Essay 2023 Essay Paper 125 marks 1200 words Critically analyse
Q7
A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
जिस समाज में अधिक न्याय होता है, उस समाज को दान की कम आवश्यकता होती 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 the tension between distributive justice and charitable welfare by examining whether structural justice reduces dependency on philanthropy. Structure: introduction defining justice and charity; body exploring economic, social, and political dimensions with Indian and global evidence; critical evaluation of the thesis's limits; conclusion synthesizing when justice suffices and when charity remains essential.
Key points expected
- Distinguish between charity (voluntary, episodic, often patronizing) and justice (rights-based, institutional, dignified)
- Examine Rawlsian justice, Amartya Sen's capability approach, and Ambedkar's social justice as frameworks
- Analyse India's welfare state evolution: from zamindari charity to constitutional rights (MGNREGA, RTE, NFSA)
- Critique the binary: cases where justice fails (disasters, market gaps) and charity complements (CSR, philanthropy)
- Explore global evidence: Nordic welfare states reducing charity dependence vs. US reliance on private giving
- Synthesize: justice minimizes charity need but ethical society requires both institutional fairness and compassionate solidarity
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thesis clarity | 20% | 25 | Presents a nuanced, arguable thesis that neither wholly accepts nor rejects the proposition; clearly stakes position on whether justice and charity are substitutes, complements, or context-dependent; thesis guides entire essay structure | Takes a clear stand but oversimplifies as absolute agreement or disagreement; thesis present but lacks qualification or tension acknowledgment | Thesis absent or merely restates the question; contradictory positions without resolution; stand unclear until conclusion |
| Multi-dimensional coverage | 20% | 25 | Covers economic (redistribution, welfare economics), social (caste, gender justice), political (rights vs. entitlements), philosophical (deontology vs. consequentialism), and historical (feudal charity to welfare state) dimensions with balanced depth | Covers 3-4 dimensions adequately but unevenly; one dimension dominates; philosophical grounding weak or absent | Single-dimensional treatment (only economic or only social); dimensions listed without integration; no philosophical framework |
| Examples & evidence | 20% | 25 | Deploys specific Indian evidence: Ambedkar's critique of Hindu charity, post-2014 welfare architecture, Kerala's public action vs. Bihar's charity dependence; global comparators (Sweden's social insurance, US philanthropy); data on poverty reduction vs. charitable giving trends | Generic references to MGNREGA or mid-day meals without specificity; examples correct but not tightly linked to justice-charity tension; no global comparison | Examples irrelevant or factually wrong; relies on personal anecdotes; no Indian evidence; conflates all welfare as charity |
| Language & flow | 20% | 25 | Precise philosophical vocabulary (distributive justice, positive/negative rights, moral hazard); seamless transitions between dimensions; rhetorical control with varied sentence architecture; maintains critical distance without polemic | Clear but functional prose; occasional jargon misuse; transitions mechanical; some paragraphs drift from thesis | Verbose or colloquial; grammatical errors impeding meaning; abrupt shifts; emotive language replacing argument; illegible handwriting or structural chaos |
| Conclusion & forward look | 20% | 25 | Synthesizes that justice reduces but does not eliminate charity need; proposes institutional mechanisms (universal basic services, progressive taxation) while acknowledging civil society's residual role; ends with vision of dignity-preserving solidarity, not charity | Restates thesis without development; forward look generic ("government should do more"); no synthesis of tension | New arguments introduced; abrupt ending; utopian or cynical closure without analytical basis; contradicts body of essay |
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 2023 Essay Paper
- Q1 Thinking is like a game, it does not begin unless there is an opposite team.
- Q2 Visionary decision-making happens at the intersection of intuition and logic.
- Q3 Not all who wander are lost.
- Q4 Inspiration for creativity springs from the effort to look for the magical in the mundane.
- Q5 Girls are weighed down by restrictions, boys with demands — two equally harmful disciplines.
- Q6 Mathematics is the music of reason.
- Q7 A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.
- Q8 Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.