General Studies 2023 GS Paper III 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Discuss

Q14

What are the direct and indirect subsidies provided to farm sector in India? Discuss the issues raised by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in relation to agricultural subsidies. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत में कृषि क्षेत्र को प्रदान की जाने वाली प्रत्यक्ष एवं अप्रत्यक्ष सब्सिडी क्या हैं? विश्व व्यापार संगठन (डब्ल्यू० टी० ओ०) द्वारा उठाए गए कृषि सब्सिडी संबंधित मुद्दों की विवेचना कीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 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 a balanced examination of both parts—first enumerating direct and indirect subsidies with clarity, then analyzing WTO concerns without taking a rigid stance. Structure should follow: brief introduction defining agricultural subsidies → separate sections on direct (input, price support) and indirect (infrastructure, credit, insurance) subsidies → WTO issues (Amber Box limits, de minimis, Peace Clause, India's stance) → conclusion with way forward. Avoid mere listing; integrate the two parts to show how subsidy classification determines WTO compliance.

Key points expected

Direct subsidies: MSP-based procurement, fertilizer subsidy, seed subsidy, irrigation subsidy, power subsidy, credit subsidy (interest subvention)
Indirect subsidies: rural infrastructure (roads, cold storage), agricultural extension services, crop insurance (PMFBY), research and development, market support
WTO classification: Amber Box (trade-distorting, 10% de minimis limit for India), Green Box (non-trade-distorting), Blue Box (production-limiting)
Specific WTO disputes: US challenge to India's MSP for rice and wheat (2018), sugar subsidies dispute with Australia/Brazil/Guatemala, Peace Clause limitations
India's defensive position: food security concerns, special safeguard mechanism demand, distinction between subsistence farmers vs. commercial agriculture in developed nations
Balanced conclusion: need for subsidy rationalization, shift to Green Box measures, domestic reforms alongside WTO negotiations

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly distinguishes 'discuss' from 'enumerate' by integrating both parts—subsidies and WTO issues—showing how subsidy types determine WTO classification and disputes; treats both components as interconnected rather than isolated lists	Addresses both parts separately with adequate coverage but treats them as standalone sections without explicit linkage; satisfies basic 'discuss' requirement without analytical integration	Misinterprets directive as pure description or list; focuses heavily on one part (typically subsidies) with cursory WTO mention, or vice versa; fails to show relationship between domestic policy and international obligations
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Precise categorization of subsidies with correct WTO terminology (Amber/Green/Blue Box, Aggregate Measurement of Support, de minimis); accurate reference to India's 10% limit, Peace Clause conditions, and recent disputes; no factual errors on MSP mechanisms or WTO agreements	Broadly correct categorization with minor inaccuracies (e.g., conflating direct/indirect subsidies, vague on WTO box classifications); understands general WTO concerns but imprecise on specific thresholds or dispute details	Significant factual errors (e.g., incorrect de minimis percentage, confusing WTO with IMF/WB, misidentifying subsidy types); superficial coverage with generic statements about 'farmers getting benefits' and 'WTO opposing subsidies'
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression from definition → subsidy taxonomy (direct/indirect clearly demarcated) → WTO framework → specific disputes → India's position → conclusion; smooth transitions between parts with clear signposting; 250-word discipline maintained with proportional allocation	Recognizable structure with separate paragraphs for each component but abrupt transitions; some imbalance in word allocation (e.g., excessive detail on subsidies, compressed WTO section); readable but mechanical flow	Disorganized or missing structure; no clear demarcation between direct and indirect subsidies; WTO issues scattered randomly; abrupt ending without conclusion; exceeds or falls significantly short of word limit affecting completeness
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific contemporary examples: US complaint on India's rice/wheat MSP (2018), sugar subsidies dispute with Australia/Brazil, reference to Bali Peace Clause (2013) and Nairobi Ministerial; data points like fertilizer subsidy (~₹2 lakh crore), PM-KISAN; distinguishes Green Box success stories (MGNREGA, rural roads)	Generic mention of 'WTO disputes' without specifics; broad reference to MSP or PMFBY without contextual data; may cite outdated examples (pre-2013) or confuse dispute parties; examples present but not precisely tied to argument	No specific examples, data, or case references; relies entirely on phrases like 'various subsidies given' and 'WTO has raised concerns'; irrelevant examples (e.g., mentioning industrial subsidies, EU CAP without India context)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Forward-looking synthesis: need for subsidy recalibration toward Green Box (infrastructure, R&D), decoupling income support from production; acknowledges food security imperative while recognizing trade obligations; mentions ongoing WTO reform negotiations or India's defensive-offensive strategy	Balanced but generic conclusion restating both sides ('subsidies are necessary but WTO concerns must be addressed'); no specific policy direction; avoids taking clear position on contentious issues	Missing, abrupt, or purely descriptive conclusion; one-sided advocacy (either 'WTO is unfair' or 'India must abolish subsidies') without nuance; no connection to broader economic policy or international trade strategy

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 →