renders below this block, the homepage copy came first, so every share of every blog post or PYQ page rendered the homepage card with og:url=upscanswercheck.com. Removed 2026-08-09; do not reintroduce. --> %sveltekit.head%
Political Science & IR 2021 Paper II 50 marks Explain

Paper II — Q4

(a) The modernization thesis asserts that affluence breeds stable democracy. How do you explain the success of India being the…

(a) The modernization thesis asserts that affluence breeds stable democracy. How do you explain the success of India being the world's largest democracy as an exceptional case? (20 marks) (b) Explain the success of ASEAN as a regional organisation. (15 marks) (c) Explain India's relations with the European Union in the context of Brexit. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) आधुनिकीकरण शोध प्रबंध (थीसिस) का कथन है कि संपन्नता स्थिर लोकतंत्र को जन्म देती है । आप किस प्रकार भारत को विश्व के सबसे बड़े सफल लोकतंत्र को एक असाधारण उदाहरण के तौर पर देखते हैं ? (20 अंक) (b) एक क्षेत्रीय संगठन के रूप में आसियान (ASEAN) की सफलता की व्याख्या कीजिये । (15 अंक) (c) ब्रेक्सिट (Brexit) के संदर्भ में भारत के यूरोपीय संघ के साथ संबंधों की व्याख्या कीजिये । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' requires causal reasoning and clarification of processes across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400-450 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks; ~30% each (~300-350 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then three distinct sections clearly demarcated, followed by an integrated conclusion that ties India's democratic exceptionalism to its ASEAN and EU engagement.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Critique Lipset's modernization thesis (affluence-democracy correlation) and explain India's deviation through historical-institutional factors (colonial legacy, nationalist movement, constitutional design) and socio-cultural arguments (unity in diversity, civilizational continuity)
  • For (a): Address why India is 'exceptional'—low per capita income yet sustained democracy since 1950, with brief comparison to failed/neighbouring democracies
  • For (b): Explain ASEAN success through 'ASEAN Way' principles (non-interference, consensus, informal institutionalism), economic integration (AEC), and great-power management (balancing China-US rivalry without military alignment)
  • For (b): Mention specific mechanisms—ARF, EAS, ADMM-Plus—and how ASEAN centrality persists despite diversity (development gaps, political systems)
  • For (c): Explain India-EU relations pre-Brexit (strategic partnership 2004, trade, normative convergence) and post-Brexit recalibration (UK exit as loss of Atlanticist bridge, opportunity for deeper India-EU bilateral, FTA negotiations)
  • For (c): Address Brexit's impact on EU's global actorness and India's multi-alignment strategy—how India engages EU as collective while maintaining UK bilateral
  • Cross-cutting: Synthesize how India's democratic exceptionalism (a) informs its normative appeal in ASEAN (b) and value-based partnership with EU (c)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), distinguishes 'explain' from mere description by establishing causal mechanisms (why affluence didn't determine India's democratic outcome); for (b), explains success through process-tracing (how ASEAN Way produces cooperation); for (c), explains relational shifts post-Brexit through counterfactual reasoning (what changed, what persisted)Describes features of Indian democracy, ASEAN institutions, and India-EU relations without establishing explanatory links; conflates 'explain' with 'list'Misreads directive as 'describe' or 'enumerate'; provides definitions without causal analysis; ignores 'how' and 'why' dimensions entirely
Content depth & accuracy20%10For (a), cites Lipset (1959), Przeworski, or Atul Kohli on democratic durability; for (b), accurately distinguishes ASEAN from EU-style supranationalism; for (c), correctly identifies Brexit's impact on India-EU FTA negotiations and Strategic Partnership Review 2020General awareness of modernization theory and ASEAN basics; vague on Brexit specifics; conflates ASEAN with SAARC or EU modelsFactual errors (e.g., ASEAN founded in 1967 misdated, India-EU relations initiated post-2014); mischaracterizes modernization thesis; confuses Brexit with Grexit or other exits
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite structure with visible sub-headings; logical progression from theoretical problem (a) to regional practice (b) to bilateral application (c); transitions show how India's democratic identity shapes its regional/multilateral engagementThree parts present but unevenly developed; some linkage between parts but mostly treated as standalone answers; abrupt shifts without signpostingNo demarcation between parts; jumbled treatment; disproportionate attention (e.g., 70% on (a), 10% each on others); missing introduction or conclusion
Examples / case-law / data20%10For (a): Uses V-Dem, Freedom House data on India's democratic scores; compares with Pakistan/Bangladesh GDP-democracy trajectories. For (b): Cites specific ASEAN achievements—RCEP 2020, handling of Myanmar crisis 2021, South China Sea diplomacy. For (c): Names India-EU Connectivity Partnership 2021, trade figures (€88 billion 2022), Green PartnershipSome data points but imprecise (e.g., 'ASEAN is successful' without metrics); generic examples (democracy, diversity); no contemporary data on Brexit impactNo empirical support; purely theoretical treatment; invented data; examples from wrong regions (EU for ASEAN, etc.)
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesizes three parts: India's democratic exceptionalism enables its 'middle power' role—credibility in ASEAN's diverse membership and normative alignment with EU; addresses limitations (democratic backsliding concerns, ASEAN's institutional weakness, India-EU trade gap) with forward-looking assessmentSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic summary statements; no critical reflection on 'success' claimsMissing conclusion; abrupt end; purely descriptive final paragraph; no connection between India's democracy and its external relations

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 Political Science & IR 2021 Paper II