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 Comment

Paper II — Q6

(a) "Non-alignment was little more than a rational strategy on the part of a materially weak India to maximise its interests with…

(a) "Non-alignment was little more than a rational strategy on the part of a materially weak India to maximise its interests with a bipolar distribution of global power." Comment. (20 marks) (b) Examine the Geo-strategic points of contention in the bilateral relationship between India and China. (15 marks) (c) Write a brief analysis of the ethnic conflicts and cross-border migrations along India-Myanmar and India-Bangladesh borders. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "गुटनिरपेक्षता की नीति वैश्विक शक्ति के द्विध्रुवीय वितरण के साथ अपने हितों को अधिकतम करने के लिये भौतिक रूप से कमजोर भारत की ओर से एक तर्कसंगत रणनीति से कुछ अधिक थी।" टिप्पणी कीजिये । (20 अंक) (b) भारत एवं चीन के मध्य द्विपक्षीय संबंधों में विवाद के भू-रणनीतिक बिंदुओं का परीक्षण कीजिये । (15 अंक) (c) भारत-म्यांमार एवं भारत-बांग्लादेश सीमा के साथ लगे संजातीय संघर्षों तथा सीमा-पार प्रवासन का एक संक्षिप्त विश्लेषण कीजिये । (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 primary directive is 'comment' for part (a), while parts (b) and (c) require 'examine' and 'brief analysis' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then three distinct sections addressing each sub-part sequentially, followed by an integrated conclusion that links India's strategic autonomy to contemporary challenges.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Evaluate non-alignment as both materialist strategy (Kenneth Waltz, realist critique) and normative ideology (Nehruvian idealism, Panchsheel, Afro-Asian solidarity); assess whether it was 'little more than' strategy or had autonomous value
  • Part (a): Contextualise within bipolarity (1950s-60s), India's economic-military weakness post-Partition, and how NAM maximised aid from both blocs without formal alliance
  • Part (b): Identify geo-strategic flashpoints: unresolved LAC/territorial claims (Aksai Chin, Arunachal Pradesh), Tibet factor, water security (Brahmaputra dams), CPEC through POK, Indian Ocean presence (String of Pearls vs. Act East)
  • Part (b): Analyse power asymmetry, nuclear deterrence, and competition for regional influence (Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bangladesh)
  • Part (c): India-Myanmar: Naga/Kuki insurgencies, Rohingya crisis (2017), Free Movement Regime suspension 2024, military coup impact, Golden Triangle narcotics
  • Part (c): India-Bangladesh: BSF firing incidents, enclaves exchange (2015), illegal migration (Assam NRC context), river water sharing (Teesta), climate refugees
  • Cross-cutting: Link how non-alignment's legacy shapes India's current China hedging and sub-regional connectivity dilemmas

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), recognises 'comment' requires balanced evaluation—neither fully endorsing nor rejecting the materialist thesis, but weighing realist (Morgenthau) versus constructivist (K.P. Misra) interpretations; for (b), 'examine' demands causal analysis of why specific geo-strategic issues persist; for (c), 'brief analysis' prioritises causal mechanisms over descriptionAddresses all three parts but treats (a) as purely descriptive history, (b) as list of disputes without strategic logic, or (c) as enumeration without migration-conflict nexusMisidentifies directives—writes essay on NAM history without evaluating the quoted thesis, or describes China-India trade without geo-strategic focus, or merely lists border states for (c)
Content depth & accuracy20%10Demonstrates historiographical awareness (S. Gopal, Itty Abraham on NAM's invention); precise on LAC sectors (Western/Middle/Eastern); accurate on 2015 Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh, 2024 FMR suspension with Myanmar; cites specific incidents (Galwan 2020, Doklam 2017)Broadly accurate but conflates timelines (e.g., NAM origins with post-1962 period), vague on LAC sectors, or mentions 'illegal Bangladeshi migrants' without Assam-specific contextFactual errors—claims NAM ended with Cold War, confuses McMahon Line with LAC throughout, or attributes Rohingya crisis to India-Myanmar border alone
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite division with visible sub-headings; each part has internal thesis-antithesis-synthesis or problem-analysis-implications structure; smooth transitions showing how (a)'s strategic logic explains (b)'s hedging and (c)'s sub-regional constraintsThree separate sections present but uneven development—strong on (a), thin on (c); or abrupt shifts without linking India's strategic culture across partsNo part demarcation, or disproportionate—spends 60% on (a), rushes (b)-(c); or confuses China and Myanmar content
Examples / case-law / data20%10Rich specificity: for (a)—Bandung 1955, Belgrade 1961 summits, Indo-Soviet Treaty 1971 as NAM adaptation; for (b)—specific PLA incursion points (Depsang, Demchok), CPEC's $62bn valuation, Shyam Saran Committee on LAC; for (c)—CAA 2019 implications, 1.1 million Rohingya in Bangladesh, 2015 enclave exchange affecting 51,000 peopleSome examples but generic—mentions '1962 war' without Aksai Chin specifics, 'Rohingya' without numbers, or 'water sharing' without Teesta/Ganges distinctionNo concrete examples, or irrelevant ones—discusses Pakistan in China section, or uses pre-1947 history for (c)
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesises across parts: argues NAM's strategic flexibility enabled today's multi-alignment (QUAD+BRICS) but left institutional deficits for border management; connects China's rise to sub-regional migration pressures; offers forward-looking insight on AFSPA, border infrastructure, or sub-regionalism (BCIM)Separate conclusions for each part without integration, or repetitive summary without analytical advancementNo conclusion, or abrupt ending; or ideological rant (pro/anti-China, pro/anti-NAM) without scholarly balance

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