General Studies 2025 GS Paper I 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Comment

Q19

Achieving sustainable growth with emphasis on environmental protection could come into conflict with poor people's needs in a country like India – Comment. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

पर्यावरण संरक्षण पर जोर देते हुए सतत विकास हासिल करना, भारत जैसे देश में गरीब लोगों की जरूरतों के साथ टकराव में आ सकता है – टिप्पणी कीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए) 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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. The answer should open with a nuanced stance acknowledging the tension, then examine both sides—how environmental regulations may restrict poor people's livelihoods versus how environmental degradation disproportionately harms the poor—before offering a synthesis on inclusive sustainable development.

Key points expected

Recognition that the poor depend directly on natural resources (forests, fisheries, common lands) for subsistence and income
Analysis of how strict environmental regulations (mining bans, forest conservation, pollution controls) can displace informal sector workers and tribals
Counter-argument that environmental degradation (air/water pollution, climate change) disproportionately impacts poor communities
Reference to India's constitutional and policy framework: FRs (Article 21, 29), FRA 2006, MGNREGA, SDG 1 & 13 integration
Synthesis through concepts like 'green growth,' 'just transition,' or 'inclusive sustainable development' with specific Indian initiatives
Balanced conclusion rejecting false binary—environmental protection as poverty enabler when implemented with equity safeguards

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Establishes a clear, nuanced position upfront—acknowledges tension as real but not inevitable; maintains analytical balance throughout without collapsing into one-sided advocacy for growth or environment	Takes a position but leans heavily toward one side (either 'environment hurts poor' or 'poor need environment'); treats 'comment' as simple opinion without structured analysis	Misreads directive as 'discuss' or 'explain'; provides purely descriptive account without evaluative stance; or presents contradictory positions without resolution
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Demonstrates sophisticated grasp of multidimensional poverty-environment linkages: immediate livelihood constraints vs. long-term vulnerability; references specific sectors (agriculture, informal mining, fishing) and regional variations accurately	Covers basic tension (jobs vs. pollution) but misses structural dimensions; generic references to 'tribals' or 'farmers' without specificity; conflates sustainable growth with environmental protection	Factual errors (e.g., misstating FRA provisions); confuses sustainable growth with GDP growth; ignores Indian context entirely; or presents environment-poverty as zero-sum without nuance
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear thesis-antithesis-synthesis arc: introduces paradox, examines both sides with dedicated paragraphs, transitions smoothly to integrated solution; 250 words optimally distributed (40-120-60 approx)	Recognizable structure but uneven weightage—one side overdeveloped; or abrupt shift to conclusion without proper transition; some paragraph unity issues	Stream-of-consciousness or bullet-point dump without logical progression; no clear separation between conflict analysis and resolution; conclusion missing or tacked on
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Deploys 2-3 precise, current examples: e.g., Goa mining ban impacts on truckers; Sundarbans climate displacement; Chhattisgarh Hasdeo Aranya coal vs. Adivasi rights; cites specific schemes (PM-KUSUM, National Action Plan on Climate Change)	One solid example with vague second reference; or generic 'Chipko movement' without relevance to contemporary tension; examples mentioned but not analytically deployed	No Indian examples; irrelevant foreign cases (Amazon deforestation without Indian parallel); or invented statistics; examples contradict the argument made
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes through original framing—e.g., 'environmental protection is pro-poor when procedural rights are guaranteed'; offers concrete mechanism (participatory EIA, green MGNREGA, climate budgeting); leaves examiner with memorable insight	Safe, generic conclusion ('balance is needed'); or restates introduction without advancement; mentions SDGs without operationalizing for India	No conclusion; or abrupt call for 'awareness' and 'cooperation'; conclusion contradicts body; purely normative without analytical content

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 →