General Studies 2025 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Examine

Q7

e-governance projects have a built-in bias towards technology and back-end integration than user-centric designs. Examine. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

ई-गवर्नेंस परियोजनाओं में उपयोगकर्ता-केंद्रित डिजाइनों की तुलना में प्रौद्योगिकी और बैक-एंड एकीकरण के प्रति अंतर्निहित पूर्वाग्रह है। परीक्षण कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

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

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. 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 'examine' requires a critical investigation of the stated proposition about e-governance bias. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging the tension → body analyzing why technology/back-end dominates (infrastructure focus, vendor-driven models, metrics) and consequences for users → balanced view with counter-examples → conclusion on rebalancing strategies.

Key points expected

Recognition that 'examine' requires both presenting evidence for the bias AND critically probing its validity, not mere description
Analysis of structural factors: procurement systems favoring hardware/software over UX research, technical metrics (server uptime, data integration) over citizen satisfaction
Specific manifestations: complex interfaces, language barriers, digital literacy assumptions, lack of feedback loops in projects like early GSTN or CoWIN
Counter-evidence of user-centric shifts: UMANG app, MyGov, CSC 2.0, or state-level initiatives like Kerala's Akshaya centers
Root causes: technocratic project management, absence of service design thinking, weak institutionalized user testing
Way forward: participatory design, UX audits, local language integration, mobile-first approaches, outcome-based monitoring

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Correctly interprets 'examine' as critical investigation—probes the proposition's validity, weighs evidence on both sides, avoids treating the statement as absolute truth or falsehood	Partially understands 'examine'—presents arguments for the bias but misses critical evaluation or counter-evidence; tends toward one-sided description	Misreads directive as 'describe' or 'explain'—merely lists e-governance features without investigating the bias claim; or completely dismisses/accepts proposition without analysis
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Demonstrates nuanced understanding of why back-end integration dominates (legacy systems, interoperability mandates, vendor ecosystems) AND how this marginalizes user needs; mentions specific institutional mechanisms	Covers technology vs. user tension in general terms; mentions back-end integration and user experience but lacks specificity on causal mechanisms or institutional drivers	Superficial treatment—repeats generic statements about 'digital divide' without addressing the specific technology-back-end vs. user-design dynamic; factual errors about e-governance architecture
Structure & flow	20%	2	Logical progression: context → evidence of bias → underlying causes → counter-trends/rebalancing → synthesis; smooth transitions; 150-word discipline maintained with density	Recognizable structure but uneven—either over-weighted toward examples or causes, weak transitions, or minor word limit violations; conclusion feels abrupt	Disorganized—random listing of points, no clear argument thread, or severe structural imbalance (e.g., 100 words on examples, 20 on analysis); significantly over/under word limit
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Precise, contemporary Indian examples: specific project failures (early Aadhaar authentication UX, PMGDISHA implementation gaps) AND successes (UMANG's unified interface, Karnataka's Sakala integration); quantitative hint (e.g., CSC reach, mobile penetration)	Generic or dated examples (mentioning 'Common Services Centres' without specificity, or only citing Digital India mission broadly); international examples without Indian anchoring	No relevant examples, or incorrect/irrelevant ones (e.g., citing private sector apps like UPI without governance context); purely theoretical answer
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Synthesizes into actionable insight—proposes institutional fixes (UX cells in NIC, citizen charters with design standards, participatory budgeting for interface testing) or frames as governance paradigm shift; avoids mere summary	Restates main points in conclusion without advancing argument; offers generic 'need for balance' without specific mechanisms; or abrupt ending without closure	No conclusion, or purely descriptive closing; contradictory final position; platitudes ('technology should serve people') without analytical substance

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 →