General Studies 2021 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Critically evaluate

Q7

Sunil is a young civil servant and has a reputation for his competence, integrity, dedication and relentness pursuit of difficult and onerous jobs. Considering his profile, he was picked up by his bosses to handle a very challenging and sensitive assignment. He was posted in a tribal dominated district notorious for illegal sand mining. Excavating sand from river belt and transporting through trucks and selling them in black market was rampant. This illegal sand mining mafia was operating with the support of local functionaries and tribal musclemen who in turn were bribing selected poor tribals and had kept the tribals under fear and intimidation. Sunil being a sharp and energetic officer immediately grasped the ground realities and the modus operandi followed by the mafia through their devious and dubious mechanism. On making inquiries, he gathered that some of their own office employees are in hand and glove with them and have developed close unholy nexus. Sunil initiated stringent action against them and started conducting raids on their illegal operations of movement of trucks filled with sand. The mafia got rattled as not many officers in the past had taken such strong steps against the mafia. Some of the office employees who were allegedly close to mafia informed them that the officer is determined to clean up the mafia's illegal sand mining operations in that district and may cause them irreparable damage. The mafia turned hostile and launched counter-offensive. The tribal musclemen and mafia started threatening him with dire consequences. His family (wife and old mother) were stalked and were under virtual surveillance and thus causing mental torture, agony and stress to all of them. The matter assumed serious proportions when a muscleman came to his office and threatened him to stop raids, etc., otherwise, his fate will not be different than some of his predecessors (ten years back one officer was killed by the mafia). (a) Identify the different options available to Sunil in attending to this situation. (b) Critically evaluate each of the options listed by you. (c) Which of the above, do you think, would be the most appropriate for Sunil to adopt and why? (Answer in 250 words)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

सुनील एक युवा लोक सेवक है तथा सक्षमता, ईमानदारी, समर्पण तथा मुश्किल और दुर्वह कामों के लिए अथक प्रयास हेतु उसकी प्रतिष्ठा है। उसकी प्रोफाइल को देखते हुए उसके अधिकारियों ने उसे एक बहुत ही चुनौतीपूर्ण और संवेदनशील कार्यभार को संभालने के लिए चुना था। उसे अवैध बालू खनन के लिए कुक्षात आदिवासी-बहुल जिले में तैनात किया गया। नदी पट्टी से, अनियंत्रित रूप से बालू उत्खनन करके ट्रकों से ढोकर उसको काला बाजार में बेचा जा रहा था। यह अवैध बालू खनन माफिया, स्थानीय कार्यकर्ताओं और आदिवासी बाहुबलियों के सहयोग से काम कर रहा था जो बदले में चुनिंदा गरीब आदिवासियों को रिश्वत देते रहते थे तथा उनको डरा और धमका कर रखते थे। सुनील ने एक तेज और ऊर्जावान अधिकारी होने के नाते जमीनी हकीकत पहचानकर और माफिया के द्वारा कुटिल तथा संविधि तंत्र के माध्यम से अपनाए गए उनके तौर-तरीकों को तुरंत पकड़ लिया। पूछताछ करने पर उसने पाया कि उसके अपने कार्यालय के कुछ कर्मचारियों की उनसे मिलीभगत है और उन्होंने उनके साथ घनिष्ठ अवांछनीय गठजोड़ विकसित कर लिया है। सुनील ने उनके खिलाफ कड़ी कार्रवाई शुरू की और उनके बालू से भरे ट्रकों की आवाजाही के अवैध संचालन पर छापे मारना शुरू कर दिया। माफिया भड़क गया क्योंकि पहले बहुत अधिकारियों ने उनके विरुद्ध इतने बड़े कदम नहीं उठाए थे। कार्यालय के कुछ कर्मचारियों ने जो कथित तौर पर माफिया के करीब थे, उनको सूचित किया कि अधिकारी उस जिले में माफिया के अवैध बालू खनन संचालन को साफ करने के लिए दृढ़ संकल्पित है और उन्हें अपूर्णीय क्षति हो सकती है। माफिया शत्रुतापूर्ण हो गया और जवाबी हमला शुरू किया। आदिवासी बाहुबली और माफिया ने उसको गंभीर परिणाम भुगतने की धमकी देना शुरू कर दिया। उसके परिवार (पत्नी और वृद्ध माता) का पीछा किया जा रहा था, वे उनकी वास्तविक निगरानी में थे जिससे कि उन सभी को मानसिक यातना, यंत्रणा और तनाव हो रहा था। उस समय मामले ने गंभीर रूप धारण कर लिया जब एक बाहुबली उसके कार्यालय में आया और उसको छापे मारना इत्यादि बंद करने की धमकी दी और कहा कि उसका हाल उसके पूर्व अधिकारियों से अलग नहीं होगा (दस वर्ष पूर्व माफिया द्वारा एक अधिकारी की हत्या कर दी गई थी)। (a) इस स्थिति को संभालने में सुनील के लिए उपलब्ध विभिन्न विकल्पों की पहचान कीजिए। (b) आपके द्वारा सूचीबद्ध विकल्पों का आलोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (c) आपके विचार से उपर्युक्त में से कौन-सा विकल्प सुनील के लिए सबसे उपयुक्त होगा और क्यों? (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

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

Directive word: Critically evaluate

This question asks you to critically evaluate. 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 directive 'critically evaluate' requires balanced assessment of options with reasoned judgment. Structure: Brief context (20 words) → Part (a): Enumerate 4-5 options including confrontation, negotiation, institutional escalation, and strategic retreat (80 words) → Part (b): Critically weigh each using ethical frameworks—utilitarian outcomes, deontological duties, and virtue ethics (80 words) → Part (c): Defend one option with clear justification linking to civil service values (70 words). Ensure seamless integration across parts within 250 words.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Options include—(i) Continue aggressive raids with enhanced security, (ii) Seek police/central forces support and institutional backup, (iii) Negotiate tactical pause to build intelligence and community trust, (iv) Request transfer citing threat to family, (v) Use technology/surveillance to reduce personal exposure, (vi) Mobilize tribal beneficiaries against mafia through empowerment
  • For (b): Critical evaluation using ethical lenses—confrontation risks martyrdom but upholds integrity; institutional escalation balances duty with safety; negotiation may appear compromise but enables long-term gain; transfer protects family but abandons public trust; technology option shows innovative problem-solving
  • For (b): Evaluation must reference specific stakeholders—family safety vs. public duty vs. tribal welfare vs. institutional reputation
  • For (c): Selection of most appropriate option with explicit justification through civil service values (integrity, courage, empathy, non-abandonment) and practical feasibility
  • For (c): Preferred answer typically combines institutional escalation with community mobilization—demonstrates 'smart courage' rather than reckless heroism or cowardly retreat
  • Integration: Options in (a) must logically feed into evaluation in (b) and final choice in (c)—avoid disjointed lists

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4Correctly interprets 'critically evaluate' in (b) as requiring balanced assessment with ethical reasoning, not mere description; for (a) provides actionable options not vague platitudes; for (c) gives decisive recommendation with explicit 'why'—not fence-sittingLists options descriptively in (a) with superficial evaluation in (b); recommendation in (c) lacks clear ethical grounding or appears arbitraryMisreads directive as 'discuss' or 'enumerate'; provides only generic options without evaluation; no clear recommendation or confuses all parts
Content depth & accuracy20%4Demonstrates nuanced understanding of administrative challenges—mafia-state nexus, tribal vulnerability, institutional constraints; applies relevant ethical frameworks (Nolan principles, Attitude-Influence-Behaviour model); references specific civil service conduct rulesMentions integrity and courage but superficially; recognizes family vs. duty tension without deeper analysis of institutional mechanisms or community dynamicsGeneric moralizing about honesty; ignores structural realities (why previous officer was killed); no recognition of tribal agency or institutional failure
Structure & flow20%4Seamless progression: options → evaluation → justified choice; clear signposting (a)/(b)/(c); within word limit with proportional allocation (~30% each part); integrated narrative despite tripartite structureClear demarcation between parts but mechanical; some repetition across (a) and (b); word distribution uneven with one part underdevelopedDisjointed structure; missing parts or confused labeling; grossly exceeds word limit on one part; no logical connection between evaluation and final choice
Examples / case-law / data20%4Cites relevant precedents—Durga Shakti Nagpal (sand mining), Narendra Kumar (killed by mafia), or S.R. Sankaran's tribal welfare approach; references legal provisions (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, Mining laws); mentions institutional mechanisms (Whistleblowers Protection Act, central deputation)Vague reference to 'some officers' or generic mention of 'legal action' without specificity; no concrete case illustrationsNo examples whatsoever; or irrelevant examples (unrelated corruption cases); factual errors about legal provisions
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Recommendation demonstrates 'principled pragmatism'—neither martyrdom nor abdication; explicitly weighs competing ethical claims; shows systemic thinking (institutional reform, community empowerment alongside enforcement); memorable final line on civil servant's covenant with vulnerable citizensSafe recommendation (seek police help) without showing why this beats alternatives; conclusion restates rather than synthesizesNo clear recommendation; or extreme positions (resign/ignore threats/martyrdom) without justification; abrupt ending without synthesis

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 General Studies 2021 GS Paper IV