General Studies 2024 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Comment

Q6

Public charitable trusts have the potential to make India's development more inclusive as they relate to certain vital public issues. Comment. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

कतिपय अत्यावश्यक सार्वजनिक मुद्दों से संबंधित होने के कारण, सार्वजनिक चैरिटेबल ट्रस्टों में भारत के विकास को अधिक समावेशी बनाने का सामर्थ्य है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में लिखिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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, opinionated analysis rather than mere description. Structure: brief introduction defining public charitable trusts under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882; body paragraphs examining their inclusive potential across sectors (education, health, environment, welfare); conclusion with critical assessment of challenges and way forward.

Key points expected

Definition and legal framework: Public charitable trusts under Indian Trusts Act, 1882, serving public purposes without profit motive
Education inclusion: Trusts like Azim Premji Foundation, Tata Trusts bridging gaps in rural/urban education access
Healthcare access: Narayana Health, Aravind Eye Care models demonstrating affordable, quality care for marginalized
Livelihood and environment: SEWA, AKRSP (Aga Khan Rural Support Programme) empowering women and rural communities
Complementary role to state: Filling gaps where government welfare schemes have limited reach or implementation challenges
Critical challenges: Regulatory gaps, lack of transparency, potential for elite capture, need for better state-trust coordination

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Demonstrates that 'comment' requires evaluative judgment, not mere listing; presents a nuanced thesis on how trusts enable inclusion while acknowledging limitations; balances potential with critical perspective	Partially understands directive—either overly descriptive or one-sidedly positive/negative; misses the evaluative balance expected	Treats as 'describe' or 'explain' without opinion; completely misinterprets directive as asking for definition or history only
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately covers legal basis (Indian Trusts Act, 1882), multiple sectors (education, health, livelihood, environment), and critically examines both potential and pitfalls with precision	Covers 2-3 sectors adequately but with gaps; minor legal inaccuracies; superficial treatment of challenges or overemphasis on one aspect	Confuses public charitable trusts with Section 8 companies or societies; factually incorrect about legal framework; vague, generic content without sectoral specificity
Structure & flow	20%	2	Compact 150-word structure with clear thematic progression; seamless transitions between sectors; integrated critical perspective throughout rather than isolated conclusion	Logical but predictable structure; some abrupt transitions; critical points tacked at end rather than woven through	Disorganized or rambling; no clear thematic grouping; exceeds word limit significantly or severely underwrites; conclusion missing or repetitive
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Deploys 2-3 specific, current Indian examples (e.g., Tata Trusts' nutrition initiatives, Aravind Eye Care's cataract surgeries, Azim Premji Foundation's education work) with clear linkage to inclusion	Mentions generic examples without specificity (e.g., 'some trusts work in education') or uses outdated/international examples without Indian relevance	No examples at all; or irrelevant examples (foreign trusts without Indian adaptation); examples misidentified or misattributed
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Synthesizes into forward-looking insight: suggests how trusts can be better integrated with SDGs/SDG localization, or proposes regulatory reforms (CSR convergence, Social Stock Exchange listing) for amplified inclusive impact	Generic conclusion restating main points; or abrupt ending without synthesis; limited forward-looking element	No conclusion; or purely descriptive summary; conclusion contradicts body; completely misses the 'inclusive development' framing

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 →