General Studies 2021 GS Paper III 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Analyse

Q19

Analyse the multidimensional challenges posed by external state and non-state actors, to the internal security of India. Also discuss measures required to be taken to combat these threats. (Answer in 250 words)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत की आंतरिक सुरक्षा के लिए बाह्य राज्य और गैर-राज्य कारकों द्वारा प्रस्तुत बहुआयामी चुनौतियों का विश्लेषण कीजिए । इन संकटों का मुकाबला करने के लिए आवश्यक उपायों की भी चर्चा कीजिए । (250 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies questions

Directive word: Analyse

This question asks you to analyse. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'analyse' requires breaking down the multidimensional nature of external threats into distinct categories—state actors (Pakistan, China), non-state actors (terrorist groups, insurgent outfits), and hybrid threats (cyber, economic, informational)—followed by their interlinkages with internal security. The answer should open with a brief conceptual framework, proceed to a two-part body examining state and non-state challenges separately with their spillover effects, then transition to multi-pronged countermeasures covering diplomatic, military, technological and legal dimensions, and conclude with a forward-looking synthesis on building comprehensive national power.

Key points expected

State actors: Pakistan's proxy war through cross-border terrorism (Uri, Pulwama), China's salami-slicing tactics in Ladakh/Arunachal, and their combined effect on border management
Non-state actors: Pakistan-based terror groups (LeT, JeM), Northeast insurgent camps in Myanmar/Bangladesh, Maoist external linkages, and emerging drone/cyber threats
Multidimensional nature: convergence of terrorism with narcotics (Golden Crescent), fake currency, radicalization via social media, and economic coercion
Countermeasures: strengthening border infrastructure (smart fencing), diplomatic isolation of terror sponsors, cyber defence architecture, and international cooperation (FATF, UN listings)
Institutional responses: NSAB reforms, NIA strengthening, coastal security post-26/11, and critical infrastructure protection
Balanced federal approach: simultaneous hard power (surgical strikes, Balakot) and soft power (deradicalization, border area development)

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Demonstrates clear grasp that 'analyse' requires deconstructing threats into state/non-state categories AND their multidimensional intersections (territorial, cyber, economic, ideological), not merely listing threats; addresses both parts of the question in balanced proportion	Identifies state and non-state actors separately but treats dimensions superficially or conflates them; spends disproportionate space on one part of the question	Misreads directive as 'describe' or 'list', producing bullet-point enumeration without analytical depth; ignores either the multidimensional aspect or the countermeasures requirement
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Covers all three dimensions—state actors (China-Pakistan nexus), non-state actors (terror-insurgency linkages), and hybrid threats (cyber, info-war, economic coercion)—with accurate references to specific conflicts, policies and institutional mechanisms	Covers major threats but misses nuanced dimensions like economic security or information warfare; contains minor factual errors on border disputes or counterterrorism frameworks	Superficial treatment limited to Pakistan terrorism and generic Maoism; significant factual errors on China's role, misidentifies key institutions, or conflates internal and external threats
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression: conceptual framework → state actors → non-state actors → hybrid dimensions → integrated countermeasures → conclusion; smooth transitions between threat analysis and response strategy; effective signposting in 250-word constraint	Recognizable structure but uneven weightage—either threats dominate over measures or vice versa; some abrupt shifts between sections without connecting logic	Disorganized or fragmented structure; no clear separation between threat analysis and countermeasures; repetitive or circular arguments wasting limited word count
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Deploys specific, high-value examples: Galwan clash/PLA mobilization patterns, Pulwama-Balakot sequence, Myanmar surgical strikes 2015, drone attacks on Jammu airbase, FATF grey-listing leverage, and relevant provisions of UAPA/amended IT Act	Mentions generic examples (26/11, Pathankot) without specificity on dates, outcomes or strategic implications; or includes examples but without clear linkage to analytical points	No contemporary examples or factually wrong references; relies on outdated incidents (pre-2010) without demonstrating awareness of evolving threat landscape
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes into forward-looking insight: need for 'comprehensive national security' doctrine integrating external and internal dimensions, or critical observation on gaps (implementation deficits, inter-agency coordination, technology asymmetry); avoids mere summary	Restates main points without synthesis; generic conclusion on 'strong measures needed' without specific insight or recognition of complexity	No conclusion or abrupt ending; naive prescription ('eradicate terrorism') ignoring structural constraints; or introduces new, unsupported claims in final lines

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →