UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Political Science and International Relations Optional Paper II: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS

07 Sep UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Political Science and International Relations Optional Paper II: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS

The questions below are from Political Science and International Relations Optional Paper II of UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 (held 2026-08-30) — the actual paper, which is public. Each carries a model answer written by Aanya in Plutus IAS teaching style, to the marks and word limit, following our faculty’s discussion of the paper (video below).

Official source: official (upsc.gov.in).

Q1. Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Criticism of the institutional approach in comparative political analysis has come up in successive waves. Comment. 10 (b) Extractive capitalism 10 (c) Discuss various methods of Balance of Power. 10 (d) Clientilism 10 (e) What role does identity and technology play in the conceptualisation of Defensive realism ? 10 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word is “Comment”, so the examiner wants a critical evaluation, not mere description. The question tests your grasp of the evolution of the institutional approach in comparative political analysis and the successive waves of criticism it faced. A top answer must have three parts: (1) origins and core claims of the institutional approach, (2) the successive waves of criticism—behavioralist (1950s–60s), structural-functionalist, and post-behavioralist critiques—highlighting their key arguments and proponents, and (3) the revival of institutionalism as “new institutionalism” in the 1970s–80s. The common mistake is to stop at behavioralist critique and not bring in the revival or the diversification into historical, sociological, and rational-choice institutionalism.

Model answer

The institutional approach in comparative political analysis emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emphasizing the study of formal institutions—constitutions, legislatures, and bureaucracies—as the primary units of political life. Scholars such as Woodrow Wilson and James Bryce argued that institutions shaped political behavior and outcomes, offering a structured lens to understand governance. However, successive waves of criticism challenged this paradigm. The behavioralist wave of the 1950s–60s, led by scholars like David Easton and Gabriel Almond, argued that institutions alone could not explain political behavior; they advocated for empirical, quantitative methods and a shift toward individual attitudes, voting patterns, and systemic inputs-outputs. Behavioralists also critiqued the Eurocentrism of institutionalism, arguing that it neglected non-Western political realities.

A second wave of criticism came from structural-functionalists and post-behavioralists who accused behavioralism of overemphasizing behavior while neglecting the structural and normative contexts in which politics operated. Post-behavioralists, including David Apter and Dankwart Rustow, insisted on reintegrating values and historical context into political analysis. In response, the 1970s–80s witnessed a revival of institutionalism—“new institutionalism”—which diversified into historical institutionalism (Theda Skocpol), sociological institutionalism (Peter Hall), and rational-choice institutionalism (Elinor Ostrom). These strands restored institutions to the center while integrating historical processes, cultural norms, and strategic choice. Thus, successive waves of criticism reshaped, rather than discarded, the institutional approach, culminating in a more nuanced and pluralist framework for comparative political analysis.

Q2. (a) Discuss the factors responsible for the changing nature of states in contemporary industrial societies and explain its impact. 20 (b) International Human Rights frameworks are hostage to politics among nations. Comment. 15 (c) Diplomacy has always rested on two pillars : Institutional memory and individual craft. Elaborate. 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Discuss” requires a balanced analysis of causes and effects, not mere description. Examiners test your ability to link structural (economic, technological) and agency-level (ideational, institutional) factors to observable shifts in state functions and legitimacy. A top answer will (1) identify 3–4 core drivers—globalisation, technological change, demographic shifts, and ideological reconfigurations—(2) illustrate each with concrete evidence—OECD data, EU treaties, SCOTUS rulings—and (3) assess impacts on welfare, sovereignty and legitimacy. The common mistake is to treat “changing nature of the state” as a single homogenous process; candidates lose marks by ignoring post-industrial variations between Nordic, Anglo-Saxon and East Asian models.

Model answer

Introduction: Contemporary industrial societies witness a reconfiguration of the state from a unitary sovereign authority to a multi-level, networked regulator and service provider. This transformation is driven by globalisation, technological disruption, demographic pressures and ideological shifts, producing hybrid governance forms that redistribute authority upwards, downwards and sideways.

Factors responsible:

• Globalisation and economic interdependence: Cross-border capital flows and supply chains (e.g., EU Single Market, ASEAN Economic Community) erode exclusive territorial control; states now co-regulate via treaties like the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
• Digital revolution: Platform economies (Uber, Airbnb) and AI governance require regulatory agility; GDPR and India’s DPDP Act exemplify states adapting to data sovereignty challenges.
• Demographic ageing and migration: Low fertility rates in Japan and Germany force states to import labour while managing integration; the 2015 refugee crisis exposed tensions between humanitarian obligations and border security.
• Ideational shifts: Post-material values (environment, identity) push states toward ecological modernisation (EU Green Deal) and recognition of same-sex unions (Obergefell v Hodges, 2015), redefining citizenship beyond territory.

Impacts:

• Welfare recalibration: Universal Basic Income pilots in Finland and California reflect a shift from contributory to needs-based entitlements amid automation.
• Sovereignty reconfiguration: Delegation to supranational bodies (ECB, WTO Appellate Body) coexists with reassertion of national security prerogatives (US CHIPS Act, China’s data-localisation laws).
• Legitimacy contestation: Populist backlashes (Brexit, Trumpism) challenge technocratic governance, forcing states to balance efficiency with participatory responsiveness.

Conclusion: The contemporary industrial state is neither withering nor omnipotent; it is morphing into a “competition state” that prioritises innovation and a “protective state” that secures borders, while navigating legitimacy deficits through digital-era governance and inclusive policy design.

Q3. (a) NATO, the oldest surviving collective security system, is facing challenge of transactional coercion from its own biggest member. What future does NATO have amidst such developments ? 20 (b) How did the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) reflect geo-political division of the world during the cold war ? 154.(c) UNCLOS क्या है ? इसकी प्रमुख विशेषताओं का वर्णन कीजिए। What is UNCLOS ? Explain its salient features. 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “What future does NATO have” asks for an analytical forecast, not just description. Examiners test your grasp of NATO’s evolving role, internal stresses, and geopolitical context. Structure the answer in three parts: (1) brief context of NATO as a defense pact under U.S. primacy, (2) the challenge of transactional coercion from its largest member, and (3) plausible future trajectories with evidence. The common mistake is to treat NATO as a collective security system or to ignore internal fractures and U.S.-Europe power asymmetries.

Model answer

NATO, founded in 1949 as a transatlantic defense pact, remains the world’s most powerful military alliance with 30 members and a combined GDP exceeding $40 trillion. Its Article 5 collective defense clause has anchored European security for seven decades, but its future is now clouded by transactional coercion from its own largest member—the United States.

Challenge of transactional coercion

• U.S. burden-sharing narrative: Successive U.S. administrations, especially under President Trump, have repeatedly criticized European allies as “free-riders” and “paper tigers,” demanding higher defense spending targets (2% of GDP) and threatening to reduce U.S. troop commitments unless allies increase financial contributions.
• Ukraine war fallout: While NATO unity held after Russia’s 2022 invasion, internal divisions persist over arms deliveries, risk thresholds, and post-war reconstruction roles, exposing divergent threat perceptions between Washington and key European capitals.
• Institutional erosion: Trump’s questioning of NATO’s Article 5 during his first term (2017–2021) damaged institutional credibility, emboldened adversaries, and fueled debates about European strategic autonomy.

Future trajectories

• Fragmented cohesion: NATO will likely remain operationally active but increasingly fractured, with Eastern European members prioritizing deterrence against Russia while Western Europeans hedge through EU defense initiatives such as Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund.
• Selective U.S. retrenchment: A future U.S. administration may re-engage transactionally—rewarding compliant allies with technology transfers or punishing laggards with reduced commitments—while pushing Europe toward greater self-reliance in high-end capabilities.
• European awakening: Germany’s €100 billion special defense fund (2022), Poland’s doubling of defense spending to 4% of GDP, and the EU’s Strategic Compass (2022) signal a gradual shift toward strategic autonomy, reducing but not eliminating dependence on U.S. security guarantees.

In sum, NATO’s future is not collapse but adaptive fragmentation: a transactional alliance under U.S. primacy that compels Europe toward greater self-reliance without severing the transatlantic link. Its durability will depend on Washington’s willingness to balance coercion with credible reassurance and Europe’s capacity to translate economic heft into military credibility.

Q4. Analyse the relevance of India-Brazil economic co-operation in strengthening the bilateral relations between the two countries. 10 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “analyse” requires a multi-dimensional explanation of how economic cooperation strengthens India-Brazil bilateral relations. The examiner is testing your ability to connect economic engagement with strategic, institutional, and normative outcomes. A top answer must structure the analysis around three pillars: (1) economic complementarities and trade flows, (2) institutional platforms and groupings, and (3) shared normative frameworks and strategic autonomy. The most common mistake is treating the question as a mere list of trade statistics without linking economic ties to broader bilateral relations.

Model answer

India-Brazil economic cooperation is a linchpin for deepening bilateral relations by aligning material interests with strategic autonomy and shared democratic values. Economically, the two countries complement each other through trade in pharmaceuticals, IT services, agriculture, and energy, with bilateral trade crossing USD 12 billion in 2023 despite tariff barriers. Strategic platforms such as BRICS, IBSA, and the G20 provide institutional scaffolding where both countries coordinate positions on WTO agricultural subsidies, climate finance, and reform of multilateral institutions, thereby reducing asymmetries vis-à-vis the West.

Normatively, India and Brazil anchor their partnership in democratic governance and sustainable development, as reflected in their co-leadership of the International Solar Alliance and joint advocacy for South-South cooperation. This normative alignment cushions bilateral ties from geopolitical volatility and fosters trust. Moreover, joint ventures in defence manufacturing, space technology, and biofuels enhance interdependence and reduce transaction costs in political bargaining.

In sum, economic cooperation is not merely transactional but transformational: it embeds India-Brazil relations in dense networks of trade, institutions, and shared values, thereby insulating the partnership from external pressures and enabling both countries to exercise greater strategic autonomy on the global stage.

Q5. (a) Accelerating of Chinese influence across South Asia is fundamentally reshaping the region's geopolitical landscape. This is a big foreign policy challenge for India. Analyse. 20 (b) Critically evaluate the important factors of India-Maldives relations on the eve of sixty years of diplomatic ties between the two countries. 15 (c) “The mother of all deals” is a transformative milestone in Indo-EU trade relations. Elaborate on the new Security and Defence partnership. 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Analyse” demands a layered unpacking of how China’s expanding footprint is altering South Asia’s geopolitical geometry and why this poses a strategic challenge for India. A top answer must (1) map the instruments of Chinese influence—economic, military, digital and soft power; (2) trace the resultant shifts in regional alignments and domestic politics of smaller neighbours; and (3) assess India’s agency, constraints and policy responses. The common mistake is to stop at listing Chinese projects; the examiner rewards causal chains and India-centric policy prescriptions.

Model answer

Introduction: China’s accelerated economic penetration, military presence and digital leverage across South Asia—from the Maldives to Nepal—has compressed strategic space for India, compelling Delhi to recalibrate its neighbourhood doctrine.

Dimensions of Chinese influence:

• Economic instruments: BRI projects such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka create debt-dependency, while FTA-like arrangements (e.g., China-Nepal trade treaty) reorient trade flows away from India.
• Military footprint: Djibouti-style logistics hubs, dual-use port access in Gwadar and Kyaukpyu, and regular naval exercises with Bangladesh and Myanmar extend PLA-N reach into the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea.
• Digital and normative power: Huawei’s 5G roll-outs, Confucius Institutes and vaccine diplomacy during COVID-19 have reshaped public narratives, especially in Maldives and Sri Lanka.

Geopolitical reordering:

• Alignment shifts: Nepal’s 2017 Constitution crisis and 2022 tilt toward China, Maldives’ “India Out” campaign, and Sri Lanka’s post-2022 economic collapse illustrate how domestic politics is being instrumentalised by Beijing.
• Quadrilateral responses: India’s leadership of the Quad and SAGAR doctrine, combined with trilateral groupings (India-Sri Lanka-Maldives maritime security), attempts to balance Chinese ingress.

India’s challenge and response: India faces a classic “security dilemma”—every infrastructure project in a neighbour can be read as encirclement by Beijing. Delhi’s counter-strategy combines concessional Lines of Credit (e.g., $4.5 bn to Maldives), vaccine partnerships, and sub-regional connectivity initiatives (BBIN, BIMSTEC) to offer viable alternatives.

Conclusion: China’s influence is reshaping South Asia into a theatre of competing connectivity visions. India’s ability to convert its civilisational and economic weight into durable partnerships—not just balancing—will determine whether the region remains plural or tilts decisively toward Beijing.

Q6. (a) How does illegal cross border migration pose challenges to India's security? Discuss the steps taken by the government in this direction and their effectiveness. 20 (b) The island of Kachchatheevu remains an intractable issue in India-Srilanka relations. Comment. 15 (c) India has adopted multi-alignment to fulfill its core values and interests in International relations. Discuss. 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Discuss” requires a two-part response: first, analyse how illegal cross-border migration challenges India’s security; second, evaluate the steps taken by the government and their effectiveness. Examiners test your ability to link domestic security threats (infiltration, demographic change, organised crime) with concrete policy instruments (fencing, NRC, CAA, bilateral agreements) and to weigh outcomes against stated objectives. The common mistake is to list initiatives without measuring their impact or to ignore the human-rights and diplomatic fallout.

Model answer

Illegal cross-border migration poses multidimensional security challenges for India. First, it enables trans-border terrorism and insurgency by allowing Pakistani and Bangladeshi jihadist outfits to infiltrate operatives into Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab and the North-East; the 2019 Pulwama attack and recurring ceasefire violations on the LoC exemplify this linkage. Second, unchecked migration alters demographic balances in border states such as Assam, fueling local anxieties and periodic ethnic violence, as seen in the 2012 and 2022 riots. Third, porous borders facilitate human trafficking, narcotics smuggling and arms proliferation; the 2021 seizure of 3,000 kg heroin in Punjab traced to Afghan transit via Bangladesh underscores the criminal nexus. Finally, demographic pressure strains public goods—health, education and housing—creating socio-economic grievances that extremist groups exploit.

Government responses combine hard and soft measures. Operation Sashastra Seema Bal and Smart Fencing along the Indo-Bangladesh frontier have reduced infiltration by 80 % since 2015, while the 2015 Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh exchanged 162 enclaves and demarcated 6.1 km of undecided borders, plugging legal loopholes. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam (2019) aimed to identify illegal migrants, though its implementation faced judicial scrutiny and humanitarian criticism. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 fast-tracked citizenship for persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, yet implementation remains stalled due to protests and Supreme Court petitions. Bilaterally, the Joint Working Group on Security and Border Management with Dhaka has institutionalised intelligence-sharing and joint patrolling, yielding notable successes such as the 2021 crackdown on Hizb-ul-Mujahideen modules.

Assessment shows partial effectiveness. Fencing and operational upgrades have curbed infiltration, yet gaps persist in riverine and dense forest sectors. The NRC’s legacy remains contested, and CAA’s slow rollout limits its deterrent value. Diplomatically, India’s neighbourhood-first policy has stabilised ties with Bangladesh, yet unresolved issues with Myanmar and Nepal continue to allow migration flows. A forward-looking strategy must integrate technological surveillance (AI-driven drones, thermal imaging), community policing, and livelihood programmes in source regions to address root causes, while maintaining constitutional safeguards and humanitarian standards.

Q7. (a) Critically evaluate India-Russia relations in the 21st century. How have both the countries responded to America meddling in their relations in the recent times. 20 (b) India has recognised that West Asia is not a single contest, but a tangle of rivalries, bargains and anxieties. Comment. 15 (c) Examine India and South-Africa co-operation through bilateral and multi-lateral forums. 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Critically evaluate” signals that the examiner wants a balanced assessment of India-Russia ties since 2000, not mere description. The question has two parts: (1) a chronological-cum-thematic evaluation of the relationship and (2) how both states have reacted to U.S. attempts to “meddle” in it. A top answer must (a) trace the structural pillars—defence, energy, space, geopolitics—(b) identify strains—sanctions, Ukraine war, Indo-Pacific tilt—and (c) show agency by both capitals. The common mistake is to treat the relationship as unchanging; aspirants must instead show how it has been recalibrated without rupturing.

Model answer

India-Russia relations in the 21st century rest on three enduring pillars—defence cooperation, energy security and geopolitical alignment—even as the structural context has shifted from a unipolar to a multipolar order. Defence ties remain the bedrock: Russia supplies over 60 % of India’s military hardware, including S-400 systems and nuclear submarines, while joint ventures such as BrahMos and AK-203 rifles symbolise co-production. Energy collaboration has deepened through Rosneft’s $13 bn investment in India’s ONGC Videsh and the Kudankulam nuclear plant’s ongoing expansion. Geopolitically, both states converge in BRICS, SCO and RIC, resisting U.S.-led unipolarity.

Yet the relationship has faced tectonic pressures. The 2014 Crimea annexation triggered Western sanctions that constrained Russia’s ability to finance long-term projects in India. The 2022 Ukraine war exposed a delicate balancing act: India abstained in every UN vote on the conflict while Russia re-routed oil exports to India at discounted prices, creating a de-facto sanctions workaround. Simultaneously, India’s deepening Quad and Indo-Pacific engagements—Malabar exercises, semiconductor supply chains—signal a hedging strategy, not abandonment of Moscow.

Both capitals have responded with calibrated agency. Russia diversified its arms market to China and Pakistan, yet maintained critical deliveries to India to preserve a second front against China. India, in turn, invoked the 1971 Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation to justify continued purchases, while accelerating domestic defence production (e.g., Tejas, INS Vikrant) to reduce import dependence. The result is a “managed asymmetry”: ties endure but are no longer asymmetrically dependent.

In sum, India-Russia relations have moved from a near-organic alignment to a pragmatic partnership that survives U.S. pressure by diversifying risks rather than severing bonds. The future hinges on whether Russia can sustain its role as a reliable defence partner amid sanctions and whether India can accelerate its Atmanirbhar trajectory to dilute structural vulnerabilities.

Answers are Aanya’s original model guidance; verify facts and the official paper on the exam-conducting body’s official website.

---

Related — other papers of this exam

• All papers — UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 hub
• Essay (Paper-I) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-I (Paper-II) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-II (Paper-III) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-III (Paper-IV) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-IV (Paper-V) — questions & model answers
• Political Science and International Relations Optional Paper I — questions & model answers