(a) Carl von Clausewitz once said, “War is a diplomacy by other means.” Critically analyse the above statement in the present context of contemporary geo-political conflict. (b) Keeping the national security in mind, examine the ethical dilemmas related to controversies over environmental clearance of development projects in ecologically sensitive border areas in the country.
Approach · directive: “critically analyse / examine”
What it asks · (a) Test the idea that war and diplomacy are continuous tools of state policy against today’s conflicts; (b) weigh security-driven infrastructure in fragile border areas against ecological and community concerns.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- (a) Critically analyse Clausewitz's claim that war continues diplomacy (policy) by other means, in the context of contemporary geopolitical conflict: where it holds, where it fails, and a verdict
- (b) Examine, with national security in mind, the ethical dilemmas in controversies over environmental clearance of development projects in ecologically sensitive border areas
Open with · (a) Clausewitz’s own formulation in On War is that war is a continuation of policy by other means — force as an instrument of political purpose.
Cover
- (a) Still true in part: in Russia–Ukraine and West Asia, force is used to gain leverage, and talks run alongside fighting.
- (a) The line has blurred: sanctions, trade and energy leverage and cyber operations are coercion short of war.
- (a) Critique: the UN Charter outlaws force except in self-defence; nuclear risk and civilian suffering make war a failure of diplomacy, not its extension.
- (a) Ethical lens: just-war tests of cause, proportionality and distinction; the Gandhian view that means must be as pure as ends.
- (b) Dilemma: roads, tunnels and airstrips in the Himalaya and island territories are vital for defence, but slopes, glaciers and forests are fragile.
- (b) Values in tension: security and duty to soldiers vs disaster risk, intergenerational equity, tribal rights and transparency of fast-tracked clearances.
- (b) Balance: strategic and cumulative impact assessment, resilient engineering, independent oversight — as the Supreme Court did while allowing wider Char Dham defence roads (2021).
Close with · Security and sustainability are not rivals: keep war the last resort, as Kautilya and the just-war tests advise, and build border infrastructure that fragile terrain can bear.
Add value (verified)
- The UN Charter bars the threat or use of force against any state’s territorial integrity — the legal answer to treating war as routine policy. Charter of the United Nations — Article 2(4) ↗“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”
- The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 takes forest land within 100 km of international borders, the LoC and the LAC out of the Act's clearance regime when it is used for strategic linear projects of national importance — the policy choice behind the clearance controversy. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 (No. 15 of 2023) — Gazette of India, August 2023 ↗“such forest land,— (i) as is situated within a distance of one hundred kilometres along international borders or Line of Control or Line of Actual Control”
- Operation Sindoor (7 May 2025): the Government described its strikes on terrorist infrastructure as 'focused, measured and non-escalatory'. Operation Sindoor: Indian Armed Forces carried out precision strike at terrorist camps — PIB, 7 May 2025 ↗“Our actions have been focused, measured and non-escalatory in nature. No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted. India has demonstrated considerable restraint in selection of targets and method of execution.”
- Just war theory's jus ad bellum tests include proportionality and last resort (necessity): no less harmful way to achieve the just cause. War — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗“Proportionality: the morally weighted goods achieved by the war outweigh the morally weighted bads that it will cause. Last Resort (Necessity): there is no other less harmful way to achieve the just cause.”
- Kautilya (Arthashastra, Book VII): when peace and war bring equal advantage, prefer peace, for war always brings loss of power and wealth. Kautilya's Arthashastra, tr. R. Shamasastry, Book VII Ch. II — archive.org ↗“WHEN the advantages derivable from peace and war are of equal character, one should prefer peace; for disadvantages, such as the loss of power and wealth, sojourning, and sin, are ever- attending upon war.”
- Gandhi, Hind Swaraj: means and ends are inseparable, as seed and tree. Hind Swaraj, Ch. XVI (Brute Force) — mkgandhi.org ↗“The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.”
- A glacial lake outburst at South Lhonak, Sikkim (October 2023) sent a surge of about 50-60 ft down the Teesta — the hazard border infrastructure must withstand. Beyond Battlefield: Indian Armed Forces in HADR — PIB backgrounder, 15 February 2026 ↗“Glacial Lake Outburst, South Lhonak (October 2023) A Glacial Lake Outburst in South Lhonak, located in Sikkim's far northwestern region,produced a ~50-60 ft surge in the Teesta.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 423 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
Clausewitz's own formulation in On War is that war is the continuation of policy by other means: force as an instrument of political purpose. Today's conflicts show where that holds, and where it becomes a dangerous licence.
(a) Where the statement holds in today's conflicts
- Force for leverage: in Russia–Ukraine and West Asia, battlefield gains become bargaining chips and talks run alongside the fighting.
- Coercion short of war: sanctions, trade and energy leverage and cyber operations place force and diplomacy on one continuum.
- Calibrated force: India described Operation Sindoor (May 2025) as "focused, measured and non-escalatory": force tied to a limited political aim.
Where it fails
- Law: the UN Charter bars the threat or use of force against any state's territorial integrity.
- Just war ethics: force must pass the tests of proportionality and last resort: no less harmful way to the just cause.
- Kautilya's realism: when peace and war offer equal advantage, "one should prefer peace", since war always costs power and wealth.
- Gandhi: means and ends are linked like seed and tree; violent means corrupt the peace they seek.
- Human cost: civilian suffering and nuclear risk make war the failure of diplomacy, not its extension.
- Verdict: a fair description of how states behave, but an unacceptable norm; war must remain the last resort under law.
(b) Ethical dilemmas in environmental clearance of border projects
| Dimension | Security view | Ecological view |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | Roads, tunnels needed fast | Exemptions skip scrutiny |
| Terrain | Mobility for troops | Fragile slopes, glaciers |
| People | Secure border villages | Tribal rights, disaster risk |
- Speed vs scrutiny: the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 exempts forest land within 100 km of borders, the LoC and the LAC for strategic linear projects.
- Security vs safety: fragile terrain strikes back; the South Lhonak glacial lake outburst (October 2023) sent a surge of about 50–60 ft down Sikkim's Teesta.
- Present vs future: the Brundtland Report's test of sustainable development is that today's needs are met without eroding the capacity of future generations to meet theirs; lost glaciers and old forests do not return.
- Secrecy vs accountability: defence secrecy limits public hearings, while local and tribal communities bear the costs.
- Balance: the Supreme Court allowed wider Char Dham roads for defence (2021) under independent oversight; strategic and cumulative impact assessment and resilient engineering should follow everywhere.
Security and sustainability are not rivals: a road that a glacial flood washes away defends no one. Kautilya's preference for peace and the Brundtland test point the same way: keep war the last resort, and build border infrastructure that the mountains can bear.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.