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 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Paper II — Q5

Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the strategic implications of India's 'Look East Policy' transforming…

Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the strategic implications of India's 'Look East Policy' transforming into 'Act East Policy'. (10 marks) (b) Explain the philosophical foundations of India's foreign policy. (10 marks) (c) Explain India's position on the waiver of intellectual property rights on COVID-19 vaccines in WTO. (10 marks) (d) Write about the growing significance of QUAD. (10 marks) (e) How does the recent takeover of Afghanistan by Taliban impact India's strategic interests? (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए : (a) भारत की 'पूर्व दृश्य नीति' (लुक ईस्ट पॉलिसी) के 'पूर्व कृत्य नीति' (एक्ट ईस्ट पॉलिसी) में रूपांतरित होने के सामरिक निहितार्थों की विवेचना कीजिये । (10 अंक) (b) भारत की विदेश नीति के दार्शनिक आधारों की व्याख्या कीजिये । (10 अंक) (c) डब्ल्यू टी ओ (WTO) में कोविड-19 टीकों पर बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकारों की छूट पर भारत की स्थिति की व्याख्या कीजिये । (10 अंक) (d) क्वाड (QUAD) के बढ़ते महत्व के बारे में लिखिये । (10 अंक) (e) तालिबान के द्वारा हाल ही में अफगानिस्तान का अधिग्रहण भारत के सामरिक हितों को किस प्रकार प्रभावित करता है ? (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 question demands five distinct short answers of ~150 words each, carrying 10 marks apiece. For (a) 'Discuss' requires examining multiple strategic implications; (b) 'Explain' needs clear exposition of philosophical foundations; (c) 'Explain' demands articulation of India's WTO stance with reasoning; (d) 'Write about' permits descriptive-analytical coverage of QUAD's significance; (e) 'How' requires causal analysis of Taliban takeover's impact. Allocate approximately 25-28 minutes total (5-6 minutes per sub-part), with roughly equal word distribution (~30 words intro, ~90 words body, ~30 words conclusion per part). Structure each sub-part as: context/definition → 2-3 substantive points → forward-looking conclusion.

Key points expected

  • (a) Look East to Act East: shift from economic engagement to comprehensive strategic partnership; enhanced defence cooperation (Malabar exercises, logistics agreements); countering China's assertiveness; connectivity projects (Kaladan, Trilateral Highway); Act East Forum with Japan; sub-regionalism (BCIM, BIMSTEC)
  • (b) Philosophical foundations: Panchsheel principles; non-alignment and strategic autonomy; Gandhian moralpolitik and peaceful coexistence; Nehruvian idealism vs. post-Cold War pragmatism; Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam; civilizational soft power
  • (c) WTO TRIPS waiver: India-South Africa proposal (October 2020); arguments for vaccine equity and global public good; opposition to IP maximalism; differentiation between developed and developing countries; concerns about technology transfer and manufacturing capacity
  • (d) QUAD significance: evolution from dialogue to substantive grouping; Malabar exercises expansion; vaccine partnership, climate working group; semiconductor supply chain resilience; not formal alliance but 'flexible grouping'; Indo-Pacific stability
  • (e) Afghanistan impact: security concerns (terrorism spillover, Pakistan's strategic depth); economic investments (Salma Dam, Parliament building, Chabahar port viability); connectivity disruption; humanitarian crisis and refugee concerns; India's evacuation operation Devi Shakti; engagement dilemma with Taliban 2.0

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10Demonstrates precise calibration of each directive: for (a) 'discuss' presents multiple strategic implications with interconnections; for (b) and (c) 'explain' provides clear causal exposition; for (d) 'write about' balances description with analysis; for (e) 'how' establishes clear causal mechanisms between Taliban takeover and India's interestsAddresses all parts but with directive confusion—treating 'discuss' as mere description, 'explain' as listing, or 'how' as descriptive narrative without causal analysis; some parts may exceed or fall short of expected analytical depthFundamental misunderstanding of directives—provides opinion where explanation needed, or mere description where analysis required; significant mismatch between question demand and response type in multiple sub-parts
Content depth & accuracy20%10Displays accurate, contemporary knowledge: for (a) cites Act East Forum, specific projects; for (b) distinguishes between idealist and realist phases; for (c) references TRIPS Article 31bis, Doha Declaration; for (d) mentions AUKUS complementarity, working groups; for (e) notes specific Indian investments, Devi Shakti operationBroadly accurate but lacks specificity—mentions 'connectivity' without naming projects, 'philosophy' without distinguishing Nehruvian from post-Cold War phases, 'QUAD' without recent developments; minor factual errors or outdated informationSignificant factual errors or anachronisms—confuses Look East (1991) with Act East (2014) timelines, misrepresents India's WTO position, conflates QUAD with formal alliance, or provides pre-2021 Afghanistan analysis without Taliban takeover context
Structure & flow20%10Each 150-word segment follows disciplined structure: crisp context sentence, 2-3 logically sequenced substantive points with clear transitions, and forward-looking conclusion; overall answer shows visual separation between sub-parts with clear (a)-(e) labelling; no paragraph exceeds 60 wordsGenerally structured but uneven—some parts lack clear introduction or conclusion; transitions between points are abrupt; occasional paragraph overruns; sub-part demarcation present but formatting inconsistentPoorly organized with no discernible structure in multiple sub-parts; rambling narrative without paragraph breaks; missing or confused sub-part labelling; severe word imbalance with some parts under 100 words and others exceeding 200
Examples / case-law / data20%10Rich, specific evidence across all parts: (a) Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project, India-Myanmar-Thailand highway; (b) specific Panchsheel treaty (1954), Gujral Doctrine reference; (c) October 2020 joint proposal, June 2022 WTO ministerial outcome; (d) 2021 Leaders' Summit outcomes, specific Malabar editions; (e) $3 billion investment figure, specific infrastructure projectsSome supporting evidence but generic or imprecise—'various infrastructure projects,' 'several summits,' 'significant investments' without quantification; examples present but not optimally deployed to substantiate argumentsVirtually example-free or inappropriate examples—relies on assertion without substantiation; uses examples from wrong contexts (e.g., SAARC for Act East); or includes irrelevant data that does not advance the argument
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Each sub-part concludes with analytical insight: (a) assesses Act East's success in balancing China; (b) evaluates continuity vs. change in Indian foreign policy philosophy; (c) critiques India's stance vis-à-vis domestic pharmaceutical capacity; (d) assesses QUAD's institutionalization prospects; (e) evaluates India's 'wait and watch' strategy with Taliban—demonstrates independent critical thinkingConclusions present but descriptive or repetitive—merely summarizing points made rather than offering synthesis; limited critical engagement; some parts may end abruptly without proper conclusionMissing conclusions in multiple sub-parts or conclusions that introduce new unsubstantiated claims; purely descriptive endings that add no value; or no analytical engagement whatsoever—pure information regurgitation

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