Paper II — Q8
(a) India's reluctance to perceive any 'existential threat' inevitably made the multilateral path to nuclear security a 'default…
(a) India's reluctance to perceive any 'existential threat' inevitably made the multilateral path to nuclear security a 'default option' until it decided to cross the nuclear Rubicon in 1998. Identify and analyze some of the major reasons behind this shift in India's position on the nuclear question. (20 marks) (b) Discuss some of the key drivers of India's new interests in Africa which might help in developing long-term comparative advantage over China. (15 marks) (c) Discuss the potential role India can play in initiating a possible phase of trilateral economic engagement among India, China and Nepal. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) भारत के किसी भी प्रकार के 'अस्तित्वीय खतरे' को समझने की अनिच्छा ने अनिवार्य रूप से परमाणु सुरक्षा के बहुपक्षीय मार्ग को एक 'डिफॉल्ट विकल्प' बना दिया था जब तक कि इसने 1998 में परमाणु रूबिकॉन को पार करने का निर्णय नहीं लिया था। परमाणु प्रश्न पर भारत की स्थिति में इस परिवर्तन के कुछ प्रमुख कारणों की पहचान तथा विश्लेषण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) भारत की अफ्रीका के प्रति नई रुचि के कुछ मुख्य कारणों पर चर्चा कीजिए जो लंबे समय में चीन के सापेक्ष तुलनात्मक लाभ विकसित करने में सहायक हो सकते हैं। (15 अंक) (c) भारत, चीन और नेपाल के मध्य त्रिपक्षीय आर्थिक जुड़ाव के संभावित चरण को प्रारंभ करने में भारत की भूमिका पर चर्चा कीजिए। (15 अंक)
Directive word: Analyse
This question asks you to 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
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.
Key points expected
- 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
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | For (a), distinguishes 'analyse' from mere description by establishing causal chains between systemic pressures and policy shift; for (b) and (c), demonstrates 'discuss' by presenting multiple stakeholder perspectives and counter-arguments, not one-sided advocacy | Addresses all three parts but treats directives interchangeably—descriptive narrative for (a) without causal analysis, or unbalanced treatment of (b)/(c) without examining limitations | Misidentifies directives—treats (a) as 'describe' with chronological listing, or (b)/(c) as 'justify' with uncritical promotion of Indian interests; misses 'analyse' requirement entirely |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | For (a): cites specific timelines (Shakti tests, 1995 NPT indefinite extension, 1996 CTBT); for (b): names sectors (AGOA, AfCFTA, ASPIRE); for (c): identifies specific projects (Pancheshwar, cross-border rail) with accurate geopolitical context | Covers all three parts with general accuracy but lacks specificity—vague references to 'nuclear tests' without dates, 'resources in Africa' without commodities, 'trade with Nepal' without sectoral breakdown | Factual errors—confuses Pokhran-I (1974) with 1998 tests, misidentifies Africa policy drivers as primarily security rather than economic, or suggests Nepal as equal partner in trilateralism without acknowledging power asymmetry |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite division with proportional length; smooth transitions between parts via thematic bridges (e.g., from 'strategic autonomy' in (a) to 'economic autonomy' in (b)); integrated conclusion synthesising all three into India's evolving global role | Three distinct sections present but poorly connected—abrupt shifts between nuclear policy, Africa, and Nepal without transitional logic; conclusion merely summarises rather than synthesises | Disorganised response—merges parts or addresses them out of sequence; no clear section breaks; conclusion absent or consists of restating question; severe imbalance (e.g., 60% on (a), neglecting (c)) |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | For (a): cites specific statements (Vajpayee's letter to Clinton, Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott dialogues); for (b): quantifies—$70bn trade target, 189 projects in 41 countries; for (c): names Arun-III, Upper Karnali, and transit treaty specifics | Some examples present but generic—mentions 'IAFS' without which summit, 'hydropower' without project names, 'nuclear doctrine' without citing 'no first use' or 'credible minimum deterrence' | No concrete examples—relies entirely on assertion; or irrelevant examples (bringing in unrelated India-US nuclear deal for (a), or BRICS for (b) without Africa-specific linkage) |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Synthesises three seemingly disparate policies into coherent argument about India's transition from 'norm-taker' to 'norm-shaper'; critically evaluates whether 1998 decision enabled subsequent economic expansionism; assesses feasibility of trilateralism given India-China structural competition | Separate concluding paragraphs for each part without integration; or generic conclusion on 'India's rising global stature' without specific linkage to the three policy domains examined | No conclusion; or purely aspirational ending ('India will become superpower'); or conclusion contradicts body (e.g., advocating nuclear rollback after defending 1998 decision) |
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
- 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…