Content

1. The UAE-India corridor is sparking a growth story
2. Bridging a divide with an ‘Indian Scientific Service’

The UAE-India corridor is sparking a growth story

Source : The Hindu

Why in News ?

• India–UAE bilateral trade crossed $100 billion in 2025, achieving the CEPA 2022 target five years early, prompting a revised target of $200 billion by 2032, signalling accelerated economic integration.
• Corridor expanding into AI, advanced manufacturing, logistics, and finance, moving beyond traditional energy-diaspora linkage toward a diversified strategic economic partnership.

Relevance

GS II (IR / Governance)

• Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (2017).
• Economic diplomacy + diaspora diplomacy.
• BIT 2024: investor protection, dispute settlement.
• Corridor diplomacy as part of Link West policy.

GS III (Economy / Energy / S&T)

• Trade >$100B; target $200B by 2032.
• Logistics cost in India ~13–14% GDP vs global ~8%.
• UAE sovereign wealth as patient infrastructure capital.
• Energy security: UAE in crude + LNG basket.
• AI, fintech, data centres → digital geoeconomics.
• Supply-chain diversification (China+1).

Practice Question

•  India–UAE ties have moved from energy-dependence to geoeconomic partnership. Analyse the drivers and strategic implications.(250 Words)

Background & Evolution

Strategic Context

• UAE is India’s third-largest trading partner and among top FDI sources; relationship upgraded to Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (2017), deepening economic and security cooperation.
• India’s Look West / Link West policy and West Asia’s diversification beyond oil have converged, creating strong complementarities in capital, markets, and technology.

Policy Architecture

• CEPA 2022 eliminated tariffs on ~90% tariff lines, improving market access for gems, textiles, engineering goods, and food products, driving rapid trade expansion.
• Bilateral Investment Treaty (2024) and emerging defence cooperation provide legal certainty and risk protection, crucial for long-term capital flows.

Scale of Economic Linkages

Trade

• Non-oil trade reached ~$65 billion with ~20% annual growth, indicating diversification beyond hydrocarbons and stronger value-added trade.
• UAE is a major hub for India’s re-exports to West Asia and Africa, leveraging Dubai’s logistics ecosystem and free zones.

Investment Flows

• UAE FDI in India >$22 billion since 2000, spanning infrastructure, renewables, logistics, and finance; India among top destinations for UAE sovereign wealth.
• Indian investment in UAE >$16 billion, reflecting two-way corridor rather than one-sided capital flow.
• DP World’s additional $5 billion commitment strengthens India’s port-logistics chain, critical as logistics cost in India remains ~13–14% of GDP versus global best of ~8%.

Financial Sector Integration

• Emirates NBD–RBL Bank deal represents one of the largest FDI moves in Indian banking, signalling confidence in India’s financial sector reforms.
• ADIA base in GIFT City validates India’s ambition to build an international financial services hub comparable to Dubai or Singapore.

Diaspora & Connectivity

• ~5 million Indians in UAE, largest expatriate group, remitting billions annually; UAE consistently among top remittance sources for India (World Bank).
• 1,200+ weekly flights create one of the world’s densest air corridors, supporting business mobility, tourism, and cargo flows.
• Diaspora acts as informal economic diplomats, facilitating trust, networks, and SME trade linkages.

Sectoral Deepening

Energy & Climate Transition

• ADNOC LNG supply deals with Indian PSUs enhance energy security; UAE remains key in India’s crude import basket.
• Shift toward low-carbon chemicals and renewables aligns with India’s net-zero 2070 and UAE’s net-zero 2050 commitments.

Manufacturing & Infrastructure

• Reliance–TA’ZIZ $2B+ low-carbon chemicals project shows green industrial collaboration.
• L&T role in solar-plus-storage megaprojects reflects India’s rising global EPC competitiveness.
• Ashok Leyland EV shift to UAE signals production internationalisation by Indian firms.

Technology & AI

• UAE appointed world’s first AI Minister (2017) and invests heavily in AI; India leads in digital public infrastructure and IT talent, creating natural synergy.
• Cooperation in data centres and advanced computing positions corridor within emerging digital geopolitics.

Geoeconomic & Strategic Dimensions

• Corridor supports India’s diversification of supply chains amid global China+1 strategies, giving firms stable West Asian production and logistics bases.
• UAE’s location connects India to Africa, Europe, and Eurasia, making it a strategic gateway in multimodal corridors like IMEC conceptually.
• Bharat Mart in UAE can double India’s exports to Africa/West Asia by acting as a wholesale and distribution hub.

Constitutional / Governance Angle

• Supports Article 301 (freedom of trade) spirit in external domain via liberalised trade regimes.
• Demonstrates economic diplomacy as a governance tool integrating MEA, Commerce Ministry, and financial regulators.

Economic Significance

• External trade is key for India’s target to become a $5–7 trillion economy; high-growth corridors like UAE reduce overdependence on traditional Western markets.
• Sovereign wealth participation provides patient capital for infrastructure where domestic fiscal space is limited.

Social / Soft Power Dimensions

• Strong diaspora welfare cooperation reflects India’s use of people-centric diplomacy, strengthening bilateral trust.
• Cultural affinity and religious tourism links add social ballast to economic ties.

Challenges / Risks

• Exposure to West Asian geopolitical volatility and regional conflicts can disrupt trade and energy flows.
• Overconcentration in a few Gulf markets may create vulnerability if diversification is not pursued.
• Regulatory and data–governance differences may complicate digital and AI cooperation.

Way Forward

• Expand cooperation in semiconductors, green hydrogen, fintech, and food security corridors.
• Institutionalise corridor governance with periodic review mechanisms and dispute-resolution frameworks.
• Use UAE as a springboard for Africa outreach, aligning with India’s Global South diplomacy.

Bridging a divide with an ‘Indian Scientific Service’

Source : The Hindu

Why in News ?

• Renewed debate on creating an Indian Scientific Services (ISS) to integrate scientific expertise into policymaking, as governance increasingly deals with climate change, AI, biotechnology, and disaster risks requiring domain knowledge.
• Discourse highlights mismatch between Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and needs of scientific work, reviving calls for structural reform in science–policy interface.

Relevance

GS II (Polity & Governance)

• Generalist vs specialist debate in civil services.
• Evidence-based policymaking.
• Institutionalising science–policy interface.
• Regulatory governance in environment, health, AI.

GS III (S&T / Environment / Security)

• Climate policy, AI governance, biosecurity need domain expertise.
• Disaster risk reduction requires scientific inputs.
• Innovation-led growth tied to science governance quality.

Practice Question

• Critically examine the need for a dedicated Indian Scientific Service in the context of technology-driven governance.(250 Words)

Background & Context

Legacy of Generalist Model

• Post-Independence India adopted a generalist civil service model for nation-building, ensuring neutrality and continuity, but not designed for today’s technology-intensive and risk-driven governance challenges.
• Generalist dominance worked in early developmental state phase, but modern governance requires specialised regulatory and technical decision-making in environment, health, energy, and digital sectors.

Expansion of Technical Governance

• India’s policy domains now include climate commitments, nuclear safety, biotechnology regulation, AI governance, and disaster resilience, all requiring continuous scientific input, not episodic consultancy.
• IPCC-driven climate policymaking, pandemic responses, and nuclear regulation globally show decisions rely heavily on institutionalised scientific expertise.

Current Institutional Mismatch

Recruitment & Career Pathways

• Scientists enter through advanced degrees, peer-reviewed research, and domain expertise, unlike exam-based recruitment of administrators, creating divergent professional cultures within government.
• Absence of structured scientific career tracks in ministries reduces incentives for long-term policy research and domain specialisation.

Service Rules & Professional Autonomy

• Scientists governed by CCS Conduct Rules, 1964, prioritising hierarchy and neutrality, whereas scientific culture depends on questioning, peer scrutiny, and evidence-based dissent.
• Without formal protection, scientists may avoid recording risk or uncertainty, weakening evidence-based policymaking.

Advisory vs Institutional Role

• Scientific advice often remains ad-hoc and crisis-driven, seen during pandemics or disasters, rather than embedded in routine policy cycles and regulatory processes.
• Overreliance on short-term expert committees limits institutional memory and continuity.

International Comparisons

Advanced Country Models

• US Scientific Integrity Policies protect researchers from political interference, mandate transparency, and prevent suppression of findings, strengthening trust in science-based decisions.
• UK, France, Germany, Japan maintain specialised scientific cadres and advisory systems within ministries, ensuring domain experts influence regulation and standards.
• OECD governance studies show countries with strong science-policy integration perform better in environmental regulation and innovation governance.

Constitutional / Legal Dimensions

• Supports Article 51A(h) duty to develop scientific temper, extending it from society to state institutions and governance processes.
• Strengthens Article 21 indirectly by improving policy quality in public health, environment, and disaster management affecting right to life.

Governance / Administrative Dimensions

• Dedicated scientific cadre can improve regulatory quality, risk assessment, and foresight, reducing policy reversals and litigation arising from weak technical grounding.
• Clarifies division: administrators handle coordination and implementation; scientists provide evidence and risk evaluation, improving decision legitimacy.

Economic Dimensions

• Evidence-based regulation reduces costly policy errors in sectors like energy, environment, and pharma; regulatory uncertainty often deters investment.
• Innovation-driven growth requires credible science governance; countries leading in R&D show stronger science–policy linkages.
• India spends only ~0.7% of GDP on R&D (DST data), far below advanced economies, making efficient use of scientific capacity crucial.

Social / Ethical Dimensions

• Transparent scientific advice builds public trust, critical during crises like pandemics or climate disasters where misinformation can spread rapidly.
• Ethical governance requires acknowledging uncertainty and risk honestly rather than suppressing inconvenient evidence.

Environmental / Security / Tech Dimensions

• Climate adaptation, biodiversity protection, and AI regulation require long-term scientific assessment beyond electoral cycles.
• National security increasingly linked to technology domains like cyber, space, and biosecurity, where scientific literacy in governance is essential.

Proposed ISS Framework

Possible Cadres

• Suggested cadres include Environmental & Ecological, Climate & Atmospheric, Water & Hydrological, Marine & Ocean, Public Health & Biomedical, Disaster Risk, Energy & Resources, S&T Policy, Agricultural Systems, Regulatory Science.
• Specialised cadres enable domain continuity and institutional expertise, similar to technical services in railways or defence.

Recruitment & Evaluation

• National-level selection plus peer review and research credentials can ensure merit-based scientific recruitment.
• Performance metrics could include research output, policy impact, and risk assessment quality rather than generic ACR formats.

Challenges / Criticisms

• Risk of bureaucratisation of science if excessive hierarchy or paperwork burdens researchers.
• Coordination issues may arise between ISS officers and IAS-led administrative structures without clear role definitions.
• Fiscal and institutional costs of creating new cadres may face resistance.

Way Forward

• Begin with pilot scientific cadres in high-impact ministries like Environment, Health, and Energy before full-scale rollout.
• Enact scientific integrity guidelines protecting evidence-based advice while preserving democratic policy authority.
• Strengthen science-policy fellowships and lateral entry as transitional measures.