UPSC Political Science & IR 2025 — Paper II

This multi-part question requires balanced treatment of five 10-mark sub-parts within 150 words each (~750 total). For (a) 'discuss', present Harold Lasswell's political psychology and Gabriel Almond's civic culture framework. For (b) 'comment', contrast neo-realist anarchy (Waltz) with neo-liberal institutionalism (Keohane/Nye) on cooperation. For (c) 'explain', define non-traditional security and link food crises (India's PDS challenges) with environmental degradation. For (d) 'discuss', compare Almond-Verba's civic culture in open societies versus indoctrination in closed systems. For (e) 'comment', contextualize South Korea's 2018 protest movement against patriarchal norms. Allocate roughly 30 words per sub-part for introduction, 100 for analytical body, and 20 for concise conclusion in each.

• (a) Psychological approach: Harold Lasswell's psychoanalysis of political behavior, Almond-Verba's civic culture typology (parochial-subject-participant), and the role of personality studies (Authoritarian Personality by Adorno et al.)
• (b) Neo-liberalism vs neo-realism: Absolute vs relative gains, institutionalism's mitigation of anarchy, Keohane's After Hegemony on cooperation under anarchy, and the 'lightening' through interdependence
• (c) Non-traditional security: Human security paradigm shift, food security crises (India's NFSA implementation challenges), climate-induced displacement, and the securitization of environment
• (d) Political socialization: Almond-Verba's comparative framework, agents in open societies (family, school, media) vs closed societies (state-controlled indoctrination, single-party apparatus)
• (e) Red Lipstick Movement: South Korea's 2018 feminist protest against spy-cam pornography, intersection with #MeToo, patriarchal backlash, and its significance for East Asian feminist mobilization
• Cross-cutting: Integration of behavioral revolution legacy in (a) and (d), regime-type analysis connecting (d) to comparative frameworks
• Theoretical precision: Distinguishing neo-liberalism (economic policy) from neo-liberal institutionalism (IR theory) in part (b)
• Contemporary relevance: Linking India's climate vulnerability and agrarian distress in (c) to lived security experiences

The primary directive is 'explain' for part (a), while parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'illustrate' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400-450 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks; ~30% each (~300-350 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure: Introduction framing the paradox of democratic backsliding/backlash → Body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings → Conclusion synthesizing how transnational actors and institutional reform can counter democratic erosion and health governance deficits.

• Part (a): Distinguish 'democratic backsliding' (incremental erosion of democratic norms by incumbents—Hungary, Turkey, India) from 'democratic backlash' (popular rejection of liberal democracy due to perceived elitism/inequality—Brexit, Trump 2016, rise of populist parties in Europe)
• Part (a): Explain the paradox—both processes coexist: elites dismantle institutions while masses demand accountability through illiberal means; cite Levitsky & Way's 'competitive authoritarianism' and Foa & Mounk's 'democratic deconsolidation'
• Part (b): Analyze US withdrawal from WHO (Trump 2020, Biden reversal, Trump 2025) and its multifaceted impacts—funding crisis (US contributed ~15% budget), weakened pandemic response, geopolitical vacuum filled by China, and India's rising role in vaccine diplomacy
• Part (b): Propose WHO reforms—Pandemic Treaty, mandatory funding mechanisms, regional equity in decision-making, and India's advocacy for TRIPS waiver as model of Global South leadership
• Part (c): Demonstrate how transnational actors qualitatively transformed global politics—TNCs (Apple, Amazon reshaping digital sovereignty), NGOs (Amnesty, Greenpeace creating new norms), terrorist networks (ISIS challenging Westphalian order), and epistemic communities (IPCC, Gates Foundation in health governance)
• Part (c): Illustrate 'fresh insights and actions'—#MeToo movement, Fridays for Future, Black Lives Matter as transnational advocacy networks redefining citizenship beyond states; India's Chipko movement influence on global environmentalism

The directive 'comment' for part (a) requires balanced analysis with personal insight, while 'explain' for (b) and 'discuss' for (c) demand systematic exposition and critical evaluation respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects the three themes through the lens of shifting global power and governance.

• Part (a): Analysis of decline of centre-left/centrist parties—economic factors (austerity backlash, deindustrialization), cultural backlash (immigration, identity politics), and case studies (Congress in India, SPD in Germany, Labour in UK, Democratic Party realignment in US)
• Part (a): Centre-right ascendency through populist-nationalist mobilization, welfare chauvinism, and strategic moderation of neoliberalism; exceptions and regional variations (Latin America pink tide resilience, Scandinavian social democracy)
• Part (b): Conceptual similarities between collective security and R2P—both reject unilateralism, emphasize multilateral institutional frameworks, and invoke sovereignty-limiting principles
• Part (b): Critical distinctions—scope (state aggression vs. mass atrocities), goals (territorial integrity vs. civilian protection), methods (Chapter VII enforcement vs. graduated response including prevention and rebuilding), and legal basis (UN Charter Article 51 vs. 2005 World Summit Outcome Document)
• Part (b): Case applications—Kosovo 1999 (pre-R2P collective security tension), Libya 2011 (R2P implementation with NATO controversy), and Syria (failure of both frameworks)
• Part (c): Critique of overcentralized globalization—IMF-WB-WTO asymmetry, structural adjustment conditionalities, and democratic deficit in global economic governance
• Part (c): Global South-sensitive model features—special and differential treatment, technology transfer, climate justice financing, regional payment mechanisms (India's UPI expansion, BRICS de-dollarization), and epistemic decolonization
• Part (c): Institutional proposals—reformed WTO with development flexibilities, UNCTAD revitalization, and South-South cooperation frameworks (IBSA, AIIB, New Development Bank)

The directive 'discuss' requires a balanced, multi-dimensional treatment of all three sub-parts with critical engagement. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction framing regionalism vs. US-centric order → body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesizing how regional organizations are reshaping global governance amid great power shifts.

• Part (a): Analysis of Latin American organizations (UNASUR, CELAC, ALBA, MERCOSUR) as counter-hegemonic instruments; assessment of 'moderate success' through achievements (de-dollarization efforts, Banco del Sur) and limitations (USMCA dominance, internal divisions, Venezuela crisis)
• Part (a): Evaluation of structural constraints—geographic proximity to US, commodity dependence, IMF/WB conditionalities—that limit autonomous regionalism
• Part (b): Assessment of APT's institutional mechanisms (Chiang Mai Initiative, rice reserve, RCEP precursor) with specific examples of success (1997-98 financial crisis response) and failure (South China Sea, Myanmar crisis, COVID-19 coordination gaps)
• Part (b): Critical analysis of 'ASEAN centrality' erosion versus Chinese dominance within APT framework
• Part (c): Examination of Trump's transactional NATO skepticism, tariff threats, and withdrawal rhetoric as catalysts for EU strategic autonomy (PESCO, European Defence Fund, chips act)
• Part (c): Balanced evaluation of EU's capacity constraints (fiscal fragmentation, German economic stagnation, Visegrad dissent) versus renewed Franco-German convergence on 'Zeitenwende'

The directive 'comment' requires balanced, opinionated analysis with evidence rather than mere description. Allocate approximately 30 words/2 minutes per sub-part: for (a) examine China's economic-military inroads in Bangladesh and India's countermeasures; for (b) assess post-Pahalgam shifts in India's counterterrorism and diplomatic posture; for (c) analyse the tension between global multipolarity and Asian power concentration; for (d) evaluate NAM's institutional relevance versus India's strategic autonomy evolution; for (e) trace Japan-India ties from cultural foundations to contemporary minilateralism. Each part needs a brief evaluative stance in the conclusion.

• (a) China's strategic penetration of Bangladesh: Belt and Road projects (Padma Bridge rail link), defence supplies (submarines, missiles), and how this constrains India's traditional influence in Dhaka; mention India's counter-efforts (Lines of Credit, Teesta water sharing delays)
• (b) Post-Pahalgam hyper-realism: 'Operation Sindoor' strikes, suspension of Indus Waters Treaty, downgrading diplomatic ties with Pakistan, and whether this represents structural shift or tactical escalation in India's strategic culture
• (c) Multipolar world vs multipolar Asia: tension between India's G20/multilateral aspirations and Asian reality of US-China bipolarity; role of middle powers (Japan, ASEAN, Australia) in creating Asian multipolarity
• (d) NAM's future: institutional atrophy, India's de facto exit, yet residual value for Global South solidarity; contrast with active platforms like Voice of Global South and Quad participation
• (e) India-Japan 'special strategic and global partnership': evolution from 1952 diplomatic ties through 2006 global partnership to 2014 upgrade; pillars—civilian nuclear cooperation, bullet train, QUAD, Act East policy, semiconductor supply chains

Begin with a brief introduction linking India's foreign policy evolution to its strategic autonomy imperative. For part (a), allocate ~40% of content (8-10 minutes) to trace phases from Nehruvian idealism through realism to multi-alignment, then critically assess Jaishankar's 'energetic diplomacy' thesis with evidence. For (b) and (c), spend ~30% each (6-7 minutes), analysing Indo-Pacific partnerships through Quad/ASEAN connectivity and evaluating India-EU ties through trade, technology and strategic convergence against tariff pressures. Conclude by synthesising how these strands reflect India's emergence as a 'leading power' rather than 'balancing power'.

• Part (a): Periodisation of India's foreign policy — Nehruvian idealism (1947-62), realism/consolidation (1962-71), pragmatism (1971-91), economic liberalisation (1991-2014), and assertive multi-alignment (2014-present) with specific policy markers
• Part (a): Critical evaluation of Jaishankar's 'energetic diplomacy' — operationalised through proactive issue-based coalitions, crisis response (Operation Ganga, COVID-19 vaccine diplomacy), and institutional reform, with counter-arguments on continuity vs. rupture
• Part (b): 'Free and open Indo-Pacific' as strategic construct — Quad (US, Japan, Australia), bilateral anchors (France, Vietnam, Indonesia), and connectivity initiatives (IMEEC, ASEAN centrality) as hedging against Sino-centric regional order
• Part (c): Tariff threats as structural catalyst — India-EU FTA negotiations relaunched 2022, Trade and Technology Council (2023), and strategic convergence on supply chain resilience, green hydrogen, digital public infrastructure
• Part (c): Evaluation limitations — divergence on human rights, data protection, Russia sanctions, and asymmetry in market access despite shared democratic values
• Synthesis across parts: How 'energetic diplomacy' manifests in Indo-Pacific and European theatres, reflecting India's transformation from rule-taker to rule-shaper in global governance

The directive 'comment' requires balanced analysis with personal assessment, not mere description. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction linking strategic autonomy across all three parts; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with analytical depth; conclusion synthesizing how India's pursuit of strategic autonomy manifests differently across bilateral, multilateral, and normative domains.

• Part (a): Analysis of strategic autonomy as continuity (Non-Alignment legacy) and adaptation (multi-alignment), with specific reference to Kashmir rejection of US mediation and Ukraine neutrality; distinction between autonomy and isolationism
• Part (a): Critical assessment of whether this approach serves India's interests—security partnerships with US (QUAD, LEMOA) versus energy/arms dependence on Russia; credibility costs of selective autonomy
• Part (b): Explanation of how Trump's reciprocal tariffs violate MFN principle and DSU mechanisms; specific WTO reform options including plurilateral agreements, appellate body restoration, and critical mass negotiations
• Part (b): Evaluation of India's strategic positioning—whether to lead Global South coalition, pursue bilateral FTAs, or advocate for WTO 2.0; reference to India's past disputes (solar panels, agricultural subsidies)
• Part (c): Interpretation of 'alternative universality'—India as normative bridge between Western liberal order and Global South aspirations; intellectual lineage from Non-Alignment 1.0 to 2.0 document (2012)
• Part (c): Critical assessment of feasibility—whether India possesses material capacity and institutional credibility to be 'site' for alternative order; tension between aspirational rhetoric and transactional practice
• Synthesis across parts: How strategic autonomy, WTO reform advocacy, and NonAlignment 2.0 represent coherent but contested Indian grand strategy; whether contradictions between them are manageable or debilitating

The directive 'analyse' for part (a) requires breaking down causal factors behind India's 1998 shift, while 'discuss' for parts (b) and (c) demands balanced examination of multiple perspectives. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → analytical treatment of (a) covering strategic, technological and systemic factors → (b) examining economic, diaspora and institutional drivers → (c) exploring connectivity, hydropower and trade complementarities → synthesised conclusion on India's evolving South-South and neighbourhood diplomacy.

• Part (a): Analysis of structural factors—China's 1964 test, Pakistan's covert programme, NPT/CTBT discrimination, end of Cold War unipolarity, BJP's domestic political calculus, and the 'existential threat' reframing post-1998
• Part (a): Evaluation of India's multilateral default—championing disarmament at UNGA, leading NAM on nuclear issues, and the shift from 'nuclear ambiguity' to overt weaponisation
• Part (b): Economic drivers—energy security (oil/gas investments in Sudan, Nigeria), critical minerals (lithium, cobalt), market access for Indian pharmaceuticals/IT, and AfCFTA opportunities
• Part (b): Institutional and diaspora advantages—IAFS summits, EXIM Bank/LOCs, Pan-African e-Network, and 3 million+ diaspora versus China's state-led model
• Part (c): Trilateral economic potential—Nepal's transit geography, cross-border infrastructure (Raxaul-Kathmandu rail, Hulaki road), hydropower export to both neighbours, and tourism circuits
• Part (c): Structural constraints and India's role—addressing asymmetrical power relations, leveraging BIMSTEC/BBIN experience, and creating mutual interdependence to offset bilateral India-China tensions