Revision summary
China’s rise is the structural driver of India–Japan closeness. Abe’s FOIP and India’s Act East locked the Indo-Pacific frame. Japanese ODA, corridors, and the 2016 nuclear deal are economic drivers. The Quad and 2+2 are the security method, not NATO. Trade still lags the political headline, which is the partnership’s unfinished piece.
Model answer
Introduction
India and Japan named a Strategic and Global Partnership in the 2000s and thickened it under Shinzo Abe. The drivers are China, the Indo-Pacific, economics, and compatible democracies. It is a partnership, not a NATO alliance.
Body
Strategic drivers
- China’s rise, the East China Sea, the Himalaya, and the South China Sea created a shared balancing interest that Mearsheimer would treat as structural.
- Abe’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific and India’s Act East met in the Quad with Australia and the United States.
- A 2+2 foreign-and-defence format, Malabar exercises, and a civil nuclear cooperation agreement (2016) moved the pair beyond aid rhetoric.
- Japan’s constitutional constraints still matter. The driver is capacity-building and interoperability, not a joint expeditionary command.
Economic and developmental drivers
- Japanese ODA, the Delhi–Mumbai Industrial Corridor, and the Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail are visible stakes in Indian growth.
- Supply-chain resilience after COVID and after China risk pushed both toward trusted manufacturing.
- Africa and BIMSTEC connectivity talk extends the economic map beyond bilateral trade, which is still below potential.
Political and social drivers
- Two Asian democracies with no historical bilateral war and a positive occupation-era memory in India of Japanese opposition to colonialism, however selective that memory is.
- Diaspora, students, and public diplomacy lower the distrust that still marks India–China ties.
Limits that clarify the drivers
- Trade gaps, delayed projects, and India’s Russia oil and defence channel after 2022 annoy Tokyo.
- Neither wants a China-containment label that would trap ASEAN. The driver is hedging plus public goods, not a war plan.
Net
- The partnership is driven by a China-shaped Indo-Pacific, Japanese capital, Indian markets and navy, and Quad minilateralism.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD CH[China rise] --> P[India-Japan partnership] AB[Abe FOIP Act East] --> P EC[ODA corridors nuclear deal] --> P Q[Quad 2 plus 2] --> P
Conclusion
India–Japan strategic partnership is driven by China’s power, Abe-era Indo-Pacific thinking, Japanese investment, and democratic affinity, organised through the Quad and 2+2 without a mutual defence treaty. Economics and security now travel together.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
What are the implications of 'Look-East' Policy on the north-eastern region of India?
Next question in the 2022 paper (Q7). View answer →
-
Is this an alliance against China?
Both deny a NATO-type alliance. Balancing and infrastructure are the admitted drivers.
-
Why does Russia not wreck the partnership?
It strains it. Tokyo still ranks China and the Indo-Pacific higher than a full break with New Delhi over Moscow.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q5(e) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Historical ties between India and Japan grew into a 'special strategic and global partnership'. Comment. -
2024 · Q4(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
"The Gramscian theory of hegemony provides many valuable insights into the nature of global power." Comment. -
2024 · Q5(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Bhutan has historically been an ally of India, but the China-Bhutan border-related issues have become a security issue for India. Discuss. -
2021 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
"Non-alignment was little more than a rational strategy on the part of a materially weak India to maximise its interests with a bipolar distribution of global power." Comment -
2021 · Q6(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Examine the Geo-strategic points of contention in the bilateral relationship between India and China
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the main limitations of the comparative method to the study of Political Science.
Comparative Politics
Comparison substitutes for experiment, as Lijphart argued. Mill’s designs fail when variables outnumber cases. Galton’s problem and conceptual stretching are standing limits. Official data and Eurocentric concepts add political distortion. The method is disciplined inference, not a controlled trial.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the main challenges faced by the developing countries in the era of globalisation?
Globalisation
Globalisation opens markets and tightens external rules. Wallerstein’s hierarchy and Prebisch’s trade concern still describe many late developers. Capital flight, TRIPS, and farm subsidies in the North cut policy space. Inequality, informality, and climate costs are domestic faces of the same pressure. Regional and South–South bargains are the usual reply, not autarky.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2022 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the commonalities between the Marxist and Realist approach to the study of International Politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Both approaches deny that trade and law automatically pacify world politics. Carr’s critique of utopia feeds realist and Marxist readings. Morgenthau and Waltz stress State power; Lenin and Wallerstein stress capital and hierarchy. Institutions are treated as masks or tools, not as a world government in waiting. The commonality is conflictual materialism; the split is State versus class.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.