(a) Is it possible to have sustainable development in India? Cite major environmental issues and suggest a few measures to achieve the sustainability. (20 marks)

(b) Do you think that forced displacement of labourers has caused their deprivation and

Question

(a) Is it possible to have sustainable development in India? Cite major environmental issues and suggest a few measures to achieve the sustainability. (20 marks)

(b) Do you think that forced displacement of labourers has caused their deprivation and resultant inequalities during the recent past years? Elaborate. (20 marks)

(c) What are the Indian government's schemes launched for poverty alleviation after the United Nation's Declaration of 'Sustainable Development Goals - 2015'? Briefly describe. (10 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'elaborate' in part (b) demands detailed expansion with causal reasoning, while (a) requires 'suggest' and (c) requires 'describe'. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its analytical depth on sustainability feasibility, 40% to part (b) for elaborating displacement-deprivation linkages, and 20% to part (c) for schematic coverage of post-2015 schemes. Structure: integrated introduction on development-sustainability tension; three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesising environmental and labour dimensions through the lens of inclusive development.
- Part (a): Feasibility assessment of sustainable development in India — Brundtland Report, Amartya Sen's 'Development as Freedom', and India's SDG localisation framework
- Part (a): Major environmental issues — air pollution (NCAP cities), water stress (NITI Aayog Composite Water Management Index), land degradation, climate vulnerability
- Part (a): Measures — circular economy principles, green hydrogen mission, climate-smart agriculture, EIA reforms, traditional ecological knowledge integration
- Part (b): Forced displacement mechanisms — SEZs, dams, mining, urban renewal (Smart Cities), and infrastructure corridors with specific cases (Sardar Sarovar, POSCO Odisha, Dholera)
- Part (b): Deprivation pathways — loss of common property resources, informal labour market absorption, broken social networks, cultural dislocation (Fernandes, Dreze-Sen framework)
- Part (b): Resultant inequalities — assetlessness, education disruption, intergenerational mobility blockage, gendered impacts on women workers
- Part (c): Post-2015 poverty alleviation schemes — PM-KISAN, Ayushman Bharat, Jal Jeevan Mission, SVAMITVA, National Social Assistance Programme expansion, aligned to SDG-1 and SDG-2
- Part (c): Critical assessment — coverage gaps, exclusion errors, fiscal sustainability concerns, and convergence challenges with MGNREGA

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a), treats 'Is it possible?' as evaluative, not rhetorical — weighs ecological limits against institutional capacity; for (b), 'elaborate' produces multi-causal chains (displacement → asset loss → labour casualisation → inequality); for (c), 'describe' is schematic yet analytically positioned within SDG-1/2 targets.	Answers all parts but treats (a) as descriptive affirmation, (b) as narrative without causal rigour, and (c) as list without SDG linkage.	Misreads (a) as 'list environmental problems', (b) as 'write about labour migration', and (c) as any poverty scheme regardless of 2015 cutoff.
Theoretical framing	20%	10	Deploys sustainable livelihoods framework (DFID/Scoones), ecological modernisation vs. degrowth debate for (a); political economy of displacement (Cernea's impoverishment risks, Parasuraman) and Marxist primitive accumulation for (b); capability approach and multidimensional poverty (Alkire-Sen) for (c).	Names one theorist (e.g., Amartya Sen) but applies generically across all parts without specificity.	No theoretical scaffolding; relies on commonsense or administrative language throughout.
Indian / empirical examples	20%	10	For (a): cites India's SDG Index 2023-24 rankings, specific pollution data (CPCB), and state-level sustainability experiments (Kudumbashree, Bihar's Jeevika); for (b): concrete displacement cases with scale data (Sardar Sarovar: 245 villages, 40,000 families); for (c): scheme-specific coverage numbers and evaluation studies (NITI Aayog SDG dashboards, World Bank PM-KISAN assessments).	Mentions generic 'pollution in Delhi' or 'tribals displaced' without specific data or case names.	No Indian empirical grounding; uses hypothetical or international examples (China's Three Gorges, Brazil's Bolsa Família).
Multi-paradigm analysis	20%	10	For (a): weighs ecological modernisation (techno-optimist) against degrowth/subaltern critiques (Patnaik, Guha); for (b): considers state narratives of 'public purpose' and 'compensation' against subaltern studies' resistance frameworks; for (c): evaluates scheme design through universalist vs. targeted welfare debate.	Acknowledges one counter-position briefly but doesn't develop tension; analysis remains largely one-dimensional.	Wholly one-sided — either uncritical state boosterism or undifferentiated critique without nuance.
Conclusion & sociological imagination	20%	10	Synthesises across parts: sustainability requires addressing displacement-induced deprivation, and post-2015 schemes must integrate environmental and labour concerns; proposes institutional mechanisms (social impact assessment strengthening, green jobs transition); connects personal troubles (displaced worker) to public issues (development model critique) in Millsian fashion.	Summarises three parts separately without cross-cutting synthesis; adds no forward-looking proposition.	Absent or perfunctory conclusion; or mere restatement of question without analytical closure.

Q8

Directive word: Elaborate

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Sociology 2025 Paper II