GS Analyst: Daily Current Affairs

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's official visit to Cyprus marked the first by an Indian PM in over two decades. The visit culminated in the conferment of Cyprus's highest civilian honour and the expansion of strategic, economic, and multilateral cooperation between the two nations.

India–Cyprus Relations | Strategic, Economic & Multilateral Dimensions

• First visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Cyprus in over 20 years.
• PM Modi conferred the Grand Cross of the Order of Makarios III, Cyprus’s highest civilian honour.
• Symbolic tour of UN ceasefire line in Nicosia—acknowledging Cyprus’s geopolitical context.

• Agreement on real-time intelligence sharing for combating terrorism, drug trafficking, and arms smuggling.
• Cyprus strongly condemned the Pahalgam terror attack, expressing solidarity with India.
• Both nations reiterated a zero-tolerance policy against terrorism.

• Cyprus reiterated support for India’s permanent membership in the UN Security Council.
• Support for India's inclusion in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
• Shared concern over global conflicts (Ukraine, West Asia), endorsing dialogue-based resolutions.
• Strong backing for India-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) by end of 2025.

• Emphasis on aligning India’s “Viksit Bharat 2047” with Cyprus’s “Vision 2035.”
• Roadmap creation for next five years in trade, innovation, and knowledge transfer.
• Agreed upon finalisation of a Mobility Agreement to streamline labour and skilled workforce exchange.
• Focus on cooperation in renewable energy, healthcare, climate justice, and digital technology.

• Recognition of the growing popularity of Yoga and Ayurveda in Cyprus.
• Plans to expand cultural linkages and tourism.

• Endorsement of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) as a peace-building infrastructure.
• Seen as an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), boosting strategic maritime and trade partnerships.

• Operationalise the Mobility Agreement swiftly to boost skilled labour movement and people-to-people ties.
• Strengthen trilateral cooperation involving India, Cyprus, and EU for green technologies and digital innovation.
• Leverage Cyprus’s EU influence to expedite the India-EU Free Trade Agreement.
• Deepen maritime cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean and explore defence diplomacy.

Amid escalating tensions with Israel and renewed IAEA censure, Iran has indicated its parliament is preparing a bill that may initiate the process of withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), raising significant legal and geopolitical implications for global nuclear governance.

Iran and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): Legal, Geopolitical, and Strategic Dimensions

• Purpose and Origins:
  • Came into force in 1970; currently 191 parties.
  • Aims:
    • Prevent spread of nuclear weapons.
    • Promote peaceful nuclear energy.
    • Commit nuclear-weapon states to disarmament over time.
• Key Provisions:
  • Nuclear-armed states: U.S., U.K., Russia, China, France (pre-1967 detonations).
  • Article X: Allows withdrawal with a three-month notice citing "extraordinary events" threatening national interest.
  • Review conferences: Every five years (next in 2026).

• NPT Signatory:
  • Iran has been a non-nuclear-weapon state under NPT since 1970.
  • Subject to IAEA safeguards for uranium enrichment programs.
• Key Disputes with IAEA:
  • Breach of safeguards obligations, as per June 2024 IAEA Board resolution.
  • Non-cooperation on undeclared nuclear sites and uranium traces.
  • Iran accuses IAEA of politicization and lack of legal foundation.
• 2015 JCPOA Agreement (Iran Nuclear Deal):
  • Negotiated with P5+1 (U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia + Germany).
  • Iran agreed to restrictions on uranium enrichment in return for sanctions relief.
  • S. exited in 2018 under President Trump, triggering Iranian escalation.

• Israeli strikes on Iranian targets post-June 13 IAEA resolution.
• Iran retaliated with missile attacks, intensifying regional instability.
• Parliament considering exit from NPT as a countermeasure.

• For Global Non-Proliferation Norms:
  • Weakens universality and credibility of NPT regime.
  • Sets a precedent for other signatories dissatisfied with enforcement.
• For Regional Security (West Asia):
  • Raises risks of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
  • May intensify Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity and preemptive strikes.
• For Global Diplomacy:
  • Undermines current U.S.–Iran indirect talks on nuclear issues.
  • Challenges IAEA's ability to ensure compliance.

• Article X Provisions:
  • Permits withdrawal citing national interest with 3-month prior notice.
  • No punitive mechanism to prevent withdrawal; political responses may include UNSC action.
• Historical Precedent:
  • North Korea withdrew in 2003, developed nuclear weapons after exit.

• Diplomatic Re-engagement: Revive negotiations on a renewed nuclear deal (post-JCPOA) involving IAEA oversight and phased sanctions relief.
• Strengthening IAEA Safeguards: Enhance verification capabilities and transparency mechanisms.
• Regional Security Dialogue: Promote a Middle East nuclear-weapons-free zone (MENWFZ) through multilateral frameworks.
• Reinforce NPT Universality: Address concerns of non-nuclear weapon states about imbalance in disarmament obligations.

Recent delays in foreign-assisted nuclear power projects such as the Jaitapur Nuclear Project and Kovvada Project have reignited debate over India’s nuclear liability law, particularly provisions under the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010, which impose supplier liability. This remains a major hurdle in operationalizing civil nuclear agreements with countries like France and the U.S.

India’s Civil Nuclear Framework and International Liability Norms

• Chernobyl (1986) prompted global consensus on civil nuclear liability laws.
• Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) adopted in 1997 by IAEA to ensure uniformity and minimum compensation standards.
• CSC includes an “escape clause” for additional compensation from public funds if national funds fall short.

• Objective and Scope
  • Ensures prompt compensation to victims of nuclear accidents.
  • Establishes no-fault liability for the nuclear operator.
• Compensation Framework
  • Operator’s liability capped at ?1,500 crore.
  • Government liability capped at 300 million Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) (~?2,100–2,300 crore).
  • Compensation must be covered through insurance or other financial security.

• Deviation from Global Norms
  • CSC allows supplier liability only if:
    • It’s contractually agreed.
    • There is intent to cause damage.
• India’s Expansion (CLNDA Section 17(b))
  • Allows right of recourse if damage arises due to:
    • Supply of defective equipment/material.
    • Patent or latent defects.
    • Sub-standard services by supplier or their employee.

• Problematic Clause: Does not prevent civil suits under tort or other laws.
• Legal Ambiguity: Suppliers may face unlimited civil liability, which goes beyond the cap defined under CLNDA.

• Private Supplier Hesitancy: Fears of unlimited liability deter foreign and domestic private firms.
• Insurance Dilemma: Lack of clarity on insurance cover requirements.
• Delay in Key Projects:
  • Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant (France).
  • Kovvada Nuclear Project (USA).
• Only Functional Foreign Reactor: Kudankulam with Russian support—predates CLNDA.

• CLNDA is in line with CSC.
• Section 17(b) provides optional, not mandatory, recourse.
• Legal experts argue Section 17(a), (b), and (c) are independent and supplier liability persists even without a contractual clause.

• Clarify and Limit Supplier Liability
  • Notify clear definitions for “nuclear damage.”
  • Amend or reinterpret Section 46 to insulate suppliers from indefinite civil exposure.
• Strengthen Nuclear Insurance Pool
  • Fully operationalize the India Nuclear Insurance Pool (INIP) to cover operator and supplier risks.
• Balance Victim Compensation and Investment Climate
  • Maintain operator accountability while providing legal certainty to suppliers.
• Build Strategic Communication with Partner Nations
  • Use diplomatic forums to assure adherence to CSC while addressing domestic political concerns.

The Himachal Pradesh government has reopened Shipki La Pass, located in Kinnaur district, for domestic tourism without requiring prior permits. This move, while not yet restoring commercial trade, holds cultural, historical, and strategic significance, and has revived hopes of cross-border trade with Tibet (China) and the reopening of traditional trans-Himalayan trade routes.

Location and Geography:

• Shipki La Pass is located at an altitude of 3,930 metres in Kinnaur district, Himachal Pradesh, on the India-China border (Tibet Autonomous Region).
• It is one of the three operational India-China border passes designated for trade:
  • Shipki La (Himachal Pradesh)
  • Nathu La (Sikkim)
  • Lipu Lekh (Uttarakhand)

Historical and Cultural Significance:

• Ancient Trade Route: In use since at least the 15th century, with oral traditions dating back even further.
• Bushahr–Guge Trade Nexus: The Kingdom of Bushahr (now Rampur) in India and Guge in Tibet were central to bilateral commerce.
• Folkloric Trade Oath: A poetic oath between communities symbolized trust and continuity of trade until recent geopolitical disruptions.

Goods Historically Traded:

• Imports from Tibet: Wool (most valuable), yaks, goat skins, prayer items (thangkas, rosaries), borax, turquoise, gold.
• Exports from India: Grains (barley, wheat), dried fruits, spices, tobacco, iron tools, and copper/brass utensils.
• Cultural Impact: Items like turquoise and gold were integral to Kinnauri jewellery, influencing local crafts and diets.

Reasons for Closure:

• Sino-India War (1962)
• Post-Doklam Tensions (2017)
• COVID-19 Pandemic (2020–21)

Current Significance:

• Tourism Boost: Aadhaar-based access for domestic tourists could enhance regional tourism.
• Cultural Continuity: Shared religious traditions (Tibetan Buddhism), pastoral lifestyles, and surnames like Namgyal exist across borders.
• Strategic Utility: Reopening could serve as a community-driven confidence-building measure and possibly reduce pilgrimage time to Mount Kailash by 14 days.
• Soft Diplomacy: Potential for a development-led peace corridor, distinct from high-level diplomacy.

Widespread protests in Los Angeles after ICE raids led to mass arrests, prompting then U.S. President Donald Trump to deploy military forces, raising legal questions about executive authority and federal overreach. The situation invites a comparative constitutional analysis with India’s provisions under Article 355 for internal security deployment.

Deployment of U.S. Military for Domestic Law Enforcement and Constitutional Parallels with India

United States Legal Framework:

• Posse Comitatus Act (1878): Prohibits the use of federal armed forces for domestic law enforcement unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress.
• Insurrection Act: Allows the U.S. President to deploy military during civil unrest or rebellion, either with or without the Governor’s consent.
• Section 12406 of Title 10, U.S. Code: Authorizes federalization of the National Guard under rebellion or obstruction of federal laws. However, legal ambiguity exists in using it independently without invoking the Insurrection Act.
• Article II (U.S. Constitution): Trump claimed 'inherent executive authority' to protect federal assets—controversial and debated among constitutional scholars.

Historical Use in the U.S.:

• Key historical deployments under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson (Civil Rights Movement), Richard Nixon (anti-war protests), and George H. W. Bush (LA riots).
• Trump's move to deploy active-duty forces without invoking the Insurrection Act faces legal challenges from California authorities as unconstitutional.

Indian Legal and Constitutional Parallels:

• Article 355 (Indian Constitution): Obligates the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance.
• Entry 2A, List I (Union List): Empowers the Union to deploy armed forces for aiding civil power.
• Judicial Limitation: In Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court held that deployment of the armed forces must remain temporary and supportive of state civil authority. It cannot substitute governance or continue indefinitely.

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry released monthly trade data showing a significant narrowing of India’s trade deficit to $6.6 billion in May 2025, a nearly 30% reduction from May 2024. The improvement is primarily due to a fall in oil import bills and robust growth in services exports, especially in non-petroleum merchandise exports.

Key Trade Indicators – May 2025:

• Total Exports: $71.1 billion (? 2.8% YoY)
  • Services Exports: $32.4 billion (? 9.4%)
  • Merchandise Exports: $38.7 billion (? 2.2%)
    • Non-petroleum Merchandise Exports: ? 5.1%
• Total Imports: Contracted by 1% YoY
  • Merchandise Imports: ? 1.7%
  • Non-petroleum Imports: ? 10%
  • Services Imports: ? 1.5%
• Trade Deficit (Overall): $6.6 billion

Petroleum Price Volatility Impact:

• Crude oil price decline led to reduced petroleum export value.
• Non-petroleum export growth cushioned the impact on total exports.
• Global oil price fluctuation remains a key factor influencing both import and export performance.

Economic Implications:

• Improved CAD Outlook: A narrower trade deficit reduces pressure on the Current Account Deficit (CAD).
• Forex Stability: Lower import bill aids in preserving foreign exchange reserves.
• Sectoral Shift: Increased reliance on services and non-petroleum exports diversifies India’s export basket.

Recent findings published in Nature reveal that mineral deposits (speleothems) from caves in central Saudi Arabia support the "Green Arabia" hypothesis — that the now-arid Arabian Peninsula experienced periodic humid phases over the last 8 million years. These wet phases could have supported plant and animal life and enabled early human migrations out of Africa.

Green Arabia Hypothesis:

• Suggests the Arabian Peninsula, currently one of the driest regions, experienced periodic wet and verdant phases due to fluctuating climate over the last 8 million years.
• Supported by speleothem (cave mineral) deposits in central Saudi Arabia that require consistent humidity and vegetation to form.

Significance for Human Evolution and Migration:

• The region, often considered a biogeographical barrier, may have served as a corridor for hominin and faunal migrations between Africa and Eurasia.
• Fossil and archaeological evidence (e.g., from the Jubbah Oasis) indicates presence of water-dependent species like crocodiles and hippos as recently as 74,000 years ago.

Speleothems as Paleoclimate Indicators:

• Formed from mineral-rich water droplets in caves under humid conditions.
• Accurately dated using Uranium-Thorium and Uranium-Lead Radiometric Dating
• Serve as archives of paleo-humidity, vegetation, and rainfall.

Paleoenvironmental Timelines Identified:

• Key humid phases were recorded between:
• 44 million – 6.25 million years ago
• 530,000 – 60,000 years ago
• These periods coincide with times of human expansion and could have supported intercontinental movement and biogeographic exchanges.

Interdisciplinary Research Importance:

• Supported by Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Culture and international researchers.
• Enhances understanding of how climate variability has historically influenced human settlement patterns and biodiversity distribution.

Contemporary Relevance:

• Offers insights into long-term climate resilience and adaptation.
• Helps contextualize current climate change in the framework of Earth's climatic history and potential future migration patterns.

The Gaza conflict, ongoing since October 2023, has resulted in over 50,000 civilian deaths and extensive infrastructural damage. It has drawn global concern for its humanitarian impact and is being scrutinized in the context of historical patterns of displacement and demographic engineering.

The Gaza Conflict: Historical Roots, Strategic Objectives, and Humanitarian Concerns

Military Objectives and Strategic Narrative

• Official Objectives of the Conflict: Israel has stated that the primary goals of the military campaign include dismantling Hamas, rescuing hostages, and ensuring national security. These objectives have shaped its military engagements and public diplomacy efforts, especially in interactions with Western allies.
• Narrative Framing and International Legitimacy: Critics argue that official narratives also serve a strategic communication function, aiming to secure international support and justify military operations. This has led to debate about the proportionality and necessity of actions taken on the ground.
• Humanitarian Toll and Global Response: As per multiple UN reports, the conflict has caused the displacement of over 1.8 million residents in Gaza and resulted in significant damage to health, education, and sanitation infrastructure. International humanitarian organisations have flagged concerns regarding access to aid and compliance with international humanitarian law.

Historical Context and Demographic Policies

• Continuity with Past Conflicts: Analysts note parallels between the current conflict and earlier instances of displacement, notably during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (Nakba), where over 700,000 Palestinians were displaced. Subsequent conflicts, such as the 1956 Sinai Campaign, also featured discussions of population transfers.
• Demographic Balance in Historic Palestine: According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (May 2025), the population parity between Jewish and Palestinian populations in the region stands at approximately 7.4 million each. This demographic trend is viewed within Israel as a long-term strategic challenge to the preservation of a Jewish-majority state.
• Policies of Relocation and International Law: Internal Israeli proposals over the decades—including recent discussions of relocating Gaza's population to other countries—have raised concerns under international humanitarian law, particularly Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits forcible transfers of protected persons.

Geostrategic Interests and Development Narratives

• Strategic Geography of Gaza: The Gaza Strip holds critical geopolitical importance due to its location on the Mediterranean and its proximity to Egypt and Israel. This has made it central to various proposals for regional reconfiguration.
• Development Proposals and Land Use Debates: Past proposals, including by former U.S. President Donald Trump, envisioned Gaza's transformation into a "Middle East Riviera" with infrastructure and tourism development. Critics argue that such proposals may risk undermining the rights of the existing population under the guise of economic transformation.
• Long-Term Regional Implications: The outcome of the current conflict may shape future Israeli-Palestinian relations, regional stability, and the applicability of international norms. It also raises complex questions about sovereignty, identity, and post-conflict reconstruction in conflict zones.

Practice Question:

Q. Discuss the historical and geopolitical factors underlying the recent Israel-Gaza conflict. How do demographic concerns and territorial policies influence the conflict dynamics, and what are the implications for international humanitarian law and regional stability?

India’s recent decision to revoke Bangladesh’s transshipment facility amid growing strategic tensions has sparked debate over the politicization of regional trade. As India seeks to lead BIMSTEC’s maritime integration, this move risks undermining its regional credibility and cooperative vision.

Navigating Trade and Strategy in the Bay of Bengal: India-Bangladesh Maritime Frictions

Shifting Regional Maritime Dynamics

• Growing Trade Through Eastern Ports: India’s eastern ports such as Visakhapatnam, Paradip, and Haldia have witnessed steady growth in cargo throughput. The Sagarmala Programme and GST-related incentives have significantly boosted coastal shipping. These developments reflect India’s intent to anchor itself as a regional maritime trade hub.
• BIMSTEC Maritime Agreement: The BIMSTEC Maritime Transport Cooperation Agreement signed in early 2025 aims to streamline customs processes, reduce regulatory frictions, and encourage multimodal linkages. It is designed to enhance intra-regional trade and connectivity, especially for landlocked member states like Bhutan and Nepal.
• Suspension of Transshipment to Bangladesh: India revoked a key transshipment facility previously granted to Bangladesh, citing port congestion. However, the decision followed Dhaka’s diplomatic outreach to China and a controversial speech in Beijing, raising concerns of strategic retaliation. Bangladesh viewed this as a politicized rollback of earlier cooperation.

Strategic Signalling and Economic Retaliation

• Impact on Bangladesh’s Export Sector: The withdrawal directly affects Bangladesh’s ready-made garment exports — a sector that contributes over 85% of its foreign exchange earnings. Alternatives via Sri Lanka or Southeast Asia are costlier and slower, straining Bangladesh’s trade competitiveness in a slowing global market.
• Import Restrictions and Trade Conditionalities: India later restricted seven categories of Bangladeshi goods — including garments and processed foods — via Northeast land ports, redirecting them to more distant seaports like Kolkata and Nhava Sheva. Indian officials cited retaliatory reasoning, linking it to Bangladesh’s curbs on yarn imports.
• Erosion of Neutral Trade Architecture: India’s actions appear to introduce conditionality into regional trade frameworks once considered apolitical. The strategic use of trade levers could signal to regional partners that India’s commitments may shift based on bilateral tensions, thereby weakening the trust underpinning BIMSTEC cooperation.

Strategic Implications and Regional Trust Deficit

• Regional Perceptions and Credibility Risks: India’s port and logistical infrastructure remain unmatched in the Bay of Bengal. However, strategic signalling through trade instruments may affect India’s credibility as a regional integrator. Smaller neighbours may seek alternatives to hedge against political unpredictability.
• Rising Strategic Competition in the Bay: Bangladesh’s enhanced engagement with China, reopening of maritime trade with Pakistan, and self-projection as a regional transit node reflect broader strategic rebalancing. If India appears intolerant of such choices, it risks being seen as coercive rather than cooperative.
• The Need for Rules-Based Regionalism: To rebuild trust, India could consider instituting a transparent, rules-based transshipment mechanism insulated from political fluctuations. This would reinforce the Bay of Bengal as a shared economic space rather than a theatre of geopolitical contestation.

Practice Question:

Q. Examine the implications of India’s recent maritime trade decisions in the Bay of Bengal on regional connectivity and trust-building in BIMSTEC. How can India balance strategic interests with cooperative regionalism?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s participation in the 2025 G7 Summit in Canada comes at a time when the grouping faces profound internal divergences over trade, defence, climate, and geopolitical crises. India’s presence offers an opportunity to recalibrate its multi-alignment strategy amid a reshaping global order.

India at G7: Engaging a Fragmented West Amid Multipolar Realignments

Evolving Nature of the G7 and Its Internal Contradictions

• G7's Fragmentation Across Policy Arenas: Once a symbol of unity among Western democracies, the G7 is now marked by stark internal rifts over trade, defence spending, climate policy, and regional security. Differences have sharpened particularly over issues like US tariffs, NATO obligations, and Middle East diplomacy.
• Trump’s Return and Challenge to Multilateralism: Donald Trump’s resurgence has revived American unilateralism, disrupting transatlantic ties. His demands—such as a 5% GDP military expenditure threshold—are viewed as excessive by most G7 members, reflecting deepening rifts in strategic priorities and norms.
• Abandonment of Joint Communiqué Tradition: Canadian PM Mark Carney opted against issuing a joint communiqué, signalling the absence of consensus among member states. This breaks from G7 convention and underscores the challenges facing collective Western policymaking in an increasingly multipolar world.

India’s Strategic Engagement with a Divided West

• Opportunity for Strategic Assessment: Modi’s G7 presence provides India with a vantage point to observe intra-Western contradictions and calibrate its own diplomatic alignments. It allows India to strengthen bilateral ties without getting entangled in collective Western disagreements.
• Historical Context of Western Rivalries: Contrary to perceptions of a monolithic West, intra-Western competition has been a historical constant — from colonial rivalries to disputes during and after the Cold War. India's current multi-alignment echoes earlier strategic engagements with both Western and non-Western powers.
• India’s Multi-Alignment and Strategic Duality
  While Delhi worked with Russia and China to promote multipolarity, it simultaneously deepened its economic and technological cooperation with Western powers. This flexible, interest-based diplomacy underpins India’s rising global stature in a divided international order.

Implications for Indian Foreign Policy and Global Positioning

• Managing Tactical Irritants Like Khalistan Protests: While Khalistani protests and statements about Kashmir may attract media attention, they are peripheral in the larger strategic context. Modi’s focus is expected to remain on high-level diplomacy and repositioning India in global governance conversations.
• Need to Rebuild Trust with Canada and G7 Members: Strained ties with Canada over diaspora issues should not distract from larger economic and diplomatic imperatives. India must balance principled positions with pragmatic engagement to prevent long-term diplomatic isolation within the G7 ecosystem.
• Enhancing India's Role in a New Global Architecture: India must use the G7 platform to advocate its vision for a multipolar, rules-based order. Active engagement in domains like climate policy, digital governance, and global trade can position India as a stabilising force amid Western divisions.

Practice Question:

Q. Discuss the strategic significance of India’s participation in G7 summits in the context of rising intra-Western contradictions. How can India leverage such platforms to further its multi-alignment strategy and global aspirations?