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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: IOCR

  • At SCO, Modi seeks dismantling of terror infra as Pak’s Shehbaz listens

    At SCO, Modi seeks dismantling of terror infra as Pak’s Shehbaz listens

    Why in the News

    The Prime Minister told the leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) (the ten member Eurasian security grouping that includes India, Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran) that the crisis in West Asia demonstrates that a conflict in one region does not remain confined there. He said it impacts global energy security, maritime trade and supply chains, and that the Global South bears the brunt of the consequences.

    Why did India put the West Asia war at the centre of its SCO message?

    1. Security has widened: In an interconnected world the scope of security has expanded significantly, so a regional war becomes an energy, shipping and supply chain problem for every member.
    2. The meeting with Iran: Iran’s President was among the leaders at the summit. The Prime Minister met him on Monday, their first meeting since the start of the war.

    What did India demand on terrorism, and what gives the demand its weight?

    1. Beyond action and reaction: With Pakistan’s Prime Minister listening, the Prime Minister said terrorism remains a grave challenge for all of humanity and that the fight cannot be limited to a mere “action-reaction” mindset.
    2. Dismantle the whole ecosystem: He called for dismantling the entire ecosystem of terror financing, recruitment, radicalisation and safe havens, and for members to speak in one voice that there is no room for double standards.
    3. Terrorism as state policy: Countries that use terrorism as an instrument of state policy and shelter terrorists must be sent a strong message that terrorism cannot be a strategic asset for anyone.
    4. The Operation Sindoor antecedent: In May 2025, days after the Pahalgam terror attack, India launched Operation Sindoor, striking terror targets in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan. Four days of hostilities followed and ended with Pakistan seeking a ceasefire.
    5. The Tianjin precedent: At the SCO summit in Tianjin on August 31 and September 1 last year, the Prime Minister called the Pahalgam attack the “most heinous face of terrorism” and an open challenge to every nation, and said double standards on terrorism are unacceptable.

    What are the three pillars India set out for the SCO’s next 25 years?

    1. The framework: India’s vision for the SCO rests on three pillars, S for Security, C for Connectivity and O for Opportunity. Over 25 years the grouping built a tradition of dialogue across Eurasia, and the goal for the next 25 is to translate that cooperation into tangible results.
    2. Security: This pillar is the terrorism agenda set out above, carried as a demand on the grouping rather than as a bilateral grievance.
    3. Connectivity: Its scope must expand beyond roads, railways and air corridors to simplifying customs procedures, promoting digital documentation and enhancing the efficiency of logistics networks.
    4. Opportunity: The benefits of cooperation must directly reach people, with people-to-people ties at the heart of the next 25 years. The yardstick of success is new opportunities for youth, new markets for entrepreneurs, farmers benefiting from technology and improvement in citizens’ lives.
    5. Shared geography: As the world navigates uncertainty and instability, the task is to transform shared geography into shared opportunities.

    Why is connectivity the pillar that divides the members?

    1. Sovereignty as the condition: India supports all initiatives that connect markets, facilitate trade and open growth avenues, on the condition that respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations is paramount, which it described as the core spirit of the SCO Charter.
    2. The Iran route: India wants to access Central Asia through Iran, since Pakistan has denied India overland transit to the region.
    3. The corridor objection: The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is an irritant for India because it runs through territory India claims and so violates its territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    What follows the summit?

    1. The Delhi BRICS summit: The Chinese President and the Russian President attended, and the Prime Minister met them informally during the leaders’ group photograph. Both are expected at the BRICS summit in New Delhi on September 12 and 13.
    2. A Pakistan-hosted summit: Pakistan hosts the next SCO summit in 2027, and India’s participation will be watched closely by members of the grouping.

    Conclusion

    India has made no double standards on terrorism the price of its engagement with the SCO. The grouping’s next chair is the country that demand is aimed at. Two dates now test the position: the BRICS summit in New Delhi on September 12 and 13, where the same Chinese and Russian leaders reconvene, and the next SCO summit under the Pakistani chair, where India must decide whether and at what level to attend.

    [2026] Which of the following countries are members of the European Union?

    1. Belarus

    2. Poland

    3. Germany

    4. Switzerland

    (a) 1, 2 and 4 (b) 1 and 4 only (c) 2 and 3 (d) 2 and 4 only

  • Take Bishkek to BRICS

    Take Bishkek to BRICS

    Why in the News

    The Bishkek SCO summit offered India a preview of the challenges awaiting BRICS: balancing strategic autonomy, geopolitical rivalry, institutional cooperation and an increasingly diverse, difficult-to-align membership.

    Why is Central Asia’s diversification an opening for India?

    1. A region loosening one dependence: Central Asia was shaped by its Soviet past and still maintains economic links with Russia, but its five countries no longer treat Moscow as their sole partner.
    2. China, Iran and the Gulf as alternatives: The region now looks to China for trade, investment and infrastructure, and to Iran and the Gulf for access to the south. The ongoing conflict complicates the southern route.
    3. Shared security concerns: The region’s growing strategic importance and shared concerns, including terrorism, are what led India and all Central Asian states except Turkmenistan to establish strategic partnerships, which gives India standing before the summit began.

    How can India build connectivity without a land route?

    1. Geography blocks the direct routes: There is no overland access through Pakistan, and Afghanistan’s airspace remains beset by security risks. The absence of direct land access has constrained trade and wider economic and cultural engagement.
    2. Connectivity as strategic geography: Connectivity goes beyond roads and railways. It shapes the economic and strategic geography of Eurasia, so India must expand engagement in ways that overcome the limits geography imposes.
    3. Start with what does not travel by road: The starting point is products and services that do not depend on roads, namely services, digital systems and technological investments.

    Why is the SCO a weak platform for India’s terrorism agenda?

    1. What India asked for: The Prime Minister called on the international community to collectively dismantle the ecosystem of terror, including its financing and recruitment networks.
    2. The will has weakened: International political will against terrorism has weakened over the past year, and the forum reflects that shift.
    3. Pakistan’s recovered standing: Over the past year Pakistan has largely overcome its diplomatic isolation, and it is set to assume the SCO’s rotational chairmanship.
    4. A forum that could not agree on words: In June last year the SCO defence ministers could not agree on the references to terrorism in their joint statement.
    5. China’s financial weight: China possesses greater financial resources than any other member and is heavily investing in Central Asian infrastructure under the Belt and Road Initiative, which sets the forum’s centre of gravity.

    Why should bilateral ties be the objective inside a multilateral forum?

    1. Weight on individual partnerships: Given the forum’s limits, Delhi should place greater weight on its individual partnerships with member states.
    2. The Uzbekistan uranium agreement: The agreement with Uzbekistan on the long-term supply of uranium is a step in that direction.
    3. Multi-vector actors want options: Central Asian countries are emerging as multi-vector actors. They seek multiple options to improve market access rather than choosing between competing powers, and India should become one of those options.
    4. The forum as a venue: A multilateral forum like the SCO is best used to advance bilateral relationships, and that is the strategy to carry forward to BRICS as India prepares to host its 18th summit.

    Conclusion

    The SCO no longer delivers on India’s terrorism agenda, and geography limits what it can deliver on connectivity. What remains useful is the room the summit gives India to sign with individual member states. The test of that approach is whether the BRICS summit in New Delhi produces bilateral agreements of the Uzbekistan uranium kind rather than only a joint declaration.

    Back2Basics: Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

    1. Origin: Founded in 2001 in Shanghai, growing out of the Shanghai Five grouping of 1996 that settled border issues between China, Russia and three Central Asian states.
    2. Membership: Ten members, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India, Pakistan, Iran and Belarus. India and Pakistan joined in 2017, Iran in 2023 and Belarus in 2024.
    3. Structure: The Secretariat is in Beijing and the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure is in Tashkent. The chairmanship rotates annually among members, and the chair hosts the next summit.

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] “IPMDA (Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness) bridges the gap between India’s SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) vision and the Quad’s collective Indo-Pacific strategy.” Make a critical assessment of the statement focusing on IPMDA.”

  • UN panel presents legal case for broad slavery reparations

    Why in the News

    The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has issued a fresh interpretation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965.

    What is a general recommendation, and what weight does it carry?

    1. It is a treaty body’s authoritative reading of the text: A general recommendation is an interpretation of a convention’s provisions issued by the expert committee that monitors it, addressed to every State party rather than to one government.
    2. It creates no new obligation: The instrument does not amend the convention. It states what the committee holds the existing text already requires.
    3. It is unenforceable but not without effect: The findings carry authoritative weight and can inform judicial review, serve courts as an interpretative tool, and be relied on in litigation.

    What does the interpretation require of States parties?

    1. The measures must be comprehensive: States parties are required to implement reparatory measures for people of African descent covering all aspects of remedies.
    2. Three classes of measure are named: Reparatory justice is stated to combine a wide range of measures conceived as monetary, non monetary and structural.
    3. Indirect involvement is included: The duty attaches to States that profited from or facilitated the trade, not only to those that transported and sold people.
    4. Redress is framed as an obligation: The Committee treats reparation as flowing from the convention itself rather than as a policy choice available to a government.

    What is the historical record the finding rests on?

    1. At least 12.5 million Africans were taken and sold: The Committee places that transport and sale between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries.
    2. It is characterised as the largest forced displacement in history: That characterisation is the basis on which the Committee treats the harm as continuing rather than closed.
    3. The United Nations has already classed slavery a crime against humanity: The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted at the World Conference against Racism in 2001, recorded slavery and the slave trade as crimes against humanity.
    4. A standing forum already exists: The General Assembly established the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent in 2021 as an advisory body on the rights of that population.
    5. The observance period has been extended: The International Decade for People of African Descent ran from 2015 to 2024, and a second decade was proclaimed for 2025 to 2034.

    Challenges to reparations for the transatlantic slave trade

    1. No forum can compel a State to pay: The Committee reviews reports and issues findings, and it holds no power to order a remedy against a State party. Eg. An inter-State claim under the convention reaches the International Court of Justice only where both States accept that jurisdiction, and several former slave trading States have entered reservations to the clause.
      The Fix: Route the claim through a negotiated inter-governmental commission with a fixed mandate and a reporting cycle, so the obligation is settled by agreement rather than left to a forum neither side can reach.
    2. Successor States dispute liability for pre-independence conduct: A modern government argues it is not the legal person that carried on a trade abolished two centuries ago. Eg. The United Kingdom has expressed regret for the slave trade and has declined to accept legal liability for reparations.
      The Fix: Separate acknowledgement from transfer by fixing a development finance commitment tied to identified harms, which avoids the succession question without abandoning the remedy.
    3. Quantifying the harm has no accepted method: Monetary, non monetary and structural measures rest on different bases, and no agreed formula converts historical injury into a present figure. Eg. The Caribbean Community’s Ten Point Plan for Reparatory Justice, adopted in 2013, sets out categories of remedy without attaching a sum to any of them.
      The Fix: Commission a standing statistical exercise on health, education and land outcomes for the affected population, so remedies are sized against measurable present day gaps.
    4. Domestic litigation fails on procedure before it reaches merit: Claims are dismissed on limitation, standing and sovereign immunity rather than decided on the underlying wrong. Eg. Reparations suits filed in United States courts against corporations linked to slavery were dismissed on standing and limitation grounds.
      The Fix: Enact a statutory limitation waiver for historic gross rights violations, which is what allowed residential school and forced sterilisation claims to be heard in other jurisdictions.
    5. A non binding finding can harden a State’s position: A government that rejects the interpretation gains a reason to disengage from the reporting process the Committee depends on. Eg. Treaty body reporting is already years in arrears across the system, with overdue State reports running into the hundreds.
      The Fix: Pair the interpretation with a technical assistance track, so a State that accepts the framing has a route to comply that does not begin with a payment.

    Conclusion

    The Committee has moved reparations from a political demand to a stated treaty obligation. What it cannot supply is the machinery that would make the obligation operate. The unresolved tension is that the same text a claimant will now cite in court is one a government can decline to act on without breaching anything enforceable. The point to watch is whether a national court anywhere treats the interpretation as a live legal standard rather than as commentary.

    Back2Basics: Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

    1. Parent instrument: Created by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965, which entered into force in 1969.
    2. Composition: Eighteen independent experts elected by States parties, serving in their personal capacity rather than as government representatives.
    3. Core function: It examines periodic reports from States parties on the measures taken to give effect to the convention.
    4. Additional procedures: It operates an early warning and urgent action procedure, and it can consider individual complaints against a State that has made a declaration under Article 14.

    [2017, GS2, 10 marks] What are the main functions of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)? Explain different functional commissions attached to it.”

  • State of exception

    State of exception

    Why in the News

    The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has expressed “grave concern” at reports of the law enforcement apparatus resorting to violence, physical and otherwise, against minority ethnic and ethno religious groups, Dalits and non citizens. This is India’s first review by the Committee since 2007, and India ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) in 1968. The Committee also recorded that India has not provided detailed and updated information on the state’s inquiries and sanctions arising from allegations of such violence. The government’s position before the Committee is that caste bias falls outside Article 1 of the Convention because caste is not synonymous with race. The Committee has read the Convention as covering all forms of discrimination based on inherited status. The tension is between a state defending a definitional boundary to keep caste a domestic matter and a treaty body reading descent into the Convention to bring caste inside international scrutiny.

    What is the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination?

    1. A treaty body: CERD is a body of independent experts that monitors how states that have ratified ICERD implement it.
    2. Periodic review: States file periodic reports and the Committee issues concluding observations recording its concerns and its recommendations.
    3. No enforcement power: Concluding observations are not binding and carry no sanction, so their effect runs through the reporting obligation and reputational exposure.

    Why does the caste and race question decide the Committee’s jurisdiction?

    1. The government’s reading: Article 1 of ICERD defines racial discrimination by race, colour, descent, and national or ethnic origin, and the government argues that caste is not race and therefore sits outside that definition.
    2. The Committee’s reading: The Committee treats discrimination based on inherited status as covered, which brings caste within the Convention through the descent limb rather than the race limb.
    3. What actually turns on it: If caste falls outside Article 1, India owes the Committee no account of caste discrimination at all, so the argument is jurisdictional rather than semantic.
    4. The scale of what the technicality would exclude: The position would place the situation of 200 million Dalits beyond the reach of international review. The underlying facts would remain undisputed.

    What specific practices did the Committee flag?

    1. Manual cleaning of sewers: The practice continues despite a law prohibiting it.
    2. Treatment of Rohingya Muslims: Hate speech against them, their poor living conditions, and their mass refoulement, meaning return to a territory where they face persecution.
    3. Citizenship deprivation: Mass deprivation of citizenship through the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
    4. Electoral roll deletions: Large scale deletions arising from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
    5. Statutes used against civil society: Use of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to hamper the work of civil society organisations.
    6. A gap in the criminal code: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 does not expressly criminalise racist hate speech.
    7. Exemptions in forest law: The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 exempts “national security” projects from consultative decision making.

    Why is the data gap the enabling condition?

    1. Enumeration is overdue: A much delayed Census means suitably disaggregated data on disenfranchised communities does not exist in current form.
    2. Crime data arrives late: Slow release of National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data delays any independent check on recorded offences against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    3. Special measures run on stale figures: Affirmative action is being implemented on 2011 Census data, which can mask a regression in the socioeconomic status of Scheduled Tribes and Adivasis.
    4. The effect is no longer administrative: The absence of data has moved past lethargy into actively impeding independent verification of the state’s own claims about fighting caste and faith based discrimination.

    What has happened to the domestic accountability machinery?

    1. Accreditation at risk: The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), the peer body that accredits national human rights institutions against the Paris Principles, recommended a downgrade of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) last year.
    2. The stated grounds: The appointment of police officers to investigative roles within the Commission, and a lack of pluralism in its composition.
    3. The consequence: With the domestic institution weakened, a treaty body review becomes the surviving external check rather than a supplement to a working domestic one.

    Domestic matter or international accountability?

    1. The sovereignty claim: The government treats the caste question as an internal matter and has dismissed the Committee’s concerns as politically motivated.
    2. The counter position: A definitional objection raised at the treaty body removes an entire class of discrimination from review without disputing that the discrimination occurs.
    3. Who is left carrying it: With the state contesting jurisdiction, the work of raising these issues in multilateral fora falls to civil society organisations, which are themselves the subject of the Committee’s concern about the use of regulatory and criminal law against them.

    What does the road ahead require?

    1. Institutional independence: Restoring the independence of the NHRC, beginning with the composition and appointment concerns that triggered the accreditation review.
    2. Criminal law: Expressly criminalising racist hate speech, which the current code does not do.
    3. Affirmative action: Supportive affirmative action, extended rather than narrowed, for the communities the measures are meant to reach.
    4. Data: Collecting and publishing disaggregated data on the affected communities.
    5. Electoral process: Improving the transparency of electoral roll revisions.
    6. Enforcement: Strengthening enforcement of existing protective law overall.

    Challenges to treaty body review as a check on caste discrimination

    1. No individual complaint route: India has not made the declaration under Article 14 of ICERD, so an individual or a group in India cannot petition the Committee directly. Eg. States that have made the Article 14 declaration allow individual communications, and India’s absence from that list leaves domestic courts as the only forum. Fix. Make the Article 14 declaration, which is a unilateral act requiring no amendment to the Convention.
    2. The evidence base is state controlled: The Committee reviews what the state chooses to report, so a gap in official data becomes a gap in the review itself. Eg. Shadow reports by non governmental organisations are the main corrective, which is why restrictions on their foreign funding directly shape what the Committee sees. Fix. Require the state report to be tabled domestically before submission, so its omissions are contested at home first.
    3. Long reporting gaps defeat periodicity: The Convention requires reports every two years and states file many years late with no consequence. Eg. Several states parties carry reports overdue by more than a decade on the Committee’s own schedule. Fix. Apply the review in the absence of a report procedure on a fixed timetable, so a missing report does not postpone scrutiny.
    4. Recommendations have no domestic legal effect: A concluding observation creates no right enforceable in an Indian court, since a treaty requires enabling legislation under Article 253 of the Constitution to become domestic law. Eg. Courts have used unincorporated treaty obligations as an interpretive aid rather than as a source of enforceable rights, as in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997). Fix. Route the recommendations through the NHRC’s statutory annual report to Parliament, so each produces a documented government response.

    Conclusion

    The dispute is not over whether the discrimination occurs but over whether an international body may examine it, and the two positions cannot both hold: a Convention read to cover inherited status, and a state reading that places caste outside its scope. What keeps the disagreement unresolvable is that the evidence which would settle either claim is the same disaggregated data the state has not produced.

    Back2Basics

    1. Statutory basis: It was constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
    2. Composition: It is chaired by a former Chief Justice of India or a former judge of the Supreme Court, with members including a serving or former Chief Justice of a High Court and persons with knowledge of human rights.
    3. Powers: It inquires into complaints of human rights violation, exercises the powers of a civil court during inquiry, and may visit places of detention.
    4. Recommendatory character: Its findings are recommendations to the government concerned, which must report the action taken, and the Commission cannot enforce them itself.

    “[2023, GS1, 15 marks] Why is caste identity in India both fluid and static?”

  • UN panel flags ‘human rights violations’ in India, urges Delhi to suspend, review NRC

    UN panel flags ‘human rights violations’ in India, urges Delhi to suspend, review NRC

    Why in the News

    The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has released concluding observations, following its eleventh periodic review of India on August 11-12, criticising the implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam and calling for its suspension. This is a One development, one row item; The Hindu and The Indian Express both carried the Committee’s findings, and this entry is filed from the Indian Express account, which reports the call to suspend the NRC and the Committee’s specific concern about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, in more detail.

    What did the Committee find, and what did it call on India to do?

    1. The Committee criticised the NRC’s implementation in Assam: It found that the process subjected Bengali-speaking Muslims to what it described as “systematic and structural racial discrimination,” and called for the NRC to be suspended and India’s legislative framework around it to be reviewed.
    2. The Special Intensive Revision process was separately flagged: The Committee raised concern that Bengali-speaking Muslim voters were reportedly disproportionately affected by the Election Commission’s SIR process in West Bengal and Assam.
    3. The Committee’s concern extends to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Rohingya refugees: It said it was “gravely concerned” about reports of large-scale violations by law enforcement officials against ethnic and ethno-religious groups, including Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes (particularly Dalits), and non-citizens, and cited allegations of racially motivated violence, excessive use of force, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, torture and sexual violence.
    4. It called for accountability, not merely acknowledgement: The Committee asked India to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into these allegations and ensure accountability for those responsible, and to urgently address hate speech and hate crimes against Rohingya, Bengali-speaking Muslims, migrants and asylum-seekers.
    5. India’s response came through its review delegation: India sent the Solicitor-General as head of delegation for the underlying periodic review held on August 11-12, ahead of these concluding observations.

    Conclusion

    CERD’s concluding observations place NRC suspension, a review of the associated legislative framework, and law enforcement accountability toward Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Rohingya refugees on record as a formal treaty-body finding against India, made under the same UN human rights review process, rather than as commentary on a single incident, with India’s substantive reply yet to be reported.

    Back2Basics

    1. UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD): The treaty body of independent experts that monitors States parties’ implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which India ratified in 1968, through periodic reviews and concluding observations.
    2. National Register of Citizens (NRC), Assam: A register, first prepared in 1951 and updated under Supreme Court supervision, intended to identify genuine Indian citizens in Assam by excluding illegal migrants, particularly in the context of the Assam Accord (1985).
  • Minister seeks fundamental shift in fight against drought

    Minister seeks fundamental shift in fight against drought

    Why in the News

    The Union Environment Minister has called for a fundamental shift in the global approach to droughts, from reactive relief to proactive, technology-enabled resilience. He made the appeal at the Ministerial Dialogue on Accelerating Drought Resilience during the 17th Conference of Parties (COP17) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), held in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

    What did the Minister’s statement propose?

    1. Drought is reframed as a development challenge: The Minister said drought is no longer an occasional event but a defining development challenge, citing its compounding disruptions to global water security, agricultural food systems, biodiversity, and economic stability.
    2. India’s own model was presented as a template: He highlighted India’s coordinated, multi-institutional approach integrating early warning, mitigation, relief and community resilience, where rainfall monitoring and satellite-based drought assessments trigger preparedness at the inter-ministerial and State levels.
    3. Land restoration was linked directly to water security: He called for restoring the forest before restoring the flow, underscoring India’s focus on catchment and riverscape forestry to reduce erosion, improve water retention, and recharge groundwater.
    4. The Minister called for a shift from relief to prediction: He advocated integrating predictive technologies, localised early-warning monitoring, and proactive land management policies, so vulnerable communities can anticipate and absorb environmental shocks rather than depending primarily on post-disaster relief.

    Back2Basics

    1. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD): Adopted in 1994 following the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, it is one of the three Rio Conventions, alongside the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
    2. It is the sole legally binding international agreement linking environment and development to sustainable land management. COP17, held in Mongolia under the theme “Restoring Land. Restoring Hope,” is its 17th Conference of Parties.

    Conclusion

    The Minister’s intervention at COP17 sets out India’s preparedness-first model as its negotiating position within the UNCCD process, positioning predictive, land-restoration-based resilience as the alternative to a relief-centred global response to drought.

    “[2014, GS3, 12 marks] Drought has been recognised as a disaster in view of its party expense, temporal duration, slow onset and lasting effect on various vulnerable sections. With a focus on the September 2010 guidelines from the National disaster management authority, discuss the mechanism for preparedness to deal with the El Nino and La Nina fallouts in India.”

  • ‘Killer robots’ are closer than ever, warn UN, ICRC

    ‘Killer robots’ are closer than ever, warn UN, ICRC

    Why in the News

    The United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have jointly warned that the world is dangerously close to the autonomous targeting of humans by machines, renewing an urgent appeal for international regulation of lethal autonomous weapon systems. The statement renews a 2023 call by the UN Secretary General and the ICRC president for specific bans and restrictions on the technology by this year.

    Note: Lethal autonomous weapon systems are weapon systems that select targets and apply force without human intervention.

    What is the concern, and how has it changed since 2023?

    1. The warning has hardened, not softened: The two bodies stated their fundamental concerns remain unchanged from 2023 but that the underlying risks have intensified since then.
    2. The alarm includes the technology’s own developers: The statement highlights that scientists and engineers involved in developing these weapon systems have themselves raised concerns about the direction the technology is taking.
    3. No confirmed use yet, but the trajectory is the concern: Experts state there has been no confirmed use of fully autonomous weapons to directly target humans so far, and the warning is precautionary rather than a report of an actual deployment.

    International Regulation

    1. United Nations: The UN has repeatedly called for international rules governing autonomous weapons.
    2. Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW): Discussions on LAWS have taken place under the CCW framework.
    3. UN Secretary General and ICRC: Both have advocated prohibiting weapons that operate without meaningful human control and imposing strict restrictions on other autonomous weapons.
    4. International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Existing principles such as distinction, proportionality and precaution remain central to assessing autonomous weapons.

    India’s Position

    1. India has participated in international discussions on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems under the CCW.
    2. India has generally emphasised the importance of human control, international law and responsible development of emerging military technologies.
    3. For India, the issue is particularly relevant as AI, drones, robotics and autonomous systems become increasingly important in modern warfare.

    “[2025, GS2, 15 marks] “The reform process in the United Nations remains unresolved, because of the delicate imbalance of East and West and entanglement of the USA vs. Russo-Chinese alliance.” Examine and critically evaluate the East-West policy confrontations in this regard.”

    [2025] Consider the following statements regarding Al Action Summit held in Grand Palais, Paris in February 2025:
    I. Co-chaired with India, the event builds on the advances made at the Bletchley Park Summit held in 2023 and the Seoul Summit held in 2024.
    II. Along with other countries, US and UK also signed the declaration on inclusive and sustainable AI.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] I only

    [B] II only

    [C] Both I and II

    [D] Neither I nor II

  • A bday wish with perfect timing: Why PM’s greeting to Sitharaman says a lot

    Why in the News

    The Union Finance Minister led a four minister delegation to the 4th India Singapore Ministerial Roundtable (ISMR) in Singapore on 19 and 20 August 2026. The Prime Minister had greeted her on her birthday on 18 August, crediting her role in India’s reforms and economic development and in the Centre’s endeavours for a strong and self reliant India. The greeting arrived as the organisational revamp in the ruling party revived talk of a Union Cabinet reshuffle. The exchange is read in Delhi as a vote of confidence in the office that currently carries both the external economic file and the domestic industrial and banking agenda.

    What is the India Singapore Ministerial Roundtable?

    1. A ministerial level bilateral mechanism: The roundtable is the platform on which the two governments review progress in India Singapore collaboration and identify new areas of work.
    2. Its format: It convenes several ministers from each side at once rather than a single counterpart pairing, which allows cross portfolio decisions in one sitting.
    3. Six pillars of cooperation: The roundtable is organised around advanced manufacturing, connectivity, digitalisation, healthcare and medicine, skills development, and sustainability.
    4. The current round: The fourth roundtable was held on 19 and 20 August 2026.

    What is the National Industrial Corridor Development and Implementation Trust?

    1. The special purpose vehicle for industrial corridors: The trust is the central body that funds and implements India’s industrial corridor projects, including trunk infrastructure inside the corridor nodes.
    2. How it is supervised: An Apex Monitoring Authority chaired by the Union Finance Minister reviews its progress with the concerned States and central ministries.

    Which ministries carried the delegation and why does that composition matter?

    1. Four portfolios in one delegation: The Finance Minister led a delegation comprising the Minister of External Affairs, the Minister for Commerce and Industry, and the Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology and for Commerce and Industry.
    2. What that combination covers: Finance, diplomacy, trade and technology were represented together, which matches the roundtable’s own spread from advanced manufacturing to digitalisation.
    3. Who was recorded as leading: The Ministry of Finance specified that the Finance Minister was leading the delegation, which places the economic ministry rather than the foreign ministry at the head of a bilateral engagement.

    What is the political reading of the greeting?

    1. The occasion and the words used: The Prime Minister’s birthday message on 18 August credited the Finance Minister’s role in India’s reforms and economic development and in the effort towards a strong and self reliant India.
    2. The reply: The Finance Minister responded within the hour, stating that the Prime Minister’s guidance had always served as a motivation.
    3. The timing: The exchange followed the organisational revamp in the ruling party, which had renewed speculation about a Union Cabinet reshuffle.
    4. The standing it confirms: The exchange is read in Delhi’s power corridors as a vote of confidence in India’s longest serving full time woman finance minister.

    What economic conditions frame the Finance Ministry’s current workload?

    1. A growth and inflation target held together: India is seeking to maintain its 7 percent growth momentum and to keep inflation in check at the same time.
    2. Two external shocks in the same period: The economy is absorbing capital outflows alongside energy and supply chain disruptions resulting from the West Asia conflict.
    3. Why the reforms reference matters now: A public endorsement of the reforms record lands at the point where external shocks, and not domestic demand, are the binding constraint on growth.

    What did the industrial corridor review ask of the States?

    1. The meeting held: The Finance Minister chaired the third meeting of the Apex Monitoring Authority of the National Industrial Corridor Development and Implementation Trust on 17 August.
    2. Who attended: The Minister for Commerce and Industry, the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh and the Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog were present.
    3. What the States were asked to do: States were urged to resolve bottlenecks relating to land, connectivity, utilities and statutory clearances in industrial corridors.
    4. Why the ask sits with the States: Each of those four bottlenecks is a State subject in practice, so central capital does not convert into an operating industrial node without State action.

    What has the outreach to young citizens argued?

    1. The political context: After the students’ protest at Jantar Mantar, the Finance Minister was among the few leaders of the ruling party fronted to make an outreach to young citizens.
    2. The positions stated: She said the young have their ears closer to the ground, denied that the government ever tried to stop protests over examination paper leaks, and acknowledged issues in the education and employment sectors.
    3. The structural point on higher education: She said university courses do not ready graduates for jobs and do not ready them for entrepreneurship either.
    4. The specific illustration used: A bachelor’s degree in Economics or Political Science leads a student to a master’s degree. The student still needs something more after that to be employable.

    What was asked of the public sector banks?

    1. The meetings held: The Finance Minister met the chiefs of 12 public sector banks during the same week.
    2. The instruction given: Banks were nudged to raise their appeal to young customers without sacrificing the prudence the business requires.
    3. The reasoning offered: Young customers who grew up with smartphones expect banking to be simple, intuitive, personalised and available at all times.
    4. The suggested method: Banks were asked to consult young people on customer facing operations rather than to redesign the institution from the top.

    Conclusion

    The week placed one economic ministry at the head of a four minister bilateral delegation abroad and at the chair of the industrial corridor and public sector banking reviews at home. The current status is a completed fourth ministerial roundtable across six agreed pillars of India Singapore cooperation, with no new agreement announced. The next markers are the follow up on the pillars agreed at the roundtable and the resolution by States of the land, connectivity, utility and clearance bottlenecks flagged in the corridor review.

    What is the Act East Policy?

    1. About: The Act East Policy, launched in 2014, is India’s framework for engagement with Southeast Asia and the wider Indo-Pacific, and it added a security and connectivity dimension to the trade focused Look East Policy of 1991.
    2. Rationale: It was designed to place the North Eastern Region at the heart of India’s external engagement and to prevent the region east of India from becoming a single power’s sphere.
    3. The four pillars: Commerce, culture, connectivity and capacity building are the policy’s stated components, covering trade agreements, civilisational links, physical and digital connectivity, and training and development assistance.
    4. Where it stands: Ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) were elevated to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2022, the highest tier of the bloc’s partnership arrangements.

    Key Facts about India Singapore Relations

    1. The first comprehensive trade agreement: India and Singapore signed a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement in 2005, the first such agreement India concluded with any country.
    2. Payments linkage: The linking of India’s Unified Payments Interface with Singapore’s PayNow in 2023 enabled low cost real time cross border remittances between the two countries.
    3. Defence links: SIMBEX, conducted since 1994, is India’s longest running bilateral naval exercise, and Changi Naval Base features in India’s network of logistics access points in the region.

    Challenges in India’s Act East Engagement

    1. Slow project delivery undermines credibility: India is repeatedly compared unfavourably with faster moving partners on connectivity projects. Eg. The Kaladan Multi Modal Transit Transport Project has faced over a decade of delays. Fix. Move the flagship connectivity projects to a single empowered implementation authority with published milestone dates.
    2. An asymmetric trade balance with the bloc: Tariff concessions have widened imports without a matching rise in Indian exports. Eg. India runs a trade deficit of about 40 billion dollars with ASEAN, driven by electronics and chemicals. Fix. Complete the review of the India ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement with rules of origin tightened against third country transshipment.
    3. Exclusion from the regional trade architecture: Staying out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership keeps Indian firms outside the region’s integrated value chains. Eg. Supply chains relocating from East Asia often bypass India for members of that agreement. Fix. Pursue bilateral economic partnership agreements with individual member states to recover the lost market access.
    4. Instability on the land route: Civil conflict in Myanmar blocks the only land corridor connecting India to Southeast Asia. Eg. Work on the India Myanmar Thailand Trilateral Highway has stalled in contested territory. Fix. Prioritise the maritime and air legs of connectivity to Southeast Asia until the land route is secure.
    5. Competing port investments in the region: Rival infrastructure spending has produced a network of ports around India’s maritime approaches. Eg. The expansion of the Ream Naval Base in Cambodia has raised concerns about naval access. Fix. Deepen logistics support arrangements with regional partners so that Indian naval assets have reciprocal access along the same corridors.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Closest microtheme: Bilateral Relations (International Relations).”

  • India, U.K. review bilateral defence ties at DCG meeting

    Why in the News

    India and the United Kingdom reviewed bilateral defence cooperation at the 25th India United Kingdom Defence Consultative Group (DCG) meeting in New Delhi on 21 August 2026. The Defence Secretary and the United Kingdom’s Permanent Under Secretary for Defence co chaired the meeting. Defence industry and research and development were the declared focus of the review. The two sides also acknowledged their maritime security cooperation in the Indo-Pacific and reaffirmed a commitment to mutual security and strategic autonomy. The meeting places the industrial and research pillar, rather than platform purchases, at the centre of a partnership that has historically been defined by equipment supply.

    What is the India United Kingdom Defence Consultative Group?

    1. The institutional channel for the defence relationship: The DCG is the standing bilateral mechanism at which the two defence establishments review the whole of their cooperation.
    2. Who leads it: It is co chaired at the level of the Defence Secretary on the Indian side and the Permanent Under Secretary for Defence on the British side.
    3. How long it has run: The New Delhi round was the 25th meeting of the group, which makes it one of the longer running bilateral defence dialogues India maintains.

    What is the India United Kingdom Vision 2035?

    1. The current roadmap for the partnership: Vision 2035 is the agreed framework that sets out where the two countries intend to take defence, technology, trade and security cooperation over the coming decade.
    2. The defence component: It is paired with a 10 year Defence Industrial Road map, which is the instrument the two sides use to sequence joint industrial and research work.

    What is the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative?

    1. India’s cooperative framework for the maritime region: The initiative is an India led arrangement announced in 2019. Partner countries take the lead on specific pillars such as maritime security, resources and capacity building.
    2. How partners participate: A country joins by leading or co leading a pillar rather than by signing a treaty, which is how the United Kingdom is engaged in it.

    What did the two sides review on defence industrial cooperation?

    1. Industry and research were the declared focus: The review of bilateral defence cooperation was framed around defence industry and research and development rather than around procurement.
    2. Where that work is anchored: Ongoing defence industrial cooperation was reviewed with particular emphasis on research and development under the India United Kingdom Vision 2035 and the 10 year Defence Industrial Road map.

    How will military to military exchanges expand?

    1. Three named channels of expansion: The two countries agreed to expand exchanges between their armed forces through joint exercises, training and capacity building initiatives.
    2. Why the format matters: Exercises and training create the interoperability that industrial cooperation alone cannot produce.
    3. The visit itself: The meeting marked the first visit to India by the British official in his current capacity. He laid a wreath at the National War Memorial during the visit.

    What does the maritime security agenda add?

    1. Cooperation acknowledged in the Indo-Pacific: Both sides recorded robust maritime security cooperation between the two countries in the Indo-Pacific.
    2. A new institution named: That cooperation includes the establishment of the Regional Maritime Security Centre of Excellence under the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative.

    What framing did the two sides put on the partnership?

    1. Regional security was discussed directly: The two sides exchanged views on regional peace and security.
    2. Two commitments reaffirmed: They reaffirmed their commitment to mutual security and to strategic autonomy, which retains each side’s freedom of independent decision.
    3. The declared basis of the relationship: They reiterated that the India United Kingdom Strategic Partnership is anchored in shared values of peace, stability, freedom and mutual respect.

    Challenges to the India United Kingdom Strategic Partnership

    1. Divergent positions on Russia: London has openly criticised the invasion of Ukraine, and New Delhi maintains its own relationship with Moscow. Eg. India’s continued crude imports from Russia have drawn repeated criticism in British parliamentary debate. Fix. Ring fence the disagreement in the political dialogue and keep the defence industrial track on its own timeline.
    2. Extremist activity abroad affecting bilateral trust: Separatist mobilisation on British soil is treated by India as a security matter and by Britain as a policing and speech matter. Eg. The Five Eyes investigation into the Nijjar killing, which includes the United Kingdom, strained the relationship. Fix. Create a standing bilateral mechanism to review threats to diplomatic premises and personnel with agreed timelines for response.
    3. Unsettled extradition of economic offenders: Cases pending for years in British courts weaken confidence in legal cooperation. Eg. The extradition of high profile fugitives such as Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi remains unresolved. Fix. Agree a case management protocol with fixed review points so that requests do not stall indefinitely.
    4. Carbon border levies on Indian exports: The proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism threatens Indian steel and aluminium exports and is read in India as protectionism in an environmental form. Eg. Steel and aluminium are among India’s largest industrial exports to the European market. Fix. Negotiate a mutual recognition arrangement for India’s own carbon credit trading scheme so that a domestic carbon price is counted at the border.
    5. Migration and mobility remain unsettled: High visa fees and the health surcharge raise the cost of temporary movement, and no migration and mobility agreement covers the illegal migrant population. Eg. More than one lakh illegal Indian immigrants are estimated to be in the United Kingdom. Fix. Fast track the Double Contribution Convention so that Indian temporary workers are exempted from British National Insurance payments.
    6. Intellectual property divergence in pharmaceuticals: British insistence on tighter intellectual property norms conflicts with India’s priority of affordable medicines. Eg. Data exclusivity demands would delay generic entry for medicines India exports at scale. Fix. Keep intellectual property provisions at the standard set by the World Trade Organization agreement and settle the rest through voluntary licensing arrangements.

    Conclusion

    The defence relationship has moved from an equipment supply relationship to a joint industrial and research relationship, and the 25th DCG meeting recorded that shift rather than announcing a new agreement. The stage reached is a completed secretary level review under an agreed decade long roadmap, with no new procurement decision announced. The next markers are the delivery of projects under the 10 year Defence Industrial Road map and the operation of the Regional Maritime Security Centre of Excellence.

  • US: Will impose toughest sanctions in history on Iran

    Why in the News

    The United States Treasury Secretary announced on 20 August 2026 that Washington will impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran, to be layered on an existing naval blockade, with the stated objective of collapsing the Iranian government. The United States President separately warned that any country whose financial institutions, businesses, airports or government entities provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face economic consequences. That warning converts a bilateral war into a compliance problem for every third country that trades with Iran.

    What are secondary sanctions?

    1. Definition: Secondary sanctions penalise persons and firms in third countries for dealing with a sanctioned state, even where that dealing is lawful in their own jurisdiction. They extend a national measure into an extraterritorial one.
    2. How they bite: The penalty is exclusion, since a firm that trades with the target loses access to the sanctioning state’s financial system, markets and correspondent banking.
    3. Why the currency matters: Their reach depends on the sanctioning state’s currency being used for settlement, which is why United States measures affect countries that have no dispute with Washington.

    What is a naval blockade?

    1. Definition: A naval blockade is the use of warships to prevent vessels entering or leaving a state’s ports or coastline. It operates through force, unlike sanctions, which operate through law and financial exclusion.

    What does the announced sanctions package actually threaten?

    1. Stated severity: The United States Treasury Secretary said Washington will impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran.
    2. Combination with the blockade: He described the approach as combining the existing blockade on Iran with the new sanctions, rather than replacing one with the other.
    3. Stated objective: He said the approach would work in Iran and that Washington was going to collapse the government there.
    4. Announced framing: The United States President promised economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale, although details were scant.
    5. Detail still pending: The Treasury Secretary said he would hold a press conference on Monday to set out the specifics.

    Why does the lifeline warning make this a problem for third countries?

    1. The categories named: The warning covers any country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran.
    2. The threatened consequence: Such a country would itself face economic consequences, stated as tremendous in scale.
    3. The timing: The warning was issued on Wednesday, ahead of the sanctions announcement, which places third countries on notice before the measures are published.
    4. Breadth of the categories: Airports and government entities extend the threat beyond banking to transport and to state to state dealings.
    5. Absence of a threshold: No minimum value or category of transaction was specified, so the scope of what counts as a lifeline remains undefined.

    Why have the two ceasefires failed to hold?

    1. Origin of the war: The United States began the war alongside Israel nearly six months before the sanctions announcement.
    2. Two attempts: The United States and Iran twice announced ceasefire deals, in April and in June.
    3. Their stated purpose: Both aimed to restore the free flow of shipping through Hormuz as a path towards ending the conflict.
    4. Both collapsed: Both deals quickly crumbled, even as Israel largely withdrew from the fighting.
    5. Leadership transition in Tehran: A 40 day commemoration ceremony for the former Iranian Supreme Leader was held in Karbala on 20 August 2026, attended by Iran’s Parliament Speaker.

    What is Iran’s counter-position?

    1. Characterisation of the measures: Iran’s foreign ministry condemned the fresh United States economic and trade sanctions, saying they targeted ordinary Iranians.
    2. The legal charge: The ministry described the measures as economic terrorism and as crimes against humanity.
    3. Attribution of motive: The Iranian Foreign Minister called the announcement an attempt to divert American public opinion from domestic financial problems, including record debt and rising interest rates.
    4. The wider claim: He argued that American economic terrorism threatens the global economy and the national sovereignty of countries around the world.
    5. The retained lever: Tehran continues its own economic pressure campaign by keeping the Strait of Hormuz largely closed.

    Why has Oman become the pivot of the Hormuz question?

    1. A separate negotiation: Iran has been negotiating an agreement on managing the Strait of Hormuz with Oman, and has said several times in recent weeks that an agreement was close.
    2. The American response: The United States President responded to those negotiations on Monday by warning that he might bomb the Gulf state if it gets in the way.
    3. The anomaly in that threat: Oman is a longstanding United States security partner, which makes the threat a warning to an ally rather than to an adversary.
    4. Oman’s stated position: The Omani Foreign Minister said lasting security in the strait required a permanent peace in the region and rejected further escalation.
    5. Its diplomatic posture: He made the statement after meeting his Japanese counterpart, which places the strait’s management within a wider set of energy importing interests.

    What does the escalation mean for India?

    1. Energy route exposure: A large share of India’s crude, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) imports transits the Strait of Hormuz, so the strait’s closure raises India’s landed energy costs regardless of who supplies the cargo.
    2. Precedent of forced exit: India stopped importing Iranian crude in May 2019 after United States waivers under the sanctions regime lapsed, ending what had been one of its largest supply relationships.
    3. Connectivity investment at risk: India signed a ten year contract in May 2024 to operate the Shahid Beheshti terminal at Chabahar port in Iran, an asset whose viability depends on the sanctions environment.
    4. Corridor implications: The International North South Transport Corridor to Russia and Central Asia runs through Iranian territory, so secondary sanctions affect a route India built to bypass Pakistan.
    5. Existing exposure to secondary measures: India has already navigated the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, 2017 over its purchase of the S-400 air defence system, which shows the compliance question is not new.

    Challenges to a sanctions-led approach

    1. Poor record at producing regime change: Comprehensive sanctions rarely dislodge governments and often consolidate them. Eg. Cuba has been under a United States embargo since 1962 without a change of political system.
    2. Humanitarian burden falls on civilians: Restrictions on banking and shipping obstruct food and medicine even when formally exempted. Eg. Iran’s foreign ministry stated that the measures targeted ordinary Iranians and amounted to crimes against humanity.
    3. Evasion through parallel networks: Targets build shadow fleets, front companies and barter arrangements that blunt enforcement. Eg. United States sanctions on Hezbollah have repeatedly targeted courier networks and exchange houses used as fronts for cash movement.
    4. Erosion of the sanctioning currency’s role: Extraterritorial reach pushes third countries to settle trade outside the dollar. Eg. India has implemented the Special Rupee Vostro Account framework for invoicing, payment and settlement of international trade in rupees.
    5. Alliance friction: Threats against partners weaken the coalition needed for enforcement. Eg. The United States President warned he might bomb Oman, a longstanding American security partner, over its Hormuz negotiations with Iran.
    6. Counter escalation by the target: A sanctioned state with a chokepoint can impose costs on the sanctioning coalition’s own economies. Eg. Iran keeps the Strait of Hormuz largely closed, which carries 20 percent of global oil and 20 percent of global LNG.
    7. Legal contestation of extraterritoriality: Third states dispute the authority of one country to regulate transactions between two others. Eg. The European Union’s Blocking Statute was updated in 1996 and again in 2018 to shield European firms from United States extraterritorial sanctions on Iran.

    Conclusion

    The United States has moved from military coercion to declared economic warfare against Iran, pairing an existing naval blockade with sanctions described as the toughest in history and aimed openly at collapsing the government in Tehran. The lifeline warning extends the measures to third countries, while Iran retains its own lever by keeping the Strait of Hormuz largely closed and negotiating its management with Oman. The next milestone is the United States Treasury Secretary’s announced press conference on Monday setting out the details, with the Iran Oman understanding on the strait the other outstanding variable.

    About Economic Statecraft

    1. About: Economic statecraft is the use of economic instruments, positive and negative, to change another state’s behaviour without resorting to force.
    2. Rationale: It exists because military action is costly and diplomatic protest is weak, so states seek an intermediate instrument that imposes real cost while remaining below the threshold of war.
    3. Positive inducements: Aid, trade preferences, market access and investment offered to secure a policy change.
    4. Comprehensive sanctions: Blanket restrictions on trade and finance with an entire economy, which impose broad cost but weak targeting.
    5. Targeted or smart sanctions: Asset freezes, travel bans and entity listings aimed at named individuals, firms and sectors, designed to spare the general population.
    6. Primary sanctions: Prohibitions binding on the sanctioning state’s own persons, firms and jurisdiction.
    7. Secondary sanctions: Penalties on third country persons for dealing with the target, which give a national measure global reach.
    8. Multilateral sanctions: Measures mandated by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII, binding on all member states.

    Key Concerns Regarding Economic Statecraft

    1. Sovereignty and extraterritoriality: Secondary sanctions require states to enforce another state’s foreign policy inside their own jurisdiction. Eg. The French bank BNP Paribas paid about $8.9 billion to United States authorities in 2014 for processing transactions involving Sudan, Iran and Cuba.
    2. Humanitarian spillover: Financial de-risking by banks blocks exempted humanitarian trade because compliance officers avoid any exposure to a sanctioned jurisdiction. Eg. The Swiss Humanitarian Trade Arrangement was created in 2020 because ordinary banking channels would not carry payments for food and medicine to Iran.
    3. Fragmentation of the payments system: Repeated use of currency dominance as leverage accelerates the construction of alternative settlement channels and reduces future leverage. Eg. Russia built the System for Transfer of Financial Messages in 2014 as a domestic substitute for international bank messaging channels.
    4. Weak exit mechanism: Sanctions are politically easy to impose and hard to lift, so they persist beyond the objective they were designed to achieve. Eg. The Jackson Vanik amendment of 1974 remained applicable to Russia until its repeal in 2012, long after the emigration restrictions it targeted had ended.
    5. Measurement problem: There is no agreed method to establish that a policy change was caused by sanctions rather than by other pressures, which makes evaluation contested. Eg. Iranian oil exports fell sharply after the reimposition of sanctions in 2018 while the nuclear programme expanded, leaving both outcomes attributed to the same measures.

    Laws and Instruments Governing Sanctions

    1. Charter of the United Nations, 1945: Article 41 empowers the Security Council to decide measures not involving the use of armed force, including complete or partial interruption of economic relations, which are binding on all member states.
    2. International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 1977: The principal United States statute allowing the President to declare a national emergency and regulate or block transactions with foreign persons.
    3. Iran Sanctions Act, 1996: Originally the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, it introduced penalties on foreign firms investing in Iran’s energy sector, establishing the secondary sanctions template.
    4. Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, 2010: Widened the reach of energy sector sanctions and brought refined petroleum supply to Iran within their scope.
    5. Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, 2017: Codified sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea and limited the President’s discretion to waive them.

    India’s Measures to Manage Sanctions and Energy Risk

    1. Special Rupee Vostro Account framework: A Reserve Bank of India mechanism for invoicing, payment and settlement of international trade in rupees, reducing dependence on third currency settlement.
    2. Chabahar port agreement: A ten year contract signed in May 2024 to operate the Shahid Beheshti terminal, giving India a sea route to Afghanistan and Central Asia that bypasses Pakistan.
    3. International North South Transport Corridor: A multimodal ship, rail and road route linking India to Russia and Central Asia through Iran, shortening transit time against the Suez route.
    4. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Underground crude caverns at Visakhapatnam, Mangaluru and Padur operated by Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited to cushion supply interruptions.
    5. Supplier diversification: Term and spot procurement spread across Russian, West Asian, West African and American grades to reduce dependence on any single sanctioned or chokepoint dependent source.

    Key Facts about United States Iran Relations

    1. 1979 Islamic Revolution: Ended the monarchy and was followed by the seizure of the United States embassy in Tehran and the severing of diplomatic relations.
    2. 1984 designation: The United States designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, which triggered a standing set of trade and aid restrictions.
    3. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, 2015: Concluded in July 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 group, it limited Iran’s enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief.
    4. 2018 withdrawal: The United States withdrew from the agreement in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions under a maximum pressure strategy.
    5. India’s exit from Iranian crude: India ended imports of Iranian crude oil in May 2019 after United States waivers expired.
    6. Strait of Hormuz weight: The strait carries about 20 million barrels of oil a day, 20 percent of global oil and 20 percent of global LNG.

    Back2Basics: Strait of Hormuz

    1. Designation: A maritime chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea.
    2. Littoral states: Iran lies on the northern shore and controls seven of the eight islands in the strait, while Oman controls the southern entrance through the Musandam exclave.
    3. External presence: The United States Fifth Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain, acts as the external guarantor of transit through the strait.
    4. Energy weight: It carries the highest concentration of energy flow of any chokepoint in the world.
    5. Comparative chokepoints: The Strait of Malacca carries 23.7 percent of global seaborne trade and 80 percent of China’s energy imports, Bab el Mandeb carries 8.7 percent of global trade as the sole southern gateway to the Suez Canal, and the Suez Canal itself carries 12 percent of global maritime commerce with closure adding 9 to 17 sailing days.

    Challenges in the West Asian Security and Energy Order

    1. Chokepoint dependence with no land alternative: Pipeline bypasses cover only a fraction of the volume that moves by sea. Eg. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz affects 20 million barrels a day, which no existing pipeline network can absorb.
    2. Non state armed actors controlling shorelines: Sea lanes can be closed by groups that hold coastline without holding a state. Eg. The Houthis control the eastern Yemeni shore of Bab el Mandeb in practice.
    3. Proxy networks that survive sanctions on the principal: Financial pressure on a state does not disable the armed groups it funds. Eg. The United States redesignated Hezbollah for service to the Iranian government under the command of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force.
    4. Overlapping external guarantors: Multiple outside powers with competing objectives raise the risk of miscalculation. Eg. The United States threatened to strike Oman over its Hormuz talks while relying on Omani mediation with Iran.
    5. Absence of a regional security architecture: There is no equivalent of a regional organisation with dispute settlement authority for the Gulf. Eg. The management of the Strait of Hormuz is being negotiated bilaterally between Iran and Oman rather than through any regional body.
    6. Energy revenue concentration in importing economies: Importing states have limited fiscal room to absorb a price shock. Eg. Every $1 per barrel increase raises India’s oil import bill by up to $2 billion on an annualised basis.
    7. Recognition and legitimacy disputes: Contested political authority complicates any negotiated settlement. Eg. Iran’s own leadership transition was marked by a 40 day commemoration for the former Supreme Leader in August 2026.

    Way Forward

    1. Seek carve outs early rather than after listing: India should engage the United States Treasury on humanitarian, food and connectivity carve outs before the sanctions text is notified.
    2. Protect the Chabahar exemption: Press for the continuation of the project specific exemption that has allowed the Shahid Beheshti terminal to operate, given its Afghanistan and Central Asia connectivity function.
    3. Accelerate non dollar settlement channels: Expand the Special Rupee Vostro Account framework and rupee invoicing so that legitimate trade is not hostage to correspondent banking access.
    4. Diversify the maritime route, not only the supplier: Build term contracts with Atlantic basin and West African producers whose cargoes do not transit Hormuz.
    5. Support de-escalation through the Oman channel: Back a negotiated framework for managing the strait, since reopening it does more for importing economies than any adjustment to sanctions design.
    6. Insulate the corridor investments: Structure International North South Transport Corridor participation through non sanctioned entities and multilateral instruments to limit exposure.
    7. Build reserve depth ahead of escalation: Complete Phase II of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that a sanctions driven supply interruption does not translate immediately into a price shock.

    “[2018, GS2, 15] In what ways would the ongoing US-Iran Nuclear Pact Controversy affect the national interest of India? How should India respond to this situation?”