General Studies 2022 GS Paper IV 20 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q4

(a) What do you understand by the term 'good governance'? How far recent initiatives in terms of e-Governance steps taken by the State have helped the beneficiaries? Discuss with suitable examples. (Answer in 150 words) 10 (b) Online methodology is being used for day-to-day meetings, institutional approvals in the administration and for teaching and learning in education sector to the extent telemedicine in the health sector is getting popular with the approvals of the competent authority. No doubt, it has advantages and disadvantages for both the beneficiaries and the system at large. Describe and discuss the ethical issues involved in the use of online method particularly to the vulnerable section of the society. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) 'सुशासन' से आप क्या समझते हैं? राज्य द्वारा ई-शासन के मामले में उठाई गई हालिया पहलों ने लाभार्थियों को कहां तक सहायता पहुंचाई है? उपयुक्त उदाहरणों के साथ विवेचन कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए) 10 (b) ऑनलाइन पद्धति का उपयोग दिन-प्रतिदिन प्रशासन की बैठकों, संस्थागत अनुमोदन और शिक्षा क्षेत्र में शिक्षण तथा अधिगम से लेकर स्वास्थ्य क्षेत्र में सक्षम अधिकारी के अनुमोदन से टेलीमेडिसिन तक लोकप्रिय हो रहा है। इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं है कि लाभार्थियों और व्यवस्था दोनों के लिए बड़े पैमाने पर इसके लाभ और हानियां हैं। विशेषतः समाज के कमजोर समुदाय के लिए ऑनलाइन पद्धति के उपयोग में शामिल नैतिक मामलों का वर्णन तथा विवेचन कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए) 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 General Studies questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' requires balanced argumentation with evidence for both parts. For part (a), spend ~70 words defining good governance (UNESCAP/World Bank criteria) and evaluating e-Governance impact with 2-3 schemes. For part (b), allocate ~80 words to identify ethical dimensions (digital divide, privacy, informed consent) affecting vulnerable groups, with sector-specific illustrations. Structure: concise definition → evaluative body with 'how far' assessment for (a); dual-impact recognition → ethical analysis → mitigation suggestions for (b). No separate conclusion needed due to word constraint—embed synthesis in final lines of each part.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Definition of good governance covering 8 UNESCAP characteristics (participatory, accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable, rule of law, effective, consensus-oriented) or 4 World Bank pillars
  • Part (a): Critical evaluation of e-Governance initiatives (DigiLocker, UMANG, DBT, e-Courts, Common Service Centres) with specific beneficiary impact—successes AND limitations
  • Part (b): Identification of ethical issues: digital exclusion/access inequality, data privacy/surveillance concerns, informed consent deficits, quality/competence in telemedicine, depersonalization of services
  • Part (b): Focus on vulnerable sections—rural poor, elderly, differently-abled, women, tribal populations—and asymmetric burdens they face
  • Part (b): Balanced treatment of advantages (access, cost, time) versus ethical risks, with systemic recommendations (digital literacy, hybrid models, regulatory frameworks)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4For (a), interprets 'how far' as evaluative—not merely listing schemes but assessing actual beneficiary reach with nuance; for (b), treats 'describe and discuss' as requiring both factual enumeration of online methods AND normative ethical analysis, not just listing pros/consAddresses both parts but treats (a) descriptively without evaluative edge; for (b) lists advantages/disadvantages without framing as ethical issues or missing vulnerable section focusMisreads 'how far' as 'list all initiatives'; for (b) conflates ethical issues with general disadvantages or ignores vulnerable section specificity entirely
Content depth & accuracy20%4Precise governance definitions (UNESCAP/World Bank); accurate scheme names with functional details (DigiLocker for document access, DBT for direct welfare transfer); for (b), distinguishes ethical categories (procedural, substantive, justice-based) with sector-specific depth (telemedicine ethics vs. education ethics)Generic governance definition; scheme names correct but functions vague; ethical issues identified but conflated across sectors without specificityIncorrect governance definition; factually wrong scheme names; ethical discussion limited to cybercrime or superficial 'technology is bad' framing
Structure & flow20%4Clear demarcation between (a) and (b) with internal coherence—(a) moves definition→evidence→assessment; (b) moves context→ethical framework→vulnerable impact→synthesis; tight 150-word discipline per part with no redundancyBoth parts attempted but boundaries blurred or one part disproportionately longer; logical flow present but transitions weak; minor redundancyNo clear part separation; rambling structure; severe imbalance (one part 100+ words, other 50); repetitive points wasting word budget
Examples / case-law / data20%4For (a): specific schemes with impact metrics (e.g., DBT saving ₹2.23 lakh crore, 400+ services on UMANG, 5 crore e-Courts case status queries); for (b): concrete vulnerable scenarios (tribal patient unable to operate telemedicine app, rural girl's privacy breach in online class, elderly excluded from e-Office)Schemes named without data; generic 'poor people face problems' without specific vulnerable group illustration; no quantitative backingNo examples or irrelevant examples; hypothetical scenarios without Indian context; confuses online with offline governance examples
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4For (a): nuanced verdict—e-Governance transformative but 'last mile' gaps persist, requiring offline integration; for (b): recognizes ethical obligation of 'digital welfare state'—proposes actionable balance (phased digitalization with grievance redressal, Digital India with Digital Inclusion); demonstrates GS-4 ethical reasoning (Rawlsian justice, capability approach)Generic conclusion on 'technology is good if used properly'; no specific synthesis; missing ethical framework applicationNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive close; contradictory final stance; misses opportunity for value-based UPSC-appropriate closing

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 2022 GS Paper IV