23 February 2026

On January 12, 2026, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) took a decision that has sent reverberations through the global nuclear safety community: it formally eliminated the ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) principle from its directives and regulations. This decision, made in the context of President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at accelerating nuclear energy development and reducing regulatory burdens on the nuclear industry, departs significantly from longstanding national and international practices of radiation protection. The implications extend far beyond the United States, as American regulatory standards have historically shaped global norms in the nuclear sector through international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).

For UPSC and SSC aspirants, this development is important for several reasons. It touches on the intersection of science, public policy, and governance; raises fundamental questions about how scientific consensus translates into regulatory practice; illustrates the tension between economic development goals and precautionary public health standards; and has direct relevance for India’s rapidly expanding civilian nuclear energy program.

Five Important Key Points

• ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) is the operational philosophy of radiation protection, balancing safety with feasibility, cost, and societal need, and is part of the regulatory framework upheld by the ICRP, WHO, and IAEA.
• The Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model, which underpins ALARA, holds that any dose of ionizing radiation carries some risk of harm — especially cancer — proportional to the dose, with no safe threshold below which radiation is completely risk-free.
• Critics of the DOE’s decision argue it relies on non-peer-reviewed internal reports, is politically motivated by nuclear industry interests, and risks undermining public trust in nuclear safety governance.
• The DOE’s stated justification is that excessive regulation based on ALARA has hindered nuclear innovation and that mission objectives can be met more effectively with a reformed radiation framework.
• India, which is rapidly expanding its nuclear energy capacity and has been at the forefront of complying with internationally accepted radiation protection practices, must continue adhering to ICRP and IAEA standards regardless of the US policy shift.

Understanding ALARA and the LNT Model

To understand why the elimination of ALARA matters, it is necessary to understand the two interconnected scientific and regulatory frameworks that have governed radiation safety for decades.

The Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model is a risk estimation framework developed in the mid-20th century based on epidemiological studies of populations exposed to ionizing radiation — including survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, workers in uranium mines, and patients who received X-ray treatments for medical conditions. The core assertion of LNT is that the relationship between radiation dose and cancer risk is linear — meaning that doubling the dose doubles the risk — and that there is no threshold below which radiation carries zero risk. Even very low doses of radiation, according to LNT, carry a small but non-zero probability of causing cellular damage that could eventually lead to cancer.

The LNT model is used by regulatory agencies worldwide to set permissible exposure limits for radiation workers and members of the public. In India, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) sets occupational dose limits of 20 millisieverts per year for radiation workers, consistent with ICRP recommendations derived from the LNT model.

ALARA — As Low as Reasonably Achievable — is the operational expression of LNT in practice. It does not simply mandate that radiation exposure be minimized at any cost. The word “reasonably” is crucial: it introduces a cost-benefit calculus that balances the health benefit of further reducing exposure against the economic cost and practical feasibility of doing so. ALARA encourages nuclear facilities to adopt the best available engineering controls, administrative procedures, and training programs to reduce exposure, while acknowledging that absolute zero exposure is neither achievable nor economically rational.

Why Did the DOE Eliminate ALARA?

The DOE’s decision was framed as a response to what the department described as a decades-old regulatory framework that had become an obstacle to nuclear innovation. The Trump administration’s executive orders on energy policy explicitly identified nuclear regulation as excessively burdensome and called for a review of safety standards that had accumulated over decades without adequate cost-benefit analysis.

The DOE’s position draws on a body of scientific heterodoxy — the hormesis hypothesis — that challenges the LNT model. Hormesis argues that low doses of radiation are not merely harmless but may actually be beneficial, stimulating cellular repair mechanisms and immune responses. The analogy offered is that of exercise: moderate physical stress produces health benefits even though extreme stress causes harm. Proponents of hormesis argue that the LNT model’s assumption of linear risk at all doses is based on extrapolation from high-dose data and may significantly overstate the risks of low-dose exposure.

While the hormesis hypothesis has legitimate scientific proponents and some experimental support in cellular and animal studies, it remains highly controversial. The principal objections are that its effects vary unpredictably across different individuals, tissues, and types of radiation; that ethical constraints make it difficult to conduct the controlled human trials needed to establish the hypothesis rigorously; and that existing large-scale epidemiological studies, including the ongoing Million Person Study tracking radiation workers, have found evidence of cancer risks at low doses that is inconsistent with hormesis. A 2023 study published in Nature Medicine found elevated blood-related cancer risks even in populations exposed to very low radiation doses.

International Bodies Continue to Uphold LNT and ALARA

The international nuclear safety establishment has not followed the DOE’s lead. The ICRP — the body that sets the scientific and ethical framework for radiation protection globally — has not indicated any intention to revise dose limits or abandon the LNT framework. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), which periodically reviews the global scientific evidence on radiation effects, and the World Health Organization (WHO) continue to rely on LNT as the basis for radiation protection guidance.

This creates an unusual and potentially destabilizing situation: the world’s largest economy and a major nuclear power has departed from the regulatory framework that it previously helped to develop and that is followed by every other nuclear nation. The implications could be significant. American nuclear facilities operating under less stringent ALARA requirements may face difficulties in export markets — for nuclear reactors, nuclear fuel, and nuclear technology — in countries that require compliance with ICRP standards as a condition of imports. Nuclear workers at US facilities may be exposed to higher doses than their counterparts in other countries, creating potential liability and workforce trust issues.

Radiation Safety Governance in India

India’s nuclear sector is governed by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), established under the Atomic Energy Act of 1962. The AERB sets safety standards for nuclear power plants, research reactors, medical radiation facilities, and industrial radiation users. India’s regulatory framework is broadly aligned with ICRP and IAEA recommendations, and this alignment has been consistently affirmed by Indian nuclear regulators.

India’s civilian nuclear energy program has ambitious expansion plans. India aims to increase nuclear power capacity from the current approximately 7,000 MW to 22,480 MW by 2031-32 and to 45,000 MW by 2050, as part of its long-term low-carbon energy strategy. This expansion involves the construction of Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) of Indian design, Light Water Reactors being built in partnership with Russia (Kudankulam), France (Jaitapur), and the US (Gorakhpur, with Westinghouse technology), and the ambitious development of thorium-based fast breeder reactors through the third stage of India’s three-stage nuclear program.

Maintaining the highest standards of radiation safety is not merely a public health imperative for India — it is a strategic and economic necessity. Nuclear trade with partner countries, including the civil nuclear agreements India has signed with the US (123 Agreement), France, Russia, Australia, Canada, and others, requires India to demonstrate compliance with IAEA safeguards and international safety standards. Any weakening of India’s radiation safety regime, even in response to political pressure or short-term economic incentives, would jeopardize these agreements and India’s access to nuclear fuel and technology.

The Deeper Issue: Scientific Consensus, Precaution, and Public Trust

The US decision to drop ALARA raises a broader and more profound question about the relationship between scientific uncertainty, regulatory policy, and public trust in institutions. Modern regulatory science deals routinely with situations where the underlying science is uncertain — where the evidence is contested, where different methodologies produce different conclusions, and where the economic stakes create powerful incentives to favor particular interpretations of data.

The precautionary principle — which holds that in the face of scientific uncertainty about potential harm, regulatory action should err on the side of caution — is not universally accepted in regulatory philosophy. Critics argue that excessive precaution can itself cause harm, by blocking beneficial technologies, driving up costs unnecessarily, and misallocating resources to manage risks that may be vanishingly small.

However, in domains like radiation safety, the precautionary approach has a specific justification: the harms — cancer, genetic damage, radiation sickness — are severe and often irreversible; the affected populations include the most vulnerable (radiation workers, people living near nuclear facilities, future generations affected by genetic damage); and the economic interests of the nuclear industry create powerful incentives to systematically underestimate risk. In such contexts, public trust in the regulatory system depends on the perception that regulators are protecting public health rather than serving industry interests.

The DOE’s decision — made without broad scientific consensus, relying on non-peer-reviewed internal reports, and framed in explicit alignment with presidential executive orders aimed at deregulation — threatens to erode this trust precisely at the moment when the US is trying to position nuclear energy as a key part of its clean energy transition. The optics of abandoning ALARA, even if some experts believe the scientific case for revision has merit, risk deepening public mistrust and fueling opposition to nuclear projects that the country urgently needs.

Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations

This topic is directly relevant to UPSC Mains GS Paper III on science and technology, energy policy, and environmental governance. Questions on India’s nuclear energy program, the three-stage nuclear program, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, the civil nuclear 123 Agreement, and India’s nuclear safety standards are standard fare in UPSC Prelims and Mains. The broader questions about the precautionary principle, the relationship between scientific consensus and regulatory policy, and the governance of nuclear technology connect to GS Paper IV (ethics) as well. For SSC examinations, basic awareness of what ALARA is, why the US decision is controversial, and India’s position is sufficient. The topic also has obvious relevance for the Science and Technology optional paper and for candidates interested in energy policy as an essay topic.

In a world where strategic competition is increasingly fought over semiconductors, artificial intelligence infrastructure, critical minerals, and data, India has made a decisive move by joining the Pax Silica alliance — a US-led coalition focused on building trusted, democratic infrastructure for AI and critical technologies. The decision, which has been likened by analysts to India’s earlier choices on nuclear technology and defense platforms, represents a significant alignment of India’s technological future with the democratic world’s effort to build supply chains that are not dependent on China.

The name “Pax Silica” — a play on the Latin “Pax” (peace) and Silicon — reflects the alliance’s ambition to create a geopolitical order built around the control of semiconductor technology and the AI systems that depend on it. For India, joining is simultaneously an economic opportunity, a strategic calculation, and a potential constraint on the foreign policy flexibility that has been the hallmark of Indian diplomacy for seven decades.

Five Important Key Points

• The Pax Silica alliance focuses on critical minerals, semiconductor manufacturing, and AI infrastructure, complementing India’s domestic programs including India Semiconductor Mission, IndiaAI, and the National Critical Mineral Mission.
• India’s membership can provide access to advanced equipment, attract FDI in high-tech manufacturing, influence global technology standards, and financially justify new supply chains not pegged to China.
• The primary risks include potential economic retaliation from China (which supplies key upstream inputs in minerals and active pharmaceutical ingredients), and stricter technology-transfer guardrails that could clash with India’s preference for strategic autonomy.
• The alliance’s “trusted ecosystem” framework could create rigid expectations around export controls that limit India’s ability to maintain its traditional “issue-based alignment” foreign policy approach.
• Success depends on whether Pax Silica partners move beyond declarations to build a real-world end-to-end supply chain — from mining critical minerals to refining them, converting them into chips, and deploying them in AI systems — all within the alliance’s member countries.

What Are Critical Minerals and Why Do They Matter?

Critical minerals are raw materials that are essential for modern technology — particularly for batteries, semiconductors, renewable energy systems, defense electronics, and communication infrastructure — but whose supply chains are heavily concentrated in a small number of countries, many of which are either geopolitically unstable or aligned with China. The list of critical minerals typically includes lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earth elements, gallium, germanium, graphite, and several others.

China’s dominance of critical mineral supply chains is extraordinary. China controls approximately 60% of global lithium refining, 80% of cobalt refining, and over 90% of rare earth element processing. For semiconductors, gallium and germanium — both of which China has recently restricted for export — are essential components. This concentration gives China immense potential leverage over the defense and technology sectors of democratic nations, a vulnerability that the Pax Silica alliance is explicitly designed to address.

India’s positioning in this landscape is complex. India has significant deposits of several critical minerals — including rare earth elements (with one of the world’s largest estimated reserves), mica, bauxite, and iron ore — but its processing and refining capacity is negligible. Most of India’s rare earth ore is exported unprocessed and then imported back as refined material, largely through Chinese processing facilities. Building domestic processing capacity is a strategic imperative but requires massive capital investment, technology transfer, and regulatory reform of India’s mining sector.

India’s Strategic Calculus: Opportunity and Autonomy

For India, the Pax Silica alliance offers a path toward accelerating its semiconductor and AI ambitions. The India Semiconductor Mission, launched in 2021, aims to establish a domestic semiconductor fabrication and design ecosystem. However, semiconductor fabrication requires not only massive capital investment (a state-of-the-art fab can cost $20 billion or more) but also access to advanced equipment — particularly extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines made almost exclusively by the Dutch company ASML. US export controls on advanced chips and chip-making equipment to China have created an opportunity for India to position itself as an alternative manufacturing location for companies redirecting their supply chains away from China.

The Pax Silica alliance, by creating a framework of “trusted ecosystems,” could facilitate technology transfer, joint R&D, and preferential market access that accelerates India’s semiconductor ambitions. The alliance could also give India a seat at the table in setting global technology standards — standards for AI safety, data governance, critical mineral certification, and semiconductor export controls — which will significantly affect India’s future economic and strategic options.

However, the strategic autonomy concern is real and must be taken seriously. India’s foreign policy since independence has been built around the principle of non-alignment — later evolved into “strategic autonomy” — which emphasizes that India makes its international alignments based on specific interests rather than ideological or alliance commitments. This approach has served India well, allowing it to maintain productive relationships with Russia, Iran, the Gulf states, and Israel simultaneously, even as these relationships involve obvious contradictions.

Joining a technology alliance anchored in US strategic interests creates genuine risks. The most immediate is Chinese economic retaliation. China is India’s largest trading partner by total volume, a major supplier of electronics components, active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and industrial inputs. If China interprets Pax Silica membership as a hostile act, it could restrict exports of critical upstream inputs, slow approvals of Indian business operations in China, or use its influence in third markets to disadvantage Indian companies. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash demonstrated that China is willing to use economic pressure alongside military signaling.

The Technology Transfer and Export Control Dilemma

A central feature of the Pax Silica framework is its emphasis on “trusted ecosystems” — the idea that advanced technology should only flow among nations that have robust export control regimes, cybersecurity standards, and democratic governance structures. This is operationalized through requirements like end-use verification, re-export restrictions, security audits of facilities handling sensitive technology, and aligned export control lists.

For India, implementing these requirements creates both opportunities and burdens. On the positive side, India’s compliance with high-standard technology transfer protocols would strengthen its case for access to advanced US defense and dual-use technologies — including those relevant for AI, quantum computing, and advanced communications. The US-India Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) and the foundational defense agreements (LEMOA, COMCASA, BECA) have already created a framework for deeper technology sharing; Pax Silica could extend this logic to the civilian technology domain.

On the negative side, strict export control requirements create compliance costs for Indian companies, particularly smaller firms that may lack the legal and administrative infrastructure to navigate complex dual-use export control regimes. Indian companies attempting to join global value chains — including in the semiconductor, AI hardware, and quantum computing spaces — may face significant delays, costs, and uncertainty as they seek to demonstrate compliance with multiple overlapping regulatory frameworks (US Export Administration Regulations, EU export controls, and India’s own SCOMET framework).

The China Factor and Managing Bilateral Complexity

Perhaps the most sensitive dimension of India’s Pax Silica membership is its implications for Sino-Indian relations. The India-China relationship, already deeply strained by the 2020 military standoff in Eastern Ladakh and the subsequent four-year process of disengagement, exists in a state of managed tension. Trade and economic links remain substantial despite the political and military friction — India imported approximately $100 billion worth of goods from China in 2024-25, including electronics, chemicals, and industrial machinery.

A technology decoupling from China through Pax Silica membership could exacerbate this tension. China has already demonstrated that it views technology alliances — whether the US-Japan-Netherlands semiconductor export control coordination, the AUKUS advanced technology pillar, or the Quad’s semiconductor supply chain initiative — as strategic threats to its own technology ambitions and its position as the dominant power in Asia. India joining another such coalition will likely provoke a negative response, though its form and magnitude remain uncertain.

India’s task is to manage this complexity by ensuring that Pax Silica membership is accompanied by consistent diplomatic engagement with China, clear communication about the non-hostile intent of India’s technology policy choices, and maintenance of enough economic interdependence to ensure that China calculates the costs of retaliation as higher than the benefits.

Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations

This topic sits at the intersection of several UPSC Mains GS Paper II themes — India’s foreign policy, bilateral relations, multilateral groupings, and technology diplomacy — and GS Paper III themes — critical minerals, semiconductor policy, AI governance, and economic security. For Prelims, awareness of what critical minerals are, India’s semiconductor policy, the concept of “trusted ecosystems,” and India’s strategic autonomy doctrine are all potentially testable. Essay paper candidates can explore the theme of “technology sovereignty and the limits of strategic autonomy in a multipolar world.” For SSC aspirants, a basic understanding of why semiconductors and critical minerals matter for national security and economic competitiveness is the key takeaway.

By early 2026, India has quietly engineered one of the most consequential structural transformations in its economic history. What were once dismissively called “captive centres” — offshore extensions of multinational corporations’ back-office functions — have evolved into Global Capability Centres (GCCs) that define the technological and strategic future of some of the world’s largest companies. This transformation, which The Hindu’s editorial describes as India’s transition from the “world’s back office” to a “global brain trust,” has profound implications for employment, regional development, national innovation capacity, and India’s position in the global technology supply chain.

The evolution of GCCs is occurring at precisely the moment when the global economy is being restructured by three simultaneous forces: the rise of Artificial Intelligence (including Agentic AI — autonomous systems capable of reasoning and executing complex tasks); the fragmentation of global supply chains driven by geopolitical competition between the US and China; and the growing premium placed on trusted, high-quality talent with deep technical expertise. India is uniquely positioned at the intersection of all three.

Five Important Key Points

• India houses over 1,800 GCCs employing nearly two million professionals, making it the world’s single largest hub for globally integrated corporate technology and knowledge functions.
• Approximately 58% of GCCs in India are investing in Agentic AI — autonomous AI systems that reason and execute complex tasks — representing a decisive move from experimentation to enterprise-scale deployment.
• GCCs now manage end-to-end product lifecycles, including high-end R&D in quantum computing, semiconductor design, and Agentic AI, with shadow leadership teams in India often possessing greater technical depth than traditional headquarters staff.
• Growth is extending into Tier-II and Tier-III cities such as Coimbatore, Indore, and Kochi, reducing pressure on saturated metros like Bengaluru and Hyderabad while creating high-value employment outside major urban centres.
• The National GCC Policy Framework proposed in the 2026-27 Budget cycle, along with challenges of talent gaps, cybersecurity threats, and the OECD Global Minimum Tax, will shape whether India can sustain this advantage into the 2030s.

The Four Waves of GCC Evolution

The GCC story in India unfolded in four distinct phases that mirror India’s broader economic development trajectory. The first wave, beginning in the late 1990s, was driven by pure labour arbitrage. Multinational corporations established centres in Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and Chennai to take advantage of large numbers of English-speaking engineering graduates available at a fraction of the cost of comparable talent in the US or Europe. Functions were routine: data entry, IT maintenance, basic software coding, and business process outsourcing.

The second wave, running through the 2000s, saw a gradual deepening of capability. Companies began moving higher-value functions — financial analysis, legal research, supply chain management, customer analytics — to Indian centres. This phase produced the first generation of genuinely global Indian professionals: people who were managing processes and functions for entire multinational corporations from Indian cities.

The third wave, approximately 2015 to 2022, was characterized by increasing autonomy. Indian GCCs began developing proprietary products, owning intellectual property, and building innovation pipelines. They were no longer just executing — they were designing. Several Indian GCCs received patents registered in the name of the India centre, a symbolic but significant marker of the shift from execution to creation.

The current GCC 4.0 era is defined by two features that set it apart from all previous phases. First, Indian GCCs are now exercising strategic leadership — not supporting the headquarters but in many cases surpassing it in technical depth and innovation velocity. Second, the integration of Agentic AI into GCC operations is creating what economists call “task substitution at scale” — AI systems are taking over routine analytical and process tasks, freeing highly skilled Indian professionals to focus on genuinely novel and complex work.

The Talent Equation: Competitive Advantage and Structural Challenge

India’s most fundamental competitive advantage in the GCC ecosystem is its talent base. The country produces approximately 1.5 million engineering graduates annually, with significant concentrations in computer science, electronics, mechanical engineering, and related disciplines. Beyond sheer numbers, India’s talent advantage includes English fluency, a tradition of strong STEM education, and a cultural orientation toward professional excellence in technical fields.

However, the talent advantage is increasingly under strain. The demand for niche skills in AI security, quantum-resistant cryptography, cloud architecture, large language model fine-tuning, and neuromorphic computing is vastly outstripping the supply of qualified candidates. India’s engineering education system, while large, remains heavily weighted toward generalist skills — the IITs and NITs produce excellent engineers, but deep specialization in the cutting-edge fields that GCCs now need requires either expensive postgraduate training or years of on-the-job specialization. This has triggered a fierce talent war, with top GCCs competing aggressively for the relatively small pool of engineers with genuine expertise in these frontier domains, driving up compensation dramatically.

The talent gap also has a gender dimension. Women constitute only about 27-28% of India’s technology workforce, and representation drops further at senior technical levels. GCCs that are building global innovation capacity need to draw from the full talent pool, which requires systematic attention to the structural barriers — including inadequate STEM education for girls, gender pay gaps, lack of flexible work arrangements that accommodate caregiving responsibilities, and workplace cultures that disadvantage women at senior levels.

Regional Development: The Tier-II and Tier-III Opportunity

One of the most exciting and underappreciated aspects of GCC 4.0 is its geographic spread beyond the established technology metros. Cities like Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, Indore in Madhya Pradesh, Kochi in Kerala, Pune (already a major tech hub but still growing), Ahmedabad, and Nagpur are emerging as credible GCC locations. This geographic diversification has three major economic benefits.

First, it reduces the extreme pressure on Bengaluru and Hyderabad, where rapid growth in the technology sector has created severe urban infrastructure stress — traffic congestion, water scarcity, housing price inflation, and pressure on schools and hospitals. Second, it creates high-value employment in cities where the cost of living is substantially lower, enabling both companies and employees to capture more value from the economic activity. Third, it stimulates the development of local professional ecosystems — law firms, accounting practices, financial services, healthcare, and education institutions grow to serve the needs of the expanding professional class.

The government’s role in enabling this geographic expansion is critical. Industrial infrastructure, including reliable power supply, fast digital connectivity, good transport links, and quality urban services, must be developed in Tier-II cities proactively rather than reactively. The PM GATI SHAKTI National Master Plan, which aims to develop multimodal logistics infrastructure, and the Smart Cities Mission are relevant but need to explicitly prioritize GCC-ready infrastructure development in emerging technology cities.

Cybersecurity Threats and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act

GCCs handle some of the world’s most sensitive corporate data — financial records, research data, customer information, intellectual property, and strategic business intelligence. India-based centres have become prime targets for state-sponsored cyber-attacks, with one industry report (Cyrma Report, 2023) estimating that India-based centres handle approximately 13.7% of global cyber-attack incidents. This is a reflection both of the volume of high-value activity concentrated in Indian GCCs and of India’s position as a geopolitically significant target for adversarial cyber operations from state actors.

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, enacted in 2023, creates a comprehensive legal framework for the protection of personal data processed in India. For GCCs, compliance with the DPDP Act is now a major operational mandate. The Act’s requirements around data fiduciaries, consent mechanisms, data localization for certain categories of sensitive data, and cross-border transfer rules create both compliance costs and — if implemented well — a significant trust advantage for India as a GCC destination. Multinational corporations that can demonstrate compliance with India’s DPDP Act alongside GDPR (Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation) and other major regulatory frameworks are better positioned to host globally trusted operations.

The OECD Global Minimum Tax and Fiscal Certainty

The OECD’s Pillar Two framework, which establishes a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%, has significant implications for GCCs operating in India. Previously, GCCs benefited from India’s relatively favorable tax treatment of IT/ITES companies, including the Software Technology Parks of India scheme, Special Economic Zone benefits, and relatively low effective tax rates for IT services exports. The global minimum tax partially erodes these benefits for large multinational corporations by ensuring that profits are taxed at at least 15% regardless of where they are earned or how they are structured.

India’s transfer pricing rules — specifically the 24% markup applied to software R&D activities under Safe Harbour regulations — have been a source of contention between multinational GCC operators and the Indian tax authorities. GCC operators argue that the markup is too high and creates fiscal uncertainty that makes India less competitive as a GCC destination compared to locations like Ireland, Singapore, or the UAE. Rationalizing transfer pricing norms and providing greater predictability in tax treatment is a critical policy priority for sustaining India’s GCC advantage.

Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations

For UPSC Mains GS Paper III, this topic is directly relevant to questions on India’s services sector, the knowledge economy, technology policy, employment generation, and digital India. Questions on the role of GCCs in India’s economic development, the challenges of talent development, cybersecurity governance, and the impact of the OECD minimum tax on India’s IT sector competitiveness are all plausible Mains topics. For Prelims, awareness of what GCCs are, which cities they are concentrated in, and the key policy frameworks (DPDP Act, PLI schemes, GCC Policy Framework) is important. For SSC examinations, basic awareness of India’s IT industry structure and the concept of GCCs is sufficient.

The surrender of Tippiri Tirupati, alias Devji, along with senior Maoist leader Malla Raji Reddy and several cadres in Asifabad district of Telangana on February 22, 2026 marks a watershed moment in India’s decades-long battle against Left-Wing Extremism (LWE). Devji, aged 62, is reported to have become the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) following the death of Nambala Keshav Rao in an encounter in May 2025. His surrender — the general secretary of the most formidable underground revolutionary organization in India voluntarily laying down arms — is not merely a law enforcement success. It is a political and ideological event of the first order, signaling the effective disintegration of the Maoist movement as a cohesive political-military force in India.

This development must be understood against the backdrop of a sustained and increasingly effective multi-pronged counterinsurgency strategy pursued by the Indian state over the past decade, combining security operations, development outreach, surrender schemes, and intelligence-driven targeting of leadership.

Five Important Key Points

• Devji’s surrender is the most significant Maoist capitulation since the movement’s peak because he reportedly held the position of General Secretary — the highest organizational rank in CPI (Maoist) — following the May 2025 encounter death of Nambala Keshav Rao.
• The Union government had set March 2026 as the deadline to eliminate the armed Maoist struggle from the country, making this surrender strategically timed and politically significant.
• Devji had a history stretching back to 1982 when he was part of the Radical Students Union, a student affiliate of the then People’s War Group (PWG), demonstrating the depth of the movement’s roots in Telangana society.
• The surrender comes amid a cascade of capitulations across Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, and Telangana, with many surrendered Maoists actively appealing to their former comrades to lay down arms.
• Devji was reportedly instrumental in the creation and organization of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA) — the CPI (Maoist)’s armed wing — and held positions as both Central Committee member and Politburo leader.

Historical Background: The Origins and Evolution of Naxalism in India

The Naxalite movement traces its origins to the Naxalbari peasant uprising of 1967 in Darjeeling district of West Bengal, when tribal peasants led by Charu Mazumdar and Kanu Sanyal rose against landlords and seized land. The movement drew inspiration from Mao Zedong’s theory of Protracted People’s War and spread rapidly to Andhra Pradesh (then undivided), Bihar, and later Odisha, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh.

In Andhra Pradesh, the People’s War Group (PWG) emerged in the 1980s as the most formidable Naxalite organization in the country, under the leadership of figures like Kondapalli Seetharamaiah. The PWG merged with the Maoist Communist Centre in 2004 to form the CPI (Maoist), creating a unified command structure that claimed to be operating across a “Red Corridor” stretching from Nepal through Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Telangana to the borders of Karnataka and Maharashtra.

At its peak, the CPI (Maoist) was identified by the Prime Minister’s Office as the single greatest internal security threat to India. The group carried out attacks on CRPF convoys, killed elected representatives, targeted mining and infrastructure projects, and maintained a parallel administration in forest areas through what they called “Janathana Sarkars” (people’s governments). The Dantewada ambush of April 2010, in which 76 CRPF personnel were killed, remains the deadliest single attack on security forces in independent India’s history.

Why Is the Movement Collapsing? A Multi-Factor Analysis

The surrender of Devji and the broader retreat of the Maoist movement in 2025-26 is the product of converging factors that have systematically eroded the organizational, ideological, and logistical foundations of the insurgency.

The first and most important factor is sustained security pressure. The National Greyhounds force of Andhra Pradesh, the District Reserve Guards of Chhattisgarh, the CoBRA (Commando Battalion for Resolute Action) battalions of the CRPF, and state police forces across affected states have developed sophisticated intelligence networks, undertaken forest-based anti-insurgency operations, and systematically targeted the Maoist leadership. Since 2015, barely a year has passed without the neutralization of a Central Committee member or senior Politburo leader.

The second factor is the steady erosion of the movement’s cadre base. Decades of recruitment from tribal and peasant communities have dried up as development infrastructure — roads, schools, health centres, mobile connectivity, banking — has penetrated previously isolated forest areas under schemes like PMGSY (Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana), PM-KISAN, the Forest Rights Act implementation, and aspirational district programs. When the material conditions that fed Maoist recruitment — land alienation, forest rights denial, police brutality, and lack of basic services — are addressed even partially, the movement loses its social base.

The third factor is the success of surrender and rehabilitation schemes. States like Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha offer substantial cash incentives, skill training, housing, and legal protection to surrendered Maoists. Many who have surrendered become active in persuading their former comrades to follow. The social network dynamics of a surrender cascade — where each high-profile capitulation reduces the costs and stigma of surrendering for others — are now clearly in operation.

The fourth factor is ideological exhaustion. The CPI (Maoist)’s Protracted People’s War strategy requires the generation of new cadre, the maintenance of mass organizations, and the gradual expansion of liberated zones. None of these are happening. The mass organizations have withered, liberated zones have shrunk dramatically, and the movement is fighting a rearguard action. The ideological appeal of a Maoist victory — already attenuated by the global collapse of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist regimes and movements — is now negligible even among the constituency of dispossessed tribals and Dalits the movement claimed to represent.

The Governance Dimension: What Naxalism Tells Us About the Indian State

It would be intellectually incomplete to analyze the collapse of Naxalism purely as a security success without acknowledging what the movement’s existence for over five decades tells us about governance failures in India. The Maoist movement flourished precisely in those regions where the Indian state had the weakest presence and the worst record of delivering on constitutional promises to its most marginalized citizens.

The Fifth Schedule areas of the Constitution — which encompass much of the tribal heartland that constituted the Red Corridor — mandate special protections for tribal land, forest rights, and self-governance through Pesa (Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act. Implementation of PESA has been consistently poor, with state governments frequently overriding its provisions to facilitate mining leases, industrial projects, and dam construction that displaces tribal communities without adequate rehabilitation.

The Forest Rights Act of 2006 was intended to recognize the rights of tribal forest dwellers over land they had cultivated for generations. Its implementation has been deeply uneven, with states like Odisha and Chhattisgarh having large pendencies of rejected or unprocessed claims. The displacement of tribals from forests, mining regions, and reservoir submergence zones — often without adequate compensation or alternative livelihoods — generated the grievance base on which Maoism fed.

The lesson for Indian governance is that security operations, however effective, must be accompanied by sustained political and social delivery. The March 2026 deadline set by the Union government for eliminating the armed Maoist struggle reflects confidence in the security track. But the governance track — strengthening tribal institutions, ensuring forest rights, creating alternative economic opportunities for former cadre and their communities — will determine whether the conditions for insurgency are permanently dissolved or merely suppressed.

What Happens After the Maoists? Challenges of Post-Conflict Rehabilitation

The surrender of top leadership creates new challenges. Large numbers of former cadres, many of whom have spent years in the forest, face significant challenges of social reintegration. Their skill sets are largely agricultural or military, their formal education is often limited, and they face social stigma in their home communities as well as potential security risks from former enemies. The rehabilitation programs need to be comprehensive, sustained, and sensitive to the specific vulnerabilities of former insurgents.

Additionally, the power vacuum created by the Maoist retreat in tribal forest areas could be filled by other destabilizing forces — criminal networks involved in timber smuggling, illegal mining, or land grabbing; or by extremist formations of various political colors. Ensuring that tribal communities in post-Maoist areas receive the full benefit of constitutional protections and development programs, and that local self-governance through gram sabhas and PESA institutions is genuinely empowered, is the most important long-term challenge.

Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations

The topic is directly relevant to UPSC Mains GS Paper II on internal security, insurgency, and left-wing extremism. Questions frequently ask about the causes, nature, and counter-strategies related to Naxalism. GS Paper III has questions on the developmental dimension of internal security. For UPSC Prelims, questions on PESA, Forest Rights Act, CoBRA battalions, and the Five Schedule are standard. The 2024 and 2025 Mains examinations had questions on the “declining influence of Naxalism” — a trend that Devji’s surrender dramatically accelerates. SSC aspirants need basic awareness of what Naxalism is, which states it affects, and the key security institutions involved in counter-insurgency.

When Parliament passed the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act in September 2023 — commonly called the Women’s Reservation Act — it was celebrated across party lines as a historic achievement. The legislation mandated reservation of one-third of all seats in the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi for women. After nearly three decades of repeated failures — the original bill was first introduced in 1996 and blocked repeatedly — the passage of the Act was seen as a moment of reckoning for Indian democracy.

However, as a detailed analysis by former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi published in The Hindu makes clear, the Act contains a fatal qualification that renders its implementation constitutionally impossible before the 2029 general elections. The reservation, as written in the law, will come into effect only “after the first Census taken after the year 2026” and the subsequent delimitation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies. This condition creates an ironclad legal barrier — a barrier that was not accidental but, as many observers argue, was deliberately constructed to absorb the political cost of the reform while deferring its actual consequences.

Five Important Key Points

• The Women’s Reservation Act requires two sequential pre-conditions — a post-2026 Census and a subsequent delimitation — before seats can be reserved, making implementation before 2029 constitutionally impossible.
• The next Census is scheduled for 2027 and will take at least 12-18 months to publish officially, meaning delimitation cannot begin before 2029 at the earliest.
• The Delimitation Commission, once constituted, must redraw 543 Lok Sabha constituencies and over 4,000 State Assembly constituencies — a task no previous Commission completed in under three years.
• The linkage of women’s reservation to delimitation has entangled gender justice with the contentious north-south seat distribution debate, as northern states with higher population growth expect significantly more seats after delimitation.
• Parliament can legally delink reservation from delimitation through a fresh constitutional amendment, enabling immediate implementation either within the current 543-seat Lok Sabha or through a modest expansion of the House.

Constitutional Background: Article 15(3) and the Power of Special Provisions

The Indian Constitution contains several provisions that establish the framework within which women’s reservation must be understood. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 15(3) carves out a specific exception: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.” This provision has been the constitutional anchor for women-specific legislation across a wide range of domains — from the Maternity Benefit Act to reservation in local bodies.

Article 243D mandates reservation of not less than one-third of total seats in Panchayati Raj institutions for women, a provision that has been implemented effectively since the 73rd Constitutional Amendment of 1992 and has resulted in over 1.4 million elected women representatives at the grassroots level. The success of women’s reservation in local bodies demonstrates that the constitutional architecture supports such measures and that they can produce meaningful representation when implemented without excessive pre-conditions.

The 106th Amendment, however, imposes pre-conditions that have no constitutional necessity. There is no provision in the Constitution that mandates that reservations for women in Parliament must await delimitation. The Act created this linkage legislatively, which means that Parliament, by a fresh amendment, can remove it. The question is one of political will, not constitutional permissibility.

The Delimitation Problem: North vs. South

The central reason why the Women’s Reservation Act was tied to delimitation is that delimitation itself is one of the most explosive and unresolved political issues in contemporary Indian federalism. Parliamentary seat allocation was last adjusted in 1976 and was then frozen by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) until the first Census after 2000, then extended further to the first Census after 2026 — meaning that southern states which invested heavily in population control through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s have not lost seats despite having much lower population growth than northern states. Post-delimitation, states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are expected to gain substantially more seats, while Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh fear losing relative representation.

This tension is constitutionally significant. The Constitution under Article 81 determines the allocation of Lok Sabha seats to states broadly on the basis of population. When the freeze is lifted, the reallocation could fundamentally alter the balance of political power between north and south India, creating powerful incentives for southern parties to delay delimitation indefinitely. By linking women’s reservation to delimitation, Parliament has effectively made the two issues hostage to each other — neither can proceed without the other, and both face massive political resistance.

What Has Changed Since 1996? The Thirty-Year Wait

The first Women’s Reservation Bill was introduced by the HD Deve Gowda government in 1996. It was subsequently reintroduced by the Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, and other governments. The bill passed the Rajya Sabha in 2010 with strong cross-party support but never came to a vote in the Lok Sabha. The primary obstacles were threefold. First, many male politicians — including from parties that formally supported the bill — feared displacement. Second, there were demands for sub-quotas within the women’s quota for OBC women, which the Congress-led government refused to incorporate, fearing it would create a Mandal-like political disruption. Third, the opposition of small parties that relied on personal influence and caste networks, rather than programmatic politics, was decisive in blocking the bill through disruptions.

The 2023 Act resolved the deadlock by the simple — and politically shrewd — device of deferring implementation. All parties could vote in favour because no one would actually lose a seat in the near future. The political cost was absorbed by making the reform contingent on a future event (delimitation) that was itself deeply contentious.

The OBC Gap and Other Design Flaws

The Act, even as written, has significant design gaps that go beyond the implementation timeline. It does not extend reservation to the Rajya Sabha or State Legislative Councils, limiting the reform to directly elected lower houses. This means that a substantial proportion of Parliament will continue to be elected without any gender reservation requirement.

More significantly, the Act provides no sub-reservation for Other Backward Class (OBC) women, though Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe women receive proportional sub-quotas within the reserved constituencies. OBC women constitute approximately 40% of India’s female population and face compounded disadvantages of gender and caste. The absence of OBC sub-reservation means that the women who benefit most from the Act are likely to be from upper castes and dominant castes who already have better access to political resources.

Additionally, the Act mandates rotation of reserved constituencies after each general election — meaning a woman who wins a reserved seat may not be able to contest the same constituency in the next election. The operational mechanics of rotation in a context where delimitation is also reshuffling boundaries have not been specified, creating potential for legal challenges and electoral uncertainty.

The Way Forward: Delinking and Incremental Expansion

There are practical solutions available if political will exists. The most straightforward is a constitutional amendment to remove the Census-delimitation pre-condition, allowing reservation to be implemented within the existing 543-seat Lok Sabha immediately. This would displace 181 male incumbents and create powerful resistance, but it is legally and constitutionally the cleanest solution.

An alternative proposed by constitutional scholars is incremental expansion of the Lok Sabha — adding approximately 180 seats earmarked exclusively for women — before full delimitation concludes. This approach avoids displacing male incumbents while delivering meaningful representation. The Constitution under Article 81 does not set a ceiling on the number of Lok Sabha seats (it currently sets a maximum of 550), and so expansion to around 730 seats exclusively for women could be achieved without disturbing existing male-held constituencies.

A third option is applying reservation within current constituencies for two election cycles, treating the 2029 and 2034 elections as transitional phases. After delimitation, the permanent system would come into force. Each of these approaches requires a constitutional amendment, which demands a two-thirds majority in both Houses and ratification by at least half the states.

Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations

This topic is directly relevant to UPSC Mains GS Paper II on Indian Constitution, Parliament, and political representation. Questions can be expected on the constitutional basis of women’s reservation, the history of the Women’s Reservation Bill, the relationship between delimitation and representation, and the north-south seat distribution debate. For Essay paper, the theme of “representation delayed is representation denied” offers rich possibilities. UPSC Prelims questions may focus on the Article numbers relevant to women’s reservation (15(3), 243D), the year the Act was passed, and the pre-conditions for implementation. SSC candidates need awareness of what the Women’s Reservation Act is, why it cannot be implemented before 2029, and what delimitation means.

In a landmark ruling that has sent reverberations across the global trading order, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by a margin of 6-3. The ruling, which saw Chief Justice John Roberts and two conservative justices appointed by Trump himself siding with the three liberal justices, is one of the most consequential checks on executive authority in recent American legal history. The judgment directly impacts India, which was among the most heavily tariffed countries, facing a 50% duty on its exports to the United States on account of its continued trade with Russia, membership of BRICS, and imports of Russian oil.

For UPSC and SSC aspirants, this development is extraordinarily significant. It touches upon constitutional law, separation of powers, international trade, India’s foreign policy balancing act, global economic governance, and the structure of multilateral institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO). The ruling also intersects with India’s ongoing free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations with the United States, which were proceeding under a cloud of uncertainty created by Trump’s aggressive tariff posturing.

Five Important Key Points

• The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump’s use of the IEEPA to impose unlimited tariffs lacked clear Congressional authorization, marking a rare judicial rebuke of executive overreach on trade policy.
• India was among the most heavily impacted nations, facing 50% tariffs that threatened Indian exports of steel, pharmaceuticals, textiles, and IT products.
• The ruling does not affect tariffs imposed under other laws like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, meaning tariffs on steel and aluminium remain.
• Trump immediately announced he would impose a 15% global tariff rate under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows 150 days of emergency tariffs without Congressional approval.
• Brazilian President Lula, visiting India at the time, called for developing nations to form “negotiating blocs” and not negotiate individually with the US — a stance that has significant implications for multilateral trade diplomacy.

Background: What Is IEEPA and How Was It Being Used?

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 is a US federal law that grants the President broad authority to regulate international commerce during a national emergency. In its traditional application, it was used to impose sanctions on hostile states, freeze assets of terrorist organizations, and restrict trade with adversaries. What was unprecedented in the Trump administration’s use was the invocation of IEEPA to impose tariffs of unlimited scope, duration, and amount on virtually all trading partners of the United States — including close allies like Canada, the European Union, Japan, and strategic partners like India and Brazil.

The administration argued that the trade deficit itself constituted a national emergency and that IEEPA’s language authorizing the President to “regulate” foreign commerce included the power to impose tariffs. Critics countered that taxing authority under the US Constitution is vested in Congress, and that tariffs are a form of taxation that cannot be delegated to the executive through a vaguely worded statute without explicit legislative direction.

The Supreme Court agreed with critics. The majority opinion stated that IEEPA contained no reference to tariffs or duties, that no previous President had read the statute to confer such power, and that “extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope” requires unambiguous Congressional authorization under the doctrine of the “major questions doctrine” — a constitutional principle that demands clear legislative text before courts allow executive agencies or the President to act on matters of vast economic and political significance.

Constitutional Principles at Stake: Separation of Powers and the Major Questions Doctrine

The ruling is a textbook application of the major questions doctrine, which the US Supreme Court has increasingly deployed since the early 2000s to rein in executive overreach. The doctrine holds that when an agency or the executive claims authority to regulate a matter of deep economic or political significance, courts will demand clear statutory authorization rather than inferences from general or broad language.

For students of constitutional law in India, this has a powerful parallel. Article 265 of the Indian Constitution states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Similarly, the principle of delegated legislation in India requires that when Parliament delegates power to the executive, it must provide an intelligible differentia and adequate guiding principles — it cannot hand over the entire legislative function. The Indian Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that excessive delegation without policy guidance is unconstitutional.

The US ruling is also significant for its demonstration that even in a presidential system with strong executive authority, the judiciary remains a co-equal branch capable of imposing meaningful constitutional limits. In India’s parliamentary democracy, such discipline is enforced through a combination of judicial review, Parliamentary accountability, and constitutional conventions.

Impact on India-US Trade Relations

India’s relationship with the United States on trade has been complex and layered. The two countries are among each other’s largest trading partners. Bilateral trade stood at approximately $130 billion in recent years, with India running a trade surplus largely driven by IT services, pharmaceuticals, textiles, gems and jewellery, and engineering goods. The Trump administration’s 50% tariff threat was directed at this surplus and was compounded by India’s refusal to fully align with US sanctions against Russia.

The Supreme Court ruling creates a degree of breathing space for Indian negotiators. However, the relief is partial. Since Trump has announced his intention to impose a 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a law that allows a temporary tariff of up to 15% for 150 days without fresh Congressional approval — India still faces meaningful trade barriers. More importantly, tariffs on steel and aluminium under Section 232 remain unaffected by the SCOTUS ruling and continue to disadvantage Indian exports in these sectors.

The FTA negotiations between India and the US, which had been gaining momentum, are now in a state of recalibration. Indian negotiators had been considering concessions in agriculture, dairy, and medical devices to secure reductions in tariffs on Indian goods. With the IEEPA tariffs struck down, the calculus has changed — the American side’s leverage is diminished, which paradoxically may give India more negotiating room but also reduce the urgency of reaching a deal.

The “Negotiating Blocs” Idea: Lula’s Proposal and Multilateral Diplomacy

Brazil’s President Lula, during his four-day state visit to India, made a politically charged proposal that countries facing US tariffs should form “negotiating blocs” rather than bargain individually. Drawing on his background as a trade union leader — he famously led Brazil’s steelworkers in the 1980s before founding the Workers Party — Lula analogized the situation of smaller and medium economies to that of individual workers facing a powerful corporation. His argument was that individual negotiation always produces outcomes unfavorable to the weaker party.

This proposal has significant implications for global economic governance. It invokes the spirit of South-South cooperation, the BRICS grouping’s economic solidarity dimension, and the broader critique of the Washington Consensus. However, forming effective negotiating blocs among nations with diverse economic structures, geopolitical alignments, and trade profiles is far easier to propose than to implement. India, for instance, has historically been reluctant to lock itself into economic alliances that constrain its strategic autonomy. External Affairs Minister Jaishankar’s articulation of “issue-based alignments” reflects this preference.

Still, the idea is not without merit. In the context of the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanism, developing countries have used collective action effectively — the G77, the G20 coalition of developing nations within the WTO, and the African Union’s unified trade positions have all demonstrated that bloc-based negotiation can produce better outcomes. The challenge is translating solidarity into actionable policy.

Implications for Global Trade Architecture and the WTO

The SCOTUS ruling, while primarily a US constitutional event, has broader implications for the rules-based international trading order anchored in the WTO. The WTO’s fundamental principles — Most Favoured Nation treatment, national treatment, and bound tariff schedules — had been under systematic assault during the Trump tariff era. Countries affected by the IEEPA tariffs had filed dispute settlement complaints, but the WTO’s Appellate Body had been rendered non-functional because the Trump administration had blocked the appointment of new judges, a practice that continued under Biden and now under Trump’s second term.

The SCOTUS ruling, by curtailing the President’s unilateral tariff powers, effectively forces future US trade policy back through Congressional channels. This is a partial restoration of the multilateral trade order because any Congressional legislation on tariffs would need to comply with WTO agreements to which the US remains a party (though withdrawal from the WTO has been periodically threatened). It also signals to other nations that they cannot assume unilateral executive tariff actions will stand indefinitely in the United States.

Governance Concerns and the Way Forward

For India, the way forward requires a multi-pronged strategy. First, India must continue building domestic manufacturing capacity across sectors vulnerable to tariff shocks — electronics, semiconductors, specialty chemicals, and advanced manufacturing. The Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme and the National Industrial Corridor Development Programme are steps in this direction but require faster implementation. Second, India should pursue diversification of export markets through active engagement with the ASEAN free trade zone, the UK FTA (currently under negotiation), the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the African Continental Free Trade Area. Third, India must maintain its principled position at the WTO while working pragmatically to restore the Appellate Body’s functionality through coalitions with like-minded countries.

Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations

For UPSC Prelims, this topic is relevant for questions on international organizations (WTO), US constitutional structure (separation of powers, major questions doctrine), India-US bilateral trade, BRICS, and Section 232 and Section 301 of US trade law. For UPSC Mains, it connects directly to GS Paper II topics on international relations and bilateral trade, and GS Paper III topics on international trade, economic policy, and India’s external sector. The ethical dimension of sovereign nations using unilateral economic coercion is relevant to GS Paper IV. For SSC CGL and CHSL examinations, basic awareness of what IEEPA is, the nature of the SCOTUS ruling, and India’s trade exposure to the US is sufficient. Essay paper candidates should be able to connect this ruling to broader themes of multilateralism versus unilateralism, economic sovereignty, and the future of the rules-based international order.