Part 1- Blueprint of PSIR - Revise Complete PSIR Paper 2 Section B - by Vivek Waghmare

Moving the video forward, there is an important announcement that I want to make here. The first batch of the PSR Foundation Course is already ongoing. It started on the 16th of June. That batch is already ongoing, and our second batch is starting on the 11th of August. So, in the PSR Foundation Course, our effort, our intention, is to understand each and every concept in a very systematic manner with real-life examples, so that there is conceptual clarity and our concepts are built in such a way that we can internalize PSR. So that our answers have that naturalness, that organic quality, and we can enjoy and study PSR well. This is our intention. For more details on this, you will find separate videos on our YouTube platform, on Sarathi's YouTube platform, and also on my YouTube channel, PSR by Vivek Agam. And for the detailed schedule, you can visit our Sarathi's portal. So, it is starting from the 11th of August. The 11th of August is the orientation session. And let's see you all there in the orientation session. So, let's move the video forward now. Hello everyone, welcome to the next video of the PSR Blueprint Series. PSR Blueprint, which is a revision series. We released the first video of this a few days ago. And I am really glad, I am really glad that you liked it, and I am very, very thankful for all the support and love from your side. In a similar way, I hope you will provide similar love and support for the next video. In this video, we are going to revise the entire International Relations Paper Two, Section B, completely. And along with that, we will try to understand its current aspects, current dimensions, in an integrated manner. So, the purpose of this entire video is that your IR is completely prepared here. That will be taken care of, and that should be taken care of. That is the ultimate goal of this video. And from that perspective, I am going to discuss each and every minute detail of our IR syllabus. We are going to discuss each and every point, each and every topic of IR in detail. After seeing its detailing, you will realize that we definitely do not need to read anything from any other source. A single video will be enough for your entire IR preparation and revision. And I am very much sure that this video is going to be very, very helpful for you. So, without wasting even a single second, let us just directly start with the first topic, that is, Indian Foreign Policy. Indian Foreign Policy is our first topic. Okay? So, when we talk about Indian Foreign Policy, first of all, we have to understand what Indian Foreign Policy is. Indian Foreign Policy is basically a set of principles. A set of principles, some strategies, actions. The principles, strategies, actions that a sovereign state, meaning, like India here, India is a sovereign state. Correct? India is a sovereign state. Now, when India interacts with another country, let's say this is the USA, or let's say there is any other country. So, India will interact with the USA. Correct? It will interact. So, now, the question here is, why would India interact with the USA? Why would India interact with the USA? Because every country has a national interest. Just like India also has a national interest. Like protecting its own borders, or other things. There are other things in national interest as well. Okay? So, whatever is in favor of the country, that is basically a national interest. So, the detailed definition of national interest, we will see that. So, every country, like India, to achieve its national interest, for example, in the context of the USA, we can say that a fair trade deal, a fair trade deal, can be a national interest. So, to achieve this national interest, India will interact with the USA. Now, interact means what will it do? When we interact with each other, what do we do? When we interact with each other, we use some dialogues, we communicate. In a similar way, when one country interacts with another country, for interaction, they use some principles, they adopt some strategies, they adopt some strategies, or they take some actions, some actions. By adopting some strategies, some principles, some actions, India will interact with the USA to achieve its national interest. And while doing this, while doing this, these principles, strategies, and actions are basically what we call our overall foreign policy. So, that is basically the foreign policy of a country. Okay? And in this, our actions, our strategies, our principles, can either be economic, diplomatic, or military. We can also take military actions. For example, when India and the USA interact together at a military level, we can give the example of QUAD here, that QUAD is an example of this. At the economic level, we sign a trade deal with someone, or sign an economic agreement, or at the diplomatic level, there are political visits. So, in this way, some diplomatic, economic, and military principles, strategies, and actions that a country uses to achieve its national interest to interact with other countries. That is basically the foreign policy. That is basically the foreign policy of a country. Now, in this, there are multiple perspectives on foreign policy. For example, Hans Morgenthau. Hans Morgenthau, according to him, the definition of foreign policy is a planned pursuit of a national interest. Meaning, when we pursue national interest in a planned manner, and to pursue it, when we use diplomatic, economic, or military instruments. In fact, the state uses them. Like here, again, the case of India. When India uses economic, military, and diplomatic tools to pursue its national interest, then that overall perspective, that entire overall process, is called foreign policy. That is basically foreign policy according to Morgenthau. Important definitions according to Morgenthau, because we should first know what foreign policy is. That what means a foreign policy, and we should also know a few perspectives. For example, as per Morgenthau, we have seen that. But at the same time, we also need to understand what foreign policy is from Joseph Nye's perspective. Joseph Nye is a very important, very one of the prominent scholars who talks more about soft power. Talks more about soft power. So, according to him, in international relations, foreign policy means the actions and decisions of a state, or its leaders. A state is a state. There is a government of a state. There are leaders in the government. So, the actions and decisions of a state or its leaders towards the external environment. External environment means we can call global politics the external environment. Global politics means whatever developments are happening outside, developments happening at the global level. Developments happening outside the country. In this context, we can call them external actions. So, the kind of decisions and actions that a particular state or its leaders take towards that external environment can basically be called overall foreign policy. That is according to Joseph Nye. And then comes Shivshankar Menon. According to Shivshankar Menon, foreign policy is basically mini-max. Foreign policy is basically mini-max, where it is minimizing the threats, minimizing the threats and risks, and maximizing the benefits. Meaning, when a country interacts with another country, while doing so, we need to keep in mind that we have to minimize our risks, our threats, our vulnerabilities, and the benefits we can get from other countries in favor of our national interest. To achieve our national interest, that can be said as maximizing the opportunities, maximizing the benefits for the country. So, that is a mini-max strategy, we can call it. Okay. Now, the next thing is that this was the definition of foreign policy, what foreign policy basically is. But foreign policy also has some objectives. Correct? Foreign policy. Now, the main question is, why do we go for any foreign policy? Why would we have a foreign policy? Why do we need foreign policy? We need foreign policy because it has an objective that we need to achieve. Correct. So, what can those objectives be? What can be the objectives of foreign policy? According to Kanwal Sibal. According to Kanwal Sibal, who is a former Indian diplomat, continuity is basically an essential aspect of India's foreign policy, and India's foreign policy priorities are basically rooted in several key principles and objectives that have remained consistent over time, that have remained consistent over time. There are some things that are always present in every foreign policy, whether it is the foreign policy of any country, India, USA, Russia, Ukraine, any country. In foreign policy, there are two important elements: continuity and change. Some components remain continuous. For example, in India's foreign policy, I think I would say that non-violence, peaceful coexistence, has been a continuous element for us, and will definitely remain so in the future. And some elements do change. For example, earlier we were non-aligned. We focused more on strict non-alignment. But recently, to emphasize strategic autonomy, to emphasize strategic autonomy. Earlier, what was non-alignment? Through non-alignment, we tried to ensure our strategic autonomy in some way. But in today's highly polarized world order, in such a multipolar world order, we have to form interest-based alliances, issue-based alliances, and because of this, we are somehow making strategic alignments. At the same time, we are maintaining strategic autonomy. So, there has been a slight shift in our policy. There have been shifts in many of our other policies. We will understand all those things as we go along, like what shifts have occurred in India's foreign policy regarding Pakistan, or India's overall stand on global issues and how it has shifted. So, some elements are continuous, and some elements basically keep changing. So, here, the most important objective is to protect the territorial integrity of any country, our territory, its integrity. To protect the sovereignty of every country. This is always a primary concern. Of course, this is a primary concern of India's foreign policy. But at the same time, any other country in this world, their primary concern is to protect their territory, the borders of their territory, and to uphold their sovereign interests. So, that is the first objective of any foreign policy: to uphold sovereignty and to uphold and to ensure territorial integrity. Fine. And the country, India. India, we are committed to safeguarding our borders. We are committed to safeguarding our borders. We have our military. We have our defense capabilities. And our government's firmness, that is there, and it is committed to safeguarding its borders. And also, we are committed to maintaining control over its territories. We are not going to, you know, lose. We don't want to lose, and nobody, no country ever wants to lose even a single inch of the land of their territories. So, that is important. So, territories. So, this objective is reflected in our determination of how we protect our national interest. For example, if you want to write an example of this, what would you write? Like, you must have heard of the BRI initiative, BRI, Belt and Road Initiative, which is China's. One of its components is CPEC, which is going through our disputed territory, through a disputed territory. Which shows that when China is implementing its initiative, which is BRI, it is not concerned, it is least bothered about the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a country. And that's why that BRI initiative, no matter how good the initiative is, no matter how many economic benefits we may have, but we cannot compromise on our territorial sovereignty and territorial integrity. We cannot compromise on our territorial integrity. That is why India has rejected it. India has rejected the BRI project. Because its CPEC component is passing through a contested border, due to which it clearly violates, it clearly violates the territorial integrity of our country. Of our country. Correct? It violates territorial integrity, and any such initiative, any such project that violates our territorial integrity, we can never support it. We will definitely oppose it. So, that shows how territorial boundaries and sovereignty of a country are important for us and for our foreign policy. So, the first objective of our foreign policy, our foreign policy, is to control and protect our borders, our territory. Second objective is: India's foreign policy is guided by the pursuit of international peace and security. So, the second objective is international peace and security. Okay? International peace and security. Historically, historically, we have always supported peaceful coexistence. Historically, if you look at all the foreign initiatives of India after independence, or even before that, for that matter. So, this peaceful coexistence is the principle that we have always supported and advocated for. Okay? So, here, the second important objective of our foreign policy is international peace and security. You can write many examples for this as well. Like, India's contribution to UN peacekeeping missions, you can talk about. You can talk about the Panchsheel principles. You can talk about so many other principles and initiatives by India. Because India always upholds these principles. Correct? Upholds them. So, it advocates for peaceful coexistence among nations and has been a vocal supporter. India has been a vocal supporter of the principles of non-alignment and non-interference. In the internal affairs of a country. Any country, its domestic affairs, its domestic matters, never interfere in them. Okay? And with any country, on any particular issue. Okay? This principle of non-alignment, we have always upheld, and non-interference, this is also in Panchsheel. We have always upheld these principles. For example, why do we want peace? And why do we want security? Because peace and security are two important things that are very crucial for global stability, for global political, global economic stability. See, there was an essay in UPSC on "Poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere." In a similar way, in a similar way, insecurity anywhere, for example, terrorism. Terrorism is an important global concern. It is a very dangerous global concern. So, in this way, any such, for example, if we talk about the world today, the entire world has basically become a war zone. It has become a war zone. Everywhere you look, somewhere, somewhere, something is going on. So, the entire world has become conflict-prone. It has become a conflict zone. Because of this, because it has become a conflict zone, somewhere, for example, look at West Asia. You have seen the continuous Israel-Palestine issue there. There is always disturbance there. So, due to the constant disturbance, India becomes very vulnerable. Why? Because a large population of India lives there. Lives in Arab countries, lives in the Arab world, lives in Gulf countries for jobs. A large part of the Indian diaspora is there. At the same time, along with that, our main oil imports come from here. So, we are dependent on this for oil. So, whenever there is conflict there, whenever there are disturbances there, then our oil prices in the country will actually increase, and that will hit, and that will impact each of us. Everyone of us living in India will definitely be impacted economically. And as we know, there is so much poverty in India. So, we cannot really afford to inflate prices for something that is happening outside the country. We cannot afford the increase in prices and inflation happening in the country due to what is happening outside the country. So, peace and security are very, very important, even at the domestic level. So, global peace and security are important, which we always support. An example of this is that you know there is a Russia-Ukraine crisis going on right now. And in the Russia-Ukraine crisis, PM Modi said here that "This is not the era of war." By saying this, how much we support peace and security, our stand becomes clear from this statement. So, when talking about peace and security, or conflict, or war, you can simply and you should simply quote PM Narendra Modi here by writing the statement that "This is not the era of war." So, this signifies India's stand on international peace and security. Besides this, there are many other examples. For example, we do not support nuclear proliferation. Meaning, we are advocating to stop nuclear proliferation. In the UN, in the UN, we are trying to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, meaning the increase of nuclear weapons, that other countries are adopting weapons, and adding more to their military. So, we are trying to stop that. We support "Atoms for Peace." We do not support "Atoms for War." Okay. So, this is an important initiative that basically justifies, that exemplifies, how much we uphold peace in the global order. In the global order. Next is, India's foreign policy aims at ensuring internal development. Obviously, very, very important. Look, it's simple. Why would we have a foreign policy? See, why would we go with some country and talk to them? Why would we talk to any country? Why would we import anything from any country? There should be peace in any global order. Why do we want this? Because to some extent, the better these things are at the global level, the better the well-being of the people in the country. Because ultimately, the ultimate goal of the government of every country is development in our country. Growth in our country, prosperity. Okay. And along with that, the well-being of the citizens of our country, the people living here, should be ensured. They should be secure, safe, peaceful, prosperous, grow. This is the objective of any country, and therefore.

To achieve these objectives, this objective is not new. Always, if we talk about political theory, the origin of the state in political theory happened precisely to ensure a common good life. Therefore, the ultimate goal of political theory as a subject is to ensure a common and good life, and that is the next objective of our foreign policy. So, the government recognizes the importance of fast economic growth, social progress, and inclusive development. The government and everyone recognizes that economic growth is quite important for us. Social progress is also important, and along with that, inclusive development is very necessary for us. If you look, recently, we withdrew from the negotiations of RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which is basically a trade deal. We withdrew from its negotiations. Now, why did we withdraw? Although signing trade agreements can bring us economic benefits, we withdrew from this because, somewhere here, China is also present. China is also a part of it. China is also a part of this trade negotiation. And because of that, and because many of China's industries, from agriculture to many other industries, are so competitive that, somewhere, our domestic industry could be negatively impacted by it. It could have a negative impact, and therefore, although there are more things in detail that we can understand, you just understand this much: we withdrew from the RCEP negotiations because China's presence in it, somewhere, we don't have a problem with China. But because of China's presence, because of China's competitive industries, it could have a negative impact on our domestic industry. And therefore, we withdrew from the RCEP negotiations. What does this mean? It means we want the economic development and well-being of our country and our people. Therefore, accordingly, we took this policy initiative. Besides this, there are other broader objectives. For example, securing and safeguarding national interests. Okay? Now, look, national interest is a very broad term. In comparative politics, there is a separate chapter where we will see what national interest is. In the next video, we will make it either on IGP or comparative politics. We will make it very soon. We won't make you wait too long. Sorry for this much delay for this video, but there were so many factors because of which I could not get the time. But yes, I am trying to deliver the rest of the videos in a time-bound manner so that you really get the benefit of it before your examinations. So, national interest is very, very important. National interest is a very broad term. Everything that is in the interest of the nation, in the interest of every citizen of the nation, comes under national interest. That is, safeguarding the nation's borders, ensuring the well-being of the nation's people, protecting the nation's territories, protecting the borders, and basically achieving our ultimate interest, which is a good life for everyone. Correct? So, achieving this is basically national interest. Therefore, safeguarding this national interest should definitely be a priority of our foreign policy, and it is for every country. Okay? So, national interest includes our territorial integrity, security, and economic development. Okay? Secondly, if we look within national interest, every country has a national interest-driven approach. So, our basically national interest-driven approach is evident from the fact that we are continuously engaging with Russia despite Western pressure. Now, you know that Western countries have somewhat isolated Russia. There are some sanctions on Russia. So, in such a situation, there is a contradiction between Western countries and Russia. In the context of the annexation of Crimea earlier, and then the Ukraine crisis that happened now, in all these aspects, the Western countries have some friction with Russia. If we want to maintain good relations with Western countries, then somewhere we will have to distance ourselves from Russia. Correct? But because distancing ourselves from Russia could compromise our national interests, why should we compromise our national interests? And therefore, our continuous engagement with Russia shows that our perspective, our approach, is basically national interest-driven. Our approach is national interest-driven. We give more priority to our national interests in our foreign policy and engage accordingly, regardless of the country. It depends on our national interests. Okay? Even in December 2024, India signed agreements with Russia for enhanced defense cooperation. We signed an agreement with Russia to enhance defense cooperation. Even if we have defense relationships with the USA, despite having defense relationships with the USA, we have continued our defense relationships with Russia and signed this agreement. Okay? Another objective is promoting global peace and stability. We have just seen this. Promoting global peace and stability is definitely an important objective of our foreign policy. In this, India's contribution to UN peacekeeping. See, this is a very important question. India's contribution to UN peacekeeping is always asked. This question is definitely asked, and we can write a lot on it because India's contribution is definitely significant. India contributes to every mission, and in every manner. Peacekeeping for us doesn't just mean military operations. For us, peacekeeping means beyond military operations. We also contribute by sending our doctors, by sending aid in the form of food, medicine, etc., and by providing financial aid, we can contribute to peace. Correct? So, peace, peacekeeping, doesn't just mean military. Although we have always contributed to peacekeeping forces, India's contribution is the highest. If we look at it, this commitment shows how strong our commitment is towards global stability and global peace. Fine. After that, India's emphasis, as I mentioned earlier, is on disarmament, basically disarmament of nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation. Forget about nuclear weapons, disarm yourselves, dispose of all nuclear weapons. We want this. So, we are actually emphasizing disarmament and the policy of staying away from military alliances. We want to avoid any kind of military alliances. Why? Because somewhere we want to promote global peace. So, that shows our commitment. Here, you can see Shashi Tharoor. He actually appreciates India's role as a stabilizing force in conflict zones. India's stabilizing role in conflict zones is greatly appreciated by Shashi Tharoor. So, we can also quote this. Along with that, there is Manoj Joshi. Manoj Joshi also argued that India's consistent advocacy for disarmament, in the aspect of nuclear proliferation, enhances our moral standing. India's moral standing, when we advocate for peace, when we advocate for disarmament, then obviously the country's moral standing at the global level is enhanced. And that is what Manoj Joshi actually says. He argues. Okay, although challenges remain due to global power rivalries. See, we are continuously trying for disarmament, but there are challenges. There are challenges because there are rivalries between global powers. There are continuous rivalries between Russia, USA, China, and other powers. But the effort from our end, from India's end, is ongoing. Okay. Fostering economic growth. Economic growth is also an objective of our foreign policy. And we have already seen that we definitely need to ensure growth in our country. We need to ensure economic growth. So, the external environment for us should be conducive. There should be a conducive external environment so that we can attract more and more foreign investment and expand trade relations with other countries. For example, India has lobbied for its economic interests at multilateral institutions like the WTO. We always definitely put forth our case at the WTO. We definitely stand for India. But at the same time, we also stand for developing nations. Because we want a fair trade deal globally. We want a fair trade deal in global trade. We are taking a stand for this. We also need to take our stand on WTO subsidies. So, India continuously lobbies at institutions of the global economic order, or basically we can call it the international economic order, like the WTO. But at the same time, at multilateral financial institutions like the IMF, World Bank, India continuously lobbies. And the good thing is, the important thing is that India, well, here we are talking about our foreign policy, but when we look at India at the global level, India does not just lobby to achieve its own foreign policy objectives. India also lobbies on many other issues, on behalf of many other countries. So, the leadership of NAM, basically the moral leadership, we can say India has always been a moral leader of developing nations, and at the global level as well. And from the perspective of developing nations, India has always tried to maintain the position of economic leadership. Fine. Enhancing security. Well, we have already seen this too. But enhancing security is also an objective of our foreign policy. After that, as we can see here, India has strengthened its security capabilities, meaning our military, defense, and all these things. How did we strengthen them? Through our strategic partnerships. We have made some agreements with different countries, some defense agreements, strategic partnerships. For example, we have a strategic partnership with the USA. Along with that, some residual stability initiatives like the Quad can be mentioned here. And at the same time, counter-terrorism efforts, like Operation Sindhu, you can quote. Correct? So, here, in March 2025, meaning a few months ago, not five, but two or three months ago, India expanded its counter-terrorism cooperation with countries like Australia, signing an agreement for intelligence sharing and joint exercises to combat extremism. To combat extremism, we recently signed a cooperation agreement with Australia for conducting joint exercises and intelligence sharing. After that, protecting national sovereignty, which we have already seen, where we also saw the example of BRI. And one more important objective in foreign policy is that we must continuously advance our global standing. We must continuously advance our global standing. Correct? Because one of the ultimate goals of India's foreign policy is that India's global influence should definitely be there. Okay? And because of this, we continuously engage ourselves in shaping international norms. International norms, international rules, or international institutions, we continuously engage ourselves there so that we can enhance our global standing, enhance our global standing. Because the more our global standing is enhanced, the more our voice will be heard, our voice will be heard, and it will get representation. And India actually deserves a global standing basically because of being a big democracy, the largest democracy, such a large population, such a big economy, and such a significant contribution to global peace and order. From all these perspectives, India definitely stands as one of the prominent global leaders, and its image as a global leader needs to be continuously enhanced. Fine. Globally, an example of this is the G20 summit. During the G20 summit, under India's presidency, we included the African Union as a member in the G20 summit. We got it included in the G20. So, that shows that on one hand, our global standing is definitely enhanced by this. But at the same time, how committed we are to the Global South, how committed we are to the justice of the Global South, can be understood from this example. Okay? Scholar Tanvi Madan, she argued that India's proactive role in multilateral forums reflects its ambition to shape global norms. Its ambitions in shaping global norms are definitely reflected here. After that, another important point is that our Indian diaspora, the Indians who have gone abroad to work, whether in European countries, America, or across the globe, Indians are everywhere, actually. So, mainly, many Indians go to Gulf countries for work. So, protecting the Indian diaspora is our responsibility. Definitely, it is India's responsibility. So, India values its diaspora and works to strengthen ties, provide support, and protect the rights and interests of overseas Indians. We continuously negotiate with other countries through our foreign policy to ensure that the rights of Indians living abroad are protected. We make many policy decisions and take actions to secure the interests of our Indians and do things in their favor. Okay? According to data, the Global Migration Report 2020, India still, even today, continues to be one of the largest countries of origin for the diaspora, for international migrants. Okay? Many operations are also conducted. When our Indians are in other countries and face problems, issues arise, like the Ukraine issue, the Russia-Ukraine war, and also other conflicts or war-like situations arise in any country. To evacuate them, to help them, the Indian government conducts multiple operations. For example, as you can see here, Operation Devi Shakti, which we implemented to evacuate our citizens from Afghanistan. Operation Ganga, which we used in the context of Ukraine. So, basically, we have also evacuated many of our people from Sudan. So, PM Modi, he continuously interacts with the diaspora. We see that whenever PM Modi visits other countries, the Indian diaspora there is also present, and he interacts with them. So, in multiple ways, in various ways, we are actually, in our foreign policy, in a very integrated manner, we make many decisions and do many things to protect our diaspora and protect their interests. At the same time, here, in January 2025, this is a very important thing. We launched a digital platform to streamline consular services for its diaspora. For our diaspora, for their consular services, we have launched a digital platform. This digital initiative will be very helpful in supporting our country's diaspora, our country's Indians living in other countries. Okay? After that, now, these are our objectives. Now, according to the Ministry of External Affairs, S. Jaishankar, there are three core objectives of Indian foreign policy. Okay? Among these, the first objective is that India aims to address key global challenges through extensive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. Correct? Wide range of stakeholders. Meaning, one, addressing key global challenges. What are key global challenges here? See, key global challenges. For example, we can talk about climate change here. We can talk about terrorism here. And there are many other global challenges. So, addressing these key global challenges is also our aim. For which we extensively engage ourselves with many stakeholders, like different countries, different regional organizations, and different various platforms. This involves actively participating in international forums. We participate in international forums, like you can see here, like the Conference of Parties 29. We participate in every Conference of Parties, which is of UNFCCC. Okay? It is of UNFCCC. Building partnerships, we launch initiatives in partnership with different countries, like the International Solar Alliance here. Why? To solve the global challenge, which is basically climate change. So, one of India's important objectives, according to S. Jaishankar, is to address global problems, the challenges, global challenges. Secondly, Indian foreign policy seeks to efficiently or effectively manage and possibly leverage the global contradictions that exist. Global contradictions mean, one, there is polarization. Because of polarization, you have to manage relations with Russia and also manage relations with the USA. And you can do this only when you emphasize strategic autonomy more. So, by emphasizing strategic autonomy, we are basically trying to balance our competing interests in this complex international dynamics and trying to maintain relationships with both countries, both sides, whether it's Russia, USA, or any other contrasting countries, by pursuing our interests. And finally, India is committed to advancing its interests in the evolving multipolar world order. This is important. See, in the evolving multipolar world or evolving multipolar world order, we will have to continuously advance our interests, try to achieve our interests. And for this, we actively participate in shaping global norms, global rules, and global institutions. So that we can continuously advance our interests. Fine. Now, if we talk about this, recently, Jaishankar himself underscored India's ability to leverage contradictions by maintaining ties with both the USA and Russia. Despite the contradiction between Russia and the USA, we are trying to manage our relations with both very effectively. Okay? So, that is basically appreciated by S. Jaishankar. Now, what is the important thing is, what are the challenges? Our Indian foreign policy...

What are the challenges? What are the challenges in Indian foreign policy? Look, we have objectives, but every foreign policy has challenges, and basically, we have to navigate through them to achieve our foreign policy objectives. So, the most important challenge here is regional security challenges from neighboring countries. Our neighboring countries, like Pakistan and Afghanistan, pose some security challenges to us. These are examples, and there are other countries from which we face security challenges in the neighborhood. For example, what could be one challenge? Cross-border terrorism. The example of which from Pakistan does not need to be given. We have many examples. Cross-border terrorism is one of the challenges. Then there are territorial disputes. Those are with neighboring countries. We do not have territorial disputes with the USA. We do not have territorial disputes with any other country that is very far away, across the seven seas. Okay? Our territorial disputes are with our neighboring countries. For example, Pakistan is here. Correct? We have territorial disputes with them, which always lead to some problems every year. We also have territorial disputes with China. So, this is one of the challenges to Indian foreign policy. The most important challenges to our Indian foreign policy are these territorial disputes and cross-border terrorism, which mainly comes from Pakistan. For example, India has faced numerous instances where cross-border terrorism has occurred in our country, mainly originating from Pakistan. For instance, if we take the example, the 2008 Mumbai attack. Okay? The 2008 Mumbai attack, which highlighted the threat posed by Indian security. India's security faces a significant threat from terrorism. So, this is one problem, and recently you can also include the Pahalgam incident as an example.

In a similar vein, if we talk about Afghanistan, India's engagement with the Taliban in Afghanistan is dependent on the foreign secretary. Recently, our foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, met with the Taliban Foreign Minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, in January 2025. Of course, when the Taliban captured Afghanistan, initially, we basically support democratically elected governments or those with public consent. So, in such a situation, tying up with the Taliban, meeting with them, supporting them, or endorsing them would definitely not be our kind of thing in our foreign policy. But eventually, now it's not that we are recognizing them, but eventually, at least for the sake of the Afghan people, for their development, and for our relations with them, recently our foreign secretary met with the Taliban Foreign Minister. And they mostly focused on trade and counter-terrorism efforts, on what we can do together to counter terrorism and how we can promote trade. Okay?

Then, the rising power dynamics, particularly with China. Now, the next important challenge for foreign policy. We have already seen the first challenge, which is security-related challenges, cross-border terrorism, and our border disputes. Correct, which are mostly with neighboring countries. Apart from that, our next challenge is rising power dynamics. Power dynamics are rising significantly. For example, look at China, and we need to balance relations and safeguard national interests. Look, China is also emerging. The USA is already there, Russia is also emerging. And there are many other important players. So, maintaining relations with all of them. Because when major powers, the major global powers, are emerging or exist, it is definitely not necessary that relations with all major powers are very harmonious and cooperative. For example, there is definitely a problem between the USA and China. There is definitely a problem between the USA and Russia. So, in this entire contradictory atmosphere, maintaining oneself, maintaining good relations with everyone becomes quite difficult. And in this entire contradictory scenario, safeguarding our national interests is a very important challenge that Indian foreign policy is facing. So, the standoffs we have seen on the India-China border, there are continuous standoffs on the India-China border, but recently, at the end of 2024, de-escalation efforts were taken, and both sides agreed that we will now disengage, meaning we will basically de-escalate a bit at the points in the Eastern sector. However, C. Raja Mohan wants to caution India because this is an unresolved boundary issue, and considering China's growing regional influence, it is clear that we will have to maintain continuous diplomatic and military preparedness so that we can continuously resolve the issues. This is a temporary relief, but it is not permanent relief. At the same time.

Now, in April 2025, India imposed additional trade restrictions on Chinese imports so that we can protect our domestic industries. To protect domestic industries. Fine. So that reflects a strategic response to Chinese economic assertiveness. This is very important. This keyword is very important. Economic assertiveness. Because so far, in the context of China, we have mainly discussed its assertiveness, but mainly its assertiveness in the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific. But economic assertiveness is important because through BRI and many of their economic instruments, debt policy, debt trap policy, or others. So, China is trying to assert itself economically, and we definitely have to counter this. Okay?

Then, combating terrorism. Combating terrorism is a very difficult challenge that Indian foreign policy is facing. This problem has really troubled us. It's that kind of problem. So, combating extremism and terrorism, and this has to be fought both domestically and internationally, within the country. But also internationally and globally. For which, look, even to deal with terrorism domestically, you need coordination among global stakeholders. Because it is not necessary that if a terror act has occurred here, it was carried out by local people. That is not necessary. It is possible that people came from outside. They were sponsored by some other country. The intelligence is being provided by some other country. So, many multiple players can be involved, and where coordination is possible. Because of which, to solve such an issue, which basically involves multiple stakeholders, we also have to involve multiple stakeholders so that we can coordinate and share intelligence and other information so that we can effectively deal with problems like terrorism. Okay? For example, India has been grappling with insurgencies and acts of violence in regions like Jammu and Kashmir specifically and the northeastern states also, perpetrated by various extremist groups with different motivations. So, India has basically strengthened its global counter-terrorism framework. How has India strengthened it? Look, because terrorism is an issue against which India has always tried to raise its voice from the very beginning. When others, when other countries were not ready to accept that something called terrorism exists, from that time, India started raising its voice against terrorism on global platforms. And India is one of the significant and prominent as well as a pioneer player in counter-terrorism efforts at the global level. And that's why here we can see that India has strengthened the global counter-terrorism framework by co-hosting. India co-hosted the meeting of the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee in New Delhi in October 2024, showing how much we want to strengthen these efforts so that we can counter terrorism and terror financing. Okay? Counter it.

Then, India and France have also signed an act which actually enhances intelligence sharing to combat terrorism. Intelligence sharing is needed to combat terrorism. So, a pact has also been signed between India and France for that. So, these are the steps.

Then, economic interests and challenges related to trade barriers and protectionism and global economic uncertainties. This is also one of the problems. Look, global economic uncertainties. We never know when a conflict might break out somewhere, when someone might impose restrictions and economic sanctions on someone. In such uncertain situations, especially in situations of economic uncertainty, we don't know when something might impact us and then crises might penetrate, percolate at the domestic level. So, this is an important foreign policy challenge that the government continuously has to monitor and observe so that it can effectively solve the problem. Apart from that, trade barriers are definitely a perennial problem. Trade barriers are a perennial problem. Ideally, there should be free trade. That is a neoliberal policy. Free trade is a neoliberal policy. Correct? Neoliberal policy. But it is not necessary that our trade deals or our trade conditions are the same with everyone. So, we have to solve these trade barriers, and many countries want to protect their markets. So, the tendency of protectionism has increased significantly. For instance, the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum by the USA. The USA imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, which were being exported from India. Correct? This had a significant impact on India's overall trade. Along with that, India has also experienced protectionist measures in the agricultural sector, such as import restrictions on certain agricultural products. We have also had to resort to protectionism at times to protect our own agricultural sector. So, these are all things. These challenges exist.

At the same time, there is the next challenge: addressing non-traditional security. Look, security threats, traditional security threats, non-traditional security threats. Now, what are traditional security threats? Traditional security threats basically mean those that were traditionally from the border. From the border, meaning if someone came from the border, we protect them, or if someone attacks the border, attacks our country. That is traditional. But then there are cyberattacks, which have no borders. Terrorism, where there are non-state actors. It's not that a country attacked us. They were non-state actors, not state actors who attacked. So, non-state actors, cyberattacks, these kinds of non-conventional or non-traditional security threats, like climate change also. Okay? And pandemics, like the COVID pandemic, which caused supply chain disruptions and many other things, which also proved to be a very big threat. But that is non-traditional, not traditional. Correct? So, because of this, if we have to deal with such problems, we need cooperation with other countries and international institutions like WHO, or other countries where vaccines can be developed, or where other medical aid can be obtained. After such non-traditional security threats emerge, we have to cooperate with these countries. Shivshankar Menon emphasized that there is a need for international collaboration to tackle the challenges. We greatly needed international collaboration so that we can effectively manage and solve all these challenges related to climate change, cybersecurity, and pandemics. And India has always been working on strengthening its cybersecurity capabilities. We are definitely working on strengthening cybersecurity capabilities. We are collaborating with other countries, such as the USA, Israel, and all these countries, for information sharing, capacity building, or even for military exercises. Similarly, there are cybersecurity exercises in collaboration. In cybersecurity, if we look at an example, India and the UK launched a joint cyber defense initiative in April 2025. A joint cyber defense initiative between whom? India and the UK have launched it. Its basic focus is to counter state-sponsored cyberattacks. To counter state-sponsored cyberattacks. Okay?

After that, maintaining strategic autonomy. Maintaining strategic autonomy in foreign policy is also a very big challenge. Especially in situations like the conflict between the USA and Russia, to maintain relations with both, we will have to implement and use strategic autonomy. But strategic autonomy is not such an easy instrument. This is also one of the important foreign policy challenges. At the same time, there are other challenges as well. For example, China's aggressiveness is not only on the border but also in the maritime domain and in the economic domain. So, countering China's overall aggressiveness is also a very big challenge. After that, the Russia-Ukraine war is also a very big foreign policy challenge for India. Why is it a challenge? Because, look, we have taken a neutral stand on the Russia-Ukraine war. India has taken a neutral stand. But India taking a neutral stand in this aspect has been a point of contention. It has become an issue of debate, an issue of contention. Particularly with the USA, which basically sees Russia as a primary adversary, as an enemy. In such a situation, why India is not taking a stand has become an issue of contention. But India continues to maintain and even expand its ties with Russia. We are not only maintaining our ties with Russia but trying to expand them. Because Russia has always been a friend, and we cannot, we have to have strategic autonomy because we again believe in the non-alignment principle. We will not align with any single country. We will maintain our strategic autonomy so that we can secure our national interest. Instead of becoming a satellite for any other country. We do not want to become a satellite of any country. Okay?

Then, there are regional tensions. Regional tension is also a very big problem for foreign policy. And especially if we talk about the South Asian region, there are many regional problems in the South Asian region. One is the involvement of China, which has become a big headache. At the same time, each country has its own domestic problems, which then percolate into the region. And India, being one of the significant and central countries in South Asia, has to face its repercussions. It has to deal with them through its foreign policy. Now, look, if we talk about the Maldives, the government has changed in the Maldives, and the government that has changed is actually pro-Chinese leadership. Pro-Chinese leadership, which is posing a very big strategic challenge for India, and its impact can be seen in the Indian Ocean region. The second point, look, if we talk about Pakistan and Afghanistan, then there are routine tensions with Pakistan. Pakistan is a perennial tension. But at the same time, India's cautious engagement with the Taliban and Afghanistan also reflects its newest approach to balancing, how to balance our security requirements and our diplomatic needs. Correct? So, this is also a challenge, but somehow we are trying to solve it. And there is the problem of Middle East dynamics. The Israel-Palestine conflict has always been a big issue of debate. And for India, taking a stand here is also quite difficult to balance for Indian foreign policy. So, India's position, especially on the Israel-Gaza conflict, is very complicated because of its need to balance relationships with both Israel and Palestinians. We have to maintain relations with Palestine as well. We have to maintain relations with Israel as well. So, on this issue of Israel-Gaza, we will have to handle our foreign policy very cautiously so that we can manage relations in this regard with both countries. Okay?

At the same time, if we talk about Iran, now look, recently there were tensions between Iran and Israel. Correct? So, Iran, despite US sanctions on Iran, India has continuously maintained links with them because that is crucial for our strategic interests in this region. So, our strategic interests in the Middle East region are very important. Therefore, with Iran, even if the USA imposes sanctions on it or does anything, we have to maintain links with them for various other reasons. So, India's balancing act, India's balancing act, especially on the Israel-Palestine conflict, is evident in its April 2025 call for a ceasefire, the ceasefire call made in Gaza at the UN. Okay? Our stand on this clearly shows how we basically want to balance the issue of Israel and Palestine. Okay? At the same time, we have deepened our ties with Israel through a $2 billion missile deal. We have also done a $2 billion missile deal with Israel, which basically shows that we have to maintain relations with Israel, and we also have to maintain relations with Iran and Palestine. So, here, India's ties with Iran have also strengthened recently with a commitment of 100 crore for the Chabahar Port in 2025-26. During 2025-26, by committing an investment of 100 crore, we have also strengthened our relations with Iran. Even if there is a sanction from the USA. Despite sanctions from the USA, we are not backing down from our commitment. So, although there are challenges, India's foreign policy faces multiple challenges from multiple regions through multiple factors, through China, through the USA, and through other factors. There are challenges, but still, we are dealing with those challenges.

We are quite firm and committed to the principles and core objectives of our foreign policy, and we are managing relationships at our level. Now, we have to see what decisive breaks have occurred within the current foreign policy, basically the Modi Doctrine, as compared to our earlier foreign policy. What decisive shift has happened within the Modi Doctrine compared to our earlier foreign policy? So, basically, let's see. The Modi Doctrine is characterized by a more proactive approach. First of all, you have to understand these are some important keywords that signify and tell us a lot about foreign policy. So, one is proactive, and the second is assertive. This is a very big shift in approach. So, our foreign policy is now quite proactive and assertive. Then, India's traditional foreign policy has always been analyzed by various scholars. Look, if we see our foreign policy in two words, it has become proactive and assertive. This is a very big decisive break from our earlier traditional foreign policy. Here, if we look, we try to understand from the perspective of scholars. Harsh Pant, Harsh Pant, he says that there is a transition from Nehruvian idealism to realpolitik. Earlier, our foreign policy was based on Nehruvian idealism. Now, our transition has moved towards realpolitik. Towards realpolitik, where we are emphasizing more upon the pragmatic and realistic approach in international relations. Now, our approach in international relations is quite pragmatic and quite realistic. Not very idealistic. So, look, the difference between idealism and realism, it's not that our foreign policy was entirely idealistic before. That's not the case. The realist component was definitely there. But the realist component has increased a bit more in our foreign policy now. It has become proactive and assertive. And this is what Harsh Pant says. And then there is the emergence of the Modi Doctrine, which replaces the traditional foreign policy of non-alignment with a more assertive and proactive stance, which we have already seen in the earlier statement. Then there is a greater emphasis. There is a greater emphasis on the pursuit of maritime powers, highlighting India's growing interest and engagement in maritime affairs. Earlier, we didn't pay much attention to maritime security, maritime affairs, which basically are the oceanic aspects. But somewhere now, there has been a shift in our foreign policy. So, what is the first shift? Look, the first shift is these things are worth noting because we don't have much time now. You have to revise, add value. All your needs will be met from this video. You can completely rely upon this. Whatever things are here, because it's current affairs, keywords, everything is here. First of all, the decisive shift in foreign policy is the one of proactiveness and assertiveness. Second, we are paying a lot of attention to maritime security. We are paying a lot of attention to maritime affairs, right? So, this is an important thing. Second, after that, look, according to Amitabh Mattoo. According to Amitabh Mattoo, the Modi Doctrine basically has the following elements. According to Amitabh Mattoo, the Modi Doctrine consists of the following elements. First of all, building a strong, self-reliant, and confident India. We need to develop a strong, resilient, and confident India. This is completely reflected in our foreign policy under the Modi Doctrine. At the same time, we are there to promote peace, stability, and economic integration in South Asia, especially South Asia. Correct. Even at the global level, at the global level and in South Asia too. Also, we are emphasizing the use of soft power. We are using soft power a lot. We are doing a lot of yoga. Yoga Day is being celebrated in every country we go to. It's also happening in the UN. We are promoting soft power a lot, including showcasing India's rich traditions, talent, tourism, trade, and technology. Also, according to Amitabh Mattoo, we are pursuing multiple alignments. We are pursuing multiple alignments with all great powers, rather than adhering to, you know, strictly to non-alignment. For example, according to the idealistic principles, our idealism in foreign policy, we were quite strict about our non-alignment principle, but that's not the case now. We align, but with all countries. Not like that, because there is no bipolar world order now. It's a multipolar world order now, and the requirements and issues of today are also a bit different. And our standing now is also not normal. We also stand somewhere at a very great position. Okay? So, we need to demonstrate a willingness to raise issues and concerns at the bilateral level with other countries. We are actually demonstrating. Our concerns, at the bilateral level and basically at the global level, with other countries, we are openly raising them without any restraint or hesitation. Correct? Harsh Pant reiterated in the doctrine, we have seen that. Then, according to S. Jaishankar, what are the components of our foreign policy in this Modi Doctrine, Modi era, according to him? So, one is building strong partnerships with like-minded countries. We need to maintain and build quite strong partnerships with like-minded countries. And we basically pursue issue-based alignments. We are pursuing issue-based alignments. Second, we are here to, we have to manage great power relationships. Under the Modi Doctrine, in the Modi era, managing and expanding great power relationships, expanding regional outreach, and increasing our global footprint. Global footprint means, for example, earlier it used to be that we had very limited relations with some countries, very limited engagement. So, that shouldn't happen. Meaning, we need to interact with maximum countries, interact with maximum countries, meaning everything of ours, whether it's the economy, our political engagement, our military engagement, we need to diversify it. Diversify it. Not keep it restricted to a particular country. So, this is an important principle of ours. Also, we are making pragmatic decisions based on risk-benefit calculations. We are making pragmatic decisions based on risk-benefit calculations under the Modi era. And we are utilizing unpredictability as a tool. Look, this is very important. Unpredictability has become a tool in our current foreign policy. Although later Subhash Chandra Bose, in some aspects, will say that many of our foreign policy steps and actions are quite predictable, like what happened recently. Like what happened recently, when we resumed, basically paused, the Indus Water treaty. Okay, pausing that treaty was also a very predictable move. So, somewhere we have to be unpredictable because if we remain unpredictable, if the other side doesn't know what we are going to do, if they cannot even guess what we are going to do, then that becomes a, you know, that becomes a very powerful position for a country. It can create a powerful position for the country. Fine. So, currently, we are paying a lot of attention to unpredictability. We are keeping our foreign policy moves, actions, and strategies a bit unpredictable. Okay? Then there is demonstrating. We are demonstrating a willingness to use military power where necessary. Wherever it is needed, we will use military power. We will not be afraid at all. We will not talk only about peace. But we won't always talk about peace. Wherever it is needed, we will use military power. This is basically clear under the Modi Doctrine, and integrating defense policy as an integral part of our diplomacy. Our diplomacy is not just about discussion and negotiation. Military too. Okay? Military defense is also an integrated part of our overall foreign policy and diplomacy. And also, we are giving prominence. We are giving prominence to business. Now, we are also focusing on business, and the perspective and goal of our foreign policy also include focusing more on our business and investment matters currently. They are a central component, and this is a very important thing. Recently, UPSC has asked a couple of questions about how the economy is becoming one of the prominent determinants of Indian foreign policy in recent times, which can be clearly seen under the Modi Doctrine. The way the Modi Doctrine focuses upon businesses and investment in foreign policy affairs, in foreign policy affairs. Then we are also focusing on stronger implementation of policies and initiatives. This is one of the objectives. What used to happen was that we would go to a country, our leaders would go to a country, and let's say, let's say, we committed $100 million in financial aid or committed an infrastructure project, but due to bureaucratic delays and lack of political will, that commitment could not be fulfilled. There used to be considerable delays. That actually used to make our position, our standing, very, very poor and bad. So, our focus now is more on implementation, that if we have committed something to a country, if we have committed something, then we will definitely implement it. And at the same time, we are making better use of leveraging soft power. And we are effectively engaging with our diaspora community as a strategic asset, as a strategic asset. Okay? So, the integration of military power, the example of which we just saw, the point we just saw, its example is that the engagement of military power can be seen by Operation Sindoor in 2025, where we targeted terror hubs in Pakistan. Okay, the way we targeted Pakistan's terror hubs, it shows how we have tried to integrate our military power into our foreign policy. Then there are some scholars who actually criticize the Modi Doctrine. Current doctrine. They are criticizing the current doctrine. Why are they criticizing it? First of all, let us see Happymon Jacob. Okay, he analyzes Indian foreign policy and highlights several aspects. Look, the first thing is bureaucratic adhocism. Bureaucratic adhocism, meaning this is a tendency to adopt a short-term. Meaning, what we are doing, or not we, but according to Happymon Jacob, the current foreign policy is focusing more on short-term steps. Trying to achieve short-term goals. But we are not making a long-term strategy. So, this is a very big lacuna of ours, which he has called bureaucratic adhocism. Second, tactical considerations in decision-making are based on immediate tactical concerns rather than a broader strategic vision. We don't have a broader strategic vision. Rather, it's based on immediate tactical concerns, immediate, basically, a populist measure, as we say in our political landscape. Our foreign policy is like that. He also criticizes for political expediency, prioritizing political gains or domestic considerations over long-term foreign policy goals. We are not giving importance to long-term foreign policy goals; rather, we are giving importance to our political gains and domestic considerations. He is criticizing this point as well. And lack of a grand strategic blueprint. Like we have a blueprint for PSR, a grand strategic blueprint like that is missing somewhere in foreign policy. This is what he says, Happymon Jacob. So, this is what his analysis is. Then, what is the example of a decisive break in foreign policy? Now, we said that under the Modi Doctrine, there has been a decisive break in foreign policy. A decisive break has occurred. Assertiveness and proactiveness have increased in our foreign policy. But here, it is important to understand this. Here, we also need examples. We cannot just talk; we need examples too. If you look at 2019, India conducted a series of cross-border surgical strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan, and these strikes were a major departure from India's traditional policy of restraint. This is very important. Traditionally, we had a policy of restraint. So, from our traditional policy of restraint, a very clear shift was visible when in 2019, in 2019, we conducted surgical strikes. Correct. And they showed that India is willing now. India is willing to take a more proactive approach to deal with terrorism. We will adopt a very proactive approach to deal with terrorism. We clearly showed that from there. India and the US also signed various defense agreements that will allow the two countries to share more sensitive military technology. Okay? So, we are now focusing a lot on military technology, military and strategic partnerships, military partnerships, defense partnerships. Which is also a clear departure from India's traditional policy of non-alignment. Earlier, we were not so aligned, especially at the military level. So, a slight departure from there is somewhere visible here. Okay? And India is basically willing to cooperate more closely with the United States in order to counter the growing threat from China. India is very willing to associate closely with the US to counter China's growing threat, and India has no problem with that. Also, if we look at India's relationship with Israel, it is under the Modi Doctrine. Under the Modi Doctrine, this doctrine has led to more normalized relationships between India and Israel. If you see in 2017, Modi became the first Indian Prime Minister. This is very important. These are some examples that we need to look at. India, Modi became the first Prime Minister to visit Israel, and the two countries have signed a number of agreements on trade, defense, and technology. Since then, we have signed many agreements. Then we also played a key role in international institutions. For example, we can give the G20 example, how in G20 we criticized protectionism and other global challenges. At the same time, we also took the side of the Global South. What have we done for the Global South? We got the African Union admitted. So, this decisive break, okay? This break is also continuing even today in the recent Operation Sindoor in 2025, where India dismantled nine terror hubs in Pakistan. The numbers are not important. Terror hubs in Pakistan were basically dismantled. Which reinforces its proactive counter-terrorism stance, and US-India defense ties have also deepened after the 2024 agreement for co-producing the Stryker vehicles. The co-production of Stryker vehicles, the agreement between India and the US in '24, also clearly shows us how a very big decisive shift has occurred. Now, look, important factors here, determinants of Indian foreign policy. UPSC also asks a lot of questions on this. UPSC asks a lot of questions. Look, determinants of foreign policy, what does that mean? On what basis is foreign policy decided? Obviously, national interest is one of the determinants. Geography is one of the determinants. There are many other important determinants. But let's try to understand. The first important determinant is geography. Geography plays a very, very significant role in India's foreign policy. Because, look, if we have border disputes with Pakistan or border disputes with China, why is that? Because somewhere, there is geography behind it. Correct? Maritime security is important for us. Because we are situated in this geography, that geography necessitates us to focus on our maritime security as well. So, India's strategic location, especially in the heart of Asia, and dominance over the Indian Ocean, the way we have dominance in the Indian Ocean, that provides India with a pivotal position. Okay? However, geography also presents challenges. It's good for us that our location is quite central. But this geography also presents some challenges. For example, one is our political borders. Political borders. If we talk about the border between India and Pakistan, our political borders are artificial because the British drew that line. So, they are artificial. Correct? And many regional issues, like terrorism, piracy, all these problems, they actually shape foreign policy responses. Because how do we respond? What should be our foreign policy? Definitely, these are all determinants based on which our foreign policy can be shaped. For example, India's Panipat syndrome. India's Panipat syndrome. Panipat syndrome, basically, what does it mean? It means we used to always imagine and we used to always think that the conflicts we are having or the threats we are facing are basically coming from land only, from a particular region. Right? But that's not the case. Somewhere, we have focused more on the continent than maritime. But this notion has changed currently in the Modi Doctrine. Under the Modi Doctrine, this notion has now changed. Somewhere, we are now focusing on maritime as well through initiatives like the Indian Ocean Region Association, SAGAR initiative. Now, the Mahasagar initiative has also come. You can write this too. SAGAR initiative, Mahasagar initiative, MAUSAM initiative. There are many such initiatives. Vajpayee ji always used to say that we can change, we can change our history but not geography. We cannot change our geography. We can change history, not geography. Okay? So, here, for example, Raja Mohan, he argued that India's maritime strategy counters China's Indian Ocean ambitions, shifting away from the Panipat syndrome. The way, in our foreign policy, look, we have seen the determinants, but even within those determinants, there has been a traditional stance where we focused heavily on continent-based security. We did not focus much on maritime-based security. But now, that policy is seen to be changing. The way China, the way China's ambitions in the Indian Ocean are, to counter that, India is also now creating a maritime strategy, focusing on it. Then, the second important determinant is history and strategic culture. History and culture. Basically, have a profound impact on India's foreign policy. For example, India's freedom struggle against colonialism. We have fought against colonialism. That we all know. And our experience with imperialism, the imperialism that was here, the British imperialism, the influence of that has greatly influenced our foreign policy. For example, our policy of non-alignment, or our stand against colonialism, or our stand against imperialism, or for that matter, disarmament, why do we want disarmament? Because we don't want violence. We want peace. Or we want peace-making or peaceful coexistence. All these, basically.

The angles that have come into our foreign policy are a legacy of our freedom struggle. Okay? They are a legacy of our freedom struggle. Along with that, India's strategic culture which blended realpolitik and idealism. It's not that we only follow a completely idealistic foreign policy. There is an influence of Kautilya's Arthashastra somewhere. At the same time, Gandhi's principle of non-violence, Buddha's overall things about peaceful coexistence, they also reflect in our foreign policy somewhere. So here you can see an example, first, the advocacy for disarmament, which basically shows how we ideally pursue our foreign policy interests. At the same time, at the same time, Operation Sindoor showcases Kautilya's assertiveness, meaning our foreign policy is quite pragmatic now. It's a mix of realistic and idealistic principles. We have seen an example of the idealistic here, and we have seen an example of the realistic here. Fine. Then India's requirements and goals are a crucial determinant of foreign policy. Obviously, the goals of any foreign policy, meaning any foreign policy, that is definitely determined by the requirements and goals of that particular country. So, protecting our national security, territorial integrity, and ensuring a peaceful external environment is our primary objective. And that is one of the important determinants of our foreign policy. Then there is economic development, trade promotion, energy security, and the well-being of the people. All these things are there. Correct? After that, Operation Kaveri, where we evacuated 3000 Indians from Sudan, prioritizing the safety of the diaspora. This is also basically our determinant that we can ensure the well-being of our people. So, to ensure that objective of ensuring well-being, to ensure that determinant, our foreign policy is designed in this way. Global and regional challenges also influence India's foreign policy decisions. Obviously, it's obvious that according to the global and regional challenges, we will have to decide the priorities of our foreign policy. So they are also one of the important determinants. For example, our relations with neighboring countries like Pakistan and China, they are actually basically geopolitics during the Cold War and balancing interests in the Middle East are examples of the factors that shape India's foreign policy approach. Here we can see that the way we have to balance relations with Pakistan and China. This is a regional determinant for us. These are the regional challenges. This is a regional challenge. Or, the problem we had during the Cold War. During the Cold War, we could not align with anyone. There was a basically bipolar world order. So these are all challenges that we had to shape our foreign policy accordingly. At the same time, India's approach towards the Middle East, the approach towards the Middle East, and a region of strategic importance. The Middle East is a region that is strategically very important for us. Why? Because of energy resources and geopolitical significance. Because of its geopolitical significance. So India maintains strong ties with those countries and balances engagement with all stakeholders. So that we try to save ourselves from getting entangled with any country or in any region. At the same time, there are some factors like social and cultural factors. Social and cultural factors also exist. They play a very important role in our Indian foreign policy. For example, look at shared ethnicity. Our ethnicity, our culture, our religion, and our race are shared, specifically in South Asia. If we look there, so either it fosters cooperation, or with a common identity, cooperation can develop. But at the same time, it is not necessary that only cooperation will happen. Conflict can also happen. Conflict can also happen. For example, in Europe, these factors, shared ethnicity, shared culture, shared religion, all these factors have actually acted as binding agents, promoting post-World War unity. A unity, cooperation, after World War II, basically due to these factors, this cooperation developed in European countries. But if we look at South Asia, the partition that happened in the subcontinent and the consolidated nationalism, the idea of consolidated nationalism is absent. It is not there. There is no consolidated nationalism. There is a lot of fragmented nationalism. So, due to all these things, there are many ethnic conflicts in South Asia. We will see this in South Asia, in the neighborhood. So there are ethnic conflicts. Along with that, look at the domestic social structure, this is also an important determinant. For example, if we look at India, if we look at Sri Lanka, due to Sri Lanka's Tamil issue, tensions develop in India. Due to the Madhesi issue in Nepal, there were protests recently in 2024 as well, which affected India-Nepal trade ties. So, basically, domestic problems also come into the determinants of our foreign policy because they also decide how we respond. Now, para-diplomacy, this is also an important aspect. Look, para-diplomacy means here, state governments are involved in international affairs. So, this para-diplomacy is also a very big important factor. For example, Gujarat's Vibrant Gujarat Summit, which happened in 2024, or happens continuously. So that attracts billions of dollars in foreign investment, which reinforces the importance of para-diplomacy, which is very important. Even Tamil Nadu can be given as an example here. So, when we talk about foreign policy, we have talked about the determinants of foreign policy. We have talked about foreign policy objectives and what are the challenges foreign policy faces. We have talked about all these. But there are some other important dimensions. For example, the institutions that shape foreign policy, like India's foreign policy or any country's foreign policy, the institutions that design it, and for that matter, implement it, they also need to be studied properly so as to understand how these dynamics of foreign policy are determined and shaped. So, let's try to understand the institutions that play a role in making, designing, and implementing foreign policy. Fine. So, foreign policy decisions are taken by various institutions, and the prominent institution is Parliament. Parliament plays a very important role in foreign policy making. For example, through its legislative aspects and also its oversight functions, like holding accountability of the concerned departments and concerned ministries, or concerned personalities or persons who are basically political leaders, holding them accountable regarding foreign policy priorities and foreign policy objectives, and working on different aspects. For example, the land boundary agreement. Okay, the land boundary agreement between India and Bangladesh. So, obviously, who will pass the amendment to the land boundary agreement? Who will make it? Obviously, the legislative organ of Parliament, the part of Parliament, that will basically play a key role in making the legislation. So, it has the power. Parliament has the power to legislate on foreign affairs. It has the power to legislate on all our foreign-related aspects. Also, it can seek information and clarification from the government on policies and issues. Because Parliament does not only have the government. Parliament also has opposition parties. There are different other parties. There are independent members. So, if the government needs to be held accountable for its foreign policy actions and its foreign policy implementation, and if there are challenges in it, and if they need to ask questions, then Parliament is the forum. It is the platform basically where all these things can be done. Parliament also fosters bilateral relations through inter-parliamentary engagement. Our parliamentarians visit, go with their delegations, meet with other parliamentarians. It's not that bilateral relations between two countries are not only driven by political leaders. They are not only driven by the Prime Minister or they are not only driven by the Minister of External Affairs. These two are not the only key personalities. Our parliamentarians, for example, not necessarily from the ruling parties, they can also be from opposition parties. For example, in the recent Operation Sindoor, the matter of presenting our case globally, even Congress MP Shashi Tharoor led the delegation for Operation Sindoor across the globe. So, inter-parliamentary engagements happen. But here, party politics, limited information sharing, limited information sharing. The government does not necessarily share all critical and exclusive information with opposition parties and other people. So, limited information sharing, due to party politics, and a decline in informed debates. The informed debates that should happen. As we always debate and discuss in political science, Parliament in decline, Parliament in decline, because for debating, for deliberating on important issues, not enough time is given in Parliament, because of parliamentary disruptions and other matters. So, the way Parliament is declining, or the decline in informed debates, party politics is one of the reasons, and due to limited information, all these things create a big challenge in executing our foreign policy, and provide a limitation to Parliament in keeping checks and balances on the government's foreign policy priorities. Because, look, if there is no attendance in Parliament. People will not sit. Meaning MPs and other political leaders will not sit for that duration. So, there will not be enough time for debate, discussion, and questioning. So, obviously, we will not get enough time to discuss important aspects related to foreign policy. That is the important thing. Secondly, secondly, for example, if we talk about Parliament, there was a heated discussion in Parliament on the issue of nationalism. Meaning, the issue of nationalism. Like, important national issues, Rafale deals. This is a very big important discussion in foreign policy. Negotiations for RCEP, which we have seen before. So, there was a heated debate on RCEP negotiations as well. The civil nuclear deal with the USA, there was also a lot of discussion on that in Parliament. At the same time, the clash in Galwan, there was also a discussion on that. So, according to Happyman Jacob, if we try to understand, then basically he noted that party politics, the polarization in India due to party politics, multiple parties, their different priorities, and because there are oppositions, they are like warring groups, opposite to each other. So, due to that party politics, because, look, nationalism is very important in democracy. Without it, you can remember J.S. Mill. J.S. Mill always said that an educated electorate, an aware electorate is very important. Otherwise, just for the sake of opposition, opposing for the sake of opposing. Due to this kind of party politics, national interest, whether it is foreign policy national interest or the overall domestic national interest, public interest, is compromised somewhere. And somewhere, Happyman Jacob also noted the same thing that party politics, party politics continues to limit Parliament's foreign policy oversight. Due to party politics and unnecessary discussions and debates, we lose the opportunity to oversee important foreign policy issues and hold the government accountable for them. But here, Parliament plays a very important role. Okay? The second important thing is the Ministry of External Affairs. The Ministry of External Affairs, obviously, all dimensions of our foreign relations, everything which is pertaining to foreign policy, that has to be handled exclusively, that has to be not handled exclusively by the Prime Minister or any other particular department. But yes, we have a dedicated ministry for foreign policy and external affairs. So, the Ministry of External Affairs is responsible for planning, formulating, and managing India's external relations to protect and promote national interests. Obviously, the goal of our foreign policy is to promote national interests. So, for promoting and protecting this national interest, the work of formulating any policy, or the work of driving and managing our external relations, this dedicated ministry is for this. It is the Ministry of External Affairs. Okay? So, this Ministry of External Affairs acts as a foreign policy secretariat. This Ministry of External Affairs works as a foreign policy secretariat, and its work is also to handle many policy options, different policy options, and the work of implementing decisions. This aspect is handled by the Ministry of External Affairs. It means they analyze various foreign policy options, what are the better options we can go for, and how to implement them, correct, how to execute them, that is all dealt with by the Ministry of External Affairs. Also, it handles global politics, issues related to nuclear proliferation, or the administrative support that our Indian diplomats across the globe, in different countries, in their capitals, need, that administrative support is provided by the Ministry of External Affairs. At the same time, the Ministry of External Affairs coordinates with other ministries. Other ministries, like foreign policy is not just a small particular domain. It is a very big comprehensive domain. For example, when you decide any foreign policy action, so you also have to incorporate and figure out the defense aspect. You have to incorporate and figure out the financial aspect. You have to also incorporate the trade-related aspect. So, you have to look at trade, you have to look at security, you have to look at defense, military. There are many aspects that you have to keep in mind, that you have to figure out, when you make a foreign policy decision. And any foreign policy decision you take, for example, if there was an attack in Pahalgam. So, an attack happened in Pahalgam. This is an external attack on us. An attack on a country. So, to respond to this, only the Ministry of External Affairs cannot take a decision single-handedly. If the Ministry of External Affairs has to take any decision regarding this, then definitely it has to coordinate with the Ministry of Defense, security personnel, and others, and only after coordinating with others and generating consensus, a policy action has to be taken. At the same time, the Ministry of External Affairs manages passport management, visa, consular services, and all these other aspects. But look, the role of the Ministry of External Affairs in foreign policy decision-making has been now overshadowed by the increasing influence of the PMO office. So, the influence of the PMO office has increased a lot now. And that always depends on the leadership, what kind of leadership it is, who is the Prime Minister, what is their nature, and how strong is their overall mandate. It depends on all these factors whether they drive foreign policy single-handedly, or whether the Ministry of External Affairs has so much delegation that it can decide foreign policy. So, basically, now, in foreign policy decisions, the role of the Ministry of External Affairs has been overshadowed to a great extent by the PMO. The influence of the PMO has increased a lot. At the same time, the National Security Council. The National Security Council, because the security aspect is an important aspect of foreign policy. So, the National Security Council also plays a very big important role. Due to this, the role of the Ministry of External Affairs as an institution, as a coordinating body, is somewhat decreasing. For example, if we look at the recent creation of new divisions, like we created an Indo-Pacific division. Why was it created? So that we can cater to a free and open Indo-Pacific and India's interests in the region, and maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific. For this, we created the Indo-Pacific division. At the same time, we created a new division, the NEST division. What is its work? What is the work of NEST? Its long form is New Emerging and Strategic Technologies Division. These new emerging technologies, strategic technologies, like defense or related technologies, for these, we have created separate divisions. At the same time, the Ministry of External Affairs also organizes cultural festivals. Correct? It organizes cultural festivals. And it organizes various events in many foreign countries. So that we can enhance mutual understanding and strengthen our cultural ties between the two countries. Correct. Tanvi Madan, she says that she noted the dominance of the PMO. She identified it. But at the same time, she praises the implementation efficiency of the Ministry of External Affairs, and definitely that has to be praised. Then comes the Ministry of Defense. This also plays a very big important role in foreign policy decision-making and implementation. So, the Ministry of Defense provides its views and expertise on defense policy and national security interests. It plays a role in our national security interests and our defense policies. The Ministry of Defense also collaborates with the Ministry of External Affairs on planning and international cooperation tasks. The planning-related aspects, cooperation, all these. So, basically, both, all players actually have to come together and take all decisions. So, its inputs are very, very important. Defense inputs are very important. At the same time, further, we will also see the National Security Council, its inputs also play a very big role. For example, our S-400 missile, which we acquired from Russia. In the context of its acquisition, the inputs of the Ministry of Defense played a very important role. At the same time, Operation Sindoor, I just talked about it, which we recently... to counter the terror hubs in Pakistan, to crack down on them.

For which we launched Operation Sindoor, a very significant input from the Ministry of Defence was required. Without it, we could not have conducted such a large operation because we need information from every dimension to make a well-informed decision. At the same time, regarding the deal for Stryker vehicles with the US. Now, any defence procurement, any defence deal with any country, it is not just the External Affairs Minister who plays a role. The inputs from the Defence Ministry, their consent, consensus, or their basic vision on this matter is important to make any deal with another country in terms of strategic and defence aspects. Fine. Then there is the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Because, look, in the national interest, recently, the importance of this ministry has increased even further. Why has it increased? Because it's simple: currently, our economic policy, our basic foreign policy's major determinant is the economy. The economy has become one of the significant determinants of our foreign policy. And when the economy is a determinant for us. Why is it a determinant? Because the country's growth, the country's prosperity, the country's development are very important. And for this, we have to work a lot on aspects like investment and trade. They have to be prioritized. And in such a situation, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry plays a very important role. Because the Ministry of Commerce and Industry is something which deals with all the related economic aspects of the country. So, therefore, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry formulates policies related to trade. Policies related to bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements, investment, all matters related to taxation concerning commerce and trade, and in dealing with and formulating policies related to these matters in foreign affairs, they have a very important role. For example, we negotiated a free trade agreement between India and ASEAN. Here, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry showed significant involvement in these negotiations. And at the same time, with other countries like the USA, the European Union, Japan, in all the free trade agreements we signed, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has played an important role everywhere. Recently, if we look, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has negotiated the free trade agreement with EFTA. And it secured 100 billion in investment over 15 years. In the last 15 years, they have played a significant role in securing and negotiating so much investment. Also, India's advocacy regarding the WTO, like in the topic of the Global South, we will see India's advocacy regarding the WTO, because trade is being discussed, the Ministry of Commerce and Trade will play a role in this.

Then, after that, see, all ministries are done, but the recognition of the overall cabinet and cabinet committees is also there. Like we see in newspapers and articles that the cabinet has given its approval for a particular thing, cabinet approval has been received, so cabinet approval, cabinet decisions are important. Okay? Because, for example, if we talk about Operation Sindoor, it's not that any particular leader will unilaterally implement that decision. For that, they will discuss with the cabinet, take inputs from the cabinet, and accordingly, that thing will be implemented. So, any foreign policy, whether it's an evacuation operation or other visa-related aspects, everything, or at least major projects, like if we invest somewhere, like in Iran or Afghanistan, or if we invested in the Parliament building of Afghanistan, then somewhere the decision is discussed in the cabinet first. So, the cabinet, as the highest decision-making body of the government, plays a pivotal role in determining India's external relations. For example, there are cabinet ministers. There are some trusted advisors to the Prime Minister. All these people actually assist in major foreign policy issues and provide necessary directions. As long as the Cabinet Committee on Security, for example, if we talk about the Cabinet Committee on Security, or other cabinet committees, they contribute to policy formulation. Their effectiveness varies from government to government, depending on how much importance a particular government gives to cabinet decisions. If it is a coalition government, then cabinet decisions will play a more important role, and the cabinet can have a significant role in decision-making and providing inputs. So, the cabinet committees have been responsible for making some of the most important decisions, like the decision to conduct a surgical strike against terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. So, basically, surgical strikes or other things, like I mentioned earlier, the Sindoor operation was also approved with an important role from the Cabinet Committee on Security. Cabinet Committee on Security. So, Cabinet Committee on Security. There are also other cabinet committees on different aspects. So, they have an important role.

Now, the National Security Council. The National Security Council is important. Chaired by the Prime Minister, it plays a very critical role in protecting India's security and strategic interests. The National Security Council is an important aspect. Okay? What does it include? In the National Security Council, see, the Ministry of External Affairs, Defence, Home, and similar different ministries, and the National Security Advisor, and some key personalities like the Deputy Chairman of NITI Aayog, are present here. Okay? And the National Security Council is organized in three tiers. It is organized in three tiers. For example, one is the Strategic Planning Group, the second is the National Security Advisor Board, and the third is the Joint Intelligence Committee. We are looking at this in such detail because, firstly, it is the first topic. Being the first topic, we have to look at everything in detail. Because this is all about foreign policy. Later, due to repetition, we will not need to look at things in such detail. Secondly, the NSC is important. The UPSC has already asked questions on it. So, the NSC has been involved in negotiations with France on the purchase of Rafale fighter jets. The Security Council played a very important role in the purchase of Rafale fighter jets. They played a role in the negotiations. At the same time, with the USA, when we acquired Apache attack helicopters, purchased them from them, the inputs from the NSC also played a very big role there.

Then come the think tanks. Like we see think tanks such as ORF or IDS, which are related to our foreign policy. Basically, what do they do? They continuously conduct research. They have a dedicated team. So, they keep researching, observing, analyzing, and they have expert opinions. So, because of this, we can get some good inputs from there in our foreign policy making. We can get them from think tanks. So, the work of think tanks plays a very prominent role in India's foreign policy decision-making. They conduct research, analysis, and by informing us, they also influence our overall public policy. Because we read their articles. Other people read their articles. They sit on various panels, discuss and debate on TV. So, they present their perspectives. So, we get inputs from this. Many notable scholars, thinkers, like some from JNU, or from the Indian Council of World Affairs, Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis, or like ORF, which we also refer to. For example, when we prepare the PSR bulletin, we include articles from ORF there. Because in ORF, like Harsh Pant and other prominent people belong to here. They come from here. Centre for Policy Research. Vivekananda Foundation. The analysis from IDSA, especially regarding the Indo-Pacific strategy, that is something that has informed our overall Quad policy. So, these are very important aspects from where we get inputs. Okay?

Then comes the PMO. Because the PMO, especially if we talk about the Modi era, since Modi's time, this PMO, Prime Minister's Organization, okay? The Prime Minister's Office, basically, has become quite significant because very important people are seated there, and the main thing is that it depends on the leadership, what a particular leader, a particular Prime Minister gives more importance to. So, at least in the Modi era, we can see that the PMO definitely has a very significant role here. According to Harish Kapur, the PMO has played a very dominating role in foreign policy since independence. For example, because in India, there has always been a powerful, an independent Foreign Minister, it's not always been the case. Like now, S. Jaishankar is there, a very, very able Foreign Minister. So, that is there, no question. But it was not always the case. There have always been able ministers, it's not like that. So, because of this, the delegation of power to the External Affairs Minister has not been that much. Okay? Sometimes it increases, sometimes it decreases, depending on the leadership, party, and overall political aspects. So, because of this, Harish Kapur says that the PMO has always played a dominant role because there has always been a vacuum. Because the less the role of the Ministry of External Affairs, or the less powerful it is, the more the PMO will occupy its space in foreign policy decision-making. Even according to Shivshankar Menon, in his book "Choices Inside the Making of Foreign Policy," he reinforces the idea that foreign policy formulation in India has largely remained within the domain of the Prime Minister. This is a very important thing. We can write this. It depends on the question; if the question is about our institutions, then definitely we can talk about this. And Shivshankar Menon has also said that India's foreign policy formulation has always mainly been dominated by the Prime Minister and related organizations or offices. Fine. So, this practice started with Nehru himself. It started with Jawaharlal Nehru. And it has continued with the subsequent Prime Ministers who came later. And that has resulted in bold and innovative grand strategies that are shared across political parties. So, for example, Indira Gandhi's theory of peace and friendship with Russia, basically the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Russia in 1971, or Vajpayee. Every Prime Minister, whenever a Prime Minister came, he took keen interest in foreign policy affairs personally, and they actually created a significant impact on foreign policy, leaving their own landmark contributions at that time. For example, in the current foreign policy, if we talk about the Modi era, we have seen the Modi Doctrine, how there has been a shift from ideological to a mix of pragmatism. This shift, like I.K. Gujral's Gujral Doctrine and the current Modi Doctrine, we can see. So, the PMO has been playing a role in driving. Also, if we talk about the PMO, our mediation efforts regarding Ukraine currently. Right? So, that is basically driven by the PMO. The mediation efforts we showed in 2004. Then there are also pressure groups. Pressure groups also have a role here. We can read about that. Then there is also the role of the media. The media has an important role here. How does the media play a role? The media's role is, on one hand, for communication purposes, to convey the government's policies or the government's stand to the people. It definitely plays a positive role. At the same time, it also plays a role in creating pressure. But here, there is a very important role. There is also a negative role. Very often, misinformation, which has been called something recently. A particular scholar recently said that misinformation is an even larger threat than the COVID-19 pandemic. Misinformation is a much bigger threat than the COVID-19 pandemic. And that's completely true. Because of the excessive proliferation of social media platforms and too much content which is, you know, not necessarily true information. So, because of this, the media plays a very important role. Media experts, the media, creates pressure on decision-makers, like the government, and also tries to influence their responses. So, it also serves as a platform for governments to communicate their objectives, motives, and intentions. Governments always communicate their objectives. Some minister will come, will brief, like even in Operation Sindoor, we saw continuous briefings happening there. In fact, some other officers from the Air Force and other defence officers were also there, bureaucratic officers, military officers. So, somewhere, the government's intention, why the government is taking this particular decision, this kind of information is communicated through the media. However, critics say that the media can be used to control public opinion. At the same time, it can be used to manipulate information and distort the truth. Meaning, it can have a negative utilization. Which actually raises concerns about the quality of reporting and editorial supervision. Then that is one of the valid points because if we look today, basically the media is playing a quite disruptive role. Where the media, somewhere, by distorting the truth, by creating hyper things, the media itself has a TRP agenda. So, even sensitive information is portrayed in a completely wrong way. So, there is a concern here. Okay? The role of the media, especially in foreign policy, needs to be balanced because we need responsible journalism. We need expertise in reporting. Because anyone can talk about foreign policy. Understanding foreign policy itself is a very difficult subject. It's not that simple to analyze things because for this, you need a lot of knowledge. You need to know all the past. You need to know the perspectives of other stakeholders. For example, if we talk about Iran and Israel, or Israel and Palestine, then we need to know its history. What is the perspective of the Gulf countries? What is the perspective of other Western nations? Only someone who knows all this can talk. But in India, if we look, we have seen journalism. Indian journalists are experts in all subjects. They can talk about every subject like experts. They will call a panelist and start giving lectures themselves. They won't ask them anything. This kind of irresponsible journalism has increased a lot in India, and anyone is becoming a journalist nowadays. This is also an important truth. For example, the media coverage of Operation Sindoor in 2025, that has amplified India's anti-terror stance, rallying public support. It's a good thing that we have shown so much support for it and gathered public support through the media. That's good. But sometimes, the media also takes a somewhat problematic stand on some sensitive issues. Because of which, providing too much information, which other countries, for example, Pakistan or other countries, can also access. So, a balance between transparency and secrecy is necessary. The diaspora also plays a role here. In the diaspora, basically, see, Non-Resident Indians come. Persons of Indian Origin come. Okay? So, all these people also play an important role in India's foreign policy. For example, now the diaspora is not just filled with laborers. There are very important, significant personalities who belong to India but are living in foreign countries. They are in CEO positions in big companies. They have also acquired big political positions in other countries. So, in such a situation, that becomes one of the very strong points of Indian foreign policy, that we have such a strong, strong and quality diaspora across the globe. They represent India's interests and try to protect India's interests. So, it plays a very big role in things happening in favor of India's national and international policy. Okay? So, the government sees the diaspora as an asset in promoting India's priorities. India's priorities are promoted at the global level, and at the same time, India always tries to leverage mutual benefits from their network, resources, and expertise. At the same time, this evolving relationship between the diaspora and foreign policy highlights the importance of engaging with and harnessing the potential of the Indian diaspora in shaping foreign policy decisions. Okay? So, their engagement is necessary in our foreign policy decisions. For example, recently, NRIs and PIOs have helped spread Indian culture and values around the world. We also see news on TV, on media, basically on YouTube, on Instagram, we keep seeing how Indians who have gone abroad speak in favor of India's interests. Even during the "America First" era and Trump's era, basically, Trump's America, the restrictions on visas and other things, and then how to favor trade conditions for India, in all these aspects, the diaspora has played a role. Okay? And a very big significant power of India, its soft power, a significant part of it is the Indian diaspora. Okay? So, the diaspora's role was evident in Modi's US and Australia visits in 2024, where NRI events secured commitments for investment. Along with that, recently, in 2025 itself, we launched the Digital Consular Platform, through which our engagement with the diaspora can increase. So, this is what the different institutions mean when we talk about institutions. Institution doesn't just mean Parliament.

Or there isn't a proper institution that is like a building. By institution, I mean that the diaspora is also a very big institution here. There are think tanks. And the other important particular aspects of stakeholders who play an important role in foreign policy. Okay? Then another important point comes here, which is continuity and changes in foreign policy. What are the components in India's foreign policy that are continuous, and what are the components that have changed? Now, look, this question is basically mostly based upon interpretation because it is based on our analysis and interpretation as to what things we see as continuity. What things have actually been continuous, and what things have changed? For example, if we look at peaceful coexistence, friendly relations, or non-violence, these are some important aspects that have been guiding our foreign policy from the beginning. Even today, they are the biggest guidance for foreign policy making and the biggest drivers of foreign policy. So, our foreign policy, its actions, or policies, anything, is guided by these. So, let's try to understand where the continuity lies. Where have we maintained continuity? For example, if we talk about continuity, continuity basically reflects India's long-term interests. When continuity is discussed, long-term interests basically represent India's continuity. So, they provide a sense of direction and consistency in India's engagement with the international community. And now, this word, consistency, is very important. Consistency in foreign policy is very important. Only then are relations predictable, and trust is gained. For example, if your stand on any issue keeps changing from time to time, then somewhere the confidence of other players in us decreases a bit. So, to maintain trust in oneself, as India is a responsible player today. We can portray or call it a responsible global player. So, as a responsible player, why has it become a responsible player? Because somewhere, through our behavior, through our foreign policy reactions and actions, we have shown consistency. Because of which, other countries have developed trust and confidence in us. They know that if India is there, then in this particular situation, in this particular conflict, what kind of stand India will take. India will always take a stand which helps prevent and protect peace and order at the global level. So, we have always had a consistent stand on these matters. So, that consistency, that continuity, is important. So, along with this, Indian foreign policy has been based on values. Like, for example, non-alignment is an important thing. Non-alignment has been a long-standing principle of Indian foreign policy. It has been a principle of our foreign policy from the very beginning, meaning from the time of the Cold War. In fact, it's from independence. Because when India gained independence, from then itself, we thought that it is better to focus on our development rather than aligning with any bloc in this polarized world order. Our priorities should be developmental priorities. That is why we took the stand of non-alignment. So, we have continued that. India's strive to maintain its independence. Even today, we maintain our independence. Because it's not about not going with any other country. It's about maintaining our own independence. This is not about going with any country or not. It is about how independently we keep our own foreign policy, ourselves, in our decision-making. Because when we align with a country, we have to, somewhere, align our foreign policy priorities with the policies of another country. Where the problem can be that our national interest can be compromised. And if we compromise our national interest, then what is the meaning of our independence? If we are an independent nation, then definitely our foreign policy should also be independent. Our foreign policy should also be equally independent. And for this, non-alignment is basically, non-alignment is the natural, the natural value and natural principle of our foreign policy, not because of the Cold War era. It is not at all that our foreign policy adopted non-alignment because of the Cold War era. Non-alignment is an inherent component of our Indian sovereignty. Because India gained independence after a very long time and after a long colonial struggle. So, maintaining independence in our foreign policy becomes a very natural aspect. Okay? So, India has strived to maintain its independence and not align itself with any military blocs or alliances, allowing it to pursue an independent and balanced approach to global affairs. If we look at recent times, India's non-alignment, our stand of independent foreign policy, is evident from the fact that we maintained a neutral stand during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Also, in the UN resolution where Russia was condemned for this crisis in 2024, we abstained from this as well. We abstained from voting here. Why? Because, of course, we do not support war, and we want peace. At the same time, we also have to manage our relationships, which are long-standing, especially with Russia, because Russia has been a very important and long-standing friend. So, scholars like Shyam Saran argue that India's non-alignment is evolving into multi-alignment now. Earlier, we were on non-alignment, but now we are on multi-alignment. So, the core idea is still non-alignment. Multi-alignment is basically based on interest. Ultimately, our national interest is continuous. Whatever the approach of our foreign policy, the ultimate is national interest. So, to protect national interest, whether we have to remain non-aligned or become multi-aligned, it doesn't matter. But what matters is national interest. So, that is something continuous. Even national non-alignment is, in one way, a continuous thing. It is a continuous thing. So, somewhere, we are now shifting a bit from non-alignment to multi-alignment, balancing ties with Russia and the West while prioritizing national interest. Because we know the West has imposed sanctions on Russia. And after imposing sanctions, it is somewhat expected that India also should not engage in any kind of dealings with those countries on whom sanctions have been imposed. Because sanctions are imposed precisely to isolate them economically and diplomatically. But India, to protect its stand and its national interest, and to keep its stand independent, it is not necessary that it complies with the sanctions of other countries. It will carry out things according to its own national interest, prioritizing accordingly. Here, even multilateralism. Multilateralism, I hope you know about multilateralism, because we are going to appear for the mains. So, you must know about multilateralism. India actively engages in multilateral forums. Like the United Nations, which is a multilateral forum where there are multiple players. Okay? IMF, World Bank, these are all multilateral forums. So, in multilateral forums like the United Nations, promoting global cooperation and addressing common challenges is something India has always actively engaged in and worked on. Also, India supports the principles of multilateralism. We support multilateral institutions. Unlike, say, America, which is withdrawing from multilateral institutions, unilaterally withdrawing. That is not our thing. It is unilaterally withdrawing from multilateral institutions. We are not withdrawing. We actually support multilateral issues. Because we believe in the liberal international and multipolar world order. We believe in a multipolar world order based on liberal principles. Therefore, we support multilateralism because cooperation can increase through multilateral institutions. We can solve common challenges together. We can solve them collectively. That is why we believe in multilateralism. At the same time, we have respect for international law. We respect international law, like UN clauses, UN clauses, or other international laws, and we also respect multilateral decision-making and focus on collective actions. For example, climate change. On climate change, India alone, or any country alone, cannot do anything. Here, we need collective action, collective efforts. Like UNFCCC, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We need such collective actions. The Paris Agreement, it is a collective action. So, collectively, we can find solutions to the challenges and problems which are contemporary challenges of, you know, of the entire world, which affect everyone at the global level. Like terrorism, or inequality, poverty, hunger, these are all global problems. It's not that they are not in developed countries. They are everywhere. So, India is a member of many multilateral organizations, like G20, BRICS, SCO, etc. India is a member of many such multilateral forums. Then, strategic autonomy. Now, strategic autonomy is a very, very important thing. Strategic autonomy. Whether we talk about multi-alignment in foreign policy or issue-based alliances, simply our strategic autonomy is important to us. And we have always maintained it through non-alignment as well as through multi-alignment. Meaning, where our interest can be protected, is being preserved, we align there. So, that basically shows how we have maintained our strategic autonomy in our foreign policy. India strives to maintain its strategic autonomy and independent decision-making in international affairs. There is no doubt. And it seeks to protect its national interest and pursue partnerships and collaborations based on mutual benefit. Mutual benefit. India has refused to join any military alliance such as NATO or other five, or other organizations like Five Eyes, and even India rejects the Quad to be a military alliance. India is part of the Quad. But we have not said that the Quad is a military alliance. We have denied that it is a military alliance in any way. So, India, the way it maintains relations with both the USA and Russia, for example, during the Russia-Ukraine crisis, the way India has maintained relations with both Russia and the US. What does this show? That India's basically strategic posturing is completely autonomous. Even if the US has a problem or the West has a problem with Russia, we are still having good relations with Russia because of our interests. So, that is basically, we assert our autonomy. Now, this is very important. We are not just maintaining strategic autonomy, but we are right now actively asserting strategic autonomy. We actively assert our strategic autonomy. We have directly stated that we have defense agreements with you. With you, like we have signed defense agreements with the USA. Regarding interoperability, even intelligence sharing. Our relationship, defense relationship, and strategic relationship through the Quad and other aspects. Our relationship with the USA is quite deep in the defense aspect, in the strategic aspect. But at the same time, our relationship with Russia, be it defense trade, defense production, everything, is properly maintained, and we are trying to enhance it. Trying to diversify it. Even if both the players are antagonistic. They are quite contradictory to each other. Yet, we are maintaining relations with both. And that is not actually very easy because it's like walking on a tightrope. Maintaining such relationships is not easy because globally, there is clear polarization. The world order, our world order, has clear polarization. Things have become poles apart. Despite that, we are able to maintain relations with both countries, and for that matter, with other countries as well. That is only and only because of our strategic autonomy. Because of strategic autonomy. So, you can see an example of India's strategic autonomy in defense deals. We have done deals with the USA, like the aspect of Stryker vehicles, the Stryker vehicles deal with the USA. At the same time, we have tried to purchase the S-400 system from Russia. So, we have maintained our defense relations with both. We have maintained defense relations. Then, democratic principles. Democratic principles. Democracy is a core value of India's foreign policy. Okay? India promotes democratic principles. Promotes democratic institutions. And practices, democratic practices, whether domestically or internationally. Although we are not agents of democracy promotion, we are not agents of democracy promotion, but we want democracy. We favor democracy. Correct? When in any country, there is a democratically elected person, right? If there is a democratically elected establishment, we respect it and try to maintain friendly relations with them. But understand, if there is no democratically elected government or establishment there, if there is a government or establishment that has captured power, whether democratically elected or not, we do not necessarily support them completely. But yes, then we have to maintain relations with the public there for their interests. But it is not necessary that we support such regimes which are undemocratic. Okay? So, we support democratic ideas, ideals, practices, domestically and internationally. And we emphasize the importance of democratic governance for stability and progress. Whether global or domestic stability, or global progress or domestic progress, democratic government is very important for both stability and progress. For example, India's engagement with other democracies, like through the Quad initiative and its partnerships with countries like the US and Japan, shows how committed we are to our democratic principles. Also, India supported the democratic transition in Bangladesh last year. After Sheikh Hasina, after she left the country and fled Bangladesh, India supported the subsequent democratic transition in Bangladesh. With the visit of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri in December 2024, it emphasized minority safety. We also pay attention to minority safety. That is why we support democracy, because minorities and every individual's diversity should be respected. Then, development cooperation. It has also been a continuous development. We are looking at all these factors of continuity. Our support for democracy, development cooperation, strategic autonomy, all these aspects, or our support for multilateral institutions and the multilateral world order, our support for multilateralism, all these aspects are continuous threads of our foreign policy. Continuous threads mean they are continuously ongoing. We were emphasizing strategic autonomy before, it is still important to us today, and even in the future, strategic autonomy will remain important to us. So, these are all elements of continuity. Developmental cooperation. Obviously, we want to develop, and we want other countries to develop as well. And that is why India has a tradition. India has a tradition of extending development cooperation to other countries, particularly the Global South. Because they have a common struggle and have had a common past. An overall common past. Basically, a common struggle of colonialism and imperialism. The countries of the Global South, because we also, you know? So, therefore, engaging in developmental cooperation in the countries of the Global South, because our path is development, our ambition is development. So, this includes providing technical assistance. For example, there are many initiatives now. We cannot cover so many small initiatives here, but there are many initiatives. We can read about them in magazines and elsewhere. There are many initiatives that India basically implements. Like providing technical assistance, focusing on capacity building of the people there. For example, we built a parliament in Afghanistan, built a dam. Or if we go to the Global South, to other countries, then through this initiative, Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation, we have worked on capacity building and skill enhancement. We have tried to enhance the skills of the people there, enhance their employability, and increase their employment opportunities. So, this is our developmental cooperation. If we talk about changes in Indian foreign policy, then to trace the changes in Indian foreign policy, we can trace it in six broader phases. Six phases. Six broader phases which signify how foreign policy got evolved and not just evolved, but it has changed from time to time. How it has shifted from time to time, and how changes have come, we trace that in six phases. The first phase is from 1947 to 1962, basically the Nehru era. Okay? So, in the Nehru era, India adopted an optimistic non-aligned stand. Okay, optimistic. We were, first of all, very optimistic, that is the truth. We were optimistic. We adopted a non-aligned, optimistic non-alliance stand. At that time, when there was a bipolar world order, dominated by the USA and USSR, this was our situation. But '62, which is basically a landmark year, from '62 to '71, after that, basically, that phase was marked by a decade of realism and recovery. We had to face reality, a war happened there, a war with China. In 1962, a war with China happened. So, India made very pragmatic choices, responded to the security and political challenges that arose at that time. We had to design a somewhat pragmatic response. So, we made a slight shift from idealism to realism here. India also faced external pressures at that time. For example, the Kashmir issue. We faced a lot of pressure regarding the Kashmir issue. And almost which led to a shift towards a closer tie with the USSR. At that time, we were almost going to get closer to the USSR, or were nearly doing so, because due to the pressure, we needed the support of some country or the other. After that, the third phase, look from 1971 to 1991. At that time, India had greater regional assertion. Regional, meaning in the region, we had a very assertive stand. The kind of assertive stand we have today, well, today we don't have such an assertive stand at the regional level. Rather, we are giving more emphasis and priorities. So, India at that time, regional.

Assertion was demonstrated quite a lot and countries' remarkable use of hard power. At that time, we used hard power, which was evident, which was evident in the contribution to the liberation of Bangladesh. In the war that basically happened in Bangladesh in 1971, the way India used hard work. Used its power. Under the treaty, we also took the help of this treaty. At that time, we signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation, and with this, our position had become quite strengthened at that time. Okay? So, we acquired quite a realistic and assertive stance in foreign policy at that time. But at that time, we also faced economic sanctions from the USA. We faced economic sanctions from the USA and its basically other allies. Especially in the context of the Pokhran nuclear one, our test that happened in 1974, the Pokhran test that happened, we had to face sanctions because of conducting it. So, you see how idealism turned into realism, from realism to a slightly assertive foreign policy, and then economic sanctions, and then navigating through that situation, all these things we are doing. The fourth phase, from 1991 to 1998, in this, we mainly focused on safeguarding strategic autonomy and in a unipolar world, which was dominated by the USA because the Cold War had ended, and here, with the disintegration of the USSR, basically communist regimes and their support were somehow ending. Correct? So, in such a situation, a unipolar world order was created, which was dominated by the USA because the USA remained the only, you know, superpower at that time. Therefore, India had to re-evaluate its approach towards world affairs, our approach towards global politics, because the reality of a completely globalized and polarized world had completely changed. The creation of a completely unipolar world order from a bipolar world order, which was particularly dominated by a particular country like the USA, was a significant factor due to which we needed to re-evaluate our foreign policy and our perspectives on world affairs. So, at that time, we sought to secure our nuclear weapons capacity, which we somehow tried to secure, for which we engaged with the USA, Israel, ASEAN, and we also pursued the Gujral Doctrine. We also pursued the Gujral Doctrine, which actually emphasized upon non-interference, settlement of disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations, and accommodating neighboring countries in good faith and trust. The Gujral Doctrine basically focuses on the settlement of disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations. Okay? And also to have good relations with neighboring countries. Based on good faith and trust, we could accommodate their interests, and we focused on non-interference. So, at that time, obviously, we engaged with the USA, engaged with Israel, engaged with ASEAN, and also adopted the Gujral Doctrine. So, many things changed in those seven to eight years. The fifth phase, which is from 1998 to 2013. We can also broadly say up to 2014. So, it witnessed India's emergence as a balancing power. Now, this is a very big change. See, it's a change. India is now becoming a balancing power. A balancing power. Okay? Why is it becoming so? Because the USA is also looking towards, because, you see, China's aggression was increasing in such a situation. Someone is needed in this Indo-Pacific region who can balance China. So, the USA, the USA cannot directly come here and balance. So, the USA tried to balance China with India's cooperation. This means the USA saw India as a balancing power or considered it capable enough. Our image, our standing, our global standing increased significantly. So, the country sought to address its energy security concerns and balance the rise of China. We had to try to do this. A nuclear deal happened between the USA and India. The 123 Agreement, the 123 Agreement means it's not the 123 Agreement. It is Agreement 1 2 3, the nuclear deal we signed with the USA. So, that actually focuses, that actually signified a shift, a shift that is actually a significant development in India's engagement with the global community. The focus was on common causes. With the USA, the agreement we made, the collaboration we did with the USA, our focus was common. Here, not just with the USA, we also signed a nuclear deal with the USA. We also collaborated with the USA. But at the same time, we also tried to collaborate with China. Where, at least in some aspects, we may have conflicts. In some aspects, we may have conflicts. But in some aspects, we have mitigated common causes with China. For example, what is a common cause for us? Climate change. This is one of the common causes concerning India and China. So, here, we have collaborated or are collaborating with countries like China. The sixth phase, after 2013-14, then this is known as the Modi era, we can say. So, India has shown energetic engagement on multiple fronts. Our engagement has been at an energetic level on multiple fronts. The country has greatly prioritized an integrated neighborhood. Meaning, the Neighborhood First policy, through the Neighborhood First policy, we have focused on an integrated neighborhood. Meaning, to integrate economically with neighboring countries. To integrate politically, culturally, to come together, to collaborate. There has been some focus on this. So, therefore, the neighborhood has become a priority. Okay? The neighborhood was a priority before, but our immediate priority is the neighborhood. This signifies that our foreign policy has an important component, the Neighborhood First policy. Neighborhood First policy. So, it seeks greater global influence. Now, we, now, from 2013 onwards, our foreign policy actually seeks greater global influence. We want our influence at the global level to be substantial. We no longer want to be just a regional player. We no longer want to be just a developing country. We want our impact, our influence, our image at the global level to be greatly enhanced. For example, we are also trying for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, the UNSC. Along with this, we are also building our membership in various international groups. We are also trying to become members there. India has even pushed for reforms in the USA. That is also basically a very big, basically our important domain. Where we continuously seek reforms in the institutions of global governance, especially in the UNSC, with the changing global realities and geopolitical realities. In 2024, we had border disengagement with China. Different, different, meaning what are our major developments that have happened from 2014 onwards, we are seeing that. Due to which, what shifts have occurred in our foreign policy. For example, we disengaged with China on the LAC. Okay? Modi's peace mediation, this is also a very significant step, that we are mediating peace in the matter of Russia-Ukraine. This is a very big thing for India. So, this shows India's assertive diplomacy. Also, India's simultaneous engagement, for example, with Russia, with the USA, with China. Although all these major global powers have definitely polarized the world order due to them. It has become polarized. But we are with Russia, and we are also collaborating with the USA on some issues, on some topics, on some subjects. We are also with China. Okay? So, this shows how our foreign policy has seen a deliberate shift towards balancing the great powers. How our foreign policy has shifted towards balancing the great powers. Okay? After that, this evolution, this evolution is aligned with the continuity of strategic autonomy but reflects a strategic adaptation to multipolarity. Okay? So, this is how this basically our Indian foreign policy, this first topic, pictures the complete Indian foreign policy in a nutshell, what basically our foreign policy is. It is important to understand this. We have taken this chapter in detail a bit, so that this is our foundation. Because my ultimate goal is that after watching this video, you don't need to read anything else, and you don't need to do any extra current affairs. Along with this, I have tried to integrate it. So, I can say with certainty that this single video is enough for you. That's all. And keeping this in mind, I am taking things in a bit of detail. If something is important, then in a way that it builds our foundation. Okay? So, let us now try to understand what is India's contribution to the Non-Aligned Movement. A very important topic is the Non-Aligned Movement. Every time, every, every time UPSC asks questions on this. Non-Aligned Movement. So, what is India's contribution to this Non-Aligned Movement, and what are its different phases, and what is its current role? Meaning, is Non-Alignment basically relevant or not? What is its relevance? We try to understand this topic from all these perspectives. Fine. So, first of all, India and the Non-Aligned Movement. Our Prime Minister, what are his views? What are our Prime Minister's views? So, our Non-Aligned Movement is still relevant. Now, whether it is relevant or not, this is a debatable topic. Different, different scholars provide different, different perspectives on this. But according to our Prime Ministers, different, different Prime Ministers, what is Non-Alignment? If we see P.V. Narasimha Rao, according to him, the main concern of the Non-Aligned Movement is not related to the main concern about the Non-Aligned Movement is not related to the superpower rivalry. As I said earlier, the Non-Aligned Movement or our Non-Aligned stand is not just about avoiding superpower rivalry. Correct? It is about our independent foreign policy. It is about our independent foreign policy. Correct? So, rather, it is to give a voice and address the concerns of the Third World countries. Now, according to Narasimha Rao, the main concern of the Non-Aligned Movement is not just to avoid superpower rivalry, but to provide a voice to the basically Third World countries and address their concerns. This is the concern. According to Indira Gandhi, according to her, its name is the biggest peace movement in the world. Now, this statement holds a very much relevance in the PSR answer writing. Here, when we talk about Non-Alignment, we should definitely portray it. We should present Non-Alignment in such a way that it is a peace movement. It is our peace movement. We will portray it in this way. Now, at the 9th Non-Aligned Summit held in Kampala, Uganda, PM Modi also reiterated that the role of NAM as a platform for Global South unity has been re-emphasized, and we have also emphasized that in issues like inclusive development, climate change, climate justice, and the unity of the Global South, and South-South solidarity, to enforce, utilize, and create it, basically to create South-South cooperation, NAM is a very credible and relevant platform, and PM Modi said this at the 19th NAM Summit held in Kampala, Uganda. So, first of all, let's understand how Non-Alignment became a part of our foreign policy. Why did we adopt it? Why did we adopt this principle of Non-Alignment? Okay? So, first of all, the adoption of the Non-Alignment principle was actually influenced by a combination of multiple factors like our idealistic perspective, realistic pragmatism, and Indian exceptionalism. Indian exceptionalism, realism, and pragmatism. So, from all these perspectives, it was a well-thought-out choice that ideally, if we look at it ideally, how it is, we will see that. Let's talk about idealism. According to the idealistic perspective, we basically, we had to avoid any kind of military alliances because it was the Cold War, there was a bipolar world order, and in this bipolar world order, by not entering into any kind of rivalry, we somehow tried to stay away from these military alliances. And also, we focused basically on collective security and strengthening international law. We believed in collective security to strengthen international law and international cooperation. Therefore, we did not want to align with any military alliance. For this, we maintained an ideal perspective of staying away from it, that we opted for Non-Alignment. So, ideally, we believed that India's vital interest would be best served when we maintain non-alignment and non-alignment with any particular bloc. Remaining non-aligned with any particular bloc would actually serve the best interests of the country. So, this was our idealistic perspective. Even if we look from a realistic perspective, joining any bloc would have caused us problems. Why? Because it would have exposed India to potential aggression and a basically war-like situation. India would have been exposed to potential aggression or any kind of war, which, looking at the practicalities of that time, the realities of that time, we would never have favored or preferred because our priorities were developmental priorities. So, that is a practical aspect which it lacked. We could not face any kind of war, or did not want to, because we lacked the means to defend against it. We did not want to expose ourselves to any such possible aggression or war, because we did not hold that capability to face it, and it was unnecessary because those were not our priorities. So, India's core national interest would be best served and best protected if it remained non-aligned, and that's why this was actually, we went for the Non-Alignment, which was actually guided by geopolitical calculations, geostrategic interests presented in ideological terms. Thus, India's adoption of NAM is a mix of idealism and realism, hence it is called pragmatically best. Okay? So, here, in 2024, at the NAM summit, India advocated for digital sovereignty, which reflects the idealistic push for collective security in the cyber space. Because now, the challenges we are facing are not just traditional challenges. We are not just facing traditional challenges. It is not just a world of ideological polarization, but even in the digital space. In the digital space, we are facing problems like cyber attacks. And in such a situation, the concept of collective security has evolved a lot. Collective security, this concept has evolved a lot. For example, earlier, collective security, this domain was mainly based on military understanding. It was based on military strength, the defense aspect. But now, due to non-traditional acts, non-traditional basically threats, and non-state actors, collective security has become more comprehensive than ever. So, for example, NAM, NAM now has digital sovereignty because digital sovereignty is important, especially when we talk about Global South countries. Their digital sovereignty is important. You should think a bit about this, what digital sovereignty is and why it is so important for Global South countries, because you will see that as much as digital data there is, mainly Western countries dominate the digital space because most of the companies, things are in Western countries. Because of this, our digital sovereignty, our digital privacy, the digital sovereignty of our countries, our decision-making in this is not yet that much, meaning our role in decision-making is quite reduced, especially in the digital space, because we don't own that much of the digital instruments. And that's why this concept of digital sovereignty is very important for NAM, especially for NAM countries, which are developing Third World countries. So, let's understand how India's engagement with NAM has been over time. India's alignment, okay? The Non-Alignment policy has gone through distinct phases. It has gone through many different phases. First of all, if we talk about the first phase, say up to 1962, this was the first phase. In this phase, India pursued Non-Alignment. We pursued it in an idealistic sense. As we saw, our idealistic reasons, our ideological reasons, and our realistic reasons. So, ideologically, our phase of Non-Alignment up to 1962 was basically, basically, basically, here we pursued Non-Alignment in an idealistic sense and also utilized it. Correct? Through which we tried to gain economic and military aid from both superpowers, and we also tried to achieve respect and cooperation among Third World nations. But when the Kashmir issue, the events that happened, the Kashmir issue, and then the war between India and China, our limitations, the diverging interests among NAM members, this is the thing within NAM. It's not that because they are NAM countries, everyone's interests are common. In some aspects, like our struggle against colonialism, it can be common. But in some aspects, there were diverging interests even among NAM members. And these diverging interests, especially after 1962, when the India-China war happened, when the Kashmir issue arose, that reality came before us. We realized that we cannot pursue NAM by completely following idealistic principles. Correct? We cannot pursue NAM solely from an idealistic perspective. These realities were exposed to us at that time. And India.

The position that is in the UN. Okay? And the lack of unwavering support during the war highlighted the fault lines in NAM. The basically gaps and fractures in NAM were understood at that time when it came to seeking support for the Kashmir issue or other matters in the UN, it is not that all NAM countries were in its support. And that actually exposed India to the realities of NAM where NAM itself was a fracture. There were so many fractures within NAM itself. So this legacy of the idealistic phase, although it persisted because, as India leveraged NAM's moral authority. We advocated for NAM's moral authority even at the NAM summit in Kampala, Uganda in 2024, that how NAM as a platform can provide moral authority to India. Okay? At the same time, India advocated for the priorities of the Global South, such as the financial aspect related to climate finance and climate change. We can see this issue in detail in comparative politics. But India advocated for the priorities of the Global South. Now, look, this was our 1962 phase. Okay? The phase dominated by an idealistic perspective until 1962. The second phase, which basically happened from 1962 to 1990, here, recognizing the limitations of its own choices, India adopted a slightly more realistic approach, especially in security matters. India adopted a realistic approach, okay? For example, 1971, which we saw in phases in foreign policy, the changes also coincide with this. So, the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty, through which we basically secured a mutual security guarantee, marked a shift towards realism. Earlier, our foreign policy was guided by a lot of idealism. Now, somewhere, the Kashmir event happened. Then the Sino-Indian war happened. Then, seeing the limitations within NAM and the fractures within NAM, somewhere our foreign policy gained a realistic maturity. Earlier, our idealistic optimism was high. Now, our realistic maturity has started to emerge. Okay? So, somewhere, we have made a departure, a departure from idealism. And there is genuine non-alignment, and there is absolute non-alignment, and there is relative non-alignment. So, initially, we had absolute non-alignment. But gradually, we started moving away from absolute non-alignment. Okay? We started moving away a bit because it became a necessity at that time. So, India, at that time, criticized the economic policies of the USA's neo-colonialism, and because of this, being seen as leading NAM, India's non-alignment was basically seen as a reflex of India's anti-Americanism or a stand reflecting anti-Americanism within NAM. So, in this way, NAM started to be perceived by the USA and other countries as a platform that strengthens India's anti-American voice rather than genuine non-alignment for India. This is how their perspective became. Okay? So, the realistic approach has now gradually evolved into multi-alignment. And what is happening now? India is also doing defense deals with the US and energy agreements with Russia. So, it is balancing. Now, multi-alignment is balancing strategic autonomy. This is the current situation. Fine. And what changed after that? In the post-Cold War phase, after 1990, if we look, India faced many challenges. For example, it became difficult for India to formulate a consistent foreign policy because domestic divisions evolved. Domestic divisions erupted, and along with that, global dynamics, such as the collapse of the USSR and the creation of a unipolar world order, made it difficult for India to maintain a consistent stand in its foreign policy. That is why many changes and shifts occurred in foreign policy around 1990. So, the absence of consensus on Indian foreign policy, due to domestic politics or party politics, meant that there was no consensus on Indian foreign policy. There wasn't. Because of this, right-wing factions were basically advocating pro-West stances. The right-wing factions, we are talking about domestic politics. In the domestic political divisions, the right-wing faction favored West stances, whereas communist factions favored closer ties with the Soviet Union. Correct, with the Soviet Union. Okay? So, that contributed to the lack of genuine non-alignment. Because non-alignment means not aligning oneself with any power bloc. So, you can achieve genuine non-alignment only when there is no bias. But now, because there is so much polarization in domestic politics, some factions favor the West, and some factions basically favor the communist Soviet Union. In such a situation, it became a bit difficult to consistently maintain non-alignment. Correct? So, if we look at India's role in NAM, India has played a very significant role in the Non-Aligned Movement with the aim of achieving global peace and security. Look, global peace and security is one of the important objectives of our foreign policy. And to pursue and maintain this, the platform of the Non-Aligned Movement, I will talk about its current relevance as well, although we will talk separately. But I will also talk about its current relevance. Because today, our peace and security, global peace and security, is our objective, and NAM is one of the better platforms through which we can pursue or advocate for global peace and security. Because we are the ones who, of course, global peace and security is more important for everyone. But especially for developing nations, for Third World countries, it is very important. Because for us, the priorities now, especially for the past 50-70 years, our priorities have been development, and for that, you need peace and security. So, India's role, in this way, we see that first of all, India's biggest role is in maintaining the integrity of the organization, the integrity of NAM as an organization. Correct? India worked to prevent NAM from being dominated by the aspirations of particular countries. India has worked to save NAM from being dominated by the aspirations of any particular country and to maintain its integrity. For example, it actively fought to retain the relevance of NAM even after significant events like the Camp David Accords and the fall of the Berlin Wall, which had the potential to impact the relevance and unity of the movement. These incidents, the fall of the Berlin Wall, or at the same time, the Camp David Accords, were very significant events that could have disturbed polarity, the world's polarity, the order. In such critical situations, where there was the highest possibility that members of the Non-Aligned Movement would separate and align with some countries, and somewhere the Non-Aligned Movement would completely disrupt its unity, there was such a possibility. Despite that, India maintained its unity and integrity. So, the first role is this. Okay? India reinforced NAM's integrity, even at the Kampala Summit, we reinforced India's NAM integrity, stating that it is still important and we must always preserve it. Okay? So, that is visible in continuity. Second, support for newly liberated nations. India's origin of NAM, if we look, NAM started precisely because some Third World countries, colonized countries, development was important for them at that time. It was necessary to emerge from poverty. It was necessary to achieve economic growth. In such a situation, getting involved in the power blocs and their ideological and military rivalries would have pushed them further into poverty and further away from development, which was not a viable option for these countries under any circumstances. Therefore, to support newly liberated countries, to create a movement through NAM, to prepare a common front, to follow a developmental path, India basically contributed to NAM. Okay? Then, fight against colonialism. Obviously, it was a fight against colonialism, which was basically in some countries where there was colonial rule at that time. So, to liberate, make independent, and free those countries from colonialism, the NAM movement has been helping as a platform, and India has used its role against these causes: colonialism, imperialism, and racism. Okay? Because India's own struggle for independence was also a great inspiring factor for other countries, so that they could fight against colonialism. Then, disarmament is an important topic. India wants to stop nuclear proliferation. We want to move towards disarmament so that we support global peace. We want stability to remain. But not in terms of nuclear deterrence. Stability through nuclear deterrence. Correct? And stability without nuclear deterrence and nuclear weapons is a big difference. So, we basically want disarmament. So, India has played a very big, very important role here. It approved the Moscow Test Ban Treaty and raised concerns about the discriminatory nature of the nuclear proliferation regime. We will see this in the nuclear chapter. In the nuclear chapter, we will see how the nuclear regime is discriminatory. It means it allows a few members to acquire and possess nuclear weapons, whereas it bans the same for others, and it punishes if someone who does not have the right to own a nuclear weapon, if they own a nuclear weapon, then it punishes. So, that is a discriminatory regime. India itself is a victim of this, and at the same time, India has also supported, contributed, and made efforts to establish a new international economic order. India recognizes the importance of economic independence. We also know how important economic independence is for us. Okay? So, along with political freedom, economic independence is necessary. So, India played a very important role in advocating for the establishment of a New International Economic Order. A New International Economic Order means the already established economic order, or the one that exists today, is completely dominated. When we talk about the economic order, it includes the IMF, the World Bank, and other financial multilateral institutions where Western countries, developed countries, have dominance, and the global financial system, or the global international economic order, whether it is trade, finance, or investment, should be fair. Especially, developed countries should be in support of developing countries and in their favor and interest. Whereas these Western democracies or Western countries, their capitalist tendencies, are reinforced by the existing global financial order through the IMF and World Bank, and that is one of the important concerns. That is a very big concern, and through NAM, a new international economic order, meaning if India demands a new international economic order single-handedly, it will not have much impact. But because this demand, this need, is not just India's. This is the need of all developing countries, so that the dominance of developed countries in the international economic order is not there, and to develop or establish a fair international economic order, which is new, where there is equality, not inequality, it is necessary for all developing countries to create a unified voice on a common platform, and for this, NAM is still very relevant today, very relevant. And even at the 2024 summit, at the Global South Summit, India committed 200 crore for economic cooperation in Oceania, aligning with its New International Economic Order. Okay? So, what is this New International Economic Order? Basically, it goes for New International Economic Order. First, let's understand. What is it? It was championed by India in 1970. In 1970, India raised its voice for the need for a New International Economic Order. It tried to set a narrative, and an economic order that could address poverty in developing countries, and eliminate global economic inequality. Eliminate it. Eliminate global economic inequality in terms of finance, strategy, investment, and basically, it called for fair trade, technology transfer, and access to better technology for developing countries so that developing countries can benefit from it and ensure their own growth and prosperity, and also receive financial assistance so that the gap between North and South, the gap in economic growth and development, can be bridged. Okay? So, here are all its features. Features of the New International Economic Order. Basically, this is simple. Basically, if we keep its objective in mind, what is it? Even if we keep technology, free trade in mind, that is enough. Okay? Now, but what are the challenges in this? What are the challenges in the New International Economic Order? First of all, look, the industrialized states, the developed countries, oppose it. Because their argument is that the existing system is sufficient to take care of the Third World's demands. That the existing order is enough to fulfill the demands and take care of the needs of Third World countries. Whereas it is not enough because the existing order only favors developed countries, and this is clearly visible if we look at the agendas and implementations of the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and all other organizations. And lack of economic and military power. First of all, we are not able to pursue this, the New International Economic Order, because developing countries do not have enough economic and military power. Second, we are facing many insecurity dilemmas. Post-colonial societies are facing many dilemmas and insecurities. At the same time, the significance of NAM is also declining. And secondly, lack of unity. There are many fractures and divisions within NAM itself. So, because of those divisions, we are not able to create a unified voice, a strong enough voice. So, at the same time, there is a rise of regional trade blocs like TPP, NAFTA, these regional trade blocs have also grown. So, somewhere, the international economic order itself is becoming much more democratized. The international economic order, where developed countries had dominance, is now becoming much more democratized. Democratized. Different, multiple regional economic blocs, trading blocs, have now been created. Along with that, regional cooperation like SAARC, for example, is also there. But look, the problem here is that even then, we need a New International Economic Order because, look, SAARC exists, but it is a poor regional cooperation organization. It does not have much integration. Meaning, it is the least integrated region, SAARC, and second, lack of solidarity. So, this is basically the problem. So, the legacy of the New International Economic Order, again, at the recent NAM summit, you have to connect it to the recent one. Its relevance has been further reinforced. But overall, if we look, India's role in NAM reflects India's commitment towards global peace, promoting equality among nations, and addressing economic and political challenges. The relevance of NAM in addressing economic and political challenges, and NAM's role in India, is understood from here. Okay? Now, look, the relevance of NAM for India. Is NAM relevant for India? Why should India not ignore NAM? Should we ignore NAM, or should we reinvent its relevance again, or should we revisit it? First of all, why is NAM important for us, and why can we not afford to ignore it? First thing, it is the largest platform for developing countries. It has so many members from developing countries. It is one of the largest platforms for developing countries, where only developing countries are present. And the challenges of developing countries are common, such as poverty, unfair trade imbalances, exploitation, lack of technology, and many others like economic inequality. These are the problems of developing countries. Climate change, although a global problem, has the most impact on developing countries. So, because of this, it is the largest platform for developing countries, and India's active participation in it allows NAM for further engagement and cooperation. Second, NAM is still the biggest platform for developing countries outside the United Nations General Assembly. Outside the UNGA, if there is any biggest platform for developing countries, it is NAM. Second, the characteristics of developing countries. Despite being a part of elite groups like G20, India is in G20, BRICS. India still shares many characteristics. Now, look, along with elite countries, it sits. India is a member of big regional groups. Okay? But despite that, if we look at India's characteristics, we share some characteristics with other developing countries, such as hunger, poverty, unequal access to resources at the global financial level. So, these problems are also present in other developing countries of NAM, and they are also in us. So, because of common causes, NAM is still relevant for us. Second, the acuteness of poverty in India. India is home to the largest number of poor and malnourished children. And NAM is the platform that provides a platform to collaborate with other developing countries to address these kinds of problems like poverty eradication and promotion.

Inclusive development. Also, look at the most important thing here is that the reforms in the United Nations Security Council, the reforms of the United Nations, the reforms of global governance, and especially the reforms of the UN Security Council, and India's bid for the seat, India wants a seat there. So, to support all these things, an independent player cannot do much. Here, NAM, as a common platform, if it pushes each other basically in a united format. If India pushes these efforts through the NAM platform, then it can get a little more credibility. A little more credibility can be obtained here. At the same time, if we look at the government's position, what is the government's position? Regarding NAM, what is the government's position regarding NAM? NAM: Principles of Peace, Sovereignty, and Solidarity for Development. This is important. This line is not. This is basically something that is the ultimate, basically, goal of NAM. So, look, the principle of NAM, of peace, sovereignty, and solidarity for development, that aligns with India's ethos. This principle is also basically India's principle, it coincides a lot with India's ethos and its basically values. So, this tagline for leadership, India's leadership, whether it is at the G20. Okay? Just as we talked about Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam in G20 leadership. So, these kinds of ethos are common. And this indicates that India may still find areas of common interest. Even now, by engaging with NAM, we can identify areas of common interest. Even if it does not fully embrace the traditional non-alignment doctrine. One is the traditional non-alignment doctrine, that is, not to align with any power bloc. Now, there are no power blocs, but at least the other issues are common. Our value systems also align somewhere. Correct? So, for this, NAM is relevant. If we talk about the 2024 Shangri-La Dialogue, then PM Modi reiterated the principle of strategic autonomy there. He focused even more on this principle. And at the same time, our strategic autonomy also aligns with the ethos of G20, the Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam one. PM Modi emphasized this. Even S. Jaishankar, the External Affairs Minister, also led India's delegation to the UN, to the NAM Summit. He also went to the 2024 NAM Summit, and he also spoke about important ethos like peaceful dispute resolution, with which we also align, India's ethos and NAM's ethos align and coincide. Okay? Now, what is the way forward for India? Instead of ignoring NAM, it is better that we strengthen NAM. It is true that NAM is a platform that, from UN Security Reforms to solving issues like poverty and hunger, to a new international economic order, and global peace and Global South solidarity, especially important aspects like South-South cooperation. Keeping all these aspects in mind, NAM is an important platform for India. So, instead of ignoring it, we should try to strengthen it. For example, Shashi Tharoor emphasizes the importance of not ignoring NAM despite its perceived decline. You might have a perception, there is a perception, because there is no kind of, right now, no war, meaning, right now, there is no rivalry of superpowers of this kind. Okay? Meaning, the bipolar world order is where NAM was relevant. So, somewhere its relevance has reduced. There is a perception about this. But Shashi Tharoor's point here is that instead of ignoring it, we should emphasize its importance somewhere. Correct? India should recognize the platform's continued significance. Today also, its significance, today also its significance, India should basically recognize that the platform is still necessary. It is important. So, also, India strengthened India strengthened NAM ties at the Kampala Summit. We also advocated for initiatives like digital infrastructure for the Global South at the Kampala Summit, thereby showing our solidarity. We also talked about digital sovereignty. Digital sovereignty is a common issue for all of us. So, by advocating for such issues, that shows India's dedication towards keeping NAM as a united platform. Then, mutual benefit. India has a large population of poor countries, malnourished children. Because of this, the relevance of NAM, because NAM's focus is on development, NAM's focus is on poverty eradication. With this focus, NAM is even more relevant for India because India is one of the largest countries for, you know, poor population and, you know, malnourished children. Also, we can utilize soft power. Scholars argue that India's soft power, attributes such as its cultural influence or its democratic values, can be harnessed to provide leadership, direction, and resources to NAM. We can do this for NAM because, for example, look at the International Solar Alliance we launched, or the Yoga Day, which shows our cultural significance. Through all these initiatives, we can showcase our soft power diplomacy, and by promoting it within NAM, we can create cooperation and solidarity. Fine. Another important aspect is, look, South-South cooperation. South-South cooperation. When we talk about NAM, look, for us, there is another topic ahead, India and the Global South. But when we talk about India and the Global South, the most important thing is that what is common between India and the Global South is poverty, the struggle against colonialism, our past. Okay? Currently, poverty and our development path are important. So, all these aspects, which are common for India and the Global South. So, it becomes very natural that India goes for, India opts for South-South cooperation. And if we want to do this South-South cooperation, through small regional blocs like BRICS or some other small regional blocs, we cannot do South-South cooperation. Like IBSA, right? Through blocs like IBSA, we cannot do much South-South cooperation. We need a big platform where there are all kinds of developing countries, who have a common cause, who have a common developmental path, who have common problems like poverty. So, such a common platform is needed, and that is NAM. NAM is the one that basically provides a platform for South-South cooperation, through which we can facilitate collaboration among developing countries, and that is why India should actively engage in initiatives that promote economic cooperation, technology transfer, capacity building among the Southern countries, among the NAM countries. Correct? To do all these things among the NAM countries. Now, look, here, basically, NAM was created during the Cold War. NAM originated during the Cold War. It was basically created keeping in mind the realities of the Cold War. Practically speaking, if we look at it, but then what if, what if the Cold War is now finished? After the Cold War ended, after the post-Cold War, basically, does NAM have relevance or not? This is a very big question that we need to analyze. So, the relevance of the Non-Aligned Movement, the relevance of the Non-Aligned Movement, that has been a subject of debate among various scholars and experts. While many of the scholars criticize it, they argue. Many of the critics, many of the critics, say that NAM's relevance in the post-Cold War era, especially after the Cold War ended, has now ended. But many supporters still say that NAM plays a crucial role in shaping global politics even today. So, let us try to understand, first of all, the people who question the relevance of NAM. So, NAM is now relevant after the Cold War. In the post-Cold War, in the post-Cold War world, NAM is not relevant now. The critics of this, the critics of NAM, say that if we look at NAM's foundational principles or its objectives, they were closely, basically, tied to the dynamics of the Cold War. All the principles and objectives were defined at that time keeping the Cold War in mind, centering the Cold War. Now, when that Cold War is no more, or the Cold War has ended, the geopolitical rivalry has ended, then the relevance of NAM is also not there now. For example, C. Raja Mohan, a very popular scholar, argues that NAM became irrelevant even before the Cold War ended. NAM started becoming irrelevant even before the Cold War ended because it failed to have a meaningful impact on global affairs even when there was a Cold War. Even at that time, NAM did not play any role in creating any meaningful impact on global affairs. Therefore, according to C. Raja Mohan, NAM's relevance ended at that time, even during the Cold War. However, however, he noted that in 2024, at the NAM Summit in Uganda, a pragmatic shift has basically come towards economic cooperation, suggesting a potential revival. But however, C. Raja Mohan, C. Raja Mohan noted that India's 2024 NAM Summit leadership in Uganda, where a pragmatic shift can be seen in economic cooperation, that suggests a potential revival. Okay? Also, the second important factor that shows that NAM is not relevant is the changing global order. Critics contend that NAM has struggled to adapt to the changing global order. The way the global order is changing, the way polarization is increasing, NAM's basically relevance, NAM is unable to adapt to it. NAM has failed to adapt. That is what critics contend. And that's why, and in this changing global order, what is happening? Basically, there is an emergence of multiple powers. There are multiple power centers. Okay? This is the first thing, multiple power centers. At the same time, there is complex interdependence, because of economic globalization, because of trade agreements, etc. So, in the context of all these changing global orders, NAM is not adapting itself. Because of this, it is also not that relevant. Second, economic weakness. Critics highlight the economic challenges faced by many NAM member states, which limit their ability to exert influence and their interests effectively. Because this is an important aspect, economic weakness. Because they are all developing countries, and being economically a bit weak, the economic challenges that NAM faces are important that NAM is unable to solve. Correct? So, this economic weakness is also one of the reasons for its ineffectiveness and irrelevance. Second, contemporary challenges like, for example, the impact of globalization, terrorism, and climate change. NAM is also ineffective in addressing such contemporary challenges. Second, NAM has basically, at the Kampala Summit, India tried to secure a $1 billion renewable energy project to address climate change. So, this is one of the efforts. At the same time, on the front of terrorism, we are also trying something, like we condemned it for 2000 US dollars. We condemned cross-border attacks. Okay? Which aligns with India's current stand on terrorism regarding Pakistan. So, there is some relevance visible. Some relevance is visible. But still, all these factors, like not being able to address contemporary challenges or economic weakness, due to all these challenges, NAM's relevance is in question. But some scholars, some experts say that NAM holds continuous relevance. Why? Why? So, why do they feel so? Because non-alignment is basically continuous to guide Indian foreign policy. First of all, India's foreign policy is continuously guided by NAM's principles even today. Why? One is that our ethos is common. The foundational ethos of the Non-Aligned Movement and Indian foreign policy are common. Probably that is one of the reasons that non-alignment continues to guide Indian foreign policy. And that ensures relative autonomy and separating substantive content from public posturing. So, India's friendship with Russia, as highlighted by Shyam Saran, exemplifies its adherence to non-alignment principles while pursuing its national interests. The second reason for continuous relevance, the first reason for continuous relevance is that even today, NAM's principles guide India's foreign policy. Even NAM's foundational aspects guide foreign policy. Secondly, adapting to changing global dynamics. As we saw earlier, somewhere, the global dynamics, the realities of the current global order, NAM is not adapting to them. But somewhere it is also doing so. Because this is a matter of perspective. Here, if someone says it is relevant, they will look at its irrelevant side. If someone says it is relevant, they will look at its relevant side. So, the complex dynamics, the changing global dynamics, now, see, NAM is adapting. NAM should be revived given the evolving dynamics. See, if it has adapted, then it's good. If it hasn't, then somewhere, somewhere, if we want to revive NAM or keep it relevant, then it should be revived given the evolving global dynamics, the global power dynamics, including India's alignment with the United States. Now, see, somewhere, non-alignment is not genuine non-alignment anymore. India is now aligned with the US through Quad, and its relations with China are also strained. In that aspect, India is aligning with the US through Quad. So, here, NAM can provide a platform for India to maintain strategic autonomy. How will India maintain its strategic autonomy? How will it maintain it? NAM can serve as a platform for India to maintain strategic autonomy. It can serve India's interests in strategic autonomy. Okay? Increased membership and global influence. NAM's growth from 25 members to 118 members and then further has continued to increase. So, M.K. Narayanan emphasizes that it is quite important for smaller states, and a collective voice because for smaller states, it offers a collective voice. With so many members, they can come together collectively and raise their common concerns on global platforms. Okay? And contribution to global diplomacy. NAM's contribution. Yes, this is an important aspect. No matter how much we talk about its irrelevance, when it comes to the WTO, or a new international economic order, or the North-South divide at the global level, or the impact on developing countries due to climate change, when it comes to such many different aspects that affect developing countries more, NAM's relevance continues. So, when it comes to advocating in the WTO, where we need to secure concessions on agricultural trade for developing nations, which is basically an initiative that India leads, because India raises this voice in the WTO in favor of the Global South. It speaks for the Global South in the WTO. So, in such situations, to raise this voice and to take its stand, we need a platform that is a common platform for developing countries, and NAM can play the role of that platform, and that is why NAM is relevant. And the contemporary challenges, like terrorism, like we condemned terrorism at the NAM ministerial meeting in 2024. Okay? That basically aligns with India's Operation Sindhu against Pakistan-based terror hubs. So, contemporary challenges, whether it is climate change, terrorism, or other challenges, it also holds its relevance in solving them. So, when we write about its relevance in the answer, whether NAM is relevant or not. Now, we will write on both sides, but we will try to emphasize the relevance a bit more. But obviously, we will need scholars. So, according to Shyam Saran, non-alignment still governs India's foreign policy. The first point we saw aligns with Shyam Saran's views. Because in terms of relative autonomy and managing national interests, non-alignment works to govern and support India's foreign policy. Even Shashi Tharoor, as we saw, said that ignoring it is not an option. Ignoring NAM is not an option. We somewhere, even today, we need to revive NAM for India's strategic autonomy. Even Shashi Tharoor also says more or less the same thing. Then M.K. Narayanan, what he says is that NAM remains relevant, particularly for smaller states. Because a collective voice can be created regarding global issues. So, this is the relevance of NAM. What is the way forward? What is the way forward? The world is now in today's globalized world, the world is now more connected, more interdependent than ever before. Climate change, environmental degradation, terrorism, such issues have now emerged as global challenges. So, in such a situation, we need to come to a common platform, where they are more impacted, and try to address them, and that platform can be NAM. Okay? So, now, if we talk about reinventing, how will we reinvent NAM? Because NAM is relevant. It is relevant in some aspects. In some aspects, somewhere its principles, which were there initially, are not that relevant now. Because geopolitical realities, the global order, from bipolar to unipolar, and from unipolar to multipolar, there has been a very big shift today. In such a situation, to call NAM relevant, substantial reasons are needed. So, somewhere, we need to, because, look, we cannot ignore NAM. As Shashi Tharoor said, we cannot ignore NAM. It will never be a good thing for us. So, we will, it.

It is better that we reinvent it. We reinvent it. So how will we reinvent it? First of all, shifting the global economic order. Changes will have to be made to the global economic order. We will have to shift in favor of the South. In favor of the Global South. Second, we will have to embrace the multipolar world order. NAM should embrace the concept of a multipolar world and utilize it to amplify the voices of the Third World. Okay, then we will have to incorporate the post-colonial perspective here. We need to safeguard the autonomy of post-colonial societies. Okay? And that should be a key focus of NAM. If NAM has to reinvent itself, then our key focus should be to inculcate the post-colonial perspective here. Second, complex interdependence. Look, complex interdependence has occurred. Because of this, NAM is perhaps not relevant somewhere. We have seen this before. So NAM will have to inculcate the current global challenges like terrorism, pandemics, and climate change into its agenda so that it can become even more relevant. Regarding the liberal institutional view, instead of viewing regional organizations as threats, because we saw in terms of irrelevance that regional organizations are currently growing. So NAM's relevance is not that much right now. The new international economic order that we were talking about. So to develop a new international economic order, do we need NAM? No, because many regional trade blocs are currently forming there. So in such a situation, what perspective does the liberal institutional view hold? What they say is that instead of considering regional organizations as threats to NAM, what should NAM do? NAM should seek to co-opt and coordinate with them to reconcile the conflicting aims. We should reconcile the conflicting aims. Second, we need to safeguard the member nations. NAM should protect its members. Protect its member nations from the negative impacts of neoliberal globalization. The negative impacts of neoliberal globalization, especially economic inequality and concentration of wealth. This kind of exploitation and environmental degradation, these impacts, and in addition to that, treating the developing world as a dumping ground for the West, created by the industrialized developed nations, this is an important point. So from all these perspectives, we must stand in solidarity and protect each other. For this, those differences, those differences basically in NAM, those differences in NAM should be resolved, and for this, for this, NAM needs to be reinvented, and especially India needs to maintain its position as a leader of the Global South. Through NAM, India has always created an image of itself as a leader of the Global South. So in such a situation, India should take the initiative. India should take the initiative. Okay? Second, against the rising challenges like protectionism, anti-migration, anti-migration sentiments, and nuclear disarmament, NAM should advocate. Okay? The Havana Declaration, which was NAM's in 2006, making it relevant for the 21st century. Some important aspects were added to NAM in it. How can we make NAM relevant in the 21st century? For this, we tried to restructure the agenda, some important principles. For example, our commitment to peaceful resolution of disputes, non-use of force, and respect for sovereignty is our core fundamental principle. Second, our stand on non-proliferation and disarmament, because we advocate for the elimination of nuclear weapons through NAM. Okay? Through NAM. Third, South-South cooperation. After that, we are taking a stand on important aspects like human rights and self-determination and decolonization. Because here, see, promotion and protection of human rights. Promoting and protecting human rights, we have supported self-determination. Decolonization of occupied territories, which has always been a struggle against decolonization that we started through NAM. India had strongly supported this. So these are all things, sustainable development and multilateralism. This is also something that, basically to keep NAM relevant, ideally, some principles are inherently in NAM, some principles India NAM should adopt, and so that we can keep ourselves relevant. So basically, these principles, the Havana Declaration can be mentioned. When we talk about NAM's relevance, we can talk about the Havana Declaration, how in the Havana Declaration, if NAM is to be kept relevant in the 21st century, what changes and what adoptions and inculcations NAM should make in its principles were stated in the Havana Declaration in 2006. After that, NAM 2.0. NAM 2.0 is also an important question, and a question has come up on this. What is NAM 2.0? Basically, it is an initiative which aims to outline the principles which guide India's foreign policy. India's foreign and strategic policy in the next decade. Okay? These are the principles of NAM. So it aims to replicate Nehru's strategy of retaining strategic autonomy in changing global dynamics. Although even today, if we look, the global dynamics have changed considerably. But even today, we have maintained strategic autonomy. So how do we retain strategic autonomy now? Even after the changed global situation. For example, after the Cold War, in the post-Cold War era, through the Non-Aligned Movement, during the Cold War, we tried to ensure our strategic autonomy through non-alignment. But after the Cold War ended, when the relevance of non-alignment was questioned, in such a situation, what changes should we make in NAM? What changes should we make in NAM so that we can now use NAM as a vehicle for strategic autonomy for countries? For that, NAM 2.0 has come, where this document highlights three main purposes. The first purpose is the opportunities India enjoys in the international sphere. What opportunities does India enjoy in today's international global order? Second, identifying the challenges and threats. What are basically our challenges and threats? And third, defining the broad perspective and approach for enhancing India's strategic autonomy. India's strategic autonomy, especially in today's unpredictable global environment, anything can happen at any time, correct? Anything can happen at any time, like Russia has been isolated now, China is emerging, has emerged to a large extent, so disturbances can happen in the West continuously, so it is a completely polarized world order where everything is unpredictable, nothing can be said. In such a situation, we have to define our broad perspective and approach to enhance India's strategic autonomy, and we will do that basically through NAM 2.0. So NAM 2.0 is a document that is giving suggestions of this kind, so that NAM can remain relevant and India can maintain its strategic autonomy through NAM. But somewhere it has also received criticism. The criticism is that this foreign policy roadmap, this is a very big basically, Bharat Karnad has criticized NAM 2.0, saying that it is a regressive foreign policy roadmap. It is a regressive foreign policy roadmap. Where Bharat Karnad says that he considers NAM 2.0 a regressive roadmap for India's foreign policy. Because he argues that it misunderstands the dynamics of power dynamics. This kind of Bharat Karnad's view is somewhat aligned with the realist perspective, that we cannot remain relevant by always basing things on our ideological standing or principled standing. Because if you want to remain relevant, you have to understand the truth. And that truth is that power dynamics is one of the main drivers of global affairs. In global affairs, global politics, power dynamics, power dynamics, power dynamics and balance of power politics is an important driver of foreign affairs. Okay, so we cannot underestimate this. Second, we are overemphasizing ideas, ideational and moral influence through NAM 2.0. Whereas our emphasis should be much more pragmatic and realistic. So despite the criticism of being based on the old doctrine, the NAM 2.0 report acknowledges that non-alignment in today's world requires managing complex coalitions and opportunities in the unsettled global environment. Okay? That managing opportunities and coalitions in this unsettled global environment is very important. This NAM 2.0 document also highlights. So there will be some criticism, but questions can still be asked about NAM 2.0. Recently, during COVID-19, what happened in NAM? If NAM is relevant, what is NAM's contribution? What are the contributions in recent times? So the first contribution is this. The first important point is that, look, we had an online summit of NAM. Okay? During COVID, because everything was online. So the name of that summit was United Against COVID-19, which was held on May 4, 2020, and its aim was to address the global struggle against the COVID-19 pandemic and what is NAM's role in dealing with this and mitigating this impact. This summit was held to discuss NAM's role, and Prime Minister Modi has acknowledged NAM's historical role as a moral voice of the world. NAM, NAM is the moral voice of the world. It also provides moral authority to India. And NAM as a platform is a moral voice for the world. Modi ji has also acknowledged this aspect of being a moral voice. And he emphasized the need for inclusivity to maintain that role. To maintain this role, we have to be inclusive. We have to keep it inclusive. Now, look at the significance of the recent NAM summit during COVID-19. First of all, global solidarity. What does the NAM summit during COVID-19 show? We are talking about relevance. Here, through this, we can again see relevance, that its summits are continuous. Unlike SAARC, where summits and meetings have stopped. Second, if we look at its significance, then global solidarity. Second, addressing health crises. Sharing knowledge and resources. Like sharing vaccines, sharing other kits, health kits, and multilateralism, because NAM is not a platform for one or two countries, there are many players, so it plays an important role as a multilateral institution, and in the reforms of global governance, and by being a platform for global governance itself, not directly a platform for global governance, but to some extent as a platform for global governance, NAM has relevance. Now, if we talk about the news, then look, there is a concept of active non-alignment. Non-alignment is done, but active non-alignment, ANA, okay, has emerged in response to US-China rivalry, urging countries not to succumb to pressure from major powers. Now, look, earlier there was the Cold War, we saw that. But now, between the US and China, there is rivalry, and the world is dividing in this way. In such a situation, non-alignment was earlier, now we cannot say Non-Alignment One, Non-Alignment Two, but we have to play an active role, actively, actively we have to make sure that we ensure strategic autonomy and we do not succumb to any kind of pressure either by the US or China, because China is very, very adept and very good at ensuring pressure on other countries through economic debt traps or through various other means. So, without succumbing to any kind of pressure, we can actively pursue that non-alignment policy, which has been called active non-alignment. So this is a new concept. And this will definitely give you an extra edge in your answers. You can also get extra marks if you write such concepts. So ANA is rooted in non-alignment. Obviously, it is a continuation of non-alignment. It just advocates for proactive and case-by-case diplomacy. Meaning, it's not like, yes, I am not becoming a part of you, or extra, but you have to actively, assertively oppose that kind of rivalry and that kind of polarization. Latin American countries have embraced this approach. Now, in Latin American countries, basically the countries of the Global South, they have embraced this approach. And balancing engagement with both. Now, because with China, the point is, earlier it was non-alignment. Now we need alignment, but we are talking about interest-based interests. So, therefore, interest-based alliances are being talked about. So, not complete, not alignment, but actively not alignment. Active not alignment. So here we are making interest-based alliances. Like they have to do business with the USA. They have to trade with China as well. So somewhere here, we need to maintain balanced engagement. Ignoring NAM, as Shashi Tharoor argues, that ignoring NAM can never be a viable option for us. Rather, strengthening it can be more beneficial for India. So India, because India needs NAM, and NAM also needs India. Because India is playing a leadership role in the NAM movement. India is playing the role of a moral global leader, a leader of the Global South. Therefore, both need each other. NAM needs India. India needs NAM. So only India is the country which can provide NAM with leadership, direction, and resources. Because India's global standing has enhanced far and far better than earlier. So because of this, but NAM's support for India's seat in the UN, NAM's support is also very important for India. So in this way, NAM is relevant, necessary, and it is important for India to play an active role in strengthening it. Moving the video forward, there is an important announcement that I want to make here. The first batch of the PSR Foundation Course is already ongoing. It started on June 16th. That batch is already ongoing. And now our second batch is starting on August 11th. So, in the PSR Foundation Course, our effort, our intention is to understand each concept in a very systematic manner with real-life examples, so that there is conceptual clarity and our concepts are built in such a way that we can internalize PSR. So that there is naturalness, organicness in our answers, and we can enjoy PSR and study it well. This is our intention. For more details, you will find a separate video on our YouTube platform, Sarth's YouTube platform, and on my YouTube channel, PSR by Vivek Agam. And for the detailed schedule, you can visit Sarth's portal. So it is starting on August 11th. August 11th is the orientation session. And let's see you all there in the orientation session. So let's move the video forward now. So after we have studied non-alignment and India and its contribution to non-alignment, let us now try to understand India and South Asia, the most important region for India, because India's policy has shifted after Modi. There is a major policy shift, and that is Neighborhood First. Neighborhood First. Neighborhood First. It shows our commitment towards our neighbors, and as we say, geography cannot be changed. We can change many things, but geography cannot be changed. And that has a tremendous impact on our economic growth, our peace, security, everything. Meaning, the biggest security problem comes from the region itself. It comes from the immediate region. The most we can trade with someone, or if there is convenience with someone, or if there are more possibilities, it is with neighboring countries. But unfortunately, the South Asian region, especially the SAARC region, India's immediate neighborhood region, unfortunately, is one of the least integrated, economically and otherwise. At the same time, it is also one of the most disturbed regions, and it has a lot of polarized politics, especially because of China's intrusion. Due to China's intrusion in the region and India's need to counter China, there has been a lot of polarization in this South Asian region. And overall, if we look at it now, what is the overall situation? In South Asia, there are multiple countries with whom India has good relations. They were good, and obviously, we have always tried to maintain better friendly relations with neighboring countries. But somewhere the problem is that since BRI and China's aggressive posture, since China started adopting an aggressive posture, somewhere in the South Asian region, relations between India and other countries, whether it is Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, or Bangladesh, Myanmar, or our other countries, Sri Lanka, etc., there have been ups and downs. So, this South Asian region is important because somewhere there are many similarities in cultural aspects, historical legacies, many such important factors due to which there is a commonness. Meaning, there is homogeneity, but at the same time, there is heterogeneity. So here, heterogeneity within homogeneity is quite a lot. So let us try to understand what the South Asian region is. First of all, look at India and South Asia. What are the characteristics of the South Asian region? First of all, if we look at its composition and geopolitics, it includes eight countries. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives, Maldives, and then Afghanistan here. So, we try to understand these eight countries basically in the South Asian region. But now, look, their strategic location and large population and rich resources make it globally important. The strategic location of all these countries, for example, even if we look at Afghanistan's, even from India's perspective, Afghanistan's location, like Iran's Chabahar Port, or whatever communication we need to have with Central Asia, Afghanistan plays a very important role, especially when the relationships with Pakistan are not friendly enough. Okay, so in such a situation, these countries are very, very important. Nepal and Bhutan are very immediate countries. Sri Lanka is also a very immediate country. Meaning, these are all countries with whom we have some business, some transaction, some daily activity on a daily basis. And at the same time, their location is also quite strategic, globally strategic, but also strategically important for India. So this is one feature. We have looked at the location. Second is the colonial legacy. All the countries, more or less, the South Asian region, here, it is basically former.

The British colonies were those who essentially carried on a political and administrative system. That same political system, the colonial legacy, is what we see in the post-colonial era. Of course, these are post-colonial times, and here there are some post-colonial issues, such as migration tensions. Migration tensions. If we look at Assam and Bangladesh, the significant demographic transition that has occurred in Assam over the past few decades, due to the intrusion and immigration from Bangladesh, is happening because of this. Right? And institutional fragility. Institutional fragility. First of all, we have to understand that these are post-colonial states, and in post-colonial states, the institutions, the modern institutions like bureaucratic systems, military systems, and other government institutions, were not actually evolved organically. They were not organically evolved. They were essentially imported institutions. Because the British, the colonial establishment, did this for their own interests, not for the national interest. Look, the national interest and the citizen's interest are different, and the establishment's interest is different. They established these kinds of institutions for their own interests, for the purpose of exploiting more and more, and for the purpose of commanding more and more authority over the people of the region. And now, when we are completely independent, in such a scenario, carrying those similar institutions with a similar nature and similar tendencies, the post-colonial states, whether it's Bangladesh or anything else, the institutions are local, meaning their way of working, their culture, is local. But the institutions are imported. That is why we essentially give this name of overdeveloped state or prismatic society. This is exactly it. Right? Even in Bangladesh, the recent political crisis that occurred. So why did it happen? Because we have modern liberal democracies. Mostly in our South Asian region, we have modern liberal democracies. But somewhere in modern liberal democracies, which are essentially a Western concept, Western institutions and ideas. But here, is it suitable for us? Because they have not evolved organically. So our essentially culture, which is mainly our political culture, our own political culture, especially in the South Asian region, is largely based on caste, ethnicity, and religion. So, essentially, political mobilization or other aspects of political dynamics depend on these. So, in such a situation, liberal modern institutions with traditional things happening within them. Due to this inconsistency, we call it an overdeveloped state. So, this is essentially one of the reasons why there is a crisis in every state, be it Bangladesh, Pakistan, every state essentially has some constitutional democratic crisis. It is completely there. India is one of the stable democracies. It's a good thing that India is one of the stable democracies. At the same time, India is the largest democracy. So, despite being the largest democracy, having a colonial legacy, and everything, fortunately, things are being managed in India. Democracy is still alive, and it is thriving, really, it is thriving well. So, that is the case. But if we look at other states. If we look at Afghanistan here, it is captured by the Taliban. Then, if we look at Sri Lanka here, there is also a severe economic crisis and definitely a political crisis. Even in Nepal and Bhutan, look at Nepal, there is the Madhesi crisis and the Madhesi issue, identity issues, all those problems are ongoing. In Bangladesh, the government has completely changed recently. And in Pakistan, we know that the rule of the military-dominated elite continues there. Military-dominated elites. Correct? So, these are all the things.

Then there is the political system, a mix of democracies and hybrid regimes. While India is the world's largest democracy, Pakistan and Maldives have faced military rule. And if we talk about Afghanistan, Afghanistan is still unstable. The Taliban has completely captured it. So, the democratic transition in all these countries, look, it is quite fragile. Democratic transition is quite fragile. Democracy has not been able to be established very effectively. And even if it has been established, somewhere it has gone into trouble due to military rule or other civil wars, etc. Democracy is in a crisis, especially in South Asia. If we talk about South Asia in general, there is a very big democratic crisis going on in South Asia, and it is not from today. It has been there from the beginning. And this example of democratic crisis in the South Asian countries is the best example to understand why the post-colonial perspective matters and why it is relevant. Because it clearly provides a solution that these are imported institutions, and they are perhaps not completely fitting here. They should have evolved organically. For example, in Nepal, constitutional reforms have recently taken place. The transition is ongoing, but there are also many setbacks. For instance, look at Afghanistan, the government has been removed, and the Taliban has come in. So, it is definitely a backward step. Or in other countries like Pakistan, look at the last elections, many problematic things happened. So, democracy is not running very well in Pakistan either. So, these are all the problems.

Then ethnic and religious diversity. We are looking at South Asia, what is South Asia as a region? What are its characteristics? Understanding this is very important. When you understand what South Asia is like as a region, you will be able to deal with the answer better. Essentially, look, this is an issue in South Asia. Ethnic and religious diversity is quite high. There is a lot of linguistic, cultural, and religious plurality here. Plurality, pluralism. Right? There is pluralism. Multiple, multiple diversities are quite high here. And because of this diversity, identity politics often emerges, and ethnic tensions are also created. And ethnic tensions, like ethnic tensions in South Asia, are ongoing. This continues continuously. Continuously, continuously. Meaning, if we try to see any problem in South Asia. One is river disputes, because all the rivers flow from one country to another. Second, infiltration from borders is a very significant challenge. The ethnic composition keeps changing, like in Assam and the North-Eastern states, due to infiltration from Bangladesh, and even now, due to the Rohingya crisis from Myanmar, due to multiple reasons, the ethnic composition, the demographic composition changes, and then ethnic clashes continue continuously. They continue continuously. In Sri Lanka, there was a protest for Tamil autonomy in 2024. So, this is also what? This is also one of the examples of ethnic tension. After that, talking about security challenges, look, we are facing persistent threats from territorial disputes, like the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir continues continuously. Right? It continues over Kashmir. Terrorism. Terrorism. Nuclear tension. In India-Pakistan too, look, they are sitting on the nuclear button. If something happens from there once, then retaliation and other things. Right? The double-strike capability, second-strike capability, all these things are in continuous nuclear tension. And in 2024, sorry, it should be in 2025. So, in 2025, the terror attack on Kashmir was an example of this, that terror attacks and security challenges are still continuously threatening India's security. Even the Indo-Afghan diplomatic shifts also indicate the volatility we are seeing. That even our Indo-Afghan diplomatic shifts also indicate the ongoing volatility in the relations. Okay?

Then talking about regional organizations, well, that is a point of debate. What is there to debate? There is a one-sided discussion, essentially SAARC, which was designed to ensure regional cooperation somewhere. But it has become quite ineffective because of the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan. So, these bilateral tensions and bilateral issues are causing significant hindrances to regional cooperation. So, this is a very big issue. We will definitely study the topic of SAARC in South Asia. Scholars like Sumit Ganguly and C. Raja Mohan emphasize the potential and limitations of regionalism. That in South Asia, regionalism is questionable because integration is not that much. Because, look, the biggest problem, the reason why regionalism is not happening in South Asia, is diversity. This is one thing, diversity is a very big issue. And historical tensions, like colonial boundaries, boundaries set up through the colonial setup, are disputed, which is a problem because they are not sorted out. They are not properly documented as to how much of the river water will go to whom, which territory belongs to which state. There are many such unresolved issues that essentially happened during the colonial time. This is a very big reason why continuous tension, and due to tension and conflict, regionalism is not happening.

Talking about power dynamics, look, India remains the dominant power. India is the dominant power in this entire region, the South Asian region, if we look geographically, economically, for that matter, militarily, and in every aspect, India is the dominant player. India's economic growth is quite good. But the problem here is that China's strategic inroads, the way China is strategically engaging with every country in the South Asian region, is creating a somewhat challenging situation for India. At the same time, Pakistan's alignment with China, with Beijing, that is also challenging India's leadership in South Asia. In South Asia, India is naturally a leader because of its size, its geography, its population, and also because of its successful democracy. Definitely, the South Asian region and the other countries in South Asia have lessons to learn from India, how India is a successful democracy, and despite having such a large population, this democracy is thriving. So, this is a very big lesson. And of course, in the South Asian region, the kind of diversity, ethnic and religious, and everything, the diversity, the pluralism, similarly, within India, there is so much diversity within the country. Despite that, of course, there are minor tensions, but still, the unity that has been maintained within this diversity in India is commendable. So, they should learn from that. But other countries definitely do not learn. That is the problem. Right?

But look, why has South Asia failed to emerge as a region? That is the problem. Now we have seen the nature, the characteristics, what are the characteristics of South Asia? But now, since South Asia, obviously all our borders are connected, all of us countries are quite connected to each other. So, a natural question arises: why are we not connected? Why, in a South Asian region, like the European Union, look at the European Union, how integrated a region it is. People live together there. So, why can't we live like that in South Asia? The borders there, people can go from one country to another very easily. They can trade in the market. They can do many things. They can conduct economic transactions. But why doesn't this happen in South Asia? Look, why doesn't it happen in South Asia? This is a very important question. Artificial divisions, the divisions of borders that were made during the time of colonialism, as I mentioned earlier, are quite arbitrary and artificial. So, because of this arbitrary partition of the South Asian region immediately after British rule, this partition that happened, that kept no regard to ethnic or geographic realities. Without considering geographic realities or ethnic identities, they have made quite arbitrary, quite irrational, illogical divisions. Because of that, there are many boundary disputes, communal tensions, or river water conflicts that are ongoing. For example, in India, in 2024, 2025, we have seen this year, 2025, sorry, please correct this a bit here. India, for example, has now suspended the Indus Water Treaty in 2025. This was very big news, we saw it, we know. So, this is the first problem, that due to artificial divisions, this problem exists. Second, colonial legacy and disrupted connectivity. The British era administrative integration fostered connectivity. But look, during the British era, the administrative connectivity that happened, the administrative integration they did, it did develop some connectivity. From railways to their administrative officers and the way they had commanding authority, from the center to some delegation of power, some integration happened, connectivity happened. But after 1947, this fragmentation came, and after fragmentation, disputes arose regarding migration. So, problems like this occurred here due to the colonial legacy.

Second, political and strategic impediments, factors like Indophobia. Indophobia, because India is a large country. And because of that, other countries feel a "big brother" problem. They feel a perception that India will behave like a big brother, India will dominate, and somewhere India will overshadow us. Such an Indophobia exists. Then bilateral hostilities. The way there have been hostilities between India and Pakistan from the beginning. Because, obviously, Pakistan was created by separating from India, through partition. And because of religious grounds and many other irrational grounds, this became a problem. And along with this, domestic instability within every country. And especially, this is also an important point here. Look, domestic stability is very important for a country's strength. If any country is domestically unstable, for example, if so many tensions are going on within India, and where there are more tensions, it becomes quite easy for other countries, especially hostile countries, to break down this country, to bring down the country, to stop its economic growth, to stop its prosperity. It becomes quite easy. Therefore, even from outside countries, especially hostile countries with whom we want to improve relations, but other countries, some of them, do not want relations to improve. Or some players, non-state actors, who essentially do not let this happen. They do not let relations improve. So, they will always want to create domestic instability here. They will want to create a law and order situation here. And that is what this terrorism and other issues are about. It is because you send people into the country. Carry out terror attacks there, and then there will be a law and order situation, instability. So, from that, they get a sense that India is not growing. India is essentially going backward. Problems are happening in India. So, that is their achievement. Things like this happen. So, because of this, because of this kind of attitude, because of this kind of approach, this regionalism has been undermined. Regionalism is not yet able to happen in a completely integrated format.

And secondly, there is strategic dissonance, mistrust. Due to all these factors, cooperation and coordination are hindered. Second, economic disparity and weak integration. Look, there are stark economic imbalances between countries, and there is limited inter-regional trade. Very limited inter-regional trade. Because of this, it is quite difficult to form a cohesive South Asian economic bloc, which we can call a cohesive economic bloc with so much trade between them, so much economic activity and transactions. It is quite difficult to form such a regional bloc. Because our inter-regional trade itself is quite limited. There are other reasons for this. We will see what those reasons are later. Second, diverse political cultures. One is that our regime types are quite different. For example, some countries have democracy, while some countries have fragile hybrid systems. For instance, constitutional changes have occurred in Nepal. Interim governance has come in Bangladesh in 2024. So, due to this diversity in the political system, it also becomes a very big issue. Because of this, the aspect of unified policymaking becomes complicated. We cannot make unified policies. Suppose all countries are democracies. All countries are democracies. So, in a democracy, it is a citizen-centric system of governance. Here, there is a citizen-centric system of governance. So, citizens' voices are heard here. Citizens' voices are important here. So, when the government is accountable to the citizens, they have to look for prosperity. They have to look for economic growth. They have to look for friendly relations with neighbors. Because they have to do that, because that is in the interest of the citizens. But when the government, the establishment, is military-ruled, and has some other intentions, hostile intentions, then it becomes quite difficult for this to happen.

Second, security dilemmas and antagonism. The smaller nations feel that India dominates, and India's dominance is a threat to them. Because of this, what do they do? They try to counterbalance India or India's influence by aligning with external powers like China. Then, external intervention, if we look at it, China's influence is growing. Right? And here, for example, China is also playing a role in the mediation between India and Pakistan, sorry, Pakistan and Afghanistan. China is also bringing infrastructure projects. For example, the Brahmaputra Dam. Because of this, a strategic complexity has been created in this entire South Asian region due to China's inclusion or China's entry. And along with that, regional cohesion. Now, if an external player comes and builds strategic relations with other countries, with whom there is also hostility with India, because we definitely have significant hostility with China at the border level. So, definitely, India's influence in the region decreases, which we can call in our political language, India's dominance is somewhat reduced. And at the same time, regional. Now, because of India's relations, because every country tries to play the China card when it needs to negotiate with India. So, to negotiate with India, they play the China card. As if India needs it. But because we are a responsible regional player and a regional leader, we have to, at a certain level, we have to be a little non-

The reciprocal relations that we have to maintain in relationships. But okay, we are doing it. Then India's engagement with South Asia over various phases, if we look at it phase-wise, how has our integration been in the South Asian region? When have we had cooperation, when have our tensions increased, and how has our relationship been established up to the current time? So, we will look at that in a phased manner.

Look, before 1990, before 1990, if we talk about Phase One, it was paternalism and dominance. It means India pursued a realist and paternalistic approach when it dealt, when it wanted to deal with, you know, every neighbor. They used to deal with each neighbor separately. And because there was asymmetry in size, in power, and there were historical disputes as well. Because of this, we had to deal with countries in a paternalistic manner. So, a realistic approach and a paternalistic approach was ours.

And another thing was that because of being the dominant regional power, because 72% of the land of the entire South Asian region, which we talked about eight countries, and then 77% of the population and 79-78% of the gross national product, being India's, India reinforced strategic autonomy. But often, look, we focus on strategic autonomy. We cannot compromise on that. So, because of this, mistrust, look, increases a little, because obviously, when there is a small nation, a small nation, it is disproportionately large compared to a big nation, disproportionately large, meaning at least five to six times larger in population and in every aspect. So, a mistrust develops. They feel that it might consume them. This kind of development happens. For example, like our tension with Pakistan regarding Kashmir in 2025. Especially, our mistrust is more. So, that was a phase where we wanted to deal more paternalistically.

But after 1990, we emphasized the Gujral Doctrine and focused on constructivism. We tried to shift our basic policy intentions somewhere. And we shifted to accommodation and unilateral goodwill. Unilateral goodwill. Now, this is very important. By unilateral goodwill, I mean non-reciprocal relations here. Non-reciprocity means here India will provide aid, India will have friendly relations, India will try to give better trade conditions by removing some trade restrictions from its side, without expecting much from them. It will try to give things from its own side. So, a giving nature, as they say, that policy, we adopted here. And we thought that in this way, our positive image and a favorable mindset in the minds of those countries would be created. This was expected.

So, that's why we adopted an accommodative approach and worked on unilateral goodwill. Under the Gujral Doctrine, we worked on non-reciprocity. And we pursued peaceful means without reciprocity, as I mentioned earlier. We do not expect reciprocity. If we are doing something for you, if we are giving you some discount in trade, correct, giving you better favorable conditions in trade, we will not expect this from you. But we will give it to you so that goodwill is created. This is basically the policy that we tried to implement within the context of the neighborhood under the Gujral Doctrine. Although, for this effort, we also made efforts like the land boundary agreement with Bangladesh. We gave Most Favored Nation status to Pakistan. Look, that's a big thing. We gave Most Favored Nation status to Pakistan. At the same time, we also tried to help Bangladesh in its crisis, in minority protection and democratic transition. So, in many places, we try to implement our overall policy, that from our side, there is a friendly relationship, an initiative, a leadership position, we tried to implement that there.

But if we talk about the current phase, especially, these are examples from the current time, that how our efforts, our efforts from 1990 onwards, are reflected in today's actions. That is not something that is our current phase. If we talk about the current phase, then Neighborhood First is our policy. We have focused on Neighborhood First and Extended Neighborhood. Okay? So, we are actually emphasizing regional stability. Why? What is our ultimate goal in Neighborhood First? To have stability in the region, economic cooperation, and to work on connectivity projects. Like with Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, we work on connectivity projects with all these countries. And a dialogue-based conflict resolution instead of conflict, instead of, you know, violent conflict, and instead of any kind of war and any kind of non-state actor involvement and any kind of terror activity. We prefer peaceful means because that is our foreign policy ethics. We prefer non-violence. We never support violence. So, we have basically focused on conflict resolution, dialogue-based conflict resolution. And we have adopted developmental diplomacy. Developmental diplomacy, meaning instead of just fighting on the issues and instead of, you know, basically focusing and discussing upon the areas of conflict, let us focus on what better we can do. Let's say this is the part of the dispute, this particular issue, like river dispute. Let's put it aside for now. Let's discuss something about how we can improve in trade. So, by putting aside the conflicting issues for a while, let us focus on the important issues where we can cooperate at the developmental level. So, we have recently tried to focus on aligning with countries on the developmental aspect. We have tried to engage with countries on the developmental aspect. So, we have focused on that. We call it developmental diplomacy. This is a very important keyword. It's not a very fancy keyword. Look, it's not necessary to have a fancy keyword. An important keyword that can actually show a very large intention. For example, when we talk about development policy or developmental diplomacy, we can create a very definite good impression in our answer. We can convey a good point. With just two words, we can convey a very big point.

So, our current policy regarding the neighborhood, here we have also tried to focus on the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. At the same time, under the Act East Asia policy, we are trying to link South Asia with the Indo-Pacific goals, or we try to do so. But issues, look, still exist. For example, the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan in 2025. Such issues exist, which basically indicate the limitations that are coming between our regional integration and regional trust. Okay?

Another issue is ethnic conflicts in South Asia. Now, let's pick up one issue at a time. For example, border disputes, let's pick up ethnic conflicts. Let's look at ethnic conflicts first. Because as I said earlier, this is a very big problem. Look, there are a number of factors that actually contribute to ethnic conflict in South Asia. The most important factor, let's say, is religious differences. For example, the Kashmir conflict that happened, it is basically rooted in religious differences between Hindus and Muslims. So, this is the first point. I will try to go a bit fast because we have to cover many things, and this video can actually become quite long. That's why I will try to cover each thing quickly without going into too much detail at this moment. We will directly try to cover it.

The second is ethnic differences. For example, like the conflict in Assam or the conflict in Assam, that is basically rooted in the ethnic differences between the Assamese people and the Bengali-speaking immigrants who have come from outside. We have mentioned this before. After that, economic disparity is also an important factor. For example, the Maoist insurgency in India is basically rooted in economic disparities. Those who follow Maoist, Marxist tendencies, the Maoists. Right? So, the Maoists say that there is a significant economic disparity between rural and urban areas, between the rural poor and the urban elite. So, this is also a very big problem that actually drives ethnic conflict. Political instability again. For example, the civil war that happened in Sri Lanka, or the war that happened, basically, that is actually exacerbated by the political instability in Sri Lanka. It happens due to the political instability in Sri Lanka.

So, look, these are mainly our three to four important reasons why ethnic conflict happens or exists in the South Asian region. But let's look at some major conflicts. For example, the conflict in Kashmir. This is an ethnic conflict. We have seen the example before, the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. This is a long-standing territorial and ethnic conflict over Jammu and Kashmir, which involves competing sovereignty claims. Meaning Pakistan says it is ours, India, obviously, it is India's. So, here the issue is about sovereign claims. Both countries are saying that no, this region is ours. So, there is a problem because of this. And it has actually triggered multiple wars and persistent violence. The unending issue of Kashmir has been going on for a very long time. To a great extent, we have tried to settle it now. But yes, related to this, issues like terrorism, terror attacks related to this, keep happening. For example, the incident in Pahalgam is a very important example of this.

Second, Naxalite-Maoist insurgency. The Naxalite-Maoist insurgency in India is an armed rebellion in the tribal-dominated regions. In tribal-dominated regions, issues related to land rights, social justice, and the state's neglect, the way the state neglects, so an anti-state movement keeps happening here. This is also a very big ethnic conflict, and that remains a serious internal security challenge.

Third, the Tamil-Sinhala conflict in Sri Lanka. Ethnic tension over Tamil minority rights, their rights, and their autonomy. Because of this, a decade-long civil war has been going on in Sri Lanka, which definitely has a connection, somewhere, because they are a Tamil community, they relate to Tamil Nadu. So, somehow, this conflict impacts India because it is an Indian community. Fourth, the insurgency in Balochistan, which is in Pakistan, basically, which is rooted in political and economic marginalization. The way any region is marginalized in every country, due to economic marginalization, issues arise. So, here in Balochistan, in the Balochistan province of Pakistan, due to economic marginalization, there is insurgency, and recently there was a separatist attack in which 50 people were killed. That actually highlights the ongoing instability and human rights issues.

Then the Rohingya crisis is well-known. We all know about the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. It is an ethno-religious conflict. Basically, it is an ethnic conflict. Religious and ethnic, basically, conflict, in which the persecution of Rohingya Muslims is involved. Mass persecution is happening there. Approximately more than 400 refugees have entered India via the Myanmar border by 2024.

So, now, what are the impacts of these kinds of ethnic conflicts on regional alliances and bilateral relations? Look, for example, the Rohingya crisis. If people are coming from Myanmar and there is a demographic shift in India because of that, let's say in a particular state, then obviously, it can be a very big challenge for India, because accommodating and then managing such a population can be an issue. So, definitely, India would want that their rights are not violated. For this, it will try to talk to those countries somewhere. So, definitely, some frictions can develop in bilateral relations. So, definitely, look, because of all these conflicts, there is a strain on resources and security. Because conflicts keep happening continuously. So, our defense personnel or our security personnel have to be involved in this. A lot of time goes into it. We have to invest a lot of resources in it. So, definitely, if this doesn't happen, if there are peaceful relations, then definitely, so many resources, so much of our defense expenditure, will not be needed. But it has to be done. So much defense expenditure, meaning it has to be done. That is a very unfortunate thing that we need this.

Second, there are also border management disputes. Many disputes arise regarding border management. Because of ethnic conflicts, what happens? Because of ethnic conflicts, many ethnic communities say that this region is ours. This particular region is ours. So, for that particular region, they agitate. They agitate for its autonomy. So, this leads to disintegration and fragmentation.

Third, humanitarian and legal challenges also arise. Countries face humanitarian challenges in providing support to illegal migrants. There are many illegal migrants, especially in India. Many, and from all the surrounding countries, a little bit of illegal migration, especially from Bangladesh. So, in such a situation, a humanitarian crisis develops, and legal challenges also arise regarding citizenship or other things.

Fourth, cross-border crime and cooperation. This is an important impact that happens in our South Asian region due to these ethnic conflicts. Because of illegal immigration, illegal migration, look, cross-border criminal activities are greatly facilitated. People are coming illegally. So, cross-border crimes like human trafficking, okay? And then money laundering. Besides that, other organized crimes that we see in internal security. So, all those crises happen here. And to combat these, we have to cooperate with other countries. So, this is a challenge.

Fifth, political implications and diplomatic tensions. Look, illegal migration has become a political tool for domestic support. This is an important dimension. For domestic support, meaning for your vote politics, for your political interests, you also politicize the immigrants who have come. You are making illegal migration an issue and trying to gather domestic support there. So, because of this, bilateral relations get very strained. Meaning, for example, if some illegal migrant comes from somewhere, and if the local states, the local government, speaks against it and tries to blame some other country by speaking against it, then in such a situation, friction develops in the relations with that country. Okay?

Second, the important issue is the cross-border migration issue. We have already discussed ethnic conflicts. The cross-border migration issue is also a very important issue in South Asia. The borders of South Asia, one, they are facing very high cross-border dangers, in which there is movement of terrorists. Insurgents come. Along with that, illegal migrants also come here, and problems like trafficking of drugs, weapons, and fake currency keep happening. For example, if we talk about the Bangladesh border, we especially face the issue of migration on the Bangladesh border. Second, if we talk about the Myanmar border, here too there is illegal migration coming from Myanmar. So, that has been a major issue in states like Nagaland, our northeastern states, where there are a lot of problems. And because of this, there have been regular protests against Myanmar refugees in the states. In every state, due to the refugees who have come from Myanmar, there are continuous protests against them. Obviously, it will happen. When people come from outside, then the capacity of the state, the strain on its capacity increases significantly. When the population exceeds its carrying capacity, then crimes also increase there. Then ethnic clashes also start happening there. So, nobody wants these problems. That's why protests keep happening there.

Rohingya migration has been one of the major issues of illegal migration between India and Bangladesh. In 2020, it was estimated that more than 40,000 Rohingya refugees entered through the India-Myanmar border across the states. This is one problem.

Then river water disputes in South Asia. This is a very big problem. We have seen the suspension of Indus Water recently, which is a very big challenge. So, South Asia is a region of very high population density and limited water resources. That's true. Look, one, the population of the South Asian region is very high. India alone has a population of 140 crore. So, other countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh also have significant populations. So much so that people try to migrate to India, which is already a populous country, because of the lack of resources in their particular states, because there is a lot of poverty and a lot of inequality. So, this is a very big problem.

So, here, look, there is so much population, but when it comes to water resources, there are limited water resources. Limited rivers, and mainly transboundary rivers. Transboundary, meaning it's not like a river originates in India and ends in India, and flows within India throughout its course. That's not the case. Mainly, some rivers, like if we talk about the Indus River system, where does it originate? Where does it pass through, and where does it end? So, because of this, it crosses the boundaries of multiple states. So, a very big issue arises regarding water sharing of the river. As Amit Ranjan, in his book Contested Waters: India's Transboundary River Water Disputes, argues that water disputes in South Asia are a major source of tension. And that is very true. It is not just tension, but one of the major sources of tension and instability.

Let's talk about some important water disputes. The first is the Indus Water Dispute between India and Pakistan. This dispute is about the fact that here, somewhere, we are building a dam.

The activity that is ongoing and some water projects are running, because of which there is tension over water usage. Meaning, a clash is created. A conflict is created over who will use how much water. So, India has recently, in April 2025, paused the Indus Water Treaty after the Kashmir attack that happened in Pahalgam, which escalated tensions. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, regarding this matter, warned that the collapse of the treaty indicates the possibility of a water war, which, if such a water war occurs, could undermine regional stability, which is not in anyone's interest.

The second important issue here is the Teesta River dispute. This is basically a dispute over Teesta water between India and Bangladesh. Both countries depend on this river for irrigation, for hydropower, and for other purposes, domestic purposes. However, however, there have been disagreements over equitable sharing. Meaning, there is still disagreement over the distribution and usage of water. Because of which, there is a delay in reaching a comprehensive agreement. We are not arriving at a comprehensive agreement. So, the Teesta dispute, even in 2024 and 2025, it remains unresolved due to West Bengal's opposition, because the West Bengal government has a significant stake in it, as it passes through West Bengal. So, because of this, West Bengal's opposition to the India-Bangladesh talks that were happening in 2024, or the stalling of talks because of it, has actually further delayed the negotiations. So, there are more problems in this.

Then there is the Mahakali River dispute between India and Nepal. Both nations have different perspectives on its water usage, basically different perspectives on its water usage. And also different perspectives on the benefits. So, and joint hydropower projects are also happening here. So, this is basically an important dispute. The Mahakali River dispute.

Then the Brahmaputra River dispute. This is basically between India, China, and Bangladesh. The problem here is that China has built many dams on the Brahmaputra, and because of building dams, the amount of water flowing downstream, where India and Bangladesh are, has reduced, and because of this, concerns about water shortages and flooding in these countries arise. So, this is also a problem.

But if we want to conclude the water disputes, then here we can say that climate change experts, like Saleemul Huq, who is basically a climate change expert, his saying is that because of this climate change, more extreme weather events occur. As UPSC aspirants, we all know what climate change is and how extreme weather and extreme events occur because of it. For example, floods can occur, droughts can occur. So, because of all these, there can be a strain on the water resources in the region, and because of this, there can be more disputes between countries. For example, climate change has intensified the floods in Bangladesh in 2024, basically, due to climate change, floods occurred more, and because of this, a strain developed in the Teesta negotiations. Okay? So, these are basically different ethnic conflicts, border disputes, and water disputes, these transboundary water disputes in the South Asian region.

Now, look, somewhere we have also tried to develop an association in the South Asian region whose work is to ensure regional cooperation. For this, we, all countries together, we, meaning all countries, have tried to establish the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, which we call SAARC. This is an intergovernmental body we have tried to establish, whose work is to promote regional cooperation and economic cooperation. Okay? And it was basically established by signing the SAARC Charter in Dhaka on December 8, 1985. SAARC has eight members, which we mentioned: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Okay? These are all the countries. Okay?

And look, its functional approach, basically, regional organization, SAARC is basically an organization based on a functionalist approach. For example, S.D. Muni says that SAARC was founded on the premise that if economic integration happens, if economic integration happens, then political differences will go away. But this assumption was wrong. Economic cooperation is not happening. Our trade is the least in the entire region. Meaning, our trade at the global level is the least. Here, Gunnar Myrdal, if we also consider his theory, he says that economic decisions are not taken in a vacuum of politics; thus, for regional integration, political consensus is required. His saying is, look, what S.D. Muni said, S.D. Muni said that somewhere if economic cooperation happens in the region, then political differences will gradually reduce. They will fade away. But here, another scholar, Gunnar Myrdal, his theory is that these economic decisions we talk about, economic cooperation, will only be possible when there is cooperation at the political level, because economic cooperation and trade, all these decisions are made through political activities, through political governments. So, somewhere, when integration happens at the regional level and political development, political consensus occurs, only then can these economic decisions be made. So, despite its formation, SAARC is still considered one of the weakest regional organizations compared to the African Union. In comparative politics, we have a topic of regionalization. So, whether it is the African Union or other basically countries, okay? In the context of those regional cooperative organizations, regional cooperation organizations, it is considered quite weak.

So, first of all, why is it considered weak? We will see that, but let's understand the objectives of SAARC. What were the objectives? One is to improve the quality of life of the people of South Asia, to ensure their welfare. Then, at the same time, to accelerate economic growth, social progress, cultural development in the region. These are all its basic objectives. To promote collective self-reliance. Then to enhance mutual trust and basically to understand each other's problems and try to solve them by understanding them, active collaboration, mutual assistance, economic, social, cultural, technical. This is basically why SAARC was established from a perspective of cooperation.

So, the objective of SAARC was partially advanced through India's 2024 initiatives. Somewhere, like the 600 crore aid that we have given to Maldives for their economic growth, or if we talk about it, even Pakistan. But why is there tension here? Why is there tension in SAARC? If we look at its current example, Pakistan has appealed in the UN regarding the Indus Water Treaty, due to which there is strained cooperation, regarding the slight suspension we have imposed on the Indus Water Treaty, Pakistan has appealed in the UN. This is a matter of 2025. There was a slight mistake here regarding 2024, but understand it, I will tell you from time to time. This is basically a matter of 2024-25. So, okay, that is not important, but Pakistan has recently appealed in the UN. So, somewhere, these tensions are ongoing.

Sumit Ganguly noted that SAARC's cultural and social goals have been hindered by political disputes. We see not just political and economic aspects, but also social and cultural aspects. People-to-people contact is also an important aspect between the two countries. Because the relations between countries are not just about government to government. They are also about people to people. So, those people-to-people relations are being hindered because of political and economic disintegration or somewhere due to strain.

If we analyze SAARC's achievements so far, let's first understand SAARC's free trade area. Because when we are creating a regional block for economic cooperation, it is expected that we will do economic cooperation, regional integration, integrate markets, integrate currencies, etc. There are many aspects of economic integration. As economic integration gradually increases, if we talk about the free trade area, SAARC as a free trade area, being a comparatively new organization in the global arena, member countries have established a free trade area, in which internal trade will somehow increase, and basically, the trade gap between some states will reduce. After that, we established SAFTA, South Asia Preferential Trading Agreement, to facilitate trade among the members. We also did SAFTA in 1995. SAFTA is a free trade agreement confined to goods but excluding all services. So, we have done so many agreements. SAARC Agreement on Trade in Services, which is SASTEC, we have also done this. We have established many SAARC Universities. We established a SAARC University in India. We established a food bank. We established energy reserves, like in Pakistan. So, these were all achievements.

But if we talk about SAFTA, although we brought SAFTA as a free trade agreement, its implementation is very limited. Our total intra-regional trade in South Asia, out of the total trade of all countries, only 5% of the trade is happening through the South Asian region, through SAARC or SAFTA. So, only 5% trade is happening. So, this is nothing. This cannot be considered an achievement in any way. Okay? SAARC University is basically in continuous operation, but there are funding issues there, and India actually contributes 32% of the budget there. If we also talk about the SAARC Food Bank, which is a Bangladesh-supported SAARC Food Bank, recently the SAARC Food Bank also supported Bangladesh's 2024 flood relief by distributing 10,000 metric tons of aid. So, there are some achievements, but the achievements are very few. They are not very strong achievements that we can appreciate. Okay?

But if we talk about India's engagement in SAARC, at the current level, it is quite stalled due to the ongoing bilateral relations with Pakistan. But India's history with SAARC, if we talk about it, is marked by evolving attitudes and engagement through these phases. India's engagement with SAARC has been shaped by its changing economic and geopolitical interests. First of all, obviously, the way our economic interest and geopolitical interests are, look, earlier you were very enthusiastic about engaging with SAARC, and still are, but somewhere due to bilateral disputes and other conflicts in the South Asian region, SAARC remains the least integrated region. Now, we will not wait for integration to happen in SAARC and then trade. When it is not happening, we have tried a lot in SAARC, it is not happening, so we are now looking somewhere else. Our trade and other relations with other countries are continuous. So, through these phases, India's engagement with SAARC has been shaped by its changing economic. The way our economic interests, geopolitical interests keep changing, and our overall dynamics with other countries, for example, if relations with Pakistan are not good, if there is fighting, conflict, then there is no point in trading with them. So, with changing geopolitical and economic interests, our engagement with SAARC has been changing. While SAARC remains an essential platform for regional cooperation, India's approach towards the organization has experienced fluctuations over time. Our fluctuations have been over time because the goal of its establishment is not being achieved here.

For example, if we talk about Phase One, initially India was reluctant. India was hesitant and kept itself distant, pursuing SAARC as limiting its regional leadership role. Because of SAARC, its regional leadership role would somehow be limited. From this perspective, India stayed away a bit initially. Later, with economic growth and leadership in Phase Two, with economic rise in the 1990s and the principle of non-reciprocity and unilateralism of the Gujarat Doctrine, India adopted a proactive and cooperative approach and tried to focus on regional development. So, we actually started engaging more with SAARC, and we continued to cooperate. We continued to cooperate even under Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh. India maintained steady engagement, supporting SAARC initiatives for regional integration. Regarding all SAARC initiatives for regional integration, we tried to support them under the governments of Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh.

Then, in Phase Four, if we look, there was a significant shift in the Modi era. In the Modi era, initially, we tried to revive SAARC. We were quite enthusiastic about it. But due to the deterioration of India's ties with Pakistan, we tried to find an alternative platform, which we have shifted to BIMSTEC and IOR ARC (Indian Ocean Region).

If we talk about the present, the situation is a bit ambiguous. Because India's current approach towards SAARC, India's current approach is a bit ambiguous. Why? Because this entire platform is now being marginalized. Why? Because of geopolitical tensions, especially with Pakistan, due to which there is a big question mark on its future and its future relevance. Okay? So, India's engagement with SAARC remains limited, as we have seen.

Now, if we have seen achievements, but let's talk about SAARC's failures. Let's talk about SAARC's failures. Why is SAARC called a jammed vehicle? Okay, S. Jaishankar calls it a jammed vehicle because regional integration is weak in it. 30 years after its establishment, SAARC is one of the weakest regional blocks. P.V. Narasimha Rao also called it "retarded regionalism." A very good keyword. Retarded regionalism. It has been retarded, right? Due to mistrust and structural fragility. Okay?

Second, low intra-regional trade. The intra-regional trade is quite low. Only 5% of the total trade of South Asia. Meaning, out of the total trade of South Asia at the global level, only 5% is happening within South Asia, meaning through SAARC. Whereas the average tariff is as high as 35%. So, what regional cooperation will happen? It is very difficult.

Third, persistent bilateral conflicts, India-Pakistan tension. The Kashmir attack in 2025 is a very big one. After that, India banned trade, and consistently, SAARC's initiatives and summits have not had a proper summit since 2014. So, it has become dysfunctional, correct?

Fourth, there is a significant gap in engagement and implementation. For example, SAFTA, SAFTA is a trade agreement, right? Important sectors like IT, and other important sectors are excluded from it, due to which there is a significant gap in engagement.

Fifth, security dilemma and asymmetry. Smaller states feel that India is economically and otherwise very powerful. So, they feel threatened. Meaning, this is a perception. Basically, India is not threatening anyone, but this is a perception. And that leads to dependence on external balances. Because of this, other countries are trying to balance by using external forces like China. And this is also one of the reasons why mistrust is continuously increasing. And SAARC's relevance is somewhere, look, it is decreasing. And if there is the biggest bottleneck, the biggest challenge, obstruction, then it is Pakistan. C. Raja Mohan has called Pakistan a camel that has slowed down SAARC's caravan, he said it in this way. Because it consistently blocks SAARC's progress, especially on connectivity issues.

Sixth, realist national interests always prevail. SAARC member states prioritize their sovereignty and strategic interests over collective regional goals. So, basically, they give priority to their personal national interests over collective goals and regional goals, which they should, there is no problem with that. But somewhere, they consider their national interests to be in conflict with collective interests. This is a very unfortunate thing. That is one of the unfortunate things that you pursue in such a way that your national and strategic interests are not aligned with collective interests. That perception itself is one of the major reasons for, you know, SAARC not becoming so successful. And that's and one of the all.

And another reason is that the regional identity is not shared. For example, if we talk about ASEAN or the European Union, their identity is a shared identity. There is some commonality. But here, there is a lot of diversity. In SAARC, there is no cohesive South Asian identity like this, and this is a big problem. Because of this, SAARC remains paralyzed by deep political divides, low economic interdependence. Because there is no economic interdependence, and here is another important reason, which perhaps will not be discussed here, will not be mentioned here, is that trade is more likely to happen in the economy only when your economies are quite complementary to each other. But if your economies are homogeneous, similar. Meaning, agricultural production is happening in India, textile production is happening. Agricultural and textile production is also happening in Pakistan and Bangladesh. So, how will we trade? We must have something that you don't have. You must have something that we don't have. So, in such a case, we can trade. Right? So, basically, our economic dependence is not that much. And there is no collective will, and no political will. Because of this, as Jaishankar said, Jaishankar called SAARC a jammed vehicle. You can use this keyword. "Retarded regionalism" is also one, the one from Narasimha Rao, and after that, the "jammed vehicle" keyword from Jaishankar, definitely use it.

Now, if we talk about SAARC's relevance, Smriti Patnaik, regarding relevance, she said that SAARC's relevance can be understood in several ways. First of all, it is a regional country, regional.

The countries of the region come together and provide a platform to discuss common regional issues and to differentiate them. So, this is one point through which we can understand the relevance of SAARC. Secondly, SAARC allows smaller countries to play a very visible role in the region because they won't be asked much outside. SAARC belongs to them, it belongs to all countries. So here, they get a voice somewhere. And India's, basically, you know, India definitely has a dominant presence. But other countries also get visibility here. Secondly, the scope of SAARC can be expanded. In this, we can collectively try to solve non-traditional issues like terrorism or drug smuggling, and other such issues, and by doing so, we can increase the scope of SAARC. Additionally, SAARC summits serve as opportunities for leaders to address bilateral differences, further contributing to regional stability and cooperation. So, what are the relevant issues in this? The other issues. One is bilateral conflict resolution. SAARC summits provide an opportunity for leaders where they can solve bilateral issues. So, this is one point. Secondly, the size of SAARC is a very important factor here. It's a significant size. 21% of the global population is in SAARC countries. And a $4.47 trillion economy, the overall economy, according to the 2021 calculations. So, basically, it's such a large economy. But that remains underutilized because of low trade. Because of less trade. Secondly, our shared problems like poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, hunger, natural disasters. Natural disasters like many disasters we face. Floods or other disasters like cyclones, these are our common problems. Industrial backwardness is common for all of us. So, we can come together to solve common problems. But if other countries also adopt this kind of thinking, then only will it work, right? Just India having that thought is not enough. India definitely has that thinking, has that vision that we should come together, identify common problems, and solve them. Look, you also have poor people. We also have poor people. Malnutrition is a big problem for you too. It is for us too. Big problems like cyclones, due to which agriculture and otherwise, overall life is devastated. So, India has that technology. We can provide it to you. Like we have many initiatives, some initiatives have been taken by ISRO. We have that technology. So, it's better that all countries come together, support each other, and try to look towards a better future, and talk about collective cooperation. But again, this depends on the political will of the countries and their political leaders. But for this, leaders also need to be democratically elected. When there is military rule and such rules. When such regimes exist. Then in such situations, this collective happiness and all these things become a bit difficult. Even if we talk about COVID-19, SAARC had an important role during COVID-19. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, our Indian Prime Minister, initiated a video conference with SAARC leaders, through which we tried to extend solidarity and support from our side because we had vaccines and all other medical aid. But you see, ultimately, SAARC is not that prominent today because there is no cooperation. So, if a question comes, you can analyze it in this way. It's a simple question. Now, look at this. If we talk about the way forward, according to Shashi Tharoor, from unanimity to consensus-1. Consensus-1 means SAARC can function better if we exclude Pakistan from it. So, Shashi Tharoor suggests this way forward: we should go with a consensus-minus-one approach. Secondly, Pramod Chaudhary says that with the coming of China in the Indo-Pacific, India cannot wait for Pakistan to accept regional connectivity. Thus, a more prudent option is to keep lines of dialogue open in SAARC and seek other channels like BIMSTEC and BBIN. Okay? And there are opinions of other scholars like this. But the opinions of one or two scholars are enough for us. For example, let's look at Suhasini Haidar. India to be the leading force behind SAARC, and it should take the lead role to revive SAARC. India, meaning Suhasini Haidar says that we need to revive SAARC, and India should take the leadership position and initiative. That's what Suhasini Haidar says. If we look at Shyam Saran, he says that we should focus on regional connectivity. We should focus on people-to-people contact. Through this, our SAARC can be strengthened. Now, look here, the most important question that has been going on for the last two, four, five years or some years, because SAARC is not functional. Problems are arising in SAARC. Issues related to bilateral issues, with Pakistan, are arising. Pakistan-1, basically SAARC-1, excluding Pakistan, can also be an approach, as Shashi Tharoor suggests. But, but because India will not wait for everything to be right in SAARC and then we will trade, do connectivity. We ultimately have to look at our interests. We ultimately have to try to do our economic cooperation, regional cooperation, through some medium or the other. So, can we replace SAARC with BIMSTEC? This is an important question. So, if we say yes, then how? Look at India's regional aspirations. Okay? They may be reflected in its increased focus on BIMSTEC. Our increasing focus on BIMSTEC, in a way, reflects our regional aspirations. Because we need cooperation at the regional level. We want cooperation at the regional level. Now, if it's not happening through SAARC, then what should we do? That is so unfortunate. That is so unfortunate. But BIMSTEC is also one of the vehicles that we can use for regional cooperation. So, BIMSTEC actually offers the opportunity to engage with countries in the Bay of Bengal region and enhance its economic and strategic ties in the wider Indo-Pacific context. We can engage in the wider Indo-Pacific context. Secondly, as Suyash Desai argues, India's shift towards BIMSTEC is a strategic move that reflects its desire to play a greater role in the wider Indo-Pacific region. He writes that BIMSTEC is a more diverse and inclusive organization than SAARC. So, somewhere we should focus on BIMSTEC, that's what they say. And that it has the potential to become a more effective forum for regional cooperation. Why? Because India faces conflicts in BIMSTEC that it faces in SAARC. There are no such conflicts in BIMSTEC. Secondly, if we look at India's emphasis on BIMSTEC, we can also see it as a response to the challenges we are facing within SAARC, where we need an inclusive and diverse regional cooperation framework. So, then we try to see BIMSTEC in that format. Even C. Raja Mohan, in one of his articles, says that India has no reason to shed tears for SAARC. There is no need to shed tears for SAARC, says C. Raja Mohan. C. Raja Mohan is a realist scholar. So, it is no longer the only game in town. SAARC is not the only thing, right? We have other options. We should explore other options. In fact, it was never much of a game. It was never that important, says C. Raja Mohan about SAARC. Okay? Nor should it mourn the passing away of South Asia. We don't need to take too much sorrow or tension from the departure of South Asia or SAARC. Change is the only enduring fact of life. This is a very important thing C. Raja Mohan said. Change is the only enduring fact of life. What a line, relevant everywhere. Okay? If we talk about the recent developments in BIMSTEC, in the summit held in 2024, we tried to speed up trade growth and the shift. But the instability in Myanmar and the potential for SAARC's revival suggest that BIMSTEC complements rather than fully replaces SAARC. Look, it's not that completely, because BIMSTEC does not have all the members that SAARC has. Ultimately, cooperation with countries that share borders with India, the South Asian region, will always be necessary, and that can only happen through SAARC. BIMSTEC is not SAARC. BIMSTEC can be one of the vehicles for cooperation, but then regional cooperation cannot be completely possible in BIMSTEC. Because it's not necessary that all countries are in BIMSTEC. So, we need SAARC because our neighboring countries, with whom our immediate borders are connected, right? With whom we have daily transactions, cooperation with them is necessary, which can only happen through SAARC. So, definitely, BIMSTEC can help us in terms of our economic growth and cooperation with some other neighboring countries. But how can BIMSTEC replace SAARC? Because both are in completely different geopolitical and geostrategic contexts. SAARC's members are different. SAARC's geography is different. BIMSTEC's geography is different. So, neither can replace the other. Rather, they can complement each other. They can complement each other. Okay? So, BIMSTEC should actually complement SAARC, and it should not replace it, or it cannot definitely replace it. However, it is pertinent to note that SAARC still remains an official regional organization. We need to keep this in mind that SAARC is still our official regional organization. And efforts have been made to revitalize and strengthen its functioning. Efforts are already being made, are being taken, and will be taken in the future to strengthen SAARC's functioning. We will not give up. So, despite the challenges, it continues to provide a platform for dialogue and cooperation among the South Asian countries. Look, if we exclude Pakistan, which is basically Shashi Tharoor's approach, that is quite relevant here. If things are getting stuck there because of Pakistan, then we can definitely use South Asia, our association SAARC, to cooperate with other countries. Okay? So, it is not accurate to say that SAARC has been completely replaced by BIMSTEC. We cannot say this accurately because it is not possible. Here, Amitabh Mattoo argues that India's shift towards BIMSTEC is not basically a replacement of SAARC. It is a complement to it. So, this is the approach we should adopt in our answers. He also writes that BIMSTEC has the potential. BIMSTEC has the potential to be a very effective forum for regional cooperation. But it is important for India to continue to engage with SAARC as well. It is also important for us to continue with SAARC. We cannot abandon SAARC. Just as we said in the previous chapter that we cannot abandon NAM. It is better that we revive it. So, we also need to revive SAARC. If we talk about recent developments in India and SAARC relations, look, India has signed 13 regional trade agreements or free trade agreements with SAARC nations. Which provides $100 billion in cumulative development aid. We have also provided $100 billion in overall cumulative development aid to multiple SAARC countries. Recently, we have invested $33 billion in infrastructure and capacity building in SAARC countries. We have signed around 13 agreements. So, somewhere India is trying to contribute a lot. If we also talk about connectivity and technology, we have launched the South Asia Satellite, with terminals in six SAARC countries. Okay? After that, we have established the Akhaura-Agartala rail link with Bangladesh, and we have also proposed SAARC passenger ferry services. So, we are also taking so many connectivity initiatives. At the same time, we are having ETCA talks with Bangladesh. So that we can deepen economic cooperation. If we talk about disaster and financial frameworks, we have established an interim SAARC Disaster Management Centre in Gandhinagar. At the same time, we have also established currency swap agreements with SAARC nations in 2019. Okay? If we also look at energy security, we have established the Maitri Super Thermal Power Plant in Bangladesh for regional energy cooperation. Then, if we talk about cultural institutional diplomacy, the visit of the SAARC Secretary General to India in 2024 signals continuous diplomatic engagement. So, we are continuously engaged at the diplomatic level, and India is maintaining good relations with all members of SAARC, except Pakistan. Okay? Look, the biggest problem here is that the India-Pakistan tension still persists today. Due to cross-border terrorism and Article 370, all these issues are still involved, unresolved. But small confidence-building measures, we are trying to implement some confidence-building measures even with Pakistan. For example, even in 2024, despite so many issues currently ongoing. Even then, we have released some fishermen from Pakistan. We have also given pilgrim visas. So, somewhere there is engagement. It's limited, but there is engagement. So, we cannot completely give up. Secondly, strategic balancing versus China. India is countered by China's growing regional influence. So, somewhere India also needs to counter this. How will it do that? It will invest in infrastructure. It will invest in trade. It will have energy partnerships with countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Maldives. So, through all these initiatives, somewhere countering China's growing influence is the need of the hour. It is necessary, and we can do it. So, SAARC is quite necessary for this. PM Shri Narendra Modi says that as a founding member of SAARC, India is committed to strengthening regional cooperation through various initiatives for the development and progress of all countries in the region. We can use this in the conclusion. That as a founding member of SAARC, we can strengthen SAARC. We can strengthen cooperation. So that we can implement the other developmental initiatives. So, here in the conclusion, the way forward, in the conclusion, I would suggest that we can write this conclusion by Modi. We can also write the conclusion by SD Muni. Look, SAARC is not history. It should be the future. This is very important. We can even write this in the introduction. SAARC is not history, it should be. It is our future. We need to revive it. Given the historic integration of the region. Because historically, we are an integrated region. We need to enhance connectivity. We need to reconnect with the region, and not just connect it. We need to reconnect. Okay? Then let us try to understand the Look East Policy. Look, we are talking about South Asia. We talked about BIMSTEC. Let's talk about the Look East Policy. Look, the Look East Policy was basically launched so that strategic ties could deepen, economic integration could happen, and our influence could increase in the Southeast Asia and East Asia region, amidst global economic or overall dynamics. Okay? So, why did India launch the Look East Policy? Basically, why was it implemented? First of all, geopolitical shift. After the Cold War, realignment started. After the Cold War, countries started realigning significantly. Even the global economic order started changing significantly. So, in such a situation, the economic rise of Asia was happening. We were talking about Southeast Asia, but now let's talk about entire Asia or East Asia. So, the economies of Southeast and East Asia were growing. Okay? And because of that, global reach for India with them was also necessary. So, the first important thing is the geopolitical shift. A geopolitical shift has occurred. Realignment happened after the Cold War, and East Asian and Southeast Asian economies are now growing, and India also needs global outreach. Secondly, strategic balancing. Look East was also important for us, which is why we launched it, so that China's growing regional influence could be countered. And how can this be countered? By engaging with other countries like Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, we can try to counter China's regional influence. After that, economic liberalization. Economic reforms happened in our country. Economic reforms happened in the 1990s. So, because of those economic reforms, we needed to explore new markets and new investment avenues, which we tried to explore in ASEAN and beyond. So, for this too, the Look East Policy was necessary for us. And secondly, connectivity focus. This is important. We focused on improving infrastructure and trade routes. Like we saw the Kaladan Project. So, somewhere, if we have connectivity and infrastructure projects, then somewhere our regional economic ties, economic ties at the regional level, countries, meaning beyond these South Asian countries, our SAARC nations, if we try to go beyond them, because we have to diversify our trade partners, we have to diversify them if we want to achieve economic growth. So, for this reason, we implemented the Look East Policy. And here, look, but, but later we have shifted a bit. Here, one or two things are important. Recent developments in the Look East Policy, which has now become the Act East Policy. So, at the economic level, trade between ASEAN and India, we have revived the goods agreement, and India's exports have risen by 15%. Secondly, if we look at the strategic level, India signed a defense pact with Vietnam to boost maritime security. So, we have signed a defense pact with Vietnam, and connectivity, basically the Sittwe Port, which is under the Kaladan Multimodal Project.

It is basically built. So its operationalization has now started. This has also improved connectivity. These are some recent developments. Now look, we focused on the Look East policy as a policy for regional integration, especially in the South Asian region and beyond the ASEAN region. But now, because after Modi, our policies have become a bit more aggressive in their posturing. We are posturing aggressively. For anything, for example, earlier the neighborhood was important, but we made it Neighborhood First. Just like there was Look East, but we focused on Act East. So, somewhere an action-oriented aggressive policy shift has happened. So, from Look East to Act East, this is a bold transformation, and it is not just a rebranding. It is not just a rebranding. Look East and Act East are not just changes in name. It is a change in perspective. It is a change in emphasis. It is a change in our priorities. So, the Act East policy, which C. Raja Mohan emphasizes. Rajiv Bhatia also says that this Act East policy represents a transformation that has happened in India's neighborhood policy. Basically, India is not just focusing on rebranding now. Beyond rebranding, we need to diversify a bit more with countries. We need to bring in engagement. So, the government's engagement with neighboring countries under this policy shows that there is a commitment. There is a sense of urgency as compared to our previous approaches, a greater sense of urgency is seen here. Because we are not doing Look East. We are doing Act East. That shows our commitment. That shows our urgency about how serious we are about this. Okay? So, if we talk about its features, if we talk about the features of Act East. Okay? So, look, the first feature is that we need to foster cultural ties and people-to-people contact. So, through initiatives like Festival of India and Indian Technical Economic Cooperation (ITEC). The ITEC initiative is also implemented in the Global South. We implement it in our other Global South countries as well. So, here too, we are implementing these initiatives for cultural ties and people-to-people contact. After that, trade and connectivity in India's Northeast region, and prosperity. For this, by using it as a gateway, we are trying to empower India's Northeast. Because the Northeastern states act as a gateway to Southeast Asia. We go to Southeast Asia from there. So, this is an important point here. After that, enhancing strategic engagement and defense cooperation. We need to have defense cooperation and strategic engagement. After that, active involvement in regional organizations. Like with ASEAN, we need to maintain engagement with organizations like ASEAN. The Mekong-Ganga Cooperation (MGC), then BIMSTEC, our Act East policy plays a very important role in engagement with all these regional organizations. Along with that, we need to promote all our economic and basically our defense technology, health relations, and cooperation. After that, maritime security and connectivity initiatives are also important for us. So, the Act East policy actually advances cultural ties with the Festival of India in Vietnam. So, all these points we have seen are important for maritime security. They are also important for connectivity initiatives. If we look at some recent developments here, then in this Festival of India in Vietnam, there were about 50,000 visitors. 50,000 visitors came. And then, if we talk about the role of the Northeast as a gateway, then look, the Akhaura-Agartala rail link that has been implemented. Then, if we also talk about defense cooperation, India and Indonesia also conducted a joint naval exercise. And after that, India's ASEAN and BIMSTEC roles have expanded with the 2024 Maritime Security Pact. So, C. Raja Mohan greatly praises this. He calls it a result-driven approach. Citing the progress of the Trilateral Highway, C. Raja Mohan is praising this overall approach, the Act East policy, and what we are achieving through it, integration, connectivity, economic growth, and progress. However, there are also some challenges with our policies, whether it is the Look East policy or the Act East policy. Okay? There are challenges. Challenges exist everywhere. The first challenge here is the Chinese strategic and economic dominance. China's dominance is posing a challenge to us everywhere. India struggles to match China's vast regional investments because China has made huge investments, like the $137 billion Brahmaputra dam and $500 million in Maldives aid. Due to these investments, India is facing significant challenges. Second, India's opt-out from RCEP is also a consideration of China's trade dominance, from which we have withdrawn from RCEP negotiations. After that, geopolitical complexities, like power rivalry in the Indo-Pacific and the South China Sea disputes, restrict India's diplomatic and military engagement. And as an example, India's ASEAN naval exercise in 204 was limited due to regional tensions. Second, economic disparities, persistent trade imbalances, and limited investment flows compared to China. Our investment flow is quite limited compared to China, due to which India's influence at the economic level does not have much impact. And because of this, economic integration with ASEAN is less or not happening much. If we compare it with China, and there are also connectivity gaps. For example, the Kaladan Multi-modal Project, the BBIN Motor Vehicle Agreement, which was stalled in 2024 due to Bhutan's environmental concerns. So, due to connectivity gaps, its implementation is quite slow. Because of this, regional integration is not as impactful. Second, the Northeast as a pillar, as a major pillar of the Act East policy, if we consider it, then the Northeast acts as a strategic bridge. The Northeast serves as a vital land and cultural bridge, a cultural bridge. Look, it is important here. It is not just a land bridge. It also acts as a cultural bridge between India and Southeast Asia. We saw South Asia earlier. Now we are talking about Southeast Asia. So, under the Act East policy, it acts as a strategic bridge. Who? The Northeast region. Okay? Second, the economic gateway. India's Northeast's proximity to ASEAN countries, because it is a bit close, nearby, so its proximity to ASEAN countries enables enhanced trade and connectivity. Trade and connectivity are enhanced because of its proximity. So, that is exemplified by the 2024 BIMSTEC Trade Summit that happened in Assam. Okay? Which boosted exports by 8%. Second, infrastructure push. If we talk about this 2024, then India has allocated $500 million for infrastructure in the Northeast, through which we are trying to fund initiatives like rail links to Myanmar, like the Akhaura-Agartala rail link, so that connectivity can be further enhanced. Along with that, cultural diplomacy, cultural initiatives, like the 2024 Northeast Festival in Bangkok, create people-to-people contact and regional goodwill. So, if we look at the expert view here, Suyash Desai highlights that the role of the Northeast as a gateway in facilitating India's deeper regional integration with Southeast India. This is basically a very important thing that the Northeast actually acts as a gateway. If we talk about projects under Act East that cater to Northeast Asia connectivity, help it, then one is the Kaladan Multi-modal Transit Project. Second, there is also the Protocol on Inland Water Transit and Trade, PIWTT. Okay? And then infrastructure projects on National Waterways in the Northeast region. Many infrastructure projects are also underway on National Waterways in the Northeast region. So, somewhere, we are trying to make the Northeast a physical connectivity, at the same time cultural connectivity, and overall as a gateway. Promoting it, so that somewhere we can come even closer to the Southeast Asian region and connect even more. India-Japan Act East Forum. See, the India-Japan Act East Forum, which was established in 2017. So, this forum also provides a platform for collaboration between India and Japan in the Northeast region. This is very important. People study this for places too. India-Japan Act East Forum. Here, India and Japan have come together and established a platform where the Northeast, the Northeastern region, can be developed for India's Act East policy. And Japan's vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific, Japan's alignment with the vision of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific, because they also want the Indo-Pacific to be free and open. So, from all these perspectives, the Northeast plays a very important role here. Okay? And if we look at other developments that have led to cooperation with Southeast Asia, we are talking about overall integration of Southeast Asia, economically, physically, and overall. So, other initiatives taken for its connectivity include: In 2018, India invited all ASEAN leaders, these leaders, basically the leaders of the member countries, as Chief Guests for Republic Day on January 26th. Then, even during COVID-19, among other initiatives and assistance, we extended medicines and other medical supplies to ASEAN countries during the pandemic. So, we are also taking many initiatives. Also, India is implementing Quick Impact Projects in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. So that we can provide developmental assistance at the grassroots level to communities in the fields of education, water resources, health, and other basic necessities. In that context, we have tried to implement initiatives. So, we are doing quite a lot for Southeast Asia as well. If we talk about Rajiv Bhatia's opinion, he has called the Act East policy as India's ambition to assume a more influential role in the evolving regional architecture of the Indo-Pacific. Here, look, the term Indo-Pacific is used repeatedly because when we talk about the Indo-Pacific, we are not just talking about traditional borders or integration of our traditional land. We are also talking about maritime integration and maritime security. Somewhere, countering China is also important, and for this, the Southeast Asian region is also quite important for us. Because of China's aggression in the South China Sea and its overall aggression in the Indo-Pacific, to counter that, of course, the US is there through Quad, we are doing other things. But here, Southeast Asian countries are equally important. This is what India's integration with South Asia and Southeast Asia is about. Now we talk about India and its neighborhood. What are the challenges between India and its neighboring countries? Broadly, we have seen them in South Asia. We have seen broader challenges in SAARC. We don't need to look that specifically. But because it matters a bit what the relation is with a particular country. Therefore, we will try to look at this briefly as well. Okay? Now, after looking at India and South Asia, let's look at India and its other neighboring countries, the relations India has with individual countries. Because in the last topic, we tried to understand the broader dynamics in South Asia. Now, at an individual level, we will try to understand the dynamics with India-Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc. See, in the introduction, according to Kautilya, neighbors are our natural enemies. Natural enemies because obviously there are borders, so many conflicts. Therefore, they are natural enemies. However, in the age of complex interdependence, it is very important to maintain good and cooperative relations with our neighboring countries. Okay? According to Masood Dubey, a country's foreign policy can be judged by its relations with its neighbors. Even Shyam Saran, in his book "How India Sees the World: From Kautilya to the 21st Century," held that the logic of geography is unrelenting. Friendly relations with neighbors will help India reduce its security dilemma. Because, you see, if there are no friendly relations, for example, between India and Pakistan, then other hostile countries can boost Pakistan or help its overall intentions and agenda in the background. Like China could be here. Therefore, it is very important to have good relations with neighboring countries. Otherwise, a security dilemma is created. Even Atal Bihari Vajpayee said that we cannot change history, but we can change, we cannot change history but not geography. Sorry, here Atal Bihari Vajpayee says that we can change history but not geography. It shows the importance of our relationship with our neighbors. So, overall, it is important to have good relations with our neighbors. If we talk about our concerns regarding the neighborhood, what are our concerns right now? So, look, what problems are we facing in the neighborhood? First, in Bangladesh in 2024, there was a political crisis after Sheikh Hasina. After Sheikh Hasina left, a political crisis developed in Bangladesh, in which there was violence against Hindu minorities, and because of this, India had to respond diplomatically. So, this was an issue in the neighborhood. Second, the Maldives' pro-China shift, which secured basically $500 million in 2025, that too reflected domestic economic pressures. This is also a problem, a pro-China shift. Then Nepal's 2024 constitutional reforms, which led to a lot of protests there, have also complicated India's trade agreements. So, this is a very important aspect. Besides this, look, the aspirations of the neighbors have also been neglected. For example, Kanwal Sibal argues that India's neglect of neighbors' aspirations and its "big brother" stance has led other countries like China to exploit this strategic space. Next, historical narratives and nationalistic non-Indianness. S.D. Muni highlights how the historical Indian subcontinent narrative triggers a sense of non-Indian identity in the neighbors, leading to anti-India sentiment. Because of this, anti-India sentiments are being generated. Because India is a dominant player here. A dominant country. Being a dominant country, there is a fear in the other neighboring countries, because they are smaller countries compared to India, there is so much asymmetry in overall size, power, dominance, that they fear that their own identity might be overshadowed by India. Therefore, to assert their own identity, they become very assertive about the identity of non-Indianness. Second, the security-centric approach and China's benefit. P. Staden asserts that India's security-centric zero-sum game approach benefits China, leading to the securitization of terrorism. After that, limited regional engagement and capacity. Shyam Saran points out that India's lack of substantial and multi-level engagement capacity is not helping in building friendly relations with its neighbors because our engagement is quite limited. Our engagement is limited, and along with that, global power prioritization and domestic compulsions also greatly affect India's neighborhood relations. For example, Shashi Tharoor contends that India's emphasis on global powers like the USA and China, along with excessive focus on Pakistan, and the continuous conflict with Pakistan, means that our major focus is on these countries, with China and the USA, and Pakistan. And because of this, we cannot focus much on other neighbors, we cannot give them much attention. That is also one of the reasons. Okay? Then, unresolved India-Pakistan issues and connectivity gaps. This is also a problem we know. Due to poor connectivity, trade and people-to-people interaction with neighboring countries are also hampered. At the same time, due to the lack of political will, the issues between India and Pakistan are becoming even more strained, but they are not being resolved because there is no political will. And India's growth and other foreign policy initiatives also face a lot of problems in implementation because this is the overall condition in the neighborhood. So, overall, this is the condition of the neighborhood. This is the condition of India's neighborhood today. We are seeing the same things here. But there is no need for this because it is the same thing. So, what is the way forward to strengthen India's neighboring relations? What can we do? First, we are looking at a broader level, then.

We will look at the individual level. See, according to C. Raja Mohan, we should use a regionalization approach. So, we must, somewhere, focus on enhancing regional integration and cooperation, on the aspects that are our sub-regional, our sub-regional relations, all regional aspects, and trans-regional groupings like BIMSTEC, SAARC. We should focus here on enhancing regional integration and cooperation at the sub-regional and trans-regional levels.

Secondly, they suggest a top-down approach. They suggest that we should use a functionalism approach and a top-down approach. We need to address the complexities in the region by implementing a top-down approach, akin to China and Russia. So, people want to focus on different solutions, like Sarhad Sabharwal, who wants to focus on economic interdependence. He says that India should capitalize on its economic rise and share that prosperity with its neighbors. And the Indian states that border neighboring countries, like West Bengal, and states like Bangladesh, their engagement should also happen at the state level. This, in a way, talks about para-diplomacy. And basically, we should establish autonomous development cooperative agencies, such agencies that focus on project implementation. Because often, it happens that we go to a country, announce a project there, or announce some developmental aid. But due to bureaucratic inertia, due to bureaucratic delays, it doesn't get implemented, which then strains the relationship. This is a very big, serious problem. Harsh Pant says that we should balance reciprocity and have larger engagement. We should address the grievances of the neighbors and foster reciprocity. Foster respect. At the same time, we should go beyond South Asia and adopt a broader Indo-Pacific approach, and we should engage at more levels. We should not limit our engagement only to South Asia.

At the same time, if we talk about Rajiv Shikri, see, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for India's diverse neighbors. Different neighbors require different approaches. For example, small, vulnerable neighbors like Maldives, Bhutan. So, they need extra care. We need to respect their sensitivities. And at the same time, we need to reduce their dependence on India and, somewhere, maintain a friendly relationship with them. So, small vulnerable neighbors. Then some middle-sized neighbors like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan, Myanmar. So, India should adopt a subtle and sophisticated approach here that respects their sovereign nations, their sovereignty, and at the same time, reciprocates the economic ties with them, enhances the economic ties. And then some larger countries with slightly distinct dynamics like Pakistan and China. So, India's approach towards Pakistan and China is a bit unique, and obviously, due to historical and geopolitical complexities. Talking about Pakistan, obviously, both factors are involved: historical and geopolitical complexities. Talking about China, geopolitical complexities are the main thing. So, this is the overall status of our neighboring countries, what are our problems with them, and how should we have an overall approach. But now, let's try to look specifically.

For example, talking about India and Pakistan, according to C. Raja Mohan, structural constraints like religious nationalism, disputed territories, or Pakistan's heavy dependence and reliance on militant groups, these basically perpetuate the cycle of crises. And the possibility of reconciliation between India and Pakistan is reduced somewhere. So, if we talk about recent updates, in 2025, there was a terror attack in Pahalgam where 26 people were killed. So, this deepened the India-Pakistan crisis. The crisis between India and Pakistan deepened further, with India suspending the Indus Water Treaty and Pakistan warning of a war. So, C. Raja Mohan argued that Pakistan's reliance on Lashkar-e-Taiba and similar terror groups causes many crises and problems. Many crises develop, and somewhere, we dismantled the terror hubs there through Operation Sindoor. So, Operation Sindoor also tells us about their terrorist network and the nexus with the state, which is a big problem here.

Now, if we look at the conflict between India and Pakistan and its causes from a social constructivist perspective, past history, domestic politics, ideology are one of the factors. After that, the negative perceptions of each other also weaken mutual relations. This also creates a negative perception. Where there should be cooperation, mutual relations weaken. And even the media plays a big role in this, contributing to spreading hatred. It spreads hatred. From Sumit Ganguly's perspective, according to the security dilemma perspective, both nations are insecure, and because of this, rapprochement is hindered. What is the government's policy towards Pakistan? What has been the government's policy from the beginning, since independence? Talking about the Nehru era, in the Nehru era, there was a somewhat non-threatening perception. Initially, it wasn't like we perceived a threat from Pakistan. So, initially, Pakistan was perceived as non-threatening, and we miscalculated its ambitions and powers. We miscalculated Pakistan's ambitions. We thought there was no threat from it. And along with that, regarding Pakistan, we didn't have such a perception. But we focused on China. We focused on the Indus Water Treaty. We focused on building relations with China. Also, we tried to address water sharing through the Indus Water Treaty. We tried to solve the water-sharing issue through the Indus Water Treaty. And naturally, our attraction, naturally, we believed that Pakistan would be our natural ally, drawn towards India due to shared history. Because of shared history, sooner or later, Pakistan would come with us. Such a perception existed initially, and initially, we didn't think Pakistan could threaten us in this way. But in subsequent periods, if we look at the territorial division and our diplomacy, Indira Gandhi's role in the territorial division of Pakistan, basically the division that happened in the Bangladesh Liberation War, India played a role in that. At the same time, through the Gujral Doctrine, we also tried to improve bilateral relations. So, there is a contradiction. We pursued its territorial division, and through Bangladesh, we pursued it, but we also tried to improve our bilateral relations through the doctrine. So, this was our approach towards Pakistan.

After that, there were diplomatic peace efforts too. Vajpayee ji's bus diplomacy and Manmohan Singh ji's peace initiatives, through these, we tried to improve our relations. But if we look today, the Modi policy, our current government's policy, is based on complex interdependence. So, we emphasized the Neighborhood First approach. So, here too, obviously, Neighborhood First doesn't mean excluding Pakistan; it means all neighbors. Neighborhood First means whether it's Pakistan or any neighbor, we have tried to improve relations with all of them through this approach. Okay? Through this approach, we tried to improve our relations with the neighboring countries. We started an assertive diplomacy of this kind under the Modi era, but at the same time, the blame game strategy also continued. India attempts to isolate Pakistan on the international stage for its various reasons, whether it's terror support or anything else. At the same time, there was restraint. There was restraint in our policy earlier, but we have shifted from restraint to assertiveness now. For example, indicated by the Balakot strike, reflecting a change from strategic restraint. Earlier, there was strategic restraint. Meaning, even if an attack happened, our response was somewhat restrained. But if we look at the Balakot strike, or the Pahalgam attack in 2025, and then Operation Sindoor, it clearly shows that we are now shifting from strategic restraint to a somewhat aggressive stand on an action-oriented policy. For example, we immediately suspended the Indus Water Treaty. So, instead of taking a restrained stand, we are now adopting an aggressive policy posture, especially in the context of Pakistan.

China's support for Pakistan is also an important parameter, a determinant in this entire relationship. China's backing for Pakistan and its establishment, China's backing for Pakistan's military establishment, adds further complexity to our regional situation. But if we look overall, our approach has evolved from a non-threatening perception to our current aggressive posture after restraint, or an assertive policy, an assertive response to any action by Pakistan. This policy has evolved somewhat under the Modi doctrine. Even if we talk about the Doval doctrine, Ajit Doval's doctrine here, the Doval doctrine is simple: no peace talks with Pakistan. Any kind of peace talks with Pakistan will not happen because any such efforts are futile because of Pakistan's internal dynamics and their strategic hostility. Peace talks are not fruitful, that's what the Doval doctrine basically says. The Doval doctrine does not believe in peace talks at all. Exploiting vulnerabilities, we need to focus on Pakistan's weaknesses somewhere and gain a strategic advantage there, and in this way, deter the threat. So, the approach in the Doval doctrine is to exploit its weaknesses and vulnerabilities. So, the Doval doctrine's approach is three-fold. One is proactive counter-action. Proactive counter-action means preempting threats at the source through intelligence-led operations. Meaning, if any operation is going to happen, gather all intelligence, and eliminate it there, whether it's an operation or a terror attack from their side. That is proactive counter-action. Second, strategic weaponization, using cover tools like funding, advisory enemies, so that their network, their terror network, can be disrupted by funding them or their enemies. Correct? So, the funding that they receive from there, to somehow constrain it. And then high-tech intelligence. Using high-tech intelligence, advanced surveillance technologies, and tech-driven intelligence to implement strategic operations so that we can solve or deal with the problem effectively and in less time. So, basically, how to deal with Pakistan? How to deal with Pakistan? Different scholars have different perspectives on this. For example, if we talk about Brahma Chellaney, he urges caution with the Pakistan civilian government due to military dominance. Due to military dominance, if we interact with the civilian government there, we need to be a bit cautious. Somewhere, we should revisit the Indus Water Treaty. And India's suspension of the treaty in 2025 basically aligns with their suggestions. So, the talk of revisiting the Indus Water Treaty, we have already taken some action in that regard. If we talk about Shashi Tharoor, according to Shashi Tharoor, he highlights India's limited bilateral leverage and supports back-channel diplomacy. We can use back-channel diplomacy through countries like the USA, Saudi Arabia, to somehow achieve some better improvement in relations. So, he also emphasizes internal security, the CCIT push, communal harmony, and leveraging global economic influence. So, how should India deal with terror attacks from Pakistan? This is one important point.

Now, addressing terror attacks and formulating a strategic response requires careful consideration and a nuanced approach. Because our main problem is terrorism there and the security threats that come from there. So, if we want to solve these kinds of problems, we need to have careful consideration in our response. So, let's see what different experts say. For example, M.K. Narayanan says that he advocates for measured and restrained action in response to terror attacks. If any terror attack happens from Pakistan, we should give a calculated response, a measured response, and focus on restrained action. He also emphasizes the importance of maintaining India's image, because somewhere, we need to maintain India's image as a mature and responsible global player. Therefore, our response should be towards restrained actions. So, somewhere, a somewhat conservative attitude is visible here. He also cautions against the rhetoric about Balochistan, which Pakistan has accused India of fostering. Pakistan's accusation is that India is trying to escalate the Balochistan issue. So, we should be cautious about such issues. This is what he says. So, somewhere, M.K. Narayanan, who is a former NSA, suggests a somewhat conservative opinion.

Now, talking about Happymon Jacob, he advocates for a more nuanced and strategic approach in engaging stakeholders in Pakistan. Meaning, we should ensure a proper approach to engage with other stakeholders in Pakistan. He also criticizes military options. Military options, like the LoC skirmishes in 2024, were irrational escalations. So, his point is that we should explore military options less and engage with other strategic approaches where we engage with other stakeholders of Pakistan. According to Suhasini Haidar, what we should do is, she compares dealing with Pakistan to a game of chess. Dealing with Pakistan is like a game of chess, where there is a king, a minister. It's like a game of chess, where she cautions against using the same predictable moves because our foreign policy towards Pakistan, our responses, are quite predictable. But the more predictable it is, the easier it will be for Pakistan. We need to make it somewhat unpredictable. Our responses should be unpredictable. They should not be very easily predictable. Meaning, before the other side takes any action, they already know what we are going to do. So, that is not a viable strategy we should adopt with respect to Pakistan. So, India's treaty response in 2025 was a very predictable response.

By recognizing the limitations of full resolution and embracing incremental progress, we know that any kind of full-scale war has its limitations. Therefore, we should focus on incremental progress. Everything will not change overnight. We should embrace incremental progress. India should strive to stabilize its relationship with Pakistan, paving the way for a future marked by improved understanding, collaboration, and regional stability. Okay? So, the release of fishermen, this is a good step. These small steps, which we can call small confidence-building measures, can improve relations somewhat.

If we talk about India-Pakistan disputes, first comes border disputes. First, there is the Siachen Glacier dispute, which is considered the world's highest battlefield. It reflects a strategic rivalry despite being a barren terrain. One, this terrain is barren, not very fertile land. But still, it causes a lot of conflict. And as Stephen Cohen says, it's like two bald men fighting for a comb. This conflict persists due to unclear demarcation of the LoC, and due to the strategic importance of this region from the perspective of the China-Pakistan nexus, there is some dispute. So, there are two reasons. One is its strategic value from the perspective of the China-Pakistan nexus, and the demarcation of the LoC, which is still unsettled and unclear, is the reason for this dispute. Second, the Sir Creek dispute. The Sir Creek dispute is a 96 km maritime boundary in the Arabian Sea. This is also a major point of conflict. And that hampers resource utilization and leads to frequent arrests of fishermen. Like we released some fishermen recently. So, despite UNCLOS, the 2009 deadline, there has been no resolution yet. So, we have issues over this as well.

Then, CPEC, the BRI initiative, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, that runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and infringes on India's sovereignty and also undermines India's strategic autonomy. So, these are all the issues. Border disputes. If we talk about the strategic and economic implications of CPEC, then at the geostrategic level, it...

India's strategy of containment of China is basically being degraded somewhere. It is being complicated. Because, look, CPEC basically violates our territorial integrity. And because of that CPEC, it tries to complicate our efforts to contain it, geo-strategically. Even if we look at it geo-economically, India's policy of isolating Pakistan by increasing Pakistan's economic linkages through Chinese support. So what is happening because of this? If we want to counter Pakistan economically or isolate it, then this Chinese investment, the CPEC one, is not allowing it to happen. Because of Chinese support, we are not able to isolate Pakistan economically. So, the way forward is that if we look from a realist perspective, then according to Hardeep Singh Puri, there should be no compromise with Indian sovereignty and we should continue to resist CPEC. We should continuously resist CPEC. The second issue is Balochistan, which is a very complex region of Pakistan. If we look at its location, Balochistan is basically Pakistan's largest province by area, by natural resources, gas, gold, etc. It is quite important in all these respects. And also, it is home to the strategic Gwadar port. It is basically an important region for the Gwadar port. So, despite all this, it is very underdeveloped and poor. So, it's like having a region in your state, in your nation, which is very rich in resources, which is strategically important, but somehow it is not benefiting politically that much. So, that remains underdeveloped. So, what is their key demand? The key demand of the Balochistan region is the demand for autonomy. They feel that their region was unfairly merged into Pakistan. Their merger into Pakistan was unfair, and they want more control to handle their own affairs. First issue. The second issue is the issue of human rights. Reports of torture, arrest, and repression by Pakistan. There are many issues of human rights violations by the Pakistan military. Then, there is so much tension there that the Baloch people also feel culturally and politically sidelined by Pakistan's dominant Punjabi leadership. So, this is a problem, and then there is violence and insurgency, like the insurgent attacks in 2024 in which 50 people were killed. So, Pakistan has blamed India. India is definitely not involved, so why would we accept it? Pakistan can make any allegations. So, this is the issue of Balochistan and its many implications. If we look at India's role in this, India mostly follows a non-interventionist policy. Our principle is simple. The main driver of our foreign policy, the main guiding point, the principle, is non-intervention in the internal matters of other countries. So, we have always followed that. We are following it in this case too. But sometimes, the Balochistan issue is raised in response to Pakistan's criticism on Kashmir. When Pakistan criticizes us regarding Kashmir, then sometimes this Balochistan issue is brought up by some people in India. But here, according to experts like Suhasini Haidar and Anand Menon, India uses Balochistan to highlight its concerns over CPEC and Gwadar, which pass through the region. We are not misusing it for that. We are basically raising the issue of Balochistan in the context of our sovereign concerns. Otherwise, we have no intention of creating any conflict between you or for you. But definitely, somewhere, our concern is CPEC, which violates our territorial integrity. In that context, because Gwadar is there. It is connected to that. CPEC is connected to that. So, for this reason, this region of Balochistan comes into discussion for us only when we talk about our territorial integrity. The issue of Balochistan is done. Then, if we talk about water disputes, then look, water dispute between India and Pakistan is a very big matter. And as PM Modi recently said, blood and water cannot flow together. Blood and water cannot flow together. In the context of Pahalgam, when the Indus Water Treaty was suspended, Narendra Modi said this. If we try to understand the Indus Water Treaty, then let's look at its background. This treaty was signed in 1960 with the mediation of the World Bank, in which the Indus River system, its rivers, were basically allocated. The eastern rivers, Sutlej, Beas, Ravi, basically went to India, and then the western rivers, like Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, went to Pakistan. This was how their division happened, and how their water would be used, who could use how much water, everything was decided in that treaty. But recently, if we look, India suspended this treaty in April 2025 after the Pahalgam attack, a terror attack on us, accusing Pakistan, because Pakistan somehow supported this terror act. Accusing them of this, we suspended it, and PM Modi reinforced this point that blood and water cannot flow together. Water and blood cannot flow together. Okay? So, what are its key provisions? Look, in the key provisions, India can use 20% of the water from the western rivers given to it for non-consumptive purposes. The rest will have dispute resolution. There will be a Permanent Indus Water Commission. There will be neutral experts, and there will also be a Permanent Court of Arbitration, through which dispute resolution will happen if any issue arises regarding the distribution or usage of water, and if it escalates, then all this arbitration mechanism is there to solve it. But the ongoing dispute is basically happening because of this. Look, the suspension has happened now, that's a separate matter, but the dispute has been going on for a long time because Pakistan feels that India's dam construction activities there violate their right to water usage. That's what they say. But India says that it has no such intention and nothing of the sort is happening. Because we are implementing run-of-the-river dam projects, in which water is not stored or diverted; it keeps flowing. So, this is basically a perception. This is basically our issue. But if we look at the debates on this treaty, what are the debates on this treaty? First of all, we should use this treaty strategically. So, suspending the PIWC meetings and maximizing India's water usage should be our strategic consideration, and as Brahmachary had previously told us, we should renegotiate this treaty, or somewhere, we can even exit due to China's upstream damming. The way China is building dams upstream on the Brahmaputra River, we can do that somewhere. But look, what is the risk here? Undermining India's global image. Look, the risk is that after taking such steps, India's global image, or the moral high ground that India has established, will be somewhat in trouble by unilaterally exiting such a treaty. It is at risk. Second, we have to look at the other problems, the complexities, with a somewhat pragmatic perspective. For example, look, the Pulwama attack happened, the Balakot strike happened. The Pulwama attack, which happened in 2019, was claimed by the Pakistan-based terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed. Jaish-e-Mohammed, which is basically a Pakistan-based terror group, claimed responsibility, and it had significant implications for India's strategic approach and international relations. Here, if we talk about Zorawar Singh, he provides significant insights into the gains and concerns resulting from India's response to the attack. What were the gains from this attack, and what concerns were raised by this response? If we talk about gains, then look at the Balakot strike, as per Zorawar Daulat Singh, he explained what the gains were. What were the gains? Preemptive self-defense. First of all, this marked a strategic shift, asserting India's right to strike first in self-defense. We will not wait in self-defense to see who attacks first. If it comes to self-defense, we will strike first in our self-defense. So, this is a shift that was not there before. Before, it was that we would not strike anyone first. But now, in the name of self-defense, we will strike. This assertive stand, this big shift that happened after the Balakot air strike, signifies it. Second, any kind of proxy war, because this was not a direct war. This was not a traditional normal war. This was an unconventional attack. So, how will we deal with such unconventional attacks? So, the policy of countering proxy wars has now been adopted by us, right from the Balakot air strike. Through the Balakot strike, we adopted the strategy of countering proxy warfare. So, we have directly countered Pakistan's tactic, because Pakistan tries to destabilize India through its low-cost proxy wars, through non-state actors. So, to counter these intentions, these plans, we have now also said that whether it is non-state actors or state actors, we will respond to it. Just because they are non-state actors does not mean that you are not responsible for it. Whether they are non-state actors or state actors, if they are linked to Pakistan somewhere, it means it is happening with your support, and we will counter it. We will respond to it. The doctrine of active defense is also here. It signals India's shift from passive deterrence to proactive counter-terror operations. Look, the most important thing. What happened before? Before, our approach was passive deterrence. We used to deter. But not so actively. We used to deter passively. But now our policy has shifted. And from passive deterrence, we have shifted towards more proactive counter-terror operations. Now, we will conduct more proactive operations to counter terror acts. Also, international vindication. International vindication boosted India's global narrative on Pakistan's terror links. Meaning, if Pakistan commits any kind of terror act or sponsors any kind of terrorism in India, then globally, in global forums, it is somehow shamed, it is somehow tried to be isolated, and by gathering diplomatic support for this, by shaming Pakistan, by isolating it, then its terror funding or whatever, all these things, the tactic of bringing international pressure on it, India is now utilizing, using it. Okay? So, all these policy changes after the Balakot strike, all these active pursuits of counter-terror acts, and not being passive in its response, but being assertive and aggressive in its response, even at the domestic and bilateral level, and at the global level. But what are the concerns? Look, with such responses, the concerns are that the situation of escalation, the war-like situation, has a chance of escalating. Second, our long-standing policy of strategic restraint is somehow eroding. And third, the pivot state factor, Pakistan's relations with the USA and China and the Gulf states, due to these, India's diplomatic leverage is somehow reduced. Therefore, India has to act cautiously. India has to respond cautiously. Because due to Pakistan's relations with other countries, it can also get support from there. So, directly where we cannot prove that this is a Pakistan-sponsored terror act, it is more important for us to prove this, because only after proving this can we take any action against Pakistan. So, this is an important point. After that, the conflict is unnecessarily globalized. Meaning, if any terror act happens from there, then if we respond aggressively, saying that no, this is Pakistan-sponsored, then Pakistan definitely plays the victim card globally and tries to globalize this entire issue, which obviously brings some disrepute to the country. India's disrepute can happen, obviously Pakistan's does happen, but they don't care about it, because disrepute only happens to those who have a name. So, here India's name is there. India's name can be tarnished somewhere. Therefore, there is no need for us to globalize unnecessary conflicts here. We should avoid this. This is basically the point here. So, our aggressive moves, because of which international mediation, then someone like Trump will come and say that I offer mediation. Some other country will come and say that we will mediate. Let's try to solve this problem. So, it happened in between, right? There was an issue. So, in such a situation, we don't want any mediation to be needed, and this issue to go global, right? So, this is a big risk that it can go global, because Pakistan is very happy about it. It gets a different kind of pleasure. Pakistan will first sponsor terror in India, then we will want to respond to it. So, by playing the victim card, or saying that we did not do it, or that India is taking unnecessary action against us, by saying this, it tries to globalize the issue and paint India badly, paint India as a villain. Pakistan definitely keeps trying to do that. So, these are some of the risks involved. Then, China's ambivalence, Beijing's reluctance to act against Pakistan-based terrorists. This is a very important issue. China definitely, China should oppose any kind of terror, whether it is China or any other country. But somewhere, China is reluctant. China is reluctant to take action against Pakistan-based terrorists. Like the Masood Azhar issue, we know. China hesitated on the Masood Azhar issue. In the resolution to declare it a terror group, China hesitated. So, this is an important significant step where we can understand that China somehow doesn't care whether it is terrorism or what. China will support whom it wants to support. So, this is a problem, and because of this, the pressure that we can build globally on Islamabad, on Pakistan, for their terror activities, we cannot build it because somewhere, some members in the UN, like China, do not take a strong stand on this, and this is the problem. But if we talk about recent developments, then look, there has been some limited diplomatic engagement, some normalization efforts have been tried in international forums. Okay? But somewhere, due to political tensions, those initiatives are also being hampered. Second, security dynamics. Pakistan, basically, the persistent violation of ceasefire from there, and military readiness, because of this, persistent military readiness is there, and the violation of ceasefire, because of this, mistrust continues. After that, there is minor progress in easing trade barriers. There has been some minor progress in easing trade barriers, but the volume is quite low because political obstacles are already there. Even in cultural exchange, if we look, people-to-people ties, efforts have been renewed, because we have given pilgrim visas and all. So, we are trying to renew them as confidence-building measures. After that, if we talk about geopolitical realignment, then India defends its side with the Quad and the West. Pakistan leads further into China's strategic orbit. So, look, definitely, we are not with China. Geostrategically, if we talk, geopolitically, we are with the USA in the Quad and with Western countries. In a similar way, Pakistan is moving further towards China, more and more. So, definitely, this is polarization. India is going in one direction. Pakistan is going in another direction. If we talk about water and environment, look, the Indus Water Treaty remains even in the contested issue, and that's why there is an emerging focus on joint environmental challenges. So, we need to deal with joint environmental challenges. But definitely, because Pakistan is not cooperating, we are unable to solve these problems. So, if we talk about the conclusion, look, the Pulwama attack triggered a shift in India's strategic approach, where we used to focus on preemptive self-defense, and now we have started focusing on active defense. So, this shift has been triggered after the Pulwama attack. While India gained global recognition for its stand, and for the way we resolve issues or deal with issues, India definitely gets recognition globally. But due to Pakistan's proxy warfare and other concerns of escalation, etc., India is still facing challenges. And a very big strategic response in our foreign policy, due to Pakistan, we have to make many changes in our foreign policy. The aggressiveness has come into our foreign policy due to this behavior of Pakistan. Okay? So, that is fine. This is about India-Pakistan. Now, let's talk about India-Nepal relations. After India-Pakistan, now let's try to understand India-Nepal relations. India and Nepal are basically two neighboring countries, and both share close people-to-people ties. They have cultural affinities. They have historical connections. So, obviously, India's relations with Nepal have been on multiple fronts from the beginning. They are age-old relations. But look here, the open border between the two nations allows for frequent exchange and interaction, which is quite friendly.

Relations have always existed. Let's try to understand. What are the various dimensions between India-Nepal relations along with the current developments? What is happening in the current developments? First of all, let's talk about the geo-economic dimension. Geo-economic dimension. So, in the geo-economic dimension, the first thing that comes is trade. Talking about trade and economic ties, the bilateral trade between the two countries reached 8.27 billion in 2018-19. With India as Nepal's primary trade partner. India is Nepal's primary trade partner. This is something to understand. Here, the bilateral trade has increased significantly. Currently, it is running at approximately 8.85 billion. Okay? That reinforces India's position as Nepal's largest trade partner, accounting for 64%. 64% of Nepal's total trade is with India. Because of this, India is its largest trading partner. And due to the bilateral free trade agreement, our economic collaboration is also increasing. And our trade flow is quite smooth. In 2023, the trade and transit treaty between Nepal and India, correct? It was revised, and that revised treaty has given Nepal access to India's inland waterways for transportation, basically inland waterways. Through this revised India-Nepal trade and transit treaty, at the same time, the transportation cost will also be reduced for Nepali traders, and market access will be enhanced. Talking about FDI, India stands as the largest source of FDI for Nepal, signifying strong economic linkages. Also, if we look at the energy level, hydro-electric projects like Arun III and then the Pancheshwar project, energy security projects of this type are enhancing our connectivity, our trade, and our relations. Along with that, the 900 MW Arun III hydropower project has also been completed in 2024. And India's financial and technical assistance has boosted Nepal's energy exports, due to which Nepal benefited by $10 billion in 2022. So, the relations are going very well on the economic front. If we also talk about humanity and aid and vaccine diplomacy, India has provided significant aid to Nepal during its crises, such as the earthquake in 2015 and the COVID-19 pandemic. In November 2023, India provided them with immediate humanitarian aid, which included 23 tons of medical supplies following a deadly earthquake in Nepal, reinforcing its role as a reliable partner. Friends, whether we look at the economic front or talk about humanitarian aid, in all perspectives, India is playing a leading role with Nepal, so the relations are definitely good. If we also talk about the geopolitical dimension, there are our border disputes. There is an ongoing border dispute with tensions over Limpiyadhura, Kalapani, and Lipulekh. These are minor matters, and there is some tension over these small land parcels. But despite diplomatic talks, like in 2024, we held a joint commission meeting. In that, we tried to negotiate and talk at a diplomatic level. Even after that, there are some constraints regarding the border dispute. And scholars suggest that we need to show some flexibility so that we can rebuild trust. So, the third important point here is political instability and anti-India sentiment. Now, this is one of the challenges. There is unstable politics in Nepal, and a periodic anti-India rhetoric has also been created recently, especially under leaders like KP Oli. KP Oli is a recent leader in Nepal. And in the recent Modi-Oli meeting, both leaders tried to maintain the stability of our relationship. Such discussions took place there. Experts also suggest that India needs to improve its public outreach and project delivery. It is very important that if India promises something to Nepal, if it promises something in a particular hydro project, then timely implementation is also equally important. Otherwise, a trust deficit is created. And there is another problem here, which is China's influence. China's growing FDI and infrastructure presence in Nepal, including BRI projects and their trade expansion, challenges India's involvement with Nepal. For example, there are also some concerns, such as debt concerns over stalled projects. Why India needs to reassert influence through economic diplomacy. The debt concerns and stalled projects there create a space where India can reassert its economic diplomacy and improve relations. Then, talking about the geo-strategic dimension, there is security cooperation, joint military exercises like Surya Kiran, and then the role of Gurkha soldiers in the Indian Army. That strengthens our defense ties with each other. Also, there is continuous engagement, such as Nepal's defense visit in 2023. Through that, we have also tried to reinforce cooperation in some way. After that, look, here is energy and connectivity. We have already covered energy to some extent. But if we talk about connectivity, look at projects like Arun III and Pancheshwar, these are for energy. But the petroleum pipeline project and our cross-border rail links, like Janakpur-Bijalpur, Bijalpur and Raxaul-Kathmandu, which is basically our connectivity, rail projects, rail links, are strengthening our integration with the countries. And most importantly, here, UPI-based digital payments also mark growing tech collaboration. UPI-based payments are quite prevalent in India. We even use UPI for ₹5 or ₹10. So, in this way, this UPI-based digital payment system that we are trying to integrate in Nepal through India is also increasing our technological and digital collaboration. But for China, balancing India, balancing India and the US, is quite tricky for Nepal. So, the 500 million dollar MCC project, basically the 500 million dollar MCC project, counters China's influence. But Oli's China visit in 2024 raises concerns. So, experts say that we need to ensure that Nepal maintains strategic autonomy. Correct? So, frequent high-level exchanges are necessary. For example, five meetings of the India-Nepal Joint Commission since 2014 and Modi's five visits to Nepal since 2014 reflect a commitment to deepen ties. These frequent visits make it clear that our commitment to each other's relationship, to the India-Nepal relationship, shows that there is seriousness. However, Harsh Pant emphasizes that India must also address Nepal's concern over project delays. This is an important point I mentioned earlier. It is very important to resolve Nepal's concern over project delays. Also, perceived interference is an issue that needs to be resolved. So that we can sustain trust, and China's growing pressure also needs to be countered. So, there are three or four things. One is that we need to solve the delays in project implementation. After that, the interference, meaning if Nepal feels that India is interfering, then we need to remove this perception in some way. So that we can sustain trust, and definitely China's growing pressure needs to be resolved, it needs to be countered. Talking about current issues, the increasing influence of China in Nepal. The way China's influence is growing in Nepal is a big problem for us. First of all, economic dominance. China has invested substantial FDI here, surpassing India's FDI commitments. So, China has won here. Secondly, China is funding mega projects, which gives them economic leverage in Nepal. So, somewhere where India had a lot of economic space in Nepal, that is decreasing somewhere because China is trying to occupy that space or create extra space for itself. Even talking about trade and connectivity, trade transit agreements enhance connectivity between Nepal and China. This is also happening. Then, through China's contribution to infrastructure projects developed in Nepal, such as dams and the Pokhara airport, China is also doing infrastructure development in Nepal. It is also doing connectivity. And then, in 2023, Nepal and China jointly launched a dry port. This made it quite easy for Nepal to export salt and grains to China. This was due to the dry port. So, China and Nepal have done this together. Then, if we look at educational and cultural ties, Chinese universities have attracted many Nepali students, which is increasing educational and cultural exchange there. Then, people-to-people ties are also increasing. Now, geopolitical shifts are also an important shift that has occurred in the context of Nepal. PM Oli visited Beijing in December 2024, and their tradition, basically their tradition was that the first visit after elections used to be with India. But this is a big shift that, breaking this tradition, PM Oli of Nepal chose Beijing. So, for this, we need to revive stalled BRI projects. He also talked about resuming the stalled BRI projects, such as railway and highway upgrades under BRI. So, their tilt towards China is clearly visible, which needs to be countered. Otherwise, we will lose a very important and valuable neighbor. So, talking about strategic interests, look at China's military aid. A contract of $45 million was made in 2023, through which armored vehicles and rifles will be provided. The intention here is to secure border areas and counter Indian influence. China's military aid is to enhance Nepal's military and definitely influence it when aid is received. So, countering India's influence is also its goal. So, China's multifaceted approach in Nepal, involving economic, trade, connectivity, cultural exchange, and geopolitical aspects, is something concerning, and India must navigate this particular challenge and evolving dynamic so that we can safeguard our interests while fostering regional stability. Scholars like David Brewster warn that Nepal's tilt towards China could disrupt India's regional influence. It can disrupt India's regional influence, especially if the BRI project gains momentum, it could be quite problematic for us. So, India's response is, how is India responding? First of all, what can India do? It can speed up the Raxaul-Kathmandu rail link project, an infrastructure project. It can deepen cultural ties. And cultural projects like the Ramayana Circuit can also be expedited. So that we can leverage our soft power advantage. We can leverage our soft power advantage. Okay? If we talk about India-Bangladesh, then the relationship between India and Bangladesh is a unique blend of historical roots and geographical proximity, making it a pivotal component of both countries' foreign policy agendas. Even for Bangladesh, India is important, and for India, Bangladesh is important because they share a lot of common history, shared culture, and many things. But despite this, the relationship is characterized by inherent uncertainty and complex dynamics. Despite all this, there is still some uncertainty. S. Jaishankar describes the current relationship as a fraternal friendship. He describes the India-Bangladesh relationship as a fraternal friendship. Let's see here how important Bangladesh is for India. Geostrategic significance: Bangladesh's location is very important for India so that we can counter China's influence in this region. Then, border security is a major concern because of illegal migration, cross-border terrorism, and important initiatives like joint patrols and fencing to improve the relationship. Both Bangladesh and India are important for us in border security. And India and Bangladesh have also initiated counter-terrorism joint drills in 2025 so that we can collaborate on intelligence sharing, regional connectivity, and regional security. So, geostrategically, Bangladesh is significant for us. If we look at it geo-economically as well, Bangladesh's oil, gas, and energy needs offer a scope for cooperation. We can cooperate there. For example, the Maitri thermal plant. Okay? Along with that, India's electricity exports can strengthen our ties, and Bangladesh is India's largest trading partner in South Asia. And our bilateral trade, talking about 2023-24, is approximately 10 to 14 billion dollars. Talking about connectivity projects, we have discussed this before, the Akhaura-Agartala rail link, and the Rupee-Taka trade boost will improve cross-border trade and reduce our costs. Then, talking about geopolitical significance, Bangladesh plays a very active role in forums like BIMSTEC and BBIN. And these forums and initiatives are basically for connectivity and integration. So, BIMSTEC and BBIN are important initiatives for integrating India's Northeast and enhancing connectivity, where Bangladesh has a significant role. Climate cooperation is also very important these days, and it is growing between the two countries, where we are jointly working on water management and green energy projects. Fine. And then, by giving access to the ports of Chittagong and Mongla, we can benefit from improved security and logistics for India's northeastern states. So, these are the two things. But look, Bangladesh's importance is not just about geographical boundaries; it goes beyond that. Its role as a strategic partner spans across the geostrategic, geo-economic, and geopolitical aspects. It is important in every aspect. So, collaborative efforts between India and Bangladesh are not only beneficial for both nations but also contribute to regional stability. It's not just about bilateral nations. It's not just about bilateral relations. Here, regional stability, prosperity, and harmonious relations in the region are also important. Therefore, keeping in mind the significance of Bangladesh, we need to collaborate towards mutually beneficial goals so that we can achieve a brighter future for both countries, and not just for both countries, but for the entire South Asian region. After that, look, now if we talk about current developments in this relationship, there is enhancement of infrastructure and connectivity. The inauguration of the Bangladesh-India Friendship Pipeline is important. The inauguration of the Bangladesh-India Friendship Pipeline has greatly facilitated the supply of diesel to Bangladesh, and this is promoting our energy cooperation and infrastructure development. Along with that, the approval of the agreement to use the sea routes of Chittagong and Mongla has also been approved, and because of this, access has been provided to India's landlocked northeastern region, which can increase our connectivity and trade. So, both nations have even BBIN, the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal connectivity project, and the Motor Vehicles Agreement, which has facilitated transit to India's Northeast and connectivity, and because of this, connectivity through the entire Northeast is happening. Uh, we have already seen this. The Akhaura-Agartala cross-border link, we have seen this. And what's new additionally? India's support for upgrading Bangladesh's railway infrastructure in 2024 has further strengthened connectivity in line with the BBIN framework. Along with the BBIN framework, work is also being done to enhance their rail infrastructure. And talking about energy and connectivity initiatives, look at the Rooppur Atomic Energy Project, a collaboration between India and Russia being built in Bangladesh. This energy project also exemplifies our cooperation in the energy sector. Then, the Maitri Super Thermal Power Project, its second unit became operational in 2024, which has enhanced Bangladesh's energy security with the help of Indian expertise. So, this is also a very important example of collaboration. A good example. Then, cooperation on counter-terrorism. Look, India and Bangladesh have signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Youth Affairs and Counter-Terrorism Training, where our focus is on enhancing the prevention of radicalization and border security, and we are focusing on preventing radicalization. And that reflects our shared commitment. This reflects our commitment.

To the regional stability, our commitment to regional stability is shared and common. Then, speaking of high-level exchanges and economic cooperation, in 2024, India extended a line of credit of 500 million dollars for Bangladesh's infrastructure projects, such as road and sports. And after that, the meetings of PM Modi with the leadership of Bangladesh in 2025, basically within the BIMSTEC summit, actually underscore the priority of economic cooperation, how important Bangladesh and economic cooperation with it is for us. After that, during Sheikh Hasina's visit, we are talking about when Sheikh Hasina was there. Not now. But during her visit to India, 22 agreements were signed, through which we discussed various aspects like trade, nuclear energy cooperation, capacity building, and counter-terrorism efforts. After that, through the Land Boundary Agreement that was signed, we have 111 enclaves, the implementation of the Land Boundary Agreement and the exchange of 111 enclaves, that also actually significantly marked an important milestone that resolved territorial disputes and also enhanced our border management efforts. In 2024, India supplied additional defense equipment, including patrol vessels. So, we supported the new navy of Bangladesh, basically the navy of Bangladesh, with patrol vessels. Through this, we have tried to reduce their dependence on Chinese imports. Along with that, we signed seven new agreements in 2023, one of which is also on coastal surveillance. Through this, our defense capabilities are also improving and growing.

And then, shared commemoration, a joint declaration between the two countries called for the celebration of significant milestones such as the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi and the birth centenary of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. We have, in a way, tried to celebrate or commemorate this collaboratively. Even the 50th anniversary of the Liberation War of Bangladesh, in which India played a very significant role, has been commemorated in a shared manner. This, in a way, reflects the historical and cultural ties between India and Bangladesh. In 2024 as well, both nations jointly celebrated the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with cultural festivals and exhibitions.

Now, if we look at the opinions of experts here, according to David Blitters, Bangladesh is quite essential for India because it is necessary for connectivity between India's turbulent Northeast states and the rest of Asia. If Bangladesh were to align with China, it would provide China with a very important space to counter India, and to ensure that connectivity in India's troubled Northeast is not established and that disturbances continue in that disturbed region. So, China would want to collaborate with Bangladesh, but we must not let that happen. We must engage with Bangladesh at even more levels and secure Bangladesh. Secure in the sense that we must secure friendly and favorable relations with Bangladesh in India's favor. According to Rajiv Bhatia, Bangladesh is very critical for India's Act East Policy, and it acts as a bridge between the Indian mainland and the Northeast region because if you look at the map, you will see Bangladesh is in the middle.

If we talk about specific challenges in India-Bangladesh relations, let's look at the core issues and significance. First, the Teesta River. The Teesta River is crucial for irrigation. The water of the Teesta River is important for irrigation and livelihoods in Bangladesh and West Bengal. West Bengal is our state, Bangladesh is a country, so it is important for both. But the unresolved water-sharing concerns between them are unresolved. The water-sharing issue is basically unresolved. However, due to this, our bilateral tensions are increasing or have increased. Obviously, this is a very big challenge. There is an ongoing deadlock. Bangladesh is talking about a 50-50% sharing. But India has proposed 37.5% in 2024. However, this has gone pending without the approval of West Bengal.

Speaking of political and diplomatic complexities, there are opposition state-level concerns in West Bengal. In this, the state of West Bengal is basically stalled in central-level negotiations due to water scarcity and cross-border smuggling. Because the Chief Minister here, Mamata Banerjee, has raised conditions and concerns, but has shown conditional openness. However, due to the opposition in West Bengal, this is still pending. If you talk about past efforts, a framework was prepared during the Manmohan Singh era. But due to the coalition politics and international disagreements of that time, past efforts were not very successful.

If we talk about domestic versus national interest, then here is a problem that West Bengal plays a significant role in our Indian foreign policy. When the question arises about how much role our federal units play in Indian foreign policy, then West Bengal is the best example in terms of the Teesta water dispute, and especially in relation to West Bengal. Professor S.D. Muni argued that narrow regional politics, our narrow regional interests and politics, should not block India's strategic interests and regional leadership aspirations. So, these small interests or conflicts should not come in the way. This is basically what Astemini is saying, because we have leadership aspirations, aspirations for regional leadership. So, here, the state government should sit with the central government and sort things out in the national interest. This is important. But definitely, coalition politics and other party politics, opposition, these kinds of issues become problematic.

Speaking of regional and strategic implications, there is anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh. Prolonged delays fuel mistrust when any project is significantly delayed, and the goodwill that could be created there through our soft power is not achieved. That is one of the problems. So, we should focus a lot on project delays. Basically, by removing those delays, we should somehow expedite their implementation. And speaking of blue water diplomacy, the stalemate could affect larger maritime operations and access, for example, Chittagong Port and India's Ocean Partnership. The relevance of the Gujarat Doctrine is also here. In a way, we have to adopt that approach of unilateral generosity, of giving nature in the neighborhood, so that we can convince Bangladesh a little.

If we talk about recent developments, we have revived the Joint River Commission. We resumed discussions on this in 2023, after a decade, with two rounds of talks held by 2025. We have also tried to integrate a bargaining approach. India is exploring linking Teesta negotiations with trade, transit, and port access. So that there is a win-win situation for both countries. So, by adopting a broader strategic lens, we are offering you this, and we expect this from you. This kind of focus is that if you want Teesta negotiations in your favor and rational according to you, then we need trade, transit, and other port access, like Chittagong Port, because that is also important for our Northeast connectivity.

So, as a way forward, we should have balanced agreements. For example, we must address both Bangladesh's irrigation needs and at the same time West Bengal's water concerns, and sign agreements keeping both in mind, and design them accordingly. Then, we have to have holistic diplomacy. We need to connect water-sharing talks with border, economic, and connectivity frameworks to build mutual trust and regional integration. We should have some give-and-take. If we understand your needs for water from the Teesta River, then you should also understand and pay attention to our trade and connectivity needs. So, as negotiations continue, finding common ground and reaching an equitable agreement is very essential. So, we need to resolve the Teesta issue. If we resolve the Teesta issue, that could pave the way for enhanced cooperation in water management and regional stability, and also a broader strategic partnership between both nations.

Now, illegal migration. Illegal migration is a very important and very big challenge in India-Bangladesh relations. The issue of illegal migration between India and Bangladesh is a multifaceted challenge. It has multiple implications and multiple consequences, and it impacts both countries at multiple levels. So, let's first understand what this issue is. First of all, India and Bangladesh share an overall land border of 3700 km, which is one of the largest land borders in the world shared by two countries. So, the challenge of illegal migration is often linked to India's situation with Mexico, where individuals are involved without proper documents and overstay their welcome. So, here, the Northeast states like Tripura have faced and are facing a demographic inversion due to the high influx of immigrants. When a large number of immigrants come into a particular region, there is a demographic inversion. Demographic inversion. Okay? So, what are the causes of illegal migration? First of all, the lack of recognition of the issue by the Bangladesh government. The government of Bangladesh does not recognize this issue in the first place, due to which the problem of illegal migration continuously persists, making it a major humanitarian crisis. This crisis has become a humanitarian crisis. Secondly, poor border management here has allowed unauthorized crossings to occur. Due to poor border management, unauthorized crossings become quite easy.

Now, let's look at its challenges and consequences. Speaking of strategic challenges, our borders are porous, which makes trafficking, illegal voter ID cards, and communal tensions very easy. Secondly, 15% drop in trafficking. If we talk about recent times, fake ID cases in Assam in 2024 remain a concern. Although these things have reduced somewhat, a 15% drop is visible. But still, the issue of fake IDs, where illegal immigrants come, make fake IDs, and live here, is still a concern.

Economically, when illegal migration occurs, it puts a significant strain on public services like roads, health, education, and other facilities. This costs India a lot, annually if we look at it, it costs billions of dollars financially. This leads to a debate in the country about formalizing labor via work permits. This debate is also discussed a lot in the country. So, what can be the solutions? One is that we must strengthen our border management. The fencing of the border between India and Bangladesh, which is 80% complete, with smart technology, can stop infiltration. And along with that, in the joint coordination meetings held in 2025, they have set an objective to balance both security and trade aspects. So, both countries are taking a positive step here.

Secondly, we must curb corruption. 50 border officials were suspended in 2024 during their anti-corruption drive, and this has led to the suspension of some officials who were facilitating this border management issue or the overall illegal immigration issue through corrupt practices. So, that is also one of the steps. Then, the Gujarat Doctrine is a key principle that can guide us in solving this problem. How can it guide us? India has now given $500 million in aid to Bangladesh for the development of its rural sector, and through this, issues like poverty will be reduced. So, obviously, when poverty is reduced there, illegal migration will not occur. Secondly, with the National Population Register launched in 2025, Bangladesh has shared its biometric data, which we can use to verify and identify illegal immigrants. Secondly, if you want to come, we will issue you a work permit system. So, in 2024, Assam implemented a pilot project through which 5000 Bangladeshi workers were given legal status and a work permit, allowing them to work here. So, what will happen through this? Illegal entry, corruption, and harassment will automatically reduce because you are officially allowing them permits.

What can be future recommendations? If we want to strengthen India-Bangladesh relations, what can be future recommendations? Future recommendations. First of all, as India and Bangladesh continue to navigate this complex relationship, several experts and scholars offer valuable recommendations. For example, if we look at Harsh Pant's perspective, he says that India should remain sensitive to the needs and concerns of Bangladesh. At the same time, we should understand the perspectives of Bangladesh and address their viewpoints. C. Raja Mohan basically suggests a soft power approach. C. Raja Mohan says we should adopt a soft power approach. So, by leveraging our soft power and fostering or enhancing people-to-people ties, we should create a bridge between both countries and actually reduce the trust deficit and create a more conducive environment for both countries to cooperate. Also, quality branding versus China. India should highlight the quality and sustainability of its development. Here, the important thing is that India's projects, especially developmental projects like the Maitri Power Projects, are known for quality and sustainability. So, we should portray that. We are not doing any project; the projects we are doing are of quality and sustainable. They can assure your long-term growth, your long-term benefits and gains. So, we should brand our projects in this way. Instead of China's projects, which are debt-driven, initiatives like BRI are debt-driven. It will provide you with infrastructure development in the short term, but you will have a significant infrastructural debt. So, by branding in this way, Bangladesh or other countries might get some realization of the reality. So, this point is also relevant for other countries in South Asia. We should boost investment and deliver our promises on time. India has invested $500 million there for infrastructure, and we have even tried to expedite a $1 billion credit line in 2025 so that Bangladesh's developmental goals can be met, and at the same time, the delays in implementation can be resolved.

Another important point is that SAARC needs to be revived. India and Bangladesh themselves proposed SAARC. It was proposed at the SAARC Trade Summit. We need to revive SAARC. India and Bangladesh proposed SAARC Trade Summit in 2026 so that we can revive regional cooperation. And another important point here is maritime security cooperation. We conducted joint naval patrols in the Bay of Bengal in 2024, which aligns with the idea of creating a security community in the Indian Ocean. A security community in the Indian Ocean. See, a security community is a concept. Basically, a security community is a concept where multiple countries come together and cooperate. Basically, like defense organizations, they are basically security communities. So, we can create a security community in the Indian Ocean by collaborating together. Secondly, in some new strategic areas, such as cybersecurity cooperation, and other emerging areas, we should actually cooperate. So, basically, a stable and prosperous Bangladesh can play a very important and stabilizing role in the South Asian region, which will work in India's interest. So, India, being one of the largest and economically influential nations, has an opportunity and also a responsibility to take a leading position here and empower Bangladesh, because India's well-being lies in Bangladesh's empowerment and growth, and because it is an important player for us in South Asia from a connectivity and strategic perspective. At the same time, to counter China, to counter China's influence, and also for our Northeast connectivity, Bangladesh's empowerment and growth are essential from every perspective for stability and peace in South Asia, and its relationship with India is also essential.

Now, India and Sri Lanka. Let's try to understand India and Sri Lanka. As noted by scholar Rajasingham Jayadevan, Rajasingham Jayadevan says that India and Sri Lanka.

The bond that is in between is basically interwoven through their shared history. Of course, mainly with most of the countries, we have a shared history. So, this becomes a very generic introduction. But the relationship between India and Sri Lanka is characterized by deep-rooted historical and cultural ties. Obviously, we have deep-rooted historical and cultural ties. However, if we talk about the recent domestic political dynamics in both nations, it has influenced this relationship quite a lot. Here, China has approached Sri Lanka strategically. But India also, India's policy towards this island nation of Sri Lanka has often been described as navigating between two parts. Somewhere, our policy fluctuations are also impacting it. So, let us try to understand what are the areas of cooperation.

Looking at the areas of cooperation, India tried to provide aid of $3.5 billion during Sri Lanka's 2022 economic crisis. Also, along with that, a credit line of $1 billion, fuel credit of $500 million, and then a grant of $2.37 billion. By the way, data and facts are not that important. We can keep in mind as much as possible. It is not necessary that it is basically approximate data. You can also cross-verify a little. There is not so much time, but this much data is also not important for us. But in April 2025, India finalized a debt restructuring agreement, which is for economic recovery because we know Sri Lanka has faced a very, very serious economic crisis in the very recent past. Sri Lanka has faced an economic crisis in the very recent past, and its economic recovery is ongoing, in which India is helping.

India's approach towards all neighboring countries is very cooperative and based on the non-reciprocal principle. In fact, even today, our foreign policy has a lot of the Gujarat Doctrine element. The Gujarat Doctrine has a significant element in our foreign policy. So, India finalized the debt restructuring agreement so that it helps Sri Lanka's recovery from the economic crisis. And along with that, we have also provided humanitarian aid. For example, India provided medicines worth $6 million and 40 tons of essential other important ingredients and things for medical purposes and aid in 2022. And along with that, Phase Four of the Bharat Lanka Housing Project, through which we want to build 10,000 houses for plantation workers in Sri Lanka. See what good work is being done. Continued support includes ambulance services and medical aid; we are providing a lot of such humanitarian aid.

Talking about trade and investment, our bilateral trade is $5.5 billion in 2023-24, which is currently standing somewhere here, and Sri Lanka's exports to India, the exports from Sri Lanka to India are basically exceeding $1 billion. So, our economic and trade relations are also quite good. If we talk about investment, we have surpassed more than $1.5 billion in investment, which even includes Mr. Adani's $500 million wind energy project. And even negotiations for ETCA are progressing. We have also resumed ferry services between Tamil Nadu and Jaffna. We saw Jaffna recently in the news, Jaffna in Sri Lanka. Right? Where there was that issue of Tamil autonomy, Sinhalese and Tamil conflict, we saw it there.

Talking about tourism and cultural ties, India was Sri Lanka's top tourist source. The most people go to Sri Lanka because, firstly, it is nearby, and it is a more budget-friendly trip to Sri Lanka, so people go. We should also go, you all should also go. So, basically, more tourists from India go to Sri Lanka, which is Sri Lanka's top tourist destination, with 3 lakh Indian tourists in 2023. Along with that, we also launched UPI in 2024. Now people will also make payments on QR codes there. So, this will also enhance tourism-linked financial transactions. Secondly, infrastructure development. India is helping to develop Trincomalee, basically oil farms, and Palaly Airport, and along with that, we have also signed an agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding actually, for the Trincomalee Energy Hub with Sri Lanka, and along with that, we have also signed with the UAE. So, we have also launched hybrid renewable energy projects on the northern island, basically on the northern island of Sri Lanka, we have also launched hybrid renewable energy projects. So, so many things are happening. So much cooperation. Even from a defense perspective, India has gifted a Dornier aircraft and has also signed a five-year defense cooperation agreement recently. Along with that, there are joint exercises and naval cooperation. Through this, we have also tried to enhance regional security. Because obviously, we live in such proximity. We are together in the Indian Ocean. We face common challenges. So, our security challenges are common. So, it is very natural for us to cooperate.

Now, no relationship comes without challenges. There are challenges. This relationship also has challenges. The fishermen issue is the biggest important issue between India and Sri Lanka. Let's first understand what the issue is. See, Indian fishermen frequently enter Sri Lankan waters using bottom trawling. Bottom trawling is a mechanism used for fishing. So, because of this, their maritime ecosystem, their marine ecosystem is harmed, and at the same time, Sri Lankan laws are also violated in a way. This is what they say. So, now, if we talk about its historical context, the Kachchativu Agreement happened in 1974, but there is a problem that our fishing rights were not clearly defined. Indian fishermen claim traditional access. Indian fishermen say that traditionally they had access to it before. They had access from ancient times, even before the 1974 agreement. So, we also had access. This is one issue. But the problem, the tension is increasing because of the Sri Lankan navy's actions, including firing on Indian fishermen. If their navy sees Indian fishermen, they fire on them. Because of this, diplomatic frictions have developed, and the principles of UNCLOS, the laws related to oceans of the United Nations, are also being violated here.

Now, talking about ongoing measures, the Joint Working Group and Coast Guard hotline have been established by both countries to improve communication, and to prevent the kind of violence that is happening. Also, this is very wrong. Even if someone goes for fishing, you can take legal action against them, talk to the government, have a dialogue, but firing is nowhere a solution. So, ongoing measures are being taken to prevent such violence. For example, we have formed a Joint Working Group. Some members from both countries will be there, and we have also created a Coast Guard hotline so that people can ask for help there and issues can be resolved without violence. So, both countries have, in detail, basically, both countries have actually released the fishermen they had detained on humanitarian grounds. Because humanitarian grounds are also good. Fishermen basically go there for their livelihood.

Talking about Indian initiatives, India has promoted deep-sea fishing training so that our fishing in disputed waters, our dependence on it, is reduced, and somewhere we do not get into those disputes. What are the possible solutions? First of all, if Kachchativu is leased to India, it can solve an important problem because it is our common fishing ground for both countries. Secondly, we can cooperate in resource management and do sustainable fishing. So, this is an important thing, and in the talks and discussions that happened in 2024 as well, it was reaffirmed that both countries should follow non-violent humanitarian approaches. Of course, India always follows a non-violent approach. But yes, basically, what happened with Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan navy, the incident where they fire on Indian fishermen, that should not happen. That is anathema. So, addressing the fishermen issue is very, very crucial in maintaining a stable relationship between India and Sri Lanka. For this, we need a balanced approach where we consider our historical usage, we also consider our legal agreements, and at the same time, we ensure sustainable fishing practices so that we can protect the marine ecosystem as well as the livelihoods of the fishermen from both countries. The livelihood of fishermen from both countries is important. We can secure this.

Now, let's understand Sri Lanka's economic crisis, which is also an important issue because its impact definitely affects India's interests. That is why we are understanding their domestic issues. If it were not impacting India, we would definitely not cover it so much. But here, it is necessary now because when we talk about India-Sri Lanka in our answers, we will definitely have to mention all these things. First of all, let us try to understand what is the nature of the crisis. Sri Lanka's economic collapse is marked by high inflation, fuel and food shortages, power cuts, and debt default. So many debt defaults, so many power cuts, so many problems are happening, due to which political instability has developed in Sri Lanka. Civil unrest occurred, emergency was declared, and resignations in leadership were exacerbated due to governance failure. So, the root cause was this. Basically, there was a chronic trade deficit already. Which has worsened from $5 billion in 2009 to $12 billion in 2018. In 2009, this trade deficit was $5 billion, which gradually increased to $12 billion by 2018. This is very large for Sri Lanka. Along with that, the first thing is that the trade deficit has increased significantly. Secondly, policy mistakes. During the pandemic era, they spent a lot on taxes, banned fertilizer imports, and mismanagement of interest rates worsened their overall economic situation. Then, due to post-COVID credit rating downgrades, their access to the global market, access to global financial capital was cut off, and the risk of loan default increased significantly.

Now, all these crises are happening there. So, what is the impact on India? See, first of all, we will look at geopolitical concerns. China is somehow trying to grow its economic cloud, its economic impact in Sri Lanka, due to which India's strategic influence in the Indian Ocean Region is affected. Because Sri Lanka is an important player for India in the Indian Ocean Region, and India is also in the Indian Ocean Region. So, here, an important point is that China's growing economic cloud in Sri Lanka undermines, actually compromises, India's strategic influence in the overall Indian Ocean Region. Then there are trade and investment risks. If we talk about Colombo Port, the disruption in Colombo Port has affected Indian exports. And the Indian investment that was happening in real estate there, in energy, and also in manufacturing, has led to the development of uncertainty. Uncertainty has developed because of this disruption in Colombo Port. Along with that, when there is economic distress, it can trigger migration, especially in states like Tamil Nadu, migration can increase, which can again lead to humanitarian and security concerns. So, India may have to face all these problems.

So, what is India's role here? India's strategic role is that India, as Sri Lanka's third-largest creditor, has a role in offering. Because it is the third-largest creditor. Among the countries that give the most loans, India is in the third position. So, in such a situation, India's role is that India can support moratoriums or restructuring support for loans. Just like the RBI restructures NPAs in India, similarly, it can support restructuring loans. This can somewhat reduce China's dominance there. Secondly, we can focus on trade diplomacy. We can strengthen the free trade agreement between India and Sri Lanka, and along with that, we can add to our trade in essentials, we can add to their recovery. So, basically, we can facilitate trade a little. From the perspective of long-term engagement, India should support Sri Lanka's global economic integration so that its dependence on China decreases and regional stability is promoted somewhere. Because the less its global economic integration, the more its dependence on China will increase, and if Sri Lanka's dependence on China increases, it can be somewhat threatening for India and for regional stability and the security of the Indian Ocean Region.

Talking about recent developments, we have resumed ETCA talks. The 12th round of Economic and Technology Cooperation Agreement, ETCA talks, negotiations were actually resumed in October 2023, October-November 2023, which basically focuses on trade, services, and technology, which can boost bilateral trade between the economies of both countries. Secondly, renewable energy collaboration. India funded an $11 million hybrid renewable energy project on three northern Sri Lankan islands, promoting solar and wind energy solutions. So, this is also there. We have provided housing assistance. We saw this earlier. In financial integration, we also did the UPI episode. So, if we talk about visits at the diplomatic level, PM Modi visited in April 2025, due to which seven MOUs were signed in defense, energy, health, and digital sectors. And Modi received the Mitra Vibhushan honor. In any country, whenever our Prime Minister goes, they receive some honor in every country. So, in this way, here, this is a good gesture, actually, in which we can be somewhat hopeful that our relations will improve. Along with that, Modi ji visited, but even in 2024, their President also visited, which focused on LNG cooperation, power grid connectivity, and secured Indian grants of $2.37 billion.

So, now, the important point here is that the Trincomalee Energy Hub is an MOU between India, Sri Lanka, and the UAE, whose aim is to develop Trincomalee into a regional energy hub with projects like the Sampoor Solar Plant. Now, what are the views of scholars on this? So many scholars' views are perhaps not that important for us here. Let's look at Nitin Pai's view. He is basically a geopolitical analyst. So, his saying is that India must treat cautiously in pushing devolution in Sri Lanka, as ethnic reconciliation will require a locally owned process. So, somewhere, a locally owned process is needed for their ethnic reconciliation, and India should basically promote this cautiously, basically devolve it.

So, let's talk about the recent visit of the Sri Lankan President, which we saw in 2024. What is its significance? First of all, India extended $4 billion in emergency aid during Sri Lanka's economic crisis, reaffirming how strong our bilateral ties are. So, the President at that time expressed a lot of gratitude for this. Along with this, we signed five Memoranda of Understanding with Sri Lanka, including UPI integration, renewable energy, animal husbandry, and converting Trincomalee into an energy hub. At the same time, air connectivity between Chennai and Jaffna was also discussed. Discussions were held on this as well. So, all these things happened when the Sri Lankan President visited India. Even if we talk about economic investment, their President met the Adani Group and secured approval for the $500 million wind energy project. Okay? But these later faced scrutiny under the President. These later faced scrutiny under the new President, actually, especially these Adani Group investments, so there is a bit of an issue going on there.

Along with that, if we look at the geopolitical context, India has proactively supported so that it can counter China's influence in Sri Lanka, and through this, India's image, India's proactive support to Sri Lanka, why are we supporting it? Because somewhere we have to counter China's influence in Sri Lanka, through which our image as a regional and reliable regional partner can be strengthened. Secondly, leadership continuity. Their leadership, their basically President Vikram Singh emphasized that long-term India-Sri Lanka ties should be beyond politics. This is actually what he said. But now, if we talk about new developments, new presidents have come, who visited in 2024. And he focused on all this energy and debt restructuring, which we saw. Then PM Modi also went there and met them, which we also saw.

Now, see, the visit of the Sri Lankan President, the past President's visit, we reaffirmed, both Presidents have basically reaffirmed that there are closer ties with India. Both nations have closer ties with each other. On this entire issue, on this entire relationship, let's look at a couple of scholar perspectives. If we look at Sanjay Baru, according to him, India extending over $4 billion in assistance. So, both sides must now create an interlocking wave of economic partnership. Planning, trade, infrastructure, we should basically focus on economic cooperation. According to Nirupama Subramanyam, basically, President Vikram Singhe, who came, gave the assurance that Tamil rights reflect continuity in India's advocacy, that he assured, but delivering devolution and justice, meaning they have a certain, basically devolution, here we are talking about domestic politics, that devolution and justice will require deep political management of Sinhala nationalist sentiments. So, it is going to be quite difficult. But he actually showed the intention that we are ready to do it, but for this, we will have to manage political consensus a bit. That is what he said. Okay?

Let us try to understand India-Myanmar. Let's talk about India-Myanmar. Myanmar is actually a crucial land bridge between India and Southeast Asia. India and Southeast Asia. We...

We had seen Southeast Asia, Northeast, Northeast, our states, then Myanmar, then Southeast, basically the states that were Asian countries, etc., which basically we saw the Act East Policy. For the Act East Policy, Myanmar is an important player for us because it is a land bridge between India and Southeast Asia. The ambassador, Rajiv Bhatia, has said that Myanmar holds a potential to become the pivot, the total point of India's Act East Policy, which I have just mentioned. So, because it can offer a strategic gateway for enhancing regional connectivity. Myanmar can offer a position of a strategic gateway for maintaining and enhancing regional connectivity, economic cooperation, and diplomatic relations. Therefore, according to Rajiv Bhatia, it is a very important country for us.

Now, if we talk about economic cooperation here and also about recent developments, then look, in economic relations, our bilateral trade is 1.5 billion dollars, which is supported by India's ASEAN FTA. We have also promoted border haats. Through border haats, we have basically promoted local trade and the development of the Northeast. At the same time, India extends a line of credit for railways, telecom, and infrastructure. We have provided a line of credit for their railway, telecom, and infrastructure. Then, like IMT, India-Myanmar-Thailand, this kind of highway project, the trilateral highway project, and along with this, the Kaladan corridor, these projects, all these connectivity projects, we have tried to push them somewhere. India has also invested in Myanmar's energy sector.

If we talk about strategic and security relations, then we have basically tried to develop the Sittwe Port. We have developed it, which actually offers a strategic counter to China. The Sittwe Port is quite important for us to strategically counter China, and we have played a role in its development. Myanmar is basically important for India's Act East Policy and ASEAN outreach. We have seen Act East before, but ASEAN outreach is also important from this perspective. Joint military exercises like IMNEX and IMBLOCS, and along with this, Operation Sunshine, these kinds of military exercises are enhancing our border security and our capacity to combat insurgency.

If we talk about cultural relations, then a free movement regime has been enabled for border communities so that they can interact freely. We will look at the current developments on this a little later. There have been some changes in this. Along with this, tourism exchange, Buddhist pilgrimages, and projects like housing in Rakhine State have strengthened people-to-people contact. And the 2018 land border crossing agreement has also greatly simplified our cross-border travel.

Then, if we talk about the multilateral engagement of both countries, at the multilateral level, India and Myanmar have collaborated. For example, they are together in BIMSTEC, together in SASEC, together in the East Asia Summit. In IMT, India-Myanmar-Thailand, we saw that trilateral highway, a connectivity project. And they are also together in Mekong-Ganga Cooperation and the India-ASEAN Summit. So, this makes it quite clear how much regional alignment there is between Myanmar and India. How much regional alignment there is.

But look, there are very significant challenges in the relations between these two countries recently. Recently. Let us try to understand what the challenges are. The first challenge is border security. For example, the NSCN, this insurgent group near the border, threatens the stability and security of India's Northeast. So, this is the first very big challenge. The second is the Rohingya crisis, over the repatriation of Rohingyas, because there are quite a few differences on that. Because, look, the Rohingya crisis is a very big humanitarian crisis, due to which human rights issues are being raised here, and there are also diplomatic concerns because collaborating with the government there is proving quite difficult in this matter. So, because of this, there are still differences over the repatriation of Rohingyas. This is a very big issue. How will we repatriate? If the government there is not ready to recognize it.

China's influence, again, China's influence in the entire South Asian region, the point of China's influence is everywhere. China's strategic projects like Kyaukphyu Port, Kyaukphyu Port, and then challenges India's connectivity. India has also invested in connectivity projects there. Talking about Sittwe Port, the Kaladan Project, but China is also doing it there. First, we talk about all of India's initiatives, but when it comes to challenges, China has also done something new. So, this is important. It is important to understand here. From the perspective of global politics, China's dimension in the South Asian region and in global politics is also very important. That is why China's presence is almost always there in every answer of IR. Because it is actually like Michael Foucault's concept, power is everywhere. That's the situation with China now.

Connectivity delays, poor infrastructure, and delays in projects like the IMT highway are hindering regional integration. Because of this, regional integration is not gaining speed. The second problem is political instability. This is a very big problem. It's not a small problem. There has been a political transition in Myanmar. There has been a political transition. We will see in a little while how the military has captured power there. A political transition has occurred, which has disrupted our economic cooperation and has affected the continuity of India's projects. The continuity of India's projects has been affected. Along with that, there are also ethnic and religious tensions. Internal conflicts like those happening there pose a risk to India's investment and regional peace. India's overall investment is indeed threatened, but overall regional peace has also been disturbed because of the political transition there, just like there was a big transition in Afghanistan. Democratically, here in Myanmar too, the military coups, removing the elected government, have taken over Myanmar. So, that is one of the major crises we were looking at in South Asian problems. We were understanding the problems of post-conflict states. So, Myanmar is also facing that problem. And weak people-to-people ties. Because of this, look, due to our limited cultural and academic exchange between India and Myanmar, our mutual understanding and cooperation have decreased significantly or are quite low.

Then, environmental and local resistance. For example, the Kaladan Corridor, where we want to invest, there is resistance due to environmental and local resistance, protests due to ecological and social impact, which is affecting its implementation. Let's understand the Rohingya crisis. First of all, who are the Rohingyas? They are a Muslim minority in Myanmar's Rakhine State. They are a Muslim community, a minority, who are denied citizenship and are officially labeled as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. So, that is one of the major issues. So, the key issue here is that this crisis can be called the world's fastest-growing refugee crisis. In Myanmar, the 1974 and 1982 laws led to this particular community being stateless. They have received a status of statelessness. They have become completely stateless. The UN and Human Rights Watch have accused the Myanmar government of ethnic cleansing here, that these people, seeing a particular Muslim minority, have made them completely stateless. So, this is a problem. Even leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi remained largely silent. She also did not do much about it. Although her government is not in power now.

So, if we look at India's position in this matter, India views it as Myanmar's internal matter. India considers it an internal matter of Myanmar. And overall, because India is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, it is somewhat reluctant to host Rohingyas, and it is also quite obvious, because why should all illegal immigrants come to India? This is also a perspective. So, for this reason, India has abstained from global declarations mentioning the crisis. It has abstained from mentioning this crisis in global declarations because it considers it an internal matter of Myanmar, and because we are not signatories to the Refugee Convention, we cannot host them either.

If we talk about the UN's stand here, the UN has labeled it as ethnic cleansing, with reports of violence and abuse. Violence and abuse are happening. The Rohingya community is facing violence and abuse by the military, we can say, from Myanmar. So, that led to widespread international condemnation and concern. Widespread international condemnation exists here. Professor Baladas Ghoshal says that Rohingyas are migrants and they are not an ethnic group. That's why they claim rights in Rakhine State. That is complicated because they are migrants and not ethnic groups. So, that is a debatable point what it is or what it is not. But let's try to understand the issues and challenges.

The Rohingya crisis and insurgency, according to Harsh Pant. According to Harsh Pant, Rohingya repatriation and insurgent safe havens in Myanmar strain bilateral ties and affect India's northeastern security. India's northeastern security is affected by this crisis. Because of this crisis, India's northeastern security is being hampered, as there is a threat, a vulnerability, that illegal migration could happen there.

Connectivity gaps also exist. According to C. Raja Mohan, infrastructure projects are not always the case. We cannot always blame India for delays. Because somewhere we have seen that due to local resistance, environmental issues, and other issues there, the projects are also not speeding up. The second is China's influence. This point is definitely there. China's strong presence in Myanmar poses a very big strategic challenge to us and also threatens India's outreach and investment.

The second most important point is that our trade potential is underutilized. We are completely unable to utilize it. For example, our current trade is approximately 2.17 billion dollars, which is far below the potential. It is far less than what our potential is, what both countries can do in trade. Because of this, it reflects that somewhere our economic engagement is limited. We should diversify more.

Secondly, our democracy-based approach. Scholars argue that our democracy-based approach and our democracy-based diplomacy have slowed down our engagement with Myanmar compared to China. Because China's model is pragmatic. It doesn't matter to them. Whether the government there is democratic, authoritarian, military, or any other. It doesn't matter to China, whether it's a particular group like the Taliban in Afghanistan, or a military government in Pakistan, or a military takeover in Myanmar. But our foreign policy ethos, we focus on democracy-based diplomacy. So, because of this, our engagement has also slowed down a bit. But here, it is quite important to balance China's presence. China's investments are increasingly seen as extractive and unpopular. That is very important to see. It's not that China is very economically prosperous, so China is distributing money everywhere. That's not the case. China's economic policies are basically debt-trap diplomacy. We have seen debt-trap diplomacy. It is quite extractive and unpopular. Because of this, India has an opportunity to present itself as a trustworthy partner and a trustworthy operator and collaborator there. So, this rebranding aspect, which we also saw a little while ago, can play a very important role here.