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 2025 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Comment

Paper II — Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) China's growing footprint and a tangible shift in power dynamics in…

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) China's growing footprint and a tangible shift in power dynamics in Bangladesh has weakened India's leverage in Dhaka. Comment. (10 marks) (b) Would you agree with the contention that India's inclination to lean on a 'more aggressive hyper-realist posture' has gained a new momentum in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist strike? Comment. (10 marks) (c) For India, a multipolar world order would also mean a multipolar Asia. Comment. (10 marks) (d) Does the Non-Aligned Movement have any future in the wake of India's growing indifference towards it? (10 marks) (e) Historical ties between India and Japan grew into a 'special strategic and global partnership'. Comment. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) चीन के बढ़ते प्रभाव और बांग्लादेश में शक्तियों के संतुलन में बड़े बदलाव ने ढाका में भारत के प्रभाव को कमजोर किया है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) क्या आप इस तर्क से सहमत हैं कि भारत के 'अधिक आक्रामक अतियथार्थवादी (हाइपर-रियलिस्ट) दृष्टिकोण' के प्रति झुकाव ने पहलगाम आतंकवादी हमले के बाद एक नई गति प्राप्त कर ली है? टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) भारत के लिए एक बहुध्रुवीय विश्व व्यवस्था का अर्थ एक बहुध्रुवीय एशिया का होना भी होगा। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) भारत की गुटनिरपेक्षता के प्रति बढ़ती उदासीनता के बीच क्या गुटनिरपेक्ष आंदोलन का कोई भविष्य है? (10 अंक) (e) भारत और जापान के बीच ऐतिहासिक संबंध एक 'विशेष रणनीतिक और वैश्विक साझेदारी' में बदल गए हैं। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 '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.

Key points expected

  • (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

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10Demonstrates precise grasp of 'comment' directive across all five parts: offers substantiated judgment rather than description, balances multiple perspectives, and takes clear evaluative positions (e.g., for (a) assesses whether leverage is 'weakened' or 'transformed'; for (d) weighs NAM's symbolic versus functional utility)Addresses all parts but treats 'comment' descriptively; offers opinions without sufficient evidence or remains non-committal; may misread one sub-part's core contentionMisinterprets directive as 'describe' or 'list'; fails to engage with the evaluative prompts (e.g., ignores 'weakened' in (a), 'agree' in (b), 'future' in (d)); omits analytical stance entirely
Content depth & accuracy20%10Displays command of contemporary developments: for (a) cites specific projects (Sheikh Hasina period, interim government dynamics); for (b) references Pahalgam attack (April 2025) and subsequent policy shifts; for (c) distinguishes systemic vs regional polarity; for (d) notes NAM's 18th Summit outcomes; for (e) traces partnership evolution with milestone agreementsCovers all sub-parts with generally accurate information but lacks specificity (e.g., 'China has projects in Bangladesh' without naming them); some outdated or imprecise claims; superficial treatment of one partSignificant factual errors (e.g., conflates NAM with G77, misdates partnership upgrades); omits major developments; generic content applicable to any bilateral/multilateral question; demonstrates poor currency with post-2020 shifts
Structure & flow20%10Each 150-word segment follows disciplined structure: 20-word context → 100-word analytical core → 30-word evaluative conclusion; clear visual/partitioning between (a)-(e); seamless thematic connections (e.g., linking (b)'s realism to (c)'s multipolarity tensions)All parts attempted with basic paragraphing but uneven internal structure; some parts lack clear conclusion; word allocation skewed (e.g., 200 words for (a), 100 for (e)); transitions between parts abruptUndifferentiated wall of text or poorly labelled parts; severe imbalance (missing/merging sub-parts); no discernible structure within segments; exceeds word limit significantly or falls far short; illegible organisation
Examples / case-law / data20%10Rich, specific evidence: for (a) $24.5 billion Chinese loans, Karnaphuli tunnel, HQ-9 air defence; for (b) Operation Sindoor (May 2025), Indus Waters Treaty suspension, reduced diplomatic staff to 30; for (c) India's G20 presidency, IPEF participation; for (d) NAM 60th anniversary (2021), Uganda Summit; for (e) 2014 Modi-Abe Tokyo Declaration, $42 billion investment target, iCETSome specific examples but inconsistent across parts; generic references ('many infrastructure projects'); no quantitative data; one or two parts lack concrete illustrationVirtually example-free or relies on incorrect/outdated illustrations; confuses countries/regimes; no data points, treaty names, or summit references; examples contradict stated arguments
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Each part ends with crisp, original judgment: for (a) assesses whether India-Bangladesh ties are structurally damaged or undergoing recalibration; for (b) evaluates if hyper-realism is sustainable strategic shift or domestic political response; for (c) reconciles apparent contradiction through middle-power agency; for (d) prognosticates NAM's niche utility; for (e) assesses partnership's limitations (trade deficit, RCEP divergence)Conclusions present but formulaic or descriptive ('in conclusion, both sides should cooperate'); some parts lack closure; judgments asserted without justification; missed opportunity for cross-part synthesisNo conclusions or mere repetition of points; ends mid-argument; contradictory final positions; purely normative platitudes ('peace is good'); demonstrates no independent analytical voice

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 2025 Paper II