General Studies 2025 GS Paper I 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Explain

Q8

How does smart city in India, address the issues of urban poverty and distributive justice ? (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत में स्मार्ट शहर, शहरी गरीबी और वितरणात्मक न्याय के मुद्दे को कैसे संबोधित करता है ? (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए) 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 General Studies questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' requires a clear exposition of mechanisms through which smart city interventions address urban poverty and distributive justice. Structure: brief introduction defining smart cities in Indian context → body explaining specific interventions (digital inclusion, service delivery, livelihood opportunities) with their poverty-reduction mechanisms → conclusion noting limitations or way forward.

Key points expected

Smart Cities Mission components: ICT-enabled governance, e-governance, integrated command and control centres for efficient service delivery
Digital inclusion initiatives: free Wi-Fi, Common Service Centres, digital literacy reducing information asymmetry for urban poor
Improved access to basic services: smart water meters, waste management, public transport (e.g., metro, BRTS) benefiting slum dwellers
Livelihood and skill development: smart city incubation centres, street vendor management, informal sector integration
Distributive justice mechanisms: participatory budgeting, citizen engagement platforms, grievance redressal systems
Critical acknowledgment: digital divide, exclusion of unauthorised settlements, need for inclusive planning

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Clearly interprets 'explain' by systematically unpacking causal mechanisms linking smart city features to poverty reduction and justice outcomes; distinguishes between direct and indirect benefits	Lists smart city features and poverty issues separately without establishing clear explanatory links between them	Misinterprets directive as description or evaluation; provides generic smart city information without addressing poverty/justice nexus
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately cites Smart Cities Mission (2015) components; explains specific poverty-reduction mechanisms (service accessibility, cost reduction, transparency); addresses distributive justice through Amartya Sen's capability approach or Rawlsian framework	Mentions general smart city features (sensors, apps) with superficial connection to poverty; conflates smart cities with general urban development	Factual errors about mission scope; confuses Smart Cities with AMRUT or HRIDAY; irrelevant content on rural poverty or foreign smart city models
Structure & flow	20%	2	Logical progression: context → service delivery mechanisms → livelihood/inclusion mechanisms → justice/democratic aspects → critical nuance; smooth transitions within 150-word constraint	Basic introduction-body-conclusion but uneven weightage; either over-detailed on technology or underdeveloped on poverty linkages	Disorganised points without thematic grouping; abrupt jumps between unrelated aspects; missing conclusion or introduction
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Specific Indian examples: Surat's smart slum networking, Pune's street vendor registration, Ahmedabad's slum rehabilitation with smart infrastructure, or data on 100 cities, ₹2 lakh crore investment; mentions SC/ST/SCM guidelines for inclusive planning	Vague reference to 'some cities' or generic international examples (Barcelona, Singapore) without Indian relevance	No examples; or incorrect examples (confusing with SEZs, industrial corridors); purely theoretical response
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Balanced critical insight: acknowledges digital divide, exclusion of unauthorised slums, need for 'smartness for all'; suggests complementary measures (housing rights, labour protection) beyond technology; ends with forward-looking synthesis	Generic positive conclusion about smart cities helping poor; or purely negative without constructive element; no analytical depth	Missing conclusion; abrupt ending; or contradictory final statement undermining earlier content; uncritical techno-optimism or pessimism

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 →