IGNOU MPSE-001 Solved Question Paper PDF Download

IGNOU MPSE-001 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in Hindi

IGNOU MPSE-001 Previous Year Solved Question Paper in English

Q1. Discuss the Realist and Idealist perspectives in the study of Indian foreign policy.

Ans. In the study of Indian foreign policy, two major theoretical perspectives – Idealism and Realism – have been significant in shaping and analysing India’s engagement with the world. Both provide frameworks for understanding the motivations and constraints that have shaped India’s global relations. The Idealist Perspective: This perspective is predominantly associated with India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. It is rooted in moral principles, international law, and the pursuit of global peace.

• Core Tenets: Idealism is based on the belief that foreign policy should be guided by ethical values, democracy, and mutual cooperation among nations.
• Application in Indian Policy: Nehru’s policy of Non-Alignment (NAM) , which sought to stay aloof from the military blocs of the Cold War, was a quintessential idealist move. The Panchsheel (Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence), India’s opposition to colonialism, and its call for global disarmament also reflect this perspective. The aim was to establish India as a moral and peace-loving power.

The Realist Perspective:

This perspective prioritises national interest, power, and security as the primary drivers of foreign policy. Realist elements were always present in India’s foreign policy, but they became more prominent after the 1962 Sino-Indian war and especially during Indira Gandhi’s tenure.

• Core Tenets: Realism posits that the international system is anarchic, and states act to maximise their security and survival. Military and economic power are considered paramount.
• Application in Indian Policy: The Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971 , which provided India with strategic backing during the Bangladesh Liberation War, was a clear realist move. India’s nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998 were also outcomes of a realist approach that prioritised national security. In recent years, policies like ‘Act East’ and India’s participation in groupings like the Quad are also viewed through a realist lens, aimed at balancing China’s growing influence.

In conclusion, Indian foreign policy has been a complex blend of these two perspectives. While the Nehruvian era was dominated by idealism, geopolitical realities in subsequent years gave greater prominence to realist considerations. Modern Indian foreign policy is often described as “pragmatic idealism” or “principled realism,” attempting to uphold its founding values while pursuing its national interests.

Q2. How does economic status determine foreign policy options?

Ans. A country’s economic status is one of the most critical determinants of its foreign policy options. Economic strength provides a nation with the capacity to project its influence, protect its interests, and achieve its goals on the international stage. Economic status influences foreign policy in the following ways: 1. Developing and Weak Economies: For countries with weak or developing economies, foreign policy is often constrained by economic compulsions.

• Dependence on Aid: Such nations are heavily reliant on foreign aid, loans, and grants for their development projects. This dependence can give donor countries leverage over their policies, thereby limiting their strategic autonomy.
• Policy Priorities: Their foreign policy focus is primarily on securing favourable trade terms, technology transfer, and international support for poverty alleviation. A key objective of India’s non-alignment policy during the Cold War was also to receive economic assistance from both blocs without strings attached.

2. Emerging Economies:

As a country’s economic status strengthens, its foreign policy options expand. Emerging economies like India have transitioned from being aid recipients to significant economic partners.

• Increased Bargaining Power: A stronger economy gives them greater bargaining power in trade negotiations and at international forums.
• Economic Diplomacy: They can use their economic clout to achieve diplomatic goals, such as providing Lines of Credit to other nations or using access to their markets as an incentive. This is evident in India’s ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy and its engagement with African nations.
• Energy Security: Growing economies require a constant supply of energy and raw materials to fuel their industries, which directs their foreign policy towards energy-rich regions.

3. Developed Economies:

Developed and large economies like the US, China, and the EU use their economic power as a potent tool of foreign policy. They can impose economic sanctions, wage trade wars, and shape the rules of global economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In conclusion, a nation’s economic status directly determines the ambition, scope, and effectiveness of its foreign policy. A robust economy provides the essential foundation for an independent foreign policy and an active role in global affairs.

Q3. Critically evaluate Nehru’s foreign policy.

Ans. Jawaharlal Nehru, as India’s first Prime Minister, was the chief architect of its foreign policy. His policy, often called the “Nehruvian consensus,” shaped India’s global outlook for decades. Its evaluation must be based on both its successes and its failures. Positive Aspects and Achievements:

• Non-Alignment (NAM): Nehru’s greatest legacy was the co-founding of the Non-Aligned Movement. It helped India maintain its strategic autonomy by avoiding Cold War bloc politics. It also gave India a unique leadership role among the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa.
• Anti-Colonial and Anti-Racist Stance: Nehru was a strong moral voice against colonialism and racial discrimination on the world stage, which enhanced India’s prestige in the Global South.
• Panchsheel: The five principles of peaceful co-existence (Panchsheel), signed with China, presented an idealistic framework for relations between nations.
• Global Peace and Disarmament: Nehru consistently advocated for nuclear disarmament and international peace, establishing India’s image as a peace-loving nation.

Negative Aspects and Criticisms:

• Excessive Idealism: Critics argue that Nehru’s policy was naive about the realities of power politics. He placed too much faith in moral principles and underestimated the importance of military power for national security.
• The 1962 Sino-Indian War: This was the biggest failure of Nehru’s foreign policy. The slogan of ‘Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai’ and excessive faith in Panchsheel failed to prevent Chinese aggression. India’s military unpreparedness exposed the limits of Nehru’s approach.
• The Kashmir Issue: His decision to take the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations is often criticized as a blunder that internationalized the issue and made its resolution more complex.
• Tilt towards the Soviet Union: Despite claims of non-alignment, India was perceived to be tilted towards the Soviet Union on many issues, which called its neutrality into question.

Conclusion:

Nehru’s foreign policy gave India an independent and moral voice on the international stage, and non-alignment helped preserve its autonomy. However, his idealism often proved inadequate in dealing with geopolitical realities, with the 1962 war being the most devastating outcome. His legacy remains a complex mix of visionary principles and pragmatic failures.

Q4. Explain Indian foreign policy during post-cold war period.

Ans. The end of the Cold War, marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, fundamentally altered the international order. These changes, coupled with India’s own economic crisis in 1991, forced a major reorientation of its foreign policy, leading to significant shifts. The key features of India’s post-Cold War foreign policy are as follows: 1. From Non-Alignment to Multi-Alignment: With the end of the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) lost much of its relevance. India adapted to the realities of a unipolar world, and later a multipolar one, by adopting a policy of “multi-alignment.” This meant simultaneously engaging with multiple centers of power, including the United States, Russia, the EU, Japan, and China, based on its national interests. 2. Economic Liberalization and Economic Diplomacy: The 1991 economic crisis compelled India to liberalize its economy. Subsequently, economic interests gained a central place in its foreign policy. Enhancing trade, attracting foreign direct investment (FDI), and acquiring technology became key priorities. 3. Rapprochement with the United States: Relations between India and the US were strained during the Cold War. However, in the post-Cold War era, and especially in the 21st century, relations improved dramatically. The landmark 2008 Indo-US Civil Nuclear Deal was a watershed moment, transforming the two countries into “strategic partners.” 4. ‘Look East’ to ‘Act East’ Policy: To deepen ties with Southeast Asian nations (ASEAN), the ‘Look East’ policy was launched in the 1990s. This was later upgraded to a more proactive and result-oriented ‘Act East’ policy, aiming to enhance strategic engagement alongside economic integration. 5. An Assertive Security Policy: To address its security concerns, India conducted the Pokhran-II nuclear tests in 1998 , declaring itself a nuclear-weapon state. In response to terrorism, particularly after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, India has adopted a more robust and proactive stance. 6. Participation in New Groupings: India began to actively participate in various multilateral forums like BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and the Quad to enhance its global profile and pursue its interests. In conclusion, Indian foreign policy in the post-Cold War period has become more realist, pragmatic, and economically driven. It has embraced multi-directional diplomacy to secure India’s national interests in a complex and evolving world.

Q5. Comment on India’s role in SAARC.

Ans. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in 1985 to promote regional cooperation in South Asia. As the largest member in terms of size, population, and economy, India has a central and decisive role in SAARC. However, this role has been complex and fraught with challenges. India’s Positive Role and Contributions:

• Proponent of Economic Cooperation: India has consistently pushed for regional economic integration. Under the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) , India granted unilateral trade concessions to its smaller neighbours.
• Development and Connectivity: India is the largest contributor to SAARC’s budget. It has funded and led major initiatives like the SAARC Development Fund , the establishment of the South Asian University in New Delhi, and the SAARC Satellite , which provides free services to all member nations (except Pakistan).
• Disaster Management: India has often been the first responder during natural disasters in the region, as seen during the 2015 Nepal earthquake.

Challenges and Criticisms:

• ‘Big Brother’ Attitude: Due to its sheer size, smaller neighbours often perceive India as a hegemon or ‘big brother’ trying to dominate them. This perception has bred suspicion and hindered cooperation.
• India-Pakistan Rivalry: The primary cause of SAARC’s failure is the persistent tension and conflict between India and Pakistan. Bilateral issues, especially terrorism, have paralyzed the organization’s progress. For instance, following the Uri attack in 2016, India boycotted the SAARC summit in Islamabad, leading to its cancellation.
• Slow Progress: Due to political deadlocks, SAARC remains one of the least integrated regions in the world. Many agreements on connectivity and trade have remained on paper.

India’s Shifting Strategy:

Frustrated with SAARC’s paralysis, India is now increasingly focusing on alternative regional forums that are more effective. Groupings like

BIMSTEC

(Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) and

BBIN

(Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal), which exclude Pakistan, are gaining prominence in India’s regional policy.

In conclusion, while India has invested significant resources and political will to make SAARC a success, the political gridlock caused by the India-Pakistan rivalry has rendered the organization ineffective. Consequently, India’s role has become that of a frustrated leader now seeking other avenues for regional cooperation.

Q6. What are India’s security and economic concerns in West Asia?

Ans. West Asia (the Middle East) is of immense strategic importance to India due to geographical proximity, historical ties, and contemporary interests. India’s concerns in the region are primarily linked to economic and security dimensions. Economic Concerns:

• Energy Security: West Asia, particularly the Gulf countries, is the primary source of crude oil and natural gas for India. The region supplies approximately 60% of India’s oil needs. Any instability, such as war or supply disruptions, has a direct and severe impact on India’s energy prices and economic stability.
• Indian Diaspora: A massive diaspora of over 8 million Indians lives and works in the region, mainly in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. The safety and welfare of these expatriates are a major concern for the Indian government. Furthermore, they send back billions of dollars in remittances annually, which is a vital source of foreign exchange for India.
• Trade and Investment: The GCC is a major trading bloc for India. Investment from Gulf sovereign wealth funds into India is also growing. Maintaining and enhancing economic ties with the region is crucial for India.

Security Concerns:

• Terrorism and Radicalism: West Asia has been a source of several terrorist groups and radical ideologies that can impact India’s internal security. The rise of organizations like ISIS and their influence is a serious security challenge for India.
• Regional Instability: Regional conflicts such as the Iran-Saudi Arabia rivalry, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and civil wars in countries like Yemen pose a threat to India’s interests. This instability can disrupt energy supplies and endanger the Indian diaspora.
• Maritime Security: The security of Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea is vital for India’s trade and energy imports. Piracy and state-sponsored threats to these critical routes are a constant concern.

To protect these diverse interests, India has maintained a delicate balancing act, adopting a policy of

“de-hyphenation”

to develop independent relationships with all major rival powers in the region, such as Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Q7. Evaluate India-Africa relations.

Ans. India-Africa relations are deep and historic, founded on a shared struggle against colonialism, solidarity in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa. In recent decades, this relationship has evolved with a new dynamism, moving beyond political solidarity to a multi-faceted strategic partnership. Historical Foundation: During the Cold War, India actively supported liberation movements in Africa. The relationship was primarily ideological and political, aimed at creating a just world order. Contemporary Evolution and Areas of Cooperation:

• Economic Partnership: Today, India-Africa relations are largely focused on economic cooperation. India is one of Africa’s top trading partners. Indian companies are making significant investments in Africa in sectors like telecommunications, IT, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and energy.
• Development Cooperation: India’s approach is based on “capacity building” and human resource development. The India-Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) , which began in 2008, provides an institutional framework for this partnership. Through it, India has offered billions of dollars in concessional lines of credit, grants, and scholarships to Africa. The Pan-African e-Network project (e-VidyaBharati and e-AarogyaBharati) has been a successful model, providing tele-education and tele-medicine.
• Security Cooperation: Maritime security in the Indian Ocean, counter-terrorism, and cooperation in UN peacekeeping missions are important aspects of the security partnership. India also provides training to defence personnel from African countries.

Evaluation and Comparison with China:

India’s approach in Africa is often contrasted with China’s. While China’s model is focused on large-scale infrastructure and resource extraction, often leading to accusations of “debt-trap diplomacy,” India’s approach is seen as demand-driven, focused on building local capacities, and based on partnership. This narrative works in India’s favour.

Conclusion:

India-Africa relations are on a strong and positive trajectory. It is a partnership based on shared values and mutual benefit. Although India faces challenges in competing with China’s economic scale, its development-centric and partnership-based approach makes it an attractive and reliable partner for Africa.

Q8. Explain India’s disarmament policy.

Ans. India’s disarmament policy is rooted in its philosophical ethos of peace and non-violence, as articulated by leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. The policy is a unique blend of idealism and pragmatism, often described as “principled but realistic.” Core Principles of the Policy:

• Universal, Non-discriminatory, and Verifiable Disarmament: India has consistently argued that disarmament treaties must apply to all nations equally. It opposes any discrimination between “haves” and “have-nots.” India believes that allowing a few nations to possess nuclear weapons while banning others is inherently unfair.
• Goal of Global Nuclear Disarmament: India’s ultimate objective is a world free of nuclear weapons. Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the first global leaders to call for a ban on nuclear testing.
• Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan (1988): This is a landmark document of India’s disarmament policy. Presented at the UN in 1988, the plan proposed a phased, time-bound framework for achieving a nuclear-weapon-free and non-violent world order.

Pragmatic Approach and Security Compulsions:

• Opposition to NPT and CTBT: India refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) because it considered them discriminatory . India argued that the NPT legitimized the possession of nuclear weapons by five countries while denying the same right to the rest of the world.
• Nuclear Tests (1974 & 1998): Citing its security environment, particularly the threats from a nuclear-armed China and Pakistan, India conducted nuclear tests to protect its national security interests. These tests were a result of realistic security calculations.
• Credible Minimum Deterrence and No First Use (NFU): After becoming a declared nuclear power, India adopted a responsible nuclear doctrine. It declared a policy of ‘No First Use’ (NFU) , meaning it would not be the first to launch a nuclear attack. It also committed to maintaining only a ‘credible minimum deterrent,’ aiming not to engage in an arms race but only to ensure its security.

Conclusion:

India’s disarmament policy stands on two pillars. On one hand, it remains a strong advocate for complete and non-discriminatory global disarmament. On the other hand, it has taken realistic steps to ensure its own national security in a nuclearized neighbourhood.

Q9. Discuss the Tamil factors in India-Sri Lanka relations.

Ans. The “Tamil factor” has been a highly significant and sensitive element in India-Sri Lanka relations. This is due to the deep ethnic, cultural, and linguistic ties between the Sri Lankan Tamils and the large Tamil population in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. This factor often plays a decisive role in shaping India’s policy towards Sri Lanka. Key Aspects of its Influence: 1. Domestic Political Pressure from Tamil Nadu: Political parties in Tamil Nadu consistently raise the issue of the rights and safety of Sri Lankan Tamils. This puts immense pressure on the central government in New Delhi to tailor its Sri Lanka policy to reflect these sentiments. This domestic political compulsion cannot be ignored by the Indian government. 2. India’s Role During the Civil War (1983-2009): After the anti-Tamil pogroms in Sri Lanka in 1983, thousands of Tamil refugees fled to Tamil Nadu, creating a strong wave of sympathy.

• Initial Intervention: Driven by sympathy and domestic pressure, India initially provided training and support to various Tamil militant groups, including the LTTE.
• Indo-Lanka Accord (1987) and the IPKF: Later, in an attempt to resolve the crisis, India signed the Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987 and sent the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to Sri Lanka. This intervention proved to be a major failure. The IPKF ended up fighting the LTTE and was seen as an invading force by both the Sinhalese and the Tamils. This experience deeply influenced India’s subsequent policy.

3. Post-Civil War Era:

After the defeat of the LTTE in 2009, India’s focus shifted to pressuring the Sri Lankan government to find a political solution for the Tamils.

• Implementation of the 13th Amendment: India has consistently advocated for the full implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan constitution, which provides for devolution of power to the Tamil-majority provinces.
• Human Rights and Rehabilitation: India has also pushed for accountability for human rights violations during the final phase of the war and for the rehabilitation of the Tamil community. India has often used its vote on resolutions against Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to exert this pressure.

Conclusion:

The Tamil factor acts as a powerful domestic constraint on India’s foreign policy towards Sri Lanka. It forces New Delhi to perform a delicate balancing act between respecting Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, pursuing its own strategic interests (like countering Chinese influence), and responding to the political and humanitarian concerns emanating from Tamil Nadu.

Q10. Write short notes on the following : (a) Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971 (b) Humanitarian Intervention

Ans. (a) Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971: The Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation was signed in August 1971. The treaty was highly significant in the geopolitical context of the time. The crisis in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was escalating, and an axis between the US, China, and Pakistan was emerging, increasing military pressure on India. India anticipated a war with Pakistan and sought a powerful ally to deter Chinese or American intervention. Article IX of the treaty was the most crucial clause. It stated that in the event of an attack or a threat thereof to either party, the two sides would “immediately enter into mutual consultations in order to remove such threat and to take appropriate effective measures to ensure peace and security of their countries.” The treaty provided India with vital diplomatic and potential military backing during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War . It effectively neutralized the US-China-Pakistan axis. While critics saw it as a deviation from India’s policy of non-alignment, supporters viewed it as a pragmatic and necessary step to protect national security. The treaty became the bedrock of the Indo-Soviet strategic partnership throughout the Cold War. (b) Humanitarian Intervention: Humanitarian Intervention is a controversial concept that refers to the use of military force by a state (or group of states) in the territory of another state without its consent. Its stated purpose is to prevent or stop gross and widespread human rights violations, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or war crimes. The doctrine is highly contentious in international relations because it clashes with the fundamental principles of state sovereignty and non-interference , which are cornerstones of the UN Charter. In 2005, the concept evolved into the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) , which argues that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility. If a state fails to protect its population, the international community has a responsibility to intervene, but military force should only be a last resort and authorized by the UN Security Council. India has traditionally been very skeptical of humanitarian intervention. It fears that the doctrine can be used as a pretext by powerful nations to interfere in the internal affairs of weaker states for their own geopolitical interests. India insists that any use of force must be explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council and should not be applied selectively.