Daily Mains Answer Writing – 1 October 2025

Model Answer

Introduction

The United Nations was created after 1945 to maintain peace, promote cooperation, and prevent another global conflict. Over time, it became the core of multilateral diplomacy. However, in the 21st century, both great power competition—especially between the United States and China—and internal weaknesses have eroded the UN’s authority and effectiveness.

Body

1. Retreat of the United States from Multilateralism

The U.S., once the main pillar of the UN, has turned increasingly inward. Under President Trump, Washington withdrew from the WHO, UNESCO, and the Paris Climate Agreement and cut more than 80% of its funding to UN operations.
The “Project 2025” policy framework reflects a deeper shift from global cooperation to national sovereignty. This has weakened global initiatives on climate, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid.

2. China’s Expanding Role and Influence

China has sought to fill the vacuum by placing its officials in key UN agencies and promoting its own concepts such as “global development” and “global security.”
Its engagement is closely linked with the Belt and Road Initiative, reflecting a strategic use of multilateral platforms to advance its influence rather than reform them.
This has made the UN a site of power contestation rather than consensus.

3. Institutional Paralysis and Declining Trust

The UN Security Council remains blocked by vetoes on major crises like Syria and Gaza.
Many UN bodies face financial crises and bureaucratic inefficiencies.
The spirit of collective action has been replaced by competition and selective engagement, leading to a decline in global trust.

Conclusion

The UN’s decline reflects both external rivalries and internal stagnation. The U.S.-China contest has turned multilateralism into an arena of influence rather than cooperation. To restore credibility, the UN must undergo deep reforms—expanding Security Council membership, improving funding structures, and empowering middle powers to rebuild a more inclusive and effective global order.

Model Answer

Introduction

The post-war multilateral order is under strain due to growing power rivalries and institutional fatigue. As both the U.S. and China lose credibility, middle powers like India are emerging as key players in shaping a fair and inclusive world order. India’s approach to the UN combines reform advocacy with practical coalition-building.

Body

1. India’s Position in a Multipolar World

India operates as a bridge between developed and developing countries, balancing strategic autonomy with issue-based cooperation.
It engages with multiple forums — the Quad, BRICS, G20, and Voice of the Global South — to promote dialogue across geopolitical divides.
India’s democratic values and history of peacekeeping lend credibility to its role as a responsible middle power.

2. India’s Reform Agenda for the UN

India, along with Brazil, Germany, and Japan (G4), has long called for Security Council expansion to reflect contemporary realities.
It argues that the existing structure, based on the 1945 world order, no longer represents today’s economic and political balance.
However, India’s regular budget contribution remains under 1%, much lower than China (about 20%) and the U.S. (22%), indicating a need for stronger financial commitment.

3. Building Coalitions for Inclusive Multilateralism

India has championed new platforms like the International Solar Alliance and the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure.
The “Voice of the Global South” summit reflects India’s effort to bring developing countries into decision-making processes.
By promoting climate justice, equitable technology access, and fair trade rules, India seeks to make multilateralism more inclusive and development-oriented.

Conclusion

India’s balanced diplomacy, reformist agenda, and commitment to global equity position it as a key driver of future multilateralism. To sustain this role, India must combine moral leadership with greater material support to the UN and pursue pragmatic, coalition-based strategies for global reform.

Model Answer

Introduction

India’s export performance has grown steadily, yet remains geographically concentrated. Four coastal states — Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka — contribute over 70% of merchandise exports, while large states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh together account for less than 5%. This concentration reflects structural and institutional asymmetries that constrain inclusive growth.

Body

1. Nature of Spatial Imbalance

At the district level, 100 districts generate about 87% of exports, with Jamnagar alone contributing 12% due to petroleum refining.
Coastal access, historical industrialization, and strong business ecosystems have entrenched western and southern dominance.
Landlocked and frontier states remain peripheral due to weak logistics, limited financial access, and absence of high-value industries.

2. Implications for Economic Growth

Inequality and Employment Gaps: Export concentration limits job creation in lagging regions, reinforcing regional disparity.
Vulnerability to External Shocks: Dependence on a few states and products amplifies exposure to tariff changes or global demand shifts.
Policy Imbalance: Incentives under PLI and RODTEP mainly benefit industrialized states, perpetuating uneven growth.

3. Corrective Measures

Strengthen district export hubs, enhance inland logistics, and expand industrial corridors beyond coastal zones.
Use NITI Aayog’s Export Preparedness Index (EPI) to identify bottlenecks and foster competitive federalism.

Conclusion

Balanced export geography is essential for economic resilience and social equity. Bridging infrastructural and institutional gaps across India’s hinterland will convert regional disparities into engines of inclusive national growth.

Model Answer

Introduction

The Act East Policy was conceived to transform India’s eastern and northeastern frontiers into dynamic gateways linking India with ASEAN economies through highways, border trade, and production corridors. However, growing militarisation and infrastructural neglect have turned these potential corridors into “containment grids,” reflecting a widening gap between strategic intent and ground realities.

Body

1. From Connectivity to Control

The India–Myanmar–Thailand (IMT) Trilateral Highway and other cross-border projects remain incomplete, symbolising stalled integration.
The withdrawal of the Free Movement Regime (FMR) in 2024 disrupted traditional kinship and trade networks, converting border towns like Moreh and Zokhawthar into securitised outposts.
Military surveillance now dominates areas once envisioned as transit and logistics hubs, constraining legitimate economic activity.

2. Economic and Regional Consequences

Despite sharing over 5,400 km of international borders, the eight northeastern states contribute barely 0.13% of India’s exports.
Chronic infrastructure gaps—poor logistics, limited warehousing, and weak connectivity—impede integration with national and regional value chains.
Key sectors such as tea in Assam face declining competitiveness due to stagnant prices and minimal value addition.

3. Strategic and Governance Implications

China’s expanding economic footprint in northern Myanmar accentuates India’s diminishing leverage in the region.
Institutional exclusion from national trade policymaking deepens asymmetries between the northeast and industrialised coastal states.

Conclusion

India’s eastern frontiers illustrate a policy paradox—strategic importance without structural empowerment. For the Act East Policy to be effective, India must reconceive its borders as economic arteries through targeted infrastructure, institutional inclusion, and regional production linkages.

👉 Click here to explore the complete list of Current Affairs Quizzes

👉 Browse topic-wise Prelims PYQs here

👉 Daily Mains Answer Writing