Philosophy 2021 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q4

(a) Discuss the views of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar regarding caste-discrimination in Indian society. What are the measures suggested by him for its elimination? Explain. (20 marks) (b) What are the main causes of female foeticide in India? Is it the result of demonic application of technology only? Discuss. (15 marks) (c) Evaluate whether the social contract theory adequately addresses the different issues of human rights. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारतीय समाज में जाति-भेद से सम्बन्धित डॉ. बी.आर. अम्बेडकर के विचारों की विवेचना कीजिए । इसके निराकरण के लिए उनके द्वारा सुझाए गए उपाय क्या हैं ? व्याख्या कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) भारत में महिला भ्रूणहत्या के मुख्य कारण क्या हैं ? क्या यह केवल प्रौद्योगिकी के आसुरी प्रयोग का परिणाम है ? विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) क्या सामाजिक संविदा का सिद्धान्त मानवीय अधिकारों के विभिन्न मुद्दों को पर्याप्त रूप से सम्बोधित करता है ? मूल्यांकन 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 time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief unified introduction, then dedicated sections for each sub-part with clear internal headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects Ambedkar's social justice concerns to contemporary human rights discourse.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Ambedkar's critique of caste as graded inequality (not merely division of labour but division of labourers); his rejection of Hindu social order; Annihilation of Caste thesis; conversion to Buddhism as spiritual-democratic alternative
  • Part (a): Measures—constitutional safeguards (reservations, fundamental rights), economic restructuring, inter-caste marriage, destruction of caste consciousness through education and legal abolition of untouchability
  • Part (b): Multi-causal analysis—patriarchal son-preference, dowry system, property inheritance patterns, weak enforcement of PCPNDT Act; critique of technological determinism (ultrasound misuse as symptom, not root cause)
  • Part (b): Ethical evaluation of technology—Amartya Sen's 'missing women' data, Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach to female deprivation; state and civil society responses
  • Part (c): Social contract theory's limitations—Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau's exclusion of women, slaves, colonized; Rawls' original position as corrective; critique by feminists (Okin, Pateman) and post-colonial thinkers
  • Part (c): Alternative frameworks—natural rights theory, human capabilities approach, cosmopolitan justice; whether social contract can be revised to accommodate group-differentiated rights and cultural minorities

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines Ambedkar's 'graded inequality' versus Marx's class struggle; accurately distinguishes sex-selective abortion from infanticide; correctly identifies social contract as hypothetical construct vs. historical reality; no conflation of negative and positive rightsBasic understanding of Ambedkar's anti-caste stance and social contract basics; some confusion between Rawls' and Rousseau's versions; treats technology in part (b) superficially without distinguishing tool from social contextMisrepresents Ambedkar as solely constitutionalist ignoring his religious conversion; conflates social contract with actual historical events; describes female foeticide only as legal violation without ethical analysis
Argument structure20%10Clear tripartite organization with proportional development; each part has internal thesis-antithesis-synthesis movement; smooth transitions between historical analysis (a), socio-technical critique (b), and normative evaluation (c); integrated conclusionAll three parts addressed but uneven development; part (a) may dominate; some logical gaps between causes in (b) and solutions implied; conclusion merely summarizes without synthesisMissing one sub-part or severely underdeveloped; confused chronology in Ambedkar discussion; part (b) answers only first question ignoring 'demonic technology' provocation; part (c) descriptive rather than evaluative
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For (a): cites Annihilation of Caste, Buddha and His Dhamma, Thoughts on Linguistic States; for (b): deploys Sen's '100 million missing women', Bumiller's May You Be the Mother of a Hundred Sons; for (c): contrasts Hobbesian absolutism, Lockean property-rights, Rousseau's general will, Rawls' justice as fairness, Okin's feminist critiqueNames Ambedkar and basic social contract theorists; may mention PCPNDT Act without connecting to specific thinker; limited engagement with secondary literature or contemporary interpretersNo primary texts referenced; confuses thinkers (e.g., attributes social contract to Bentham); omits Rawls entirely in part (c); no Indian feminist or legal scholar mentioned in part (b)
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): engages Gandhi's varnashrama defence and Ambedkar's rebuttal; for (b): considers techno-optimist view (technology as empowering if regulated) vs. determinist critique; for (c): presents communitarian critique of social contract (Sandel, MacIntyre) and whether human rights require pre-contractual groundingAcknowledges opposing views superficially; mentions Gandhi-Ambedkar debate without depth; notes that technology is neutral but doesn't develop the argument; recognizes social contract exclusions without systematic critiqueOne-sided presentation; ignores Gandhi's critique of Ambedkar's conversion; treats 'demonic technology' question as purely rhetorical; no recognition of social contract's historical exclusions or contemporary defenders' responses
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent thesis: Ambedkar's substantive equality project requires moving beyond formal rights (part c critique) through transformative social measures (part a methods) applied to gendered violence (part b); connects to contemporary India—manual scavenging prohibition, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, rights-based jurisprudenceSeparate conclusions for each part without unifying thread; some attempt to link social justice themes but lacks theoretical integration; contemporary relevance stated but not developedAbrupt ending or missing conclusion; no connection between sub-parts; fails to address how Ambedkar's approach might inform responses to female foeticide or rights-based constitutionalism; no contemporary policy reference

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 →

More from Philosophy 2021 Paper II