for a more diversified model. 

    Today’s editorial analyses India’s development cooperation with the Global South. This topic is important for GS Paper II (International Relations) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    India’s development cooperation with the Global South has been steadily increasing over the years.

    What are India’s modes of cooperation with the Global South?

    • Capacity Building: Focuses on training, education, and skill development of human resources in partner countries. Eg: The Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) programme provides training to officials from over 160 countries in various sectors like IT, agriculture, and governance.
    • Technology Transfer: Sharing India’s innovations, expertise, and cost-effective solutions with Global South nations. Eg: India has shared digital public infrastructure models like Aadhaar and UPI with countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.
    • Market Access: Providing duty-free and preferential access to Indian markets for exports from developing nations. Eg: Under the Duty-Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) scheme, least developed countries (LDCs) benefit from reduced tariffs when exporting to India.
    • Grants: Non-repayable financial assistance offered for key infrastructure or social sector projects. Eg: India provided grants for building parliament buildings in countries like Afghanistan and Mali.
    • Concessional Finance (Lines of Credit – LoCs): India extends low-interest loans to partner countries for development projects under the IDEAS (Indian Development and Economic Assistance Scheme). Eg: India extended LoCs for railway projects in Africa (like in Mozambique and Senegal) and for solar energy projects under the International Solar Alliance (ISA).
    Note: IDEAS is a flagship initiative of the Government of India designed to promote development cooperation with partner countries, especially in the Global South, by extending Lines of Credit (LoCs) on concessional terms.

    Why is the relevance of Lines of Credit (LoCs) under IDEAS being reconsidered?

    • Rising Sovereign Debt and Repayment Challenges: Many partner countries in the Global South are facing sovereign debt crises, reducing their capacity to repay concessional loans. Eg: During the G-20 summit, India raised concerns over the unsustainable debt levels in Africa and small island nations, signalling caution in issuing new LoCs.
    • Strain on Indian Public Finances: India borrows from global capital markets and extends credit at concessional rates under IDEAS, absorbing the interest differential. With global liquidity tightening, this model has become fiscally burdensome. Eg: The Finance Ministry flagged the increasing fiscal burden of absorbing interest costs in the 2025–26 budget, suggesting a shift away from LoCs.
    • Unpredictability in Global Capital Markets: Fluctuations in global interest rates and capital availability have made it difficult to maintain concessional lending under predictable terms. Eg: Due to the rising cost of borrowing post-COVID, India finds it less viable to sustain concessional credit lines compared to more flexible grant-based or Triangular Cooperation (TrC) models.

    How has the decline in Official Development Assistance (ODA) impacted global development finance?

    • Reduction in Available Funding for Development Projects: ODA has dropped significantly from $214 billion in 2023 to an expected $97 billion, a ~45% decline, leading to fewer resources for critical development programmes, especially in least developed countries (LDCs).
    • Setback to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): The financing gap for SDGs has widened, rising from $2.5 trillion in 2015 to over $4 trillion in 2024. With limited ODA, progress toward achieving the 2030 Agenda remains off track, especially after COVID-19 and global shocks.
    • Increased Vulnerability of Debt-Stressed Nations: The shrinking flow of concessional finance has made it harder for debt-ridden nations to access affordable funding, jeopardizing development progress and worsening existing economic vulnerabilities.

    What is Triangular Cooperation (TrC)?

    Triangular Cooperation (TrC) is a development model that brings together three key actors:

    • A traditional donor from the Global North (e.g., Germany, Japan, USA)
    • A pivotal country from the Global South with development experience (e.g., India, Brazil, Indonesia)
    • A partner country, usually another developing or least developed country, which receives the support

    What is the role of Triangular Cooperation (TrC)?

    • Bridges Global North and South: Triangular Cooperation brings together a traditional donor from the Global North, a pivotal country from the Global South (like India), and a partner country (often another developing nation). It creates inclusive platforms for shared learning, mutual respect, and context-specific solutions.
    • Promotes Cost-Effective and Impactful Development: TrC enables the co-creation of development solutions that are tailored to local needs while combining technical expertise, financial resources, and implementation experience from all three partners. This leads to cost-effective and sustainable outcomes. Eg: India and Germany have implemented TrC projects in countries like Cameroon, Ghana, Malawi, and Peru.
    • Expands India’s Development Diplomacy: TrC allows India to leverage partnerships with countries such as Germany, UK, EU, and Japan to implement projects in third countries, enhancing India’s role as a global development partner. It aligns with India’s vision of a Global Development Compact and was promoted during its G-20 presidency.

    How can India leverage partnerships through TrC to enhance its development diplomacy? (Way forward)

    • Strengthening Strategic Alliances and Global Presence: India can collaborate with traditional donors like Germany, Japan, the UK, and the EU to implement development projects in third countries, enhancing its image as a reliable global development partner and expanding its geopolitical influence.
    • Promoting Scalable, Cost-Effective Solutions in the Global South: By combining India’s technical expertise with Northern financial resources, TrC enables context-specific, demand-driven projects in areas like energy, health, and education, aligning with India’s vision of a Global Development Compact.

     

  • [2nd July 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A triangular dynamic in South Asia’s power politics

    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: This question directly linked with the central issue of “mutual distrust” and “terrorist activities” between India and Pakistan, which are explicit drivers of the complex “triangular relationship”. The article mentions India’s diplomatic campaign to isolate Pakistan globally and impose accountability on the state apparatus enabling terrorist groups.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  The renewed ties between the Trump-led U.S. government and Pakistan’s military, seen in events like the high-profile lunch with Field Marshal Asim Munir and the return of military aid, show a clear shift in America’s approach to South Asia. This change, similar to the Cold War era, could weaken the strong U.S.-India partnership built on shared concerns over terrorism and China. At the same time, India has moved away from its earlier cautious approach, as shown by Operation Sindoor, raising the risk of conflict on two fronts against both Pakistan and China. As the U.S. balances between long-term strategy and short-term deals, the power dynamics in South Asia are being reshaped.

    Today’s editorial analyse the renewed ties between the Trump-led U.S. government and Pakistan’s military. This topic is important for GS Paper II (International Relations) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    In the complicated power politics of South Asia, the relationship between the United States, India, and Pakistan tells an important story.

    What drives the recent shift in U.S.-Pakistan relations?

    • Transactional Diplomacy Over Strategic Values: The U.S., particularly under the Trump administration, has adopted a deal-based approach rather than value-based alliances. Eg: Authorisation of $397 million for Pakistan’s F-16 fleet for “counter-terrorism” signals a shift towards immediate tactical gains rather than long-term strategic alignment with India.
    • Pakistan’s Geostrategic Leverage: Pakistan’s location at the crossroads of Afghanistan, Iran, and China enhances its strategic utility for U.S. regional interests, especially amid tensions in West Asia. Eg: Trump’s praise of Pakistan’s role in understanding Iran and his meeting with “Field Marshal” Asim Munir show a willingness to engage Pakistan despite its terror-linked image.

    How is it affecting U.S.-India strategic relations?

    • Erosion of Strategic Trust: India-U.S. partnership, built over counterterrorism cooperation and convergence on China, is being undermined by the U.S.’s renewed engagement with Pakistan. Eg: Trump’s claim of mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan contradicted India’s “no third-party” policy, leading to diplomatic discomfort.
    • Increased Strategic Caution in India: India’s concern over U.S.-Pakistan proximity may lead it to recalibrate its own foreign policy posture, especially in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific. It may reduce India’s reliance on U.S. support in regional disputes, focusing instead on self-reliant deterrence and regional alliances.
    • Undermining of U.S.-India Indo-Pacific Vision: The Quad framework and Indo-Pacific cooperation, key pillars of U.S.-India ties, risk losing momentum due to America’s distracted diplomacy in South Asia.

    What is the significance of India’s “new normal” doctrine in South Asia?

    • Departure from Strategic Restraint: India’s “new normal” reflects a proactive military and diplomatic posture against cross-border terrorism, moving away from its earlier defensive doctrine. Eg: In response to the Pahalgam terror attack, India launched Operation Sindoor, signaling its intent to punish provocations decisively.
    • Global Isolation of State-Sponsored Terrorism: The doctrine aims to internationally isolate Pakistan by linking terror acts to state support, thereby shifting global opinion and increasing diplomatic pressure.
      Eg: India’s efforts in UN forums to designate Pakistan-based terror groups under sanctions align with this approach.
    • Regional Deterrence and Strategic Signaling: It serves as a deterrent by altering Pakistan’s cost-benefit calculation of supporting non-state actors, while also sending a message to China amid a two-front threat perception. Eg: Statements by PM of India calling the ceasefire a “pause, not peace” indicate sustained pressure on both Pakistan and its backer, China.

    Who gains or loses from the U.S.’s ambivalent role in India-Pakistan dynamics?

    • Pakistan Gains Strategic Leverage: The U.S.’s ambiguity allows Pakistan to portray itself as a valuable security partner, especially in the context of Afghanistan, Iran, and regional logistics.
    • India Faces Diplomatic Setbacks: U.S. engagement with Pakistan undermines India’s strategic trust in the U.S., weakening its position on issues like cross-border terrorism and Kashmir.  
    • The U.S. Risks Losing Credibility: By oscillating between idealism and transactionalism, the U.S. dilutes its reliability as a consistent global partner, particularly in the Indo-Pacific strategy. Eg: India’s growing ties with Russia and Iran, and its push for strategic autonomy, partly stem from concerns over U.S. inconsistency.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue: India should deepen institutional-level engagement with the U.S. to reaffirm mutual interests in the Indo-Pacific, counterterrorism, and technology partnerships, reducing the influence of personality-driven shifts.
    • Pursue Regional Strategic Autonomy: India must continue to build bilateral and multilateral ties with like-minded countries (e.g., France, Japan, UAE) to diversify strategic options and reduce overdependence on U.S. foreign policy swings.

  • ‘At Sea Observer’ Mission by QUAD

    Why in the News?

    The Coast Guards of India, Japan, the United States, and Australia have initiated the first-ever ‘QUAD At Sea Ship Observer Mission’.

    About “At Sea Ship Observer Mission”:

    • Overview: The ‘At Sea Ship Observer Mission’ is the first cross-embarkation initiative by the Coast Guards of India, Japan, the U.S., and Australia.
    • Origin and Vision: It was conceptualised under the Wilmington Declaration (2024) to boost interoperability and maritime domain awareness in the Indo-Pacific.
    • Participation: Officers from all QUAD countries, including women officers.
    • Joint Training Operations: The mission enables joint SOP drills, search and rescue (SAR), patrolling, and promotes gender inclusion in maritime diplomacy.
    • India’s Alignment: India’s role complements initiatives like SAGAR, the MAHASAGAR Doctrine, and the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI).
    • QUAD Summit Linkage: It operationalises decisions from the 6th QUAD Leaders’ Summit held in Wilmington, USA.
    • Future Vision: Sets groundwork for a ‘QUAD Coast Guard Handshake’, enhancing trust, resilience, and standardised operations in the Indo-Pacific.
    • Regional Impact: Aims to improve emergency response, coordination, and domain awareness among QUAD Coast Guards.

    What is QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue)?

    • Members: QUAD is a strategic dialogue between India, Australia, Japan, and the United States, focused on Indo-Pacific peace and stability.
    • Nature of Alliance: Though not a formal alliance, it reflects a strong consensus on open sea lanes, supply chains, and tech partnerships.
    • Objectives: It promotes a Free and Rules-Based Order, countering coercive actions in the region.
    • Formation History: Originated post-2004 tsunami, formally proposed in 2007 by Japan’s PM Shinzo Abe.
    • Dormancy and Revival: Went dormant after Australia’s 2008 withdrawal but was revived in 2017 amid concerns over China’s assertiveness.
    • Expanded Focus Areas: Beyond security, QUAD now includes cooperation in health, infrastructure, cybersecurity, emerging tech, and climate change.
    • Joint Activities: The group holds military drills, high-level dialogues, and supports regional capacity-building.
    • QUAD-Plus Engagements: Also engages countries like South Korea, Vietnam, and New Zealand, signalling future expansion.

     

    [UPSC 2016] With reference to the ‘Trans-Pacific Partnership’, consider the following statements: (2016)  1. It is an agreement among all the Pacific Rim countries except China and Russia.  2.It is a strategic alliance for the purpose of maritime security only.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

     

  • In a perilous world, India must read the tea leaves well 

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the world’s growing preference for military force over peaceful talks have made India’s old policy of staying neutral and keeping strategic independence no longer enough.

    Why is India’s neutrality no longer viable in the current global conflicts?

    • Erosion of Strategic Leverage in Multilateral Crises: Neutrality has diminished India’s influence during major global conflicts where clear moral or strategic stands are expected. Eg: During the Israel-Iran conflict, India’s equidistant stance failed to garner goodwill from Iran, while Israel saw no added strategic value either.
    • Increased Global Polarisation and Military Alignments:  The world is now split into rival power groups, and staying neutral is often seen as being unsure or unwilling to take a stand. Eg: The U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites with bunker buster bombs, along with the growing China-Russia-Iran partnership, shows that being neutral in such a situation can actually be a liability and hurt a country’s interests.
    • Loss of Support from Traditional Partners: India’s neutral approach during its own security crises has failed to rally international support. Eg: During the recent India-Pakistan conflict, most West Asian countries and even the U.S. remained non-committal, despite India’s outreach in the Global South.
    • Reduced Credibility of Non-Alignment in a Hard Power World: Global forums are increasingly emphasising military strength over moral positioning. Neutrality is no longer seen as leadership. Eg: At the Shangri-La Dialogue, the U.S. stressed hard power and Indo-Pacific dominance, sidelining softer, non-aligned narratives like India’s.

    What are the threats posed by the China-Pakistan military alliance?

    • Two-Front War Scenario: India faces the real risk of a coordinated military confrontation on both eastern and western borders. Eg: During the India-Pakistan conflict in May, intelligence revealed Pakistan’s preparedness using Chinese-supplied J-10C and JF-17 fighter jets, suggesting synchronised planning with China.
    • Enhanced Pakistani Military Capabilities: China’s transfer of advanced weaponry has significantly boosted Pakistan’s defence systems, improving its precision strike and surveillance capacity. Eg: Chinese radar, missile systems, and drone technology are now integrated into Pakistan’s command and control network, enhancing its offensive potential against India.
    • Asymmetric Nuclear Threat: The alliance magnifies the nuclear imbalance in the region, putting India at a strategic disadvantage. Eg: China and Pakistan together possess nearly a 5:1 advantage in nuclear warheads over India, escalating the deterrence challenge and increasing the risk of nuclear brinkmanship.

    How has India’s Israel-Iran policy impacted its West Asia standing?

    • Loss of Credibility as a Neutral Mediator: India’s attempt to balance ties between Israel and Iran has diluted its influence in the region, as it failed to take a principled stand when it was needed most. Eg: During the Israel-Iran conflict, India’s mere call for “restraint on all sides” disappointed Iran, which expected vocal support against targeted attacks by Israel and the U.S.
    • Strained Relations with Key Regional Powers: India’s visible tilt towards Israel in recent years has alienated several West Asian countries, undermining its strategic and energy interests. Eg: India’s growing defence and technology cooperation with Israel has made its Iran policy less credible, especially after Iran was diplomatically isolated in the recent conflict.

    What are the reforms needed to prepare India for a two-front war? (Way forward)

    • Strengthen Long-Duration War Capabilities: India must boost its ammunition reserves, logistics systems, and supply chain resilience to sustain prolonged conflicts on both fronts. Eg: The UK’s defence audit revealed critical gaps in its own war readiness—India too must conduct similar assessments to plug vulnerabilities.
    • Develop Advanced Technologies and AI Warfare: Investing in Artificial Intelligence (AI), drone warfare, loitering munitions, and electromagnetic systems is crucial to match modern battlefield requirements. Eg: Lessons from the Russia-Ukraine war show the growing role of AI-guided drones and precision weapons in shaping war outcomes.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2022] How will I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE and USA) grouping transform India’s position in global politics?

    Linkage: India’s role in emerging strategic alliances, emphasizing the need to understand how new groupings can re-shape India’s influence and standing in global politics. The article underscores that India’s foreign policy is currently facing an “existential crisis” due to events like the India-Pakistan conflict, the China-Pakistan nexus, and the Israel-Iran conflict, where “neutrality is no longer an option.

  • [28th June 2025] The Hindu Op-ed:  A China-led trilateral nexus as India’s new challenge

    PYQ Relevance:

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

    Linkage: It focuses on how China uses its economic power to gain strategic and military advantages, and how this affects India, its neighbor. The article show that Pakistan heavily depends on China for money, support, and infrastructure. With China’s backing, Pakistan could pose new terrorism and security threats to India.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  China recently held a three-country meeting with Pakistan and Bangladesh in Kunming, soon after a similar one with Pakistan and Afghanistan. These talks show that China is trying to increase its influence in South Asia by bringing India’s neighbours closer, especially as India’s ties with Bangladesh are tense and India is becoming more active in Afghanistan. This reminds us of Cold War-style strategies, where countries tried to surround rivals. As India takes strong action against terrorism and defends its regional interests, China’s new meetings seem to show not just strategy, but also nervousness about India’s growing power.

    Today’s editorial talks about the recent meeting between China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. This topic is important for GS Paper II (International Relations) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Last week, China, Pakistan, and Bangladesh met together for the first time in a three-country meeting held in Kunming, China.

    What are China’s goals behind trilateral talks with Pakistan and others?

    • Expand Regional Influence: China aims to increase its geopolitical footprint in South Asia by leading trilateral forums.
    • Contain India’s Rise: Trilateral talks help China keep India distracted by regional tensions, limiting its strategic outreach and diplomatic bandwidth. Eg: China’s coordination with Pakistan and Afghanistan shortly after India’s Operation Sindoor aimed to show Pakistan as a regional stakeholder and challenge India’s dominance.
    • Promote BRI and Economic Interests: By drawing countries like Afghanistan and Bangladesh closer, China seeks to push its Belt and Road Initiative and related infrastructure investments. Eg: Discussions with Afghanistan have included extending the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) through Afghan territory.

    Why is China increasing regional engagement amid India’s rise?

    • To Counter India’s Strategic Clout: As India grows economically and diplomatically, China seeks to undermine its influence in neighbouring countries. Eg: China’s trilateral with Pakistan and Bangladesh followed India’s strengthening ties with Afghanistan and regional powers.
    • To Exploit Shifting Political Landscapes: China is leveraging regime changes in countries like Afghanistan and Bangladesh to draw them closer into its orbit. Eg: After the regime change in Bangladesh (2024), China intensified efforts to engage Dhaka through trilaterals.
    • To Protect and Expand Economic Interests: Rising Indian assertiveness challenges China’s economic initiatives, especially BRI projects. Regional engagement helps safeguard these investments. Eg: China wants to extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) into Afghanistan to secure trade routes and regional access.

    How does the China-Pakistan nexus affect India’s security strategy?

    • Increased Two-Front Security Threat: The China-Pakistan partnership forces India to prepare for simultaneous threats on both western and northern borders, complicating military planning. Eg: During Operation Sindoor (2025), Pakistan used Chinese-made drones, radars, and fighter jets, requiring India to recalibrate its defence posture.
    • Diplomatic Isolation Attempts: China often backs Pakistan at global platforms, shielding it from international scrutiny, especially on terror-related matters. Eg: China blocked UN resolutions targeting Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, limiting India’s global counterterrorism diplomacy.
    • Regional Instability via Trilateral Engagements: China promotes trilateral meetings involving Pakistan and India’s neighbours to sideline New Delhi and create regional pressure points. Eg: The China-Pakistan-Bangladesh trilateral aims to undermine India’s influence in South Asia and divert attention from long-term strategic goals.

    What are the developments that show India countering China’s regional influence?

    • Assertive Military and Diplomatic Response: India has adopted a proactive approach to respond to security threats and Chinese intrusions. Eg: In response to the Pahalgam terror attack, India launched Operation Sindoor (2025) and suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, restricted port access, and took military action, signalling firm redlines.
    • Strengthening Ties with Neighbours: India is engaging constructively with its neighbours to limit Chinese outreach and reinforce strategic trust. Eg: Despite past tensions, India supported Nepal’s energy cooperation with Bangladesh and re-engaged with Maldives and Sri Lanka, reinforcing regional goodwill.
    • Coalition Building with Like-Minded Nations: India is enhancing cooperation with democratic allies to counterbalance China’s strategic footprint in South Asia. Eg: India has deepened ties through platforms like QUAD, and built defence and intelligence partnerships with countries like the U.S., Japan, and Australia, strengthening its regional deterrence.

    Who among the neighbours are shifting towards China?

    • Pakistan: Deeply aligned with China for military, economic, and diplomatic support. Eg: Over $29 billion in loans, and 80% of arms imports from China.
    • Bangladesh: After the 2024 regime change, it has shown increasing economic and political engagement with China. Eg: Joined trilateral talks with China and Pakistan, indicating a shift despite India’s past close ties.
    • Afghanistan: Shifted closer to China-Pakistan axis after the Taliban takeover (2021) and again after 2024 regime changes.

    Way forward: 

    • Enhance Strategic Partnerships in South Asia: India should build stronger bilateral ties with its neighbors through infrastructure support, trade cooperation, and regional connectivity projects. Strengthening initiatives like BIMSTEC and Act East Policy can counterbalance China’s influence.
    • Assert Regional Leadership Through Security and Diplomacy: India must continue to lead anti-terror cooperation, defend regional sovereignty, and set clear redlines for any hostile alignments. At the same time, it should promote inclusive regional forums that prioritize peace and mutual development.

  • India to alter Ganges Water Sharing Treaty with Bangladesh

    Why in the News?

    India is preparing to reassess and renegotiate the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty with Bangladesh, which is set to expire in 2026, completing its 30-year term.

    About the Ganga Water Agreement (1996):

    • Signing: It was signed on December 12, 1996, by PM H. D. Deve Gowda (India) and PM Sheikh Hasina (Bangladesh) to share the Ganga’s dry season flow.
    • Purpose: It aimed to ensure water availability for irrigation, ecology, and navigation in both countries, especially at the Farakka Barrage, which diverts water to sustain the Kolkata Port.
    • Duration: It replaced earlier short-term deals and set a 30-year framework (1996–2026), with a renewal clause by mutual consent.

    Key Terms of the Agreement:

    • Lean Season Period: The treaty applies from January 1 to May 31, with water sharing calculated in 10-day intervals.
    • Sharing Formula at Farakka:
      • ≤ 70,000 cusecs: 50% each
      • 70,000–75,000 cusecs: India gets the remainder after Bangladesh gets 35,000
      • ≥ 75,000 cusecs: India gets 40,000; Bangladesh gets the balance
    • Alternate Sharing: From March 11 to May 10, both countries receive 35,000 cusecs alternately every three 10-day blocks.
    • No Minimum Guarantee: If flow falls below 50,000 cusecs, Article II allows for consultations and emergency adjustments.
    • Monitoring Mechanism: The Joint Rivers Commission (JRC) ensures implementation and dispute resolution.
    • Project Provisions: Both countries may construct water projects for irrigation and navigation.

    Why must India reconsider it?  

    • Treaty Expiry: The treaty ends in 2026, and India wants a revised pact to reflect current demands.
    • Rising Needs: India seeks an additional 30,000–35,000 cusecs due to:
      • Increased irrigation in West Bengal and other states
      • Siltation issues at Kolkata Port
      • Urban and industrial growth
    • Flexibility Concerns: Officials argue the treaty lacks provisions for climate variability and seasonal shortages.
    • State Support: West Bengal supports changes, citing inadequate current allocations.
    • Proposed Change: India may pursue a shorter, more flexible treaty, like its move on the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan.

    Implications for Bangladesh:

    • Downstream Vulnerability: Bangladesh faces greater risk from reduced water flow.
    • Historical Shortfalls: Between 1997 and 2016, Bangladesh received less than its share 65% of the time.
    • Potential Consequences:
      • Increased salinity in rivers and farmland
      • Reduced water for fisheries, irrigation, and drinking
      • Navigation issues in the delta
    • Political Sensitivity: Many in Bangladesh already view the treaty as unfair, and further reduction may trigger domestic backlash.
    • Diplomatic Impact: A poorly negotiated outcome could strain India-Bangladesh ties, especially in water diplomacy and cross-border trust.
    [UPSC 2009] Consider the following statements:

    1. The Baglihar Power Project had been constructed within the parameters of the Indus Water Treaty.

    2. The project was completely built by the Union Government with loans from Japan and the World Bank. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

     

  • International Day against Drug Abuse

    Why in the News?

    June 26 is observed globally as the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, also known as World Drug Day.

    About the International Day Against Drug Abuse:

    • It is observed annually on June 26, following a declaration by the UN General Assembly on December 7, 1987.
    • The theme for 2025, “Break the Cycle. #StopOrganizedCrime,” highlights the need for tackling organized crime networks linked to drug trafficking and calls for long-term investment in justice, education, health care, and alternative livelihoods.
    • Events are held worldwide to raise awareness about the social, health, and legal impacts of drug abuse, with active participation from governments, NGOs, and citizens.
    • In India, efforts like the Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan reflect the government’s zero-tolerance policy and people-centric approach to preventing drug addiction and trafficking.

    Key Highlights of the UNODC World Drug Report (2024-2025):

    • The latest World Drug Report by UNODC reveals that 292 million people globally were using drugs by 2022, marking a 20% increase in the last decade.
    • The report notes a worrying expansion of synthetic drug markets, especially methamphetamine and fentanyl-type opioids, and links them to organised crime groups.
    • It calls attention to youth vulnerability, mental health correlations, and gaps in treatment access, especially in low-income countries.

    Back2Basics: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

    • Overview: It was established in 1997 through the merger of the United Nations Drug Control Programme and the Centre for International Crime Prevention.
    • UN agency: It helps in tackling illicit drugs, organised crime, corruption, and terrorism.
    • Headquarters: It is located in Vienna, Austria.
    • Its core functions include:
      • Educating global populations about the dangers of drug abuse.
      • Assisting countries in ratifying and implementing international drug control treaties.
      • Strengthening criminal justice systems to promote the rule of law.
      • Supporting crime prevention, anti-corruption efforts, and terrorism prevention through technical and legal assistance.
    • Funding Mechanism: UNODC is voluntarily funded, mainly by governments, and works with partners worldwide to promote stable, secure, and just societies.

     

    [UPSC 2024] Consider the following activities:

    1. Identification of narcotics on passengers at airports or in aircraft

    2. Monitoring of precipitation

    3. Tracking the migration of animals

    In how many of the above activities can the radars be used?

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

     

  • [27th June 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Fathoming America’s plan to manage AI proliferation

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2021] The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of a China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union.” Explain.

    Linkage: The article explicitly state that the US views AI technology control as a means to “preserve its lead” against adversaries like China and Russia, seeing advanced AI capabilities as a determinant of national power, similar to nuclear weapons.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  The United States’ decision to withdraw the AI Diffusion Framework marks a clear change in policy, but not in its overall strategy to control AI technology. The framework had treated AI like a nuclear threat, aiming to tightly control the export of AI chips, especially to China and Russia. Its removal is seen as positive news, especially for countries like India, which were not treated fairly. However, the U.S. is now trying to achieve the same goals through technology-based controls instead of direct trade rules. This shift from open policy to hidden enforcement could hurt global AI cooperation, cause strategic caution among allies, and lead to repeating the same problems in a new way.p

    Today’s editorial talks about the impact of the United States’ recent decision to cancel its AI Diffusion Framework. This topic is useful for GS Paper II (International Relations) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    The United States recently cancelled its AI Diffusion Framework, a set of rules that controlled the export of AI technology. This decision is being seen as a positive move.

    What is the AI Diffusion Framework?

    The AI Diffusion Framework was a set of export control rules announced by the United States in early 2025. It aimed to regulate how advanced AI technology, such as AI chips and model weights, could be shared or sold to other countries.

    What were the key goals of the U.S. AI Diffusion Framework?

    • Restrict Access to Strategic Competitors: The framework aimed to block countries like China and Russia from obtaining advanced AI chips and model weightsto prevent them from enhancing their military and surveillance capabilities through powerful AI systems.
    • Preserve U.S. Technological Leadership: By limiting the global spread of high-performance computing resources, the U.S. sought to maintain its edge in AI development and ensure that cutting-edge innovations remained concentrated within the U.S. and trusted allies.
    • Create a Structured Export Control System: It introduced a clear set of rules combining export controls and licensing, aiming to simplify regulatory procedures and standardize how AI-related technology was shared or restricted across countries.

    Why was the U.S. AI Diffusion Framework seen as counterproductive?

    • Damaged trust among allies and partners: The broad restrictions impacted both rivals and friendly countries, causing diplomatic friction. Some nations that were not classified as preferred allies began investing in independent AI ecosystems to avoid overdependence on the U.S.
    • Accelerated innovation in restricted regions: By limiting access to advanced AI chips, the framework pushed affected countries to create more efficient algorithms that required less computing power. This led to the development of competitive AI models that challenged the dominance of those built with high-end hardware.

    Why is the framework’s withdrawal seen as beneficial for countries like India?

    • Improved Access to AI Hardware and Resources: With the framework withdrawn, countries like India now face fewer barriers in acquiring high-performance AI chips and related technologies. Eg: Indian startups and research institutions can more easily procure advanced GPUs necessary for developing large AI models.
    • Support for Strategic and Technological Autonomy: The removal of restrictions allows India to pursue its own AI development agenda without being constrained by another country’s policy. Eg: India can strengthen initiatives like the IndiaAI Mission and the Semiconductor Mission to build domestic capabilities.
    • Enhanced Global Collaboration Opportunities: The rollback encourages deeper cooperation between India and other nations, including the U.S., in AI research and innovation. Eg: Indian firms may now engage in joint ventures or technology partnerships with U.S. companies without facing restrictive export barriers.

    How do new U.S. AI chip controls reflect a continuation of earlier strategies?

    • Ongoing Restriction on Adversaries: The U.S. continues to block access to advanced AI chips for countries like China by expanding export controls and adding more firms to the Entity List, just as the earlier framework aimed to do.
    • Shift from Trade to Technological Enforcement: Instead of broad trade bans, the new approach focuses on hardware-level restrictions, such as embedding features in chips to monitor or limit usage, reflecting the same strategic intent in a new form.
    • Sustained Focus on Controlling AI Diffusion: The introduction of location tracking mandates and usage controls in AI chips shows the U.S. is still trying to control how and where AI technology spreads, continuing the goals of limiting proliferation and maintaining dominance.

    What are the global implications of U.S. AI export controls on innovation and technological sovereignty?

    • Push for Technological Self-Reliance: Countries affected by the controls are investing in domestic AI ecosystems and indigenous chip manufacturing to reduce dependence on U.S. technology, leading to the rise of multiple, parallel innovation hubs around the world.
    • Erosion of Trust and Collaboration: Export restrictions create privacy concerns, surveillance risks, and a sense of strategic vulnerability, prompting both allies and adversaries to hedge against U.S. influence, thereby weakening global scientific cooperation and technological integration.

    What are the steps taken by the Indian government in AI chips?

    • IndiaAI Mission (2024): A ₹10,000 crore initiative focused on developing compute infrastructure, datasets, and talent.
    • Semiconductor Mission (ISM): Includes financial incentives and infrastructure support for AI chip manufacturing and design.
    • Collaborations with the private sector: Partnerships with companies like Micron, AMD, and Tata Group to build chip fabs and R&D centres in India.
    • Supercomputing initiatives: Under PARAM and National Supercomputing Mission, India is developing indigenous high-performance compute for AI workloads.
    • IndiaAI compute platform: Aimed at giving startups and researchers access to high-end GPU clusters.

    Way forward: 

    • Promote Inclusive and Transparent AI Governance: The U.S. and other major powers should work through multilateral platforms to create balanced AI export norms that protect security interests without stifling global innovation or alienating partners.
    • Strengthen Global AI Collaboration Frameworks: Countries like India should advocate for open-access research, joint AI development programs, and capacity-building initiatives to ensure equitable access to AI technology and reduce dependency on a single ecosystem.

  • India refuses to sign SCO draft statement

    Why in the News?

    At the SCO Defence Ministers’ meeting in Qingdao, China, Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh refused to sign the draft joint statement after it excluded the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

    About SCO:

    • Overview: It is a regional intergovernmental body with 10 members—India, China, Russia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, and Belarus (joined in 2024).
    • Origin: It evolved from the “Shanghai Five” formed in 1996, aimed at resolving post-Soviet border and security issues in Central Asia and China.
    • Formation: Itwas formally established on June 15, 2001, in Shanghai to promote regional cooperation in security, economic development, and cultural exchange.
    • Security Arm: The Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure- RATS of SCO focuses on counter-terrorism, cybersecurity, and drug trafficking.
    • Global Role: It is the world’s largest regional group by area and population, and is viewed as a counterweight to Western alliances.
    • India and SCO:
      • Membership Journey: India became an observer in 2005 and gained full membership in 2017, along with Pakistan.
      • Areas of Participation: India engages in SCO summits, joint military drills, and anti-terror cooperation, often using the forum to address cross-border terrorism

    Significance of Rajnath Singh’s Action:

    • Strong Message: In his recent SCO address, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh emphasized zero tolerance for terrorism, citing the Pahalgam attack as a case of religious targeting.
    • Foreign Policy Signal: His statement reflects India’s independent foreign policy stance, especially significant in a group where China wields influence and often backs Pakistan
    • Zero Tolerance Stand: The speech reinforced India’s message that peace and terrorism cannot coexist, and there can be no normal ties with terror-sponsoring nations.
    [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*