Revision summary
The 2004 strategic partnership was with the EU including the UK. Brexit split trade law, origin rules, and political access into two files. An India–UK FTA became a distinct opportunity. The EU bloc remains the larger market and climate partner. India’s interest is to run both tracks, not to pick a substitute Europe.
Model answer
Introduction
Brexit took the United Kingdom out of the European Union in 2020. India then faced two Western European partners instead of one legal market. Relations with Brussels and with London had to be re-specified without abandoning the older strategic partnership with the EU.
Body
Before Brexit
- The 2004 India–EU strategic partnership covered trade, climate, and multilateralism.
- A broad-based FTA stayed stuck on movement of professionals, automobiles, wines, and procurement.
- The UK inside the EU was a voice for openness to India in some dossiers and a complication in others.
What Brexit changed
- India must negotiate a Union of 27 and a separate UK. Rules of origin and financial passports split.
- Opportunity: a faster India–UK FTA track became thinkable once London could move without the 27.
- Risk: a weaker EU political union, or a preoccupied Brussels, could slow the India–EU FTA still further.
- Diaspora, education, and services links with Britain remain thick; they are now bilateral, not Union law.
Continuities
- Climate, data, maritime security, and a shared interest in a rules-based order still point to Brussels.
- The EU remains India’s large trading partner as a bloc. That arithmetic did not vanish with the UK’s exit.
- Values talk on human rights and Russian energy later sat beside trade. In 2021 the immediate file was still FTA architecture after Brexit.
Strategic reading
- Multi-alignment: India can use London as a gateway on some security and mobility issues and Brussels on climate and standards.
- Keohane-style complex interdependence with Europe is now two bargains, not one.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD B[Brexit] --> EU[India-EU 27 FTA climate] B --> UK[India-UK bilateral FTA mobility] EU --> R[Re-wired Europe policy] UK --> R
Conclusion
Brexit doubled India’s European negotiation without ending the EU partnership. The prize is two trade and political tracks. The cost is complexity and a possible further delay in the Brussels FTA. Context is re-wiring, not a rupture with Europe.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Examine the evolution of India's role in the global nuclear order
Next question on this syllabus topic (2021 · Q7(c)). View answer →
-
Did Brexit make the EU less important to India?
No. The remaining Union is still a major trade and standard-setting partner. The UK is an added bilateral pole.
-
Is the India–UK FTA a replacement for the EU deal?
No. It is smaller in market size. It can still move faster on some services and mobility items.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
"During the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement tried to become a Third force in World Politics, but failed because it was too large and unwieldy." Discuss -
2023 · Q3(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Account for the rise of European Union as a highly influential regional organisation -
2023 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the various constraints on American hegemony today. Which of these are likely to become more prominent in the future? -
2023 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
Arms trade, economic ties and congruent geo-political interests are no longer the three pillars of India - Russia relationship in the emerging strategic context. Comment -
2022 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
Critically examine the rise of People's Republic of China (PRC) as a great power and its implications on Asian Political order -
2022 · Q5(d) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the significance of Basic Exchange and Co-operation Agreement (BECA) for Indo-US strategic relations. -
2021 · Q3(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Critically examine the decline of the United States of America as a hegemon and its implications for the changing international political order -
2021 · Q7(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Examine the evolution of India's role in the global nuclear order
More from this topic
Q8(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
India's reluctance to perceive any 'existential threat' inevitably made the multilateral path to nuclear security a 'default option' until it decided to cross nuclear Rubicon in 1998. Identify and analyze some of the major reasons behind this shift in India's position on the nuclear question
Changing International Political Order
India’s early nuclear path mixed scientific capacity with moral multilateralism and a recessed 1974 PNE. NPT hierarchy, NSG sanctions and CTBT’s closing window turned the default into a cage. China’s arsenal and Pakistan’s weapons-plus-proxy mix supplied the security case for 1998. Vajpayee’s government supplied the political will; status mixed with deterrence. 1998 was admission that survival could no longer be outsourced to a disarming great-power club.
Q5(d) · UPSC Mains 2025 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Does the Non-Aligned Movement have any future in the wake of India's growing indifference towards it?
Changing International Political Order
NAM was India’s bipolar-era instrument: Belgrade 1961, refuse camps, keep voice. Delhi now practises multi-alignment and invests in G20, Quad and 2+2s more than in NAM theatre. Indifference is real because India was NAM’s engine; without it the Movement thins. A future remains as a Global South UN-and-development caucus, not as Cold War neutrality. Verdict: damaged as Indian doctrine, not automatically dead as a membership habit.
Q8(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the implications of the scrapping of the Free Movement Regime with Myanmar by the Indian Government on the complex ethno-political dynamics of the north-eastern region.
Changing International Political Order
The FMR let border highland communities cross a short distance because Naga, Chin, Kuki and Mizo kin were split by the India–Myanmar line. Delhi’s restriction is driven by insurgent sanctuaries, narcotics, post-2021 refugees and Manipur’s 2023 conflict. Security gains are possible in counting and fencing. Ethno-political costs fall on hill kinship, humanitarian Chin-Kuki links and Naga cross-border society. A harder border can also empower illegal brokers if political settlement on both sides is absent.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.