Content
- Eight States with international borders, 0.13% of exports
- Listen to Ladakh
Eight States with international borders, 0.13% of exports
What happened
- August 2025: U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on Indian imports, citing
- Trade deficit with India
- India’s import of discounted Russian crude
- Retaliatory precedent in trade disputes.
- India’s response: measured language, closed-door diplomacy, no retaliation — consistent with past practice.
Relevance
- GS II (Governance & IR): Trade policy, centre-state balance, Act East failure.
- GS III (Economy & Infrastructure): Export concentration, regional disparity, trade resilience.
- GS I (Geography): Spatial distribution of trade & corridors.
Relevance :
- India’s export negotiations often overlook internal spatial disparities. Discuss how cooperative federalism can address the imbalance between coastal states and hinterland/NE states in trade policymaking.(250 Words)
Structural Problem Exposed
- India’s export economy is highly concentrated:
- Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka → 70%+ of exports (Gujarat alone 33%).
- Populous states (UP, Bihar, MP) → barely 5% combined exports.
- Spatial imbalance → national trade resilience vulnerable to local disruptions.
Northeast Marginalisation
- Exports share: just 0.13% of national exports despite 5,400 km of international borders.
- No trade corridors or logistics infrastructure; policy focus is security, not commerce.
- Institutions like PM-EAC, Board of Trade → no representation from NE states.
- National export policies (RoDTEP, PLI, DGFT plans) → NE almost absent.
Sectoral Stress – Tea & Energy
- Tea economy (Assam & Dooars):
- Accounts for >50% of India’s tea output but lacks value addition/branding.
- U.S./EU tariffs could make operations unviable → jobs at risk.
- Numaligarh refinery (Assam):
- Expanding capacity, but reliant on Russian crude → exposed to sanctions/shipping risks.
- Local economies (Golaghat) more vulnerable than metros.
Borders & Connectivity
- India-Myanmar border (Moreh, Zokhawthar): once seen as Act East gateways → now securitised bottlenecks.
- Free Movement Regime scrapped (2024): cut local trade & kinship economies.
- Corridors lack warehouses, cold chains, staffing → performative infrastructure.
- Result: surveillance replaces commerce, borderlands drift into disorder.
Geopolitical Context
- China’s advance in Myanmar: heavy infrastructure investments + militia influence.
- India’s Act East: highways and corridors stalled; strategic vacuum.
- ASEAN and SE Asia building alternative corridors → India losing ground.
Core Argument
- Tariffs expose not just trade imbalance with the U.S., but internal imbalance in India’s export geography.
- Dependence on few coastal states = systemic risk (floods, strikes can choke exports).
- Northeast & hinterlands excluded → India negotiates global trade but ignores key geographies.
Way Forward
- Diversify export geography beyond Gujarat-TN-Maharashtra-Karnataka belt.
- Build basic infrastructure in NE & hinterlands: roads, warehouses, cold chains.
- Integrate NE into Board of Trade, PM-EAC → institutional presence.
- Reframe resilience as dispersion of economic activity, not concentration.
- Align Act East with real logistics rather than symbolic diplomacy.
Listen to Ladakh
What happened ?
- Recent violence in Ladakh (4 dead) has disrupted the region’s otherwise tranquil image.
- Editorial argues it is not just a law & order issue but a test of India’s frontier governance.
- Calls for balancing security, empowerment, and ecology in Ladakh’s administration.
Relevance
- GS II (Governance, Federalism): UT governance, local autonomy, Centre-periphery balance.
- GS III (Security, Border Management): Strategic frontier against China & Pakistan.
- GS I (Society & Culture): Ethnic/religious unity, Ladakh’s cultural heritage.
Relevance :
- Examine the strategic significance of Ladakh in India’s border security matrix. How does governance affect security outcomes?(250 Words)
Historical & Strategic Context
- Loyal frontier: Ladakh has consistently defended India’s borders – 1947–48, 1962 war, 1971 war, and Kargil 1999.
- War heroes: Col. Chewang Rinchen (MVC twice), Col. Somani Wangchuk.
- Spiritual-political leadership: Kushok Bakula Rinpoche ensured Ladakh’s integration while preserving cultural identity.
- 2019 UT status: Seen as liberation from Srinagar’s dominance → expectation of empowerment & closer ties with Delhi.
Current Challenges
- Centralisation vs Local Empowerment
- UT governance = highly centralised due to geostrategic sensitivities.
- Local aspirations (Leh & Kargil) demand greater political voice & legislative powers.
- Leadership & Trust Deficit
- Innovator Sonam Wangchuk has youth support but mistrusted by Delhi.
- Centre prefers institutional dialogue (apex bodies) over individual leadership.
- Ecological Fragility
- Ladakh’s climate & ecology are sensitive → development must be balanced with sustainability.
- Security Dimension
- Ladakh borders both China (Eastern Ladakh standoffs) and Pakistan (Kargil, Siachen sector).
- Any governance vacuum risks exploitation by external adversaries.
Delhi’s Approach
- So far: cautious, centralised, security-driven.
- Editorial’s prescription: caution ≠ indifference → Delhi must act with empathy & imagination.
- Engagement already opened with local leaders & administrators familiar with Ladakh.
Core Argument
- Ladakh is assertive, not alienated → seeking partnership with India, not separation.
- Delhi must seize this moment of opportunity with decisiveness & compassion.
- Ensuring trust + empowerment + security will consolidate Ladakh as a permanent pillar of the Republic.
Way Forward
- Strengthen Hill Councils → more autonomy, responsive governance.
- Legislative Empowerment → consider elected assembly or reformed council structure.
- Broad-based Dialogue → not only elite voices but also youth, women, remote hamlets.
- Balanced Development → Empowerment must align with security, ecology, and constitutional integrity.
