(a) How has Rawls enriched the idea of justice in liberalism? 20

(b) Examine the importance of behavioural approach in political theory. What led to its decline? 15

(c) Can there be universal conception of human rights? Give your arguments. 15

Question

(a) How has Rawls enriched the idea of justice in liberalism? 20

(b) Examine the importance of behavioural approach in political theory. What led to its decline? 15

(c) Can there be universal conception of human rights? Give your arguments. 15

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'examine' requires critical investigation with balanced analysis. For part (a) 'How', explain Rawls's enrichment of liberal justice through original position, veil of ignorance, and difference principle. For part (b), examine behaviouralism's importance (quantification, value-neutrality, systematization) and its decline (post-behavioural critique, Almond's shift, normative revival). For part (c), present arguments for and against universal human rights, citing cultural relativism vs. cosmopolitanism. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to (a) given 20 marks, 30% each to (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → three distinct sections with sub-headings → synthesized conclusion on evolving nature of political theory.
- (a) Rawls's original position and veil of ignorance as methodological innovation; two principles of justice including difference principle; shift from utilitarianism to rights-based liberalism; Political Liberalism's response to communitarian critique
- (a) Distinction between comprehensive and political liberalism; overlapping consensus; public reason; contrast with Nozick's libertarianism and Dworkin's equality of resources
- (b) Behaviouralism's importance: Easton's systems theory, Almond's structural-functionalism, value-neutrality, empirical verification, cross-national comparison; scientific aspiration
- (b) Reasons for decline: post-behaviouralism's normative turn, Almond and Powell's critique, inability to predict (Vietnam War, political violence), behavioural fallacy, resurgence of political philosophy (Rawls, Nozick)
- (c) Arguments for universalism: natural law tradition, UN Declaration 1948, Amartya Sen's capability approach, cosmopolitan democracy (Held), India's constitutional commitment to universal rights
- (c) Arguments against: cultural relativism (Donnelly), Asian values debate (Lee Kuan Yew, Mahathir), post-colonial critique (Chatterjee, Spivak), right to development vs. civil-political rights hierarchy, indigenous rights specificity

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a), 'how' is addressed through systematic tracing of Rawls's contributions; for (b), 'examine' produces balanced assessment of importance AND decline; for (c), 'can there be' generates structured pro-con argumentation rather than assertion	Addresses directives superficially—lists Rawls's ideas without showing enrichment, describes behaviouralism without examining decline, asserts position on universalism without balanced argumentation	Misreads directives—describes instead of examining, ignores 'how' or 'what led to its decline', presents opinion without 'give your arguments' structure
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Demonstrates command across all three domains: Rawlsian technical concepts (maximin, primary goods, public reason), behaviouralism's epistemological foundations and specific critics, human rights theoretical debates with Indian constitutional jurisprudence	Covers basic concepts accurately but lacks depth—mentions veil of ignorance without explaining maximin rule, names behaviouralism without Easton/Almond specificity, cites UDHR without theoretical grounding	Significant factual errors—confuses Rawls with Nozick, conflates behaviouralism with behaviourism (psychology), misrepresents human rights as purely Western imposition without nuance
Structure & flow	20%	10	Clear tripartite structure with proportional allocation; effective transitions between Rawls's normative theory, empirical behaviouralism, and rights discourse; integrated conclusion showing evolution from behavioural 'science' to Rawlsian 'philosophy' to contested universalism	Three parts present but unbalanced—overlong on Rawls, rushed on behaviouralism; mechanical listing without thematic connections; weak or absent conclusion	Disorganized—mixes parts randomly, no paragraph coherence, abrupt endings to sections, missing introduction or conclusion
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	For (a): contrasts with Hayek, Friedman, Dworkin; for (b): cites specific studies (Almond-Verba Civic Culture, Michigan voting studies), post-behavioural manifesto; for (c): Indian SC cases (Navtej Singh Johar, Puttaswamy), Asian values documentation, Sen vs. Huntington debate	Generic references—mentions 'social contract' without specificity, 'surveys' without examples, 'cultural differences' without cases; Indian examples absent or tokenistic	No concrete examples; relies entirely on textbook generalizations; irrelevant examples (e.g., Marx for Rawls, psychoanalysis for behaviouralism)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesizes three parts into coherent thesis: Rawls rescued liberalism from behaviouralism's limitations, yet his own universalism faces same critique of parochialism; suggests pluralist universalism or overlapping consensus applied to rights; self-critical note on examiner's own positionality	Summarizes main points without synthesis; predictable conclusion that 'all approaches have merits'; no critical self-reflection	No conclusion or purely repetitive; introduces new arguments in conclusion; dogmatic assertion without justification; completely misses thematic connections between three parts

(a) How has Rawls enriched the idea of justice in liberalism? 20 (b) Examine the importance of behavioural approach in political…

Directive word: Examine

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Political Science & IR 2021 Paper I