Q1
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) "Corrupt practices reveal an inherent tension between particularistic and universalistic normative standards." Do you agree with this statement ? Give reasons and justification for your answer. (10 marks) (b) How does gender as a social construct affect individuals' opportunities, rights, and access to resources ? Critically discuss. (10 marks) (c) Is the idea of secularism necessarily related to the idea of religious pluralism ? Discuss. (10 marks) (d) Comment on Plato's critique of Democracy. (10 marks) (e) Discuss the salient features of equality according to J.S. Mill. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) "भ्रष्ट आचरण विशेष तथा सार्वभौमिक नियामक आदर्शमूलक मानकों के बीच एक अंतर्निहित विरोध को उजागर करता है।" क्या आप इस कथन से सहमत हैं ? अपने उत्तर के लिए तर्क तथा प्रमाण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) सामाजिक निर्मिति के रूप में लिंग (जेंडर) व्यक्तियों के अवसरों, अधिकारों, तथा संसाधनों तक उनकी पहुँच को किस प्रकार प्रभावित करता है ? समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) क्या धर्मनिरपेक्षता की अवधारणा अनिवार्य रूप से धार्मिक बहुलवाद की अवधारणा से जुड़ी हुई है ? विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) प्लेटो की प्रजातंत्र की समीक्षा पर टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) जे.एस. मिल के अनुसार समानता की मुख्य विशेषताओं का विवेचन कीजिए। (10 अंक)
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
This multi-part question requires balanced treatment across five 10-mark segments, with approximately 150 words per sub-part. For (a), begin with defining particularistic vs universalistic standards, then illustrate with corruption examples like nepotism vs rule of law; for (b), explain gender as performative (Butler) and structural (Beauvoir), linking to Indian realities like unequal inheritance or labour participation; for (c), distinguish secularism as separation vs accommodation, relating to Indian constitutional pluralism; for (d), present Plato's ship analogy and democratic man's critique, then briefly note contemporary relevance; for (e), contrast Mill's qualitative equality with Bentham, emphasizing his harm principle and gender equality advocacy. Each part needs a mini-conclusion within word limits.
Key points expected
- (a) Defines particularistic standards (loyalty to family/caste/community) vs universalistic standards (impartial rule of law, Kantian duty, Rawlsian justice); explains how corruption like bribery or nepotism embodies this tension; cites examples like Indian administrative reforms or Kautilya's Arthashastra on statecraft
- (b) Explains gender as social construct distinct from biological sex, drawing on Beauvoir's 'woman is made not born' or Butler's performativity; analyzes impact on opportunities (labour market segregation), rights (property, bodily autonomy), resources (education, healthcare) with Indian context like Maternity Benefit Act or patriarchal norms
- (c) Distinguishes secularism (state-religion separation) from religious pluralism (coexistence of multiple faiths); argues Indian secularism (Sarva Dharma Sambhava) integrates both while French laïcité may not; cites Rajeev Bhargava's principled distance or Charles Taylor's multiculturalism
- (d) Presents Plato's critique through Republic Books VIII-IX: democratic equality as numerical not proportional; democratic man as lacking hierarchy of goods; ship of state analogy; acknowledges limited contemporary validity while noting populism concerns
- (e) Distinguishes Mill's qualitative utilitarian equality from Bentham's quantitative approach; emphasizes higher pleasures, individuality, harm principle; notes his advocacy for women's suffrage and education in Subjection of Women; contrasts with socialist equality of outcome
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precisely defines particularistic/universalistic norms in (a), gender performativity vs biological essentialism in (b), principled distance vs separation in (c), Platonic epistocracy in (d), and qualitative hedonism in (e); no conflation of gender with sex or secularism with atheism | Basic definitions present but some imprecision—e.g., conflates gender construct with women's issues only, or treats secularism simplistically as anti-religious; Plato's critique described without ship analogy or democratic man | Fundamental misconceptions—e.g., treats corruption purely as legal violation ignoring normative tension, or confuses Mill with Bentham on equality; secularism described as majority rule |
| Argument structure | 20% | 10 | Each 150-word segment follows thesis-evidence-mini-conclusion pattern; (a) presents tension then resolves with institutional design; (b) moves from theory to structural impacts; (c) argues conditional relationship; (d) balances exposition with critical distance; (e) contrasts Mill with predecessors and contemporaries | Generally logical flow but some parts descriptive rather than argumentative—e.g., (c) lists features without establishing necessary/sufficient relationship; (e) enumerates features without showing how they cohere as theory of equality | Disorganized or list-like responses; no clear position on whether tension in (a) is inherent or resolvable; (b) becomes anecdotal without theoretical framing; parts lack internal conclusions |
| Schools / thinkers cited | 20% | 10 | (a) cites Walzer's spheres of justice or Kautilya; (b) deploys Beauvoir, Butler, or Indian feminists like Nivedita Menon; (c) references Bhargava, Taylor, or Madan; (d) grounds critique in Republic directly; (e) contrasts Mill with Bentham, Marx, or Green; minimum 3 thinkers across parts | Some thinker names mentioned but superficially—e.g., 'Plato said' without textual specificity, or 'feminists argue' without attribution; Indian philosophical context largely absent | No philosopher named, or significant errors—e.g., attributes gender performativity to Beauvoir, or attributes secularism critique to Mill; relies entirely on general knowledge without philosophical grounding |
| Counter-position handling | 20% | 10 | (a) considers whether corruption can be functional (Leff) or if particularism has moral weight (communitarianism); (b) acknowledges intersectionality critique of unified 'gender' category; (c) presents French republican or Hindu nationalist challenges to pluralist secularism; (d) notes Popper's defense or Dewey's reconstruction; (e) addresses Marxist critique of bourgeois equality | Brief nod to opposing views without development—e.g., 'some may disagree' without specifying who or why; or counter-position mentioned in one part only | Entirely one-sided presentation; no recognition that Plato's critique has been contested, or that secularism without pluralism is conceivable (Turkey under Kemalism); Mill presented uncritically |
| Conclusion & coherence | 20% | 10 | Each part concludes with synthesized judgment—e.g., (a) affirms tension as inherent but manageable through institutions; (b) links construct to transformative potential; (c) argues Indian model achieves integration; (d) acknowledges partial validity; (e) defends Mill's relevance for contemporary equality debates; cross-part thematic coherence on justice/equality | Conclusions present but generic—'thus we see' summaries without analytical closure; parts read as disconnected mini-essays without thematic links between corruption, gender, secularism, democracy, and equality | Abrupt endings without conclusion; or repetitive restatement of question; word limit violations in some parts causing imbalance; no sense of Philosophy Paper 2's thematic unity around social and political philosophy |
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 2025 Paper II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) "Corrupt practices reveal an inherent tension between particularistic and unive…
- Q2 (a) Present a detailed account of the debate between Gandhi and Ambedkar on the issue of caste discrimination. (20 marks) (b) Evaluate Marx…
- Q3 (a) Can one's right to life be absolute ? Answer with reference to the idea of Capital Punishment. (20 marks) (b) How does the reconciliati…
- Q4 (a) How are both equality and liberty inadequate as social and political ideals without justice ? Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Can Theocracy be…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss Cārvāka's critique of the belief in the existence of suprasensible enti…
- Q6 (a) Present an account of Design argument to prove the existence of God along with its criticism by David Hume. (20 marks) (b) Explain the…
- Q7 (a) How does the Vedantic view of Religious Pluralism address the conflicting truth claims of different faiths ? Answer with reference to S…
- Q8 (a) Evaluate the nature and object of Religious Experience as explained by Radhakrishnan in 'The Hindu View of Life'. (20 marks) (b) Is it…