General Studies 2023 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Analyse

Q17

"Development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable, by its nature, are discriminatory in approach." Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

"वंचितों के विकास और कल्याण की योजनाएँ अपनी प्रकृति से ही दृष्टिकोण में भेदभाव करने वाली होती हैं।" क्या आप सहमत हैं? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में कारण दीजिए। (250 शब्दों में उत्तर) 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies 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 targeted welfare and formal equality by first unpacking the statement's premise, then examining how differential treatment can be non-discriminatory under constitutional morality. Structure as: introduction defining 'discriminatory' in constitutional vs. colloquial sense; body presenting affirmative action jurisprudence, creamy layer critique, and universal vs. targeted scheme trade-offs; conclusion synthesising whether such 'discrimination' serves transformative constitutionalism.

Key points expected

Distinction between formal equality (Article 14) and substantive equality—welfare schemes as 'reasonable classification' under Article 14, not discrimination
Constitutional basis: Articles 15(4), 16(4), 46 (DPSP) and Indra Sawhney (1992) judgment validating backward class reservations
Targeted schemes: PM-KISAN, Ayushman Bharat, scholarships for SC/ST/OBC—differentiation based on objective disadvantage, not arbitrary exclusion
Counter-argument: creamy layer exclusion, exclusion errors in Aadhaar-linked welfare, regional imbalances creating 'reverse discrimination' perceptions
Balanced view: 'discriminatory in approach' is technically accurate but constitutionally permissible when serving transformative equality; universal schemes (MGNREGA) vs. targeted schemes trade-off
Way forward: saturation approach, sunset clauses, periodic review to prevent perpetuation of dependency

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Correctly identifies 'analyse' requires examining both sides—agreement and disagreement—while distinguishing constitutional 'discrimination' from popular usage; frames the debate around formal vs. substantive equality	Takes a one-sided stance without examining the constitutional nuance; treats 'discriminatory' only in negative sense without engaging Article 14 jurisprudence	Misreads directive as 'describe' or 'justify' only; fails to recognise the analytical tension in the statement; no engagement with equality jurisprudence
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately explains Article 14's reasonable classification test (intelligible differentia + rational nexus); cites DPSP obligations; distinguishes protective discrimination from invidious discrimination; references judicial tests from Nagaraj or Jarnail Singh	Mentions Articles 14-16 and DPSP superficially; conflates reservation with welfare schemes; vague on constitutional distinction between permissible and impermissible classification	Incorrect constitutional provisions; confuses 'discrimination' with 'differentiation'; no understanding of constitutional morality or transformative equality; factual errors about scheme eligibility
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear tripartite structure: introduction defining terms and thesis; body with balanced arguments (why statement holds + why it doesn't) and synthesis; conclusion with nuanced position; smooth transitions between constitutional theory and scheme implementation	Basic intro-body-conclusion but arguments jumbled; no clear separation between conceptual analysis and scheme examples; abrupt shifts between reservation and welfare without linkage	Disorganised points without logical flow; no introduction or conclusion; bullet points without connective analysis; exceeds word limit or severely underwrites
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific schemes: PM-KISAN (landholding criteria), Ayushman Bharat (SECC deprivation criteria), National Food Security Act; case law: Indra Sawhney, Nagaraj (2006), Jarnail Singh (2018); data: SECC 2011 coverage, exclusion errors in PDS	Generic mention of 'reservation' or 'MNREGA' without specificity; no case law or only pre-1990 cases; outdated or incorrect scheme names	No Indian examples; foreign welfare models without relevance; invented schemes or data; no legal precedents despite constitutional nature of question
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesises that welfare schemes are 'discriminatory' in dictionary sense but constitutionally mandated under transformative equality; proposes sunset clauses, periodic review, or saturation approach to prevent perpetuation; links to SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) or Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas	Balanced but bland conclusion without original insight; mere summary of points; no forward-looking recommendation	No conclusion; abrupt end; extreme position (complete agreement/disagreement) without nuance; irrelevant digression to unrelated policy

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 →