renders below this block, the homepage copy came first, so every share of every blog post or PYQ page rendered the homepage card with og:url=upscanswercheck.com. Removed 2026-08-09; do not reintroduce. --> %sveltekit.head%
Political Science & IR 2025 Paper I 50 marks Analyse

Paper I — Q3

(a) Provide a comparative analysis of behavioural and institutional approach to the study of political theory. (20 marks) (b)…

(a) Provide a comparative analysis of behavioural and institutional approach to the study of political theory. (20 marks) (b) "State .......... does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress." — Mahatma Gandhi. Elucidate. (15 marks) (c) Explain how the slogan 'the personal is political' addresses the issue of women's oppression and discrimination ? (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) राजनीतिक सिद्धांत के अध्ययन के व्यवहारवादी एवं संस्थावादी उपागम का तुलनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए । (20) (b) "राज्य ने ......... व्यक्तित्व का अंत करके मानव सभ्यता की गंभीर हानि की है, जो कि हर विकास का आधार है ।" — महात्मा गांधी । स्पष्ट कीजिए । (15) (c) 'व्यक्तिगत ही राजनीतिक है'। यह नारा किस प्रकार से महिलाओं के शोषण और भेदभाव को संसूचित करता है ? वर्णन कीजिए। (15)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Analyse

This question asks you to analyse. 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 question demands comparative analysis for (a), elucidation for (b), and explanation for (c). Allocate approximately 40% word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a unified conclusion synthesizing insights on state-individual relations and feminist political theory.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Behavioural approach—quantitative methods, value-neutrality, individual behaviour, systems theory (Easton, Almond); Institutional approach—formal structures, legal-historical analysis, comparative institutions (Finer, Blondel); comparative strengths, limitations, and post-behavioural synthesis
  • Part (a): Critical evaluation of both approaches—behaviouralism's scientism vs. institutionalism's formalism; emergence of neo-institutionalism (March, Olsen) as bridge
  • Part (b): Gandhi's critique of modern nation-state—Hind Swaraj (1909), state as centralized violence, destruction of swaraj (self-rule), contrast with Western liberal individualism
  • Part (b): Gandhi's constructive programme—gram swaraj, decentralization, sarvodaya as alternative; contemporary relevance to development vs. freedom debate (Sen)
  • Part (c): 'Personal is political' origins—second-wave feminism, Shulamith Firestone, Kate Millett; critique of public/private divide in liberal theory
  • Part (c): Application to Indian context—patriarchal family structures, dowry, domestic labour, reproductive rights; legal interventions (Domestic Violence Act 2005, Vishaka guidelines)
  • Part (c): Intersectionality critique—Dalit feminism (Gayatri Spivak, Ambedkarite feminism), limits of universal 'woman' category; contemporary movements like #MeToo in India

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), executes genuine comparative analysis (not mere description) with clear criteria of comparison; for (b), 'elucidates' by unpacking Gandhi's philosophical premises and implications; for (c), 'explains' causal mechanisms linking personal oppression to political structures. All three directives correctly interpreted and operationalized.Addresses all three parts but treats (a) as descriptive list rather than comparison; (b) summarizes Gandhi without philosophical depth; (c) describes slogan without explaining mechanism of oppression.Misinterprets directives—treats 'comparative analysis' as separate descriptions, 'elucidate' as mere quotation, or 'explain' as definition only; significant imbalance in part coverage.
Content depth & accuracy20%10Demonstrates command of behaviouralism's scientific aspirations (Easton's framework, Lasswell) and institutionalism's evolution to neo-institutionalism; Gandhi's Hind Swaraj situated in colonial context with accurate textual references; feminist theory distinguishes liberal, radical, socialist variants with Indian feminist scholarship (Nivedita Menon, Mary John).Covers main theorists but with gaps—behaviouralism without post-behavioural critique; Gandhi without swaraj/self-rule distinction; feminism without Indian specificity or intersectionality.Major factual errors—confuses behaviouralism with behaviourism (psychology); misattributes Gandhi's views to anarchism without nuance; treats 'personal is political' as Indian origin; superficial or absent theoretical grounding.
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite structure with explicit (a), (b), (c) demarcation; internal coherence within each part—(a) follows compare-contrast-evaluate sequence, (b) context-thesis-implications, (c) concept-application-critique; smooth transitions between parts showing thematic linkage (state power, individual freedom, gendered power).All three parts present but poorly demarcated or unevenly developed; some internal organization within parts but no clear analytical progression; abrupt transitions between parts treating them as isolated answers.Chaotic structure—parts merged or indistinguishable; no internal paragraph organization; significant imbalance (e.g., 70% on (a), token mention of (b) and (c)).
Examples / case-law / data20%10For (a): specific studies (Michigan school voting behaviour, Almond's Civic Culture); for (b): Gandhi's constructive programme details, contemporary decentralization (73rd/74th Amendments); for (c): Indian legal milestones (Shah Bano, Vishaka, Triple Talaq judgment), movements (Pinjra Tod, anti-dowry campaigns), or data (NFHS on domestic violence, female workforce participation).Generic examples—'studies show' without specificity; Gandhi's salt satyagraha as only example; feminism limited to Western references (Steinem, Friedan) without Indian instantiation.No concrete examples; purely theoretical treatment; or irrelevant examples (e.g., behavioural economics for behavioural approach, confusing different Gandhis).
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent argument about evolving critiques of liberal political theory—behaviouralism's individualism, Gandhi's critique of state-centric modernity, feminism's critique of public/private divide; offers critical assessment of each approach's contemporary relevance; possible original insight (e.g., convergence between Gandhi's swaraj and feminist self-determination, or neo-institutionalism's recovery of norms).Summarizes main points of each part separately without synthesis; generic conclusion about 'need for balanced approach'; no critical evaluation of limitations or contemporary relevance.Absent or abrupt conclusion; mere restatement of question; or conclusion addressing only one part; no analytical evaluation of approaches.

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 2025 Paper I