PYQ Vault · Paper 2 · India & the Nuclear Question

Given the recent developments in the region, do you think that there is a need to change India’s ‘No First Use (NFU) nuclear policy?

How the answer moves

The flow snapshot — the routes in, the body, the counter-view and the routes out.

Flow snapshot — how the answer moves
Intro routes

Route 1 locate NFU (1998 → 2003 doctrine, CBW caveat) → credible minimum deterrence → is it now a liability?

Route 2 region shifted (Pak tactical, China rise) → pressures real → stake the spine: capability, not first-use posture

Body flow

case for revision: China ~500 warheads erode Himalayan buffer + Pak sub-conventional / Nasr → Karnad “unenforceable,” peacetime-only → Chari frees Pak’s tactical use → Clary & Narang counterforce logic + exceptions to NFU → capabilities present (missiles, surveillance, BMD) but disarming strike “exceptionally difficult” → intent outpaces capability

Counter-view

retention holds: Sethi “liberating” (no first-use infra, no hair-trigger) → Subrahmanyam perception of survivable retaliation, not pre-emption → Basrur deployment differs little beyond declaratory policy

Conclusion routes

Route 1 Sindoor 2025 = punish terror without nuclear signalling → read as gradual recalibration + doctrinal ambiguity, not reversal

Route 2 NFU suits conventionally dominant power, no existential threat → retain + strengthen triad / early warning / second-strike credibility

Model answer

Handwritten, in the form it would be written in the examination hall.

Handwritten model answer — UPSC PSIR 2019, India & the Nuclear Question