Answer the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) "The Constitution of India is a product of a historical process, rich…

Answer the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) "The Constitution of India is a product of a historical process, rich with constitutional antecedents." Comment. (b) "The Constitution makers faced the great task of forging a common national identity in the face of unparalleled social and cultural diversity in India." Comment. (c) Mention the founding principles that define India's Constitution. (d) Analyze the Marxist perspective of the nature of Indian National Movement. (e) Underline the significance of the first constitutional amendment.

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए : 10×5=50 (a) "भारत का संविधान एक ऐतिहासिक प्रक्रिया का परिणाम है, जो संवैधानिक पूर्ववृत्तों से समृद्ध है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (b) "संविधान निर्माताओं को भारत में अद्वितीय सामाजिक और सांस्कृतिक विविधता के समक्ष एकसमान राष्ट्रीय अस्मिता को स्थापित करने का असाधारण कार्य करना पड़ा।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (c) भारतीय संविधान को परिभाषित करने वाले मूल सिद्धांतों को उल्लिखित कीजिए। (d) भारतीय राष्ट्रीय आंदोलन की प्रकृति के मार्क्सवादी परिप्रेक्ष्य की विवेचना कीजिए। (e) प्रथम संवैधानिक संशोधन के महत्व को रेखांकित कीजिए।

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

This multi-part question requires balanced treatment across five sub-parts (10 marks each, ~150 words each). For (a) and (b), 'comment' demands analytical observation with historical context; for (c), 'mention' requires precise enumeration; for (d), 'analyze' needs theoretical application; for (e), 'underline' calls for focused significance. Allocate roughly equal time (~8-9 minutes per part), opening with a crisp one-line thesis for analytical parts and moving to structured bullet points for enumerative parts. Avoid lengthy introductions; prioritize content density and cross-part thematic coherence on constitutional evolution and national movement.

Key points expected

(a) Constitutional antecedents: cites Government of India Acts (1919, 1935), Indian Councils Acts, Morley-Minto/Montagu-Chelmsford reforms; notes Constituent Assembly's deliberate borrowing and adaptation, not mere imitation
(b) National identity forging: explains integration of princely states, linguistic reorganization debates, minority safeguards, and the 'assimilation vs. accommodation' tension in constitutional design
(c) Founding principles: lists sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy, republicanism, justice (social/economic/political), liberty, equality, fraternity; links to Preamble and Directive Principles
(d) Marxist perspective: applies R.P. Dutt/A.R. Desai analysis—bourgeois leadership, class collaboration, limited radicalism; contrasts with Subaltern Studies and Nationalist historiography
(e) First Amendment significance: explains Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions addition, Ninth Schedule creation (Shankari Prasad case context), and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	Demonstrates precise calibration across all five directives: for (a)-(b) offers analytical commentary with evaluative edge, not mere description; for (c) restricts to enumeration without over-elaboration; for (d) applies Marxist theoretical framework rigorously; for (e) focuses tightly on 'significance' rather than narrating the amendment	Treats all sub-parts with similar descriptive approach regardless of directive; either over-elaborates (c) or under-theorizes (d); misses the specific analytical demands of 'comment' and 'analyze'	Misidentifies directives (e.g., describes instead of commenting, explains instead of mentioning) or uses identical structure for all five parts; fails to distinguish between enumerative and analytical tasks
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Displays accurate chronological knowledge (1935 Act provisions, 1951 amendment specifics); correctly identifies Marxist theorists (Dutt, Desai, perhaps Kosambi); precise on constitutional articles and cases; no factual errors on princely states integration or Preamble principles	Broadly accurate but vague on specifics (e.g., 'British laws' instead of naming 1919/1935 Acts; 'some Marxist scholars' without naming); minor chronological confusion; conflates First Amendment with later amendments	Major factual errors (e.g., attributing First Amendment to Nehru Report, confusing Marxist with Liberal nationalist interpretation, misstating Preamble principles as 'fundamental duties'); significant gaps in constitutional history knowledge
Structure & flow	20%	10	Each 150-word segment is self-contained with micro-structure: (a)-(b) open with interpretative thesis, (c) uses categorized bullet points, (d) follows thesis-evidence-critique, (e) leads with significance statement; clear visual separation between parts; thematic links across parts (e.g., diversity in (b) connecting to principles in (c))	Readable but uniform structure across all parts; either all paragraph form or all bullets; weak transitions between parts; some parts exceed word limit while others under-develop	Unstructured narrative without part demarcation; stream-of-consciousness mixing across (a)-(e); severe imbalance (e.g., 200 words on (a), 50 on (e)); illegible or confusing organization
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	Rich specific illustrations: for (a)—Rowlatt Act, Simon Commission recommendations; for (b)—Nehru's 'unity in diversity', Patel's princely states integration; for (c)—Kesavananda Bharati citation on basic structure; for (d)—specific Dutt/Desai arguments on bourgeois betrayal; for (e)—Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, Romesh Thappar context	Generic references (e.g., 'British colonial laws', 'Marxist historians', 'Supreme Court cases') without naming; one or two parts lack specific exemplification; examples partially accurate	No case law, no named theorists, no specific acts cited; relies entirely on broad assertions; examples factually wrong (e.g., citing Golaknath for First Amendment significance)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Each part closes with evaluative synthesis: (a) assesses continuity vs. rupture in constitutional tradition; (b) judges success of identity-forging project; (c) reflects on living document status; (d) offers balanced critique of Marxist limitations; (e) evaluates long-term implications for judicial review; demonstrates independent historical-constitutional judgment	Descriptive summaries substituting for conclusions; no evaluative stance; repetitive restatement of points made; weak or absent synthesis across the five parts	Abrupt endings without closure; no analytical reflection; purely factual termination; or entirely missing conclusions for multiple parts

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 →