Context:

• India’s West Asia policy has sparked domestic debate, prompting the need for an objective assessment focused on key trends, given the significant national interests involved.
• This article highlights India’s evolving West Asia policy, examining key geopolitical trends, strategic recalibration, domestic criticism, and emerging opportunities shaping India’s diplomatic, economic, and security interests in the region.

Two Key Trends Shaping India’s West Asia Policy

1. Rising Diplomatic Engagement with West Asia

• Over the past decade, India has significantly deepened engagement with West Asia. PM Modi made 15 visits to GCC countries, along with visits to Israel (twice), Iran, and Palestine.
• India signed Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements (CEPA) with the UAE and Oman, and is negotiating similar deals with the GCC and Israel.
• The GCC is India’s largest socio-economic partner, with:
  • $160+ billion bilateral trade
  • 10 million Indian diaspora
• Key outcomes
  • De-hyphenation with Pakistan in West Asia policy
  • Stronger defence and security ties
  • India’s image as a responsible status quo power
  • However, promised investments from the region have lagged.

1. Changing Security Dynamics in the Gulf

• Gulf monarchies prioritise external partners based on their ability to ensure: regime security → state stability → regional balance.
• Since October 2023, escalating conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, along with Iranian drone and missile threats, have intensified insecurity.
• This has led GCC countries to reconsider reliance on the traditional U.S.-led “Pax Americana” and search for alternative security partnerships.

India’s Diplomatic Reset in West Asia

• India’s recent policy shift reflects recognition of both trends.
• Focus on strategic alignment with key West Asian countries.
• Key initiatives:
  • PM Modi’s visit to Israel
  • Direct outreach to GCC leaders during early conflict phase
  • Engagement with Iran as well
• Signals:
  • India’s support for regional security and stability
  • Prioritisation of core national interests

Features of the New Diplomatic Doctrine

• Shift towards “hard diplomacy” and realism
• Departure from traditional balancing:
  • No reiteration of “please-all” positions
    • India refrained from adopting a balancing stance on sensitive issues such as the two-state solution and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
  • No reliance on third-party narratives
• Reflects greater strategic confidence and autonomy in foreign policy

Domestic Criticism of the Policy Reset

• Key concerns raised:
  • Timing of Israel visit (just before conflict escalation)
  • Perceived dilution of support for Palestine and Iran
  • Alleged alignment with Western interests
  • Risk of strategic overreach and security exposure
• Government’s Defence of the Approach
  • Visit timing likely pre-scheduled, without foreknowledge of conflict escalation
  • West Asia’s volatile environment makes retrospective criticism (hindsight bias) easier
  • The visit was primarily bilateral, not linked to impending military developments

Global Responses and Selective Criticism

• Criticism of India’s policy “immorality” is misplaced; other powers show greater inconsistency:
  • China imported nearly 90% of sanctioned Iranian oil, offering only rhetorical support.
  • Russia, despite a 20-year strategic pact with Iran, has underdelivered.
  • Pakistan shifted from aggressive rhetoric to aligning with the U.S.
• Many Arab and Muslim countries remained largely silent during the Gaza conflict.

India’s Policy Reset: Gains and Risks

• Recognition of Geopolitical Shifts
  • India’s reset reflects changing power dynamics in West Asia.
  • However, the shift may have tilted excessively, requiring recalibration toward balanced national interests.
• Need for Strategic Flexibility
  • West Asia remains highly volatile (mercurial).
  • India must keep diplomatic options open rather than over-aligning with any one side.
• Importance of Key Regional Relationships
  • The Palestine issue remains politically and diplomatically significant.
  • Iran remains crucial for India:
    • Key oil supplier
    • Potential market for trade, reconstruction, and services
    • Strategic location bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan
• Emerging Regional Fault Lines
• Growing Arab discomfort with U.S.-Israel actions
• Saudi–UAE tensions
• Iraq–Iran estrangement
• Increasingly assertive roles of Pakistan and Türkiye
• These trends require a more nuanced and inclusive Indian approach.
• Gaps in India’s Response
  • Delayed and Limited Engagement - India could have responded faster to key developments like:
    • Assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader
    • Leadership transition in Iran
  • Need for Diplomatic Assertiveness
    • India should avoid excessive political correctness and silence.
    • Diplomatic flexibility allows disagreement without damaging ties with the U.S. or Israel.
• • Expanding Relief Efforts
    • India could have provided greater humanitarian assistance to populations affected by the conflict.

Strategic Opportunities for India in West Asia

• Erosion of the “Oil-for-Security” Model
  • The U.S.-led “Oil-for-Security” arrangement with GCC states is weakening amid the ongoing conflict with Iran.
  • The U.S. acted without consulting GCC countries, ignoring their concerns.
  • American military bases in the Gulf became targets of Iranian retaliation, exposing regional vulnerabilities. GCC states now fear U.S. unpredictability and possible withdrawal.
  • This may push them to diversify security partnerships, potentially including India.
• Economic Realignment and “GCC+1” Strategy
  • Iranian attacks have disrupted supply chains and business activity in the Gulf.
  • The GCC’s image as a stable economic hub has been weakened.
  • There is growing interest in a “GCC+1” diversification strategy.
  • India can position itself as a reliable economic and investment destination, attracting: Capital; Talent.
  • This presents a historic opportunity to reclaim economic advantages previously lost to Gulf economies.
• Need for a Realist and Dynamic Foreign Policy
  • India’s foreign policy must be:
    • Realistic and interest-driven
    • Flexible and adaptive
    • Consistent yet responsive to change
  • As India’s West Asia policy evolves, it must prioritise national interest over fixed alignments, echoing the principle:
    • Nations have no permanent allies or enemies—only permanent interests.

Why in the News?

• A Parliamentary Standing Committee has criticised financial planning by NITI Aayog and the Ministry of Planning for persistent underutilisation of budgetary allocations.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• NITI Aayog (Functions, Role in Governance, etc.)
• Parliamentary Committee’s Report (Key Observations, Recommendations by Committee, Broader Implications, etc.)

Role of NITI Aayog in India’s Governance

• NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India) serves as the government’s premier policy think tank.
• Established in 2015, it replaced the Planning Commission with the objective of promoting cooperative federalism and evidence-based policymaking.
• Its key functions include:

• Designing long-term policy frameworks
• Monitoring and evaluating government schemes
• Providing strategic and technical advice to the Centre and States
• Facilitating innovation and development initiatives

• Although NITI Aayog does not directly allocate funds like the erstwhile Planning Commission, it plays a crucial role in shaping development priorities and ensuring efficient utilisation of public resources.

Parliamentary Committee’s Observations

• The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has raised serious concerns regarding financial management by the Ministry of Planning and NITI Aayog.
• The Committee found that the Ministry consistently spent significantly less than the budget allocated to it. Key findings include:

• In 2023-24, actual expenditure was about Rs. 290.81 crore against a Budget Estimate (BE) of Rs. 824.39 crore (around 35%).
• In 2024-25, expenditure stood at Rs. 282.61 crore against a BE of Rs. 837.26 crore (around 34%).

• This pattern indicates a structural issue in planning and execution, where funds remain idle instead of being effectively utilised.
• Rising Budget Allocations Despite Low Spending
  • Despite the low utilisation rates, the Ministry continued to seek higher allocations.
  • The Ministry requested 1,203.38 crore for 2026-27, which is about 22% higher than the previous year’s allocation.
• The Committee questioned this trend, noting that increasing allocations without proper utilisation reflects poor fiscal discipline.

Weak Implementation and Planning Gaps

• The Committee highlighted that the problem is not merely financial but also administrative.

• There is dismal implementation of planned activities on the ground.
• The Quarterly Expenditure Plan (QEP) shows persistent gaps between planned and actual spending.

• This indicates that schemes and initiatives are either delayed or inadequately executed.

Issues in Expenditure Management

• One major concern raised by the Committee is the tendency to spend large amounts in the final quarter of the financial year.
• In 2025-26, a significant portion of spending was projected in the fourth quarter.
• This creates a “rush to exhaust funds,” which can compromise the quality of expenditure.
• Such practices may also violate government norms that aim to distribute spending evenly throughout the year.

Violation of Fiscal Discipline Norms

• The Central government has guidelines to ensure balanced expenditure patterns, including limits on monthly spending.
• The Committee warned that excessive spending in the last quarter may breach these norms, leading to:

• Inefficient allocation of resources
• Reduced accountability
• Poor outcomes from public expenditure

Recommendations by the Committee

• The Parliamentary panel has made several recommendations to improve financial management.
• Realistic Budgeting
  • Accurate estimation of expenditure
  • Avoiding inflated budget demands
  • Aligning allocations with actual requirements
• Strengthening Monitoring Mechanisms
  • Conduct regular internal reviews
  • Ensure timely administrative approvals
  • Synchronise planning with expenditure targets
• Better Utilisation of Funds
  • Avoid idle funds and resource blocking
  • Ensure the timely implementation of schemes
  • Improve coordination between planning and execution

Broader Implications for Governance

• The issue of underutilisation of funds reflects deeper challenges in public financial management in India.
• Impact on Development Outcomes - Inefficient use of funds can delay development projects and reduce the effectiveness of government programmes. This ultimately affects service delivery and economic growth.
• Fiscal Responsibility and Accountability - Proper financial planning is essential for maintaining fiscal discipline. Persistent underutilisation, coupled with rising allocations, undermines accountability in public spending.

Why in News?

• The Supreme Court of India has read down provisions of the Code on Social Security, 2020 to extend 12 weeks of maternity leave to all adoptive mothers irrespective of the child’s age.
• Simultaneously, it has urged the Union Government to recognise paternity leave as a social security benefit.
• The judgment also intersects with an ongoing constitutional challenge to Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which restricts maternity benefits for adoptive mothers based on the age of the child.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Key Highlights of the Judgment
• Legal and Policy Background
• Pending Constitutional Challenge
• Key Issues and Challenges
• Way Forward
• Conclusion

Key Highlights of the Judgment:

• Removal of age restriction for adoptive mothers:
  • The Court read down Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020.
  • It held that all adoptive mothers are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave, regardless of whether the child is above or below 3 months.
  • It declared the earlier restriction violative of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
• Motherhood beyond biological childbirth:
  • The Court clarified maternity benefit is linked to motherhood, not childbirth.
  • Adoptive mothers have similar caregiving responsibilities as biological mothers.
  • Adoption recognised as part of reproductive and decisional autonomy under Article 21.
• Maternity leave as a human right: The judgment termed maternity protection as a “basic human right”, ensuring economic security, workplace inclusion of women, and freedom to exercise reproductive choices without employment penalty.
• Emphasis on role of fathers:
  • The Court highlighted early childhood care requires both parents.
  • Absence of paternity leave reinforces gender stereotypes, limits father’s participation in caregiving, and urges the government to frame a paternity leave policy as part of social security.

Legal and Policy Background:

• Maternity Benefit Act, 1961:
  • It aims to regulate employment of women before and after childbirth.
  • Key provisions are paid maternity leave (the period of such leave could not exceed twelve weeks), protection from dismissal, etc.
• 2017 Amendment:
  • Increased paid maternity leave to 26 weeks for biological mothers.
  • Introduced, 12 weeks leave for adoptive mothers (only if child < 3 months), work-from-home provision, mandatory crèche facilities (in establishments having 50 or more employees).
• Code on Social Security, 2020: It consolidates labour laws, and retains similar restrictive provision for adoptive mothers (which is now read down by SC).

Pending Constitutional Challenge:

• A PIL challenges Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 as discriminatory and arbitrary, and violative of Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Indian Constitution.
• Key issues:
  • Denial of benefits to adoptive mothers of older children.
  • Discrimination against orphaned and abandoned children.
  • Conflict with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the adoption procedures that delay early adoption.

Key Issues and Challenges:

• Discrimination in existing framework: Unequal treatment between biological and adoptive mothers, adoptive mothers based on child’s age.
• Structural barriers in adoption: Lengthy procedures make adoption of infants (<3 months) rare, legal requirements (e.g., declaration of child as “legally free”) cause delays.
• Lack of paternity leave: India lacks a comprehensive statutory paternity leave policy, leading to gender imbalance in caregiving, and reinforcement of traditional roles.
• Limited impact on women’s workforce participation: Evidence suggests that decline in women’s participation in several sectors post-2017 amendment, as a result of employer bias due to increased costs and lack of childcare support.
• Implementation gaps: Weak enforcement in the unorganised sector. Limited access to crèche facilities, work-from-home flexibility.

Way Forward:

• Gender-neutral parental leave policy: Introduce statutory paternity leave, and move towards shared parental leave framework.
• Harmonisation of laws: Align the Maternity Benefit Act, Code on Social Security, and the Juvenile Justice Act. Remove inconsistencies affecting adoptive parents.
• Strengthening adoption ecosystem: Simplify procedures, reduce delays in declaring children legally free for adoption.
• Incentivising employers: Government support/subsidies to offset maternity costs, promote women-friendly workplace policies.
• Focus on unorganised sector: Expand social security schemes, ensure portability and accessibility of benefits.

Conclusion:

• The SC’s intervention marks a progressive shift from a biology-centric to a care-centric understanding of parenthood.
• By recognising adoptive motherhood as equal to biological motherhood and advocating for paternity leave, the judgment advances substantive equality and gender justice.
• However, meaningful transformation will depend on legislative action, policy coherence, and effective implementation, ensuring that parental rights translate into real social security for all families.

Context

• The Union Budget 2026 has sparked significant debate following the announcement of a ₹20,000 crore allocation for a carbon credit programme and this has led to widespread confusion regarding its intended purpose.
• A key question has emerged: Is the allocation meant to support industrial carbon capture technologies, or is it designed to create a new income stream for farmers through carbon credits?
• While official documents indicate a clear industrial focus, an alternative narrative has gained traction, highlighting both a communication gap and a broader policy opportunity.

The Official Framework: Focus on Industrial Decarbonisation

• CCUS for Hard-to-Abate Sectors
  • The foundation of the Budget announcement lies in the R&D Roadmap for Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS), released by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) in December 2025.
  • This document clearly identifies its target sectors: power, steel, cement, refineries, and chemicals.
  • These industries are categorised as hard-to-abate because their emissions are concentrated and difficult to eliminate through renewable energy alone.
  • The ₹20,000 crore allocation is intended to support large-scale deployment of CCUS technologies.
  • These technologies capture carbon dioxide emissions directly from industrial sources and either repurpose or store them underground, thereby reducing overall emissions.
• Exclusion of Agriculture from CCUS
  • A crucial aspect of the roadmap is the explicit exclusion of agriculture from CCUS strategies.
  • Although agriculture contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, primarily methane and nitrous oxide, it does so in a diffuse and biologically driven manner.
  • This makes it unsuitable for point-source carbon capture technologies.
  • Instead, agriculture is associated with Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) strategies, such as soil carbon sequestration, agroforestry, and biochar.
  • These approaches focus on removing existing carbon from the atmosphere rather than capturing emissions at their source.

The Counter-Narrative: Farmers as Beneficiaries

• Emergence of the Farmer Carbon Credit Idea
  • Despite the clear industrial intent, a competing narrative has emerged in media and public discourse.
  • This perspective suggests that the Budget allocation will enable farmers to earn carbon credits by adopting sustainable agricultural practices.
  • The idea of turning farms into climate solutions has gained popularity due to increasing awareness of environmental sustainability and rural income diversification.
• Link to Voluntary Carbon Markets
  • This narrative draws support from the growing voluntary carbon market, where agriculture and forestry projects are already generating carbon credits.
  • Several private and state-level initiatives are experimenting with models that reward farmers for improving soil health and increasing carbon sequestration.
  • However, these developments are separate from the government-funded CCUS initiative, leading to a conflation of two distinct concepts.

Root Cause of the Confusion: Policy Language and Misinterpretation

• The confusion largely stems from the use of the broad term carbon credit programme in the Budget.
• While technically accurate in a general sense, this phrasing lacks specificity and has blurred the distinction between industrial carbon capture and agricultural carbon sequestration.
• The DST roadmap provides a precise and sector-specific framework, but the Budget’s language has created expectations of a more inclusive scheme, particularly among stakeholders in the agricultural sector.

Policy Implications and Opportunities

• Need for Clear Communication
  • The government must address this ambiguity by clearly communicating the objectives and scope of the CCUS programme.
  • Ensuring that stakeholders understand the industrial focus of the allocation is essential to avoid unrealistic expectations.
• Potential for Agricultural Carbon Markets
  • At the same time, the debate highlights a significant opportunity. India’s vast agricultural landscape offers immense potential for carbon sequestration.
  • A dedicated policy framework for agricultural carbon credits could provide farmers with an additional income stream while contributing to climate goals.
  • However, such a programme would require separate funding, institutional mechanisms, and regulatory structures, distinct from the technology-intensive CCUS initiative.

The Way Forward: Towards a Multi-Sectoral Climate Strategy

• The current situation underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to climate policy.
• Industrial decarbonisation through CCUS is essential, given that heavy industries contribute significantly to India’s emissions.
• Simultaneously, agriculture can play a vital role in carbon removal and sustainability.
• Balancing these two fronts, industrial emissions reduction and agricultural carbon sequestration, will be key to achieving long-term climate objectives.

Conclusion

• The controversy surrounding the Union Budget 2026 reflects both a misunderstanding and an opportunity.
• While the ₹20,000 crore allocation is clearly aimed at industrial decarbonisation through CCUS, the parallel narrative around farmers reveals a growing interest in agricultural carbon markets.
• To move forward effectively, the government must clearly distinguish between these two domains while advancing both with equal commitment.
• By doing so, India can develop a holistic, multi-sectoral strategy that addresses emissions from industry while unlocking the environmental and economic potential of its agricultural sector.