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

Q8

Civil Society Organizations are often perceived as being anti-State actors than non-State actors. Do you agree? Justify. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

नागरिक समाज संगठनों को गैर-राज्य अभिनेता की तुलना में प्रायः राज्य-विरोधी अभिनेता माना जाता है। क्या आप सहमत हैं? औचित्य सिद्ध कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

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

Directive word: Justify

This question asks you to justify. 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 'justify' demands a reasoned argument with evidence rather than mere description. Structure as: brief conceptual clarification of CSOs as non-State actors → balanced examination of why anti-State perception exists (criticism, confrontation) → counter-arguments showing complementary/constructive roles → nuanced conclusion on the duality of relationship.

Key points expected

Define CSOs as non-State actors distinct from government, operating in public sphere for collective good
Explain anti-State perception: adversarial stance on rights (Narmada Bachao Andolan), anti-corruption movements (IAC), foreign funding suspicion (FCRA restrictions)
Counter with non-anti-State roles: service delivery (SEWA), policy partnership (PRS Legislative Research), disaster relief (Goonj), filling governance gaps
Analyze structural reasons for perception: media amplification of conflict, State insecurity with accountability demands, selective visibility of confrontational CSOs
Synthesize that anti-State label is reductionist; relationship is dialectical—cooperation and contestation coexist

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Explicitly engages with 'justify' by building a reasoned, evidence-based argument rather than merely describing; clearly addresses the tension between 'anti-State' and 'non-State' labels with analytical stance	Partially addresses the directive with some argumentation but drifts into description; conflates the two categories without clear analytical distinction	Misreads directive as 'describe' or 'explain'; treats question as purely definitional without argumentative justification
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of State-CSO relations: distinguishes between anti-State (oppositional) and non-State (independent) categories; references theoretical frameworks (Putnam's social capital, Gramsci's civil society) or constitutional position (Article 19)	Covers basic concepts accurately but lacks theoretical depth; presents one-sided view (only anti-State or only cooperative) without nuance	Factual errors (confusing CSOs with political parties); superficial treatment missing core conceptual distinction; irrelevant content on NGOs generally
Structure & flow	20%	2	Tight 150-word structure with clear thesis-antithesis-synthesis flow; each sentence advances argument; seamless transitions between perception, reality, and synthesis	Adequate structure but some redundancy or imbalance (overweight on examples, underweight on analysis); paragraph breaks may be unclear	Disorganized or fragmented; no clear argument thread; exceeds word limit significantly or severely underwrites; abrupt jumps between points
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Precise, contemporary Indian examples: anti-State perception illustrated by CAA protests or environmental litigation (T.N. Godavarman); non-anti-State roles by COVID-19 civil society response or RTE implementation; references specific legislation (FCRA 2010 amendments, Foreign Contribution Regulation Act)	Generic examples (MGNREGA, RTI) without specificity; international examples when Indian ones are more relevant; examples listed without clear linkage to argument	No examples or irrelevant ones; outdated references (Chipko movement without context); factually incorrect attributions
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Synthesizes to original insight: perception reflects State's defensive institutionalism or democratic deepening; suggests way forward (transparent funding norms, structured consultation mechanisms); avoids false binary	Balanced but predictable conclusion ('both views have merit'); no forward-looking element; restates points without synthesis	No conclusion or abrupt ending; takes extreme position (CSOs are entirely anti-State or never are); contradicts body of answer

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 →