| Select IAS IPS Daily Current Affairs Analysis | IAS IPS Daily Current Affairs Analysis |
|---|
Headline: Ensure Peace, Freedom of Navigation, PM Urges Iran
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
High-Level Meeting: In the first top-level meeting between Iran and India since the beginning of the war on Iran in February, Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Kyrgyzstan’s Bishkek on Monday and urged him to ensure peace and stability in West Asia and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz [citation:7].
Iran’s Request: Mr. Pezeshkian blamed Israel and the U.S. for the conflict and requested Mr. Modi to “use India’s extensive contacts with various parties” and help the dialogue process [citation:7].
Modi’s Message: Mr. Modi called for freedom of navigation and commerce, stating that “Civilians and civilian infrastructure, including commercial shipping and seafarers must not be harmed under any circumstances” [citation:7].
Future Engagement: Mr. Modi said he looked forward to welcoming Mr. Pezeshkian to India for the upcoming BRICS summit [citation:7].
Syllabus Mapping (Relevance)
GS Paper II: International Relations – India-Iran bilateral relations, West Asia conflict, Maritime security.
GS Paper II: International Relations – India’s foreign policy, Regional diplomacy, SCO.
GS Paper III: Security – Maritime security, Strait of Hormuz, Energy security.
GS Paper II: International Relations – India’s role in regional conflicts.
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis (For Mains Answer Body)
A. Key Outcomes of the Modi-Pezeshkian Meeting
| Aspect | Details |
| Meeting Context | First top-level India-Iran meeting since the war on Iran began in February 2026 [citation:7] |
| Location | Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (on sidelines of SCO summit) [citation:7] |
| India’s Message | Urged Iran to ensure peace, stability, and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz [citation:7] |
| Iran’s Request | Requested India to use its “extensive contacts” to help the dialogue process [citation:7] |
| Future Engagement | Invitation for Pezeshkian to visit India for the BRICS summit [citation:7] |
B. Statements and Commitments
| Stakeholder | Statement |
| PM Modi | “Civilians and civilian infrastructure, including commercial shipping and seafarers must not be harmed under any circumstances” |
| PM Modi | “India will continue to support all efforts aimed at ensuring lasting peace” |
| President Pezeshkian | Iran has a “responsibility” to defend the Iranian people “from danger and insecurity and to create conditions necessary for them to achieve peace, tranquillity and security” |
| President Pezeshkian | Iran is “focused on ensuring peace and security and resolving issues through dialogue and negotiations” |
| President Pezeshkian | Blamed Israel and the U.S. for creating “restrictions and obstacles” before Iran |
C. Bilateral Relations Context
| Aspect | Details |
| Trade and Investment | India and Iran share longstanding ties in trade, investment, and energy |
| Chabahar Port | India has been developing the Chabahar Port in Iran, a key connectivity project for accessing Afghanistan and Central Asia |
| Energy Security | Iran is a potential source of oil and gas for India, though sanctions have limited cooperation |
| Strategic Interests | India seeks stability in West Asia for energy security and protection of its diaspora |
D. India’s Role in the West Asia Conflict
| Aspect | Details |
| Diplomatic Engagement | India has maintained ties with both Iran and the U.S., seeking to balance its strategic interests |
| Protecting Citizens | India has evacuated citizens from conflict zones and condemned attacks on civilian shipping |
| Freedom of Navigation | India has consistently called for freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz |
| Dialogue and Diplomacy | India supports dialogue and diplomacy as the path to resolving conflicts |
Key Terms (For Prelims & Mains)
SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation): A Eurasian political, economic, and security alliance founded in 2001. India became a full member in 2017.
BRICS Summit: A meeting of the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). India is hosting the upcoming summit.
Strait of Hormuz: A strategic waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman; a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments.
Chabahar Port: A port in Iran developed with Indian investment, providing India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia bypassing Pakistan.
West Asia: The region commonly referred to as the Middle East, including Iran, Israel, and Gulf countries.
Freedom of Navigation: The principle that ships flying the flag of sovereign states are not subject to interference on the high seas.
War on Iran: The conflict that began in February 2026 with attacks by Israel and the U.S. on Iran.
Dialogue Process: The ongoing efforts to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict through negotiations.
Mains Question Framing
GS Paper II (International Relations): “PM Modi’s meeting with Iranian President Pezeshkian at the SCO summit represents India’s diplomatic engagement in the West Asia conflict. Analyse India’s role in promoting peace and freedom of navigation.”
GS Paper II (International Relations): “India has urged Iran to ensure peace and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Discuss the strategic significance of this stance for India’s energy security.”
GS Paper II (International Relations): “Iran has requested India to use its ‘extensive contacts’ to help the dialogue process. Examine India’s potential role as a mediator in the West Asia conflict.”
GS Paper III (Security): “The West Asia conflict has implications for India’s energy security and maritime interests. Discuss the challenges and India’s diplomatic response.”
Linkage to Broader Issues & Debates
Energy Security: India imports approximately 85% of its crude oil requirements, much of which passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Stability in the region is critical for India’s energy security.
Maritime Security: The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments. India has consistently called for freedom of navigation in the region.
Diplomatic Balancing: India maintains ties with both Iran and the U.S., balancing its strategic interests while advocating for dialogue and de-escalation.
Regional Diplomacy: The meeting on the sidelines of the SCO summit reflects India’s engagement with all parties in the West Asia conflict.
Global South Leadership: India’s role in promoting peace and dialogue in West Asia aligns with its broader positioning as a leader of the Global South.
Conclusion & Way Forward
Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with Iranian President Pezeshkian in Bishkek represents a significant diplomatic engagement by India in the West Asia conflict. Mr. Modi urged Iran to ensure peace and stability and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, while Mr. Pezeshkian requested India to use its “extensive contacts” to help the dialogue process [citation:7].
India’s consistent position has been that civilians and civilian infrastructure, including commercial shipping and seafarers, must not be harmed under any circumstances [citation:7]. The meeting also saw an invitation for Pezeshkian to visit India for the upcoming BRICS summit, signalling continued diplomatic engagement [citation:7].
The meeting is part of India’s broader diplomatic engagement in the region, balancing its strategic ties with both Iran and the U.S., while advocating for dialogue and de-escalation.
The Way Forward
- Continue Diplomatic Engagement: India should maintain dialogue with all parties to the West Asia conflict.
- Promote Freedom of Navigation: Advocate for the protection of commercial shipping and seafarers in the Strait of Hormuz.
- Support Dialogue: Use India’s diplomatic contacts to facilitate dialogue and negotiations.
- Protect Energy Security: Ensure that India’s energy supplies are not disrupted by the conflict.
- Coordinate with Regional Partners: Work with other regional and global powers to promote peace and stability.
- BRICS Summit: Use the upcoming BRICS summit in India to further diplomatic engagement on West Asia.
- Chabahar Port: Continue the development of Chabahar Port as a strategic connectivity project.
The meeting between Modi and Pezeshkian opens a window for India to play a constructive role in promoting peace and stability in West Asia. As the conflict continues, India’s diplomatic engagement will be crucial for protecting its strategic interests and contributing to regional security.
Headline: Over 6 Crore Names Deleted So Far in Third Phase of SIR
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
Massive Deletions: As the third phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls nears its end, more than 6 crore names have been deleted from the voters’ registry as per the draft lists published so far . Out of 36.08 crore names on the electoral rolls in these States, 29.93 crore have been retained, while 6.15 crore (17.04%) have been removed on the draft rolls .
Coverage: The third phase was carried out in 16 States and three Union Territories. Draft rolls of all these States have been published, except for Nagaland and Tripura, which will be out on September 20 and October 21, respectively. The rolls for Delhi and Maharashtra were published on Monday .
Highest Deletions: Delhi has the highest deletions in percentage terms, at 32.78%, while Maharashtra saw the most names removed in absolute numbers, at 2.06 crore . Karnataka had the second-most deletions, at 1.07 crore, followed by Telangana (73,39,235), Delhi, Andhra Pradesh (44,89,512), and Jharkhand (43,61,987) .
Chief Ministers’ Concern: Karnataka Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar has raised serious concerns over what he called the “massive and unjustified” voter deletions, urging the EC to extend the claims and objections window. Telangana Chief Minister has also done the same .
Final Rolls: The final voter lists will start coming in on September 6, with Mizoram, Sikkim, and Manipur set to be the first States to publish their lists .
Syllabus Mapping (Relevance)
GS Paper II: Polity & Governance – Election Commission, Electoral reforms, Voter rights.
GS Paper II: Constitution – Representation of the People Act, Free and fair elections.
GS Paper II: Governance – Centre-State relations, Voter participation.
GS Paper I: Society – Voter participation, Electoral integrity.
GS Paper II: Judiciary – Election disputes, Judicial review.
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis (For Mains Answer Body)
A. Key Statistics
| Parameter | Details |
| Total Names Deleted | 6.15 crore (17.04% of 36.08 crore) |
| Names Retained | 29.93 crore |
| States/UTs Covered | 16 States + 3 Union Territories |
| Highest Percentage Deletion | Delhi (32.78%) |
| Highest Absolute Deletion | Maharashtra (2.06 crore) |
| Second Highest Absolute | Karnataka (1.07 crore) |
| Third Highest Absolute | Telangana (73.39 lakh) |
B. State-wise Deletions in Draft Rolls
| State/UT | Deletions |
| Maharashtra | 2.06 crore |
| Karnataka | 1.07 crore |
| Telangana | 73,39,235 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 44,89,512 |
| Jharkhand | 43,61,987 |
| Haryana | 33.83 lakh |
| Punjab | 20,66,635 |
| Odisha | 20,12,557 |
C. Final Rolls Publication Schedule
| State | Publication Date |
| Mizoram | September 6 |
| Sikkim | September 6 |
| Manipur | September 6 |
| Nagaland | September 20 |
| Tripura | October 21 |
D. Concerns Raised by States
Karnataka Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar has raised serious concerns over what he called the “massive and unjustified” voter deletions under the SIR process, urging the EC to extend the claims and objections window. Telangana Chief Minister has also done the same .
E. The SIR Process
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a comprehensive revision of electoral rolls conducted to remove ineligible voters and ensure the accuracy and integrity of the electoral roll. The process includes:
- Enumeration Phase: BLOs enumerate voters and collect data
- ASDDO List: Voters marked Absent, Shifted, Duplicate, Dead, and Others
- Notice Generation: EROs generate notices for voters with logical discrepancies
- Claims and Objections: Window for additions and deletions
- Final Roll Publication: After disposal of claims and objections
Key Terms (For Prelims & Mains)
SIR (Special Intensive Revision): A comprehensive revision of electoral rolls conducted to remove ineligible voters and ensure the accuracy and integrity of the electoral roll.
ASDDO: Absent, Shifted, Duplicate, Dead, and Others – the categories under which names are deleted from electoral rolls.
CEO (Chief Electoral Officer): The top electoral officer in a State, responsible for the conduct of elections and revision of electoral rolls.
ERO (Electoral Registration Officer): The officer responsible for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls for a constituency.
BLO (Booth-Level Officer): An official responsible for maintaining and updating electoral rolls at the booth level.
Draft Electoral Roll: The preliminary list of voters published for claims and objections.
Final Electoral Roll: The final list published after disposal of all claims and objections.
Mains Question Framing
GS Paper II (Polity): “Over 6 crore names have been deleted from electoral rolls in the third phase of SIR. Discuss the procedural safeguards and the concerns raised by States regarding the process.”
GS Paper II (Governance): “The SIR process has raised concerns about the deletion of legitimate voters. Examine the need for a balance between electoral integrity and voter rights.”
GS Paper II (Constitution): “The right to vote is a constitutional right. Discuss the legal framework for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls in India.”
GS Paper II (Judiciary): “Election petitions and allegations of electoral malpractices require timely judicial intervention. Analyse the role of courts in ensuring free and fair elections.”
Linkage to Broader Issues & Debates
Electoral Integrity: The deletion of over 6 crore names raises concerns about the accuracy of the deletion process and the potential removal of legitimate voters.
Voter Rights: The SIR process places a significant burden on voters to prove their eligibility, particularly for vulnerable sections.
Procedural Safeguards: The EC provides a window for claims and objections, but concerns have been raised about the timeline and process.
Political Implications: The large-scale deletion of names has political implications, potentially affecting electoral outcomes.
Centre-State Relations: Chief Ministers of Karnataka and Telangana have raised concerns, highlighting the political sensitivity of the issue.
Conclusion & Way Forward
The deletion of over 6 crore names from electoral rolls in the third phase of the SIR represents one of the largest such exercises in India’s electoral history. While the Election Commission has cited the need to remove ineligible voters, the scale of deletions—17.04% of the total electorate in the affected States—has raised serious concerns from State governments .
Karnataka Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar has called the deletions “massive and unjustified” and urged the EC to extend the claims and objections window. Telangana Chief Minister has also raised similar concerns . The final voter lists will start coming in on September 6, with Mizoram, Sikkim, and Manipur set to be the first States to publish their lists .
The Way Forward
- Extend Claims Window: Consider extending the claims and objections window to allow voters sufficient time to respond.
- Online Options: Provide robust online options for voters to check their status and submit claims.
- Awareness Campaigns: Conduct awareness campaigns to inform voters about the SIR process and their rights.
- Support for Vulnerable Sections: Provide special assistance for senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable sections.
- Transparency: Ensure transparency in the deletion process and provide clear reasons for each deletion.
- Judicial Oversight: Courts may need to examine the process if concerns about large-scale deletions persist.
- Final Roll Accuracy: Ensure that the final electoral rolls are accurate, inclusive, and transparent.
The SIR process in its third phase represents a significant test of the Election Commission’s ability to balance electoral integrity with voter rights. The concerns raised by State governments must be addressed to ensure that the final electoral rolls are fair and inclusive.
Headline: India Rejects Hague Court’s Indus Waters Treaty Ruling, Says It Has No Jurisdiction
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
India’s Strong Rejection: Hours after the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague said the Indus Waters Treaty remains “fully in force” and called on India to “observe its obligations”, the Ministry of External Affairs rejected the ruling, stating that the “very establishment of this alleged arbitral body” was a “grave violation” of the treaty .
Treaty in Abeyance: India reiterated that its decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance” following the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, 2025, remains in force . The abeyance decision flows directly from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) decision of 23 April 2025, which states that the treaty will be held in abeyance until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism” .
No Jurisdiction: The MEA asserted that the “so-called Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions” . India has never appeared before this body and has refused to take any cognisance of its earlier pronouncements .
Court’s Ruling on Projects: The arbitration body also imposed interim measures on India regarding the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP), directing India not to concrete the dam wall and power intake structure above certain levels until 90 days after the Neutral Expert’s final decision, expected in July 2027 .
Syllabus Mapping (Relevance)
GS Paper II: International Relations – India-Pakistan bilateral relations, Water disputes, Treaty obligations.
GS Paper II: International Relations – International law, Arbitration, Sovereignty issues.
GS Paper III: Security – Cross-border terrorism, National security.
GS Paper III: Economic Development – Water resources, Hydroelectric projects.
GS Paper II: Governance – Treaty abeyance, Cabinet Committee on Security decisions.
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis (For Mains Answer Body)
A. The Arbitration Award: Key Findings
| Aspect | Details |
| Court’s Finding | Indus Waters Treaty remains “fully in force”; India must observe its obligations |
| India’s Rationale Rejected | None of the grounds cited by India could justify suspension or termination of the Treaty |
| Interim Measures (RHEP) | India prohibited from concreting the dam wall and power intake structure above certain levels until 90 days after Neutral Expert’s final decision (expected July 2027) |
| Court Composition | Chaired by Prof. Sean D. Murphy of the U.S. |
B. India’s Rejection: Key Arguments
| Argument | Details |
| Illegal Constitution | The Court was constituted by the World Bank in “patent breach” of the terms of the Treaty |
| No Recognition | India has “never recognised the existence in law of this illegally-constituted and so-called Court of Arbitration” |
| No Participation | India has “never appeared before this body and has refused to take any cognisance of its earlier pronouncements” |
| No Jurisdiction | The Court has “no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions” |
| No Effect on Projects | The Court’s pronouncements “will have no effect on India’s actions in connection with the projects being undertaken by India” |
C. The Pahalgam Attack and Treaty Abeyance
| Aspect | Details |
| Attack Date | April 22, 2025 |
| Casualties | 26 civilians killed |
| India’s Response | Treaty placed in abeyance on April 23, 2025 |
| Condition for Resumption | Until Pakistan “credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism” |
| India’s Principle | “Blood and water cannot flow together” |
D. The Treaty in its Current Form
India has maintained that the treaty will not remain operational in its present form . An official had stated that if provisions related to river water sharing have to be reactivated, they have to be done in a different form, not in the present form . The official cited multiple reasons, including climate change reducing the volume of water in the eastern rivers of the Indus system .
E. Projects Being Undertaken by India
| Project | Details |
| Sawalkote | Hydroelectric project in Jammu and Kashmir |
| Pakal Dul | Expected to be commissioned later this year |
| Ratle | Subject to interim measures by the Court of Arbitration |
| Kiru | Expected to be commissioned later this year |
| Kwar | Hydroelectric project in Jammu and Kashmir |
| Dulhasti | Hydroelectric project in Jammu and Kashmir |
Key Terms (For Prelims & Mains)
Indus Waters Treaty (IWT): Signed on September 19, 1960, in Karachi between India and Pakistan with the World Bank mediating, governing water sharing from the Indus river system . Eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) were allocated to India, while western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) were allocated largely to Pakistan .
Permanent Court of Arbitration: An intergovernmental organization at The Hague that provides arbitration services for disputes between states. India has rejected its jurisdiction in the Indus Waters Treaty dispute .
Court of Arbitration (CoA): The body constituted by the World Bank that India describes as “illegally constituted” .
Neutral Expert: A World Bank-appointed expert to resolve technical disputes under the treaty .
Abeyance: A temporary suspension of the treaty’s operation; India’s decision remains in force .
Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant (RHEP): A hydroelectric project in Jammu and Kashmir, subject to interim measures by the Court of Arbitration .
Pahalgam Terror Attack: The April 22, 2025, attack that led India to place the IWT in abeyance .
World Bank: The mediator of the Indus Waters Treaty; India has criticised the Bank for constituting the Court of Arbitration in “patent breach” of the treaty .
Maximum Pondage: The amount of water that can be stored behind a hydroelectric dam; a previous dispute over this was also rejected by India .
Mains Question Framing
GS Paper II (International Relations): “India has rejected the Hague Court’s ruling on the Indus Waters Treaty, asserting that the tribunal has no jurisdiction and that the treaty remains in abeyance. Analyse the legal and diplomatic dimensions of this dispute.”
GS Paper II (International Relations): “The Indus Waters Treaty dispute reflects the broader India-Pakistan tensions over cross-border terrorism. Discuss the interplay between water-sharing agreements and national security concerns.”
GS Paper III (Security): “India placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance following the Pahalgam terror attack. Examine the rationale and implications of linking treaty obligations to counter-terrorism.”
GS Paper II (International Relations): “The dispute over the interpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty has escalated, with both India and Pakistan using different dispute-resolution mechanisms. Critically analyse the legal and institutional challenges.”
Linkage to Broader Issues & Debates
Water Security vs. National Security: The case highlights the tension between India’s treaty obligations under the IWT and its national security concerns arising from cross-border terrorism . India has argued that Pakistan’s support for terrorism constitutes a breach of the treaty’s preamble, which was concluded on grounds of goodwill .
India-Pakistan Relations: The IWT is one of the few areas of successful cooperation between India and Pakistan. Its suspension represents a significant escalation .
International Law vs. Sovereignty: India’s rejection of the arbitration award underscores its position that international tribunals cannot pronounce on its sovereign decisions .
Hydroelectric Projects: India is developing a series of hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, which Pakistan has challenged through the dispute-resolution mechanisms of the treaty .
The Treaty’s Future: India has indicated that the treaty will not remain operational in its present form, suggesting a review and renegotiation may be required .
Conclusion & Way Forward
India’s rejection of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling on the Indus Waters Treaty marks a significant escalation in the long-standing water dispute with Pakistan. The MEA’s statement unequivocally dismissed the tribunal’s legitimacy, calling it “illegally constituted” and asserting that it has “no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India’s sovereign decisions” .
The abeyance decision, taken following the Pahalgam terror attack in April 2025, remains in force . India has maintained that the resumption of the treaty framework is linked to Pakistan taking credible and effective action against cross-border terrorism . The government has also indicated that the treaty will not remain operational in its present form .
While the Court of Arbitration has imposed interim measures restricting work on the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant , India has made it clear that the tribunal’s pronouncements “will have no effect on India’s actions in connection with the projects being undertaken by India” .
The Way Forward
- Sovereign Decisions: India has firmly asserted that its actions on the Indus Waters Treaty will be guided by its national security interests .
- Review of Treaty: India has indicated that the treaty will not remain operational in its present form, suggesting a review and renegotiation may be required .
- Hydroelectric Projects: India is proceeding with the development of multiple hydroelectric projects on the western rivers, which have been a source of contention with Pakistan .
- Counter-Terrorism: India has linked the abeyance of the treaty to Pakistan taking credible action against cross-border terrorism .
- International Law: India’s rejection of the arbitration award underscores its position that international tribunals cannot pronounce on its sovereign decisions .
The Indus Waters Treaty dispute is likely to remain a flashpoint in India-Pakistan relations. The government has sought to address concerns that India’s actions might set a precedent for China’s Brahmaputra dam project, arguing that the two situations are not comparable as India and China do not have a treaty on the Brahmaputra .
