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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: IOCR

  • ‘Distorted power relations in the world make Security Council non-operational’

    Why in the News

    The United Nations Secretary General has stated that distorted power relations have rendered the Security Council completely non operational, and that global superpowers have not recognised that there are limits to their power. The same assessment was extended to the Bretton Woods institutions, on the ground that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) do not correspond to the reality of emerging economies that remain underrepresented in them. The prescription put on record is not reform but an overhaul, meaning a readjustment of the power systems and governance mechanisms of the world to the reality of today rather than that of 1945. The tension is that the officeholder making the diagnosis also holds that the organisation is not broken, since its humanitarian machinery continues to function, so the failure is located precisely in the one organ with coercive authority.

    What is the Secretary General’s diagnosis of the Security Council?

    1. Eighty one years without a world war: The United Nations has guaranteed that there has been no third World War in 81 years, and the absence of two superpowers fighting each other is attributed largely to its work.
    2. The geopolitical divide inside the organisation: A strong geopolitical divide now runs through the organisation, and superpowers that have not accepted the limits of their power enter adventures that produce damaging results.
    3. Legitimacy and effectiveness as separate failures: A Council that no longer corresponds to the world of today creates a problem of legitimacy and a separate problem of effectiveness.
    4. Distorted power relations: The question is power, and power relations in the world being distorted is what makes the Council, the central entity for the preservation of peace and security, completely non operational.

    Why is the prescription an overhaul rather than reform?

    1. Operational reform is already under way: A significant amount of reform is being carried out in the operational aspects of the organisation, which is not what is at issue.
    2. Bretton Woods representation of emerging economies: The Bretton Woods system does not correspond to the reality of the emerging economies, which remain underrepresented in the World Bank, the IMF and several other institutions.
    3. Governance mechanisms still set to 1945: Power systems and governance mechanisms need to be readjusted to the reality of today’s world instead of the reality of 1945.
    4. Overhaul against reform: What is being recommended is described as more than a simple reform, and as an overhaul, meaning a change to the distribution of authority rather than to procedures inside it.

    What does the organisation still do?

    1. Institutional survival after the funding cuts: No United Nations institution has collapsed, even with fewer resources and after the funding cuts that were made.
    2. Humanitarian delivery continues: Its agencies go on working and supporting people in the most dangerous places in the world.
    3. Self reform of working methods and structures: The organisation is described as able to inclusively reform its own ways of work and its own structures, which is precisely what it cannot do to the Council.

    Where does the enforcement gap lie?

    1. Absence of a punishment mechanism: No instrument exists in the international community to guarantee that violations of international law are effectively punished.
    2. Divided major powers and state calculation: With the major powers divided, individual states calculate that they can act without consequence.
    3. No power to stop the exclusion of officials: Asked what happens when a state excludes United Nations officials and tens of thousands die, including large numbers of children, the stated position is that the organisation does not have the power to stop it.
    4. Israel’s exit and the persona non grata declaration: Israel has exited many United Nations institutions and declared the Secretary General persona non grata, which means no visa would be issued to him, and he did not request one.
    5. Genocide as a determination for the courts: Genocide is a legal definition belonging to the courts and in principle to the International Criminal Court (ICC), so the organisation describes events in Gaza as a dramatic violation of all principles under international law without offering that legal definition itself.

    What is being attempted on freedom of navigation?

    1. Capture of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait: Houthi and other groups have captured the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and oil prices are expected to rise sharply as a result.
    2. Freedom of navigation: Freedom of navigation is fundamental and must be respected.
    3. The Black Sea Grain Initiative precedent: The organisation has proposed mechanisms under which a blockade makes exceptions at least for the transport of food and fertilizers, as was done through the Black Sea Grain Initiative in the Russia Ukraine conflict.
    4. The Strait of Hormuz fertilizer offer: A similar offer has been made for the Strait of Hormuz to allow fertilizers through, and Iran has not accepted it.

    Where does India figure in this assessment?

    1. Ukraine and the Gulf in the India discussion: Both the war in Ukraine and the situation in the Gulf were discussed with the Indian Prime Minister, on a common perspective that peace and absolute freedom of navigation are needed.
    2. The assessment of India’s mediation: India’s mediation efforts and its contacts with Moscow and Kyiv, aimed at creating conditions for trust to be re established, were described as valuable, with the position taken that no country is better placed to act as a bridge builder.
    3. No mediation between India and Pakistan: The organisation is not directly involved in any mediation process between India and Pakistan, since mediation requires the agreement of both parties and that agreement does not exist.

    What was said about the United Nations map controversy?

    1. The disclaimer on United Nations maps: There is no such thing as a United Nations map with borders, and it is not for the organisation to define borders.
    2. The “Correct the Map” resolution: The “Correct the Map” resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on 3 September is not a map. It records that there are distortions in the representation of landmasses, traces those distortions to power relations of the past, and seeks to replace the Mercator projection with maps following the “equal area” principle.
    3. The status of the disputed document: The map published by UN Geospatial on 1 July and later discussed at the General Assembly remains on the organisation’s website, and is described as not an official map but the contribution of a non governmental organisation, indicative rather than definitional.
    4. The Line of Control and Aksai Chin depiction: That map showed the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir as a dotted line with an explanatory note, while depicting Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin without the Indian and Chinese claim lines that earlier maps carried, and with no note explaining the omission.
    5. India’s recorded position: India voted for the resolution in support of the principle of equal area representation, has taken note of the anomaly in the map, and is taking it up with the organisation.

    Challenges to reform of the United Nations Security Council

    1. The permanent members hold a veto over their own dilution: Any change to the Council’s composition requires an amendment to the Charter ratified by all five permanent members, so the beneficiaries of the current structure control the exit from it. Eg. Charter amendment under Articles 108 and 109 requires ratification by all permanent members.
      The Fix: Pursue working method reform inside the existing Charter first, such as a binding commitment to withhold the veto in mass atrocity situations, since that route does not require ratification.
    2. The claimants cannot agree among themselves: Aspirants for permanent seats are blocked as much by regional rivals as by the incumbents. Eg. The Uniting for Consensus group opposes new permanent seats in the same round in which the G4 countries press for them.
      The Fix: Negotiate on an intermediate model of longer term renewable seats without veto, which separates the question of representation from the question of privilege.
    3. Text based negotiation has never begun: The Intergovernmental Negotiations process has run for over a decade without producing a single negotiating text to amend. Eg. The process continues to operate on convened position papers rather than on a draft resolution.
      The Fix: Fix a deadline by which the General Assembly President must table a consolidated single negotiating text, so positions are recorded against clauses rather than restated annually.
    4. Regional representation gaps are structural, not incidental: Africa and Latin America have no permanent seat, which is the specific defect the 1945 composition has carried forward. Eg. The Ezulwini Consensus records Africa’s claim to two permanent seats with veto and five non permanent seats, and has been outstanding since 2005.
      The Fix: Settle the African allocation first as a distinct package, since it is the one claim with an agreed continental position behind it.
    5. A reformed Council changes nothing without an enforcement instrument: Enlarging the membership does not create any means of penalising a state that ignores a Council decision. Eg. There is no instrument in the international community to guarantee that violations of international law are punished.
      The Fix: Strengthen the General Assembly’s residual authority through the Uniting for Peace route and link non compliance to automatic referral to the International Criminal Court.
    6. Financial leverage sits with the states least interested in change: Assessed contributions are concentrated among a few members, so budget pressure can be applied against reform. Eg. Cuts to the organisation’s resources have already forced its agencies to operate on reduced funding.
      The Fix: Broaden the assessed contribution base and build a reserve fund from voluntary contributions by emerging economies, so operational continuity is not hostage to a single contributor.

    Conclusion

    The assessment on record separates two things that are usually argued together: the organisation’s capacity to deliver, which is defended, and the Council’s capacity to decide, which is written off. That separation narrows the reform question from the institution as a whole to the single organ where authority and legitimacy have come apart. An outgoing officeholder’s recommendation carries no procedural weight, and the change he describes requires the assent of the states it would constrain. The thing to watch is the selection of the next Secretary General, since the terms on which that appointment is settled will show whether the membership treats the Council’s composition as a live question or a closed one.

    Back2Basics: Black Sea Grain Initiative

    1. The Black Sea Grain Initiative: An arrangement permitting the export of grain and foodstuffs from Ukrainian Black Sea ports during the Russia Ukraine conflict, negotiated in July 2022.
    2. United Nations and Turkey as brokers: It was agreed through the United Nations and Turkey, with Russia and Ukraine signing parallel agreements rather than a single joint text.
    3. The Istanbul joint coordination centre: A joint coordination centre in Istanbul inspected vessels in both directions along an agreed maritime corridor, so cargo could move without either party treating the ships as combatants.
    4. Precedent for a humanitarian exception to a blockade: It is the working precedent for carving a humanitarian exception out of a blockade, and it is the model behind the offer made for the Strait of Hormuz.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS2, 12 marks] Discuss the impediments India is facing in its pursuit of a permanent seat in UN Security Council.”

  • PM Modi flags weaponisation of technology and critical minerals

    Why in the News

    Closing the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi, the Prime Minister warned that the weaponisation of technology and of access to critical minerals can hinder the grouping’s shared progress, and set against it a commitment to inclusivity in the adoption of technology. The summit ran under the theme “Resilience, cooperation and sustainability” and issued the New Delhi Declaration, and India used its chair position to launch a set of standing mechanisms covering disease surveillance, disaster data, logistics, startup finance, small enterprise linkage and clean energy. The stated framing was that as BRICS enters its third decade the world expects concrete results from it rather than “merely ideas and commitments”. The tension inside the summit is that the members diagnosing the same problem, an order that disadvantages them, arrived with different remedies, from India’s delivery mechanisms to Russia’s sanctions workarounds and China’s call to rally the Global South.

    What did India’s chair position argue?

    1. Weaponisation of technology and critical minerals: Technology and access to critical minerals can both be used as instruments of pressure, and that use obstructs the development of the grouping’s members.
    2. Inclusivity in technology adoption: Inclusivity in the adoption of technology was placed as the answer, meaning access on terms that do not depend on the supplier’s political posture.
    3. Rising number of global conflicts: The rising number of global conflicts has an increasingly negative and far reaching effect on the lives of ordinary people.
    4. Resilience as the organising idea: Pandemics, climate disasters and supply chain disruptions have all shown that no crisis stays confined to one region, so the work was framed around identifying challenges in time, being prepared and acting promptly.
    5. The delivery test for the third decade: Entering its third decade, BRICS is expected to produce concrete results rather than ideas and commitments.

    What new BRICS mechanisms were announced?

    1. BRICS Integrated Early Warning System: Agreed for the prevention of and response to infectious diseases.
    2. Early Warning Data Integration Guidelines: Prepared for disaster management across member states.
    3. BRICS Logistics Supply Chain Cooperation Framework: Intended to make member supply chains more reliable and resilient.
    4. BRICS Incubator Network and BRICS Startup Innovation Fund: The network connects startups and incubators across member states, and the fund has been proposed to back innovative and scalable solutions.
    5. BRICS Network on Digital Agriculture: Connects artificial intelligence, geospatial technology and Digital Public Infrastructure, meaning shared open digital platforms for identity, payments and data exchange, to the working needs of farmers.
    6. BRICS CONNECT: Aimed at skills, employability, women in the workforce, social security and capacity building.
    7. BRICS MSME Cooperation Portal: Set up to link small enterprises to knowledge, finance and new markets.
    8. BRICS Urban Mobility Hub: Established to share urban transport practices between member cities.
    9. BRICS Digital Centre of Excellence: Established for smart grids and energy storage under the sustainability pillar of India’s strategy for the grouping.
    10. Agriculture and climate centres: Centres of Excellence for Agro Ecology and Regenerative Agriculture were set up, alongside agreed principles for community based climate adaptation that treat indigenous knowledge as a foundation for climate action.

    What did the other members put on the table?

    1. China called for rallying the Global South: The Chinese President urged BRICS to rally the Global South so that an increasingly volatile international order is “free from double standards”, and stated that the logic of might makes right does not hold.
    2. The norms China named: Global South countries were asked to defend sovereign equality, non interference in internal affairs and the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to insist that international law applies to all.
    3. China’s five technology initiatives: An artificial intelligence open source community, an open ecosystem for artificial intelligence, a special economic zone partnership, a digital ecosystem cloud platform, and science and technology talent development.
    4. Russia proposed two instruments against sanctions: The Russian President proposed a BRICS insurance mechanism and a collaborative BRICS grain market, and noted the grouping has independent routes for moving capital, labour and technologies.
    5. The Western insurance bar on Russian crude: The G7, the European Union and the United Kingdom barred Western companies from insuring any ship carrying Russian crude unless the oil was bought at or below a specified price cap, which directly restricted Russian crude exports.
    6. The New Development Bank was cited as the working asset: The multilateral development bank established by BRICS is handling projects worth $140 billion.
    7. Iran pressed for national currency trade: The Iranian President argued that excessive dependence on existing financial and trade systems leaves emerging economies exposed to political shocks, backed expanded trade in national currencies and a strengthened New Development Bank, and said unilateral sanctions directly affect global food security.

    What did the New Delhi Declaration record?

    1. Historical racial injustice: The declaration took note of the racial injustice Africans have suffered historically.
    2. A new inequality instrument: It noted the Brazilian and South African plan to start an “international panel on inequality”.
    3. The historical frame invoked: It referred to decolonisation and to Asian African solidarity as displayed at the Bandung conference of 1955.
    4. The Gaza proceedings: It named the South Africa initiated legal process at the International Court of Justice against Israel over its military campaign in the Gaza Strip, recording that those proceedings reaffirmed Israel’s legal obligation to ensure the provision of humanitarian aid in Gaza.

    Challenges to BRICS as a delivery platform

    1. Announced mechanisms have no compliance machinery behind them: A framework, a portal or a network created by summit declaration binds no member and carries no penalty for non participation. Eg. Eleven separate initiatives were announced in one closing session, none attached to a dated implementation milestone.
      The Fix: Attach each mechanism to a named lead member, a secretariat line and an annual reporting obligation to the next summit, so progress is recorded rather than assumed.
    2. The membership no longer shares an economic interest: An expanded grouping now contains net oil exporters and net importers, and sanctioned and unsanctioned economies, so a single position on trade or energy is difficult to reach. Eg. Russia’s proposals at this summit were sanctions workarounds, while other members trade freely with the economies imposing them.
      The Fix: Move substantive work to plurilateral coalitions of the willing inside BRICS, so a mechanism is not held to the pace of its least interested member.
    3. Two members carry an unresolved bilateral dispute: India and China sit inside the same grouping while an unsettled boundary question and a wide trade imbalance run between them. Eg. India’s trade deficit with China reached a record $112.6 billion in 2025-26.
      The Fix: Keep the grouping’s agenda to functional cooperation where the two members’ interests already align, such as disease surveillance and logistics, rather than to security coordination.
    4. The de dollarisation agenda outruns the settlement infrastructure: Trade in national currencies requires convertibility, a clearing arrangement and an accepted reserve asset, and the grouping has none of the three at scale. Eg. Iran’s call for expanded national currency trade rests on the New Development Bank, which is capitalised in a fraction of the size of the trade flows involved.
      The Fix: Build a bilateral local currency settlement network with published reference rates before pursuing a common instrument, so the mechanism follows the trade rather than preceding it.
    5. A larger grouping dilutes decision making: Expansion has raised the grouping’s representational claim while lowering the odds of consensus on anything contested. Eg. The grouping now runs to eleven members with a widening set of partner countries attending its summits.
      The Fix: Adopt a variable geometry rule under which an initiative proceeds with a stated minimum number of members rather than requiring unanimity.
    6. Critical mineral security cannot be built by declaration: Processing capacity, not deposits, is the choke point, and it is concentrated outside most of the membership. Eg. The summit warned against the weaponisation of access to critical minerals without announcing any joint processing or stockpiling arrangement.
      The Fix: Create a joint BRICS strategic reserve and a shared processing investment vehicle for named minerals, so the warning is backed by capacity.

    Conclusion

    India’s chair year has ended with a set of standing mechanisms rather than a communique alone, which is the specific test the chair set for the grouping at the opening of its third decade. Those mechanisms are administrative rather than binding, and each one now needs a host institution, a budget line and a reporting schedule before it can be judged. The markers to watch are whether the proposed Startup Innovation Fund is capitalised and whether the Integrated Early Warning System is stood up with named national focal points before the next summit, since those two are the initiatives that require money and institutional commitment rather than agreement alone.

    Back2Basics: New Development Bank

    1. New Development Bank: A multilateral development bank established by the BRICS countries to finance infrastructure and sustainable development projects in member states and other emerging economies.
    2. Headquarters in Shanghai: Its headquarters is in Shanghai, and it operates regional offices in member countries.
    3. Equal shareholding among founders: Founding members hold equal shareholding, which distinguishes it from the weighted voting used by the Bretton Woods institutions.
    4. A project book of $140 billion: It is handling projects worth about $140 billion.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025] Consider the following statements with regard to BRICS: I. The 16th BRICS Summit was held under the Chairship of Russia in Kazan. II. Indonesia has become a full member of BRICS. III. The theme of the 16th BRICS Summit was Strengthening Multiculturalism for Just Global Development and Security. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) I and II (b) II and III (c) I and III (d) I only ANSWER: (a)”

  • As India probes origin of 5 baby orangutans, Indonesia prepares ground for repatriation

    Why in the News

    Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry has written to India offering government to government and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) coordination on five baby orangutans, and is preparing the technical requirements for their repatriation. The letter, sent by its Directorate of Species and Genetic Conservation, went to the Director General of Forests and Special Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, who is also India’s CITES Management Authority. It follows the rescue of the five animals from a forest in Balasore district of Odisha, after which a preliminary assessment placed them as Sumatran and raised the possibility of an organised transnational wildlife trafficking network. Indonesia has stated that it respects the judicial and statutory procedures applicable in India, and the Indian side has replied that state forest authorities must finish their official investigation first. Any decision on custody, transport or transfer also needs the authorisation of a competent judicial court. Repatriation is therefore not held up by either government’s willingness, and it waits on a genetic result and a court order.

    What does CITES do, and what does Appendix I mean?

    1. What the treaty regulates: CITES is a multilateral treaty more than 50 years old that regulates global trade in wild animals and plants, so that the trade is legal, sustainable, traceable and does not threaten a species’ survival in the wild.
    2. What Appendix I does: It prohibits trade in species that are endangered, which removes commercial international trade in a listed species from the set of lawful transactions.
    3. How it operates inside a country: Each party designates a Management Authority that issues permits, verifies specimens and handles correspondence with other parties, which is why Indonesia’s letter went to that office in India rather than through a general diplomatic channel.
    4. What it does not settle: The Convention regulates trade and leaves the disposal of confiscated live animals, including whether they return to the country of origin, to the seizing country’s own law and courts.

    What has Indonesia asked for, and what has it offered?

    1. The information sought: Its communication asked for details of the incident, the species, the animals’ health, the investigation being carried out, and the collection of genetic samples.
    2. The offer on verification: It conveyed its readiness to cooperate with India on species and origin verification.
    3. The commitment if origin is confirmed: If the animals are confirmed as originating from Indonesia, it would undertake the measures needed for repatriation under CITES and its own national laws.
    4. The logistics already being assembled: It is preparing health examinations, quarantine arrangements, genetic identification, transport, animal welfare safeguards and appropriate post arrival rehabilitation.

    Why does the origin question turn on DNA rather than appearance?

    1. What the current assessment rests on: The animals are suspected to be from Sumatra on the basis of preliminary observations of their physical and morphological characteristics.
    2. What morphology cannot establish: Conclusive identification requires a DNA examination, which would fix their species, their geographical origin, and whether they came from the wild or had been held in captivity earlier.
    3. The range is wider than the working assumption: The animals could be from either Indonesia or Malaysia, and only DNA sampling can establish which population they belong to.
    4. Why the wild or captive finding matters: It separates a fresh capture from the wild from an animal moved out of an existing captive collection, and the two point to different chains of supply.

    What does the case suggest about the trafficking chain?

    1. A network rather than a single consignment: The possibility of an organised transnational wildlife trafficking network is being taken seriously on the Indonesian side.
    2. An enforcement arm has been brought in: Indonesia’s Directorate General of Forestry Law Enforcement has been roped in alongside its conservation directorate.
    3. The chain details sought from India: It has asked for the suspected trafficking route, the point of entry, the transit countries, the documentation, and the preliminary investigation findings.
    4. The jurisdictional follow through: Where the evidence reveals persons, transactions or collection points inside Indonesian jurisdiction, Indonesian authorities would act under national law and through international law enforcement cooperation.
    5. No names at this stage: The stated position is that identifying particular individuals or networks before the evidence is formally established would be premature.

    Challenges to returning trafficked wildlife to its country of origin

    1. Statutory machinery for the Convention arrived late: A Management Authority with powers written into domestic law is what lets a seizure move through a treaty process rather than an ad hoc one. Eg. India joined CITES in 1976 and acquired statutory CITES provisions, including a designated Management Authority and a schedule for listed specimens, only through the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022.
      The Fix: Publish a standing disposal protocol for confiscated live exotic animals, so custody, testing and transfer follow one written sequence from the day of seizure.
    2. A genetic result needs something to compare against: A DNA sample names a population only where reference profiles for wild populations already exist in an accessible library. Eg. Orangutans are recognised as three separate species, Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli, so a match has to resolve to a population rather than to an island.
      The Fix: Route seizure samples through a designated wildlife forensic laboratory that holds or can obtain source country reference profiles under a standing arrangement.
    3. Custody cost and welfare risk grow with the proceedings: Infant animals have to be housed, fed and treated for as long as the investigation and the court process run, and the holding facility is rarely built for the species. Eg. The five animals are being held in a zoological park in Odisha while the state investigation continues.
      The Fix: Set a statutory outer limit for a disposal decision on confiscated live animals, with interim custody vested in a facility equipped for the species.
    4. A returned great ape cannot simply be released: Infant orangutans learn foraging, nest building and predator avoidance from their mothers, so an orphaned animal needs years of rehabilitation before any release is possible. Eg. Indonesia’s own orangutan centres in Sumatra and Kalimantan run multi year forest school programmes before a release attempt.
      The Fix: Name the receiving rehabilitation centre and its capacity in the repatriation arrangement before the transfer is authorised, not after.
    5. No single authority covers the whole route: Source, transit and seizure fall under different national agencies, so the chain is investigated in fragments by bodies with no shared case file. Eg. The South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network and its Southeast Asian counterpart exist precisely because wildlife crime routes cross the jurisdiction of several enforcement agencies.
      The Fix: Constitute a joint investigation team with named nodal officers in the source, transit and seizure countries at the point of seizure rather than after the first findings.

    Conclusion

    Both governments have already agreed on the process, so neither the treaty nor diplomacy is what decides where these animals end up. The sequence runs through a state forest investigation, a genetic result, and a court’s authorisation for custody and transfer, in that order. The step to watch is whether the genetic examination is commissioned early enough to be available when the court takes up the custody question, since a case decided without it settles the animals’ future on appearance alone. The wider test is whether the seizure produces a traced route and named collection points, or ends as five rescued animals and no network.

    Back2Basics: Orangutans

    1. What they are: The only great apes found in Asia, tree dwelling and native to the rainforests of Borneo and Sumatra in Indonesia and Malaysia.
    2. How many species: Three are recognised, the Bornean, the Sumatran and the Tapanuli, the last described as a separate species in 2017 and the rarest of the great apes.
    3. Conservation status: All three are listed as critically endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List.
    4. Reproductive pace: Females give birth once in six to eight years, the longest interval of any land mammal, which is why a poached infant is not replaced within a generation.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015] With reference to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which of the following statements is/are correct? (1) IUCN is an organ of the United Nations and CITES is an international agreement between governments. (2) IUCN runs thousands of field projects around the world to better manage natural environments. (3) CITES is legally binding on the States that have joined it, but this Convention does not take the place of national laws. Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 ANSWER: (b)”

  • The BRICS Summit allows India to advance its global ambitions

    Why in the News

    India hosts the BRICS Summit at the Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi, with leaders and representatives of 11 BRICS countries opening deliberations on the future of global governance. Forging a joint statement is never easy at a multilateral conference whose members are themselves parties to ongoing conflicts. The grouping was a five member body at India’s earlier hostings, where managing consensus was easier, and enlargement since 2024 has changed that. The largest share of the host’s difficulty comes from the United States, which has accused the bloc of working against the dollar and has threatened tariffs on every member over its payments agenda. India is at the same time seeking to restore ties with that administration on trade and on its Indo-Pacific strategy, so hosting the bloc risks the relationship the hosting is partly meant to balance.

    Why is consensus harder than at India’s earlier hostings?

    1. The scale of the responsibility: Hosting BRICS is the second time in recent years, after the G-20 Summit in 2023, that India has had to shoulder a major multilateral conference.
    2. The earlier hostings were smaller: India hosted the coalition of emerging economies in 2012, 2016 and virtually in 2021, when it was a grouping of just five major powers.
    3. Who joined: The expansion in 2024 added Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and Indonesia was inducted in 2025.
    4. What the enlargement did and did not do: BRICS’ identity has evolved with the new membership. A common focus remains elusive.

    Which conflicts among members block a common text?

    1. Conflicts involving members have multiplied: Global conflicts involving BRICS members have grown alongside the enlargement.
    2. The war involving Iran is the sharpest case: Iran is a victim of the United States and Israeli strikes, and the UAE was attacked by Iran in retaliation. Both are members of the grouping.
    3. Neither will accept a shared account: Iran and the UAE have been unwilling to agree to a common narrative on the problem, which is precisely what a joint statement requires.
    4. India’s own position has divided the grouping: India’s position on Israel came into conflict with other members earlier this year, since the grouping has traditionally taken a much more critical line on Israel’s actions.

    Why does the United States pose the largest problem for the host?

    1. The accusation is about the dollar: The United States President has accused the grouping of plotting to overthrow the United States dollar’s domination of the global economy.
    2. The threatened instrument: He has been threatening tariffs on all members for planning to increase intra-BRICS payments and trade.
    3. What India is attempting in parallel: The government is seeking to restore ties with the United States administration on trade and on its Indo-Pacific strategy.
    4. The risk is not proportionate to the conduct: Hosting BRICS risks invoking American displeasure however irrational that displeasure is, so the host cannot manage the risk simply by adjusting the agenda.

    Why is a grouping that refuses the anti-western label still a counter to the G-7?

    1. The label the bloc rejects: The grouping prefers not to be called anti-western.
    2. What it functions as: It is a powerful counter to the G-7 and to western-led thinking.
    3. The scale behind the counter: BRICS accounts for half the world’s population, two fifths of the global economy and a fourth of global trade.
    4. Its energy position: It includes many of the world’s top energy producers and its biggest consumers, which gives it weight in energy markets that requires no declaration to exercise.
    5. The rise that produced this: BRICS was first conceptualised 25 years ago and convened a summit in 2009, and its countries have risen in global stature and economic heft since, with intra-BRICS trade benefitting.

    What does the presidency deliver for India?

    1. Heft on the global high table: Being part of BRICS gives India more weight in advancing its ambitions in global forums.
    2. Visibility from the chair: The presidency has ensured India prominence on the world stage.
    3. What a successful summit would signal: A presidency that reconciles the grouping’s competing strands would demonstrate the bloc’s capacity to act, and would count as a significant achievement for Indian diplomacy.
    4. The cost side of the same presidency: The prominence comes with exposure, since the host is read abroad as the author of whatever the bloc’s declaration says.

    Challenges to India’s BRICS presidency

    1. Consensus gives every member a veto over the text: A declaration requires all eleven members to agree, so the member with the narrowest interest sets the ceiling on what the document can say. Eg. The bloc’s Rio declaration of 2025 ran to 126 points, which is what accommodating every member’s preferred language produces.
      The Fix: Move contested political language into a chair’s statement issued alongside the declaration, so a single dispute does not shrink the agreed economic text.
    2. Enlargement raised the number of bilateral disputes inside the room: Every admission adds that member’s quarrels to the set the chair must accommodate in one document. Eg. The grouping now contains both Iran and Saudi Arabia, whose diplomatic relations were restored only in 2023.
      The Fix: Publish admission criteria requiring a candidate to hold working diplomatic relations with every existing member, so enlargement does not import an active rupture.
    3. The forum has no secretariat to carry work between summits: BRICS has no treaty and no permanent staff, so each chair rebuilds the agenda and the follow up machinery for a single year. Eg. Ministerial and working group outcomes are recorded in a declaration with no standing body tracking their implementation.
      The Fix: Create a small permanent secretariat funded by member contributions, mandated only to track commitments made in past declarations.
    4. The dollar question is a liability the bloc cannot settle: Members disagree on currency arrangements and the disagreement is read abroad as a shared plan, so the bloc absorbs the cost of a policy it has not adopted. Eg. Tariff threats have been aimed at every member over intra-BRICS payments, including at members that oppose a common currency.
      The Fix: State in the declaration that payment interoperability is a transaction cost measure and that no common currency is under consideration, so the agenda and the accusation are separated on the record.
    5. A chair’s agenda outlives the chairship only if the successor adopts it: A one year presidency sets themes that lapse where the next chair’s priorities differ. Eg. The sustainability agenda India is building on was the centrepiece of Brazil’s chairship the previous year.
      The Fix: Record a three year rolling work programme in the declaration, so an incoming chair inherits commitments rather than restating themes.

    Conclusion

    The presidency’s difficulty is not the agenda but the arithmetic. A grouping of eleven operating by consensus produces the text its least flexible member will accept. India’s gain from the chair is visibility, and visibility is also what attaches the bloc’s positions to the host. The two objectives this summit is being judged against, a document every member can sign and a relationship with Washington that survives it, pull in opposite directions and neither has been given up. What to watch is how the declaration handles the payments question, since that single paragraph is where the summit’s diplomatic cost will be set.

    Back2Basics: how BRICS takes decisions

    1. It is an informal grouping: BRICS has no founding treaty, no charter and no permanent secretariat, so it operates as a coordination forum rather than as an international organisation.
    2. The chair rotates annually: One member holds the chairship for a calendar year, hosts the leaders’ summit and sets the year’s agenda and meeting calendar.
    3. Decisions are taken by consensus: Every outcome document is adopted by agreement among all members, so no member can be outvoted and any member can withhold language.
    4. Outputs are political, not binding: A summit declaration records agreed positions and commitments with no enforcement mechanism, and implementation rests with each member’s own government.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 10 marks] With the waning of globalization, post-Cold War world is becoming a site of sovereign nationalism. Elucidate.”

  • Brazil to Iran: Why you can’t put all of BRICS in the anti-West box

    Why in the News

    India presides over the BRICS summit in Delhi with a two fold task: to convey the forum’s shared objective of democratising the international system, and to dispel the widespread impression that it seeks to overthrow the United States led order. Both the forum’s champions and its detractors read it through an anti-Western lens. Supporters celebrate BRICS as a vehicle for resisting Western dominance, and critics warn that it is becoming a counter-bloc led by China and Russia. Neither reading survives contact with the membership, which is divided over whether its national aim is accommodation with the West, autonomy from it, parity within it, or direct confrontation. Delhi’s burden at this summit is to keep the forum from conflating autonomy from America with antagonism towards it.

    Why does one anti-Western label not fit eleven members?

    1. Four national aims, not one: Members differ over whether their national aim is accommodation with the West, autonomy from it, parity within it, or direct confrontation, so the forum’s political orientation is a spectrum rather than a position.
    2. The confrontational pole: Iran sits closest to an anti-Western pole, since resistance to United States power is central to its state ideology and its recent history.
    3. The other end of the spectrum: At the opposite end sit members with deep economic, security and institutional ties to the West, which they maintain while pursuing greater autonomy.
    4. Where the two largest powers sit: Russia and China lie between the extremes. Both are in strategic competition with the West, and neither can be understood apart from its desire for status, influence and a seat at the Western high table.

    Why does Brazil break the West versus Global South opposition?

    1. Its standing in the grouping: Brazil is Latin America’s largest power and a strong advocate for reforming global institutions.
    2. Its institutions are Western in origin: Its geography, language, religion, legal tradition, political institutions and elite reference points are rooted in the Iberian and Euro-Atlantic worlds.
    3. Its diplomatic tradition reinforces this: Brazil is a constitutional democracy whose diplomatic tradition privileges international law and multilateralism.
    4. What it is actually dissatisfied with: Brazil is not seeking to overthrow the West from outside. It is a Western power dissatisfied with how authority is distributed within the order it inhabits.
    5. What that produces in practice: Brasilia rejects automatic alignment with Washington, and is equally uncomfortable with systematic anti-Western mobilisation.
    6. Distance from Eurasia shapes the position: Brazil sits far from Eurasia and, unlike Delhi, is not emotionally invested in Moscow.
    7. China is an economic partner rather than a security problem: Brazil has no direct conflict with Russia or China, and does not share India’s security challenges with Beijing. Beijing is a leading economic partner of Brazil.

    What is Brazil’s position on de-dollarisation and a common currency?

    1. What it supports: Brazil supports cheaper and faster bilateral settlement mechanisms, including trade in national currencies where that is useful.
    2. What it rejects: Brazil has rejected the notion that BRICS must promote de-dollarisation or develop a common currency to displace the dollar.
    3. The stated reason: A shared currency would require political trust, economic convergence and institutional integration that BRICS does not have.
    4. What the position reveals: Brazil’s engagement with the great powers rests on national interest rather than on ideology, and its payments position is the clearest instance of that.

    How is India’s non-Western position different from an anti-Western one?

    1. The identity claim: The External Affairs Minister has consistently underlined India’s non-Western identity, which rests on India being a post-colonial state and a developing country.
    2. Where the distinction lies: India shares political values with the West. It does not want to become a geopolitical appendage to the United States and Europe.
    3. The record of Western partnership: India’s partnerships with the United States, Europe, Japan and Australia have deepened across trade, technology, defence and diaspora.
    4. Two memberships held at once: Delhi’s participation in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) sits alongside its membership of BRICS.
    5. What makes the forum useful, and what would end that: BRICS is useful to India precisely because of its diversity. It ceases to serve Indian interests if it becomes a China-led alliance against the West.
    6. Why the anti-Western framing is also poor analysis: Delhi knows that Moscow and Beijing, despite their confrontations with Washington, remain interested in negotiating a new balance with it.

    Why are Russia and China not seeking an exit from the Western order?

    1. Russia’s break is structural: Russia’s contradiction with the West is now deep and structural, shaped by the Ukraine war, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) role in European security, and sanctions.
    2. Yet Moscow wants recognition inside it: Russia is also eager for Western recognition as a great power, and for a say in managing European and global security.
    3. What China challenges: China challenges American primacy in Asia, reduces its exposure to Western technology restrictions, and presents BRICS as part of a more representative order.
    4. Why it cannot exit: China’s rise was inseparable from access to Western markets, capital and technology, and it retains strong economic interdependence with the United States.
    5. What Beijing is actually seeking: China is not seeking an exit from the United States led world. It wants to be America’s co-equal in shaping it.

    Where do the newer members and Iran sit on the spectrum?

    1. Egypt: Egypt remains tied to Washington on security.
    2. The United Arab Emirates: The UAE has extensive commercial and strategic links with the United States and Europe.
    3. Indonesia: Indonesia’s “free and active” diplomacy is designed to retain manoeuvring room among the major powers.
    4. What the three have in common: They seek autonomy, closer ties with China and a stronger voice for the Global South. None seeks membership of a unified anti-Western camp.
    5. Iran is the nearest exception: Resistance to the United States and Israel is central to the Islamic Republic’s political identity, and BRICS offers Tehran legitimacy and a means to counter the American effort to isolate it.
    6. Even Iran is not settled internally: Iran’s domestic debate continues to pit advocates of resistance against those favouring diplomacy and reconciliation with the United States.

    Challenges to India’s position that BRICS is non-Western rather than anti-Western

    1. A consensus text is attributed to every signatory: Language agreed with members at the confrontational end of the spectrum is read abroad as the position of all eleven, including the host. Eg. Tariff threats were aimed at every BRICS member over an alleged collective plan against the dollar, not only at the members proposing one.
      The Fix: Insist that any payments or currency language in a declaration name the specific mechanism and its purpose, so a settlement arrangement cannot be read as currency displacement.
    2. The forum has no charter to bound what it commits members to: BRICS has no treaty and no defined competence, so nothing limits the subjects a declaration may cover. Eg. The grouping’s declarations have expanded from development finance into positions on conflicts in West Asia and in Europe.
      The Fix: Adopt a standing framework document defining the forum’s subject areas, so an item outside them needs an explicit decision rather than a paragraph.
    3. Expansion imports the members’ own quarrels: Each admission adds a set of bilateral disputes the forum must now accommodate inside a single text. Eg. Iran and the United Arab Emirates are both members, and the UAE was attacked by Iran during the current war in West Asia.
      The Fix: Handle conflict language through a separate chair’s statement rather than the consensus declaration, so one dispute cannot hold the economic agenda hostage.
    4. Hedging is cheap only while both sides decline to price it: Simultaneous membership of the Quad and of BRICS is sustainable while neither partner charges for it, and a partner that does charge converts India’s balance into a cost. Eg. The tariff round on India last year followed disagreements in trade talks alongside its Russian oil purchases.
      The Fix: Separate India’s BRICS agenda from its security alignments in public terms, so each partner judges a defined economic programme rather than an alignment.

    Conclusion

    The anti-Western reading of BRICS is wrong as description and useful as politics, which is why it survives. It lets a critic in Washington treat eleven different national calculations as one bloc, and it lets a member at the confrontational end claim the weight of the other ten. India’s difficulty is that the second use invites the first, and the forum has no rule that stops either. What to watch is whether the Delhi declaration describes the reform of institutions its members intend to remain inside, or the displacement of an order most of them depend on.

    About BRICS

    1. How it began: The acronym BRIC was coined in 2001 by a Goldman Sachs economist to identify four high growth emerging economies. The first meeting of their foreign ministers took place on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in 2006.
    2. How it became a summit body: The first formal leaders’ summit was held at Yekaterinburg in Russia in 2009, and South Africa joined in 2011, which gave the grouping its present acronym.
    3. How it expanded: The 2023 Johannesburg summit decided on enlargement. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates joined in 2024 and Indonesia in 2025, with Saudi Arabia’s formal status remaining nuanced.
    4. The partner tier: A “Partner Country” category was introduced in 2024 to engage states such as Malaysia, Thailand and Nigeria without granting full membership.

    Initiatives and Institutions under BRICS

    1. New Development Bank: Established in 2015 and headquartered in Shanghai, it lends for infrastructure and sustainable development in emerging economies, and had approved over $35 billion in infrastructure loans by 2025.
    2. Contingent Reserve Arrangement: A $100 billion fund created in 2015 to provide short term liquidity support to a member under balance of payments pressure.
    3. BRICS Pay: A cross-border payment system in pilot stage, intended to let members settle trade without routing instructions through SWIFT.
    4. Research and technology bodies: The grouping has set up a Vaccine Research and Development Centre for technology transfer, a Partnership on New Industrial Revolution covering artificial intelligence and green technology, and a Space Council created in 2025 to coordinate deep space and lunar research.

    Key Facts about BRICS

    1. Membership: Eleven full members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
    2. Share of population and output: The grouping represents over 45% of the world’s population and accounts for roughly 37% of global GDP measured at purchasing power parity, which is above the G7’s share.
    3. Energy weight: Members together control roughly 42% of global oil production and exports.
    4. How it is organised: BRICS works through an annually rotating chairship, with the chair hosting the leaders’ summit and setting the year’s agenda. Decisions are taken by consensus among all members.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] “BRICS acts as a powerful counterweight in global governance, actively amplifying the voice and influence of the Global South.” Explain the role of BRICS in projecting itself as an alternative to other groupings.”

  • BRICS Finance Ministers, bank heads flag ‘unilateral imposition’ of tariffs

    Why in the News

    The Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (FMCBG) of the BRICS countries have issued a joint statement recording “serious concerns with the unilateral imposition” of tariffs and non-tariff measures, on the ground that they distort trade and are inconsistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. The statement holds that these pressures weigh most heavily on Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDEs), meaning economies outside the advanced group that depend on external capital and on open export markets. It names no country, and the United States is the only country currently levying extraordinary tariffs on its trade partners. The statement also calls for practical solutions on cross-border payments in local currencies, while recording that national priorities come first and that there is no “one-size-fits-all approach”. The bloc’s diagnosis is therefore collective and its remedy is left to each member to adopt at its own pace.

    What is the FMCBG track within BRICS?

    1. Who it brings together: The FMCBG is the channel through which BRICS members’ finance ministries and central banks meet, separately from the leaders’ summit and from the foreign ministers’ track.
    2. When it met this year: The first FMCBG meeting under India’s chairmanship of BRICS was held on 12 August in Jaipur. The second was held on 9 and 10 September in Mumbai.
    3. What it produces: Its output is a joint statement agreed by every member, issued ahead of the leaders’ summit.

    What did the statement say on tariffs and the trading system?

    1. Two grounds are given, not one: The measures are objected to because they distort trade, and separately because they are inconsistent with WTO rules. The second is a legal claim rather than an economic one.
    2. Non-tariff measures carry equal weight: The objection covers non-tariff measures alongside tariffs, meaning licensing requirements, standards and quotas that restrict imports without a duty being levied.
    3. The remedy sought is the existing system: The ministers reiterated their support for an “open, transparent, inclusive, non-discriminatory, and rules-based” multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core.
    4. The unnamed target limits what the statement can do: A finding that a measure breaks WTO rules carries no consequence until a member brings a dispute against a named respondent.

    What was agreed on cross-border payments and local currencies?

    1. The task force behind it: The statement acknowledges the work of the BRICS Payment Task Force (BPTF) in exploring “pragmatic solutions” for efficient cross-border payment mechanisms.
    2. The specific work acknowledged: The task force has studied the cross-border interoperability of payment and messaging channels, meaning whether one member’s payment system can instruct and settle against another’s.
    3. What local currency settlement covers: The discussions extend to promoting trade settlements and investments using BRICS local currencies, not only retail payments.
    4. The standard the ministers set for it: The task force was encouraged to continue work toward cross-border payments that are “fast, low-cost, more accessible, efficient, transparent, and safe”.

    What else did the ministers take up?

    1. A new task force under India’s chairship: India used its chairship to establish a BRICS Task Force on Growth and Development, as a dedicated platform for the growth and development challenges shared by BRICS and other emerging market and developing economies.
    2. How it is organised: The task force is structured into two workstreams. One covers the Resilience, Innovation and Cooperation pillars, and the other the Sustainability pillar.
    3. What it is meant to do: The ministers recognised it as a space to discuss growth models suited to members’ own national contexts and development priorities, aligned with the workstreams of finance ministries and central banks.
    4. Reform of the lending institutions: The statement also covered the reform of multilateral lending institutions, naming the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

    Challenges to BRICS local currency settlement

    1. Trade imbalances leave one side holding a currency it cannot spend: Settlement in national currencies works where trade between two members is roughly balanced, and a surplus partner otherwise accumulates a currency with no use. Eg. The special rupee vostro accounts opened for Russian oil payments built up rupee balances Russian sellers had limited use for.
      The Fix: Pair each local currency arrangement with an agreed list of goods and assets the surplus balance may be invested in, so the balance has a stated exit.
    2. Convertibility limits sit outside the payment system: A currency that is not fully convertible on the capital account cannot be held freely by a foreign exporter, whatever messaging channel carries the instruction. Eg. The rupee remains subject to capital account restrictions, so a non resident holder needs a specific permitted route for each use of its balance.
      The Fix: Convert the bilateral vostro approvals into a standing settlement facility with defined investment windows, rather than clearing arrangements bank by bank.
    3. Interoperability is a legal problem before it is a technical one: Linking two fast payment systems requires each regulator to accept the other’s customer identification and sanctions screening, which no task force can decide for them. Eg. Each link of the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) with a foreign system has needed its own bilateral arrangement, as with Singapore’s PayNow.
      The Fix: Agree one BRICS standard for customer identification and transaction messaging, so each bilateral link implements a common rulebook instead of negotiating a new one.
    4. Secondary sanctions reach the members’ own banks: A bank settling a transaction for a sanctioned counterparty risks its own dollar clearing access, which is a larger loss than the trade being settled. Eg. Indian banks and refiners curtailed dealings with sanctioned Russian entities even where a rupee route was available.
      The Fix: Route sanctioned trade through designated institutions carrying no dollar clearing exposure, so the risk sits with an entity that has nothing to lose in dollars.
    5. A payment rail does not remove exchange rate risk: Interoperable payments cut transaction cost and leave the currency risk with the trading parties, which is the problem a single unit of account would address. Eg. The task force’s own mandate covers settlement and messaging, and stops short of any common unit of account.
      The Fix: Publish reference rates for the major BRICS currency pairs through a shared platform, so a smaller exporter can price and hedge without routing through the dollar.

    Conclusion

    The bloc has agreed a common description of the problem and has not agreed a common instrument to answer it. On tariffs it asks for the WTO to work as designed, which depends on members it has declined to name. On payments it has commissioned study rather than commitment, and the qualifier protecting national priorities leaves each member to decide how far to go. The leaders meet at the Bharat Mandapam over Saturday and Sunday, and the test of this statement is whether their declaration converts the task force’s study of interoperability into a dated commitment or carries it forward again.

    Back2Basics: the WTO’s Most Favoured Nation rule

    1. What Most Favoured Nation means: Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) requires a member to extend any trade advantage it gives one member to every other member, so it cannot charge different tariffs to different WTO members on the same product.
    2. Bound rates are the second constraint: Article II binds each member’s tariffs to a ceiling recorded in its schedule of concessions, so a duty raised above that ceiling breaches the commitment whether or not it discriminates.
    3. The permitted exceptions: Article XXIV allows a free trade area or a customs union to give its own parties better terms than Most Favoured Nation, and the Enabling Clause allows preferences in favour of developing countries.
    4. Why the rule is hard to enforce now: A breach is established through the WTO’s dispute settlement system, whose Appellate Body has been unable to hear appeals since 2019 because appointments to it have been blocked.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2018, GS2, 15 marks] What are the key areas of reform if the WTO has to survive in the present context of ‘Trade War’, especially keeping in mind the interest of India?”

  • India and EU close to sealing trade deal, await nod from top Council in Brussels

    Why in the News

    The European Commission has forwarded its proposal for the conclusion of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the European Union (EU) and India to the European Council, the step that immediately precedes signature. The Commission is the EU’s main executive body and proposes the trade legislation. The European Council, comprising the heads of state or government of the 27 member states along with its own President and the President of the Commission, takes the final decision on authorising signature. On authorisation this becomes the largest trade agreement either side has concluded, eliminating or reducing tariffs on 96 per cent of EU goods exports to India and securing market access for more than 99 per cent of India’s exports to the EU by trade value. Signature is not conclusion, since the European Parliament’s consent and India’s own internal ratification both remain. The agreement also answers a problem neither side names in its text, which is that both import most of their industrial inputs from China.

    How does an EU trade agreement get approved?

    1. The Commission negotiates and proposes: The European Commission conducts the negotiation and then proposes the legislation for concluding the agreement.
    2. The Council authorises signature: The European Council defines the general political direction and priorities of the EU, and its members take the final decision on whether the agreement is signed.
    3. Parliament’s consent follows signature: The agreement then requires the consent of the European Parliament before conclusion and entry into force.
    4. India ratifies in parallel: Indian authorities are going through their own internal ratification procedures at the same time.

    What is the existing size of the relationship?

    1. Current trade: The EU and India already trade over Euro 180 billion worth of goods and services a year, with one Euro equal to about US $1.16.
    2. Employment on the EU side: That trade supports close to 800,000 EU jobs.
    3. What the agreement would be: On authorisation it would be the largest trade agreement ever concluded by either the EU or India.

    What does the agreement give the EU?

    1. Tariff elimination on almost all its goods: Tariffs on 96 per cent of EU goods exports to India would be eliminated or reduced.
    2. The value of the duty relief: The reductions would save around Euro 4 billion a year in duties on European products.
    3. Competitive position in the Indian market: European companies would find it easier to access the Indian market and to compete on a more level playing field.
    4. The consumer side: Indian consumers would gain increased choice and more competitive prices.

    What does the agreement give India?

    1. Near total market access for goods: It would secure market access for more than 99 per cent of India’s exports to the EU by trade value.
    2. Services and the movement of professionals: It unlocks high-value commitments in services, complemented by a comprehensive mobility framework enabling the movement of skilled Indian professionals.
    3. The labour-intensive sectors it targets: Textiles, apparel, leather, footwear, marine products, gems and jewellery, handicrafts, engineering goods and automobiles are named as the gainers.
    4. The immediate tariff effect: Tariffs of up to 10 per cent on almost $33 billion of Indian exports fall to zero on the agreement’s entry into force.

    Why did the two sides restart negotiations in 2022?

    1. China’s trade surplus was the trigger: A key reason for reopening talks in 2022 was China’s growing trade surplus with both partners.
    2. Both import their industrial inputs from the same source: The EU and India each import most of their industrial requirements from China, and Beijing’s tightening grip on manufacturing supply chains is reflected in its record trade surplus, which trade friction with the United States has not reduced.
    3. Both are restricting Chinese goods in strategic sectors: Brussels imposed tariffs of up to 35 per cent on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, and India continues to levy over 100 per cent duty on automobiles imported from China, and is opening the sector to developed countries through trade agreements.
    4. The dependence has been assessed and not removed: A 2025 report by the Delhi Policy Group found both India and the EU still significantly dependent on China.
    5. The pandemic changed the calculation: The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 exposed the vulnerability of China-centric supply chains, prompting both to reassess dependencies and to pursue diversification and de-risking.

    What pressure is the United States applying to both sides?

    1. The stated objective: India and the EU are both under US pressure to reduce dependence on Chinese products and to avoid being used as transhipment hubs.
    2. Indian manufacturing clusters named: A US report last month described several global manufacturing city clusters as “ugly sister” cities, including the Pune-Gujarat-Chennai industrial corridor, and stated that the United States loses when these hubs win.
    3. The argument it makes: The report held that the longer the system operates unchecked, the harder it becomes to restore lost industrial capacity, and that illegal transhipment hubs will continue to siphon off American manufacturing one product line at a time.

    Challenges to the India-EU free trade agreement

    1. A carbon levy sits outside the tariff schedule: The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, a charge on the embedded carbon of an imported good, applies irrespective of the tariff concessions granted. Eg. It covers iron and steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers, electricity and hydrogen, with the definitive charge beginning in 2026.
      The Fix: Agree mutual recognition of India’s carbon pricing under its Carbon Credit Trading Scheme, so a charge paid in India is set off at the EU border.
    2. Deforestation rules add a traceability duty to a tariff cut: The EU Deforestation Regulation requires geolocation of the plot of production for listed commodities, which a smallholder supply chain cannot document. Eg. Coffee, cocoa, rubber, soy, palm oil, cattle and wood are covered by it.
      The Fix: Fund plot-level geolocation through the commodity boards, so the compliance cost does not fall on the individual grower.
    3. Rules of origin decide who actually uses a zero duty: A concession is usable only where the product clears the value addition test, and an export assembled from imported inputs may not. Eg. Electronics assembled in India from imported components can fail a threshold that garments made from Indian fabric clear comfortably.
      The Fix: Agree cumulation, so inputs sourced from the partner count as originating and the concession reaches assembled goods.
    4. Ratification is a sequence, not a decision: Council authorisation and Parliament consent are separate steps, and an agreement classed as mixed can additionally require ratification by each member state. Eg. The EU’s agreement with Mercosur concluded negotiations in 2019 and remained outside force for years afterwards.
      The Fix: Split the text so the trade chapters enter into force on Parliament’s consent, with investment protection carried in a separate instrument.
    5. Non-tariff measures bind harder than tariffs in food trade: Sanitary and phytosanitary limits decide whether a consignment enters at all, and a zero tariff does nothing for a rejected shipment. Eg. Indian marine and food consignments face EU rejections on antibiotic residue and aflatoxin limits.
      The Fix: Agree recognition of testing by notified Indian laboratories, so a consignment is certified once at origin rather than retested at the border.

    Conclusion

    The text is settled and the decision has moved from negotiators to governments. Three gates remain in sequence: authorisation by the Council, consent of the European Parliament, and India’s internal ratification, and the concessions take effect only at entry into force. Those concessions are also the part of the agreement least likely to decide its value, since the measures that actually restrict Indian exports operate through carbon, deforestation and food safety rules that no tariff schedule touches. What to watch is the Council’s authorisation decision, and whether the agreement is classed as a mixed agreement, which would add ratification by every member state to the path.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2010] In the context of bilateral trade negotiations between India and European Union, what is the difference between European commission and European Council? 1. European Commission represents the EU in trade negotiations whereas European Council participated in the legislation of matters pertaining to economic policies of the European Union 2. European Commission comprises the heads of State of govt. of member countries whereas the European Council comprises of the persons nominated by European Parliament Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 ANSWER: (d)”

  • 9th ASEAN India Ministerial Meeting reaffirms commitment to food security and resilient value chains [Dossier]

    PIB class: Press Release. Ministry: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.

    Why in News

    The 9th ASEAN India Ministerial Meeting on agriculture reaffirmed commitment to food security, sustainable agriculture and resilient value chains.

    Core facts

    1. The forum: ASEAN is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a ten member regional grouping. India is a dialogue partner and a strategic partner of ASEAN.
    2. Stated themes: Food security, sustainable agriculture and resilient agricultural value chains formed the agenda of the ministerial meeting.
    3. Figures and specific deliverables: Not verifiable this run and therefore omitted.

    Static Context

    1. ASEAN was established in 1967 through the Bangkok Declaration. Its members are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
    2. India ASEAN relations run through a structured framework. India joined as a sectoral dialogue partner in 1992 and a full dialogue partner in 1996. The relationship became a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2022.
    3. The ASEAN India Trade in Goods Agreement is under review. Agriculture cooperation runs through a rolling plan of action agreed by the two sides.
    4. Food security cooperation links to India’s Act East Policy. It ties agriculture trade to India’s wider Indo Pacific engagement.

    Prelims angle

    ASEAN founding year 1967 and the Bangkok Declaration. The ten members. India’s status as a Comprehensive Strategic Partner since 2022. India ASEAN connectivity projects such as the Kaladan Multi Modal Transit Transport Project and the India Myanmar Thailand Trilateral Highway.

    Mains angle

    GS2, regional groupings affecting India’s interests. Agriculture and food security cooperation as a pillar of the Act East Policy and of India’s Indo Pacific strategy.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026] Which of the following connectivity projects is/are a part of cooperation between India and the ASEAN member countries? 1. Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project 2. IMT Trilateral Highway 3. Agartala-Akhaura Rail Line (a) 1 and 2 (b) 2 and 3 (c) 1 and 3 (d) 2 only. Answer: (a)”

  • BRICS [PIB Backgrounder]

    PIB class: PIB Backgrounder. Unit: PIB feature unit.

    Why in News

    PIB published a thematic Backgrounder on BRICS, the intergovernmental grouping.

    Core facts (static, definitional)

    1. BRICS is an intergovernmental grouping. The founding members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
    2. Origin: The term BRIC began as an economic grouping in 2006. South Africa joined in 2010, making it BRICS.
    3. Expansion: The grouping admitted new members from January 2024. Indonesia became a full member in January 2025 and is the first Southeast Asian state in the bloc.
    4. Institutions: The New Development Bank (NDB) finances infrastructure and sustainable development projects. The Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) is a currency swap framework for balance of payments support.

    Static Context

    1. The New Development Bank (NDB) was established in 2015 and is headquartered in Shanghai. Founding members subscribed equal capital, so no single member dominates its voting.
    2. The Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) is a treaty based safety net. It lets members access foreign currency during short term liquidity pressure.
    3. BRICS positions itself as a voice of the Global South. It presses for reform of the United Nations Security Council and of the Bretton Woods institutions.
    4. The 16th BRICS Summit was held at Kazan, Russia in 2024 under the Russian chairship. Its theme concerned strengthening multilateralism for just global development and security.

    Prelims angle

    Founding versus new members. The NDB headquarters at Shanghai and its equal capital structure. The CRA as a swap arrangement. Latest summit host and chair. Indonesia as the first Southeast Asian member.

    Mains angle

    GS2, global groupings affecting India’s interests. BRICS as a counterweight in global governance and a platform for the Global South, weighed against internal divergence among members.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025] Consider the following statements with regard to BRICS: I. The 16th BRICS Summit was held under the Chairship of Russia in Kazan. II. Indonesia has become a full member of BRICS. III. The theme of the 16th BRICS Summit was Strengthening Multiculturalism for Just Global Development and Security. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) I and II (b) II and III (c) I and III (d) I only. Answer: (a)”

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] BRICS acts as a powerful counterweight in global governance, actively amplifying the voice and influence of the Global South. Explain the role of BRICS in projecting itself as an alternative to other groupings.”

  • IAEA’s board reports Iran to UN Security Council for ‘failure to cooperate in probe’

    Why in the News

    The Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, has reported Iran to the UN Security Council. The referral cites Iran’s failure to cooperate with a long-running investigation into uranium traces that inspectors detected at undeclared sites. This is the first such referral in 20 years. The step had been under consideration since June 2025, when the Board found Iran officially in non-compliance with its non-proliferation obligations over the same lack of cooperation. Referral opens Iran to sanctions and asset freezes, and Iran’s allies on the Council hold vetoes that make such measures unlikely.

    How did the Board vote?

    1. The margin: Twenty-three of the 35 members of the Board of Governors voted for the resolution at the Agency’s headquarters in Vienna, in a closed-door session.
    2. The opposition: China, Russia and Niger voted against. Eight members abstained and one did not vote because it was in arrears.
    3. The movers: The resolution was put forward by the United States, Britain, France and Germany.

    What is the investigation actually about?

    1. The finding: Inspectors detected uranium traces at sites that Iran had not declared to the Agency.
    2. The Western reading: Western officials suspect the traces could evidence a secret nuclear weapons programme that ran until 2003.
    3. Iran’s stated position: Iran says it is not pursuing nuclear weapons and that its programme is entirely peaceful.

    What does a Security Council referral change?

    1. The formal consequence: Referral opens Iran to possible sanctions and asset freezes decided by the Council.
    2. The practical limit: Russia and China are allies of Iran and hold veto power on the Council, so punitive measures are unlikely to pass.
    3. What it does accomplish: The referral moves a technical safeguards finding onto the agenda of the UN’s political enforcement body.

    How has Iran responded?

    1. Rejection of the resolution: Iran’s Ambassador to the UN in Vienna described the resolution as a “political tool”.
    2. A charge against the Agency: The same response said the resolution ruined confidence in the IAEA’s “independence, impartiality and credibility”.
    3. Access ruled out for the present: Iran indicated that compliance with any obligation to allow UN inspections of nuclear sites inside the country is impossible at the moment.

    Challenges to the IAEA safeguards system

    1. Verification depends on the cooperation of the state being verified: Inspectors reach only what the safeguards agreement and the host state permit. Eg. Iran stopped implementing the Additional Protocol, its expanded access arrangement, in February 2021 and removed Agency surveillance cameras from declared sites in June 2022.
      The Fix: Make continued Additional Protocol implementation a standing condition of any sanctions relief, so access is not the first item traded away.
    2. The Additional Protocol is voluntary: Detection of undeclared activity rests on an instrument states join at their own choice. Eg. Additional Protocols are in force for over 130 states, and several with significant nuclear programmes have never brought one into effect.
      The Fix: Tie nuclear fuel and technology supply to an Additional Protocol in force, so the instrument becomes a condition of trade rather than a favour.
    3. Enforcement stops at the Security Council: The Board can find non-compliance and refer, and only the Council can impose a consequence. Eg. Iran was referred to the Council in 2006 and the sanctions that followed did not end enrichment.
      The Fix: Build graduated Agency-level consequences, such as suspension of technical cooperation and of Board voting rights, that do not require a Council vote.
    4. Referral turns a technical file into a political one: A state that reads a safeguards finding as coercion withdraws the access the finding was meant to secure. Eg. North Korea expelled inspectors in December 2002 and announced withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in January 2003 as its safeguards dispute escalated.
      The Fix: Keep a standing technical channel open alongside the political track, so the inspection relationship survives the escalation.

    Conclusion

    The Board has taken the file as far as its own authority extends. The Council can now take it up and is unlikely to act on it. That leaves an investigation with no route to completion and an inspection relationship that Iran now says it cannot honour. The marker to watch is whether the Agency retains any access inside Iran during the period the matter sits with the Council.

    Back2Basics: International Atomic Energy Agency

    1. Establishment: Set up in 1957 under its own Statute, following the “Atoms for Peace” address to the UN General Assembly in 1953.
    2. Status and reporting: An autonomous organisation within the UN system, headquartered in Vienna, reporting annually to the General Assembly and to the Security Council where required.
    3. Mandate: Promotes peaceful uses of nuclear technology and applies safeguards to verify that nuclear material is not diverted to weapons use.
    4. Safeguards instruments: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements are required of non-nuclear-weapon states party to the NPT. The Additional Protocol adds inspector access to undeclared locations.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020] In India, why are some nuclear reactors kept ‘IAEA Safeguards’ while others are not? (a) Some use uranium and others use thorium (b) Some use imported uranium and others use domestic supplies (c) Some are operated by foreign enterprises and others are operated by domestic (d) Some are State-owned and others are privately-owned ANSWER: (b)”