Why in the News?

• Days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s expected visit to the U.S., the Donald Trump administration has started the process of deporting illegal Indian immigrants.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background (Context, Mass Deportations, Immigration Policy Changes, etc.)
• India’s Response (Trump’s Economic Leverage, Impact on the Indian Community, etc.)

Background:

• The US has intensified its immigration crackdown, with military planes deporting undocumented Indian migrants under President Donald Trump’s administration.
• With an estimated 7,25,000 undocumented Indians in the US, the move impacts thousands of Indian nationals.
• India has agreed to take back illegal migrants after verifying their citizenship, aiming to protect legal migration pathways for students and professionals.
• Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s upcoming visit to the US will see high-level discussions on immigration, bilateral trade, and diplomatic cooperation.

Mass Deportations under the Trump Administration:

• The Trump administration is targeting undocumented migrants, leading to mass deportations.
• Key Statistics:
  • 20,407 undocumented Indians are under Trump’s immigration radar.
  • 17,940 Indians are under final removal orders by US immigration courts.
  • 2,467 Indians are currently in detention centres under ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
• Latest Deportation Flights:
  • A C-17 US military aircraft carried 205 Indian nationals from San Antonio, Texas, back to India.
  • Most of these individuals are from Gujarat and Punjab.
  • India has insisted on verifying nationality before accepting deported individuals.

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown and Policy Changes:

• President Trump has declared illegal immigration a national emergency, implementing strict measures:
• Enhanced Deportation Strategies:
  • Military aircraft are being used for deportations, instead of commercial flights.
  • ICE is coordinating with the FBI, DEA, and Border Patrol to locate and arrest undocumented migrants.
  • Deportation arrests tripled in January, with over 1,000 people detained in a single week.
• New Immigration Measures:
  • ICE has removed legal protections granted under Biden’s administration.
  • The CBP One mobile app, which allowed migrants to schedule border entry appointments, has been shut down.
  • Birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants has been eliminated.
• Expansion of Detention Centers:
  • Guantanamo Bay detention facility is being repurposed to house 30,000 migrants.
  • The Buckley Space Force Base in Colorado is also being used for migrant detention.

India’s Diplomatic Response and Concerns:

• India has engaged in diplomatic efforts to manage the immigration issue without affecting bilateral ties:
• India’s Position on Deportation:
  • India has agreed to accept undocumented Indians if nationality verification is confirmed.
  • External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar conveyed India’s stand to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
  • India is against illegal immigration due to its links to organized crime and human trafficking.
• Ensuring Legal Pathways for Migration:
  • Over 1 million visas were issued to Indian nationals in 2024, including record numbers of student and business visas.
  • 72% of H-1B visas issued in the last fiscal year went to Indian professionals.
  • Trump has assured that the H-1B visa program will continue, though some reforms may be introduced.
• Challenges in India-US Talks:
  • India has asked for discreet deportation measures to avoid political backlash.
  • Concerns remain over potential restrictions on Indian migration programs.

Trump’s Economic Leverage on Immigration Policy:

• President Trump has leveraged trade policies to enforce immigration compliance:
• Tariff Impositions on Non-Cooperative Countries
  • Colombia refused to accept a deportation flight—Trump retaliated with 25% tariffs on Colombian goods.
  • Canada and Mexico also faced tariff threats, forcing them to ramp up border enforcement.
  • The US Congress is considering sanctions on countries not cooperating with deportation orders.
• How This Affects India
  • While India has cooperated with the US, it remains cautious of future trade restrictions.
  • India’s focus is on protecting its skilled workforce migration and avoiding economic retaliation.

Impact on the Indian Community in the US:

• Fear and Uncertainty Among Undocumented Migrants
  • Many Indian undocumented workers are avoiding public spaces due to increased arrests.
  • Detentions at workplaces and homes have caused economic strain in low-wage job sectors.
• Legal Migrants Also Affected
  • The H-1B visa program remains uncertain, with possible changes to sponsorship requirements.
  • Many Indian students fear tougher visa renewal policies.
• How India is Responding
  • India is monitoring the situation closely, ensuring that legal migrants’ rights are protected.
  • Diplomatic engagements with US policymakers are focused on preserving employment-based immigration programs.

Why in news?

India is advancing its entry into the global Small Modular Reactors (SMR) manufacturing value chain, receiving institutional support through three key policy enablers announced in the Union Budget.

These measures aim to catalyse development and strengthen India's position in nuclear energy innovation.

What’s in today’s article?

• Legislative Reforms to Boost Private Participation in Nuclear Energy
• Triggers for India’s Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Push
• SMRs: The Future of Nuclear Energy
• Global SMR Developments

Legislative Reforms to Boost Private Participation in Nuclear Energy

• New Vertical for Private Participation
  • The government plans to establish a separate division within the Department of Atomic Energy to facilitate private sector involvement in India's nuclear industry.
  • This mirrors the successful space sector reforms and aims to leverage private expertise for SMR design, fabrication, and technology transfer negotiations with global players.
• Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962
  • The proposed amendment seeks to expand private sector participation beyond equipment supply, allowing private firms to operate nuclear power plants, including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
  • Currently, only NPCIL and its joint ventures with NTPC and NALCO have this authority.
• Revisions to Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010
  • Changes are being considered to address foreign investment concerns regarding liability.
  • The current law assigns operator liability to equipment suppliers, discouraging global firms like GE-Hitachi, Westinghouse, and Areva from investing in India's nuclear sector.
  • Revisions aim to make investment conditions more favorable.

Triggers for India’s Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Push

• Need for Reliable Base-Load Power
  • As India reduces coal-fired power generation and increases renewable energy capacity, nuclear power is emerging as a stable and clean alternative.
  • Renewable sources like solar and wind face challenges due to intermittent power generation and lack of viable storage solutions.
  • Nuclear energy provides a round-the-clock power source to balance grid demands and support energy transition.
• India’s Strategic Entry into SMR Manufacturing
  • India aims to position itself as a competitive player in SMR design and manufacturing, leveraging its decades of experience with small reactors and cost-effective production capabilities.
  • The move comes as China aggressively expands its SMR program, using it as a diplomatic tool for the Global South.
  • India seeks to counter China’s dominance in this emerging sector and establish itself as a credible alternative in the global SMR market.

SMRs: The Future of Nuclear Energy

• SMRs (30MWe to 300MWe per unit) are seen as a cost-effective and flexible nuclear energy solution.
• India is focusing on SMRs for clean energy transition and as a strategic foreign policy tool to expand its global influence.
• India’s Collaboration Efforts
  • The Department of Atomic Energy is in exploratory talks with Holtec International (USA), a leading exporter of nuclear components, for possible partnerships.

Global SMR Developments

• Two operational SMR projects exist globally:
  • Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov (35 MWe x 2) – Floating SMR, operational since May 2020.
  • China’s HTR-PM (grid-connected in 2021, operational in 2023).
• Western firms developing SMRs: Rolls-Royce (UK), NuScale’s VOYGR (USA), Westinghouse’s AP300 (USA), GE-Hitachi’s BWRX-300 (USA), and Holtec’s SMR-300.

Why in news?

US President Donald Trump delayed the imposition of 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada just hours before they were set to take effect, pausing the North American trade war for a month.

However, tensions with China escalated as Beijing retaliated against US tariffs by investigating Google for antitrust violations and imposing new tariffs on US coal, LNG, oil, and agricultural equipment.

Trump also hinted at upcoming tariffs on the EU, citing trade imbalances. Businesses are preparing for potential disruptions, while the EU’s role as a major trading partner, including for India, raises concerns about a broader global trade conflict.

What’s in today’s article?

• Trump’s Trade War with China during his First Term
• US tariffs on Chinese goods and possible benefits to India
• Impact of Trump’s Tariffs

Trump’s Trade War with China during his First Term

• During his first term, US President Donald Trump initiated a trade war with China, resulting in retaliatory tariffs and countermeasures.
• This eventually led to the Phase One Deal on January 15, 2020, which aimed at structural reforms and increased purchases by China.
• However, subsequent analyses revealed that China neither met its purchase commitments nor implemented structural reforms.

US tariffs on Chinese goods and possible benefits to India

• The US tariffs on Chinese goods created opportunities for other countries, including India, to increase their exports to the US.
• A study by Oxford Economics found that India was the fourth-largest beneficiary of trade diversions between 2017 and 2023, following Trump’s tariff measures.
  • The electronics sector saw significant gains, with India’s share in US imports rising tenfold since 2017, driven largely by telecommunications equipment like iPhones.
• With the current 10% tariff on Chinese goods, Indian exporters see further potential to expand their market share in the US.
  • Indian exporters are receiving higher orders due to fears of increased tariffs on China, similar to what happened during the previous trade war.
• India’s Competitiveness Challenges
  • Despite gains, India lags behind other Asian nations in high-tech manufacturing.
  • Korea and Taiwan dominate semiconductors, while China still supplies 27% of US electronics imports.
• India’s Strategy to Attract Trade
  • To benefit from trade shifts, India cut customs duties on key imports in the Union Budget to streamline tariffs.
  • This move signals India's commitment to simplifying its tariff structure.

Impact of Trump’s Tariffs

• Trump’s tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China would increase costs for American consumers, with an estimated annual burden of over $1,200 per household. US producers facing tariffed imports are expected to raise their prices, further fueling inflation.
• US Inflation and Its Effect on Indian Exports
  • High inflation in the US and Europe has already impacted Indian exports, particularly in labour-intensive sectors like gems, jewellery, and textiles.
  • Rising costs and supply chain disruptions could further weaken demand for Indian goods.
• Tax Policy and Economic Burden
  • Higher tariffs, coupled with potential recessionary impacts, could lead to a net tax increase for most US households.
• On the competitiveness of US manufacturers
  • Economists explained that Trump’s 25% tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports have weakened the competitiveness of US manufacturers, giving an advantage to rivals in Europe and Asia.
• Impact on the US Auto Industry
  • American cars rely on parts from the US, Canada, and Mexico, making tariffs on these countries increase production costs.
  • As a result, US-made cars become more expensive, leading buyers to prefer imports from Japan, Germany, and Korea, which are not subject to tariffs.
• Risk of Further Escalation
  • Experts predicted that if US consumers shift towards cheaper foreign cars, Trump may see it as unfair competition and respond by either:
    • Imposing a blanket 25% tariff on all imported cars
    • Negotiating export restrictions with Japan, Germany, and Korea
  • This retaliatory cycle could further escalate the global trade war, affecting multiple industries and economies.

Context

• The relationship between India and Indonesia is one of deep historical significance and strategic importance.
• The recent visit of Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto as the chief guest at India’s 76th Republic Day celebrations highlighted the strong bilateral ties between the two nations.
• This visit served as a reminder of their shared history, economic potential, and security collaboration, reinforcing their crucial role in shaping the Indo-Pacific region and global geopolitical dynamics.

India-Indonesia Relations: Historical Foundations and Evolution of Ties

• Shared Struggles for Independence
  • The historical ties between India and Indonesia are deeply rooted in shared experiences of colonisation, independence, and the subsequent quest for self-determination.
  • The relationship between the two nations dates back to the period of their independence movements in the 20th century, with both countries emerging as independent republics within a few years of each other.
  • India, having gained independence from British rule in 1947, quickly charted its course as the world’s largest democracy.
  • Indonesia followed in 1945, declaring its independence from Dutch colonial rule, though it was not until 1949 that Indonesia’s sovereignty was internationally recognised.
• Symbolic Beginnings: The 1950 Republic Day Invitation
  • The first formal gesture of this mutual respect occurred in 1950, during India’s inaugural Republic Day celebrations.
  • Indonesia’s founding father and first president, Sukarno, was invited to attend as the chief guest, an honour that symbolised the beginning of a diplomatic relationship based on mutual understanding and cooperation.
  • This moment set the tone for a relationship characterised by shared values of democracy, non-alignment, and peaceful co-existence.
• Strengthening Diplomatic and Economic Ties
  • As both nations embarked on their journeys as newly sovereign states, their leaders recognized the importance of developing strong diplomatic and economic ties.
  • The early years of their relationship were marked by cooperation in the international arena, particularly through the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which both India and Indonesia played pivotal roles in shaping.
  • The NAM, established in the mid-20th century, sought to create an alternative bloc to the Cold War divisions of the Western and Eastern blocs, emphasizing a third path that promoted peace, cooperation, and independence from superpower influence.
• Bilateral Engagements and Cultural Exchange
  • In the decades following their independence, the two countries strengthened their relationship through various bilateral engagements.
  • India and Indonesia signed numerous agreements, including trade and economic cooperation pacts, and developed cultural exchanges that further deepened their ties.
  • These exchanges were reflective of both nations' rich cultural heritages, which offered a strong foundation for mutual respect and collaboration.
• Consistent Leadership Visits
  • The repeated visits of Indonesian presidents to India, including the recent visit by President Prabowo Subianto, underscore the enduring nature of this partnership.
  • President Prabowo’s visit marked the fourth time an Indonesian leader had been invited as the chief guest for India’s Republic Day celebrations, a testament to the consistent and growing importance of the relationship.
  • These visits have been instrumental in enhancing bilateral cooperation and opening new avenues for collaboration in diverse sectors, including trade, defence, technology, and education.

The Key Aspects of India-Indonesia Relations

• Trade as a Pillar of Growth
  • Economic cooperation has been a key aspect of India-Indonesia relations.
  • Although a trade agreement was signed in 1966, there remains vast untapped potential for expanding economic ties.
  • Currently, bilateral trade stands at approximately $30 billion, but there are ambitions to quadruple this figure over the next decade.
  • A recent CEOs Forum in New Delhi, co-chaired by the Chairman of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Indian business leader Ajay S. Shriram, identified five key sectors for growth: energy, food and agriculture, healthcare, manufacturing, and technology.
  • By focusing on innovation and strengthening bilateral supply chains, both nations can unlock new economic opportunities.
  • With projected economic growth rates of 6.5% for India and 5.1% for Indonesia, both nations are well-positioned to thrive despite global economic uncertainties.
• Security and Strategic Cooperation
  • Security cooperation forms another crucial pillar of the India-Indonesia partnership.
  • The 2018 Comprehensive Strategic Partnership has significantly strengthened defence ties, especially in maritime security.
  • As two nations with extensive coastlines and vital shipping lanes, ensuring the safety of their waters is paramount.
  • President Prabowo’s visit further reinforced commitments to counterterrorism and cybersecurity cooperation.
  • Given the evolving geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific, closer military and strategic collaboration is essential to safeguarding regional stability and economic prosperity.
  • Both countries recognise the need to address common security challenges, including cyber threats and territorial disputes.

Geopolitical Significance of India-Indonesia Relations

• Beyond their bilateral relationship, India and Indonesia play vital roles in global geopolitics.
• Indonesia’s recent invitation to join the BRICS group aligns it with other emerging economies, including India and China.
• Meanwhile, both nations maintain significant relations with the United States and other Western powers.
• However, global trade faces challenges, including potential U.S. tariffs that could impact both economies.
• As a resource-rich nation, Indonesia seeks to export key commodities such as nickel, copper, tin, and bauxite to markets like the U.S. and India.
• Meanwhile, India’s expanding manufacturing sector presents opportunities for mutually beneficial trade arrangements.

Conclusion

• President Prabowo’s visit reaffirmed the deep and enduring partnership between India and Indonesia.
• Their relationship, now 76 years old, continues to evolve, driven by trade, security, and strategic cooperation.
• As they navigate global economic and geopolitical shifts, their collaboration will be instrumental in shaping the future of the Indo-Pacific and beyond.
• By strengthening ties, India and Indonesia not only enhance their own prosperity and security but also contribute to a more stable and sustainable world.

Context

• On January 20, 2025, the United States government issued an executive order to withdraw from the World Health Organisation (WHO), raising serious concerns about the financial and operational stability of the global health body.
• While this decision has sparked debate about the potential weakening of WHO due to reduced funding, it also presents an opportunity to reevaluate the role of different nations in shaping the global health agenda.
• Amid these developments, it is important to explore the implications of the U.S.’s withdrawal, the challenges posed by WHO’s funding structure, and the need for the global south to play a more significant role in global health.

WHO’s Funding System and the Consequences of U.S. Withdrawal

• WHO’s Funding System
  • WHO’s funding is divided into two major categories: assessed contributions (AC) and voluntary contributions (VC).
  • AC is a fixed annual membership fee that each member-state is required to pay, which ensures stable funding for WHO’s basic operations, such as salaries and administrative costs.
  • One of the key reasons cited by the U.S. for its withdrawal was that its AC was disproportionately high.
  • On the other hand, VC funds, which come from various donors and are often allocated to specific projects, are inherently unpredictable.
• Consequences of U.S. Withdrawal
  • With the U.S. pulling out, not only will its AC contributions be lost, but its VC funding may also diminish as U.S.-based donors and agencies like USAID could reduce or halt their funding to WHO.
  • Given that many of these funds support critical projects like polio eradication, patient safety, and antimicrobial resistance, WHO’s ability to execute global health initiatives may be severely impacted.
  • However, while the financial setback is significant, it also highlights the vulnerability of WHO’s funding structure and the necessity for reform.

Reason Behind the Failure of Global Institutions

• The Rise of Nationalism and its Impact on Global Collaboration
  • In recent years, a wave of nationalism has swept across many countries, leading to an increasing focus on domestic priorities at the expense of international cooperation.
  • Political leaders in high-income nations have increasingly adopted ‘nation-first’ policies to appeal to their domestic constituencies.
  • This has resulted in reduced funding for international institutions, weakened alliances, and a reluctance to engage in multilateral efforts.
  • The U.S. withdrawal from WHO is a prime example of this trend.
  • Citing concerns over financial contributions and bureaucratic inefficiencies, the U.S. government decided to pull out of an organisation that has historically been instrumental in coordinating global responses to health crises.
  • This decision not only undermines WHO’s ability to function effectively but also sends a troubling signal to other countries that international cooperation can be abandoned when politically convenient.
• The Erosion of Trust in Global Institutions
  • Another major issue facing global institutions is the erosion of trust among member states.
  • Over the years, some countries have criticized organisations like WHO for being slow to act, overly bureaucratic, and influenced by the interests of a few powerful nations.
  • While these criticisms are not entirely unfounded, they have led to a situation where countries hesitate to fully support global initiatives, fearing that their interests will not be adequately represented.
  • The COVID-19 pandemic exposed some of these shortcomings. WHO was criticised for its delayed response in declaring the virus a pandemic and for its perceived over-reliance on information from certain member states.
  • These concerns, while valid, should serve as a catalyst for reform rather than an excuse to abandon global institutions altogether.
  • A stronger WHO, one that is more transparent, efficient, and equitably governed, is essential to ensuring global health security.

The Need for Systemic Reforms in Global Institutions

• Decentralisation of Global Health Governance
  • WHO’s headquarters in Geneva is far removed from the regions that face the most pressing health challenges.
  • Relocating parts of WHO’s operations to regional offices in Africa or Asia could improve response times and ensure that resources are directed where they are needed most.
• Diversification of Funding Sources
  • To reduce dependency on any single country, WHO and similar institutions should diversify their funding mechanisms.
  • Encouraging pooled contributions from multiple countries, as well as innovative financing mechanisms such as global health bonds or public-private partnerships, could enhance financial stability.
• Enhancing Inclusivity in Decision-Making
  • Historically, global health policies have been dominated by high-income countries.
  • Ensuring that low- and middle-income nations have a greater voice in decision-making processes will lead to more equitable and effective policies.
  • This can be achieved by increasing representation from Africa, Asia, and Latin America in WHO’s leadership and governing bodies.
• Strengthening Enforcement Mechanisms
  • Currently, many global health agreements lack enforcement mechanisms, making it difficult to hold countries accountable.
  • Introducing legally binding commitments with penalties for non-compliance could enhance adherence to global health protocols. 

The Role of the Global South in Strengthening Institutions

• In light of the challenges faced by global institutions, countries in the global south must take a proactive role in shaping their future.
• Instead of relying on high-income nations to dictate the global health agenda, emerging economies like India, Brazil, South Africa, and Thailand should step up as leaders in international health governance.
• Organisations like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) could play a pivotal role in funding and supporting WHO’s initiatives.
• Additionally, investing in global health training programs within the global south will help create a more diverse and self-sufficient pool of experts, reducing dependence on Western-trained professionals.
• Furthermore, countries in Africa and Asia must advocate for fairer global health policies.
• By collectively pushing for reforms in WHO and other institutions, they can ensure that global health priorities reflect the needs of all nations, not just those of high-income countries.

Conclusion

• While the U.S.’s withdrawal from WHO presents immediate challenges, it also provides an opportunity for restructuring global health governance.
• The decision underscores the need for a stronger WHO that is less dependent on any single country for funding and expertise.
• Countries in the global south must take the lead in filling this gap by increasing financial contributions, training more experts, and establishing regional institutions dedicated to global health.
• The withdrawal of the U.S. should not be seen as a crisis but rather as a catalyst for a more independent and resilient WHO.

Context:

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, in her recent budget speech, announced amendments to two key atomic Acts (the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the CLNDA, 2010) to revive India's nuclear energy sector.

This long-pending reform comes at a crucial time when the world is witnessing a nuclear energy resurgence.

India’s Declining Nuclear Prospects:

• India was among the early adopters of nuclear energy, establishing its first nuclear power plant in Tarapur (Maharashtra) in 1969.
• Despite early progress, India's nuclear power capacity has stagnated at around 8,200 MW, whereas China and South Korea have significantly expanded their nuclear energy programs.
• Successive governments have revised nuclear capacity targets but failed to meet them. The FM has now set a target of 1,00,000 MW by 2047, necessitating legal reforms.

Historical Challenges and External Constraints:

• India's nuclear progress was initially supported by Western collaborations in the 1950s.
• The introduction of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970 restricted nuclear technology transfers, placing India at a disadvantage.
• India's 1974 nuclear test (code named Smiling Buddha) led to global sanctions and enhanced nuclear cooperation between China and Pakistan.
• The 1998 nuclear tests (code named Operation Shakti) redefined India as a nuclear-weapon state, paving the way for the India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement (2005-08).

Impact of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010:

• While the India-US nuclear deal created opportunities for civil nuclear cooperation, the CLNDA restricted foreign and private investment.
• Global norms require liability for nuclear accidents to rest with the plant operator. However, India's CLNDA holds suppliers accountable, discouraging private and foreign participation.
• The Modi government attempted to address this issue post-2014 but failed to attract significant investment.

Structural Issues in India's Nuclear Policy:

• The Atomic Energy Act, 1962, grants the government monopoly over nuclear energy development, limiting private sector participation and resulting in inadequate capital and slow expansion.
• It also prevents the creation of a nuclear ecosystem that can drive innovation, create economies of scale and develop networks of global collaboration to accelerate atomic power generation in India.
• Today, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) relies entirely on government funding.

Lessons from Space Sector Reforms:

• Private and public-sector companies such as Tata, Godrej, L&T, Walchandnagar and BHEL already supply critical nuclear components and could play a larger role in power plant construction.
• Today, they are in a position to take charge of building power plants on their own while relying on the DAE to provide some of the technologies.
• The liberalization of the space sector has spurred private investment and innovation.
• A similar approach in nuclear energy, with the DAE focusing on research and allowing private companies to build and operate nuclear plants, could accelerate growth.

Conclusion - The Path Forward:

• Science-and-technology monopolies have outlived their utility and have become a drag on the prospects for India’s technological transformation.
• Government agencies like the DAE, ISRO and DRDO should focus on research and cede the production of equipment and related industrial activity to the private sector.
• Amending the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the CLNDA, 2010 is crucial to unlocking India's nuclear potential.
• Encouraging private sector participation, ensuring investment-friendly liability laws, and leveraging global partnerships will be key to meeting India's 2047 nuclear energy targets.
• A reformed nuclear sector can significantly contribute to India's energy security and green transition.