Revision summary
Bhutan is India’s closest Himalayan partner through treaty history, hydropower and military training. China–Bhutan boundary talks and Chinese construction at Doklam in 2017 made the trijunction an Indian military crisis. The Siliguri corridor and the LAC context turn Bhutan’s western sector into Indian strategic depth. Sakteng and possible China–Bhutan diplomatic normalisation add political pressure. India must back Bhutanese sovereignty without treating the trijunction as a purely bilateral China–Bhutan file.
Model answer
Introduction
Bhutan has been India’s closest Himalayan partner: a friendship treaty, coordinated diplomacy, Indian military training, and hydropower as the economic spine. China–Bhutan border talks, and Chinese pressure on that boundary, have become a security issue for India because Bhutan’s northern and western frontiers sit on India’s strategic depth. The relationship remains an alliance in practice. The border file is no longer only Thimphu’s.
Body
Historical ally
The 1949 treaty, updated in 2007, ended the requirement that Bhutan be guided by India on external affairs, but the security partnership continued. India is the primary market for Bhutanese hydropower. The Indian Military Training Team still sits in Bhutan. For a small state between two giants, that bet on India has been the structure of survival.
Why the China border is India’s problem
China and Bhutan do not have formal diplomatic relations, yet they have held many rounds of boundary talks. Beijing’s claims in the western sector, near the trijunction with India, and occasional pressure in the east (including statements around Sakteng), matter because they rearrange the map above the Siliguri corridor — the narrow link between India’s northeast and the rest of the country. In 2017, Chinese road-building at Doklam on Bhutanese territory produced a 73-day stand-off with the Indian Army. Delhi treated an alteration of the trijunction as a direct threat, not as a bilateral China–Bhutan technicality.
A boundary ‘package’ that traded northern pastures for western territory could, in a worst case, bring Chinese presence closer to the ridge that overlooks the corridor. Even without a settlement, Chinese villages, roads and patrols along the disputed line create facts on ground that India must read as LAC-adjacent. Bhutan’s wish to settle with China and perhaps open diplomatic relations is rational for Thimphu. It is a two-front cartographic risk for Delhi already facing China on the Line of Actual Control.
Discuss, do not panic
India cannot veto Bhutanese diplomacy without looking like a patron and thereby pushing Thimphu to balance. The workable line is: support Bhutan’s sovereignty, keep hydropower and people-to-people density, and insist that trijunctions are trilateral in effect. Doklam showed that India will physically contest a change. The security issue is real. It is managed by partnership, not by treating Bhutan as a district.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD B[India-Bhutan partnership] --> H[Hydropower training treaty] C[China-Bhutan border talks] --> D[Doklam 2017] D --> S[Siliguri corridor risk] S --> I[Indian security issue]
Conclusion
Bhutan remains India’s ally in the Himalaya. China–Bhutan border moves, especially at Doklam and toward the Siliguri approaches, are Indian security business because geography ties the three states. Delhi’s task is to keep the alliance by respecting Bhutanese agency while refusing unilateral change at the trijunction.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
"Nothing is going to move within the WTO negotiations unless India is on board." Discuss the main reasons behind India's increased clout in the WTO.
Next question in the 2024 paper (Q5). View answer →
-
Does Bhutan want to play China against India?
Thimphu wants a settled border and room to breathe. That is small-state rationality, not a camp switch. Indian delivery on hydropower and respect still decides the tilt.
-
Is this the same as the LAC?
It is adjacent, not identical. The LAC is India–China. Doklam is Bhutanese territory with Indian security externalities.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q5(e) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Historical ties between India and Japan grew into a 'special strategic and global partnership'. Comment. -
2024 · Q4(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
"The Gramscian theory of hegemony provides many valuable insights into the nature of global power." Comment. -
2022 · Q7(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
What are the main drivers of India-Japan Strategic and Global Partnership? -
2021 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
"Non-alignment was little more than a rational strategy on the part of a materially weak India to maximise its interests with a bipolar distribution of global power." Comment -
2021 · Q6(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Examine the Geo-strategic points of contention in the bilateral relationship between India and China
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the interpretive approach to the study of comparative politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
The interpretive approach studies political action as meaning in context, following Weber’s verstehen and later cultural and linguistic turns. It replies to behaviouralism’s search for covering laws by asking how votes, nations and authority are understood locally. Thick description, ethnography and discourse analysis are typical tools. It explains legitimacy, nationalism and everyday state practice that a constitution or a class map alone cannot supply. Limits are relativism, weak generalisation, and neglect of material and institutional constraint if used alone.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the central tenets of the World-Systems Theory.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Wallerstein’s unit is the capitalist world-economy since the long sixteenth century, not the isolated nation-state. Core, semi-periphery and periphery form a durable three-tier division of labour. Unequal exchange and strong/weak states move surplus toward the core. The theory rejects modernisation’s national ladder and differs from Waltz’s interstate anarchy as first cause. Limits include economic determinism and underplaying state autonomy and culture; mobility exists but hierarchy persists.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
The expansionist tendencies of the current Russian regime indicate its intentions for the realization of a Greater Russia on the lines of the Soviet era. Comment.
Comparative Politics
Russia’s wars in Georgia and Ukraine, plus pressure on Belarus and nuclear signalling, show expansionist intent in the post-Soviet space. The Greater Russia story denies full independence of neighbours, especially Ukraine. The Soviet analogy fits geography of control more than ideology: today’s regime is nationalist and oligarchic, not a communist world-system. Morgenthau and Waltz explain power and structure; they do not make the war merely defensive. Comment: accept expansionism; reject a simple USSR restoration.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.