Content

1. The politics of insurgency, the decline of Naxalism
2. Balancing code and commerce in U.K. trade compact

The politics of insurgency, the decline of Naxalism

Predictions & Political Leadership

• Core Idea: Throughout history, making predictions has been uncertain and hazardous.
• Pattern: The safest bet has always been continuity (“things will remain as they are”).
• Contemporary Relevance: With AI-driven disruptions, unpredictability is sharper → political leaders must be cautious in overpromising or predicting outcomes.
• Implication for governance: Political foresight must balance between:
  • Overconfidence in predictions → risks policy missteps.
  • Status quo bias → risks stagnation in reform.

Relevance : GS 3(Internal Security), GS 2(Governance)

Practice Question : “The decline of Left-Wing Extremism in India contrasts with the persistence of global terrorism.” Discuss the historical trajectory of Naxalism in India, the reasons for its decline, and the risks of premature predictions of its end. (15 marks)

Global Terrorism Landscape

• Persistence of Terrorism:
  • 25 years post-9/11, terrorism still alive → “false predictions” of its end.
  • Copycat killings & lone-wolf attacks (especially vehicle rammings) remain frequent.
• IS-inspired attacks:
  • Case: New Orleans, Jan 1, 2025 vehicle ramming.
  • Earlier, Europe faced multiple such attacks.
• Counter-terrorism analysts’ view:
  • Jihadist groups intensifying attacks.
  • Online radicalisation → multiplication of lone wolves.
• Anti-Israel protests: act as multiplier, feeding jihadist propaganda.
• Emerging “doomsday” fears:
  • AI-enabled terrorism.
  • Access to bioweapons → mass casualties possible.
  • Fear of misaligned AI breaking free of human control.

Contrast: India’s Case

• Global vs India:
  • While global terrorism curve is rising, India is witnessing a decline in ideological militancy, esp. Naxalism.
• Naxalite Violence:
  • Union Home Minister announced → “end of Naxalism by mid-2026”.
  • If realised → end of decades-long ideological insurgency.
  • Symbolic: once considered “Spring Thunder Over India”, now facing extinction.
• Caveat: Past had several “false dawns” (1970s, 1990s). Hence predictions must remain cautious.

Historical Trajectory of Naxalism

• Origins:
  • Late 1960s → influenced by Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara.
  • Slogan: “China’s Chairman is our Chairman.”
  • Leaders: Charu Mazumdar, Kanu Sanyal, Satyanarayan Singh, Kondapalli Seetharamaiah.
  • Ideological pull among youth, intellectuals, tribals, urban poor.
• Decline:
  • Degenerated into mindless violence.
  • Splits into regional groups.
  • Lost all-India fervour → concentrated in Dandakaranya region (Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh).

Recent Campaign Against Naxalism (2024–25)

• Union Home Ministry directive: sustained offensive across states.
• Casualties:
  • CPI (Maoist) booklet (most authentic source) admits → 357 cadres killed in 2024 alone.
  • More than 1/3rd were women cadres.
• Geographical epicentre: Bastar (Chhattisgarh), Gadchiroli (Maharashtra), Odisha, Andhra Pradesh.
• Additional Factors in Decline:
  • Shrinking territory.
  • Leadership crisis since removal of Ganapathi (2018).
  • Internal splits.

Comparative Perspective: U.S. vs India

• U.S. “War on Terror” (Trump era):
  • Offensive not against ideology but against jihadists who sought to attack U.S. directly.
  • Strategy: drone strikes, targeted killings in Somalia, Yemen.
  • No distinction between local insurgency vs global terror network.
• India’s Anti-Naxalism Strategy:
  • Naxalites deeply embedded with local villagers → complex socio-political issue.
  • Avoided brute force historically → checks & balances in use of force.
  • Objective: prevent overthrow of order, but mindful of socio-political grievances.
  • Recent offensives sharper but still distinguishable from U.S.-style operations.

Urban Naxals – Misclassification Debate

• Original Naxalism:
  • Ideological, Marxist-Leninist framework.
  • Structured philosophy + revolutionary zeal.
• Current “Urban Naxals”:
  • Loose-knit intellectual groups.
  • More about opposing government policies, not armed revolution.
  • Lack the organisational depth of original movement.
• Problem:
  • Misuse of the term leads to blurred distinctions.
  • Risk: wrong policy prescriptions, blind spots, overreach.
  • Need for nuanced classification to avoid unintended consequences.

Key Analytical Themes

• Prediction Hazard: Terrorism & insurgency rarely follow linear decline; false dawns frequent.
• AI & Terrorism: Adds unpredictability; possibility of “mass-casualty future terrorism”.
• India’s Distinct Context: Decline in ideological terrorism contrasts global rise.
• State Strategy: India’s approach = calibrated use of force + addressing socio-political dimensions.
• Terminology & Policy Risks: Mislabeling (“urban naxals”) can distort governance approach.

Conclusion

• The Moai statues of Easter Island, especially those on coastal platforms like Ahu Tongariki, face an existential threat from sea level rise and increased storm surges by 2080.
• This is not just an environmental challenge but also a cultural heritage crisis, as the statues are UNESCO World Heritage symbols of Polynesian civilization.
• The crisis highlights the intersection of climate change, cultural preservation, and community adaptation, showing how rising seas endanger not only livelihoods but also humanity’s shared heritage.
• It reinforces the need for global climate action, local adaptation planning, and international cooperation in funding protective measures.

Balancing code and commerce in U.K. trade compact

Basic Context – Why Digital Trade Matters

• Definition: Digital trade = cross-border exchange of goods/services delivered digitally (e.g., SaaS, cloud, AI tools, e-commerce).
• Global trend: Increasing share of trade is digital; WTO, G20, OECD pushing digital economy norms.
• India’s stakes:
  • $30B annual software exports (Commerce Ministry).
  • Digital India & IT/ITES backbone.
  • Aspiration to shape global digital rules (not just follow them).

Relevance : GS 2(International Relations) , GS 3(Indian Economy)

Practice Question : The India–UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement’s digital chapter offers trade gains but raises sovereignty concerns. Critically evaluate the opportunities and risks of this compact for India’s digital economy. (15 marks)

What Chapter 12 of India–UK CETA Does

• Recognises electronic signatures & contracts → reduces red tape.
• Promotes paperless trade & e-invoicing → simplifies cross-border documentation/payment.
• Commits to zero customs duties on electronic transmissions → protects Indian IT/software export pipeline.
• Encourages regulatory sandboxes → fintech & AI startups can experiment safely under supervision.
• Provides social security waivers for short-term assignments → lowers payroll cost by ~20%.
• Expands market access in UK public procurement → Indian IT suppliers gain entry.
• Broader trade: 99% of Indian merchandise exports duty-free, textiles gain big (Tiruppur, Ludhiana hubs).

Strategic Digital Wins

• Credibility & Scale: Indian firms get recognition abroad (trusted contracts, signatures).
• SME Benefit: Lower barriers → SMEs can enter global trade without compliance overload.
• Innovation Push: Regulatory sandboxes = safer AI/fintech experimentation → scaling globally.
• Trade Security: Continuity of “zero tariff” protects export pipelines against WTO uncertainty.
• Brand India: Signals shift from “trade scepticism” to strategic engagement in digital economy.

Digital Costs & Concerns

• Source-code oversight:
  • Ban on default inspection of foreign firms’ code → loss of regulatory tool.
  • Allowed only case-by-case (investigation/court).
  • Risk: dependency on “black-box” foreign tech (esp. AI, fintech).
• Government procurement excluded: No code access restrictions here, but also limited scope.
• Government data posture voluntary:
  • No binding obligation on data release.
  • When released → must be machine-readable.
  • Safeguards needed to prevent misuse.
• Forward Review Mechanism: No automatic MFN for data flows. Future agreements may diverge.
• AI Evolution Risk: Pact allows review only in 5 years → too slow given AI disruption pace.

Guardrails Needed

• Accredited trusted labs: Review sensitive code under safeguards (balance security & openness).
• Audit trails for cross-border data flows: Ensure accountability → data misuse traceable.
• Regular review (3 years, not 5): Keep pace with AI/tech evolution.
• Domestic foundation:
  • Finalise rules under Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023).
  • Institutionalise open consultations before deals (bring in SMEs, IT bodies, civil society).
• Balance narrative: Sovereignty vs global engagement shouldn’t be seen as opposites → India must frame as “strategic sovereignty”.

Comparative Perspective

• Global Practice:
  • US, EU, UK → already embedding digital chapters in trade deals.
  • China → building alternative ecosystems (e.g., Digital Silk Road).
• India’s Shift: From protectionist hesitancy → proactive shaper of digital trade norms.

Implications for India

• Short-term:
  • Boost to software exports & SME participation.
  • Gains in textile & IT procurement markets.
• Medium-term:
  • Builds India’s credibility as a rule-maker in digital trade.
  • Opens pathways for AI/fintech startups in global testing frameworks.
• Long-term Risks:
  • If guardrails lag behind tech evolution → India risks digital dependency.
  • Need strong cybersecurity + regulatory capacity to handle cross-border risks.

Core Takeaway

The India–UK Digital Trade Compact is a strategic leap forward into the global digital economy.

• It lowers trade barriers, builds credibility, and aligns India with modern trade norms.
• But it trades away some oversight tools (like default source-code inspection) and requires robust domestic guardrails (data protection rules, code review labs, audit trails, faster treaty reviews).
• The challenge for India = balance between digital sovereignty and global integration.