Public Administration 2025 Paper II 50 marks Analyse

Q2

(a) "The colonial legacy is responsible for many administrative problems in independent India as the role of company agents and traders evolved into Magistrates, Governors and Civil Servants." Analyze. (20 marks) (b) Despite the division of subjects, the Union Government contributes towards subjects in the State and Concurrent Lists. Discuss its pros and cons in the light of fiscal federalism. (20 marks) (c) Divergent political interests and financial constraints hinder the spirit of 'cooperative federalism'. Comment. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "स्वतंत्र भारत में औपनिवेशिक विरासत विभिन्न प्रशासनिक समस्याओं हेतु उत्तरदायी है क्योंकि कम्पनी अभिकर्ताओं और व्यापारियों ने दण्डनायकों, राज्यपालों और लोक सेवकों की भूमिका का रूप ले लिया।" विश्लेषण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) विषयों के विभाजन के बावजूद, केन्द्रीय सरकार राज्य एवं समवर्ती सूची के विषयों पर भी अपना योगदान देती है। राजकोषीय संघवाद के संदर्भ में इसके लाभ और हानि पर चर्चा कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) विविध राजनीतिक हित और वित्तीय सीमाएँ 'सहयोगी संघवाद' की भावना को बाधित करते हैं। टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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' in part (a) demands breaking down the colonial legacy into its constituent administrative problems; parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'comment' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) (20 marks), 35% to part (b) (20 marks), and 25% to part (c) (10 marks). Structure: brief introduction linking colonial continuity to contemporary federal challenges; body addressing each part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing how colonial centralization still strains cooperative federalism and suggesting reforms.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Evolution from East India Company agents (factors, zamindars) to ICS/IAS; continuity of elitist, revenue-extractive, law-and-order oriented bureaucracy; specific legacies like district collector system, police structure, secretariat system, and distrust of local self-government
  • Part (a): Critical analysis of how colonial administrative culture (hierarchical, status-quoist, alienated from masses) persists in post-independence governance, citing Paul Appleby or C. Rajagopalachari's critiques
  • Part (b): Constitutional provisions enabling Union's role in State/Concurrent Lists (Articles 275, 282, 293, 360); specific mechanisms like Finance Commission, Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS), and disaster relief funds
  • Part (b): Fiscal federalism analysis—pros (equalization, national priorities, crisis management) and cons (vertical imbalance, conditionalities reducing state autonomy, proliferation of CSS like PMGSY, Swachh Bharat Mission distorting state priorities)
  • Part (c): Divergent political interests—opposition-ruled states vs Union government, competitive federalism undermining cooperation; financial constraints—GST compensation delays, shrinking state share in divisible pool, FRBM pressures
  • Part (c): Institutional mechanisms for cooperative federalism—Inter-State Council, NITI Aayog, GST Council; assessment of their effectiveness and suggestions for strengthening (Sarkaria Commission recommendations, Punchhi Commission on fiscal federalism)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines colonial administrative legacy (ICS evolution, district system, police structure); accurately distinguishes between statutory grants (Finance Commission) and discretionary grants (Planning Commission/NITI Aayog); correctly identifies cooperative federalism as constitutional principle (Article 263) versus competitive federalismBasic understanding of colonial legacy and federalism concepts but conflates Centrally Sponsored Schemes with Finance Commission transfers; vague on constitutional provisions enabling Union intervention in state subjectsMisidentifies colonial legacy as only British exploitation without administrative dimension; confuses fiscal federalism with political federalism; treats cooperative federalism merely as slogan without institutional content
Theoretical anchor20%10Deploys K.C. Wheare on quasi-federalism; S.P. Aiyar or Amaresh Bagchi on fiscal federalism; Paul Appleby or B.B. Misra on colonial administrative legacy; uses Ronald Watts or Daniel Elazar on cooperative federalism models comparativelyMentions federalism theories superficially; cites constitutional articles without theoretical framing; references standard textbooks (Laxmikanth) without deeper administrative theoryNo theoretical framework; relies on generalities about 'unity in diversity'; confuses colonial legacy with general historical exploitation without administrative specificity
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): Collector's magisterial powers, Police Act 1861 continuity, secretariat system's file-pushing culture; For (b): Specific CSS (MGNREGA, Ayushman Bharat) showing conditionalities; 14th/15th Finance Commission recommendations; GST compensation disputes; For (c): Tamil Nadu's opposition to NEET, Kerala's fiscal stress, GST Council voting patternsGeneric mention of IAS and Finance Commission without specific scheme names or recent commission recommendations; dated examples (Planning Commission era) without current relevanceNo Indian examples; purely theoretical treatment; incorrect examples (confusing colonial with Mughal administration) or irrelevant international comparisons without Indian application
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a): Administrative Reforms Commission recommendations, 2nd ARC on district administration, police reforms (Ribeiro Committee, Supreme Court directives); For (b): Punchhi Commission on CSS rationalization, FRBM Review Committee, GST Council strengthening; For (c): Inter-State Council revitalization, NITI Aayog's cooperative competitive federalism frameworkMentions 2nd ARC or Punchhi Commission generally without specific recommendations; vague calls for 'more cooperation' without institutional mechanisms; standard reform rhetoric without prioritizationNo reform suggestions; purely descriptive answer; unrealistic or unconstitutional suggestions (abolishing IAS, ending Union taxation powers); ignores existing reform commissions
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes how colonial centralization DNA continues to strain cooperative federalism; proposes integrated vision—administrative decolonization through local governance (73rd/74th Amendment realization), fiscal federalism through predictable transfers, cooperative federalism through institutionalized dialogue; ends with realistic optimism about GST Council as model or warning about democratic backslidingSeparate conclusions for each part without synthesis; generic call for 'balance' between Union and states; forward look limited to 'more studies needed' or 'political will required'No conclusion or abrupt ending; contradictory conclusions across parts; purely negative prognosis without constructive path forward; ignores question's multi-part integration challenge

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 2025 Paper II