Paper II — Q7
(a) India continues to invoke its time-tested policy of strategic autonomy vis-à-vis both the United States of America and Russia…
(a) India continues to invoke its time-tested policy of strategic autonomy vis-à-vis both the United States of America and Russia by rejecting US' offer of mediation on Kashmir issue and by refusing to criticize Russia in its ongoing war against Ukraine. Comment. (20 marks) (b) Trump's unilateral imposition of reciprocal tariffs on scores of countries poses impending threat to the future of the rule-based multilateral global trading system under the WTO. What options do the WTO members have to salvage the organization? (15 marks) (c) NonAlignment 2.0 underscores India's unique aspiration to emerge as a site for an alternative universality. Comment. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) भारत अपनी समय-परखित रणनीतिक आत्मनिर्भरता की नीति संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका तथा रूस दोनों के साथ संबंधों में जारी रखते हुए कश्मीर मुद्दे पर यू एस की मध्यस्थता के प्रस्ताव को अस्वीकार करता है तथा यूक्रेन के साथ चलते युद्ध के लिए रूस की आलोचना करने से इनकार करता है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) ट्रंप द्वारा अनेक देशों पर एकतरफा पारस्परिक शुल्क लगाया जाना डब्ल्यू टी ओ की नियम-आधारित बहुपक्षीय वैश्विक व्यापार व्यवस्था के भविष्य को संभावित खतरा पहुँचाता है। डब्ल्यू टी ओ के सदस्यों के पास संगठन को बचाने के कौन-से विकल्प उपलब्ध हैं? (15 अंक) (c) गुटनिरपेक्षता 2.0 भारत की अनोखी आकांक्षा को उजागर करता है कि वह एक वैकल्पिक वैश्विकता का स्थल बने। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (15 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 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.
Key points expected
- 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
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates precise grasp that 'comment' requires evaluative judgment, not description; for (a) assesses strategic autonomy critically rather than celebrating it; for (b) moves beyond lamenting US unilateralism to concrete salvage options; for (c) interrogates 'alternative universality' as aspirational claim requiring material foundations | Treats 'comment' as synonymous with 'describe' or 'explain'; provides factual coverage of India's positions without analytical assessment; lists WTO problems without prioritizing solutions; describes NonAlignment 2.0 without evaluating its feasibility | Misreads directive entirely—provides narrative history of India-US or India-Russia relations; merely condemns Trump tariffs without WTO-specific analysis; treats NonAlignment 2.0 as historical topic rather than contemporary strategic document |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Displays command of theoretical frameworks (realism vs. constructivism in autonomy debates; hegemonic stability theory for WTO crisis; post-colonial IR for alternative universality); accurate on specific agreements (S-400 purchase, CAATSA waiver negotiations, India's WTO disputes DS449, DS456); correct attribution of NonAlignment 2.0 to authors (Khilnani et al., 2012) | Broadly accurate on events but lacks theoretical framing; conflates strategic autonomy with non-alignment; generic treatment of WTO crisis without specific article violations; confuses NonAlignment 2.0 with government's own policy statements | Factual errors—claims India joined sanctions against Russia; misidentifies WTO dispute settlement mechanism; attributes NonAlignment 2.0 to government of India rather than independent strategic community document; anachronistic treatment of Cold War NAM |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite structure with proportional length reflecting marks; effective transitions between parts showing thematic coherence (strategic autonomy as thread); sub-sections within (a) covering Kashmir and Ukraine separately; integrated conclusion demonstrating how three parts constitute unified argument about India's evolving grand strategy | Three distinct sections present but unevenly developed; abrupt transitions between parts; (a) may merge Kashmir and Ukraine analysis without analytical separation; conclusion merely summarizes three parts without synthesis | Disorganized or merged parts without clear demarcation; disproportionate attention (e.g., excessive detail on Ukraine war, neglecting WTO salvage options); missing conclusion or purely mechanical summary; no visible connection between three sub-questions |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | Rich empirical grounding: for (a)—specific references to Modi's 'not an era of war' statement, abstentions at UNGA/UNSC, S-400 deal despite CAATSA; for (b)—specific tariff rates, WTO cases (US—Steel and Aluminum, DS544), India's G33 coalition role; for (c)—precise citation of NonAlignment 2.0 document's key authors and arguments, comparison with Panchsheel | Some examples present but generic—mentions 'QUAD' without specificity, 'WTO disputes' without naming cases, 'NAM principles' without Panchsheel reference; lacks contemporary data on trade volumes or defense imports | Virtually example-free or incorrect examples; confuses Ukraine conflict with other wars; no specific WTO articles cited (GATT I, III, XXIII); treats NonAlignment 2.0 as government white paper rather than independent strategic assessment |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Sophisticated synthesis arguing that strategic autonomy, WTO reform advocacy, and NonAlignment 2.0 represent coherent but tension-ridden approach—India seeks to be rule-taker in favorable domains (technology, finance), rule-shaper in trade, and rule-breaker in security; acknowledges limits of 'alternative universality' given India's own regional power asymmetries; projects future trajectory (QUAD+WTO reform linkage) | Standard conclusion restating main points; generic optimism about India's rising power status; acknowledges challenges but without specifying which are most severe; no projection or policy recommendation | Missing conclusion or purely mechanical 'thus we see' summary; contradictory claims unresolved (celebrating autonomy while ignoring its costs); no connection between three parts in conclusion; ideological rather than analytical closure |
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
- Q4 (a) Latin America has made moderate success in countering US-led global economic order by…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) China's growing footprint and…
- Q6 (a) Critically analyze the different phases of India's foreign policy since independence.…
- Q7 (a) India continues to invoke its time-tested policy of strategic autonomy vis-à-vis both…
- Q8 (a) India's reluctance to perceive any 'existential threat' inevitably made the multilate…