Essay 2021 Essay Paper 125 marks 1200 words Critically analyse
Q3
Philosophy of wantlessness is Utopian, while materialism is a chimera.
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
इच्छारहित होने का दर्शन काल्पनिक आदर्श (यूटोपिया) है, जबकि भौतिकता माया है ।
Directive word: Critically analyse
This question asks you to critically analyse. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
Critically analyse demands a balanced examination of both 'wantlessness' and 'materialism' as philosophical positions, probing their internal contradictions and practical impossibilities. Structure: Introduction defining both concepts and stating the paradox → Body analysing wantlessness through Indian philosophical traditions (santosha, aparigraha) and its utopian limitations → Analysing materialism through economic development models and its chimeric nature → Synthesis exploring middle paths → Conclusion with contemporary relevance.
Key points expected
- Critical examination of 'wantlessness' drawing from Indian philosophy (Gandhian trusteeship, Jain aparigraha, Buddhist santosha) while exposing its impracticality in modern welfare states
- Analysis of 'materialism' through economic growth models, consumer capitalism, and environmental limits, showing its illusory promise of satisfaction
- Exploration of the dialectic: both extremes fail—wantlessness ignores human dignity and development needs; materialism breeds ecological collapse and social inequality
- Integration of Indian examples: Gandhian economics vs. post-liberalisation growth; Bhutan's GNH as attempted synthesis; Kerala's development paradox
- Synthesis toward 'enoughism' or 'sustainable sufficiency'—philosophical middle paths from Tagore, Kumarappa, or contemporary degrowth discourse
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thesis clarity | 20% | 25 | Opens with a sharply defined thesis that interprets the paradox—neither pure wantlessness nor unchecked materialism is tenable; stakes out a nuanced position (e.g., 'both are necessary critiques of each other, yet both fail in absoluteness') that guides the entire essay | Thesis present but either sides too strongly with one position or offers vague balance without analytical depth; the 'utopian' and 'chimera' concepts not explicitly unpacked | No discernible thesis; treats wantlessness and materialism as separate essays or merely describes both without engaging the tension in the statement |
| Multi-dimensional coverage | 25% | 31.25 | Seamlessly integrates philosophical (Indian and Western), economic (growth vs. distribution), ecological (planetary boundaries), and ethical (human flourishing) dimensions; shows how each dimension complicates both wantlessness and materialism | Covers 2-3 dimensions adequately (typically philosophy + economics) but misses ecological or ethical dimensions; dimensions treated sequentially rather than interwoven | Single-dimensional treatment (only Gandhian philosophy or only GDP growth); no recognition that the question demands examining both concepts across multiple registers |
| Examples & evidence | 20% | 25 | Deploys precise Indian examples: Gandhi's Hind Swaraj critique of industrialism, post-1991 growth trajectory and its discontents, Bhutan's GNH, Kerala's human development paradox, or Chipko/Apiko movements; uses contemporary evidence (climate crisis, mental health epidemic) to show materialism's chimeric nature | Generic references to Gandhi or 'Western consumerism' without specificity; examples listed rather than analysed for how they illuminate the utopian/chimera tension | No Indian examples; relies on vague generalisations or irrelevant examples (e.g., Soviet communism without connecting to wantlessness) |
| Language & flow | 15% | 18.75 | Philosophical vocabulary used precisely (utopian, chimera, dialectic, false consciousness); seamless transitions between wantlessness and materialism analysis; maintains critical, reflective tone without polemic; effective use of paradox and irony given the question's structure | Clear but functional prose; occasional awkward transitions between sections; tone shifts between academic and colloquial; some philosophical terms misused | Poor paragraphing; repetitive structure; confused use of key terms; grammatical errors that impede meaning; flow disrupted by unrelated digressions |
| Conclusion & forward look | 20% | 25 | Synthesises toward a constructive position—e.g., 'santosha within limits,' 'ethical materialism,' or 'sustainable degrowth'—that transcends the binary; connects to contemporary India (Amrit Kaal, SDGs, climate commitments); ends with provocative insight rather than summary | Restates both positions and chooses a middle path without philosophical grounding; forward look generic ('India must balance tradition and modernity') | Merely summarises previous points; no synthesis; no forward look; or introduces entirely new argument in conclusion |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Essay 2021 Essay Paper
- Q1 The process of self-discovery has now been technologically outsourced.
- Q2 Your perception of me is a reflection of you; my reaction to you is an awareness of me.
- Q3 Philosophy of wantlessness is Utopian, while materialism is a chimera.
- Q4 The real is rational and the rational is real.
- Q5 Hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
- Q6 What is research, but a blind date with knowledge !
- Q7 History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce.
- Q8 There are better practices to "best practices".