Political Science & IR 2021 Paper II 50 marks Explain
Paper II — Q7
(a) Why South Asia is considered as the world's politically and economically least integrated region? Explain. (20 marks) (b) How…
(a) Why South Asia is considered as the world's politically and economically least integrated region? Explain. (20 marks) (b) How do the constituent states influence the foreign policy making process in India? (15 marks) (c) Examine the evolution of India's role in the global nuclear order. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) दक्षिण एशिया को राजनीतिक और आर्थिक रूप से विश्व का सबसे कम एकीकृत क्षेत्र क्यों माना जाता है ? व्याख्या कीजिये । (20 अंक) (b) घटक राज्य भारत की विदेश नीति निर्धारण की प्रक्रिया को किस प्रकार से प्रभावित करते हैं ? (15 अंक) (c) वैश्विक परमाणु व्यवस्था में भारत की भूमिका के क्रमागत विकास का परीक्षण कीजिये । (15 अंक)
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' in part (a) requires causal reasoning and elaboration of reasons, while 'how' in (b) demands process analysis and 'examine' in (c) needs critical evaluation of evolution. 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 connects India's domestic federal constraints with its regional and global nuclear positioning.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Structural factors—India-Pakistan rivalry, China's strategic entry via BRI/CPEC, absence of regional security architecture like ASEAN; institutional failures—SAARC's paralysis since 2016, low intra-regional trade (5% of total trade vs 25% in ASEAN), asymmetric power structure with India's dominance creating smaller states' fear
- Part (a): Historical and identity factors—partition legacy, contested borders (Kashmir, Durand Line), religious nationalism, divergent political systems (democracy vs authoritarianism/military rule); economic factors—poor connectivity, non-complementary economies, India's protectionism vis-à-vis neighbours
- Part (b): Constitutional provisions—Article 246 (Union List), Article 253 (treaty-making power), yet states' indirect influence through Rajya Sabha, Inter-State Council, NITI Aayog; substantive influence of border states—West Bengal on Teesta water sharing, Tamil Nadu on Sri Lanka policy, Northeast states on Act East policy
- Part (b): Economic federalism and coalition politics—role of state CMs in foreign economic engagement (Gujarat-MOUs with Japan, Maharashtra-Israel), Chief Ministers' participation in diaspora diplomacy; judicial interventions—Punjab-Haryana water disputes affecting Indus Waters Treaty dynamics
- Part (c): Evolutionary phases—opposition to NPT (1968) as discriminatory, 'peaceful nuclear explosion' 1974, nuclear ambiguity 1980s-90s, Pokhran-II 1998 and declared weaponisation; post-1998 engagement—Indo-US nuclear deal 2008, NSG waiver, membership bids, civil nuclear agreements with France, Russia, Japan
- Part (c): Contemporary positioning—nuclear doctrine evolution (no-first-use debate), entry into MTCR, Wassenaar Arrangement, Australia Group; tensions between non-proliferation commitments and strategic autonomy, role in FMCT negotiations, critique of AUKUS and discriminatory global order
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | For (a), distinguishes 'explain' from mere description by establishing causal chains (e.g., how partition → identity politics → regional distrust); for (b), captures 'how' as process analysis showing multiple pathways of state influence, not just constitutional formalism; for (c), treats 'examine' as critical evaluation of shifts, not chronological narration, with clear thesis on continuity vs change | Addresses all three parts but treats directives generically—(a) becomes descriptive list, (b) conflates influence with formal powers, (c) provides timeline without evaluative framework; misses directive-specific demands | Fundamental misreading of directives—treats (a) as 'describe', (b) as 'list', (c) as 'write short notes'; conflates all three parts into undifferentiated response or ignores one sub-part entirely |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates command of IR theory (realism for India-Pakistan, liberal intergovernmentalism for SAARC failure, federalism theories for part b); accurate data on intra-SAARC trade percentages, specific treaty dates (Indus Waters 1960, 123 Agreement 2008), correct constitutional articles; nuanced treatment of China's role in South Asian integration failure | Broadly accurate but imprecise—rounds trade figures, conflates 1974 and 1998 tests, generic reference to 'federal structure' without Article specificity; misses China's strategic dimension in part (a) or conflates NPT and CTBT in part (c) | Significant factual errors—claims India signed NPT, misidentifies constitutional provisions (e.g., Article 356 instead of 246), anachronistic claims (SAARC success), or omits core developments like Indo-US nuclear deal entirely |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite division with visible sub-headings or paragraph transitions; internal logic within each part—(a) moves from security to economic to institutional factors, (b) from constitutional to political to economic federalism, (c) from opposition to integration to contested membership; integrated conclusion synthesizing India's 'reluctant regionalism' with its 'assertive global nuclear citizenship' | All three parts present but unevenly developed—(a) disproportionately long, (b) and (c) rushed; or parts exist as disconnected silos without thematic linkage; conclusion merely summarizes rather than synthesizes | No discernible structure—parts merged chaotically, or one part dominates entirely; missing sub-parts; abrupt endings without conclusion; illegible organization preventing examiner from identifying where (b) ends and (c) begins |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | Rich empirical grounding: for (a)—SAARC suspension post-Uri 2016, BIMSTEC alternative, specific trade statistics (India-Pakistan trade $2.5bn vs potential $37bn); for (b)—Jayalalithaa's Sri Lanka policy, Mamata Banerjee blocking Teesta agreement, Gujarat's Japan MOUs; for (c)—Pokhran dates, NSG waiver specifics, Shyam Saran Committee report, recent AUKUS critique | Some examples but generic—'SAARC is weak' without specifics, 'states have some role' without named cases, 'India became nuclear power' without dates; or examples provided for only two of three parts | Virtually example-free or factually wrong examples; relies on assertion ('South Asia has problems') without any institutional, personal, or data reference; no case-law or treaty citations where clearly expected |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across parts—argues India's federal constraints on neighbourhood policy (b) paradoxically reinforce its global nuclear exceptionalism (c), while both perpetuate South Asian fragmentation (a); offers forward-looking assessment—prospects for SAARC revival, cooperative federalism's potential, India's NSG membership trajectory; demonstrates independent critical judgment on whether integration is desirable or achievable | Separate conclusions for each part or single generic paragraph; restates main points without synthesis; limited forward projection—'hope for better future' without mechanism; no explicit connection between domestic federalism and foreign policy outcomes | No conclusion or single sentence perfunctory ending; purely descriptive throughout with no evaluative or synthetic element; ends mid-sentence or with irrelevant personal opinion |
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
- Q4 (a) The modernization thesis asserts that affluence breeds stable democracy. How do you e…
- Q5 Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the strategic implications of I…
- Q6 (a) "Non-alignment was little more than a rational strategy on the part of a materially w…
- Q7 (a) Why South Asia is considered as the world's politically and economically least integr…
- Q8 (a) 'Relations between India and Russia are rooted in history, mutual trust and mutually…