General Studies 2021 GS Paper IV 20 marks 150 words Compulsory Examine

Q5

(a) "Refugees should not be turned back to the country where they would face persecution or human right violation." Examine the statement with reference to ethical dimension being violated by the nation claiming to be democratic with open society. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (b) Should impartial and being non-partisan be considered as indispensable qualities to make a successful civil servant? Discuss with illustrations. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "शरणार्थियों को उस देश में वापस नहीं लौटाया जाना चाहिए जहाँ उन्हें उत्पीड़न अथवा मानवाधिकारों के उल्लंघन का सामना करना पड़ेगा।" खुले समाज और लोकतांत्रिक होने का दावा करने वाले किसी राष्ट्र के द्वारा नैतिक आयाम के उल्लंघन के संदर्भ में इस कथन का परीक्षण कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए) 10 (b) क्या सफल लोक सेवक बनने के लिए निष्पक्ष और गैर-पक्षपाती होना अनिवार्य गुण माना जाना चाहिए? दृष्टांत सहित चर्चा कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए) 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies questions

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. 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

The primary directive is 'examine' for part (a), requiring critical analysis of refugee ethics and democratic values; part (b) uses 'discuss', needing balanced argumentation on civil servant qualities. Allocate ~75 words/5 minutes to each part. Structure: brief context for (a) → ethical dimensions violated (human dignity, compassion, non-refoulement) → democratic paradox; for (b) → define terms → arguments for indispensability → counter-arguments with synthesis. Conclude each part with 1-2 analytical lines.

Key points expected

Part (a): Identifies non-refoulement principle and ethical dimensions violated—human dignity, compassion, cosmopolitan ethics, and Rawlsian justice
Part (a): Exposes the democratic paradox—claiming open society values while practicing exclusionary nationalism
Part (b): Argues impartiality and non-partisanship as foundational to constitutional morality and rule of law
Part (b): Presents counter-argument that political neutrality may impede responsive governance or social justice
Part (b): Synthesizes with illustrations—Sardar Patel's integration of princely states, or contemporary civil servants in disaster management

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	4	For (a), 'examine' is executed through multi-dimensional ethical analysis (deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics); for (b), 'discuss' shows balanced treatment of both sides before reasoned conclusion	Addresses both directives superficially—(a) lists ethics without examination, (b) asserts position without considering counter-arguments	Misinterprets directives—describes refugee situation without critical analysis, or merely defines impartiality without discussion
Content depth & accuracy	20%	4	Demonstrates command of refugee law (1951 Convention, Indian constitutional protections under Article 21), ethical frameworks (Amartya Sen's public reasoning), and civil service doctrines (Nolan principles, Kautilya's neutrality)	Mentions non-refoulement and impartiality correctly but lacks depth on ethical theories or constitutional provisions	Factual errors—confuses refugee with illegal migrant, or conflates impartiality with inaction; generic content without subject specificity
Structure & flow	20%	4	Clear demarcation between (a) and (b); each part has distinct introduction-body-conclusion; logical progression from principle to paradox in (a), from thesis-antithesis-synthesis in (b)	Both parts answered but boundaries blurred; some logical gaps between ethical dimensions and democratic claims in (a), or abrupt transition in (b)	Unstructured response—parts merged indistinguishably, or one part disproportionately longer; rambling without clear paragraphs
Examples / case-law / data	20%	4	For (a): cites NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), Chakma refugees, or contemporary Rohingya/ Afghan refugee contexts; for (b): uses T.N. Seshan's electoral reforms, or civil servants in COVID-19/Cyclone Amphan response	Generic references—'Syrian refugees' without specificity, or 'IAS officers' without naming incidents; no case law	No examples or irrelevant ones; hypothetical scenarios instead of documented cases; confuses civil servant with politician examples
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	4	Synthesizes both parts—(a) concludes that democratic legitimacy requires ethical consistency in border policies; (b) concludes that impartiality is indispensable but requires moral courage (Bureaucratic ethos + personal integrity); shows original insight	Summarizes main points without synthesis; predictable conclusions without connecting democratic values to administrative ethics	Missing or abrupt conclusion; mere restatement of question; no analytical connection between the two parts' underlying theme of ethics in governance

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 →