General Studies 2024 GS Paper III 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Examine

Q19

India has a long and troubled border with China and Pakistan fraught with contentious issues. Examine the conflicting issues and security challenges along the border. Also give out the development being undertaken in these areas under the Border Area Development Programme (BADP) and Border Infrastructure and Management (BIM) Scheme. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत की चीन एवं पाकिस्तान के साथ एक दीर्घकालिक अशांत सीमा है जिसमें अनेक विवादास्पद मुद्दे हैं। सीमा के साथ परस्पर-विरोधी मुद्दों तथा सुरक्षा-चुनौतियों का परीक्षण कीजिए। सीमा क्षेत्र विकास कार्यक्रम (बी० ए० डी० पी०) तथा सीमा अवसंरचना और प्रबंधन (बी० आई० ए०) योजना के अंतर्गत इन क्षेत्रों में किए जाने वाले विकास-कार्यों को भी उल्लिखित कीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 General Studies questions

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. 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 'examine' requires a detailed investigation of border conflicts and security challenges with China and Pakistan, followed by an analytical presentation of BADP and BIM initiatives. Structure as: brief introduction on India's complex borders → examination of China-specific issues (LAC disputes, transgressions, infrastructure asymmetry) → Pakistan-specific challenges (LoC firing, infiltration, terror launchpads) → BADP components (village development, livelihood, connectivity) → BIM Scheme focus (roads, bridges, border outposts, surveillance) → conclusion linking development to deterrence.

Key points expected

China border: McMahon Line disputes, Aksai Chin, Eastern Sector flashpoints (Depsang, Galwan, Pangong Tso), PLA infrastructure advantage, dual-use civil-military infrastructure
Pakistan border: LoC ceasefire violations, cross-border terrorism (Uri, Pathankot, Pulwama), infiltration via tunnels, narco-terrorism nexus, fencing gaps
BADP coverage: 111 border districts, 10% fund flexibility for security needs, focus on education, health, roads, skill development, mobile connectivity in border villages
BIM Scheme specifics: 2021-26 allocation ₹4,800 crore, all-weather roads, bridges (especially in Arunachal/Ladakh), border outposts, helipads, advanced surveillance (CIBMS, LORROS)
Strategic linkage: development as force multiplier, 'border villagers as eyes and ears', reducing migration from border areas, comprehensive border management approach

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Correctly interprets 'examine' as requiring critical investigation of both conflict dimensions and development responses; treats China and Pakistan separately given distinct nature of disputes; balances security challenges with developmental solutions without conflating the two	Partially addresses both parts but treats borders generically without distinguishing China (undemarcated LAC) from Pakistan (demarcated but disputed LoC); lists rather than examines issues	Misinterprets directive as mere description; focuses only on conflicts ignoring BADP/BIM or vice versa; conflates border issues with internal security problems
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Precise geographical references (Galwan, Doka La, Shaksgam Valley; Rajouri, Poonch, Jammu sector); accurate scheme details (BADP 2017 revamp, BIM 2021 launch); mentions recent developments (2020 Galwan clash, ongoing disengagement talks)	Broadly accurate but vague on specifics; generic references to 'border disputes' without naming sectors; conflates BADP with other schemes like PMGSY or conflates BIM with BRO projects	Major factual errors (confusing LAC with LoC, wrong states under BADP, outdated scheme information); irrelevant content on general foreign policy or defence procurement
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear tripartite structure: security examination (China → Pakistan) → development response (BADP → BIM) → integrated conclusion; smooth transitions between conflict analysis and developmental solutions; maintains 250-word discipline with proportional allocation	Recognizable structure but uneven weightage (over-detailed on one border, rushed on schemes); abrupt shifts between security and development without bridging logic	Disorganized or missing structure; random jumping between topics; no logical progression; fails to address both parts of the question
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific incidents: 2020 Galwan clash, 2021 Yangtse clash (China); Uri (2016), Pulwama (2019), recent Poonch ambushes (Pakistan); data: 3,488 km India-China border, 740 km LoC, 61,000 km border roads under BIM; schemes: Vibrant Villages Programme synergy	One or two examples mentioned without dates/context; generic reference to 'ceasefire violations' or 'Chinese transgressions' without specifics; no quantitative data	No examples or case references; purely theoretical treatment; incorrect or invented data; examples from wrong borders (Bangladesh, Myanmar) without justification
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes security-development nexus: development as 'soft border' complementing 'hard' military posture; critical insight on limitations (BIM delays, environmental clearances, land acquisition in tribal areas); forward-looking note on technology integration (AI surveillance, drone corridors)	Standard conclusion repeating points; generic statement on 'strong borders for strong India'; no critical evaluation of scheme effectiveness	No conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive closing; irrelevant moralizing or policy prescriptions beyond question scope

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 →