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 Critically analyse

Paper II — Q6

(a) Critically analyze the different phases of India's foreign policy since independence. How justified, do you think, is S…

(a) Critically analyze the different phases of India's foreign policy since independence. How justified, do you think, is S. Jaishankar's classification of the current phase as the phase of 'energetic diplomacy'? (15+5=20 marks) (b) India maintains strong ties with countries that will assure a free and open Indo-Pacific and guarantee greater connectivity with rest of the world. Analyze. (15 marks) (c) The tariff threats have pushed India and the European Union closer. Evaluate the India-EU partnership. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) स्वतंत्रता के बाद भारतीय विदेश नीति के विभिन्न चरणों का आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए। आपके अनुसार एस० जयशंकर द्वारा वर्तमान चरण का 'सक्रिय कूटनीति' के चरण के रूप में वर्गीकरण कितना उचित है? (15+5=20 अंक) (b) भारत उन देशों के साथ मजबूत संबंध बनाए रखता है जो एक स्वतंत्र और खुली इंडो-पैसिफिक सुनिश्चित करेंगे और दुनिया के बाकी हिस्सों के साथ बेहतर संपर्क की गारंटी देंगे। विश्लेषण कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) टैरिफ की धमकियों ने भारत और यूरोपीय संघ को करीब ला दिया है। भारत व ई० यू० की साझेदारी का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Critically analyse

This question asks you to critically analyse. 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

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'.

Key points expected

  • 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

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), distinguishes 'critical analysis' from description by interrogating causation and periodisation debates; for (b), unpacks 'free and open Indo-Pacific' as normative framework vs. mere geography; for (c), applies 'evaluate' to weigh achievements against structural constraints, not mere listingAddresses all three parts but treats (a) as chronological narrative, (b) as country-wise description, and (c) as bilateral relations summary without evaluative frameworkMisidentifies directives — describes when analysis demanded, or evaluates when analysis required; conflates parts or omits one sub-question entirely
Content depth & accuracy20%10Demonstrates historiographical awareness (K. Subrahmanyam vs. C. Raja Mohan on strategic autonomy); cites specific Jaishankar formulations (Why Bharat Matters); accurate on EU-India roadmap 2025, IMEEC corridors, and Quad working groupsBroadly accurate on phases and partnerships but vague on dates, conflates Look East/Act East, or misrepresents EU-India institutional mechanismsFactual errors — e.g., dates India's UN peacekeeping as Cold War invention, confuses IPEF with Quad, or treats EU as single foreign policy actor without member-state variation
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite structure with internal signposting; transitions between parts show thematic linkage (e.g., 'This multi-alignment in (a) finds concrete expression in...'); balanced word allocation reflecting 20:15:15 mark distributionAll parts present but unevenly developed; some repetition between (b) and (c) on connectivity; weak transitions create disjointed feelRambling or fragmented structure; disproportionate space to one part; missing part (c) or merging (b) and (c) indistinguishably
Examples / case-law / data20%10For (a): Tashkent Agreement 1966, Gujral Doctrine, nuclear tests 1998 as phase markers; for (b): Quad joint statements 2022-24, India-France Indo-Pacific roadmap, ASEAN-India summit outcomes; for (c): EU-India trade figures (~€120bn), TTC working groups, Critical Raw Materials ClubSome examples but generic — mentions 'Quad' without specificity, or 'EU trade' without figures; examples not tightly linked to analytical claimsNo concrete examples; relies on assertions like 'good relations with all countries'; or irrelevant examples (SAARC in Indo-Pacific discussion)
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesises three parts through theoretical lens (neo-realist balancing, liberal institutionalism, or post-colonial IR); offers qualified assessment — Jaishankar's thesis valid but risks overstating discontinuity; India-EU partnership promising but contingent on EU strategic autonomy and US-China dynamicsSummarises main points without synthesis; generic conclusion on 'India's rising global role'; no engagement with tensions between parts (e.g., multi-alignment vs. values-based EU partnership)No conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive final paragraph; or contradictory claims across parts unresolved

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