General Studies 2025 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Evaluate

Q12

Ashok is Divisional Commissioner of one of the border districts of the North East State. A few years back, Military has taken over the neighbouring country after overthrowing the elected civil government. Civil war situation is prevailing in the country especially in last two years. However, internal situation further deteriorated due to rebel groups taking over control of certain populated areas near own border. Due to intense fight between military and rebel groups, civilian casualties has increased manifold in recent past. In the meantime, in one night Ashok got information from the local police guarding the border check post that there are about 200-250 people mainly women and children trying to cross over to our side of the border. There are also about 10 soldiers with their weapons in military uniform part of this group who wants to cross over. Women and Children are also crying and begging for help. A few of them are injured and bleeding profusely need immediate medical care. Ashok tried to contact Home Secretary of the State but failed to do so due to poor connectivity mainly due to inclement weather. (a) What are the options available with Ashok to cope with the situation? (b) What are the ethical and legal dilemmas being faced by Ashok? (c) Which of the options, do you think would be more appropriate for Ashok to adopt and why? (d) In the present situation, what are the extra precautionary measures to be taken by the Border Guarding Police in dealing with soldiers in uniform?

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

अशोक पूर्वोत्तर राज्य के एक सीमावर्ती जिले के मंडल आयुक्त हैं। कुछ वर्ष पहले, सेना ने निर्वाचित नागरिक सरकार को उखाड़ फेंकने के बाद पड़ोसी देश पर कब्जा कर लिया था। देश में विशेष रूप से पिछले दो वर्षों से गृहयुद्ध की स्थिति बनी हुई है। हालांकि, विद्रोही समूहों द्वारा अपनी सीमा के पास कुछ आबादी वाले क्षेत्रों पर नियंत्रण करने के कारण आंतरिक स्थिति और बिगड़ गई। सैन्य और विद्रोही समूहों के बीच तीव्र संघर्ष के कारण हाल के दिनों में नागरिक हताहतों की संख्या में कई गुना वृद्धि हुई है। इसी बीच अशोक को एक रात में सीमा चौकी पर तैनात पुलिस से सूचना मिली कि लगभग 200-250 लोग, जिनमें मुख्य रूप से महिलाएं और बच्चे हैं, सीमा पार करके हमारी सीमा की ओर आने की कोशिश कर रहे थे। इस समूह में सैन्य वर्दीधारी हथियारों के साथ लगभग 10 सैनिक शामिल हैं जो सीमा पार करना चाहते हैं। महिलाएं और बच्चे रो रहे हैं और मदद की भीख मांग रहे हैं। उनमें कुछ घायल हैं और बहुत ज्यादा खून बह रहा है, उन्हें तुरंत चिकित्सा की जरूरत है। अशोक ने राज्य के गृह सचिव से संपर्क करने का प्रयास किया, लेकिन खराब मौसम के कारण खराब कनेक्टिविटी के कारण ऐसा करने में असफल रहे। (a) इस स्थिति से निपटने के लिए अशोक के पास क्या विकल्प उपलब्ध हैं? (b) अशोक को किन नैतिक और कानूनी दुविधाओं का सामना करना पड़ रहा है? (c) आपके विचार से अशोक के लिए कौन सा विकल्प अपनाना अधिक उपयुक्त होगा और क्यों? (d) वर्तमान स्थिति में वर्दीधारी सैनिकों के साथ व्यवहार करते समय सीमा सुरक्षा पुलिस द्वारा क्या अतिरिक्त एहतियाती उपाय किए जाने चाहिए?

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 General Studies questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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

Evaluate the multi-faceted crisis by first briefly contextualizing the humanitarian-security dilemma, then allocate approximately 35% words to part (a) enumerating and weighing options, 25% to part (b) analyzing ethical-legal tensions, 25% to part (c) justifying the chosen course with reasoning, and 15% to part (d) on operational precautions. Conclude with a balanced synthesis showing administrative wisdom under uncertainty.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Options include immediate humanitarian admission with medical triage; temporary border holding with security screening; denial of entry citing sovereignty/security; selective admission (civilians only, soldiers detained separately); and escalation to higher authorities via alternative communication channels
  • Part (b): Ethical dilemmas—right to life vs territorial integrity, non-refoulement principle vs national security, impartiality vs political consequences; Legal dilemmas—Foreigners Act 1946, Passport Act 1967, Article 21 applicability to non-citizens, Armed Forces Special Powers Act implications, international humanitarian law obligations
  • Part (c): Recommended option with justification—prioritized humanitarian admission with segregated security protocol for armed soldiers, citing proportionality, least harm principle, and precedent of India's refugee policy (Tibetans, Sri Lankans) while maintaining operational security
  • Part (d): Precautionary measures—weapon seizure and safe custody, separate interrogation facility, verification of military identity, coordination with army/intelligence, video documentation, maintaining chain of custody for potential war crimes evidence, and strict adherence to Geneva Conventions on handling surrendering combatants
  • Cross-cutting: Recognition of Divisional Commissioner's limited mandate under Disaster Management Act 2005 and need for immediate ad-hoc decision-making under 'eminent domain' of humanitarian protection

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4Demonstrates that 'evaluate' requires systematic weighing of options in (a), critical examination of competing principles in (b), reasoned justification in (c), and practical operational assessment in (d)—not mere description; shows awareness that parts (a)-(d) form an integrated decision-making sequenceAddresses all four parts but treats them as isolated segments; misses the evaluative thrust in (b) and (c), substituting listing for weighing; some confusion between 'dilemmas' and 'challenges'Misidentifies directive as 'describe' or 'list'; omits one or more sub-parts; conflates ethical and legal dimensions without distinction; fails to recognize the progressive decision-making structure
Content depth & accuracy20%4Precise on legal framework—cites Foreigners Act 1946, Passport (Entry into India) Act 1920, Article 21 (National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh on refugee rights), Geneva Conventions 1949; accurate on institutional roles—Divisional Commissioner vis-à-vis District Magistrate, Home Department, Ministry of External Affairs; nuanced on security implications of armed soldiersBroadly correct on legal provisions but generic (mentions 'Constitution' without specificity); conflates Divisional Commissioner with District Collector powers; superficial treatment of international law obligations; security analysis lacks granularityMajor legal inaccuracies—claims absolute right to deny entry, ignores Article 21 jurisprudence; confuses institutional hierarchies; treats armed soldiers as ordinary refugees without security implications; factual errors on India's refugee policy
Structure & flow20%4Clear four-part structure with explicit sub-headings (a)-(d); logical progression from situation assessment → option generation → dilemma analysis → decision justification → operational implementation; integrated narrative showing how (a) feeds into (c) and (b) informs (d); smooth transitions between humanitarian and security framesAll parts present but mechanically separated; some repetition between (a) and (c); abrupt shifts between ethical and operational content; adequate but uninspired organizationMissing sub-part labels or scrambled order; excessive repetition; disjointed treatment with no visible connection between options selected and precautions recommended; conclusion absent or generic
Examples / case-law / data20%4Cites NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) on refugee protection under Article 21; references India's handling of Chakma refugees, Tibetan refugees (1959), Sri Lankan Tamils (1983, 1990); invokes 2017 Rohingya crisis response; mentions Myanmar coup context (2021) and Operation Sunrise coordination; uses Geneva Convention III on prisoners of warVague reference to 'past refugee crises' without specificity; mentions Article 21 but not leading case; generic international law references without Convention articles; no contemporary Myanmar contextNo legal precedents; no historical examples; or irrelevant examples (Syrian refugees, European migration crisis); misidentifies case law or invents non-existent precedents
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Synthesizes decision through prism of 'compassionate realism'—balancing humanitarian imperative with security prudence; acknowledges precedent-setting nature of decision; reflects on limits of administrative discretion and need for institutionalized refugee policy; shows awareness of long-term bilateral relations with neighboring stateRestates chosen option without deeper reflection; generic conclusion on 'balancing interests'; no acknowledgment of decision's broader implications; fails to address what happens after immediate crisisNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive final paragraph; contradicts earlier analysis; ignores the 'why' entirely in part (c); no recognition of decision's systemic consequences

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 →

More from General Studies 2025 GS Paper IV