(a) Carl von Clausewitz once said, "War is a diplomacy by other means." Critically analyse the above statement in the present context of contemporary geo-political conflict. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (b) Keeping the national security in mind, examine the ethical dilemmas related to controversies over environmental clearance of development projects in ecologically sensitive border areas in the country. (Answer in 150 words) 10

General Studies 2025 GS Paper IV 20 marks 150 words Critically analyse

GS Paper IV — Q2

(a) Carl von Clausewitz once said, "War is a diplomacy by other means." Critically analyse the above statement in the present…

(a)

Carl von Clausewitz once said, "War is a diplomacy by other means." Critically analyse the above statement in the present context of contemporary geo-political conflict. (Answer in 150 words) 10 marks

(b)

Keeping the national security in mind, examine the ethical dilemmas related to controversies over environmental clearance of development projects in ecologically sensitive border areas in the country. (Answer in 150 words) 10 marks

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a)

कार्ल वॉन क्लॉज़विट्ज़ ने एक बार कहा था, "युद्ध दूसरे माध्यमों से की जाने वाली एक कूटनीति है।" समकालीन भू-राजनीतिक संघर्ष के वर्तमान संदर्भ में उपर्युक्त कथन का आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए) 10 अंक

(b)

राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा को ध्यान में रखते हुए देश में पारिस्थितिक रूप से संवेदनशील सीमावर्ती क्षेत्रों में विकास परियोजनाओं की पर्यावरणीय मंजूरी पर विवादों से संबंधित नैतिक दुविधाओं का परीक्षण कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए) 10 अंक

The question as printed in the 2025 General Studies paper

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

Model answer

Drafted with AI by UPSC Answer Check against this question's marking rubric, to the 150-word length. UPSC does not publish answers for Mains — this is one way to score well, not an official key. How we build rubrics and answers.

(a) Clausewitzian War in Contemporary Geopolitics

Clausewitz’s actual dictum is that war is “the continuation of policy by other means”; he conceived war as a rational instrument linking the trinity of government, military, and people. In contemporary geopolitics, nuclear deterrence, cyber warfare, and economic sanctions have transformed this continuum, turning total war from a diplomatic extension into an existential hazard. While the Russia-Ukraine war reflects military force replacing failed diplomacy, the India-China LAC standoffs illustrate military brinkmanship substituting for diplomatic breakthroughs. Thus, while military coercion remains wedded to statecraft, modern catastrophic risks make war a dangerous breakdown of diplomacy rather than its routine continuation.

(b) National Security vs. Ecological Ethics in Border Areas

Strategic projects like the Char Dham highway, Zoji-La tunnel, and Arunachal frontier roads create an ethical clash between the Hobbesian imperative of national security as the supreme public good and the Rio Declaration's principles of intergenerational equity and ecological integrity. Exemptions such as the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, which frees strategic linear projects within 100 km of the LoC/LAC from forest clearance, and the Supreme Court’s 2021 Char Dham ruling allowing wider roads for defence needs, expose the institutional friction between the Ministry of Defence’s operational urgency and MoEFCC’s precautionary principle. As evidenced in NGT scrutiny over the Subansiri and Teesta-III projects, bypassing cumulative impact assessments in seismic Himalayan zones creates moral hazard, necessitating green engineering over unmitigated clearance.

How this answer will be evaluated

Framework: GS4 Ethical Dilemma & Governance Framework

What earns full marks: Precise, well-structured, with specific examples and critical analysis

Evaluation rubric

Each sub-part is marked on its own, against the marks and word limit printed on the paper.

(a) Critically analyse the Clausewitzian idea of war as an extension of policy/diplomacy in the context of contemporary conflicts. 10 marks · 150 words

analyse— intro → causes → effects → stakeholders/linkages → way forward
Must cover
- Note Clausewitz's actual dictum ('continuation of policy by other means') and interpret it
- Link to contemporary geopolitical conflicts
- Critically evaluate where the statement holds and where it fails (nuclear risk, hybrid war, humanitarian cost)
- Specific examples of modern conflicts
Loses marks
- Generic discussion of war without examples
- Ignoring the critical aspect
- Failing to link to the contemporary context
Earns more
- Contemporary conflicts (Russia–Ukraine, West Asia, India–Pakistan 2025)
- Modern forms: cyber, economic sanctions, grey-zone tactics
- Role of international law and institutions (UN Charter, IHL)
- Ethical view: just war theory, Gandhian non-violence
Extra mark
- Reference to 'On War' (Vom Kriege) and the 'trinity'
- A case of diplomacy failing before war
(b) Examine the ethical dilemmas in environmental clearance of development projects in ecologically sensitive border areas, keeping national security in mind. 10 marks · 150 words

examine— intro → how/why with reasoning → evidence → conclusion
Must cover
- Identify the core dilemma: national security vs ecological integrity
- Focus on ecologically sensitive border areas (Himalayas, North-East, islands)
- Consider national security needs (roads, tunnels, airstrips, dams)
- Discuss controversies and their ethical dimensions (precaution, intergenerational equity, local consent, transparency)
Loses marks
- Generic environmental discussion without border focus
- Ignoring the ethical dilemma
- Ignoring national security
Earns more
- Specific areas (Himalayan eco-sensitive zones, Arunachal, Great Nicobar)
- Legal provisions (EIA Notification 2006; Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023 exemption within 100 km of borders)
- Stakeholder conflicts (defence vs environmental bodies vs local communities)
- Specific projects (Char Dham roads, Zoji La tunnel, Subansiri Lower)
Extra mark
- Supreme Court's Char Dham ruling (December 2021)
- Ethical framework (utilitarian vs deontological, sustainable development)

What "Critically analyse" is asking you to do

Break the subject into its working parts and show how they act on each other. The marks are in the interconnections — which factor drives which, and what the resulting structure explains — not in the inventory of factors. “Critically” is not a section added at the end: name the yardstick you are judging by — the evidence, the stated objective, a constitutional principle, a rival explanation — and let a verdict close each part of the body. Where the question quotes a claim, that verdict must land on the claim itself, accepted, qualified or rejected, and not on the theme in general.

Structure that answers it

Define the whole → separate it into its parts → show which part drives which → what that interaction produces → what the structure implies

Where marks are lost

Merits in one paragraph, demerits in the next, and a conclusion calling for a balanced and holistic approach. That is a survey with the judgement left out and it holds the answer in the middle band. The opposite error is reading “critically” as permission to attack — and with the odd pairings, critically describe or critically explain, the exposition still carries most of the marks, the judgement being a layer on it rather than a substitute for it.

All UPSC directive words, compared →

Practice this exact question

Write your answer and it is marked point by point against the model answer above — what you covered, what you missed, what you got wrong.

Evaluate my answer →