Essay 2022 Essay Paper 125 marks 1200 words Critically analyse

Q3

History is a series of victories won by the scientific man over the romantic man

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

इतिहास वैज्ञानिक मनुष्य के रूमानी मनुष्य पर विजय हासिल करने का एक सिलसिला है

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Essay questions

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 the tension between scientific rationality and romantic imagination in shaping historical progress. Structure: Introduction defining both archetypes and stating your nuanced thesis; Body examining domains where scientific method triumphed (medicine, technology, governance) versus where romantic vision drove change (nationalism, arts, social reform); Conclusion synthesizing their interdependence for holistic progress.

Key points expected

Define 'scientific man' (empiricism, rationality, evidence-based progress) and 'romantic man' (emotion, imagination, idealism, cultural revival) as historical forces
Examine victories of scientific approach: Green Revolution, space programme, constitutional governance, public health (smallpox eradication)
Analyse romantic contributions: Indian independence movement (Gandhi's moral appeal), Bengal Renaissance, Tagore's cultural nationalism, environmental consciousness
Assess synthesis zones: Nehru's scientific temper balanced with democratic ideals; ISRO's blend of technical precision and national pride
Critique the binary: acknowledge how scientific victories often required romantic motivation (freedom struggle enabling institutional science)
Contemporary relevance: AI ethics, climate action needing both data and values; India's Amrit Kaal requiring scientific-romantic balance

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Thesis clarity	20%	25	Presents a nuanced, arguable thesis that rejects simplistic binary—arguing history as dialectical interplay where scientific victories were enabled by romantic foundations, or vice versa; thesis is specific, contestable, and previewed in introduction	Takes a clear position but leans toward one-sided affirmation or negation of the statement; thesis is present but lacks subtlety or dialectical depth	No discernible thesis; merely describes scientific and romantic contributions without evaluative stance, or restates the prompt without critical engagement
Multi-dimensional coverage	20%	25	Covers minimum four distinct dimensions—political history, technological/scientific, cultural/artistic, social reform, and philosophical/epistemological—showing how each domain reveals different patterns of scientific-romantic tension	Covers three dimensions adequately but with uneven depth; may overemphasize one domain (e.g., only science/technology) while neglecting cultural or philosophical dimensions	Superficial treatment across fewer than three dimensions; heavy reliance on generic observations without domain-specific analysis
Examples & evidence	20%	25	Deploys 6-8 specific, diverse examples: Indian (Homi Bhabha's scientific vision vs. Tagore's romantic nationalism; Green Revolution's technical success vs. its social costs; Constitution's scientific framing vs. Constituent Assembly's idealism); global comparators (Enlightenment vs. Romanticism; Industrial Revolution's human costs)	Provides 4-5 examples, mostly Indian, with adequate specificity but limited range; some examples may be partially inaccurate or loosely connected to the thesis	Fewer than 4 examples, or examples are generic (e.g., 'computers were invented') without historical specificity; over-reliance on personal observation without evidentiary grounding
Language & flow	20%	25	Sophisticated academic register with controlled use of philosophical terminology (epistemology, teleology, dialectic); seamless transitions between historical periods and conceptual domains; effective use of rhetorical balance reflecting the essay's thematic tension	Clear, grammatically correct prose with functional transitions; occasional lapses into colloquialism or repetitive phrasing; paragraph organization logical but predictable	Frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, or inappropriate register; disjointed paragraphing; abrupt shifts between ideas without connective tissue
Conclusion & forward look	20%	25	Synthesizes argument into original insight about historical methodology itself; connects to contemporary India's challenges (AI governance, climate adaptation, cultural preservation) with specific policy relevance; avoids mere summary	Restates main points with moderate synthesis; includes forward look but generic (e.g., 'both are needed') without concrete contemporary application	Mechanical summary of body paragraphs; no forward look or truistic closing; introduces new unsupported claims; ends abruptly without rhetorical closure

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 →