(a) Would you concur with the view that of late, India's foreign policy has been in a transition mode from Nehruvianism to Neoliberalism ? Support your answer with the help of suitable examples. (20 marks)

(b) Does the idea of the 21st century as 'A

Question

(a) Would you concur with the view that of late, India's foreign policy has been in a transition mode from Nehruvianism to Neoliberalism ? Support your answer with the help of suitable examples. (20 marks)

(b) Does the idea of the 21st century as 'Asian century' continue to remain feasible given the growing friction between India and China ? (15 marks)

(c) Discuss the potential role that India could play as the leader of the Global South in realising the goal of establishing a new international economic order in the 21st century. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'discuss' requires a balanced, analytical treatment with arguments for and against. For part (a), spend ~40% of word budget (800-900 words) examining the Nehruvian-to-Neoliberal transition thesis with evidence; for (b), allocate ~30% (600-700 words) assessing whether Asian century remains feasible despite Sino-Indian friction; for (c), use remaining ~30% (600-700 words) on India's Global South leadership potential for new international economic order. Structure: integrated introduction framing all three parts, separate analytical sections for each sub-part with internal conclusions, and a synthesizing conclusion on India's evolving global role.
- Part (a): Analysis of Nehruvianism's core tenets (non-alignment, moralpolitik, state-led economic nationalism) versus Neoliberalism's features (strategic autonomy, multi-alignment, economic liberalization, military modernization)
- Part (a): Evidence of transition—Quad participation, Indo-US nuclear deal, economic reforms post-1991, Atmanirbhar Bharat, yet continuity in non-alignment institutional membership and developmental assistance to neighbours
- Part (b): Conceptualization of 'Asian century'—economic weight shift, institutional representation, technological leadership; counter-arguments on feasibility given border standoffs (Galwan 2020), economic decoupling trends, competing visions of regional order
- Part (b): Alternative scenarios—fragmented Asia versus cooperative Asia, role of ASEAN centrality, economic interdependence despite political friction, India's Indo-Pacific strategy as hedge
- Part (c): India's credentials for Global South leadership—G20 presidency agenda, Voice of Global South Summit, historical solidarity (NAM, G-77), pharmaceutical diplomacy during COVID-19, climate justice advocacy
- Part (c): Concrete pathways for new international economic order—WTO reform demands, IMF quota revision, debt relief initiatives, digital public infrastructure export, alternative supply chain architectures

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a), presents a nuanced thesis rather than binary yes/no—recognizes selective continuity and transformation; for (b), evaluates feasibility through multiple analytical lenses (economic, strategic, institutional) rather than deterministic prediction; for (c), moves beyond description to assess potential constraints and enabling conditions	Addresses all three parts but treats (a) as simple confirmation, (b) as one-sided argument, or (c) as mere listing of initiatives without critical assessment of leadership viability	Misreads directive—provides purely descriptive narrative of foreign policy evolution, treats Asian century as inevitable, or offers uncritical celebration of India's Global South role without addressing structural obstacles
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Demonstrates command of theoretical frameworks (Kautilyan realism, strategic autonomy, middle power theory); accurately cites specific policy shifts (1991 reforms, 2005 Indo-US nuclear deal, 2020 Galwan clash, 2023 G20 presidency); distinguishes between economic and political dimensions of Neoliberalism	Covers major developments but with imprecise dating, conflates economic liberalization with foreign policy neoliberalism, or treats Global South as homogeneous category without internal differentiation	Factual errors on chronology (e.g., placing reforms in wrong decade), confuses Nehruvianism with isolationism, or makes unsupported claims about India's uncontested leadership in Global South
Structure & flow	20%	10	Integrated structure with thematic introduction connecting all three parts; clear visual/verbal demarcation between (a), (b), (c); logical progression from domestic policy transformation to regional implications to global systemic aspirations; smooth transitions showing interconnections between parts	Three discrete sections with adequate internal organization but weak integrative framing; some repetition across parts or abrupt shifts without bridging arguments	Disorganized response mixing all parts randomly, or excessive imbalance (e.g., 70% on part a, cursory treatment of b and c); missing introduction or conclusion
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	Rich empirical grounding: for (a)—specific agreements (LEMOA, COMCASA, BECA), trade statistics, defence budget trends; for (b)—GDP projections, bilateral trade data, infrastructure competition (AIIB vs NDB); for (c)—vaccine diplomacy numbers, debt relief cases, digital infrastructure projects in Africa	Some relevant examples but lacking specificity (e.g., 'various trade agreements' without naming), dated statistics, or examples that illustrate rather than substantiate arguments	Absence of concrete examples, reliance on generic assertions ('India is rising'), or inappropriate examples that misrepresent the argument (e.g., citing NAM summits as evidence of Neoliberal transition)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesizes three parts into coherent argument about India's evolving identity—neither pure Nehruvian nor neoliberal but distinctive 'modular' foreign policy; acknowledges limits of Asian century thesis while identifying conditions for its partial realization; critically assesses India's Global South leadership constraints (resource limitations, China competition, domestic priorities) alongside potential	Summarizes main points without synthesis; offers predictable optimistic conclusion on India's global role without addressing structural constraints; or provides three separate mini-conclusions without integration	No conclusion, or purely rhetorical conclusion ('India will lead the world'); contradicts own arguments; introduces entirely new claims without support

(a) Would you concur with the view that of late, India's foreign policy has been in a transition mode from Nehruvianism to…

Directive word: Discuss

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Political Science & IR 2024 Paper II