UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 7 July 2025

AI Warfare and Multi-Domain Operations: Challenges and Opportunities for India

July 7, 2025

AI Warfare Latest News

As warfare undergoes a seismic transformation with the rise of artificial intelligence, countries like China are rapidly integrating AI into multi-domain military operations, posing strategic challenges for nations like India.
This article explores how AI is reshaping modern battlefields—from autonomous weapons and data-driven decision-making to electromagnetic and cyber warfare—and underscores the critical role of energy infrastructure, especially nuclear power, in sustaining this AI-driven defence future.
It highlights the urgency for India to bridge its technological and energy gaps to remain competitive in this evolving agentic age of warfare.

China’s Early Lead in Military AI Deployment

Even before the launch of the DeepSeek AI model, China’s People’s Liberation Army had begun integrating AI into its core military functions under the concept of “intelligentised warfare.”
China is using AI to improve artillery systems by reducing firing intervals and increasing accuracy, enhancing operational efficiency on the battlefield.
The PLA is integrating generative AI into drones to autonomously detect and strike enemy radar systems with high precision.
The technological advancements of DeepSeek are expected to further bolster China’s efforts to expand AI capabilities across its armed forces.

China-Pakistan AI Collaboration: A Growing Concern for India

Experts warn that China's active assistance to Pakistan’s Centre of Artificial Intelligence and Computing (established in 2020) is a strategic threat, with a focus on cognitive electronic warfare and AI-enabled decision-making.
They revealed that during Operation Sindoor, Pakistan possibly used AI-backed capabilities—enabled by Chinese satellite data and backend analysis—for real-time targeting and vector tracking.

C4ISR and Civil-Military Fusion: A Strategic Imperative

There is a great emphasis on C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance).
Also, the expertise in virtual domains like cyberspace, space, and the electromagnetic spectrum highlights the need for India to accelerate its civil-military integration and tech capabilities.
While China leads in implementing multi-domain warfare strategies, India is still catching up.
The collaboration between China and Pakistan underscores the urgency for India to develop indigenous capabilities in AI, cyber warfare, and multi-domain operations.

Energy: The Hidden Backbone of Future AI Warfare

Modern militaries must analyse data across land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace. Handling such volumes is impossible without robust AI systems—powered by massive, consistent energy supplies.
Technologies like machine learning, big data analysis, and NLP require vast, stable electricity reserves.
Nuclear energy is emerging as the most viable source to power large AI data centres.

India’s Nuclear Shortfall: A Strategic Risk

India’s current nuclear power capacity stands at only 7.5 GW—just one-third of South Korea’s.
This poses a serious limitation for future AI and robotics-led defence capabilities.
Experts advocate placing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) next to AI data centres to create a self-sustained defence tech ecosystem—enabling smart drones, robots, and next-gen weaponry.
India’s overdependence on renewables without proper storage and the earlier reduction in thermal capacity have destabilized the grid.
SMRs and private sector thermal investments are now being reconsidered as long-term solutions.

India’s Early Foray into Military AI

India began its journey into AI-powered defence as early as 1986 with DRDO’s Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR), focusing on autonomous technologies in combat, surveillance, logistics, and more.
Despite India's head start, China’s rapid AI advances—combined with its support to Pakistan’s AI and computing initiatives—pose a growing strategic challenge.
As per the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies, AI will power everything from autonomous weapons and predictive analytics to virtual combat simulations and cyber defence.

Global Precedents: Ukraine and Israel’s AI Use

Ukraine has deployed AI-enabled drones, while Israel’s “Lavender” system reportedly identified over 37,000 Hamas targets, marking the Gaza conflict as the first “AI war.

Conclusion

While AI is revolutionizing warfare, its success hinges on vast and stable energy resources—making energy strategy an inseparable part of defence preparedness.

Source: IE

AI Warfare FAQs

Q1: What is AI warfare?

Ans: AI warfare involves using artificial intelligence in combat, including autonomous weapons, data analysis, and predictive battlefield strategies.

Q2: Why is China ahead in AI warfare?

Ans: China's PLA began early with “intelligentised warfare” and now integrates AI in artillery, drones, and battlefield precision tools.

Q3: How does AI warfare affect India?

Ans: India faces strategic risks due to China-Pakistan AI collaboration and must strengthen its own AI and cyber capabilities.

Q4: Why is energy crucial for AI warfare?

Ans: AI technologies like machine learning and big data require massive, stable electricity—nuclear energy is emerging as the best solution.

Q5: What must India do to catch up?

Ans: India must expand nuclear capacity, adopt SMRs, and accelerate AI-military integration for future battlefield preparedness.

India’s Invisible Trade: Why Services and Remittances Now Drive the Economy

July 7, 2025

India’s Invisible Trade Latest News

While international trade is often visualized as the shipment of physical goods across borders, a significant and growing part of global commerce involves intangible flows—services, remittances, capital, data, and ideas.
In India’s case, these “invisibles” have surpassed merchandise trade in shaping the country’s external balance.

This article examines how India’s foreign trade narrative has largely overlooked this critical shift, and why recognizing the rising importance of invisibles is essential for understanding the true nature of India’s global economic engagement.

India’s Evolving Trade Landscape: Tangibles vs. Intangibles

Surge and Stagnation in Goods Exports
- India’s merchandise exports grew from $66.3 billion in 2003–04 to $318.6 billion by 2013–14, followed by a slowdown.
- After a post-Covid recovery peak of $456.1 billion in 2022–23, they dipped again to $441.8 billion by 2024–25.
Steady Rise of Invisible Receipts
- In contrast, receipts from invisibles—services and private remittances—rose consistently, from $53.5 billion in 2003–04 to $576.5 billion in 2024–25, showing long-term stability and resilience.
- Where goods exports once outpaced invisibles by $85 billion in 2013–14, the trend has reversed by 2024–25, with invisibles exceeding merchandise by $135 billion.

Time to Rethink Trade Narratives

Despite the growing dominance of intangibles in India’s trade, current trade negotiations—including those with the U.S.—remain largely focused on physical goods and cargo.
India’s foreign trade story is increasingly defined by intangibles, signaling a need to shift policy and perception beyond just the movement of goods.

India’s Invisible Trade: Breaking Down the Components

In 2024–25, services accounted for $387.5 billion of India’s $576.5 billion in invisible receipts—up from just $26.9 billion in 2003–04 and $151.8 billion in 2013–14.
Private transfers or remittances contributed $135.4 billion in 2024–25, growing from $22.2 billion in 2003–04 and $69.6 billion in 2013–14.
- These are earnings from the global Indian workforce.
India’s services exports now span software ($180.6 billion in 2024–25), business, financial, and communication services ($118 billion), and professionals like auditors, consultants, and analysts.

Resilient to Global Shocks

Unlike merchandise exports, invisibles have shown resilience to global economic cycles, crises, and geopolitical tensions—growing steadily without reliance on trade deals or incentive schemes.
However, current India–US trade negotiations remain focused on tariffs for goods like textiles and agriculture, leaving out services exports and worker mobility—India’s real trade strength.

India vs China: Contrasting Trade Models

India’s goods trade deficit nearly doubled from $147.6 billion in 2013–14 to $287.2 billion in 2024–25, driven by high imports of $729 billion against exports of $441.8 billion.
Despite the growing deficit in merchandise trade, India’s net invisible receipts surged from $115.3 billion in 2013–14 to $263.8 billion in 2024–25, helping limit the current account deficit to $23.4 billion.

China’s Manufacturing Dominance

China posted a massive goods trade surplus of $768 billion in 2024, with exports at $3,409 billion and imports at $2,641 billion—cementing its status as the “factory of the world.”
China faces a significant deficit in services trade, importing $613 billion against $384 billion in exports, resulting in a $344.1 billion net invisibles deficit.

India: The “Office of the World”

India’s strong services trade surplus of $188.8 billion, supported by remittances, helped stabilize its external balance.
This proved that invisibles, not goods, are India’s true trade drivers.

Source: IE

India’s Invisible Trade FAQs

Q1: What is invisible trade?

Ans: Invisible trade includes services, remittances, and intangible flows that don’t involve physical goods but contribute to foreign exchange earnings.

Q2: How has India’s invisible trade grown?

Ans: India’s invisible receipts grew from $53.5 billion in 2003–04 to $576.5 billion in 2024–25, surpassing merchandise exports.

Q3: What sectors dominate India’s services exports?

Ans: Software, business, financial, and communication services dominate India’s services exports, led by IT professionals and knowledge workers.

Q4: Why is invisible trade resilient?

Ans: Invisible trade has shown stability during global crises, unlike goods trade, and thrives without major trade deals or incentives.

Q5: How does India compare with China in trade?

Ans: India leads in services surplus, while China dominates goods trade but runs a large deficit in invisible transactions.

India Opposes Amendments to Plant Treaty over Sovereignty Concerns

July 7, 2025

Plant Treaty Latest News

The Union government and farmers' groups have raised concerns over proposed amendments to the International Plant Treaty, warning that they may dilute farmers' rights and undermine India's sovereignty over its plant genetic resources.

India Stands Against Proposed Amendments to the Plant Treaty

As global negotiations on plant genetic resources unfold in Peru, India has voiced serious objections to proposed amendments to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (commonly known as the Plant Treaty).
The concerns stem from fears that the amendments would undermine India’s seed sovereignty and the rights of its farmers.

About the Plant Treaty

The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA is a legally binding global agreement adopted in 2001 under the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations.
The treaty aims to:
- Conserve plant genetic resources (PGRFA).
- Promote sustainable use of these resources.
- Ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use, especially in research and development.
India ratified the treaty in 2002.

About the Recent Negotiations

The 10th session of the Governing Body of the Plant Treaty is being held in Peru from July 7 to 11, 2025.
An Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group is considering amendments to Annex I of the treaty to expand the coverage of the Multilateral System (MLS) to all Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA).
This proposed expansion implies that India and other countries would be obligated to share all of their plant germplasm under standard international agreements, potentially overriding national terms and conditions.

Core of the Concern: Sovereignty and Farmers’ Rights

Indian farmers’ organisations such as Bharath Beej Swaraj Manch and Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh have publicly opposed these amendments. They argue that:
- Annexe I’s expansion would bring all plant genetic material, without exception, under international access frameworks.
- This move contradicts the treaty’s original mandate, which only facilitated access to a limited list of crops critical for food security.
- India’s sovereign rights over seeds and plant varieties would be compromised.
- Farmers’ rights to save, use, exchange, and sell seeds would be diluted under a globally determined material transfer system.

Institutional Response and Representation

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has stated that national interest will be safeguarded.
India’s official representative at the Peru negotiations is Sunil Archak, Principal Scientist at ICAR’s National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and also the Co-Chairperson of the ongoing working group.
ICAR emphasised that Mr. Archak’s visit was approved and timely, and he is considered highly capable of defending India’s concerns during the negotiations.

States’ Role and Constitutional Implications

Kerala Government has emphasised that agriculture is a State subject under Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution.
The State Government criticised the lack of consultation with State Governments and farmers’ groups, warning that the amendments could also sideline State Biodiversity Boards and their regulatory role over local genetic resources.
Such unilateral shifts in treaty obligations, without broader domestic deliberation, risk undermining India’s federal structure in agricultural policymaking.

Broader Implications for India's Agricultural Policy

The proposal to include all PGRFA in the MLS system could:
- Impact India’s capacity to regulate access to indigenous germplasm.
- Reduce incentives for local innovation in seed conservation and development.
- Facilitate foreign entities’ access to India’s rich genetic heritage without proportionate benefit-sharing.
The proposed Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA), if universally applied, would mean India cannot tailor access rules based on the type or origin of the germplasm, which may have long-term implications for India’s bioprospecting potential and intellectual property frameworks.

Source: TH

Plant Treaty FAQs

Q1: What is the key concern in the proposed amendment to the Plant Treaty?

Ans: The amendment proposes to expand access to all plant genetic resources, which could undermine India’s control over its seeds and biodiversity.

Q2: Who is representing India in the Peru meeting on the Plant Treaty?

Ans: Sunil Archak, Principal Scientist at ICAR-NBPGR, is India’s official representative and Co-Chair of the Working Group.

Q3: What is Annex I of the Plant Treaty?

Ans: Annex I lists plant genetic resources that are currently part of the Multilateral System and is now proposed to include all PGRFA.

Q4: Why are Indian farmers’ organisations opposing the amendments?

Ans: They fear loss of seed sovereignty, diminished farmers’ rights, and lack of consultation in policy making.

Q5: What constitutional issue has been raised by Kerala’s Agriculture Minister?

Ans: He argued that agriculture is a State subject, and any changes to such treaties should involve consultation with States.