Ajit has been recently promoted as the Head of the Department of Weapon Sales (DWS) in the Ministry of Defence Production (MDP). His charter of duties includes international sales of weapons produced domestically by MDP.
In two recent wars, MDP weapons have performed admirably, resulting in many countries showing interest in buying them, particularly long-range artillery and missiles. Country A and country B have asked for these weapons. However, production constraints restrict DWS to accept only one purchase order.
Country A is a developing nation with a sound technology base. MDP is planning R&D collaboration with it for the next generation of weapons. It is not part of any security alliance and needs weapons for protection from a troublesome neighbour. It seeks a large acquisition on a long-term loan.
Country B is also a developing nation. Military strength is its priority, with the military budget often ingressing into allocations for human resources and infrastructure development. It is in security alliance with a superpower who has a large military base there and periodically allots it financial grants. It is a member of an economic bloc with which the government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement. It is not a signatory of NPT but possesses smaller nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It supports some guerrilla forces abroad. It has sought a smaller acquisition and is prepared to make some advance payment. It is currently negotiating arms purchases from another nation too.
Ajit discussed this case with his counterparts in the related departments. Therein, the significant economic benefits, employment generation and stronger diplomatic relations arising from this sale were highlighted. It was also emphasized that refusing the deal could result in country B purchasing weapons from some other supplier.
Ajit was aware that in arms sales, due diligence at each stage was pivotal to ensure conformity to national policy and international treaties.
(a) Discuss the options available to Ajit. Which option should he select and why? (b) How can Ajit balance nation’s economic and strategic interests with ethical considerations?
🧭 How to think about this question · directive: “discuss / which / how”
Decode the demand
- Three directives: 'discuss the options' (lay out every real choice with merits and demerits), 'which option and why' (one clear pick with reasons), 'how can he balance' (a method, not a slogan).
- The case in one line: one production slot, two buyers; A is a safe, patient partner, B pays fast but carries proliferation, misuse and welfare risks.
- The trap: writing B off as 'evil' or A as 'perfect'. The examiner wants due diligence: legal regimes India has joined, the risk test, the safeguards that make even the right choice safer.
- Your seat: Ajit is a department head, not a minister; he recommends through a lawful process and records reasons.
Think in a structure
- Open with the clash of national interest and global responsibility, anchored in one verified export figure.
- Stakeholders as a hub, options as a table, then 5–6 one-line reasons for choosing A, each carrying an ethical keyword and a rule or thinker.
- For (b), give a method: Weber's two ethics, the ATT overriding-risk test, Article 51(c), separating trade from arms, transparency on file.
- End in the administrator's seat with a flowchart of the process and measures, then a conclusion anchored in the Constitution.
Facts checked at source (8)· open
- India's defence exports reached an all-time high of Rs 23,622 crore in FY 2024-25 (Ministry of Defence, April 2025).Make in India Powers Defence Growth — PIB backgrounder, Ministry of Defence, 3 April 2025 ↗“reaching a record ₹1.27 lakh crore in FY 2023-24, with defence exports rising to an all-time high of ₹23,622 crore in FY 2024-25.”
- India formally became the 35th member of the Missile Technology Control Regime on 27 June 2016.Report by the MTCR Chair: accession of India to the MTCR — Missile Technology Control Regime, 27 June 2016 ↗“PUBLISHED JUNE 27, 2016 · UPDATED JUNE 27, 2016 As all formal procedures for membership have now been finalised, the Chairman of the joint Netherlands-Luxembourg Chairmanship of the Missile Technology Control Regime, Ambassador Piet de Klerk (NL), in close consultation with the French MTCR Point of Contact, has announced today that the Republic of India now formally is the 35th member of the Regime.”
- MTCR Guidelines: particular restraint and a strong presumption to deny transfers of missiles judged to be intended for delivering weapons of mass destruction.Guidelines for Sensitive Missile-Relevant Transfers — Missile Technology Control Regime ↗“any missiles (whether or not in the Annex), if the Government judges, on the basis of all available, persuasive information, evaluated according to factors including those in paragraph 3, that they are intended to be used for the delivery of weapons of mass destruction, and there will be a strong presumption to deny such transfers.”
- Arms Trade Treaty, Article 7(3): if an overriding risk of the listed negative consequences remains after mitigation, the exporting State Party shall not authorise the export.Arms Trade Treaty (2013), Article 7: Export and Export Assessment — UN Office for Disarmament Affairs ↗“3. If, after conducting this assessment and considering available mitigating measures, the exporting State Party determines that there is an overriding risk of any of the negative consequences in paragraph 1, the exporting State Party shall not authorize the export.”
- Article 51(c) (Directive Principles): the State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations.Constitution of India (as on 2023) — Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice ↗“51. Promotion of international peace and security.—The State shall endeavour to— (a) promote international peace and security; (b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations; (c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another;”
- India's defence exports reached an all-time high of Rs 38,424 crore in FY 2025-26, up 62.66% on Rs 23,622 crore in 2024-25 (Ministry of Defence, 2 April 2026).Defence exports skyrocket to record Rs 38,424 crore in Financial Year 2025-26, Ministry of Defence, PIB, 2 April 2026 ↗“Defence exports have touched an all-time high of Rs 38,424 crore in the Financial Year (FY) 2025-26, marking a massive rise of Rs 14,802 crore (62.66%) over the previous fiscal year’s figure of Rs 23,622 crore.”
- India was exporting defence equipment to more than 80 countries as of FY 2025-26 (Ministry of Defence, 2 April 2026).Defence exports skyrocket to record Rs 38,424 crore in Financial Year 2025-26, Ministry of Defence, PIB, 2 April 2026 ↗“India is exporting defence equipment to more than 80 countries as of FY 2025-26.”
- Max Weber (Politics as a Vocation, 1919): the ethic of conviction and the ethic of responsibility are not absolute opposites but complementary, and only together make a person fit for a vocation for politics.Max Weber, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (citing 'The Profession and Vocation of Politics', 1919) ↗“the ethic of conviction and the ethic of responsibility are not absolute opposites. They are complementary to one another, and only in combination do they produce the true human being who is capable of having a ‘vocation for politics’”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2026, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Guidance: Minimalist IAS, checked 8 Nov 2026 (how we verify). ·
Model answer· 592words · Minimalist IAS
Arms sales sit where national interest meets global responsibility: jobs, revenue and diplomacy pull toward the quicker buyer, while due diligence asks where the weapons will finally be used. With India's defence exports at a record ₹38,424 crore in 2025-26, reaching more than 80 countries, Ajit's choice sets a precedent for every future sale.
Ajit's decision: MDP workers and industry; Peoples of A and B; B's targets abroad; Export-control partners (MTCR); India's future R&D capability
(a) Options available to Ajit
| Option | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|
| Sell to A | Legitimate defence need; R&D partner; non-aligned, low diversion risk | Long-term loan; delayed returns |
| Sell to B | Advance payment; FTA goodwill; superpower's ally | Proliferation, guerrilla links, welfare cost to its people |
| Defer or refuse both | Avoids all risk | Loses partner, idles capacity, hands market to rivals |
- Fourth path, phased supply: accept A's order now and offer B a later, smaller tranche of non-missile systems after fresh due diligence.
(a) Which option and why: A, with safeguards
- Legality first: the MTCR, which India joined in 2016, carries a strong presumption to deny missile transfers where delivery of weapons of mass destruction is judged likely; B holds both.
- India itself refused the NPT as discriminatory, so B's non-signature alone is no bar; the risk lies in delivery systems and diversion.
- Non-complicity: B supports guerrilla forces abroad; long-range artillery could harm third-country civilians, a foreseeable consequence Ajit would own.
- Proportionality of need: A seeks protection from a troublesome neighbour, a just self-defence purpose; B prioritises arms over its people's welfare.
- Durable national interest: A's technology base and planned R&D collaboration build next-generation capability; B is already shopping elsewhere.
- Safeguards: end-user certificate barring re-transfer, milestone-linked loan disbursal and deliveries, post-delivery verification under the WMD Act, 2005 and SCOMET list.
- Kantian test: using B's deprived citizens and B's targets as means to an export target cannot be universalised; A's purchase respects both peoples as ends.
(b) Balancing economic and strategic interests with ethics
- Conviction with responsibility: Max Weber held the two ethics complementary; Ajit keeps the non-proliferation principle yet answers for jobs and revenue by choosing A, not by refusing all sales.
- Overriding-risk test: the Arms Trade Treaty, Article 7, bars export where risk remains after mitigation; adopting it voluntarily gives Ajit an objective rule, not a mood.
- Constitutional morality: Article 51(c) asks the State to foster respect for international law; a sale straining MTCR would dent India's credibility as a responsible power.
- Separate the tracks: the free trade agreement with B's bloc can proceed on its own merits; arms are not the only lever of diplomacy.
- 'Others will sell' is no licence: accountability attaches to Ajit's own act; Gandhi's talisman asks whether the weakest, B's targets and its poor, gain from this deal.
- Transparency on file: record the risk assessment and reasons so the decision survives audit and political pressure.
What I would do as Head of DWS
- Risk assessment of both buyers
- Inter-ministerial committee (MEA, MoD, DRDO)
- Select A, inform B with reasons
- End-user certificate, milestone contract
- Post-shipment verification
- Annual buyer review
- Institutionalise criteria: published arms-export guidelines mirroring MTCR and ATT tests, so future officers decide by rule.
- Expand capacity: raise production so demand need not be rationed under urgency.
- Keep B engaged: training, spares or defensive systems after verified change in conduct.
- Integrity culture: the Nolan principles of objectivity and accountability written into DWS procedures.
Responsible exports that are lawful, end-use verified and strategically patient turn Article 51's vision into practice: India grows as an arms producer without becoming a merchant of harm, and prosperity and principle advance together.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 8 Nov 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
