Paper I — Q8
(a) Discuss the role of environmental movements in shaping the environmental governance in India. 20 (b) "Relative deprivation…
(a) Discuss the role of environmental movements in shaping the environmental governance in India. 20 (b) "Relative deprivation is a major source of ethnic conflict." Elaborate the statement with relevant examples. 15 (c) Gram Sabha in the Panchayati Raj system is a forum which gives expression to the collective wisdom, aspirations and the will of the people. Comment. 15
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) भारत में पर्यावरणीय शासन को आकार देने में पर्यावरणीय आंदोलनों की भूमिका की विवेचना कीजिए। 20 (b) "सापेक्षिक वंचना नृजातीय संघर्ष का एक मुख्य स्रोत है।" उपयुक्त उदाहरणों सहित इस कथन को विस्तार से समझाइए। 15 (c) पंचायती राज व्यवस्था में ग्राम सभा एक ऐसा मंच है, जो लोगों की सामूहिक बुद्धिमत्ता, आकांक्षाओं और इच्छा को अभिव्यक्त करता है। टिप्पणी कीजिए। 15
Directive word: Discuss
This question asks you to discuss. 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 primary directive is 'discuss' for part (a), while parts (b) and (c) require 'elaborate' and 'comment' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget (~400-450 words) to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each (~300-350 words) to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects environmental governance, ethnic conflict management, and democratic decentralization as pillars of Indian democracy.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Evolution of environmental movements from Chipko (1970s) to Narmada Bachao Andolan and contemporary climate activism; their impact on policy shifts (Forest Rights Act 2006, NGT establishment, cancellation of mining projects)
- Part (a): Analysis of how movements transformed environmental governance from top-down bureaucratic model to participatory, rights-based approach incorporating indigenous knowledge
- Part (b): Theoretical exposition of relative deprivation theory (Gurr, Davies) distinguishing absolute vs relative deprivation; application to ethnic conflicts in India (Nagaland, Kashmir, Bodoland, Gorkhaland movements)
- Part (b): Critical evaluation of relative deprivation as explanatory framework—acknowledging its limitations alongside other factors (political manipulation, resource competition, historical grievances)
- Part (c): Constitutional basis of Gram Sabha (Article 243A, 73rd Amendment); its functions in social audit, participatory budgeting, and conflict resolution
- Part (c): Critical assessment of Gram Sabha's actual functioning—challenges of elite capture, low participation of women/SCs/STs, and gap between constitutional promise and empirical reality with reform suggestions
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | For (a), treats 'discuss' as requiring balanced narrative of movements' evolution AND evaluative assessment of governance outcomes; for (b), 'elaborate' demands systematic unpacking of relative deprivation theory with causal mechanisms before applying to cases; for (c), 'comment' produces balanced appraisal of Gram Sabha's potential versus actual performance without pure description | Addresses all three parts but treats directives superficially—describes movements without analytical discussion, states deprivation theory without elaboration, or merely lists Gram Sabha functions without critical comment | Misreads directives—turns 'discuss' into pure listing, 'elaborate' into assertion without theoretical depth, or 'comment' into uncritical praise; significant imbalance in part treatment |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates command across all three domains: for (a), traces movement genealogy accurately (Chipko→NBA→POSCO) with correct policy outcomes; for (b), accurately applies Gurr's theory to Indian ethnic conflicts while noting competing explanations; for (c), precise constitutional citations (Schedule XI, PESA provisions) with awareness of state variations | Generally accurate but with gaps—broadly correct on movements but missing specific policy links, oversimplified deprivation theory application, or basic 73rd Amendment knowledge without PESA nuances | Substantial factual errors—anachronistic movement chronology, conflates relative with absolute deprivation, or fundamental misunderstanding of Gram Sabha's constitutional status; significant omissions in coverage |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Clear tripartite organization with explicit transitions; each part has internal logic—(a) chronological/thematic hybrid, (b) theory-to-cases structure, (c) promise-reality-reform arc; composite introduction establishes thematic links (participatory democracy), conclusion synthesizes across parts | Three parts identifiable but unevenly developed; some internal organization within parts but weak transitions; introduction and conclusion present but generic or repetitive of question | Poorly demarcated parts or merged responses; stream-of-consciousness writing; missing introduction/conclusion; significant imbalance (e.g., 70% on one part) |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | Rich empirical grounding: for (a), specific movements (Chipko, Appiko, NBA, POSCO, Kudankulam) with named legislation (FRA 2006, NGT Act 2010, CAMPA) and judicial interventions (Narmada verdicts, mining cancellations); for (b), precise ethnic conflicts (Naga peace process, Assam agitations, Gorkhaland 2017) with temporal specificity; for (c), state-wise variations (Kerala's People's Plan, MP's social audits) and empirical studies | Some relevant examples but limited specificity—mentions Chipko and NBA without dates, generic 'North-East' references for ethnic conflict, or Gram Sabha examples without state identification; no case law or data | Few or irrelevant examples; invented movements, misattributed conflicts, or confused Gram Sabha with Gram Panchayat; complete absence of legislative/judicial references where expected |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across parts to argue that participatory mechanisms (environmental movements, Gram Sabha) can address relative deprivation by giving voice to marginalized groups, but requires genuine power devolution; offers forward-looking assessment—climate justice movements, PESA implementation, and ethnic conflict prevention through inclusive local governance; self-aware about limitations of framework | Separate conclusions for each part without cross-thematic synthesis; restates main points without advancing argument; generic recommendations without specificity to Indian context | Absent or extremely brief conclusion; pure summary; or unrelated ideological assertion; no analytical integration across the three sub-questions |
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 Political Science & IR 2024 Paper I
- Q5 Write approximately 150 words on each one of the following : 10×5=50 (a) Constitutional m…
- Q6 (a) How far do you agree that the Directive Principles of State Policy are more fundament…
- Q7 (a) Discuss the contribution of the Dalit struggle to establish egalitarianism in Indian…
- Q8 (a) Discuss the role of environmental movements in shaping the environmental governance i…