(a) Examine the liberal theory of State in contemporary politics. (20 marks) (b) Human Rights are complex and contested social…

(a) Examine the liberal theory of State in contemporary politics. (20 marks) (b) Human Rights are complex and contested social practice that organises relations between individuals, society and the State. Comment. (15 marks) (c) Individualism is inherent in Hobbes' absolutist ideology. Comment. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) समकालीन राजनीति में राज्य के उदारवादी सिद्धांत का परीक्षण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) मानवाधिकार जटिल और विवादित सामाजिक प्रथा है जो व्यक्तियों, समाज और राज्य के बीच संबंधों को सुव्यवस्थित करता है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) हॉब्स की सर्वाधिकारवादी विचारधारा में व्यक्तिवाद अंतर्निहित है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. 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 'examine' requires critical investigation with balanced argumentation. Allocate approximately 40% word-time to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: integrated introduction linking liberal state-human rights-individualism; three distinct analytical sections per sub-part; and a synthesised conclusion addressing tensions between individual liberty and state power in contemporary politics.

Key points expected

Part (a): Evolution from classical to contemporary liberal state—distinguishing negative liberty (Nozick) from positive liberty/welfare state (Rawls); neoliberal critique and post-9/11 security state challenges
Part (a): Contemporary manifestations—minimal state vs. regulatory state debate; Indian context of liberal democracy with socialist directive principles
Part (b): Contested nature of human rights—universalism vs. cultural relativism (Asian values debate); generations of rights and their hierarchical tensions
Part (b): Triadic relationship—individual claims, societal mediation, state obligation; Indian constitutional framework of fundamental rights and directive principles as organising practice
Part (c): Hobbes' methodological individualism—state of nature as rational individual calculation; sovereign as artificial person created by individual wills
Part (c): Apparent paradox resolved—absolutism as instrument for individual self-preservation; contrast with Locke's limited government to demonstrate Hobbes' distinctive instrumental rationality

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	Demonstrates precise calibration: for (a) 'examine' produces multi-causal investigation of liberal state's transformation; for (b) 'comment' yields balanced evaluative stance on rights contestation; for (c) 'comment' unpacks paradox without collapsing into simple agreement—recognises directive-specific demands across all three parts	Treats all directives uniformly as 'explain' or 'describe'; misses that (b) and (c) require evaluative commentary while (a) demands systematic investigation; conflates 'examine' with mere description	Misidentifies directives entirely; writes descriptive notes without analytical investigation for (a), or takes purely affirmative stance without critical evaluation for (b) and (c)
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	For (a): accurately distinguishes classical liberalism, new liberalism, and neoliberalism with theorists named (Green, Keynes, Hayek); for (b): correctly identifies rights as social practice (Donnelly) with three-level analysis; for (c): precisely explicates Leviathan's individualist foundations without conflating Hobbes with later contractarians	Broadly accurate but lacks specificity—mentions 'liberal state' without theoretical differentiation; describes rights generically without generations framework; conflates Hobbes' absolutism with authoritarianism generally	Substantial factual errors—misattributes Rawls to classical liberalism; conflates human rights with fundamental rights without conceptual distinction; misreads Hobbes as collectivist or confuses with Machiavelli
Structure & flow	20%	10	Integrated architecture with thematic introduction on individual-state relationship; clear tripartite division with internal signposting; cross-references between parts (e.g., linking (a)'s welfare state to (b)'s positive rights; (c)'s Hobbesian individualism to (a)'s liberal foundations); conclusion synthesises tensions	Three separate answers with minimal connection; adequate internal organisation per part but reads as disconnected responses; introduction and conclusion perfunctory or absent	No discernible structure—stream of consciousness mixing all parts; or rigid separation without any integrative elements; missing or incoherent conclusion
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	For (a): Indian examples—91st Constitutional Amendment limiting cabinet size as liberal restraint; Aadhaar as regulatory state expansion; for (b): Vishaka guidelines (1997) as rights-practice organising workplace relations; NALSA (2014) on transgender rights showing contested social practice; for (c): primary text citation from Leviathan (Chapter 13, 17) demonstrating methodological individualism	Generic international examples only (US welfare reform, European human rights); or Indian examples without specificity (mere mention of 'Constitution'); no textual evidence for Hobbes	No examples or completely irrelevant ones; fabricated case law; confuses Hobbes with Hobbesianism in international relations without textual basis
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesises three parts into coherent argument: contemporary liberal state's crisis stems from unresolved tension between (c) Hobbesian individualist foundations and (b) collective rights claims; offers original insight on how Indian constitutionalism attempts reconciliation through transformative constitutionalism (Baxi, Chandrachud)	Summarises three parts separately without synthesis; restates main points without advancing argument; generic conclusion on 'balance needed'	No conclusion or abrupt ending; introduces entirely new material in conclusion; contradictory final position undermining earlier analysis

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 →