UPSC Mains Answer PYQ 2024: PSIR Paper 2 (Section-B) | PSIR Optional for UPSC PDF Download

Section B

Q5: Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (10 × 5 = 50 Marks)
(a) "India must strive to become a semi-permanent member of the UNSC, rather than a permanent member without the right to veto." Comment.
Ans: India’s quest for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been long-standing. However, the proposal of becoming a semi-permanent member, rather than a permanent member without the veto, presents an interesting alternative. A semi-permanent seat implies a position of regular rotation, offering India a voice in decision-making but without the absolute power of veto held by the permanent members (P5).
India's preference for a permanent seat without veto could lead to a scenario where its influence is limited. A semi-permanent seat, on the other hand, could allow India to play an influential role in global security discussions without the direct and potentially isolating responsibility of veto power. This approach aligns with India's broader diplomatic stance, which advocates for equitable representation in global institutions, especially those like the UNSC, which were formed in the aftermath of World War II.
Moreover, a semi-permanent seat could pave the way for further reforms within the UNSC, as it would imply India’s acknowledgment of the need for gradual restructuring. As India has demonstrated through its leadership in global forums like the G20 and BRICS, it is in a prime position to influence key global security and economic matters. Thus, a semi-permanent seat may be a practical and achievable compromise to enhance India’s global standing.

(b) Bhutan has historically been an ally of India, but the China-Bhutan border related issues have become a security issue for India. Discuss.
Ans: Bhutan has traditionally been a close ally of India, with shared cultural, historical, and strategic ties. However, the China-Bhutan border dispute has emerged as a significant security issue for India, primarily due to the involvement of China, which has longstanding territorial ambitions in the region.
The Doklam standoff in 2017 brought this issue to the forefront, where Chinese troops began constructing roads near the tri-junction of India, Bhutan, and China. This area, strategically important for India’s security, lies close to the Siliguri Corridor (or Chicken’s Neck), a vital land link between India’s northeastern states and the rest of the country. The potential for China to gain control over this area would threaten India’s strategic depth and its military positioning in the region.
Bhutan has resisted China's territorial claims, but the growing influence of China in the region, through economic projects and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has complicated the situation. As Bhutan is a small landlocked nation, it faces pressure from both China and India. India has strongly backed Bhutan in resisting Chinese encroachments, but Bhutan’s desire to maintain a neutral foreign policy complicates matters.
This border issue is a reminder that India’s security is intricately linked to the stability of its neighbors. India must continue to work diplomatically to ensure Bhutan's sovereignty while safeguarding its own strategic interests in the region. India’s support for Bhutan in international forums remains crucial for countering China’s growing influence in the region.

(c) "Nothing is going to move within the WTO negotiations unless India is on board." Discuss the main reasons behind India's increased clout in the WTO.
Ans: India's growing clout in the World Trade Organization (WTO) can be attributed to several factors that reflect its increasing influence on global trade negotiations:

1. Economic Size and Influence: India is the world’s fifth-largest economy, and its growing economic power, particularly in sectors like information technology, services, and agriculture, has made it a key player in global trade. As one of the largest emerging markets, India's economic decisions now carry significant weight in international trade discussions.
2. Strategic Importance in Agriculture: India is one of the largest producers of agricultural products, and agriculture remains a critical issue in WTO negotiations. India's stance on food security and subsidies for farmers has been pivotal in shaping the WTO’s agricultural trade policies. India has used its position to advocate for policies that protect the interests of developing countries, particularly in terms of minimum support prices and subsidies for food grains.
3. Leadership in Developing Countries: India has become the voice of developing nations in the WTO, emphasizing the need for reforms that promote fair trade, address issues like agricultural subsidies in developed countries, and ensure that trade agreements support the economic growth of poorer nations. India’s role as a leader of the G-33 coalition (a group of developing countries) allows it to negotiate from a position of strength.
4. Blocking Consensus for Reform: India has used its power effectively to block deals that do not align with its national interests or the interests of the developing world. A prime example of this was its opposition to the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) in 2014, where it insisted on a permanent solution for food security concerns before agreeing to the deal. This showcased India's ability to shape the direction of WTO negotiations.
5. Growing Trade Partnerships: India's increasing trade partnerships, especially with both developed and developing nations, have bolstered its standing in the WTO. India is seen as a key partner in trade agreements, and its positions on issues like intellectual property rights (IPR) and e-commerce are crucial to the future of global trade governance.

In conclusion, India’s increased influence in the WTO reflects its economic significance, leadership among developing countries, and strategic use of its position to shape global trade discussions. As global trade governance continues to evolve, India’s role will likely become even more prominent.

(d) Discuss the rationale behind replacing the "Asia-Pacific" strategy with the new term "Indo-Pacific" strategy.
Ans: The replacement of the "Asia-Pacific" strategy with the "Indo-Pacific" strategy marks a shift in how global powers, particularly the United States and its allies, perceive and engage with the region. The term "Indo-Pacific" expands the geographical and strategic scope of the region, encompassing both the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, highlighting their growing interconnectedness and increasing geopolitical importance.
Rationale Behind the Shift:

1. Geopolitical Significance of the Indian Ocean:
   The Indian Ocean has become a crucial maritime region for global trade, energy flows, and security. The rise of emerging economies like India, coupled with the growing maritime activities in the Indian Ocean, has led to a need for a strategy that accounts for both the Indian and Pacific Oceans. By incorporating the Indian Ocean into the broader strategy, the term "Indo-Pacific" better reflects the region’s economic and security dynamics.
2. India’s Rising Role:
   India's growing economic, military, and strategic influence has prompted the shift from the "Asia-Pacific" to the "Indo-Pacific" strategy. India’s centrality to the region, particularly in securing maritime routes and ensuring regional stability, necessitated its inclusion in the broader strategic framework. India’s commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific aligns with global efforts to counter regional challenges such as maritime disputes and economic coercion by China.
3. China’s Growing Influence:
   China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea and its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) have contributed to the rising importance of the Indo-Pacific strategy. The United States and its allies have been increasingly concerned about China’s strategic ambitions and military expansion, which has shifted the focus towards a more inclusive Indo-Pacific framework. This new term emphasizes countering China’s growing influence while promoting multilateral cooperation.
4. Economic and Security Integration:
   The Indo-Pacific is home to some of the world’s most important trade routes and emerging markets. The shift to an Indo-Pacific strategy also highlights the growing economic and security interdependence between the countries bordering the two oceans. Countries like Japan, Australia, and ASEAN nations are key players in shaping this new strategic environment.

The transition from the "Asia-Pacific" to the "Indo-Pacific" strategy reflects the evolving dynamics of global power, with particular emphasis on India’s rising influence and the need to address China’s growing assertiveness. This strategic shift promotes greater regional cooperation, security, and stability, while addressing both economic and security concerns in a more holistic manner.

(e) Despite deep ties, India's relations with Sri Lanka have seen strains due to China's growing influence in Sri Lanka through investments and economic dominance. Analyse.
Ans: India and Sri Lanka share deep cultural, historical, and geographical ties, but the growing influence of China in Sri Lanka has introduced strains in their relationship. China’s economic investments, primarily through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), have raised concerns in India regarding strategic and security implications, especially given the close proximity of Sri Lanka to Indian borders.
Factors Contributing to Strains:

1. Chinese Investments and Infrastructure Projects:
   China’s growing investments in Sri Lanka, particularly in large infrastructure projects like the Hambantota Port and Colombo Port City, have raised alarms in India. These projects, funded by Chinese loans, have given China strategic footholds in the region. The Hambantota Port, which was leased to a Chinese company for 99 years, has been a significant point of contention for India. The fear is that these strategic assets could be used for military purposes, disrupting India’s security and maritime interests in the Indian Ocean.
2. Debt Trap Diplomacy:
   Sri Lanka’s rising debt to China has raised concerns about its increasing dependency on China, which has been described as a form of "debt-trap diplomacy." Sri Lanka’s economic vulnerability, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has led to Sri Lanka accepting more Chinese loans, thereby increasing its reliance on China. India, while a key economic partner, has been wary of this growing debt burden and its geopolitical implications.
3. Geopolitical Competition in the Indian Ocean:
   The Indian Ocean, where Sri Lanka is strategically located, is vital for India’s maritime security. China’s growing presence in Sri Lanka complicates India’s security calculations, as it may enable China to expand its strategic influence in the region. India has long been wary of China’s "String of Pearls" strategy, which involves establishing a network of strategic ports around India’s periphery. Sri Lanka’s proximity to India, both geographically and politically, makes it a key player in this broader geopolitical competition.
4. Sri Lanka’s Desire for Diversified Relations:
   Sri Lanka’s diplomatic approach has been one of balancing relations between India and China, as it seeks to leverage economic ties with China while maintaining strong historical and cultural links with India. However, the increasing Chinese footprint has strained this balance. While India has expressed concerns about Chinese involvement, Sri Lanka, facing economic challenges, has sought to benefit from China’s investments to boost its economy.

Recent Developments: Despite these strains, India has continued to engage with Sri Lanka through assistance and trade agreements. India has provided humanitarian aid, investment in infrastructure, and support for the island's development. India’s position remains that its relations with Sri Lanka should be based on mutual respect, but the growing presence of China complicates this bilateral dynamic.

While India-Sri Lanka relations remain strong in many areas, China’s growing economic and strategic influence in Sri Lanka has introduced a layer of complexity. India’s concerns are driven by national security and regional stability, but Sri Lanka's desire for economic growth and diversification in foreign relations necessitates a delicate balancing act. Moving forward, both countries will need to navigate these competing interests carefully to maintain regional peace and cooperation.

Q6:
​(a) Would you concur with the view that of late, India's foreign policy has been in a transition mode from Nehruvianism to Neoliberalism? Support your answer with the help of suitable examples. (20 Marks)
Ans: India’s foreign policy has undergone significant transformations since its independence, with a notable shift from Nehruvianism to Neoliberalism in recent decades. While Nehruvianism emphasized non-alignment, self-reliance, and a strong focus on maintaining India's sovereignty without aligning with any major power bloc, Neoliberalism is characterized by a greater emphasis on economic globalization, market-oriented policies, and deeper integration into the global economy.
Nehruvianism: Nehruvian foreign policy was defined by principles such as Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), anti-colonialism, and promoting world peace. The primary objective was to ensure India's independence from the Cold War power politics and maintain a stance of neutrality in global affairs. For instance, Nehru was deeply involved in shaping the Non-Aligned Movement, which sought to create a third path for newly independent countries, separate from the superpower rivalries between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Transition to Neoliberalism: The shift to Neoliberalism began in the early 1990s, particularly after India’s economic liberalization. The 1991 economic reforms marked a departure from Nehruvian policies, with India embracing open markets, trade liberalization, and foreign investment. As a result, India's foreign policy began to prioritize economic interests over ideological stances. For example, the Look East Policy (1991), which later evolved into the Act East Policy, focused on strengthening ties with Southeast Asia, driven by economic considerations rather than purely political ideology.
Examples of Neoliberal Foreign Policy:

• Strengthening Economic Ties: India’s growing economic relationships with global powers like the U.S., Japan, and ASEAN nations are a clear reflection of its neoliberal approach. India’s participation in BRICS and World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations indicates a shift toward multilateral trade agreements aimed at fostering economic growth.
• Strategic Partnerships: India has cultivated strategic relationships with various countries, such as the U.S., Australia, and Japan, especially under the Quad framework. These partnerships often prioritize trade, technology exchange, and regional security, which are aligned with neoliberal objectives of economic cooperation.

India's foreign policy has indeed transitioned from Nehruvianism to Neoliberalism, driven by the need to integrate into the global economic system, attract foreign investment, and assert its influence in global forums. While the Nehruvian ideals of independence and sovereignty still resonate, the neoliberal approach focuses more on pragmatic economic growth and international collaboration.

(b) Does the idea of the 21st century as 'Asian century' continue to remain feasible given the growing friction between India and China? (15 Marks)
Ans: The idea of the 21st century as the "Asian Century" is grounded in the belief that Asia, led by emerging economies like India and China, will dominate global politics, economics, and innovation in the coming decades. While this concept remains feasible, the growing friction between India and China poses significant challenges to the realization of a unified, powerful Asia in the 21st century.
Feasibility of the "Asian Century":

1. Economic Growth:
   Asia, particularly China and India, has seen unprecedented economic growth. China is the world’s second-largest economy, and India, the fifth-largest, is projected to continue expanding. With both countries driving the region’s economic engine, Asia is poised to lead global growth. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other regional initiatives are helping promote economic integration.
2. Geopolitical Influence:
   Both India and China have increased their influence in global governance through participation in multilateral forums like BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and G20. Asia's rising geopolitical significance could reshape the global order, making it more representative of Asian interests.

Challenges Due to India-China Tensions:

1. Border Disputes:
   The ongoing India-China border dispute in regions like Ladakh and the South China Sea presents a significant obstacle to the idea of an "Asian Century." The friction between these two nuclear-armed countries has led to military standoffs, most notably in Doklam (2017) and Galwan Valley (2020), escalating tensions and undermining regional cooperation.
2. Competing Regional Interests:
   China's growing influence in the region, especially through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has created a divide among Asian countries. India’s opposition to the BRI, which it views as a threat to its sovereignty and regional balance, further complicates relations. Additionally, China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea and its rivalry with India in the Indo-Pacific region often puts regional stability at risk.

While the idea of an "Asian Century" remains feasible due to the region’s economic and geopolitical rise, the growing India-China tensions are a significant hindrance to achieving a unified, prosperous Asia. The future of the "Asian Century" will depend on how India and China manage their bilateral relations, as well as the ability of regional and global powers to foster cooperation and address existing conflicts.

​(c) Discuss the potential role that India could play as the leader of the Global South in realising the goal of establishing a new international economic order in the 21st century. (15 Marks)
Ans: India, with its growing economic power and strategic position, has the potential to emerge as a leader of the Global South—a coalition of developing nations seeking to reshape the international economic order to better serve their interests. This opportunity is particularly significant in the 21st century, as the global balance of power continues to shift towards emerging economies.
India’s Potential Role as a Leader of the Global South:

1. Advocating for Economic Reforms: India can play a pivotal role in pushing for reforms in global institutions like the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, which are often perceived as being biased towards the developed world. By advocating for more inclusive global governance, India can ensure that the voices of developing nations are better represented in decision-making processes. For example, India has consistently called for greater representation of developing countries in the IMF’s governance structure.
2. Championing Development and Sustainability: India can use its position to promote policies that align with the development needs of the Global South, such as sustainable development, poverty reduction, and climate change mitigation. India’s emphasis on renewable energy, as seen in the launch of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), aligns with the aspirations of many developing countries that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. India can continue to push for a new economic order that balances growth with environmental sustainability.
3. Fostering South-South Cooperation: India has been a vocal advocate for South-South Cooperation, which involves collaboration between developing countries to achieve common goals. Initiatives such as the IBSA Dialogue Forum (India, Brazil, South Africa) and India’s support for various United Nations programs for developing countries position it as a bridge-builder within the Global South.
4. Promoting Trade and Investment: India can promote trade agreements and investment initiatives that prioritize the interests of developing nations. As a key member of organizations like BRICS and G20, India is already playing a leadership role in promoting multilateral trade agreements that benefit emerging economies.

Challenges: Despite its potential, India faces challenges such as domestic economic disparities, geopolitical rivalries, and divergent interests within the Global South. Nevertheless, India’s diplomatic efforts, along with its growing economic and political influence, can India has the potential to lead the Global South in shaping a new international economic order by advocating for fair trade practices, supporting sustainable development, and promoting South-South cooperation. Its leadership can help ensure that the interests of developing nations are more effectively represented in global governance.

Q7:
(a) Discuss the future of SAARC in the light of India's increased focus on other regional groupings like ASEAN and BIMSTEC. (20 Marks)
Ans: The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), established in 1985, aimed to foster regional cooperation and development among South Asian countries. However, the future of SAARC is increasingly uncertain due to various geopolitical and internal challenges. In recent years, India has shifted its focus to other regional groupings like ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), which have gained more prominence in India’s foreign policy.
Reasons for India’s Shift from SAARC to ASEAN and BIMSTEC:

1. Tensions with Pakistan:
   SAARC’s effectiveness has been undermined by political tensions, particularly between India and Pakistan. Pakistan’s hostility towards India, exemplified by the Pulwama attack (2019) and the subsequent balakot airstrike, has led to a breakdown in cooperation. Pakistan's insistence on involving Kashmir as a central issue in regional cooperation further hinders SAARC’s progress. In contrast, BIMSTEC and ASEAN provide India with opportunities for regional cooperation without the limitations imposed by Pakistan’s involvement.
2. Geopolitical and Economic Interests:
   India’s growing focus on ASEAN is driven by its "Act East" policy, which emphasizes stronger ties with Southeast Asia, a region with which India shares economic and strategic interests. ASEAN’s collective market, regional trade agreements, and geopolitical importance in counterbalancing China make it a more attractive partner for India than SAARC, where political tensions often overshadow economic cooperation.
3. BIMSTEC’s Promising Potential:
   BIMSTEC, which includes countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Nepal, and Bhutan, offers India the opportunity to engage with its immediate neighbors and the Bay of Bengal region for greater economic cooperation. With its focus on connectivity, energy, and security, BIMSTEC complements India’s interests in fostering regional stability and economic integration, especially with Southeast Asia.

The future of SAARC appears bleak given the unresolved tensions in the region, particularly between India and Pakistan. India’s increased focus on ASEAN and BIMSTEC reflects a pragmatic shift towards regional cooperation with like-minded countries. While SAARC’s potential is not entirely exhausted, it is unlikely to regain its former importance in India’s foreign policy due to the persistent political challenges in South Asia.

(b) Critically examine India's persistent refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) despite being recognized as a de facto nuclear power. (15 Marks)
Ans: India's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), despite being recognized as a de facto nuclear power, is rooted in both strategic and moral considerations, reflecting the complexities of India's nuclear policy.
Reasons for India's Refusal:

1. NPT’s Discriminatory Nature:
   India has consistently argued that the NPT is inherently discriminatory. The treaty divides states into nuclear-weapon states (NWS) and non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS), creating a two-tier system where five countries (U.S., Russia, China, France, and the U.K.) are recognized as nuclear powers while others are not allowed to develop nuclear weapons. India believes that this undermines the principle of equal sovereignty and discriminates against countries like itself that have developed nuclear capabilities outside the framework of the NPT.
2. Security Concerns and Regional Context:
   India’s refusal to sign the NPT is also driven by security concerns, particularly in the context of its adversarial relationship with Pakistan and China. The nuclear weapons of China and Pakistan pose a direct threat to India’s national security. India's nuclear deterrent is seen as essential for maintaining regional stability and protecting itself from perceived external threats. Given the lack of trust in global nuclear disarmament efforts, India believes that signing the NPT would compromise its strategic autonomy and security.
3. Nuclear Doctrine and Self-Reliance:
   India's nuclear doctrine, articulated as a no-first-use policy, aims to deter nuclear aggression while ensuring that its nuclear weapons are seen as a defensive deterrent rather than an offensive tool. India also seeks to maintain its status as a self-reliant nuclear power. Signing the NPT would imply international limitations on its nuclear capabilities, which India considers incompatible with its national interests.
4. Global Disarmament and Hypocrisy:
   India has consistently argued that the nuclear powers who are signatories to the NPT have not made substantial progress towards nuclear disarmament, as required under the treaty. India’s refusal reflects its belief that the NPT has failed to achieve its primary goal of global disarmament, and it sees no incentive in joining a treaty that is perceived to serve the interests of nuclear-armed states rather than promoting global security.

India’s persistent refusal to sign the NPT is a reflection of its commitment to maintaining strategic autonomy, security, and the principle of equal sovereignty in nuclear matters. While India is recognized as a de facto nuclear power, its refusal to join the NPT stems from concerns over its national security, regional stability, and the discriminatory nature of the treaty.

(c) "India and USA have become such strong strategic partners that they need not become formal allies." Comment. (15 Marks)
Ans: The relationship between India and the United States has evolved significantly over the past two decades, moving from a phase of limited engagement to one of deep strategic partnership. However, despite this growing cooperation, the question of whether India and the U.S. need to become formal allies remains a point of debate.
Strong Strategic Partnership:

1. Security Cooperation: India and the U.S. have significantly enhanced their security cooperation, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. They have participated in joint military exercises such as Malabar and RIMPAC, focusing on maritime security, counterterrorism, and regional stability. The signing of defense agreements like the Lemoa (Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement) and Comcasa (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement) has further strengthened military ties, providing India with access to advanced U.S. military technology and logistics support.
2. Economic Ties: The economic partnership between India and the U.S. has flourished, with trade growing in areas like information technology, energy, and defense manufacturing. The U.S. is one of India’s largest trading partners, and both countries have committed to deepening economic collaboration in fields like artificial intelligence, renewable energy, and space exploration.
3. Geopolitical Coordination: India and the U.S. are increasingly aligned on several global issues, particularly in countering China's assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. Both countries share concerns about China’s growing influence and have coordinated efforts through the Quad (India, U.S., Japan, and Australia), which aims to promote a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific. Their shared democratic values and strategic interests further solidify their partnership.

The Need for Formal Alliances:

1. Different Strategic Priorities: While India and the U.S. have become strong partners, India’s policy of strategic autonomy and non-alignment prevents it from fully embracing formal alliances. India values its ability to engage independently with multiple global powers, including Russia and China, without being bound by the obligations of formal alliance systems like NATO.
2. Diplomatic Flexibility: India's foreign policy is rooted in flexibility, which allows it to engage with various countries and regional groupings without the constraints of formal alliances. By maintaining its independence, India can pursue a balanced approach to global issues without being forced into confrontations that may arise from formal alliance obligations.

India and the U.S. have become increasingly strong strategic partners, but a formal alliance is not necessary for this partnership to thrive. Both countries benefit from a relationship built on cooperation, mutual interests, and diplomatic flexibility, which allows them to address global challenges without being constrained by formal military alliances. The evolving partnership will likely continue to grow in the coming years, driven by shared values and interests, without the need for formal military commitments.

Q8:
(a) Critically examine the continuity and change in India's Palestine policy in the wake of the ongoing Israel-Hamas War. (20 Marks)
Ans: India's policy towards Palestine has evolved significantly over the years, influenced by changing geopolitical realities, its growing relations with Israel, and the ongoing developments in the Israel-Palestine conflict, including the recent escalation with the Israel-Hamas War. India's position on Palestine has experienced both continuity and change, reflecting a balancing act between its historical commitments and new strategic interests.
Continuity in India’s Palestine Policy:

1. Support for Palestinian Cause:
   India has historically been a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause and continues to express solidarity with Palestine. India has consistently advocated for a two-state solution, where both Israel and Palestine coexist peacefully with secure and recognized borders. This position has remained unchanged, despite shifting alliances in the region. India continues to support the Palestinian Authority and the broader aspirations of the Palestinian people for self-determination.
2. Condemnation of Violence:
   India has maintained its long-standing position of condemning violence from all sides. In the wake of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, India has called for an immediate end to the violence and urged both parties to return to peaceful dialogue. India’s statement during the 2021 escalation, where it called for an immediate ceasefire and emphasized the need for a peaceful resolution, is consistent with its traditional stance of advocating for peace and stability in the region.
3. Diplomatic Engagement:
   India’s diplomatic engagement with Palestinian leadership remains active. India has consistently supported Palestine in international forums like the United Nations and has provided humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people. The strong historical ties with Palestine, rooted in India’s anti-colonial struggle and solidarity with non-aligned nations, continue to shape its diplomatic outreach.

Change in India’s Palestine Policy:

1. Improved Relations with Israel:
   While India’s support for Palestine remains, its relations with Israel have significantly improved since the 1990s. India has increasingly engaged with Israel in areas such as defense, technology, and agriculture. The growing defense cooperation between India and Israel, particularly in counterterrorism and defense technology, has raised questions about India’s ability to maintain a balance between supporting Palestine and deepening ties with Israel.
2. Shift Towards a Pragmatic Approach:
   In recent years, India has shifted towards a more pragmatic approach in dealing with the Israel-Palestine issue. India’s growing economic ties with Israel and the importance of Israel’s technological expertise in areas like cybersecurity and water management have influenced its policy. During the 2021 Gaza conflict, while India expressed support for the Palestinian cause, it also refrained from taking strong actions that might alienate Israel, indicating a more balanced approach.
3. Neutral Stance on Recent Conflicts:
   In the wake of the Israel-Hamas War, India’s response has been more neutral, focusing on humanitarian aspects rather than taking sides. While India condemned the violence on both sides, it did not explicitly denounce Israel’s actions in Gaza as some expected. This reflects a shift from the earlier approach of clear support for the Palestinian cause towards a more measured response that balances India’s growing ties with Israel and its long-standing support for Palestinian aspirations.

India’s Palestine policy reflects both continuity and change. While its support for the Palestinian cause and commitment to a two-state solution remain consistent, India’s growing ties with Israel have brought a more pragmatic and balanced approach to its foreign policy. The Israel-Hamas war has further highlighted the delicate balancing act that India must maintain, as it seeks to protect its interests in both the Arab world and its strategic partnership with Israel. India’s policy is likely to continue evolving, adapting to the changing geopolitical dynamics in the region while maintaining its core values of peace, security, and dialogue.

(b) Discuss the implications of the scrapping of the Free Movement Regime with Myanmar by the Indian Government on the complex ethno-political dynamics of the north-eastern region. (15 Marks)
Ans: The Free Movement Regime (FMR) between India and Myanmar, established in 2018, allowed the people residing in the border areas of both countries to move freely across the border without the need for a visa. This policy, aimed at enhancing people-to-people contact and fostering trade and cooperation, has been scrapped by the Indian government recently due to concerns about security and illegal activities. The scrapping of this regime has significant implications on the ethno-political dynamics of the northeastern region of India, which shares a long and porous border with Myanmar.
Implications of Scrapping the FMR:

1. Impact on Ethnic Communities: The northeastern region, especially Nagaland, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh, is home to several ethnic groups with close historical and cultural ties to communities across the Myanmar border. For instance, the Naga and Kuki communities have familial and social ties with ethnic groups in Myanmar. The Free Movement Regime facilitated easy travel for these communities, but with the scrapping of this regime, cross-border familial and cultural exchanges have been hindered. This could potentially heighten the sense of alienation among these communities, who may feel disconnected from their counterparts in Myanmar.
2. Security Concerns and Border Control: The decision to scrap the FMR is primarily motivated by security concerns, especially the increasing infiltration of insurgents and the movement of illegal arms and drugs across the border. Myanmar, particularly in its Kachin and Shan states, has been a hotspot for insurgent activities, and groups operating from Myanmar have often sought refuge in India’s northeastern states. The Indian government’s move to tighten border control is an attempt to curb the spread of armed insurgencies like those involving Naga militants or Kuki insurgents. The policy shift, however, risks exacerbating tensions between the local ethnic communities and the Indian state, as many view the move as a disruption to their long-standing cross-border ties.
3. Regional Cooperation and Trade: The FMR also played an important role in promoting trade between India and Myanmar, particularly for the Kuki-Chin tribes, who are involved in cross-border trade. The scrapping of the FMR is likely to impact local trade, especially the informal economy that thrived in border areas. This could lead to economic hardship for communities that depended on this trade for their livelihood, further complicating the socio-economic dynamics in the region.
4. Potential for Increased Insurgency: The tightening of border controls could also lead to the marginalization of ethnic groups in the northeast, potentially fueling dissatisfaction and radicalization. If local populations feel alienated or unfairly targeted by state actions, it may lead to revitalization of insurgent movements that seek autonomy or secession from India, as seen in the past with Naga insurgency.

The scrapping of the Free Movement Regime with Myanmar presents a complex challenge for India’s northeastern region. While the move addresses legitimate security concerns, it risks exacerbating ethnic tensions, marginalizing cross-border communities, and potentially destabilizing the region further. A balanced approach is needed, one that addresses security concerns while considering the socio-cultural and economic needs of the local ethnic communities.

(c) "India has of late, chosen to debunk non-alignment in its pursuit of multi-alignment." Comment. (15 Marks)
Ans: India’s foreign policy has undergone significant changes over the decades, and a major shift has been from the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) to a more pragmatic approach that can be termed as multi-alignment. While India continues to prioritize its strategic autonomy, it has increasingly engaged with multiple global powers and regional blocs, marking a departure from the rigid non-alignment of the past.
Non-Alignment and its Evolution: 
Non-alignment was the cornerstone of India’s foreign policy, particularly during the Cold War period, when the country sought to stay clear of the superpower rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. India’s leadership, under Jawaharlal Nehru, championed the idea of neutrality, advocating for peace, self-determination, and sovereignty. Non-alignment allowed India to cultivate relations with both the West and the Eastern bloc, maintaining its independence in decision-making.
However, in the post-Cold War era, especially after the 1991 economic reforms, the context of international politics changed. India’s economic rise, global ambitions, and regional security concerns led to a gradual departure from the non-alignment framework.
Shift to Multi-Alignment:
The pursuit of multi-alignment reflects India’s strategic and pragmatic response to an increasingly multipolar world. India now engages with various global powers and regional organizations simultaneously, without binding itself to any single alliance.

1. Engagement with the U.S.:
   India’s relationship with the United States has deepened significantly, especially in defense, trade, and technology. The U.S.-India strategic partnership, formalized through agreements like Lemoa, Comcasa, and Becca, demonstrates India's shifting focus towards collaboration with major powers like the U.S. However, this engagement does not imply a formal alliance, as India maintains its independence in foreign policy.
2. Cooperation with Russia:
   Despite growing ties with the U.S., India continues to maintain strong ties with Russia, especially in defense and energy sectors. India has relied on Russian weapons and military technology for decades, and the India-Russia strategic partnership remains critical. This relationship underscores India’s multi-aligned approach, balancing ties between the U.S. and Russia.
3. Regional Engagements:
   India has also strengthened its engagement with regional groupings such as the Quad (with the U.S., Japan, and Australia) in the Indo-Pacific and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) to ensure its regional and global influence. These partnerships allow India to pursue its interests without fully aligning with any one bloc.
4. China and ASEAN:
   India’s multi-alignment also extends to China, with whom it shares both cooperation (such as trade and investment) and rivalry (especially in the Indo-Pacific). Simultaneously, India has intensified its ties with ASEAN nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and other regional frameworks, providing a counterbalance to China’s rising influence.

India’s transition from non-alignment to multi-alignment reflects a more flexible and pragmatic foreign policy that seeks to maximize its strategic and economic interests while preserving autonomy. The pursuit of multi-alignment allows India to engage with multiple global powers and regional players, balancing its interests across diverse domains. This approach enables India to respond effectively to a rapidly changing global order while maintaining its sovereignty and independence in decision-making.