Public Administration 2022 Paper II 50 marks Examine

Q2

(a) "The Indian federal structure is largely symmetric albeit with some asymmetric features". Examine the status of States and Union Territories through the principle of weighted and differentiated equality in India. 20 (b) The Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan is a progressive policy. Analyse. 20 (c) 'Indicative Planning, is a middle path of planning and market mechanism to ensure coordination between public and private activities.' Explain. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "भारतीय संघ का ढाँचा, कुछ असममित (असिमेट्रिक) विशेषताओं के बावजूद, काफी हद तक सममित (सिमेट्रिक) है।" भारत में भारत और विभेदित समानता के सिद्धांत के माध्यम से राज्यों तथा केन्द्र शासित क्षेत्रों की स्थिति का परीक्षण कीजिए। 20 (b) आत्मनिर्भर भारत अभियान एक प्रगतिशील नीति है। विश्लेषण कीजिए। 20 (c) 'संकेतिक नियोजन सार्वजनिक एवं निजी गतिविधियों के बीच समन्वय को आश्वस्त करने हेतु नियोजन एवं बाजारतंत्र का एक मध्य पथ है।' व्याख्या कीजिए। 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Public Administration 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' for part (a) requires critical investigation of symmetric-asymmetric federalism; part (b) demands 'analyse' (deconstruct Atmanirbhar components); part (c) requires 'explain' (clarify indicative planning mechanics). Allocate approximately 40% time/words to part (a) given its conceptual depth and 20 marks, 35% to part (b) for policy analysis, and 25% to part (c). Structure: introduction defining federalism variants → body addressing each sub-part with distinct headings → integrated conclusion on evolving Indian planning-federalism nexus.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Distinguish symmetric federalism (uniform state status) from asymmetric features (Article 370 erstwhile status, 371A-H special provisions, Sixth Schedule areas, UT administration without legislature)
  • Part (a): Apply 'weighted and differentiated equality'—formal equality (Schedule 7 distribution) versus substantive equality (special needs-based differential treatment)
  • Part (b): Deconstruct Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan five pillars (economy, infrastructure, system, demography, demand) and 20 lakh crore package components
  • Part (b): Critical analysis of 'progressive' claim—MSME credit guarantee, liquidity infusion versus concerns about demand stimulus inadequacy, labour law dilution, privatisation thrust
  • Part (c): Contrast indicative planning with imperative/command planning; explain French/mixed economy origins and Indian adaptation post-1991 reforms
  • Part (c): Mechanisms of indicative planning—Perspective Plans, Five-Year Plans (now NITI Aayog's Three-Year Action Agenda), indicative targets, public-private coordination through MoUs, sectoral policies
  • Integrated synthesis: Evolution from Planning Commission's command orientation to NITI Aayog's cooperative federalism and indicative planning, linking to Atmanirbhar's self-reliance within globalised framework

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely distinguishes symmetric vs asymmetric federalism with constitutional specificity (Articles 1-4, 370, 371, Schedule 6/10); accurately defines indicative planning's non-binding nature versus directive planning; correctly identifies Atmanirbhar's macroeconomic components (liquidity, credit, sectoral allocations)Basic understanding of federal types but conflates asymmetry with emergency provisions; vague on indicative planning mechanics; describes Atmanirbhar as generic 'development scheme' without structural analysisConfuses federalism with unitary features without nuance; treats indicative planning as identical to Five-Year Plans; misrepresents Atmanirbhar as purely protectionist or welfare scheme
Theoretical anchor20%10Deploys K.C. Wheare's federal classification; Ronald Watts on holding-together federalism; S.P. Sathe on constitutional asymmetry; Jan Tinbergen on indicative planning theory; Dani Rodrik on state-capacity in self-reliance; distinguishes formal vs substantive equality jurisprudenceMentions federalism theorists superficially; generic reference to 'mixed economy' without theoretical lineage; no explicit planning theory frameworkNo theoretical grounding; confuses federalism theory with basic constitutional articles; absent planning theory entirely
Indian administrative examples20%10Specific illustrations: Nagaland's 371A (customary law protection), Mizoram's 371G (religious/social practices), Delhi's 239AA asymmetric UT status, J&K's erstwhile special position; indicative planning via NITI Aayog's SDG India Index, sectoral indices; Atmanirbhar's MSME credit (ECLGS), defence indigenisation (negative import lists), production-linked incentivesGeneric mention of 'Northeast states' without Article specificity; broad reference to Planning Commission history; lists Atmanirbhar sectors without policy mechanism detailNo concrete examples; incorrect examples (e.g., citing Article 356 as asymmetry); confuses indicative planning with licence raj
Reform / policy angle20%10Critical evaluation: Finance Commission's equalisation principle vs special category status erosion; 14th/15th FC recommendations on fiscal federalism; Atmanirbhar's labour code reforms, privatisation thrust, agricultural market reforms—assessing progressive potential versus implementation gaps; NITI Aayog's shift from plan allocation to competitive federalism (SDG indices, Aspirational Districts)Descriptive coverage of reforms without critical assessment; accepts 'progressive' label uncritically; mentions NITI Aayog without contrasting with Planning CommissionNo reform analysis; purely celebratory or purely dismissive stance; ignores fiscal federalism evolution entirely
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesises three sub-parts: asymmetric federalism enables differentiated responses for self-reliance; indicative planning requires state capacity building; forward look addresses GST Council as cooperative federalism model, need for state-level Atmanirbhar strategies, and balancing self-reliance with global value chain integration—ends with nuanced verdict on federalism-planning-market triangulationSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic 'need for cooperation' closing; no explicit forward-looking policy recommendationMissing conclusion; abrupt ending; repetitive summary without synthesis; no 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 2022 Paper II