PYQ Vault · Paper 2 · Indian Foreign Policy: Determinants & Institutions
“India is often said to have a rich strategic culture.’ Discuss.
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
R1 Snyder defines strategic culture → whether India has one is contested R2 India acts strategically, yet is charged with lacking strategic culture (Tanham) → sets up the rebuttal
Body flow
Snyder's definition → Tanham's 1992 denial (geography / history / culture / Raj + Hindu ‘time’ → reactive foreign policy) → Menon's rebuttal (independent actor, frugal diplomacy, pluralistic-secular—defensive) → India's own tradition (Arthashastra, Panchsheel, non-alignment; Kautilya's mandala behind Nehru's non-alignment)
Counter-view
Karnad (strategic autonomy → strategic diminution; Wei- qi outscores mandala) vs Malone (no grand strategy = advantage; improvisation suits a pragmatic power)
Conclusion routes
rR! distinctive, not absent → the debate itself proves its depth rR2 not the Western grand-strategy type, but a Kautilyan, pluralistic tradition → richness lies in adaptability, not a fixed doctrine
Model answer
Handwritten, in the form it would be written in the examination hall.
