Essay 2024 Essay Paper 125 marks 1200 words Analyse

Q6

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but to test the character, give him power.

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

लगभग सभी मनुष्य प्रतिकूल परिस्थितियों का सामना कर सकते हैं, लेकिन किसी व्यक्ति के चरित्र के परीक्षण के लिए, उसे शक्ति प्रदान करके देखिए।

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Essay questions

Directive word: Analyse

This question asks you to 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

Analyse the tension between adversity and power as tests of character, examining why power reveals true moral fibre while hardship merely exposes resilience. Structure: introduction defining character and distinguishing adversity-testing from power-testing; body exploring psychological, historical, institutional and philosophical dimensions with Indian and global examples; conclusion synthesising insights for contemporary leadership and governance.

Key points expected

Distinction between resilience under adversity and ethical conduct under power—adversity tests endurance, power tests values
Psychological analysis: power's corrupting potential (Lord Acton) versus character's restraining function, with reference to Indian thinkers like Gandhi's 'power without purity is dangerous'
Historical and contemporary Indian examples: Nehru's democratic restraint versus Indira Gandhi's Emergency; Vajpayee's coalition management; recent cases of administrative and political integrity or failure
Institutional safeguards: constitutional morality, separation of powers, RTI, Lokpal as mechanisms to constrain power and protect character
Philosophical grounding: Kautilya's Arthashastra on rajdharma, Buddhist conceptions of right conduct, modern ethics of public service

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Thesis clarity	20%	25	Establishes a nuanced, contestable thesis that precisely interprets the quote—distinguishing 'standing adversity' from 'character under power'—and maintains this argumentative thread throughout; thesis appears in introduction and is refined, not repeated, in conclusion.	Thesis present but either too broad ('power is important') or merely paraphrases the quote without analytical depth; some drift from central argument in body paragraphs.	No discernible thesis, or thesis contradicts the quote's intent; essay descends into generic discussion of leadership without engaging the adversity-power distinction.
Multi-dimensional coverage	20%	25	Integrates at least four distinct dimensions—psychological (power's effect on cognition), ethical (moral responsibility), institutional (checks and balances), historical (Indian and global)—with seamless transitions showing their interconnection; avoids siloed treatment.	Covers 2-3 dimensions adequately but treats them sequentially without synthesis; or attempts breadth with superficial treatment of each dimension; missing either institutional or philosophical angle.	Single-dimensional treatment (e.g., only political examples) or disconnected paragraphs with no thematic progression; dimensions listed rather than analysed.
Examples & evidence	20%	25	Deploys 6-8 precise, varied examples: Indian political figures (Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, contemporary), administrative cases (T.N. Seshan, Ashok Khemka), global references (Washington, Mandela), with analytical purpose—each example illuminates the thesis, not merely illustrates it.	4-5 examples present but some are generic (Gandhi without specific incident) or imbalanced (over-reliance on foreign examples, thin Indian coverage); examples described rather than analysed for character-power dynamics.	Fewer than 4 examples, or examples misapplied (e.g., citing adversity-survivors as power-examples); factual errors in examples; no examples from Indian administrative or political context.
Language & flow	20%	25	Sophisticated, controlled prose with varied sentence architecture; effective use of rhetorical devices appropriate to philosophical reflection; paragraphs build momentum through clear topic sentences and transitional logic; 1100-1200 words with no padding.	Competent but occasionally formulaic expression; some abrupt transitions; minor verbosity or compression issues; generally clear but lacks stylistic distinction; word count acceptable but with some redundancy.	Grammatical errors, awkward constructions, or excessive reliance on quotations without integration; choppy paragraphing; significant under or over word limit; colloquialisms or bureaucratic jargon inappropriate to essay genre.
Conclusion & forward look	20%	25	Synthesises insights into a fresh proposition about cultivating character for power in contemporary India—specific reference to civil service ethics, political reform, or institutional design; avoids mere summary; ends with resonant, forward-looking closure that honours the quote's warning.	Restates main points without synthesis; generic forward look ('we need good leaders') without concrete mechanism or contemporary relevance; conclusion feels detachable rather than earned.	No conclusion, or abrupt termination; conclusion introduces new arguments; purely moralistic platitudes ('power should be used wisely') without analytical grounding in essay's development.

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 →