Philosophy 2024 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q4

(a) Discuss gender equality as a necessary condition to achieve empowerment of women. Also examine the role of women empowerment in curbing the menace of female foeticide. (10+10=20 marks) (b) What insights does the Arthaśāstra offer with regard to the concept of sovereignty? Does it have any relevance in the modern times? Critically discuss. (15 marks) (c) Discuss the role of ethical principles of tolerance and coexistence for the rise of multicultural societies. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) महिलाओं के सशक्तिकरण को उपलब्ध करने के लिए लैंगिक समानता की एक अनिवार्य शर्त के रूप में विवेचना कीजिए । स्त्री भ्रूणहत्या के खतरे की रोकथाम में महिला सशक्तिकरण की भूमिका का परीक्षण भी कीजिए । (10+10=20 अंक) (b) संप्रभुता की अवधारणा के संदर्भ में 'अर्थशास्त्र' क्या अंतर्दृष्टि प्रदान करता है ? क्या आधुनिक समय में उसकी कोई प्रासंगिकता है ? समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) बहुसांस्कृतिक समाजों के उत्थान के लिए सहिष्णुता तथा सहअस्तित्व के नैतिक सिद्धांतों की भूमिका की विवेचना कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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, analytical treatment with balanced exposition and 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: brief introduction framing the three themes; for (a) establish the gender equality-empowerment nexus then link to female foeticide with policy illustrations; for (b) explicate Kauṭilya's sovereignty concepts before assessing modern relevance; for (c) build the ethical argument for multiculturalism through tolerance and coexistence; conclude with integrative synthesis on justice and pluralism in contemporary India.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Gender equality as foundational to women's empowerment—distinguish formal equality (legal/political) from substantive equality (socio-economic); cite Amartya Sen's capability approach or Martha Nussbaum's central human capabilities
  • Part (a): Empowerment-foeticide linkage—how economic and educational empowerment reduces son preference; reference Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, PC-PNDT Act limitations, and states like Haryana/Punjab showing inverse correlation between female literacy and sex ratio
  • Part (b): Arthaśāstra sovereignty—Kauṭilya's seven prakṛtis (constituent elements of state), saptāṅga theory, rāja-dharma, and the instrumental view of dharma for state stability; distinction between de jure and de jure sovereignty
  • Part (b): Modern relevance—critique applicability to constitutional sovereignty vs. executive power; relevance for realpolitik in international relations, administrative ethics, and welfare state obligations; limitations regarding democratic legitimacy and human rights
  • Part (c): Tolerance and coexistence as ethical foundations—Charles Taylor's politics of recognition, Bhikhu Parekh's multiculturalism, or Gandhi's sarvodaya; distinction between mere toleration (passive) and active coexistence (mutual respect)
  • Part (c): Indian multiculturalism—constitutional values of fraternity (Article 51A), composite culture (Article 29-30), and challenges of majoritarianism; examples like Kerala's religious pluralism or Northeastern ethnic diversity

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely distinguishes gender equality from sameness vs. difference debates; accurately captures Kauṭilya's saptāṅga theory and prakṛtis without conflating with Manu; correctly identifies tolerance (passive endurance) vs. coexistence (active engagement) in multicultural theory; uses technical terms (lakṣaṇa, prakṛti, sarva-dharma-sama-bhāva) appropriatelyBasic understanding of empowerment and sovereignty concepts but conflates Arthaśāstra with dharmashastra traditions; treats tolerance and coexistence synonymously; generic treatment of gender equality without capability/substantive distinctionFundamental conceptual errors—misidentifies Arthaśāstra as religious text, confuses gender equality with identical treatment, or reduces multiculturalism to mere festival celebration without ethical depth
Argument structure20%10Clear tripartite organization with explicit transitions; for (a) demonstrates causal chain (equality → empowerment → foeticide reduction) with empirical backing; for (b) presents Kauṭilya's system first then layered critique; for (c) builds from individual ethics to societal structures; maintains thematic coherence across 50 marks without fragmentationAddresses all parts but with uneven development—strong on (a) but superficial on (b) or (c); some logical gaps in causal arguments; transitions between sub-parts abrupt or missingDisorganized response mixing all three parts incoherently; or severely imbalanced with one part dominating; missing logical connections between premises and conclusions within any section
Schools / thinkers cited20%10For (a): Sen/Nussbaum on capabilities, Mary Wollstonecraft or Indian feminists (Gayatri Spivak, Vandana Shiva); for (b): Kauṭilya with specific chapter references (Book I, VI), R.P. Kangle's critical edition, modern interpreters like Scharfe or Trautmann; for (c): Taylor, Parekh, Kymlicka, Gandhi, Nehru's 'unity in diversity'; demonstrates historiographical awarenessMentions some thinkers but without specificity—generic reference to 'feminists' or 'Kautilya said' without textual grounding; limited range across the three parts; misses Indian philosophical sources for multiculturalismNo philosopher cited or only names dropped without connection to argument; anachronistic attribution (e.g., attributing modern sovereignty theory to Kauṭilya); confused thinkers across traditions
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): addresses critique that empowerment alone insufficient without structural change (Patriarchy); for (b): presents critique of Kauṭilya's authoritarianism, realpolitik vs. constitutional morality (Kesavananda), and post-colonial readings; for (c): engages with multiculturalism critiques—Brian Barry's egalitarian critique, communalism risks, or French republican opposition; evaluates rather than merely listsAcknowledges opposing views superficially—mentions 'some critics say' without elaboration; or presents critique without response; uneven across parts with strong critique in one but missing in othersNo counter-arguments presented; one-sided advocacy for gender equality, Kauṭilyan statecraft, or multiculturalism without critical distance; or presents strawman arguments easily dismissed
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three seemingly disparate themes through underlying concept of justice—gender justice, political justice in sovereignty, and cultural justice; connects to contemporary Indian challenges (Nari Shakti, constitutional morality, pluralism under stress); forward-looking without being prescriptive; demonstrates how philosophical inquiry informs policySummarizes each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on 'need for balance'; or strong on one theme but disconnected from others; misses opportunity for philosophical synthesisAbrupt ending or missing conclusion; mere restatement of question; conclusion contradicts body arguments; or entirely ignores one sub-part in conclusion revealing structural failure

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 2024 Paper II