Q.Discuss the historical and contemporary significance of the United Kingdom’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. How does its recent announcement on Palestine statehood reflect changing global diplomatic alignments?
Introduction:
The United Kingdom’s recent announcement that it may recognize Palestinian statehood during the upcoming UN General Assembly session in September 2025 is being seen as a significant diplomatic shift. Given Britain’s colonial legacy in the Middle East, especially its role in the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the post-WWI British Mandate over Palestine, this move carries symbolic and historical weight.
Body:
Historical Role of the UK in the Israel-Palestine Conflict:
- Balfour Declaration (1917): Britain became the first major power to officially support Zionist ambitions for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This letter, issued by Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, shaped early Zionist politics and migration.
- Contradictory Promises: Britain simultaneously made promises of independence to Arabs in exchange for support against the Ottomans, creating conflicting expectations.
- British Mandate in Palestine (1920–1948): Under the League of Nations, Britain governed Palestine, overseeing increased Jewish immigration and communal tensions. By 1947, Jews made up 30% of the population.
- End of Mandate & Creation of Israel (1948): Britain’s exit led to the unilateral declaration of the State of Israel, triggering the First Arab-Israel War and displacement of thousands of Palestinians (Nakba).
Contemporary Significance of Britain’s Stance:
- As of 2024, 147 of 193 UN member states recognize Palestine, yet most Western powers had held back, viewing recognition as part of a final peace deal.
- France, Portugal, and Canada have also signaled intent to recognize Palestine in 2025. If the UK and France, both permanent UN Security Council members, proceed, it would isolate the US diplomatically.
- Recognition comes amid Israel’s ongoing 21-month Gaza conflict, widely criticized for humanitarian violations. UN agencies and global civil society have raised alarm over alleged war crimes and starvation in Gaza.
- The International Criminal Court (ICC) has opened an investigation into possible war crimes in Gaza. Britain’s shift could pressure Israel to reconsider its military strategies and initiate dialogue.
Moral and Strategic Implications:
- Recognition marks a moral corrective to Britain’s century-old policy that contributed to the marginalization of Palestinians.
- It could reinvigorate the two-state solution, which has lost global momentum.
- It signals changing Western foreign policy attitudes as public opinion increasingly empathizes with Palestinian suffering.
Way Forward:
- Support for Two-State Framework: Major powers must revive negotiations grounded in UN Resolution 242, calling for withdrawal from occupied territories and mutual recognition.
- Global Consensus: A coordinated approach involving EU, G7, and UN could lend legitimacy to peace efforts.
- India’s Balanced Diplomacy: India should continue its support for Palestinian statehood while maintaining relations with Israel, in line with its long-standing strategic autonomy.
Conclusion:
The UK’s likely recognition of Palestine, 108 years after the Balfour Declaration, is not just symbolic—it marks a growing realignment of Western policies on the Middle East. While it may not immediately change the situation on the ground, it reinforces the principle that diplomacy, justice, and historical accountability must guide global responses to conflicts.
Link with Syllabus:
- GS Paper II: International Relations – Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests; Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests; Important International institutions, agencies and fora.
Relevant Previous Year Questions:
- UPSC GS II 2020: “What is the significance of Indo-Israel relations? Discuss the changes observed in recent years.”
- UPSC GS II 2018: “What are the key areas of reform in the United Nations? Why is India’s demand for a permanent seat in the UNSC justified?”
- UPSC GS II 2017: “The question of Palestine is still lingering. Do you think the two-state solution is a viable option for peace?”
Sources:
- UNGA records (2024)
- UK Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee Reports
- SIPRI Yearbook (2024)
- The Guardian, June 2025
- Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India
Q. In light of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s visit to China for the SCO Defence Ministers’ Meeting, critically examine the strategic significance of India’s participation in SCO amid post-Galwan normalization efforts and shifting geopolitical dynamics.
Introduction
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a Eurasian political, economic, and security alliance comprising China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Central Asian states. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s visit to Qingdao, China (June 25–27, 2025), marks India’s first high-level defence engagement in China since Operation Sindoor and the Galwan standoff (2020). Against the backdrop of thawing India–China relations and the resurgence of strategic multilateralism, the visit is geopolitically significant.
Body
- Strategic Context of the Visit
- The visit comes after the October 2024 Kazan meeting between PM Modi and President Xi, where both leaders agreed on a gradual normalisation of ties, including resuming Kailash-Mansarovar yatra and bilateral trade.
- This is India’s first defence engagement in China since 2020, following military tensions, mutual disengagement, and the Galwan clash that left 20 Indian soldiers dead.
- India’s Stakes in SCO
- Counterterrorism & RATS: India uses SCO’s Regional Anti-Terror Structure (RATS) to flag concerns about cross-border terrorism, especially emanating from Afghanistan and Pakistan.
- Balancing China and Russia: By engaging multilaterally, India avoids strategic isolation while preserving autonomy in the Russia–China-dominated grouping.
- Connectivity and Central Asia: India continues to invest diplomatically in Central Asian energy and connectivity partnerships (e.g., Chabahar port, INSTC).
- Challenges in Strategic Engagement
- Chinese Arms to Pakistan: Rajnath Singh’s bilateral with Chinese Defence Minister Admiral Dong is significant amid reports of Chinese military hardware supplied to Pakistan during the four-day India–Pakistan conflict in 2025.
- China’s Dual Strategy: While supporting normalisation bilaterally, China strengthens military ties with India’s adversaries, making trust-building fragile.
- Pakistan Factor in SCO: Though no bilateral is scheduled with Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khwaja Asif, his presence reiterates the limitations of SCO as a conflict-resolution platform.
- Broader Geopolitical Implications
- Singh’s Qingdao visit precedes the BRICS summit in Brazil (July 2025) and the SCO Heads of State summit in China (later 2025), indicating an active Indian effort to shape multipolar diplomacy.
- With tensions in the Iran-Israel conflict and Russia–Ukraine war, India’s nuanced positioning at SCO becomes crucial for strategic balancing.
Way Forward
- Deepen Issue-Based Multilateralism: Engage on common grounds such as terrorism, drug trafficking, and regional stability, especially in Afghanistan.
- Recalibrate China Policy: Maintain high-level engagement with caution, using Track 1.5 diplomacy to build layered trust while securing borders.
- Assert Strategic Autonomy: India must continue to balance SCO participation with its Quad, I2U2, and G20 commitments.
- Push for SCO Reforms: Advocate transparency, equal voice, and terrorism accountability mechanisms within SCO forums.
Conclusion
India’s participation in the SCO Defence Ministers’ Meeting signals a mature, strategic approach to engagement with adversaries and allies alike. By using multilateral platforms to protect its interests, voice concerns, and promote cooperation, India reinforces its strategic autonomy in an increasingly fragmented global order.
Syllabus Linkages – GS Paper II:
- Bilateral, regional and global groupings involving India
- Effect of policies of foreign nations on India’s interests
- India’s neighbourhood and strategic autonomy
Relevant PYQs:
- GS-II, 2020: “Evaluate India’s role in multilateral institutions amid growing unilateralism.”
- GS-II, 2017: “Effect of regional groupings on India’s foreign policy.”
- GS-II, 2016: “What are India’s strategic interests in Central Asia?”
Q. India’s ongoing negotiations for a phased bilateral trade agreement with the United States reflect a strategic recalibration of its external trade diplomacy. Critically examine the opportunities and challenges in finalizing such a deal in the context of reciprocal tariffs and shifting global trade dynamics.
Introduction
India and the United States, the world’s largest democracies, are engaged in accelerated negotiations for a phased bilateral trade agreement to avoid the imposition of reciprocal tariffs (up to 26%) on Indian exports from July 9, 2025. According to Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, both sides are aiming for a “win-win” deal. While this reflects growing trust and convergence in strategic supply chains, the negotiations also reveal the complexities of tariff disputes, domestic sensitivities, and evolving multilateral norms.
Body
- Context and Current Progress
- India and the U.S. are discussing a phased Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA), with a possible “early tranche” by July 9.
- The negotiations aim to prevent tariff hikes on Indian goods and deepen trade in sectors like digital trade, semiconductors, clean tech, and critical minerals.
- Talks are being shaped amidst the U.S. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) lapsing, which limits the American President’s power to fast-track trade deals in Congress.
- Key Opportunities
- Export Diversification and Market Access: Could open U.S. markets for Indian textiles, IT, auto components, and pharmaceuticals.
- Strengthening Supply Chains: Fits within the India–U.S. iCET (Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies) framework and Quad economic agenda.
- Geostrategic Signaling: Enhances India’s trust-based trade ties with the West, especially amidst global supply chain realignments post-COVID and Ukraine war.
- Digital Trade and Services: Could liberalize cross-border data flows, benefiting India’s growing digital economy.
- Key Challenges
- Reciprocal Tariffs Threat: U.S. plans to impose 26% tariffs on Indian imports if no agreement is reached.
- Agriculture and Dairy Access: Sensitive sectors in India; Minister Goyal has not confirmed whether these are included in the deal.
- U.S. Domestic Politics: The return of the Trump administration introduces policy unpredictability in trade diplomacy.
- Rules of Origin and Compliance: For firms like Tata Steel (UK subsidiary), challenges may arise in satisfying input origin norms to access lower tariffs.
- WTO Compatibility: Any special trade treatment must comply with Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) clauses unless under regional/bilateral trade agreements.
Way Forward
- Prioritize an Early Harvest Deal
- Focus on non-contentious sectors (e.g., electronics, education, digital services) while deferring sensitive areas.
- Institutionalize Bilateral Mechanisms
- Set up a Joint Trade and Investment Council to ensure continuity and address non-tariff barriers.
- WTO Multilateral Engagement
- Reinforce commitment to WTO reform while using FTAs and BTAs for strategic economic diversification.
- Protect Domestic Sectors with Transition Periods
- Negotiate tariff reduction timelines with adequate safeguards for Indian agriculture, dairy, and MSMEs.
Conclusion
The India–U.S. trade dialogue reflects a maturing geo-economic partnership where economic and strategic interests converge. A carefully crafted agreement can boost India’s export competitiveness, secure critical tech access, and insulate its economy from tariff shocks. However, balancing ambition with caution, and global alignment with domestic sensitivities, will be key to ensuring the deal contributes meaningfully to India’s $5 trillion economy goal and strategic autonomy.
Syllabus Linkages:
- GS Paper II:
- Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India
- Effect of developed countries’ policies on India’s interests
- GS Paper III:
- Indian Economy: Liberalization and external trade
- Infrastructure: Trade facilitation and logistics
- Inclusive growth and trade negotiations
Relevant PYQs:
- GS-III, 2020: What are the challenges and opportunities of India’s Free Trade Agreements?
- GS-II, 2019: How do bilateral and regional agreements influence India’s foreign policy and trade strategy?
- GS-III, 2021: How has India’s trade policy adapted to changing global supply chain dynamics?
Q. The recent diplomatic reset between India and Canada marks a critical shift in bilateral relations strained over allegations of transnational repression. In light of these developments, critically assess the challenges and prospects for restoring strategic engagement between the two nations.
Introduction
India–Canada relations, traditionally marked by strong people-to-people ties and growing economic engagement, faced a major diplomatic rupture following Canadian accusations over India’s alleged role in the 2023 assassination of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. However, the 2025 Kananaskis G-7 Summit saw a reset in ties as Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Mark Carney agreed to restore High Commissioners, resume trade talks, and revive dialogue mechanisms—signaling a calibrated effort to move forward while managing contentious issues.
Body
- Causes of Diplomatic Breakdown (2023–2024)
- Canadian PM Justin Trudeau alleged Indian government involvement in Nijjar’s killing, prompting a diplomatic standoff.
- India retaliated by expelling Canadian diplomats and suspending visa services, citing security threats to Indian missions.
- Canada expelled India’s High Commissioner and accused India of transnational repression, further souring relations.
- Reset under PM Mark Carney (2025)
- At the G-7 Summit, both countries agreed to:
- Reappoint High Commissioners
- Resume Early Progress Trade Agreement (EPTA) talks
- Explore cooperation in AI, clean energy, education, mobility, and critical minerals
- Delhi nominated Ambassador Dinesh Patnaik, while Ottawa is set to name its envoy by July 2025.
- Outstanding Challenges
- Ongoing media leaks and intelligence reports continue to allege Indian links to separatist targeting.
- Canada’s CSIS report and broader G-7 references to transnational repression imply that the issue remains diplomatically sensitive.
- Diaspora politics and unresolved Khalistani separatism remain long-term friction points, especially in Canada’s domestic politics.
- Geopolitical and Strategic Significance
- India and Canada are members of key forums like G20, Commonwealth, and the Indo-Pacific strategic architecture.
- Canada is a critical supplier of uranium and a potential partner in green energy, AI, and education.
- A robust India–Canada partnership can boost supply chain resilience, clean tech trade, and mobility agreements in the post-pandemic era.
Way Forward
- Institutionalized Dialogue Mechanisms
- Revive high-level annual summits, joint working groups, and foreign office consultations to depoliticize bilateral cooperation.
- Diaspora Management Framework
- Engage Canada to clamp down on violent extremism, while respecting freedom of expression.
- People-to-People Bridges
- Enhance university partnerships, cultural exchanges, and student mobility to rebuild trust at the grassroots.
- Economic Diplomacy
- Fast-track EPTA and progress toward a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) for economic resilience.
- Confidential Conflict Resolution
- Use quiet diplomacy and backchannel communication to manage sensitive issues like transnational repression discreetly.
Conclusion
The diplomatic thaw between India and Canada reflects both pragmatic recalibration and geopolitical necessity. While past tensions over separatism and sovereignty cannot be ignored, both sides must now prioritise strategic convergence, trade, and climate cooperation. A forward-looking, issue-based, and multi-sectoral engagement can enable the two democracies to rebuild mutual trust and deliver shared global benefits.
Syllabus Linkages:
GS Paper II – International Relations:
- India and its bilateral relations
- Indian diaspora
- Effects of foreign governments’ policies on Indian interests
- Diplomacy and bilateral/multilateral trade negotiations
Relevant Previous Year Questions (PYQs):
- UPSC GS-II, 2020: “Indian diaspora has a decisive role to play in the politics and economy of America and European countries. Comment.”
- UPSC GS-II, 2017: “Effect of regional politics on India’s foreign policy strategy.”
- UPSC GS-II, 2014: “Discuss the challenges and significance of India’s engagement with regional and international groupings.”
Q. India’s participation in multilateral forums like the G-7 is a signal of its rising global stature. However, in the context of the 2025 Kananaskis Summit, critically evaluate the strategic value of such engagements amidst geopolitical disunity and unilateralism. Introduction
Introduction:
India’s growing participation in elite multilateral platforms, such as the G-7 Outreach Summits, marks its aspiration to influence global governance. However, the 2025 G-7 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, exposed critical fractures in the grouping’s ability to deliver cohesive responses to global challenges, including the Russia–Ukraine conflict, Israel–Iran tensions, and global trade disruptions. This raises valid questions about the diplomatic utility and strategic returns of India’s presence in forums lacking consensus or action.
Body
- G-7’s Incoherent Response to Global Crises
- Despite marking 50 years, the G-7 failed to issue a joint communiqué on major geopolitical crises:
- No consensus on Russia–Ukraine or Israel–Iran.
- U.S. refusal to endorse criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza disrupted alignment.
- President Trump’s shifting positions — from calling himself a “peace-time President” to openly backing Israeli aggression — sowed further discord.
- The Chair’s Summary, a non-binding substitute, focused on low-risk areas like AI, critical minerals, and wildfire prevention, sidelining pressing issues like terrorism, which India had advocated.
- India’s Role and Missed Opportunities
- PM Modi was invited at the last moment, reflecting disorganisation under Canada’s newly elected government.
- India’s key concerns — including terrorism and Khalistani extremism — found no mention in joint G-7 statements.
- The TNR (Transnational Repression) statement, while not naming India, indirectly referenced allegations made by Canada post-Nijjar incident, reflecting diplomatic tensions.
- Limited Strategic Outcomes
- India–Canada ties saw modest movement, with High Commissioners reinstated, but no shift in Canada’s stance on extremism.
- No substantial bilateral gains with other G-7 members were publicly documented.
- The summit lasted just one day for PM Modi, raising questions on cost-benefit and foreign policy bandwidth.
Way Forward
- Strategic Review of G-7 Engagement
- Evaluate whether Outreach participation aligns with India’s global ambitions, or is symbolic without substantive gains.
- Diversify Multilateral Platforms
- Enhance India’s profile in BRICS+, SCO, G20, and Global South cooperation where India has greater sway and shared developmental priorities.
- Push for Agenda-Setting Role
- In future summits, negotiate advanced agendas, working groups, or co-chair roles to embed India’s voice in outcomes.
- Institutionalised Multilateral Diplomacy Audit
- Establish a MEAs-led mechanism to track tangible outputs from each multilateral engagement and recommend course corrections.
Conclusion
India’s presence at global forums like the G-7 signals its rising diplomatic footprint, but participation must translate into policy influence, visibility, and outcomes. The Kananaskis Summit highlighted the limits of alignment with fractured Western groupings, especially when core Indian concerns like terrorism, sovereignty, and extremism are sidelined. India must recalibrate its multilateral strategy — not retreat, but reinvest selectively, based on outcomes, not optics.
Syllabus Mapping:
- GS Paper II – International Relations:
- Bilateral, regional, and global groupings involving India
- Effect of developed countries’ policies on India’s interests
- India’s foreign policy and strategic autonomy
Previous Year UPSC Questions (PYQs):
- UPSC GS-II, 2022: “India’s foreign policy is often described as strategic autonomy in a multipolar world. Discuss with examples.”
- UPSC GS-II, 2019: “The time has come for India and the European Union to lay a roadmap for a comprehensive strategic partnership.” Discuss.
- UPSC GS-II, 2014: “Discuss the challenges and significance of India’s participation in regional and global groupings.”
Q. India’s consistent refusal to accept third-party mediation in the India–Pakistan conflict reaffirms its strategic autonomy and commitment to bilateral dispute resolution. In light of recent events, critically examine the diplomatic significance of India’s position and its implications for regional stability and India–U.S. relations.
Introduction
India’s foreign policy has long rested on the twin pillars of sovereignty and strategic autonomy, especially concerning the India–Pakistan conflict, which it insists must be resolved bilaterally under the Shimla Agreement (1972) and Lahore Declaration (1999). This principle was reiterated during the June 2025 phone call between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump, where PM Modi categorically rejected U.S. mediation claims regarding Operation Sindoor, India’s military response to cross-border terrorism.
Body
- India’s Stance on Mediation: Legal and Diplomatic Basis
- India’s position is rooted in the Shimla Agreement, which mandates that all India–Pakistan disputes be resolved bilaterally without external involvement.
- PM Modi reaffirmed this in his call with President Trump, stating there is “complete political consensus in India” against third-party mediation, as confirmed by Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri.
- Diplomatic Context and Operation Sindoor
- Operation Sindoor (May 2025) was launched in response to terror strikes emanating from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
- President Trump claimed credit for a “ceasefire” on May 10 and said he “stopped a nuclear war,” suggesting mediation with inputs from Pakistan Army Chief General Munir.
- India categorically denied any discussions or involvement of the U.S. in mediating the conflict, asserting that anti-terror operations were sovereign decisions.
- Strategic Implications for India–U.S. Relations
- While denying mediation, India continues to deepen its strategic partnership with the U.S., particularly in defence, counter-terrorism, and Indo-Pacific cooperation (Quad).
- PM Modi invited President Trump for the Quad Summit in November 2025, demonstrating diplomatic maturity despite differences.
- Regional and Global Implications
- India’s refusal to internationalize the Kashmir issue denies Pakistan the opportunity to frame it as a global crisis.
- By resisting pressure, India safeguards its strategic autonomy, crucial in a multipolar world marked by power shifts and transactional diplomacy.
- The U.S. narrative, however, reflects attempts to assert influence in South Asia through backchannel diplomacy and image-building.
Way Forward
- Strengthen Bilateral Channels: India must continue engaging Pakistan on terrorism and border security through official, backdoor, and Track-II mechanisms.
- Counter Diplomatic Narratives: India’s foreign missions must proactively counter misinformation and reiterate India’s policy at international forums.
- Consolidate Global Support: Maintain strategic autonomy while leveraging partnerships (e.g., Quad, EU, UAE) to isolate terrorism-supporting actors.
- Institutionalise Crisis Management: Create formal communication frameworks with key allies (e.g., U.S., France, Russia) to prevent diplomatic misinterpretations during future conflicts.
Conclusion
India’s diplomatic firmness in rejecting mediation on Kashmir or counter-terror operations underlines its commitment to sovereignty, bilateralism, and strategic consistency. By balancing firmness with engagement—as seen in its invitation to President Trump for the Quad Summit—India projects itself as a principled and credible power in a turbulent geopolitical landscape.
Syllabus Linkages:
- GS Paper II:
- India and its neighbourhood relations
- Bilateral, regional, and global groupings and agreements
- Effect of policies and politics of developed countries on India’s interests
- India’s foreign policy and strategic autonomy
Relevant PYQs:
- UPSC GS-II 2022: “India’s foreign policy is often described as strategic autonomy in a multipolar world. Discuss with examples.”
- UPSC GS-II 2020: “Critically examine India’s position on multilateralism and strategic bilateralism.”
- UPSC GS-II 2016: “Evaluate India’s foreign policy towards its neighbours in the context of regional tensions and third-party interventions.”