GS Paper IV 2025 · Q2 (Section A)
2 parts · 10 marks and 150 words each Ethics in public administration X-Ray · Core #33Q2(a) 10 marks · 150 words · answered on its own
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.
Approach · directive: “critically analyse (in the present context)”
What it asks · Test Clausewitz's claim that war continues diplomacy, or policy, by other means against today's conflicts: where it holds, where it fails, and a reasoned verdict.
It asks 4 things — answer each
- Explain the statement: war as policy continued by other means
- Analyse where it holds in contemporary geopolitical conflicts
- Analyse where it fails, legally and ethically
- Give a reasoned verdict
Open with · Clausewitz's own formulation in On War: war continues policy by other means, force serving a political purpose and ending at the bargaining table; today's conflicts show both its realism and its danger.
Cover
- A table reads war through three lenses: realist (largely holds), legal (fails under the UN Charter) and ethical (only a last resort).
- Where it holds: leverage in Russia–Ukraine and West Asia, coercion short of war, and Operation Sindoor's calibrated, non-escalatory force (May 2025).
- Where it fails: the UN Charter's bar on the threat or use of force, just war's proportionality and last resort, and Kautilya's preference for peace.
- Verdict: a fair description of how states behave but a dangerous norm, given civilian suffering and nuclear risk.
Close with · Gandhi's seed and tree: means and ends are inseparable, so peace sown with violence yields violence.
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”
- 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.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 223words · Minimalist IAS
Clausewitz's own formulation in On War is that war continues policy by other means: force serves a political purpose and ends at the bargaining table. Today's conflicts show both its realism and its danger.
| Lens | Reading of war | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Realist | Bargaining by force | Largely holds |
| Legal | UN Charter bars force | Fails |
| Ethical | A last resort only | Conditional |
Where it holds today
- 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, energy leverage and cyber operations put force and diplomacy on one continuum.
- Calibrated force: India called Operation Sindoor (May 2025) 'focused, measured and non-escalatory': force tied to a limited aim.
Where it fails
- Law: the UN Charter requires members to refrain from the threat or use of force against any state's territorial integrity.
- Just war ethics: force must pass proportionality and last resort: no less harmful way to the just cause.
- Kautilya's realism: when peace and war bring equal advantage, 'one should prefer peace', since war costs power and wealth.
Verdict: a fair description of how states behave, but a dangerous norm; civilian suffering and nuclear risk make war the failure of diplomacy, not its tool.
As Gandhi warned, 'The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree': peace sown with violence yields violence.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
Q2(b) 10 marks · 150 words · answered on its own
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: “examine (keeping national security in mind)”
What it asks · With national security in view, examine the ethical dilemmas in controversies over environmental clearance for development projects in ecologically fragile border areas.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Keep national security in view: why roads, tunnels and airstrips in border areas matter
- Examine the ethical dilemmas in clearing such projects in ecologically sensitive areas
Open with · The South Lhonak glacial lake outburst (October 2023), a 50–60 ft surge down Sikkim's Teesta; the same fragile Himalaya must carry the frontier roads, tunnels and airstrips, so clearance pits security against ecology.
Cover
- A table sets the security claim against the ecological claim in three dilemmas: speed vs scrutiny, mobility vs stability, secrecy vs voice.
- 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, and present vs future: Brundtland's test of meeting present needs without compromising future generations.
- Balance: the Supreme Court's 2021 Char Dham decision allowing wider defence roads under oversight; strategic and cumulative impact assessment and resilient engineering.
Close with · Article 51A(g), the duty to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes and rivers: a road that a glacial flood washes away defends no one.
Add value (verified)
- 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.”
- 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”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 213words · Minimalist IAS
In October 2023 a glacial lake outburst at South Lhonak sent a 50–60 ft surge down Sikkim's Teesta. The same fragile Himalaya must carry the roads, tunnels and airstrips our forces need, so every clearance pits security against ecology.
| Dilemma | Security claim | Ecological claim |
|---|---|---|
| Speed vs scrutiny | Build fast at the frontier | Exemptions skip appraisal |
| Mobility vs stability | Wider roads, more tunnels | Landslides, glacial hazards |
|---|---|---|
| Secrecy vs voice | Classified alignments | Local and tribal consent |
- Speed vs scrutiny: the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 exempts forest land within 100 km of international borders, the LoC and the LAC for strategic linear projects; delays end, but so does independent appraisal.
- Security vs safety: a road that destabilises slopes endangers the very troops and villages it serves.
- Present vs future: the Brundtland Report asks development to meet present needs 'without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'; lost glaciers and old forests do not return.
- Balance: the Supreme Court allowed wider Char Dham roads for defence (2021) under independent oversight; strategic and cumulative impact assessment, resilient engineering and post-clearance monitoring should be the norm.
Article 51A(g) asks every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes and rivers. A road that a glacial flood washes away defends no one.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
