Sociology 2025 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q8

(a) What do you understand by sustainable development? Discuss the elements of sustainable development as proposed in the UNDP's Sustainable Development Goals Report-2015. (20 marks) (b) How do 'Civil Society Organizations' such as 'NGOs' and 'Self-Help Groups' contribute to grassroot level social changes? Discuss. (20 marks) (c) In what way does queer kinship challenge the traditional kinship system? Substantiate by giving illustrations. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) संधारणीय विकास से आप क्या समझते हैं? यू. एन. डी. पी. की सस्टेनेबल डेवलपमेंट गोल्स रिपोर्ट-2015 में प्रस्तावित संधारणीय विकास के बिंदुओं की विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) 'नागरिक समाज संगठनों' जैसे 'एन. जी. ओ.' और 'स्वयं सहायता समूह' भारतीय स्तर पर सामाजिक परिवर्तनों को लाने में कैसे योगदान करते हैं? विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) क्वियर नातेदारी किस प्रकार पारंपरिक नातेदारी व्यवस्था को चुनौती देती है? उदाहरण देकर प्रमाणित कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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 conceptual introduction spanning all three parts. For part (a), allocate ~40% of content (8-10 marks worth): define sustainable development (Brundtland Report), then systematically discuss SDG elements with specific goals relevant to India. For part (b), allocate ~40% (8-10 marks worth): explain CSO typology, then analyse NGO and SHG contributions to grassroots change with Indian cases. For part (c), allocate ~20% (4-5 marks worth): apply queer theory to kinship studies, showing how chosen families challenge blood/affinity norms. Conclude by synthesising how sustainable development, civil society mobilisation, and evolving kinship structures together reflect contemporary social transformation.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Brundtland definition (1987); SDG 2015 framework — 17 goals, 5Ps (People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, Partnership); specific Indian-relevant goals (SDG 1 No Poverty, SDG 5 Gender Equality, SDG 13 Climate Action)
  • Part (a): Critique of SDGs — universalism vs. local context; India's SDG Index performance (NITI Aayog)
  • Part (b): Civil society conceptualisation — Gramsci (hegemony/counter-hegemony), Putnam (social capital), Habermas (public sphere); distinction between NGOs and SHGs
  • Part (b): NGO contributions — rights-based advocacy (Narmada Bachao Andolan, MKSS/RTI), service delivery, policy influence; SHG contributions — economic empowerment (Kudumbashree), political participation, social capital building
  • Part (b): Limitations — elite capture, donor dependency, state co-optation; success stories: SEWA, BRAC-inspired models, NRLM outcomes
  • Part (c): Traditional kinship — blood/affinity/marriage-based (Radcliffe-Brown, Fortes); heteronormative assumptions in classical kinship studies
  • Part (c): Queer kinship — 'chosen families', non-biological parenting, same-sex marriage claims (Navtej Singh Johar 2018, ongoing petitions); challenges to descent, alliance, and household structures
  • Part (c): Illustrations — Hijra gharanas as alternative kinship; LGBTQ+ parenting through surrogacy/adoption; urban queer networks replacing village-based joint families

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'discuss' as requiring critical exposition of SDG elements, not mere listing; for (b), analyses 'how' CSOs contribute through causal mechanisms, not just enumerates functions; for (c), explains 'in what way' queer kinship challenges tradition through specific structural confrontations.Addresses all three parts but treats (a) as descriptive list, (b) as functional catalogue, and (c) as simple comparison without depth on challenge mechanisms.Misreads directives: defines sustainable development without SDG elements, describes CSOs without grassroot change analysis, or merely defines queer kinship without showing challenge to traditional system.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys appropriate frameworks: for (a) WCED/Brundtland plus post-development critique (Escobar, Sachs); for (b) Gramsci/Putnam/Habermas on civil society; for (c) Weston (chosen families), Butler (performativity), or Schneider's critique of blood symbolism.Names one or two theorists correctly but applies them superficially or only to one part; e.g., mentions Putnam for SHGs but omits civil society theory for NGOs.No theoretical anchoring; answer reads as general knowledge or current affairs summary without sociological concepts.
Indian / empirical examples20%10Rich Indian grounding: for (a) cites NITI Aayog SDG Index, India's SDG localisation (panchayat-level indicators); for (b) names specific organisations (SEWA, Kudumbashree, MKSS, PRADAN, ActionAid India) with their interventions; for (c) references Navtej judgment, queer collectives in Delhi/Mumbai/Chennai, or ethnographic work (Sharma on Hijra kinship).Mentions generic 'SHGs in Kerala' or 'NGOs working in villages' without specific names; for (c), vague reference to 'LGBTQ community' without concrete illustrations.Relies on Western examples (Greenpeace International, US gay marriage) without Indian adaptation; or no examples at all.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Shows tension across perspectives: for (a) growth vs. limits debate, SDG optimism vs. post-development scepticism; for (b) neo-liberal NGO-isation vs. radical social movement potential of SHGs; for (c) queer kinship as liberation vs. critique from within (assimilationist vs. transformative politics).Acknowledges one counter-position briefly (e.g., 'some critics say SDGs are Western') without developing the tension.Entirely one-sided presentation; treats SDGs as unproblematic, CSOs as uniformly positive, or queer kinship as simply replacing traditional kinship without dialectic.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises all three parts into a coherent sociological argument about contemporary social change: sustainable development as macro-structural goal, civil society as meso-level mobilisation, kinship transformation as micro-level reconfiguration — together showing how global norms, collective action, and intimate relations co-evolve; ends with forward-looking insight on India's trajectory.Summarises each part separately without integration; conclusion restates main points without analytical elevation.Missing or perfunctory conclusion; or conclusion introduces entirely new material not developed in body.

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 2025 Paper I