UPSC Mains Answer PYQ 2025: PSIR Paper 2 (Section- B)

Section - B

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (10×5=50)

Q1: (a) China's growing footprint and a tangible shift in power dynamics in Bangladesh has weakened India's leverage in Dhaka. Comment. (10 marks)
Ans: The ouster of Sheikh Hasina in August 2024 marked a significant shift in Bangladesh's politics, leading to an interim government under Muhammad Yunus. This change has altered the power dynamics in South Asia, with China rapidly expanding its influence in Dhaka.

• Under Hasina, Bangladesh balanced relations with India and China, but maintained close ties with New Delhi due to historical links from the 1971 Liberation War.
• Post-2024, Yunus's first foreign visit was to Beijing in March 2025, breaking tradition of visiting India first. This resulted in increased Chinese investments, loans (potentially raising debt to USD 12 billion), and cooperation in ports like Chattogram and Mongla under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
• China has become Bangladesh's largest trading partner and key military supplier, while Dhaka has shown interest in Chinese involvement in projects like the Teesta River management, previously stalled due to Indian concerns.

Consequently, India-Bangladesh relations have deteriorated, with issues over minority protection and border management. India's leverage in Dhaka has weakened as Bangladesh pursues a more independent foreign policy, reducing reliance on India and opening doors for China's strategic gains in the region. 

(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)
Ans: Yes, the Pahalgam terrorist attack on 22 April 2025, which killed 26 civilians (mostly Hindu tourists) by Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) affiliates, has accelerated India's shift towards a more aggressive, hyper-realist foreign policy posture.

• The attack, one of the deadliest since Pulwama 2019, prompted Operation Sindoor in May 2025-precision strikes on terror camps in Pakistan and PoK-followed by intensified counter-terror operations like Operation Mahadev.
• India declared major terrorist attacks as "acts of war," suspended aspects of the Indus Waters Treaty, and rejected external mediation, emphasizing zero tolerance for proxy terrorism.
• This builds on previous responses (Uri surgical strikes 2016, Balakot airstrikes 2019) but marks a doctrinal evolution: from strategic restraint to compellence, treating terror ecosystems as legitimate targets and imposing higher costs on perpetrators.

Driven by domestic outrage and the need to deter cross-border terrorism, this hyper-realist approach reflects India's growing assertiveness, prioritizing national security over traditional restraint in dealing with Pakistan-sponsored threats. 

(c) For India, a multipolar world order would also mean a multipolar Asia. Comment. (10 marks)
Ans: India views a multipolar world as essential for its strategic autonomy and rise as a global power, and it strongly advocates that this multipolarity must extend to Asia to counter any single dominant power.

• Asia, home to rising economies and powers like China, Japan, India, and ASEAN nations, cannot remain unipolar under Chinese influence through initiatives like BRI.
• India promotes a "multipolar Asia" through forums like Quad, Indo-Pacific partnerships, and Act East Policy, fostering balanced cooperation among multiple centres of power.
• A multipolar Asia ensures free navigation, rule-based order, and prevents hegemony, aligning with India's vision of inclusive Indo-Pacific prosperity.

For India, global multipolarity is incomplete without regional balance; dominance by one Asian power would undermine strategic equilibrium and India's role as a net security provider. Thus, India actively works towards decentralised power distribution in Asia via alliances and multilateralism. 

(d) Does the Non-Aligned Movement have any future in the wake of India's growing indifference towards it? (10 marks)
Ans: The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), founded during the Cold War to avoid superpower blocs, faces challenges in a multipolar world, but it retains relevance despite India's perceived growing indifference.

• India, a founding member, historically led NAM for Third World solidarity and strategic autonomy. However, post-Cold War, India has prioritised bilateral ties, Quad, and partnerships with the US, reflecting a shift towards multi-alignment.
• Recent NAM summits (e.g., 2024 in Kampala) focused on Global South issues like development and reform of global institutions, where India engages selectively but not as a torchbearer.

NAM's future lies in addressing contemporary challenges like climate change, economic inequality, and multilateral reforms for developing nations. India's "indifference" is pragmatic-favouring flexible alignments over rigid non-alignment-but it continues to support NAM's core principles. The movement can evolve as a platform for South-South cooperation, ensuring relevance beyond bipolar rivalries. 

(e) Historical ties between India and Japan grew into a 'special strategic and global partnership'. Comment. (10 marks)
Ans: Historical ties between India and Japan, rooted in cultural exchanges (Buddhism) and anti-colonial solidarity, have evolved into a Special Strategic and Global Partnership since 2014, strengthened by shared democratic values and strategic convergence.

• Elevated in 2015 with the "Vision 2025" statement, the partnership focuses on Indo-Pacific peace, security, and prosperity.
• Key developments include defence cooperation (2+2 dialogues, joint exercises), economic ties (Japanese investments exceeding $43 billion by 2024, high-speed rail projects), and technology collaboration in semiconductors, AI, and clean energy.
• In 2024-2025, summits reaffirmed commitments, with Japan pledging massive investments (up to $68 billion over a decade) and cooperation in critical minerals, digital infrastructure, and economic security.
• Both nations align against regional challenges, promoting a free, open Indo-Pacific through Quad.

This partnership has transformed from historical affinity to a comprehensive, action-oriented alliance, contributing to regional stability and mutual growth. 

Q6: (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)
Ans: India's foreign policy since independence has evolved through distinct phases, reflecting changes in global dynamics, domestic priorities, and strategic needs.

• Optimistic Non-Alignment Phase (1947-1962): Led by Jawaharlal Nehru, India pursued non-alignment to avoid Cold War blocs, promoting Panchsheel and co-founding NAM. It emphasized anti-colonialism and Third World solidarity. However, idealism overlooked power realities, as seen in the 1962 China war, exposing military unpreparedness.
• Realism and Recovery (1962-1971): Post-1962 defeat, India adopted pragmatic realism, seeking arms from the US and USSR while maintaining non-alignment. This phase involved recovery and balancing ties amid regional threats.
• Regional Assertion (1971-1991): Marked by the 1971 Bangladesh war and 1974 nuclear test, India asserted regional dominance. Close Soviet ties provided support, but sanctions highlighted vulnerabilities.
• Quest for Strategic Autonomy (1991-1999): Economic liberalization and USSR collapse prompted Look East policy and engagement with the West, safeguarding autonomy in a unipolar world.
• Power Balancing (2000-2013): Post-1998 nuclear tests and US-India nuclear deal, India balanced rising China through multi-alignment.

Critically, these phases show a shift from idealism to pragmatism, driven by security needs and economic growth. Early non-alignment built moral stature but ignored threats; later phases enhanced capabilities but faced isolation risks.

S. Jaishankar classifies the post-2014 phase as 'energetic diplomacy', characterized by assertive engagement, multi-alignment (e.g., Quad revival), neighbourhood focus, and economic diplomacy amid China's rise and global transitions. This is justified as India proactively shapes outcomes-evacuations, vaccine diplomacy, G20 leadership-reflecting confidence and aspirations as a leading power. It departs from past caution, aligning with Bharat's rising global role. 

(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)
Ans: 

• India's foreign policy increasingly prioritizes a free and open Indo-Pacific (FOIP), emphasizing rules-based order, freedom of navigation, and inclusive connectivity. This aligns with strategic interests in countering dominance and enhancing global integration.
• India strengthens ties with Quad partners-US, Japan, Australia-for maritime security and infrastructure. Quad initiatives like IPMDA and cable connectivity resilience promote transparent, sustainable links, contrasting debt-trap models.
• Bilateral engagements reinforce this: Japan funds Northeast projects; Australia deepens defence ties; France collaborates in Indian Ocean security. ASEAN centrality under Act East policy ensures inclusivity, with projects like India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway boosting connectivity.
• India partners with Indo-Pacific nations for resilient supply chains in semiconductors and critical minerals, reducing dependencies. Initiatives like SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) and IORA chairship (2025-27) focus on maritime safety and economic cooperation.
• These ties assure FOIP by deterring coercion and promoting overflight freedoms, while connectivity projects link India to global markets, supporting Viksit Bharat goals.
• However, balancing relations with Russia and China poses challenges. Overall, India's approach enhances strategic autonomy, fosters prosperity, and positions it as a net security provider in the region. 

(c) The tariff threats have pushed India and the European Union closer. Evaluate the India-EU partnership. (15 marks)
Ans:

• Recent US tariff threats under President Trump-imposing 50% duties on Indian goods partly over Russian oil purchases and pressuring EU for similar measures-have accelerated India-EU rapprochement, highlighting diversification needs.
• The India-EU strategic partnership, established in 2004, covers trade, security, climate, and technology. Bilateral trade reached €120 billion in 2024, with EU as India's largest partner. Over 6,000 European firms employ millions in India.
• Key progress includes intensified FTA negotiations relaunched in 2022, aiming for conclusion by end-2025. Rounds in 2025 (e.g., May, July, November) closed chapters on transparency, IPR, and customs, narrowing gaps on tariffs and NTBs. Parallel talks on investment protection and GIs advance.
• Despite US pressure, EU unveiled a New Strategic Agenda in 2025, prioritizing semiconductors, digital ties, and startup partnerships, rejecting tariff alignment to focus on mutual growth.
• Cooperation extends to defence (maritime exercises), clean energy (Green Hydrogen Mission), and multilateral forums (G20). Connectivity Partnership promotes sustainable infrastructure.
• Challenges persist: differences on carbon border taxes, agriculture, and data flows delay FTA. Geopolitical divergences on Russia-Ukraine exist.
• Overall, tariff threats have catalyzed deeper ties, making EU a key pillar for India's economic resilience and strategic autonomy. Successful FTA conclusion would transform the partnership into a cornerstone of multipolar engagement. 

Q7: (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)
Ans: India's foreign policy has long been guided by strategic autonomy, allowing it to pursue independent decisions based on national interests rather than aligning strictly with any power bloc. This principle, rooted in the Cold War-era non-alignment, has evolved into multi-alignment while preserving core independence.

In 2025, India firmly rejected US President Donald Trump's repeated offers to mediate on the Kashmir issue. Following heightened India-Pakistan tensions and a brief ceasefire, Trump proposed mediation, but India maintained that Kashmir is a bilateral matter under the Simla Agreement of 1972. Officials, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, emphasized no role for third-party intervention, insisting discussions with Pakistan focus solely on terrorism and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

Similarly, on Russia's war in Ukraine, India has refused to criticize Moscow outright. While abstaining from UN resolutions condemning Russia and continuing defence and energy ties, India advocates peace through dialogue. In December 2025, during President Vladimir Putin's visit to New Delhi for the 23rd Annual Summit, PM Modi stated India is "not neutral but on the side of peace," supporting all peaceful initiatives without condemning Russia.

This balanced approach reflects strategic autonomy:

• It safeguards ties with Russia for defence supplies (e.g., S-400 systems) and discounted oil, vital for energy security.
• It deepens partnerships with the US (e.g., Quad, technology cooperation) without alienating Moscow.
• Amid US tariffs on Indian imports linked to Russian oil purchases, India diversified partnerships while upholding autonomy.

However, challenges persist: Western pressure and tariffs test this policy, potentially straining US relations. Yet, India's stance enhances its global image as a voice of the Global South, promoting multipolarity.

In conclusion, India's actions in 2025 demonstrate the enduring relevance of strategic autonomy, enabling pragmatic engagement with both US and Russia while prioritizing national interests. This approach positions India as a bridge in a polarized world, though it requires careful navigation amid great-power rivalries.

(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)
Ans: President Donald Trump's 2025 imposition of "reciprocal" tariffs-a baseline 10% on most imports, plus higher country-specific rates-violates WTO principles of non-discrimination and bound tariffs. These unilateral measures, justified under national security or trade imbalances, have triggered retaliations, market crashes, and forecasts of shrinking global trade, undermining the rules-based multilateral system established in 1995.

The WTO faces existential threats: a paralyzed Appellate Body (due to US blocks on appointments), rising protectionism, and eroded dispute settlement credibility.

To salvage the organization, members have several options:

• Reform Dispute Settlement: Restore the Appellate Body by addressing US concerns on overreach and judicial activism. Adopt interim mechanisms like the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) more widely.
• Launch Structured Reforms: Initiate time-bound negotiations on systemic issues-plurilaterals, decision-making by consensus, special and differential treatment for developing nations, and subsidies (e.g., fisheries, industrial).
• Enhance Monitoring and Transparency: Strengthen notification compliance and private sector engagement for practical inputs.
• Explore Flexible Approaches: Use "variable geometry" (plurilaterals open to all) for progress on digital trade, services, and environment without full consensus.
• Standstill Commitments: Agree to pause new restrictive measures during reforms to rebuild trust.

Collective action by members like the EU, China, and India is crucial to engage the US constructively. Without reforms, alternatives like bilateral deals may proliferate, fragmenting global trade further.

Ultimately, salvaging the WTO requires political will to adapt it for 21st-century challenges, preserving multilateralism for equitable growth.

(c) Non-Alignment 2.0 underscores India's unique aspiration to emerge as a site for an alternative universality. Comment. (15 marks)
Ans: Non-Alignment 2.0, a 2012 policy document by prominent Indian thinkers, reinterprets non-alignment for the 21st century. It shifts from Cold War neutrality to strategic autonomy in a multipolar world, emphasizing internal strength (economic growth, democracy) as the basis for external influence.

The document highlights India's aspiration to emerge as a "site for an alternative universality." This means India should not merely seek power but set new global standards guided by universal human values-peace, inclusivity, democracy, and equitable development-distinct from Western or other models.

Key aspects:

• India's diversity, democratic experience, and non-aggressive rise position it uniquely to offer an alternative vision of power: one blending idealism with pragmatism.
• Rather than imitating great-power realpolitik, India must promote norms like dialogue over conflict, multilateralism, and respect for sovereignty, drawing from its civilizational ethos.
• This "power of example" enhances legitimacy, allowing India to shape global rules without dominance.

In practice, this aspiration is seen in India's Global South leadership, advocacy for UN reforms, climate justice, and balanced ties amid US-China rivalry.

However, critics argue it risks utopianism if not backed by hard power. Challenges like border tensions and economic dependencies test this vision.

Overall, NonAlignment 2.0 rightly underscores India's potential to offer an inclusive, value-based alternative in a polarized world, enhancing its soft power and strategic relevance.

Q8: (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)
Ans: India's nuclear policy evolved from advocating global disarmament and multilateral non-proliferation to overt weaponization with the Pokhran-II tests in May 1998. Until then, India maintained nuclear ambiguity post its 1974 peaceful nuclear explosion, viewing multilateral regimes like the NPT and CTBT as discriminatory, perpetuating a divide between nuclear "haves" and "have-nots".

The shift in 1998 was driven by several interconnected factors:

• Security Threats from Neighbours: India faced nuclear-armed adversaries-China (since 1964) and Pakistan (with Chinese assistance, suspected to possess weapons by the 1990s). Border disputes with China and multiple wars with Pakistan heightened perceptions of vulnerability, necessitating a credible deterrent.
• Impending Closure of Testing Window: The CTBT negotiations in the mid-1990s threatened to permanently bar further tests. India opposed it as unequal but recognized that non-signature without demonstration would leave its capabilities unproven and deterred indefinitely.
• Discriminatory Global Regime: The indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995 and pressure to cap India's program without reciprocal disarmament by nuclear powers reinforced the view that multilateral paths favored established states, pushing India toward self-reliance.
• Domestic Political Will: The BJP-led government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee prioritized strategic autonomy. Technological readiness allowed validation of advanced designs, including thermonuclear weapons, moving beyond the limited 1974 data.
• Strategic Autonomy and Prestige: The tests asserted India's status as a responsible nuclear power, paving the way for future integration into the global order, as seen in the 2008 Indo-US nuclear deal.

This overt shift established minimum credible deterrence with a No First Use policy, transforming India from a restrained outlier to a declared nuclear weapon state. While inviting initial sanctions, it enhanced deterrence stability in South Asia and affirmed India's refusal to accept unequal treaties.

(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)
Ans: India's engagement with Africa has intensified in recent years, driven by strategic, economic, and developmental imperatives. Bilateral trade crossed $100 billion in 2024-25, with cumulative FDI around $75-80 billion, positioning India as Africa's third-largest trading partner.

Key drivers include:

• Resource Security: Africa's abundance of critical minerals essential for India's green transition (e.g., electric vehicles, renewables) aligns with the Critical Mineral Mission announced in 2024-25.
• Market Expansion: Africa's young demographic and growing economies offer markets for Indian pharmaceuticals, automobiles, agriculture, and digital technologies.
• Maritime and Security Cooperation: Initiatives like the Africa-India Key Maritime Engagement (AI-KEYME) in 2025 strengthen Indian Ocean security, countering piracy and ensuring trade routes.
• Capacity Building and Soft Power: Programs like ITEC, ICCR scholarships, and digital platforms (e-VidyaBharati) build human capital, fostering long-term goodwill.

For comparative advantage over China:

• India's approach emphasizes consultative, demand-driven partnerships (Kampala Principles), avoiding debt traps associated with Chinese BRI projects.
• Historical ties from anti-colonial solidarity and South-South cooperation position India as a non-imperial partner.
• Focus on sustainable development, technology transfer, and private sector-led growth contrasts with China's state-dominated infrastructure model.

By institutionalizing frameworks like the India-Africa Forum Summit and supporting AfCFTA implementation, India can build enduring, equitable ties, amplifying Global South voices while securing strategic gains.

(c) Discuss the potential role India can play in initiating a possible phase of trilateral economic engagement among India, China and Nepal. (15 marks)
Ans: Trilateral economic engagement among India, China, and Nepal has been proposed periodically to leverage geographical proximity for mutual benefit, turning Nepal from a buffer into a bridge state. Though geopolitical tensions hinder progress, India can play a pivotal initiating role.

Potential areas of cooperation include:

• Connectivity and Infrastructure: Joint projects in cross-border railways, roads, and hydropower, linking Nepal's resources to markets in India and China.
• Trade and Transit: Harmonizing trade facilitation, reducing non-tariff barriers, and integrating Nepal into regional value chains.
• Energy and Tourism: Trilateral hydropower development and promotion of trans-Himalayan tourism circuits.

India's role in initiation:

• As Nepal's primary economic partner (surpassing China in investments recently), India holds leverage to propose confidence-building measures, ensuring projects respect sovereignty and avoid strategic encirclement concerns.
• India can advocate economic-focused trilaterals, delinking from sensitive political issues, building on existing bilateral frameworks like BBIN (Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal).
• By offering alternatives to BRI (e.g., grant-based funding), India can balance influences while promoting inclusive growth.
• Diplomatic platforms like BIMSTEC or informal summits can host initial dialogues.

Successful initiation requires India's proactive diplomacy to address mistrust, emphasizing win-win outcomes: enhanced connectivity for Nepal, market access for all, and regional stability. Sustained efforts could foster long-term economic interdependence, reducing bilateral frictions.