Sociology 2024 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q6

(a) Discuss the major challenges related to women's reproductive health in India. What measures would you suggest to overcome these challenges? (20 marks) (b) What is sustainable development? How can sustainability be achieved in India where livelihood needs conflict with environmental protection? (20 marks) (c) Critically examine the relevance of development planning in India. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारत में महिलाओं के प्रजनन स्वास्थ्य से सम्बन्धित प्रमुख चुनौतियों की चर्चा कीजिए। इन चुनौतियों को दूर करने के लिए आप क्या तरीके सुझाएँगे? (20 अंक) (b) सतत विकास किसे कहते हैं? भारत में सातत्य कैसे प्राप्त किया जा सकता है, जहाँ आजीविका के लिए पर्यावरण-संरक्षण के साथ संघर्ष की आवश्यकता पड़ती है? (20 अंक) (c) भारत में विकास-योजना की प्रासंगिकता का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Sociology questions

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

Open with a brief integrative introduction acknowledging the interconnected themes of gender, environment, and state intervention in development. For part (a), spend ~40% of word budget (800 words) discussing reproductive health challenges through structural and cultural lenses, then suggest multi-level measures. For part (b), allocate ~35% (700 words) to defining sustainable development (Brundtland/SDGs), then analyse livelihood-environment conflicts through case studies before proposing inclusive sustainability pathways. For part (c), reserve ~25% (500 words) for a critical examination of planning's relevance, balancing achievements against neoliberal critiques. Conclude by synthesising how gender-sensitive, participatory planning can reconcile sustainability with justice.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Structural barriers to reproductive health — patriarchal household decision-making, son preference, limited male participation in family planning (NFHS-5 data on unmet need, maternal mortality)
  • Part (a): Systemic failures — poor PHC infrastructure, shortage of trained birth attendants, anaemia prevalence (53% women 15-49, NFHS-5), abortion access under MTP Act amendments
  • Part (a): Policy measures — JSY, PMMVY expansion, community-based health workers (ASHA/ANM), male involvement programmes, comprehensive sexuality education
  • Part (b): Sustainable development definition — intergenerational equity, three pillars (economic, social, environmental), SDG framework; critique of weak vs strong sustainability
  • Part (b): Livelihood-environment conflicts — Narmada Bachao Andolan, mining-affected tribal communities (Jharkhand/Odisha), climate-induced agrarian distress, informal sector pollution (tanneries, brick kilns)
  • Part (b): Reconciliation pathways — just transition frameworks, community forest rights (FRA 2006), organic/SRI agriculture, circular economy in MSMEs, climate-resilient MGNREGA
  • Part (c): Planning relevance — Five-Year Plans to NITI Aayog shift, success in green revolution/space/health infrastructure, failures in regional inequality, displacement, ecological degradation
  • Part (c): Critical perspective — neoliberal critique (planning vs market), post-development arguments, need for democratic decentralised planning (73rd/74th Amendments), participatory alternatives

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'discuss' as analysing structural-cultural interplay, not just listing problems; for (b), defines sustainable development with conceptual precision before addressing 'how'; for (c), 'critically examine' balances achievements and failures with evidence, not partisan advocacy.Addresses each directive but (a) becomes descriptive health statistics, (b) conflates sustainability with environmentalism, (c) is one-sided (either pro-planning or anti-planning).Misreads directives — (a) as 'list diseases', (b) as 'define only', (c) as 'explain planning' without critical lens; or ignores sub-part weightage.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys appropriate frameworks: for (a) feminist political economy (Boserup, Agarwal) or medical sociology; for (b) ecological modernisation vs political ecology (Guha/Martinez-Alier), weak/strong sustainability; for (c) planning theory (Friedmann), developmental state vs neoliberal critique.Names theories but applies superficially — e.g., mentions 'feminism' without specifying liberal/radical/Marxist variant, or 'sustainable development' without theoretical lineage.No theoretical scaffolding; answer reads as general knowledge or newspaper compilation.
Indian / empirical examples20%10Rich empirical grounding: for (a) cites NFHS-5 (MMR 103, anaemia, institutional delivery rates), state variations (Kerala vs UP), specific programme evaluations; for (b) names specific conflicts (Sardar Sarovar, POSCO, Vedanta), successful models (Kudumbashree, Bishnoi communities, Sikkim organic); for (c) references specific plan periods, NITI Aayog restructuring, state-level planning experiences.Mentions generic examples ('maternal mortality is high', 'pollution in Ganga') without specific data, programmes, or regional nuance.Uses foreign examples predominantly (Scandinavian welfare, German Energiewende) or no examples at all; or factually incorrect data.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Shows tension between perspectives: for (a) biomedical vs social determinants of health, rights-based vs population-control approaches; for (b) ecological modernisation (green growth) vs degrowth/subaltern environmentalism; for (c) planning as nation-building vs planning as bureaucratic inefficiency, centralised vs decentralised alternatives.Acknowledges one alternative view per part but doesn't develop the tension; or presents perspectives sequentially without synthesis.Single-paradigm treatment — e.g., only biomedical health, only technocratic environmentalism, only pro-planning or anti-planning stance.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises across parts: connects women's reproductive autonomy to sustainable livelihoods to participatory planning; proposes integrated policy direction (e.g., gender-responsive climate adaptation, feminist planning); demonstrates Mills' sociological imagination by linking personal troubles (maternal death, displacement) to public issues (structural adjustment, ecological crisis).Summarises each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusion adds no new analytical insight.No conclusion, or mere restatement of question; or abrupt ending without addressing all sub-parts.

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 Sociology 2024 Paper II