Comment on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Feminist critique of the State (b) Affirmative action (c)…

Comment on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Feminist critique of the State (b) Affirmative action (c) Equality of outcome as a political idea (d) Tools of legitimation of the State (e) J. S. Mill's ideas on women suffrage

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक पर लगभग 150 शब्दों में टिप्पणी कीजिए : 10×5=50 (a) राज्य की नारीवादी आलोचना (b) स्वीकारात्मक कार्यवाही (c) राजनीतिक विचार के रूप में परिणाम की समानता (d) राज्य की वैधता के उपकरण (e) महिला मताधिकार पर जे एस मिल के विचार

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' requires balanced critical observation with evaluative insight across all five sub-parts. Allocate approximately 30 words (20% time) per sub-part, opening with a crisp definitional anchor, followed by 2-3 analytical points, and closing with a critical observation. No formal introduction or conclusion is needed; maintain parallel structure across (a)-(e) to demonstrate systematic coverage.

Key points expected

(a) Feminist critique of the State: State as patriarchal institution; distinction between liberal (equality within existing structures) and radical feminist (state as inherently oppressive) positions; reference to Pateman or MacKinnon on how state legitimizes private patriarchy through public neutrality
(b) Affirmative action: Concept as compensatory justice vs. equality of opportunity; Rawlsian difference principle connection; Indian constitutional framework (Articles 15(4), 16(4), 335) with specific mention of creamy layer or Indra Sawhney judgment
(c) Equality of outcome: Contrast with equality of opportunity; Marxist and social democratic traditions; Sen's capability approach as mediating framework; critique regarding meritocracy and incentive structures
(d) Tools of legitimation: Weberian typology (traditional, charismatic, legal-rational); Habermas on legitimation crisis; contemporary instruments including welfare provision, nationalism, and democratic proceduralism
(e) J.S. Mill on women suffrage: Subjection of Women (1869) arguments against 'separate spheres'; utilitarian basis for equal rights; tension with his parliamentary pragmatism; influence on later suffrage movements

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	Demonstrates precise grasp that 'comment' requires evaluative observation, not mere description; for (a) offers critical assessment of feminist positions rather than listing; for (c) weighs outcome vs. opportunity tensions; for (e) contextualizes Mill's radicalism within Victorian constraints	Treats 'comment' as synonymous with 'describe' or 'explain'; provides accurate information but lacks evaluative edge; covers all five parts without critical distance	Misreads directive as demanding lengthy exposition or argumentation; spends disproportionate space on one sub-part; confuses 'comment' with 'critically examine' leading to unbalanced treatment
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Displays command of theoretical nuance: distinguishes liberal/radical feminism in (a); cites constitutional articles precisely in (b); differentiates equality of outcome from opportunity with philosophical grounding in (c); integrates Weber and Habermas in (d); correctly dates Subjection of Women and identifies Harriet Taylor's influence in (e)	Covers basic concepts accurately but with theoretical imprecision; conflates feminist traditions or misattributes Mill's arguments; constitutional references generic without specific articles or judgments	Factual errors: confuses equality of outcome with formal equality; attributes suffrage arguments to Mill's On Liberty; misidentifies legitimation tools; demonstrates significant gaps in political theory foundation
Structure & flow	20%	10	Maintains consistent micro-structure across all five parts: definitional anchor → 2-3 analytical points → critical observation; clear visual separation between (a)-(e); disciplined word economy (~30 words each) enabling complete coverage	Uneven treatment with some parts over-developed; readable but inconsistent internal organization; occasional paragraphs bleeding across sub-parts without clear demarcation	Disproportionate allocation (e.g., 80 words on (a), 10 on (e)); rambling structure without identifiable components; failure to label sub-parts clearly; incomplete coverage with one or more parts missing or severely truncated
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	Strategic deployment of UPSC-relevant specifics: for (b) cites Indra Sawhney (1992) on creamy layer or Article 16(4); for (d) references contemporary Indian welfare schemes as legitimation instruments; for (e) notes 1918 UK Representation of the People Act or Mill's 1867 parliamentary speech; theoretical thinkers named precisely (Pateman, Rawls, Sen, Weber)	Generic references to Indian Constitution or vague allusions to 'various judgments'; theoretical names mentioned without specific contribution identified; examples present but not tightly integrated	No examples, case-law, or data; or irrelevant examples (unrelated social movements, incorrect historical references); complete absence of Indian constitutional/judicial framework where explicitly relevant
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Each sub-part closes with penetrating observation: for (a) notes contemporary relevance in #MeToo era state accountability; for (c) suggests capability approach as synthesis; for (d) identifies democratic backsliding as legitimation crisis; demonstrates interconnected thinking across parts (e.g., Mill's suffrage argument as precursor to feminist state critique)	Functional closures without analytical depth; restates main point rather than extending insight; parts treated as isolated silos without cross-referencing	Abrupt endings or missing closures; purely descriptive terminations; or forced grand conclusion attempting to unify disparate parts artificially

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 →