(a) What are the main drivers of India-Japan Strategic and Global Partnership? (20 marks) (b) What are the implications of…

(a) What are the main drivers of India-Japan Strategic and Global Partnership? (20 marks) (b) What are the implications of 'Look-East' Policy on the north-eastern region of India? (15 marks) (c) Explain the factors which justify India's claim for a permanent seat at the UN security council. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारत-जापान के सामरिक एवं वैश्विक भागीदारी के मुख्य प्रेरक क्या हैं? (20 अंक) (b) भारत की उत्तर-पूर्व क्षेत्र पर 'लुक ईस्ट' नीति के क्या निहितार्थ हैं? (15 अंक) (c) भारत के संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद में स्थायी सदस्यता के दावे को न्यायोचित ठहराने वाले कारकों की व्याख्या करें। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 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 justification across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, with ~30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct body sections with clear sub-headings for each part, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects India's broader foreign policy vision across all three themes.

Key points expected

Part (a): Convergence of democratic values, economic complementarity (CEPA, investments), shared concerns over China's assertiveness, civil nuclear cooperation (2017), and Indo-Pacific strategic alignment (Quad, FOIP)
Part (a): Institutional mechanisms—2+2 dialogue, annual summits, Act East Forum—and sectoral cooperation in infrastructure (Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, bullet train), technology, and defense equipment
Part (b): Economic implications—Northeast as gateway to ASEAN via Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project, Trilateral Highway, enhanced trade connectivity, and industrial development
Part (b): Strategic and security implications—countering insurgency through development, Look/Act East shifting focus from land borders to maritime engagement, cultural reconnection with Southeast Asia
Part (c): Historical contribution—founding member, peacekeeping participation (largest troop contributor), decolonization leadership, and financial contributions to UN
Part (c): Contemporary justification—demographic representation (1/6th of humanity), economic weight (5th largest economy), nuclear power status, responsible non-proliferation record, and commitment to UN Sustainable Development Goals

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a), identifies multiple causal drivers with clear prioritization; for (b), distinguishes between economic, strategic, and socio-cultural implications rather than listing randomly; for (c), builds a layered justification moving from historical to contemporary claims without conflating description with explanation	Addresses what is asked but treats 'drivers' and 'implications' as synonymous with 'features'; provides descriptive coverage without establishing causal relationships or clear linkages between factors	Misinterprets directives—describes India-Japan relations without identifying drivers, lists Northeast schemes without analyzing implications, or merely describes UNSC structure without justifying India's claim
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Demonstrates command of evolving terminology (Special Strategic Global Partnership 2014, Act East Policy 2014), accurate treaty dates, correct identification of Northeast projects (Kaladan, Asian Highway Network), and precise UNSC reform proposals (G4, Uniting for Consensus, Intergovernmental Negotiations)	Covers major points with minor inaccuracies—confuses Look East (1991) with Act East, vague on specific projects, or mentions G4 without explaining its composition or current status in reform negotiations	Substantial factual errors—wrong dates for nuclear deal, conflates Northeast with Naxal-affected areas, or claims India was permanent member in 1945; significant gaps in coverage of any sub-part
Structure & flow	20%	10	Clear tripartite division with proportional length; effective signposting between parts; logical internal progression in (a) from bilateral to regional/global drivers, in (b) from infrastructure to human development, in (c) from historical to functional criteria; seamless conclusion integrating all three	Identifiable parts but uneven treatment—disproportionate space to one part, weak transitions, or bullet-point heavy without paragraph coherence; conclusion merely summarizes without synthesis	No clear part demarcation, chaotic organization, or attempts all three parts without separation; abrupt ending without conclusion; significant imbalance (e.g., 80% on part a, neglecting b and c)
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	For (a): cites specific investment figures (Japan's $42 billion commitment 2014-2019), defense agreements (ACSA, GSOMIA); for (b): names specific projects (India-Myanmar-Thailand Highway, Rhi-Tiddim Road, Agartala-Akhaura rail); for (c): references specific UNGA resolutions, G4 declarations, or comparative data on peacekeeping contributions	Mentions some examples but lacks specificity—'various infrastructure projects' instead of named ones, 'significant peacekeeping contribution' without troop numbers or mission names, general reference to 'economic cooperation'	Virtually example-free or incorrect examples; generic statements applicable to any bilateral relationship; no Northeast-specific illustrations; confuses UN bodies (citing UNESCO or WHO for UNSC claim)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesizes three parts through India's evolving 'strategic autonomy' and 'multi-alignment'; critically assesses limitations—Japan's constitutional constraints on defense, Northeast's connectivity bottlenecks, P5 resistance to reform; offers forward-looking perspective on how success in one area reinforces others	Restates main points without integration; mentions challenges superficially; conclusion reads like introduction rewritten; no critical engagement with why claims remain unfulfilled	Missing conclusion or purely mechanical summary; no critical awareness of counter-arguments (e.g., Pakistan's opposition to India's UNSC bid, China's strategic presence in Northeast); ends abruptly or with irrelevant platitudes

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 →