Philosophy 2023 Paper II 50 marks Elucidate

Q2

(a) Elucidate why the absolute nature of sovereignty was rejected by Laski. (20 marks) (b) Do you agree that duty and accountability must be given priority over rights for the better functioning of a State? Justify your answer. (15 marks) (c) In the present scenario, will the emphasis on skill education enhance development? Evaluate. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) लास्की ने सम्प्रभुता के निरपेक्ष स्वरूप को क्यों अस्वीकार किया ? व्याख्या कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) क्या आप सहमत हैं कि राज्य के बेहतर कामकाज के लिए कर्तव्य और जवाबदेही को अधिकारों पर प्राथमिकता दी जानी चाहिए ? अपने उत्तर के लिए तर्क दीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) वर्तमान परिदृश्य में, क्या कौशल आधारित शिक्षा विकास की गति में वृद्धि करेगी ? मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Elucidate

This question asks you to elucidate. 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 'elucidate' for part (a) demands clear, detailed explanation with examples; parts (b) and (c) require 'justify' and 'evaluate' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief unified introduction → systematic treatment of (a) with Laski's pluralist critique, (b) with balanced argument on rights-duties, (c) with critical assessment of skill education → integrated conclusion linking all three to contemporary governance challenges.

Key points expected

Part (a): Laski's rejection of Austinian/Bodinian absolute sovereignty—pluralist theory, sovereignty residing in multiple associations, functional distribution of power, criticism of monistic state theory
Part (a): Laski's arguments—state as association among associations, federalism, economic pluralism, individual as member of overlapping groups limiting state absolutism
Part (b): Analysis of rights-duties relationship—constitutional morality (Ambedkar), Gandhian trusteeship, social contract tradition vs. welfare state imperatives
Part (b): Justification with examples—fundamental duties (Article 51A), RTI and accountability mechanisms, COVID-19 pandemic showing duty-rights balance
Part (c): Skill education evaluation—NEP 2020, Skill India Mission, demographic dividend, critique of vocationalization without liberal education
Part (c): Development critique—Amartya Sen's capability approach, skill-education vs. jobless growth, informal sector realities, need for holistic human development

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	For (a), accurately distinguishes Laski's pluralism from Austin's command theory and Bodin's indivisible sovereignty; for (b), correctly interprets rights as claim-rights (Hohfeld) and duties as correlatives; for (c), precisely defines skill education (vocational training, competency-based) and distinguishes human development from economic growth	Basic understanding of sovereignty pluralism and rights-duties tension but conflates Laski with other pluralists (Figgis, Cole) or presents rights-duties as zero-sum; vague treatment of skill education	Misidentifies Laski as absolutist, confuses rights with privileges, or treats skill education synonymously with technical education without conceptual clarity
Argument structure	20%	10	Each sub-part follows distinct logical architecture: (a) thesis (absolute sovereignty) → antithesis (Laski's critique) → synthesis (contemporary relevance); (b) dialectical presentation with thesis-antithesis-synthesis; (c) thesis-driven evaluation with criteria-based judgment; smooth transitions between parts maintaining thematic unity around limited state and citizen empowerment	Adequate structure per part but parts feel disconnected; some imbalance with (a) overdeveloped at expense of (b) or (c); conclusion merely summarizes without integration	Rambling or bullet-point style without sustained argument; parts answered as isolated fragments; no discernible introduction or conclusion; severe imbalance (e.g., 70% on one part)
Schools / thinkers cited	20%	10	For (a): Laski's 'Grammar of Politics,' 'Studies in Law and Politics,' contrast with Austin, Bodin, Hobbes; for (b): Gandhi (trusteeship), Ambedkar (constitutional morality), Rawls (priority of liberty), Dworkin (rights as trumps), Swaraj Bhargava (democratic citizenship); for (c): Amartya Sen (capability approach), Martha Nussbaum, Dreze-Sen on education and development, NEP 2020 committee	Names Laski and mentions pluralism; cites Gandhi or Ambedkar for (b); references Skill India or NEP for (c) without deeper theoretical anchoring; some thinkers misattributed	No specific texts or thinkers; generic references like 'some philosophers say'; confuses Laski with Lassalle or other names; anachronistic citations
Counter-position handling	20%	10	For (a): Acknowledges strengths of absolute sovereignty (emergency powers, Kelsen's pure theory, Schmitt's decisionism) before showing Laski's superior fit for complex societies; for (b): Presents strong case for rights priority (liberal constitutionalism, minority protection) before defending qualified duty-priority; for (c): Seriously considers human capital critique (skill-biased technological change, credentialism) and liberal education defense before balanced evaluation	Brief nod to opposing views without substantive engagement; straw-man presentation of counter-positions; conclusion asserts balance without demonstrating it	One-sided advocacy without any counter-position; or lists opposing views only to dismiss them perfunctorily; no dialectical movement in argument
Conclusion & coherence	20%	10	Synthesizes all three parts into coherent vision: Laski's pluralist sovereignty enables participatory democracy where rights-duties balance and skill education serves human flourishing; connects to contemporary Indian governance (cooperative federalism, fundamental duties jurisprudence, NEP implementation); ends with forward-looking insight on democratic citizenship in knowledge economy	Separate conclusions for each part without cross-referencing; or generic conclusion on 'need for balance'; some attempt at unity but forced or superficial	No conclusion; or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body; complete failure to relate three parts despite their thematic interconnection on state-citizen-education nexus

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 →