General Studies 2023 GS Paper I 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Comment

Q14

Comment on the resource potentials of the long coastline of India and highlight the status of natural hazard preparedness in these areas. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत की लंबी तटरेखीय संसाधन क्षमताओं पर टिप्पणी कीजिए और इन क्षेत्रों में प्राकृतिक खतरे की तैयारी की स्थिति पर प्रकाश डालिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies questions

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' requires a balanced, opinion-backed assessment rather than mere description. Structure as: brief introduction on India's 7,500+ km coastline significance; two balanced body paragraphs—one on resource potentials (fisheries, ports, energy, tourism) and another on hazard preparedness status (cyclones, tsunamis, sea-level rise); conclude with critical observations on gaps and way forward.

Key points expected

Mention of major resource categories: marine fisheries (2nd largest producer), 13 major and 200+ minor ports, offshore wind and tidal energy potential, blue economy estimates, coastal tourism circuits
Reference to hazard profile: tropical cyclones (IMD classification), tsunami vulnerability (2004 Indian Ocean experience), coastal erosion, storm surge risks
Status of preparedness: NDMA guidelines, National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Project (NCRMP), tsunami early warning system (INCOIS), coastal regulation zone notifications
Critical gaps: poor last-mile connectivity in warning dissemination, unregulated coastal construction, mangrove degradation, climate adaptation deficits
Balanced treatment showing both potentials realized and underutilized, preparedness achievements versus persistent vulnerabilities

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Recognizes 'comment' demands evaluative judgment with balanced positives and negatives; addresses both resource potentials AND hazard preparedness status as twin demands without imbalance	Treats question descriptively with list-like coverage; either overemphasizes resources or hazards, or conflates both without clear demarcation	Misreads directive as pure description or ignores one part of the question entirely; writes generic coastal geography without evaluative stance
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Precise data: coastline length (~7,517 km), EEZ area (2.02 million sq km), fishery contribution (~1% GDP), specific cyclone categories, NCRMP phases; accurate institutional references (INCOIS, NDMA, MoES)	Broadly correct but vague figures ('long coastline,' 'many ports'); some institutional names incorrect or outdated; conflates CRZ 2011 with 2019 notifications	Factually wrong data (e.g., coastline as 5,000 km); confuses tsunami with tidal waves; cites non-existent schemes; major geographical errors in coastal state coverage
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear binary structure with explicit transition between resource analysis and hazard assessment; 250-word discipline with proportional allocation (~120 words each section); seamless linkage showing resource exploitation-hazard trade-offs	Loose thematic grouping without clear section breaks; uneven word distribution; abrupt shifts between topics without connective logic	Disorganized stream of facts; no discernible sections; exceeds or falls significantly short of word limit; repetitive or circular argumentation
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific exemplars: Sagarmala Project, O-SMART scheme, Gujarat's port-led development, Odisha's cyclone preparedness transformation post-Phailin (2013) vs 1999 super cyclone, Sendai Framework alignment, Mumbai/Cochin coastal vulnerabilities	Generic references ('eastern coast faces cyclones') without specific events or schemes; mentions 2004 tsunami without drawing preparedness lessons	No Indian examples; uses irrelevant international cases without domestic application; examples factually wrong (e.g., citing Kerala floods as coastal hazard primarily)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Critical insight: notes paradox of blue economy push versus climate vulnerability; suggests integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) or nature-based solutions; flags institutional fragmentation between MoES, MoPSW, NDMA; forward-looking on climate adaptation	Summary restatement without fresh insight; generic 'government should do more' conclusion; no recognition of structural tensions in policy	Missing conclusion; abrupt ending; purely aspirational closing without analytical foundation; contradicts own body arguments

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 →