Philosophy 2021 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q3

(a) Discuss anarchism as a political ideology. Is it possible to dispense with political authority completely? Give reasons for your answer. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the distinctive features of Gandhian Socialism and its contemporary relevance. (15 marks) (c) Discuss Kautilya's contribution regarding the concept of sovereignty. Is it applicable in a democratic form of government? Explain. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) एक राजनीतिक विचारधारा के रूप में अराजकतावाद की विवेचना कीजिए । क्या इससे राजनीतिक सत्ता का पूर्णतः निराकरण सम्भव है ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क दीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) गांधी के समाजवाद की मुख्य विशेषताओं और इसकी समकालीन प्रासंगिकता की विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) संप्रभुता की अवधारणा के सम्बन्ध में कौटिल्य के योगदान की विवेचना कीजिए । क्या यह प्रजातांत्रिक शासन व्यवस्था में प्रयोज्य है ? व्याख्या कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' requires a comprehensive, balanced treatment of all three sub-parts with critical engagement. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then dedicated sections for each sub-part maintaining internal coherence, followed by an integrated conclusion that draws thematic connections across anarchism, Gandhian socialism, and Kautilyan sovereignty.

Key points expected

For (a): Definition of anarchism as anti-statist ideology; varieties (individualist vs. collectivist anarchism—Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin); evaluation of whether political authority can be completely eliminated with reasons (human nature arguments, spontaneous order, historical evidence)
For (b): Distinctive features of Gandhian Socialism—trusteeship, Sarvodaya, decentralization, village swaraj, opposition to state violence; contemporary relevance in context of sustainable development, Gram Swaraj Abhiyan, and critiques of neoliberal globalization
For (c): Kautilya's concept of sovereignty—practical sovereignty (de facto power) vs. ethical/dharmic legitimacy; Matsyanyaya metaphor; seven elements of state; applicability to democracy through separation of powers, rule of law, and limited government parallels
Critical synthesis across parts: tension between anarchist rejection of authority and Kautilyan statism mediated by Gandhian middle path; sovereignty as responsibility vs. power
Contemporary Indian applications: Naxalism debate for (a); Amul/SEWA models for (b); constitutional morality and emergency provisions for (c)

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise definitions across all sub-parts: distinguishes anarchism from mere chaos; correctly identifies Gandhian trusteeship as distinct from Marxian socialism; accurately interprets Kautilya's dual sovereignty (pratipadika and dharmic) without conflating with Western absolutism; no factual errors on Arthashastra dating or Gandhi's Hind Swaraj	Generally accurate definitions but conflates anarchism with violence/terrorism, or treats Gandhian socialism as identical to Nehruvian socialism, or misreads Kautilya as purely Machiavellian; minor conceptual blurring between sovereignty and government	Fundamental misconceptions: anarchism equated with disorder, Gandhi reduced to non-violence without economic vision, Kautilya presented as totalitarian; significant historical or philosophical inaccuracies
Argument structure	20%	10	Clear tripartite structure with proportional development; for (a) presents thesis-antithesis-synthesis on dispensability of authority; for (b) systematically links features to contemporary relevance; for (c) builds logical bridge from Kautilyan analysis to democratic application; smooth transitions between parts	Recognizable structure but uneven development—either over-expanding (a) at expense of (c), or treating all parts equally despite mark weighting; arguments present but not always logically sequenced; some abrupt transitions	Disorganized or fragmented response; parts treated as isolated mini-essays without connecting thread; illogical sequencing; failure to address second interrogative in (a) or (c); conclusion missing or purely repetitive
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	Rich citation appropriate to each part: for (a)—Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, and contemporary anarchists like Noam Chomsky; for (b)—Gandhi's Hind Swaraj and Constructive Programme, Kumarappa, Vinoba Bhave; for (c)—Kautilya's Arthashastra with specific references to Shanti Parva parallels, R.P. Kangle's interpretation, and comparative mention of Bodin/Hobbes	Some thinker names present but limited depth: mentions Bakunin and Gandhi without textual specificity; Kautilya cited without Arthashastra reference; or relies on secondary sources/general knowledge without direct engagement	Minimal or no thinker citation; generic references ('some philosophers say'); anachronistic attribution; confusion between thinkers (e.g., Bakunin vs. Marx on authority); Kautilya omitted entirely
Counter-position handling	20%	10	Sophisticated engagement with opposition: for (a)—Hobbesian/Leviathan critique of state of nature, Weber's monopoly of legitimate violence, contemporary anarcho-capitalist vs. anarcho-communist debate; for (b)—critiques from Ambedkar (village republics as sink of localism), Marxist critique of utopianism; for (c)—democratic theorists' objection to Kautilyan secrecy and raison d'état, plus defense through constitutional morality	Acknowledges some counter-positions but treatment superficial: mentions Hobbes vs. anarchism without elaboration; notes Gandhi's critics without engaging their arguments; or presents Kautilya uncritically without democratic tension	One-sided presentation without counter-arguments; strawman treatment of opposing views; or complete absence of critical tension—purely descriptive across all parts
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Integrated conclusion synthesizing all three parts: identifies dialectic between anarchist freedom, Gandhian ethical restraint, and Kautilyan order; proposes nuanced position on authority as neither eliminable nor absolute but accountable; contemporary relevance drawn together (e.g., AAP's swaraj experiments, digital decentralization, constitutional safeguards); memorable final formulation	Separate conclusions for each part without synthesis, or generic summary statement ('all three thinkers are relevant today'); some attempt at integration but forced or superficial; conclusion merely restates introduction	No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body arguments; complete failure to address contemporary relevance where demanded; word limit exhaustion mid-sentence

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 →