Public Administration 2021 Paper II 50 marks Analyse

Q8

(a) In past two decades India's public policy on Disaster Management has shifted its focus from rescue, relief and rehabilitation efforts to holistic management of disaster. Analyse. (20 marks) (b) The institutional legacy of 'well-entrenched state' affected the post-reforms promises in India. Explain the statement in the light of economic reforms in India. (20 marks) (c) Do you agree with the view that the civil service in India is losing its neutral and anonymous character ? Argue your case. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विगत दो दशकों में भारत की आपदा प्रबंधन की लोकनीति बचाव, राहत और पुनर्वास प्रयासों पर केंद्रित होने से हटकर आपदा के समग्र प्रबंध की ओर स्थानांतरित हो गई है। विश्लेषण कीजिये। (20 अंक) (b) 'कुशल सुदृढ़ीकृत राज्य' की संस्थानिक विरासत ने भारत में सुधार पश्चात् आशाओं को प्रभावित किया है। भारत में आर्थिक सुधारों के आलोक में इस कथन की व्याख्या कीजिये। (20 अंक) (c) क्या आप इस मत से सहमत हैं कि भारत में सिविल सेवा अपने तटस्थ और अनामित चरित्र को खो रही है ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में तर्क दीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Public Administration 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 directive 'analyse' for part (a) demands breaking down the shift in disaster management policy into constituent elements and examining their interrelationship; parts (b) and (c) require 'explain' and 'argue' respectively. Structure: Introduction (5%) → Part (a) holistic disaster management shift with pre-post 2005 comparison (40%, ~400 words) → Part (b) institutional legacy vs. economic reforms with LPG analysis (35%, ~350 words) → Part (c) civil service neutrality debate with balanced argument (20%, ~200 words) → Conclusion with integrated forward look (5%).

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Pre-2005 relief-centric approach vs. post-DMA 2005 holistic cycle (prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery); shift from reactive to proactive paradigm
  • Part (a): Institutional evolution—NDMA creation, SDMAs, DDMAs; integration of Sendai Framework 2015; role of NIDM and NDRF in capacity building
  • Part (b): 'Well-entrenched state' as colonial-bureaucratic legacy—permit raj, inspector raj, redistributive welfare state; path dependency in institutional reform
  • Part (b): Post-reform promises (1991 LPG) vs. outcomes—partial liberalization, continuing state dominance in strategic sectors, reform fatigue, regulatory capture
  • Part (c): Arguments for losing neutrality—political interference, post-retirement appointments, social media visibility, 'committed bureaucracy' debates; counter-arguments—constitutional safeguards, All India Services neutrality, anonymization efforts
  • Part (c): ARC II recommendations, Supreme Court directions in TSR Subramanian case, need for civil service reforms to preserve neutrality
  • Cross-cutting: Link between disaster management federalism and Centre-state coordination challenges; economic reforms' impact on state capacity for disaster response
  • Synthesis: Need for coherent administrative reform addressing all three domains—disaster resilience, economic governance, and civil service integrity

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines holistic disaster management (4 phases per DMA 2005), correctly interprets 'well-entrenched state' as institutional path dependency, and accurately distinguishes civil service neutrality (impartiality) from anonymity (non-publicity); no conceptual conflation between parts (a), (b), (c)Basic understanding of disaster management cycle and economic reforms; vague or partially incorrect definition of 'well-entrenched state'; conflates neutrality with anonymity or treats them identicallyMisidentifies holistic management as only relief expansion; confuses 'well-entrenched state' with strong state or welfare state alone; fundamental misunderstanding of civil service concepts
Theoretical anchor20%10Applies path dependency theory (North) for part (b), new public management vs. governance theories for part (a), and Weberian bureaucracy vs. post-bureaucratic models for part (c); cites relevant thinkers like Amartya Sen (entitlement approach to disasters) or Sudipta Kaviraj (state-society relations)Mentions theoretical frameworks superficially or applies generic administrative theories without specific linkage to question parts; limited scholar citationNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive answer without analytical depth; misapplies theories (e.g., using disaster management theories for economic reforms)
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): cites Bhuj earthquake (2001) triggering DMA 2005, Kerala floods/Chennai floods showing gaps; for (b): cites 1991 crisis, SEZ experiences, GST as reform overcoming institutional legacy; for (c): cites Sanjay Baru memoir, Ashok Khemka case, or recent lateral entry debates with specific detailsGeneric examples without specificity (e.g., 'many disasters' without naming); standard economic reform references without institutional analysis; well-known civil service examples without contemporary relevanceNo Indian examples or irrelevant foreign examples; factually incorrect case citations; examples that contradict the argument made
Reform / policy angle20%10Critically evaluates DMA 2005 implementation gaps (Aapda Mitra, Aapda friends), assesses incomplete economic reforms (labour, land, banking), and proposes concrete civil service reforms (fixed tenure, cooling-off, RTI balance); integrates ARC II, NITI Aayog 3.0, or SDG linkagesLists reforms without critical evaluation; mentions policies without assessing implementation; generic recommendations without specificity to question domainsNo reform or policy discussion; purely historical narrative; reform suggestions unrelated to question (e.g., suggesting disaster insurance for part b)
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes all three parts into coherent argument about state capacity transformation—disaster resilience requiring economic resources and professional civil service; proposes integrated 'administrative state' reform agenda; ends with specific actionable vision (e.g., unified disaster-economic-civil service dashboard)Summarizes each part separately without synthesis; generic forward look ('government should do more'); no integration of the three domainsNo conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body arguments; purely rhetorical ending without substantive forward look

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 Public Administration 2021 Paper II