Should India have no military force at all and rely only on the policy of non violence? Arguments: 1. No, because other countries in the world are unlikely to believe in non violence and India may face security threats. 2. Yes, because many Indians personally believe in the principle of non violence.

Introduction / Context:
This question is about national security and the idea of abolishing the military in favour of non violence. One argument warns that other countries may not follow non violence, and the other supports the idea simply because many Indians believe in it.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: India should have no military force at all.
• Argument 1: No, other countries may not believe in non violence, exposing India to danger.
• Argument 2: Yes, many Indians believe in non violence.
• We assume that defence forces are a major deterrent against external aggression.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument must consider practical realities. While non violence is a noble principle, national defence depends on the behaviour of other countries also. It is not enough that one country believes in peace if others might attack. Argument 1 reflects this reality. Argument 2 is based only on internal belief and ignores external risks.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It highlights the risk that other nations may still use force, so India needs defence forces. Step 2: This is logically strong because national security cannot depend only on moral expectations. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It says that since many citizens believe in non violence, the country should abolish the military. Step 4: This ignores the behaviour of other states and the need for deterrence, so argument 2 is weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Look at global practice: even countries that value peace maintain armed forces for defence. This supports the strength of argument 1.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options that treat argument 2 as strong or both as strong fail to account for geopolitical realities. The option that neither is strong is wrong because argument 1 is clearly realistic. The option saying the security implications cannot be judged is also incorrect because basic reasoning about defence is possible.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes equate moral appeal with practical strength of an argument. In security matters, moral beliefs alone are insufficient.

Final Answer:
Hence, only argument 1 is strong, and the correct option is the one that selects argument 1 alone as strong.