UPSC Mains 2021 · GS Paper IV · Q5a

UPSC Mains 2021 GS Paper 4 Q5a: model answer

Refugees should not be turned back to the country where they would face persecution or human right violation. Examine the statement with reference to ethical dimension being violated by the nation claiming to be democratic with open society.

10 marks150 wordsDirective: Examine

What the question wants

Examine the ethics of a democratic, open society turning refugees back to places where they face persecution.

How to structure it

Principle, ethical issues, India, balance.

  1. Non-refoulement
  2. Ethical dimensions violated
  3. India's position
  4. Balance with security

How to think it through

Non-refoulement: Refugee Convention 1951 Art 33; customary international law. India not party to 1951 Convention/1967 Protocol, but Art 21 applies to all persons (NHRC v Arunachal 1996—Chakmas). Ethical: human dignity, compassion, consistency (democracy preaches rights), Kant, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam; India's history—Tibetans 1959, Bangladesh 1971 (~10 million), Sri Lankan Tamils. Rohingya deportation debates (SC 2021 allowed deportation as per procedure). Balance: security screening, burden sharing, due process, national law (no refugee law).

Model answer

In 1971, nearly 10 million people fled East Pakistan into India. India, then a poor country, sheltered them. That history makes the question personal for Indian democracy.

The principle

  • Non-refoulement: no one should be returned to a place where they face persecution, torture or death.
  • It is in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and is widely treated as customary international law.

Ethical dimensions violated by turning refugees back

  • Human dignity: refugees are people, not security files.
  • Compassion: returning someone to probable harm makes the state complicit.
  • Consistency: a democracy that preaches rights abroad loses credibility if it denies them at its own border.

India's position

  • India is not a party to the 1951 Convention, yet Article 21 protects the life of every person, citizen or not; the Supreme Court protected Chakma refugees in NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996).

Balancing with security

  • Screening for security is legitimate, but a national refugee law would replace ad hoc decisions with fair procedures.

An open society is tested not by how it treats its citizens, but by how it treats those who knock at its door in fear.

Draw: A border gate: 'security screening' on one side, 'non-refoulement' on the other, both needed.

Keywords, cases and data to drop in

non-refoulement, 1951 Refugee Convention Article 33, customary international law, dignity, compassion, consistency, Kant, India not party, Article 21, NHRC v Arunachal Pradesh 1996 (Chakmas), Bangladesh 1971 (~10 million), Tibetans 1959, Sri Lankan Tamils, national refugee law.

Where most answers lose marks

  • Arguing only security or only humanitarian concerns; the question is about the ethical dimension, but balance helps.

Fresh examples from current affairs

Main building of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi
GS2 · Polity · Probity

Supreme Court: no prior approval under Section 17A needed to probe a bribe demand

In a judgment of 16 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that investigating a bribe demand by a public servant does not need prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Asking for a bribe, the court said, is not part of discharging official duties.

UPSC angle: Prelims: Sections 7, 7A, 17A and 19 of the PC Act. · Mains GS-II/GS-IV: honest officers versus accountability.

19 Oct 2026

Learn the concept

Question text as printed in the official UPSC Civil Services (Main) question paper. The model answer is original Battle IAS work; use it to learn structure, not to memorise.

Want every PYQ in one place? See the Battle IAS PYQ Book.