Philosophy 2025 Paper II 50 marks Evaluate

Q2

(a) Present a detailed account of the debate between Gandhi and Ambedkar on the issue of caste discrimination. (20 marks) (b) Evaluate Marxism as a Political Ideology. (15 marks) (c) 'There is no permanent friend or permanent enemy.' Discuss this statement in the light of Kautilya's view on Sovereignty. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) जातिगत भेदभाव के विषय पर गांधी तथा अंबेडकर के बीच बहस का विस्तृत विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) राजनीतिक विचारधारा के रूप में मार्क्सवाद का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) कौटिल्य के संप्रभुता के सिद्धांत के आलोक में इस कथन की विवेचना कीजिए कि 'कोई भी स्थायी मित्र अथवा स्थायी शत्रु नहीं होता है।' (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Philosophy questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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 'evaluate' in (b) demands critical judgment with evidence, while (a) requires 'present' (descriptive exposition) and (c) requires 'discuss' (analytical exploration). Structure: Introduction framing Indian political thought's diversity → Body: 40% word budget (~400 words) for Gandhi-Ambedkar debate on caste (20 marks), 30% (~300 words) for Marxism evaluation with Indian applications (15 marks), 30% (~300 words) for Kautilya's Mandala theory and foreign policy realism (15 marks) → Conclusion synthesizing how these debates shape contemporary Indian polity.

Key points expected

  • (a) Gandhi's varnashrama dharma vs. Ambedkar's annihilation of caste: Poona Pact 1932, Round Table Conferences, Gandhi's Harijan campaign through 'Young India' vs. Ambedkar's 'Annihilation of Caste' (1936) and 'What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables'
  • (a) Philosophical roots: Gandhi's organic/trusteeship model vs. Ambedkar's liberal-constitutional individualism; Gandhi's religious-moral reform vs. Ambedkar's socio-political structural critique
  • (b) Marxism as political ideology: dialectical materialism, class struggle, withering away of state; evaluation through success (Soviet/Chinese revolutions) and failure (bureaucratic degeneration, ecological critique)
  • (b) Indian Marxist adaptations: M.N. Roy's 'radical humanism', CPI/CPI(M) parliamentary vs. revolutionary paths; relevance to caste-class intersection (Ambedkar-Marx debate)
  • (c) Kautilya's Arthashastra: Mandala theory (rajamandala), six-fold foreign policy (sandhi, vigraha, asana, etc.), shadgunya; 'no permanent friend/enemy' as pragmatic raison d'état
  • (c) Sovereignty in Kautilya: internal (danda) and external (diplomacy); comparison with Machiavelli's 'Prince' and modern realist IR theory (Morgenthau)
  • Synthesis: Continuities in Indian political thought—Gandhi-Ambedkar debate's constitutional resolution, Marxism's limited electoral success, Kautilya's enduring influence on Indian foreign policy non-alignment

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely distinguishes Gandhi's 'varna without caste' from Ambedkar's 'caste without varna'; accurately identifies Marxism's base-superstructure model and Kautilya's shadgunya; no conflation of Kautilya with Machiavelli beyond warranted comparisonsBasic definitions correct but blurs Gandhi-Ambedkar distinction into 'both opposed caste'; Marxism described without dialectical method; Kautilya reduced to 'Machiavelli of India' without textual specificsMisrepresents Gandhi as supporting caste hierarchy, Marxism as purely economic determinism, or Kautilya as advocating amoralism; factual errors on Poona Pact terms or Mandala structure
Argument structure20%10Clear tripartite organization with proportional development; for (a) chronological progression from 1930s debates to constitutional outcomes; for (b) thesis-antithesis-synthesis evaluation; for (c) theory-application to contemporary foreign policy; effective transitions between partsAll three parts present but uneven development—(a) over-detailed at expense of (b)-(c); or (b) becomes descriptive rather than evaluative; some repetition between Gandhi-Ambedkar and Marxism sections on classDisorganized amalgamation without part-labels; (a) lacks debate structure (only lists views); (b) mere description without evaluation; (c) ignores sovereignty dimension; missing or abrupt conclusion
Schools / thinkers cited20%10Primary texts cited: Gandhi's 'Young India'/'Harijan', Ambedkar's 'Annihilation of Caste'/'Waiting for a Visa', Marx's 'Communist Manifesto'/'Capital', Kautilya's 'Arthashastra' (specifically Book VII on foreign policy); secondary scholars like Parel, Zelliot, Omvedt, Boesche; Indian Marxists like M.N. Roy, A.R. DesaiThinkers named without textual specificity—'Gandhi believed' without source; Marxism discussed without distinguishing Marx from Lenin/Stalin; Kautilya mentioned without Arthashastra book references; no secondary scholarshipNo primary thinker citations; relies on textbook generalizations; confuses thinkers (e.g., attributes 'withering away of state' to Lenin rather than Marx/Engels); omits Kautilya entirely or substitutes generic 'ancient Indian thought'
Counter-position handling20%10For (a): presents Gandhi's defense of varna as functional division vs. Ambedkar's critique of graded inequality, then evaluates through constitutional history; for (b): addresses anarchist/critical theory critiques (Bakunin, Frankfurt School) and post-colonial critiques (Chatterjee's 'political society'); for (c): contrasts Kautilya's realism with idealist traditions (Ashoka's dhamma, Nehru's Panchsheel)Acknowledges opposing views superficially—notes Ambedkar criticized Gandhi without analyzing the philosophical stakes; Marxism's 'failures' listed without theoretical engagement; Kautilya contrasted with morality without specific alternative traditionsOne-sided presentation—eulogizes Gandhi or Ambedkar without engagement; Marxism uncritically celebrated or dismissed; Kautilya presented as uniquely Indian wisdom without critical examination of its ethical implications
Conclusion & coherence20%10Synthesizes three traditions into coherent thesis on Indian political thought's pluralism: constitutionalism resolving Gandhi-Ambedkar tension, Marxism's partial institutionalization, Kautilya's realism informing non-alignment; connects to contemporary relevance (reservation debates, left decline, multipolar foreign policy); returns to 'evaluate' directive with reasoned judgmentSummarizes each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on 'relevance today' without specific policy connections; no return to the evaluative task posed in (b)Missing or perfunctory conclusion ('thus we have discussed'); new arguments introduced in conclusion; contradicts earlier analysis; fails to address any of the three directive verbs (present, evaluate, discuss)

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