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 2023 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Paper II — Q3

(a) "During the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement tried to become a 'Third force' in World Politics, but failed because it was…

(a) "During the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement tried to become a 'Third force' in World Politics, but failed because it was too large and unwieldy." Discuss. 20 (b) Account for the rise of European Union as a highly influential regional organisation. 15 (c) Narrate the various ways in which rapid environmental degradation is posing a serious threat to human security. Illustrate your answer with suitable examples. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "शीत युद्ध के दौरान, गुटनिरपेक्ष आंदोलन ने विश्व राजनीति में 'तीसरी शक्ति' बनने की कोशिश की लेकिन असफल रहा, क्योंकि यह बहुत बड़ा एवं बोझिल था ।" विवेचन कीजिए । 20 (b) एक अत्यधिक प्रभावशाली क्षेत्रीय संगठन के रूप में यूरोपीय संघ के उदय के कारणों का विवरण दीजिए । 15 (c) उन विभिन्न तरीकों का वर्णन कीजिए जिनसे तेजी से पर्यावरणीय निम्नीकरण मानवीय सुरक्षा के लिए गंभीर खतरा पैदा कर रहा है । अपने उत्तर को उपयुक्त उदाहरणों से स्पष्ट कीजिए । 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 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 directive 'discuss' in part (a) requires a balanced examination of both the NAM's aspirations as a 'Third force' and the reasons for its limitations, without taking a definitive yes/no stance initially. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% to part (b) on EU's rise, and 30% to part (c) on environmental security. Structure with a brief composite introduction linking Cold War context to contemporary regionalism and security challenges, then address each part sequentially with clear sub-headings, and conclude with an integrated observation on the evolution of multilateralism and non-state security threats.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Analysis of NAM's 'Third force' aspiration through Bandung 1955, Belgrade 1961, and the Five Principles; assessment of structural constraints including heterogeneous membership (pro-Soviet vs pro-West factions), lack of institutional mechanisms, and bipolar pressure
  • For (a): Counter-arguments noting NAM's partial successes—UNCTAD advocacy, decolonization support, and its role as normative bridge during détente; nuanced conclusion on 'failure' being overstated
  • For (b): EU's rise traced through functional spillover (ECSC 1951 → EEC 1957 → Single Market 1986 → Maastricht 1992); institutional deepening (EP powers, Commission autonomy, ECB creation) and widening (enlargements 1973-2013)
  • For (b): Structural factors—American security umbrella enabling European focus on economic integration; Franco-German reconciliation as motor; soft power through trade agreements, climate leadership, and regulatory standards (Brussels effect)
  • For (c): Multi-dimensional environmental threats to human security: climate-induced displacement (Sundarbans, Pacific island states), resource conflicts (Nile Basin, Darfur), health crises (COVID-19 zoonotic origins, air pollution in Delhi/Beijing), and food/water insecurity (Sahel droughts, groundwater depletion in Punjab)
  • For (c): Distinction between traditional state-centric security and human security framework; reference to UN Human Security Report, IPCC findings, and India's climate vulnerability (Kerala floods, Chennai water crisis)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), recognizes 'discuss' requires weighing both the 'Third force' claim and the 'too large and unwieldy' critique without predetermined conclusion; for (b), 'account for' demands causal explanation not mere description; for (c), 'narrate' requires systematic enumeration while 'illustrate' mandates concrete examplesAddresses all three parts but treats directives generically—(a) becomes one-sided argument, (b) lists events without causal logic, (c) describes problems without systematic narrationMisreads directives—(a) as 'critically examine' with premature judgment, (b) as 'describe' omitting rise factors, (c) as 'comment' with opinion over evidence
Content depth & accuracy20%10Precise chronology (NAM founding conferences 1955-61; EU treaties with years); accurate distinction between NAM1 (Tito-Nehru-Nasser) and NAM2 (post-Cold War); correct institutional detail on EU's supranational-intergovernmental balance; scientifically grounded environmental security linkagesBroadly accurate but with chronological fuzziness (e.g., conflating ECSC and EEC dates); generic NAM description without factional analysis; EU institutions named without function clarity; environmental threats listed without security framework applicationFactual errors—NAM as post-1990 creation, EU as purely intergovernmental, environmental security conflated with environmental protection; significant gaps in any one part
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite organization with visible (a)/(b)/(c) demarcation; internal progression in (a) from aspiration to constraints to assessment; in (b) from functional to political integration; in (c) from threat categories to human security framework; smooth transitions between parts showing evolution from Cold War bloc politics to complex interdependenceAll parts present but uneven development—(a) overlong, (c) compressed; some internal organization (bullet points in (c)) but narrative flow weak between sections; missing explicit linkages between NAM's institutional weakness and EU's institutional successDisorganized—parts merged or sequence jumbled; no visible structure within parts; abrupt shifts between NAM, EU, and environment without thematic bridge; conclusion absent or repetitive of introduction
Examples / case-law / data20%10For (a): Specific summits (Bandung 1955, Belgrade 1961, Havana 1979), NAM's role in Korean War armistice and Congo crisis; for (b): Treaty references (Rome 1957, SEA 1986, Lisbon 2009), euro crisis management, Brexit as stress test; for (c): IPCC temperature projections, India's climate vulnerability index ranking, specific events (Cyclone Amphan displacement, Cape Town Day Zero, Syrian drought-civil war linkage per Kelley et al.)Some examples but generic—'various African countries' for NAM membership, 'some treaties' for EU, 'floods and droughts' for environment without specificity; Indian examples limited to common knowledgeVirtually example-free or inaccurate examples; no treaty names, no specific environmental events, no data points; reliance on assertion over illustration
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesizes across parts: NAM's institutional lessons for Global South cooperation; EU as successful alternative to NAM's loose coordination; environmental security as post-Cold War paradigm shift making NAM-style state-centricism inadequate; forward-looking observation on India's NAM evolution and climate leadership; original insight (e.g., NAM's 'failure' was epistemic—lacking shared theory of change versus EU's Monnet method)Separate conclusions for each part without cross-cutting synthesis; restates main points without advancement; generic 'importance of cooperation' closing without question-specific insightNo conclusion or purely summary; contradictory final positions; moralistic rather than analytical closing ('we must save environment')

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 2023 Paper II