All Political Science and International Relations optional papers

UPSC Mains 2015 Political Science and International Relations Optional Question Papers with Model Answers

All 56 questions of the 2015 Civil Services Main Examination, PSIR Paper I and PSIR Paper II, with marks and a suggested time per part. Solve each part on paper first, then open the model answer, or send it to answer-writing practice for evaluation.

UPSC Mains 2015 Political Science and International Relations PSIR Paper I

Question 1 (50 marks)

Q1(a) · Justice, Equality and Rights · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Rights: Meaning, Theories and Kinds; Human Rights
Idea of Natural Rights
हिंदी में प्रश्न
नैसर्गिक अधिकारों का विचार
Practise this question Justice, Equality and Rights notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(a)
Approach: A short note: define natural rights, their exponents and historical influence, the major critiques, and their legacy in human rights.
Natural rights are rights that individuals possess by virtue of their human nature or reason, prior to and independent of the State.
The idea grew from Stoic and medieval natural law, Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes, but its classic form is John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689): in the state of nature, people have rights to life, liberty and estate, and a government that violates them may be resisted.
Natural rights inspired the American Declaration of Independence (1776), with its unalienable rights, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789).
Critiques: Edmund Burke rejected abstract rights in favour of inherited liberties; Jeremy Bentham called natural and imprescriptible rights nonsense upon stilts; Marx saw them as rights of egoistic, property-owning man.
Despite this, the idea revived after 1945 as human rights in the UDHR (1948), and survives in India in the view that the Constitution recognises rather than creates rights such as life and personal liberty.
Q1(b) · Western Political Thought · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Plato and Aristotle
Aristotle’s Conception of Equality
हिंदी में प्रश्न
अरस्तू की समता की संकल्पना
Practise this question Western Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(b)
Approach: Explain Aristotle's distinction between numerical and proportionate equality and its link to distributive justice and citizenship, with a brief critique.
Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics Book V and Politics) treats equality as the core of justice, but distinguishes two kinds. Numerical equality gives everyone the same share; proportionate equality gives shares according to merit or contribution, so that equals are treated equally and unequals unequally.
Distributive justice, in the allocation of offices and honours, follows proportionate equality; corrective justice, in transactions and wrongs, follows arithmetic equality. The dispute is about the criterion of merit: democrats take free birth, oligarchs wealth, aristocrats virtue. Aristotle held that offices should go chiefly to those who contribute most to the good life of the polis.
He also saw extreme inequality of wealth as the main cause of revolution and favoured a strong middle class.
Critique: his conception justified slavery and the exclusion of women. Yet the idea of treating unequals unequally underlies modern reasoning on reasonable classification under Article 14 and on reservations.
Q1(c) · Justice, Equality and Rights · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Rawls' Theory of Justice
‘Difference Principle’ in Rawls’ Theory of Justice
हिंदी में प्रश्न
रॉल्स की न्याय की थियोरी में ‘विशिष्टता सिद्धान्त’
Practise this question Justice, Equality and Rights notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(c)
Approach: A short note: state the difference principle and its place in Rawls' second principle, the reasoning behind it (natural lottery, maximin), an example, and a critique.
The difference principle is part of the second principle of justice in John Rawls' A Theory of Justice (1971). It states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society, subject to fair equality of opportunity.
Rationale: Rawls holds that the distribution of natural talents and social starting points is a natural lottery, morally arbitrary, so no one deserves a larger share merely for being gifted. Parties behind the veil of ignorance, applying the maximin rule, would choose to make the worst-off position as good as possible.
The principle is not strict equality: unequal rewards are just if they act as incentives that raise the absolute position of the poorest, for example higher pay for scarce skills.
Nozick criticised it as a patterned principle that violates entitlements; G.A. Cohen found it too lenient towards incentives.
In India the principle resonates with Article 38(2), progressive taxation and targeted welfare, and it remains the core of liberal egalitarianism.
Q1(d) · Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Models of Democracy: Representative, Participatory and Deliberative
Difference between Participatory and Deliberative Democracy
हिंदी में प्रश्न
सहभागी और विचार-विमर्शी लोकतंत्र में अन्तर
Practise this question Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(d)
Approach: Define both models and compare them on their aim, thinkers, institutions and weaknesses, ending with their complementarity.
Both models arose as critiques of the elitist, vote-centred view of democracy associated with Schumpeter, but they emphasise different things.
Participatory democracy, associated with Rousseau, Carole Pateman (Participation and Democratic Theory, 1970) and Benjamin Barber, stresses the extent of participation: citizens should take part directly in decisions at the workplace, in the locality and in the state, which also educates them. Its institutions are referendums, Gram Sabhas and workers' councils.
Deliberative democracy, associated with Habermas, Rawls and Joshua Cohen, stresses the quality of decision making: decisions are legitimate when reached through reasoned argument among equals, and preferences may change in the process. Its institutions are citizens' assemblies, deliberative polls and committees.
Thus participation values inclusion and voice, while deliberation values reason and justification; the first risks uninformed majoritarianism, the second elitism. Most theorists now see them as complementary.
Q1(e) · Indian Political Thought · 10 marks≈ 7 min
M.K. Gandhi
Gandhi’s Views on State
हिंदी में प्रश्न
राज्य के संबंध में गाँधी के विचार
Practise this question Indian Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(e)
Approach: Explain Gandhi's views on the state: its violent nature, his ideal of a stateless society, and his practical preference for a minimal, decentralised state, with a short critique.
Gandhi viewed the state with deep suspicion and is often called a philosophical anarchist. He described the state as violence in a concentrated and organised form, a soulless machine that rests on coercion.
Because moral growth requires voluntary action, he feared that an expanding state would destroy individuality, the root of progress. His ideal was enlightened anarchy, where each person is self-ruled and needs no external authority.
Realising that such a society was distant, he accepted a predominantly non-violent, minimal state. Power was to be decentralised through Gram Swaraj, with self-governing villages arranged in expanding oceanic circles rather than a pyramid. Property was to be held in trusteeship rather than owned by the state.
Critics argue that a weak state cannot deliver social justice or defence. Yet his ideas influenced Article 40, the 73rd Amendment and debates on decentralisation.

Question 2 (50 marks)

Q2(a) · Political Theory and Theories of the State · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Liberal and Neo-liberal Theories of the State
Examine the challenges to sovereignty of the State in the contemporary world.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
समकालीन विश्व में राज्य की प्रभुता को चुनौतियों का परीक्षण कीजिए।
Practise this question Political Theory and Theories of the State notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q2(a)
Approach: Define sovereignty in its classical sense, examine the external and internal challenges to it in the contemporary world with examples, and conclude that sovereignty is being transformed rather than eroded.
Sovereignty is the supreme, final authority of the state within its territory and its independence outside it. Jean Bodin (Six Books of the Commonwealth, 1576), Hobbes and John Austin described it as absolute, indivisible and inalienable, and the Westphalian order (1648) made it the basis of international relations.
Economic globalisation: multinational corporations, global capital flows and credit rating agencies constrain national policy; WTO rules limit trade policy and IMF conditionality shaped reforms in many countries. Kenichi Ohmae spoke of a ‘borderless world’ and Susan Strange of the ‘retreat of the state’ (1996).
International law and institutions: human rights regimes, the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect (2005) make sovereignty conditional on how a state treats its people. Supranational bodies such as the European Union pool sovereignty.
Non-state actors and new threats: terrorism, transnational crime, cyber attacks and climate change cross borders and cannot be handled by one state. Global media and social networks bypass state control of information.
Internal challenges: pluralists such as Laski argued that authority is shared with associations; secessionist and ethnic movements and federal demands also test sovereignty.
Counter-view: states remain the main actors. During COVID-19 they closed borders, and great powers act unilaterally. Stephen Krasner calls sovereignty ‘organized hypocrisy’, always compromised in practice. India has used its sovereignty to protect strategic autonomy in trade and climate negotiations.
Sovereignty is therefore not disappearing but being reshaped into shared and responsible sovereignty in an interdependent world.
Q2(b) · Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Socialism and Marxism
Discuss the key features of pre-Marxist socialist theory.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
मार्क्सवाद-पूर्व समाजवादी थियोरी के प्रमुख अभिलक्षणों पर चर्चा कीजिए।
Practise this question Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q2(b)
Approach: Introduce pre-Marxist or utopian socialism, present its main thinkers, list its key features, and end with Marx's critique and its legacy.
Socialist ideas before Marx emerged in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as reactions to the inequalities of the Industrial Revolution. Marx and Engels called them utopian socialism, in contrast to their own scientific socialism.
Its main thinkers were Henri de Saint-Simon, who imagined an industrial society run by producers, scientists and industrialists; Charles Fourier, who proposed cooperative communities called phalansteries and condemned the waste of commerce; and Robert Owen, who ran the model mill community at New Lanark and founded New Harmony in the USA. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who declared that property is theft, and Louis Blanc, who advocated social workshops, are also included.
Its key features were: (i) a moral criticism of capitalism appealing to justice and reason; (ii) belief in the goodness of human nature shaped by environment; (iii) small cooperative communities as models; (iv) peaceful change through education and example, appealing even to the rich; and (v) the absence of a theory of class struggle or historical laws.
Marx and Engels, in the Communist Manifesto (1848) and Engels's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880), criticised them for lacking a material analysis of history. Yet they inspired the cooperative movement, and Gandhi's self-reliant village communities show a similar spirit.
Q2(c) · Indian Political Thought · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Dharmashastra and Arthashastra Traditions
Compare and contrast the views of Kautilya and Machiavelli on Statecraft.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
राज-कला पर कौटिल्य और मैकियावेली के विचारों में समानताओं और विषमताओं का उल्लेख कीजिए।
Practise this question Indian Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q2(c)
Approach: Compare and contrast: set out the similarities between the two realists, then the differences in context, ends, ethics and scope, and conclude with a judgement.
Kautilya (Arthashastra, c. fourth century BCE) and Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince, 1513) are both seen as founders of political realism in their traditions. Max Weber thought The Prince harmless beside the Arthashastra.
Similarities: both treat politics as an autonomous field governed by power and necessity; both advise rulers to use force, deceit and espionage when needed; both assume human beings are self-interested; both value a strong, unified state, Kautilya under the Mauryas and Machiavelli for a divided Italy; and both discuss alliances and war in a calculating manner, as in Kautilya's Mandala theory and Machiavelli's advice on auxiliaries and mercenaries.
Differences: first, ends. Kautilya's goal is yogakshema, the welfare of subjects, within a framework of dharma; Machiavelli's goal is the founding and maintenance of the state, with virtù as the quality that masters fortuna. Second, ethics: Kautilya keeps the king under rajadharma and a strict self-discipline, while Machiavelli separates political necessity from Christian morality.
Third, scope: the Arthashastra is a comprehensive manual on economy, law, taxation and administration, while The Prince is a short treatise on acquiring and holding power. Fourth, Kautilya relies on a vast bureaucracy and spy network; Machiavelli on the prince's personal qualities and a citizen militia.
Both are better described as realists than cynics. Kautilya is the more systematic, Machiavelli the more modern in separating politics from religion.

Question 3 (50 marks)

Q3(a) · Western Political Thought · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Plato and Aristotle
“Plato was an enemy of the open society.” (Popper) Comment.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
“प्लेटो अप्रतिबंधित समाज का एक शत्रु था।” (पॉपर) समीक्षा कीजिए।
Practise this question Western Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q3(a)
Approach: Comment on Popper's charge in The Open Society and Its Enemies: explain the open and closed society, Popper's reasons for calling Plato its enemy, then the defence of Plato, ending with a balanced view.
Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), written against the background of fascism and Stalinism, named Plato, Hegel and Marx as enemies of the open society: a society in which individuals make personal decisions, criticise authority and change governments without bloodshed. Its opposite is the closed, tribal society governed by fixed rules and authority.
Popper's arguments against Plato: first, historicism: Plato believed in a law of historical decay and sought to arrest change by returning to a fixed ideal state. Second, essentialism: the theory of Forms claims certain knowledge of the Good, which justifies rule by an elite who possess it. Third, the Republic's justice means each class keeping to its place, which Popper read as totalitarian class rule. Fourth, Plato allowed the rulers to use the noble lie, censorship of art and control of breeding. Fifth, Plato asked the wrong question, who should rule, instead of how to control rulers and remove bad ones peacefully.
Popper also argued that Plato betrayed Socrates, who stood for critical inquiry and the admission of ignorance.
Defence of Plato: critics such as Ronald Levinson replied that Popper read twentieth-century totalitarianism back into ancient Athens. Plato's rulers are bound by reason and denied property and family, so they rule for the common good, not self-interest. His concern was the corruption and instability of Athenian democracy that had executed Socrates. And in the Laws, Plato moved towards the rule of law and a mixed constitution.
Popper's charge is therefore partly valid: Plato's ideal state is authoritarian, hostile to democracy and free criticism. But calling him a totalitarian is anachronistic.
The lasting lesson is Popper's: no ruler, however wise, should be beyond institutional control.
Q3(b) · Western Political Thought · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci
Discuss the relationship between base and superstructure in Marxist theory.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
मार्क्सवादी थियोरी में आधार और अधिरचना के मध्य संबंध का विवेचन कीजिए।
Practise this question Western Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q3(b)
Approach: Discuss the base-superstructure model from the 1859 Preface, the economic-determinist reading, Engels's qualification, and later Marxist revisions (Gramsci, Althusser), ending with an assessment.
In the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), Marx stated that the relations of production constitute the economic structure of society, the real foundation (base), on which arises a legal and political superstructure with corresponding forms of social consciousness. It is not consciousness that determines being, but social being that determines consciousness.
The base combines forces of production (tools, technology, labour) and relations of production (ownership and class). The superstructure includes the state, law, religion, morality, philosophy and art. When the forces of production outgrow the relations, an era of social revolution begins and the superstructure is transformed.
A strict reading yields economic determinism, in which politics and ideas merely reflect economics. Engels, in his 1890 letter to Joseph Bloch, rejected this: the economy is the determining element only in the last instance, and superstructural elements interact with and influence the base.
Later Marxists developed this. Gramsci showed that hegemony in civil society sustains capitalist rule; Althusser spoke of the relative autonomy of the superstructure and of ideological state apparatuses.
Critics such as Weber, in The Protestant Ethic, argued that ideas can shape economic change. The model remains a useful heuristic when read as a two-way relationship.
Q3(c) · Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Power, Hegemony, Ideology and Legitimacy
Distinguish between Power and Authority.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
शक्ति और प्राधिकार के बीच विभेदन कीजिए।
Practise this question Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q3(c)
Approach: Define power and authority, set out the points of difference clearly, and note how they overlap, with examples.
Power and authority are both forms of influence, but they differ in their basis and acceptance.
Power is the ability to make others act as one wishes, even against their will (Weber). It can rest on force, wealth, knowledge or manipulation, and it may be legitimate or illegitimate. Authority is legitimate power: the recognised right to command, obeyed because it is accepted as rightful, which Weber classified as traditional, charismatic and legal-rational.
The differences are: (i) basis: power rests on capability and sanctions, authority on legitimacy and consent; (ii) obedience: power secures compliance, often out of fear, while authority secures voluntary obedience; (iii) stability: power alone is unstable and costly, authority is durable; (iv) scope: authority is limited by the rules that create it, while power may be unlimited; (v) location: authority attaches to an office, while power may be informal, as with a lobby or a criminal gang.
R.S. Peters distinguished being in authority (holding an office) from being an authority (having expert knowledge).
The two also overlap: authority needs power to enforce decisions, and stable power seeks authority. In India, the Election Commission's directions carry authority, while a violent mob has power without authority.

Question 4 (50 marks)

Q4(a) · Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Power, Hegemony, Ideology and Legitimacy
Discuss the ‘crisis of legitimacy’ in capitalist societies. (Habermas)
हिंदी में प्रश्न
पूँजीवादी समाजों में ‘विधिसम्मतता का संकट’ की विवेचना कीजिए। (हाबरमास)
Practise this question Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q4(a)
Approach: Discuss Habermas's argument by explaining the role of the state in late capitalism, his four crisis tendencies and why legitimation crisis arises, and then evaluate it with later experience.
Jürgen Habermas, of the second generation of the Frankfurt School, developed the idea of a legitimation crisis in Legitimation Crisis (1973). He asked why advanced or late capitalism, despite its prosperity, has persistent difficulty in securing mass loyalty.
In late capitalism the state intervenes heavily in the economy to manage crises, provide welfare and sustain growth. Once the state takes responsibility for economic outcomes, failures are blamed on it rather than on the impersonal market, so economic problems become political ones.
Habermas identified four crisis tendencies: an economic crisis, when the economy fails to produce enough consumable values; a rationality crisis, when the administrative system cannot make the necessary rational decisions; a legitimation crisis, when the system cannot win enough mass loyalty for its actions; and a motivation crisis, when the socio-cultural system no longer generates the motivations the system needs, such as the work ethic.
The legitimation crisis arises because the capitalist state must serve private accumulation while claiming to act for the general interest. It must expand welfare to keep loyalty but cannot meet rising demands without hurting profits. Tradition no longer supplies unquestioned meaning, so the state must justify itself rationally, and often it cannot.
The theory helps explain the fiscal crisis of welfare states in the 1970s, public anger after the 2008 financial crisis and today's populist revolts against elites. Critics note that capitalism proved more resilient than Habermas expected, partly through neo-liberal restructuring. His remedy lies in communicative rationality and deliberative democracy, which rebuild legitimacy through open public reasoning.
Q4(b) · Western Political Thought · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci
Discuss Gramsci’s notion of ‘organic intellectuals’.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
ग्राम्सी के ‘जैविक बुद्धिजीवियों (ऑर्गेनिक इन्टेलेक्चुअल्स)’ के अभिप्राय की विवेचना कीजिए।
Practise this question Western Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q4(b)
Approach: Discuss Gramsci's distinction between traditional and organic intellectuals, the role of organic intellectuals in hegemony and counter-hegemony, the party as collective intellectual, and its relevance.
In the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci argued that all people are intellectuals in the sense that everyone thinks, but not all have the social function of intellectuals. He classified those who do into two groups.
Traditional intellectuals, such as clergy, academics and men of letters, see themselves as autonomous and above class, with a continuity from earlier social formations; in fact they usually serve the dominant order.
Organic intellectuals are produced by each fundamental class as it emerges, to give it homogeneity and awareness of its function in economic, social and political life. The rising bourgeoisie created its technicians, economists, managers and lawyers; the proletariat must create its own intellectuals from within, rooted in its experience.
Role: the hegemony of the ruling class is organised by its organic intellectuals in civil society. The working class must produce organic intellectuals who articulate its interests and build counter-hegemony through a war of position, and win over traditional intellectuals. The revolutionary party, the Modern Prince, acts as the collective intellectual.
Relevance: the idea helps explain leaders like Ambedkar, Phule or Kanshi Ram, who emerged from marginalised groups and articulated their worldview. Critics note the risk of the party subordinating intellectuals.
Q4(c) · Political Theory and Theories of the State · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Approaches to Political Theory: Normative, Historical, Empirical, Behavioural and Post-behavioural
Discuss David Easton’s model of systems analysis.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
डेविड ईस्टन के तंत्र-विश्लेषण के मॉडल पर चर्चा कीजिए।
Practise this question Political Theory and Theories of the State notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q4(c)
Approach: Explain the context and components of Easton’s systems model (environment, inputs, conversion, outputs, feedback, gatekeepers), then assess its strengths and criticisms.
David Easton, a leading behaviouralist, sought a general theory that could explain all political systems. Drawing on general systems theory, he set out his model in The Political System (1953), A Framework for Political Analysis and A Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965). He defined politics as the authoritative allocation of values for a society.
Environment: the political system is surrounded by an intra-societal environment (economy, culture, social structure) and an extra-societal one (international system), which generate disturbances.
Inputs: demands (for goods, regulation, participation) and support (for the political community, the regime and the authorities). Gatekeepers such as parties, interest groups and the media filter demands to prevent overload.
Conversion and outputs: the authorities convert inputs into outputs, binding decisions and policies, through the legislature, executive and bureaucracy, which critics called the ‘black box’.
Feedback loop: outputs change the environment and return as new demands or altered support, so the system adapts and persists. For example, protests against farm laws led to their repeal in 2021, which changed the pattern of support.
Criticism: the model is abstract and better at describing stability than revolution; it treats conversion as a black box and neglects power, class and conflict; Marxists call it status-quoist. Its categories were derived from Western democracies.
Despite this, Easton’s model gave political science a common vocabulary for analysing how any political system responds to pressure.

Question 5 (50 marks)

Q5(a) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Duties, and Directive Principles
Secularism in the Indian Constitution
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारतीय संविधान में धर्म-निरपेक्षता
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(a)
Approach: The question asks for a short account of secularism in the Constitution, so the answer covers the provisions, the Indian model and the main debates.
Indian secularism means that the state has no religion of its own, treats all religions equally and guarantees freedom of conscience. The word was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment (1976), but the idea ran through the original text.
Provisions: Articles 14, 15 and 16 bar discrimination on grounds of religion; Articles 25–28 secure freedom of religion, denominational autonomy, no tax for promoting a religion and no religious instruction in state institutions; Articles 29–30 protect minorities' culture and educational institutions; Article 325 bars a separate electoral roll on religious grounds.
The Indian model: unlike the American wall of separation, the Indian state can intervene to reform religion, such as opening Hindu temples to all castes under Article 25(2)(b). Rajeev Bhargava calls this principled distance, and S.R. Bommai (1994) held secularism to be part of the basic structure.
Debates: critics allege minority appeasement or majoritarian drift, and the uniform civil code (Article 44) remains contested.
Indian secularism is a contextual model suited to a deeply religious, plural society.
Q5(b) · Indian Nationalism and the Making of the Constitution · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Political Strategies of the Freedom Struggle: Constitutionalism to Mass Satyagraha
Satyagraha as a Strategy in the Indian National Movement
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारतीय राष्ट्रीय आन्दोलन में एक रणनीति के रूप में सत्याग्रह
Practise this question Indian Nationalism and the Making of the Constitution notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(b)
Approach: Explain satyagraha as a strategy (its principles and techniques), show how it was used in the major campaigns, and evaluate its effectiveness.
Satyagraha was Gandhi’s strategy of non-violent resistance based on truth, ahimsa and self-suffering. Unlike passive resistance, which Gandhi regarded as a weapon of the weak, it was presented as the weapon of the morally strong.
Techniques: non-cooperation, civil disobedience of unjust laws, boycott, hartal, picketing, fasting and constructive work. Each campaign was carefully chosen around a concrete grievance, such as the salt tax in 1930, that united all classes.
Application: after local experiments at Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad, it drove the Rowlatt Satyagraha (1919), Non-Cooperation (1920–22), Civil Disobedience with the Dandi March (1930) and Quit India (1942). Bipan Chandra describes this as a struggle–truce–struggle cycle, which Gramsci would call a war of position, building counter-hegemony between phases of open confrontation.
Effectiveness: it mobilised millions, exposed the violence of colonial rule and eroded its legitimacy. Critics note its withdrawals and argue that the war, the INA and the naval mutiny of 1946 also hastened independence.
Satyagraha remains India’s most original contribution to the politics of protest.
Q5(c) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Supreme Court: Envisaged Role and Actual Working
99th Amendment of the Indian Constitution
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारतीय संविधान का 99वाँ संशोधन
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(c)
Approach: The question asks for a short note on the 99th Amendment, so the answer gives its provisions, the reason for it, and the Supreme Court's response.
The Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 replaced the collegium system with a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for appointing and transferring judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, inserting Articles 124A to 124C. It came into force in April 2015 with the NJAC Act.
Composition: the Chief Justice of India as chairperson, the two senior-most Supreme Court judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons chosen by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and the Leader of the Opposition (or of the largest opposition party). Any two members could veto a recommendation.
Rationale: the collegium was criticised for opacity, lack of accountability and narrow diversity.
Judicial response: in October 2015 a Constitution Bench struck down the amendment by 4:1, with Justice Chelameswar dissenting, holding that executive participation and the veto threatened judicial independence, a basic feature. The collegium was restored with a promise to improve transparency.
The episode remains central to the debate between independence and accountability.
Q5(d) · Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Planning and Development: Nehruvian and Gandhian Perspectives, Planning and the Public Sector
Structure and Function of NITI Aayog
हिंदी में प्रश्न
‘नीति’ आयोग की संरचना व उसका प्रकार्य
Practise this question Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(d)
Approach: A short note: state NITI Aayog's origin and purpose, then its structure, then its main functions, with a line of assessment.
NITI Aayog was set up by a Union Cabinet resolution and began work on 1 January 2015, replacing the Planning Commission. It is neither a constitutional nor a statutory body, and serves as the government's policy think tank.
Structure: the Prime Minister is Chairperson. The Governing Council comprises all Chief Ministers and the Lieutenant Governors of Union Territories with legislatures, and Regional Councils are formed for specific issues. A Vice-Chairperson leads full-time members, with part-time members from research institutions, up to four Union ministers ex officio, special invitees, and a Chief Executive Officer heading the secretariat.
Functions: fostering cooperative federalism through structured engagement with states; designing strategic, long-term policy; preparing plans at the village level and aggregating them upward; monitoring and evaluating programmes; and acting as a knowledge and innovation hub.
Unlike the Planning Commission, it has no role in allocating funds to states. Its value will depend on whether it becomes a genuine forum of Centre-state partnership rather than an advisory arm of the Union.
Q5(e) · Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Federalism: Constitutional Provisions and Changing Centre-State Relations
Cooperative Federalism in India
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारत में सहकारी परिसंघवाद
Practise this question Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(e)
Approach: A short note: define cooperative federalism, give its constitutional and institutional bases in India, current instruments, limits, and a brief conclusion.
Cooperative federalism is a model in which the Centre and states share responsibilities and work through joint institutions rather than in watertight compartments; Granville Austin used it to describe the Indian Constitution.
Its constitutional bases include the Concurrent List, Article 263 on the Inter-State Council, Zonal Councils under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Finance Commission transfers under Article 280 and the All India Services.
In 2015 NITI Aayog replaced the Planning Commission, with a Governing Council of all Chief Ministers and the slogan of cooperative and competitive federalism, and the proposed GST Council promises shared decision-making on taxes.
Its limits are the Centre's dominance in finances and agenda-setting, rare meetings of the Inter-State Council and political conflicts between governments of different parties.
Cooperative federalism is thus India's constitutional ideal, and its practice depends on genuine consultation and trust between the two levels of government.

Question 6 (50 marks)

Q6(a) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Judicial Review and the Basic Structure Doctrine
Discuss the efficacy of judicial review in India.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारत में न्यायिक पुनर्विलोकन की प्रभावोत्पादकता की विवेचना कीजिए।
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q6(a)
Approach: The question asks to discuss how effective judicial review has been in India, so the answer explains its constitutional basis, shows its achievements with cases, and examines its limits before concluding.
Judicial review is the power of courts to test laws and executive action against the Constitution and strike down what conflicts with it. In India it rests on Article 13, which voids laws violating Fundamental Rights, Articles 32 and 226 on writs, and the federal and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Unlike the American version, which was established by the Court in Marbury v Madison (1803), it is written into the text.
Protecting the constitutional core: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) extended review to amendments; Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975) and Minerva Mills (1980) checked the Emergency amendments. The NJAC judgment (2015) defended judicial independence.
Expanding rights: Maneka Gandhi (1978) required fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21, bringing in due process. Public interest litigation opened courts to bonded labourers, prisoners and the poor. Shreya Singhal (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act to protect online speech.
Guarding federalism and democracy: S.R. Bommai (1994) made the use of Article 356 reviewable and required floor tests, reducing arbitrary dismissal of state governments.
Limits: in ADM Jabalpur (1976) the Court failed to protect liberty during the Emergency. Courts defer on economic policy and national security, and long delays in deciding constitutional challenges blunt review. The Ninth Schedule shielded many laws until I.R. Coelho (2007). At the other extreme, critics see judicial overreach when courts frame policy, as with continuing directions on forests or transport.
Judicial review has been largely effective in preserving constitutional supremacy, rights and federal balance. Its efficacy depends on judicial independence, speedy disposal and self-restraint, so that the Court remains a check rather than a substitute for elected institutions.
Q6(b) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 15 marks≈ 11 min
State Executive, Legislature and High Courts
Critically analyze the discretionary powers granted to the Governor by the Indian Constitution.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारतीय संविधान द्वारा राज्यपाल को प्रदान की गई वैवेकिक शक्तियों का समालोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए।
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q6(b)
Approach: The question asks for a critical analysis of the Governor's discretionary powers, so the answer explains the constitutional basis, lists the express and situational areas of discretion, and analyses how they have been used and checked.
Article 163(1) says the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers ‘except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions … in his discretion’, and Article 163(2) makes the Governor's decision on what is discretionary final. Unlike the President, the Governor thus has textual discretion.
Express discretion: reserving bills for the President under Article 200; special responsibilities under Article 371 (such as law and order in Nagaland under Article 371A); and functions under the Sixth Schedule.
Situational discretion: appointing a Chief Minister in a hung assembly, dismissing a ministry that has lost its majority, dissolving the Assembly, and reporting a breakdown of constitutional machinery under Article 356.
Misuse: these powers have been used for partisan ends, as in the dismissals of the Kerala government in 1959, N.T. Rama Rao in Andhra Pradesh in 1984 and S.R. Bommai in Karnataka in 1989.
Checks: Shamsher Singh (1974) limited discretion to the exceptions; S.R. Bommai (1994) made the floor test the test of majority and Article 356 reviewable; Rameshwar Prasad (2006) struck down the Bihar dissolution; B.P. Singhal (2010) protected Governors from arbitrary removal.
Discretion is needed for situations the ministry cannot decide, but it must be exercised as a constitutional umpire, not as an agent of the Union.
Q6(c) · Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Caste, Religion and Ethnicity in Indian Politics
“Identity politics has trumped development politics in India.” Comment.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
“भारत में पहचान राजनीति ने विकास राजनीति को मात दे दी है।” टिप्पणी कीजिए।
Practise this question Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q6(c)
Approach: Comment by testing the claim: show where identity has dominated, where development politics has gained ground, and argue that the two increasingly interact.
Identity politics mobilises voters on caste, religion, language or region, while development politics seeks support on the basis of growth, infrastructure, welfare and governance.
Support for the statement: since 1989 the decisive moments of Indian politics, Mandal and Mandir, were identity-driven. Parties such as the BSP, SP and RJD were built on caste coalitions; communal polarisation shaped elections after riots; and ethnic and regional parties dominate several states. Kanchan Chandra's analysis of patronage democracy explains why voters expect benefits through co-ethnic leaders.
Against the statement: governments that delivered roads, power and order have been re-elected, such as Nitish Kumar in Bihar in 2010 and Shivraj Singh Chouhan in Madhya Pradesh; and the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign put development and governance at its centre, attracting young and aspirational voters across castes.
Interaction: identity and development are not opposed. Groups demand development through identity, as quota agitations by Jats and Patidars show, while development appeals are often packaged with identity symbols. Yogendra Yadav notes that identity mobilisation gave marginalised groups a share of development.
So identity has not simply trumped development; Indian politics shows a layered pattern in which identity defines who gets development, and development performance decides whether identity coalitions survive.

Question 7 (50 marks)

Q7(a) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Duties, and Directive Principles
In the light of neo-economic policies adopted since 1991, examine the relevance of the term ‘socialist’ in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
1991 से अपनाई गई नव-आर्थिक नीतियों के आलोक में भारतीय संविधान की उद्देशिका में ‘समाजवादी’ शब्द की प्रासंगिकता का परीक्षण कीजिए।
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q7(a)
Approach: The question asks to examine whether ‘socialist’ in the Preamble still matters after the 1991 reforms, so the answer explains the Indian meaning of the term, sets out the argument of irrelevance, and shows its continuing relevance.
The word socialist was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment (1976), though the goal was older: the Avadi session of the Congress (1955) adopted a socialistic pattern of society. In the Constituent Assembly Ambedkar had opposed K.T. Shah's proposal to declare India socialist, arguing that economic policy should be left to the people to decide in each generation.
Indian meaning: Indian socialism was democratic, not Marxist: a mixed economy, public sector commanding heights, planning and welfare within parliamentary democracy. The Supreme Court explained it as securing a decent standard of life and reducing inequality of income and status (D.S. Nakara, 1983).
Argument of irrelevance: since 1991, liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation have dismantled the licence raj, opened sectors to private and foreign capital and sold state enterprises. Critics say the word now describes no actual policy and survives only as rhetoric.
Continuing relevance: socialism in the Indian sense means a commitment to social justice, not state ownership. The reform era produced rights-based welfare: MGNREGA (2005), the Forest Rights Act (2006), the RTE Act (2009) and the National Food Security Act (2013). Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act requires parties to bear allegiance to socialism, and courts read it with Articles 38 and 39 to uphold labour and welfare laws.
Rising inequality and informal work after globalisation make a corrective commitment more needed. As the Supreme Court said in dismissing challenges to the word in November 2024, socialism in India denotes a welfare state, not a particular economic model.
The term has moved from state-led socialism to inclusive growth and a welfare state within a market economy; it remains relevant as a constitutional value.
Q7(b) · Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Federalism: Constitutional Provisions and Changing Centre-State Relations
Identify the contested areas in Centre-State relations in India.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारत में केन्द्र-राज्य संबंधों में विवादित क्षेत्रों को चिह्नित कीजिए।
Practise this question Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q7(b)
Approach: Identify the main contested areas in Centre-state relations under legislative, administrative, financial and political heads, with examples, and conclude with the reforms suggested by commissions.
India's federation, designed with a strong Centre, has produced recurring tension, voiced in documents such as the Rajamannar Committee report (Tamil Nadu, 1971), the Anandpur Sahib Resolution (1973) and the West Bengal memorandum (1977).
Office of the Governor: appointment without consulting the state, discretion in inviting parties to form governments, reservation of state bills for the President (Articles 200-201), and reports recommending President's rule.
Article 356: used over a hundred times, often against opposition governments, until S.R. Bommai (1994) made proclamations reviewable; dismissals such as those in Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh remained controversial.
Legislative and administrative areas: expansion of the Concurrent List, Union laws on state subjects, deployment of central forces without state consent, the proposed National Counter Terrorism Centre (2012), and the use of central agencies such as the CBI.
Financial areas: vertical imbalance between the Union's revenues and states' responsibilities, discretionary grants under Article 282, conditional centrally sponsored schemes, and the design of the proposed GST.
Other contested areas include inter-state river disputes, All India Services officers' dual control, and demands for special category status.
The Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions recommended impartial Governors, sparing use of Article 356, consultation on Concurrent subjects and an active Inter-State Council; implementing them would turn contestation into cooperative federalism.
Q7(c) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Duties, and Directive Principles
Discuss the ‘Right to Education’ and the concerns raised by it.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
‘शिक्षा का अधिकार’ और उसके द्वारा उठाए गए सरोकारों पर चर्चा कीजिए।
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q7(c)
Approach: The question asks to discuss the Right to Education and the concerns it raised, so the answer covers its constitutional and legal basis and main provisions, then the debates over its working.
The Supreme Court first linked education to Article 21 in Mohini Jain (1992) and Unni Krishnan (1993). The 86th Amendment (2002) inserted Article 21A, making free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 a Fundamental Right, revised Article 45 to cover early childhood care, and added a parental duty in Article 51A(k). The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into force in April 2010.
Main provisions: neighbourhood schools, no capitation fee or screening, norms for pupil-teacher ratio and infrastructure, qualified teachers, school management committees with parents, a no-detention policy up to Class 8, and reservation of 25 per cent of entry-level seats in private unaided schools for disadvantaged children.
Concerns raised: private schools challenged the 25 per cent quota as a burden on their autonomy; it was upheld in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan (2012), but Pramati Educational Trust (2014) exempted minority schools, creating an incentive to claim minority status. Reimbursement to private schools is delayed.
Enrolment rose, but surveys such as ASER showed poor learning outcomes, and critics blamed the no-detention policy, teacher vacancies and a focus on inputs over learning. The Act excludes children under 6 and those aged 14 to 18.
The right marked a historic shift from a Directive to an entitlement, but its value depends on quality.

Question 8 (50 marks)

Q8(a) · Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Panchayati Raj, Municipal Government and the 73rd and 74th Amendments
Examine the role of Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies in deepening of democracy in India.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारत में लोकतंत्र की जड़ें गहरी करने में पंचायती राज संस्थाओं और नगरीय स्थानीय निकायों की भूमिका का परीक्षण कीजिए।
Practise this question Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q8(a)
Approach: Examine the role of PRIs and ULBs in deepening democracy: explain what deepening means, show the contributions (participation, representation, accountability, political education), then the limits, and conclude.
Deepening democracy means moving from formal, electoral democracy to participatory and inclusive democracy, in which ordinary citizens, especially the marginalised, take part in decisions that affect them; the 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992) created a constitutional third tier for this purpose.
Widening participation: elections to about two and a half lakh panchayats and thousands of municipalities make India the largest exercise in local democracy, with around three million elected representatives; the Gram Sabha (Article 243A) adds an element of direct democracy.
Inclusive representation: reservation for SCs, STs and at least one-third for women (Articles 243D and 243T) has brought Dalits, Adivasis and women into public office in unprecedented numbers, which Anne Phillips calls the politics of presence.
Political education and leadership: as J.S. Mill argued in Considerations on Representative Government (1861), local institutions are schools of political capacity; many state legislators began in panchayats.
Accountability: social audits and jan sunwais have brought transparency in public works, and PESA (1996) has given tribal Gram Sabhas a say over land and forest resources.
Urban local bodies have widened participation less, because ward committees are weak, mayors lack power and parastatals perform municipal functions, though experiments with participatory budgeting in Pune and Bengaluru's ward-level initiatives show possibilities.
Limits: states have not devolved the 3Fs, so local bodies often act as agents of state schemes; proxy rule, elite capture and caste domination reproduce local hierarchies, echoing Ambedkar's fear that the village could be a den of narrow-mindedness.
Overall, PRIs and ULBs have substantially deepened democracy in its representative and inclusive dimensions; deepening it in substance needs real devolution, empowered Gram and ward sabhas and stronger municipal government.
Q8(b) · Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Planning and Development: Nehruvian and Gandhian Perspectives, Planning and the Public Sector
Compare the Nehruvian and Gandhian models of development.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
विकास के नेहरूवादी और गाँधीवादी मॉडलों की तुलना कीजिए।
Practise this question Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q8(b)
Approach: Compare the two models point by point (philosophy, unit and technology, role of the state, outcomes), note convergences, and conclude on their relevance.
India's development debate at independence was framed by Nehru's planned modernisation and Gandhi's decentralised, village-centred development; their letters of October 1945 capture the divide.
Philosophy: Nehru, influenced by Fabian socialism and Soviet planning, saw development as material progress through science and industry. Gandhi, in Hind Swaraj (1909), condemned industrial civilisation and saw development as moral growth with limitation of wants.
Unit and technology: the Nehruvian model centred on the nation, heavy industry under the Mahalanobis strategy, dams and steel plants. The Gandhian model centred on the self-sufficient village, khadi and labour-intensive technology: production by the masses rather than mass production.
Role of the state: Nehru gave the public sector the commanding heights of a mixed economy, steered by the Planning Commission. Gandhi distrusted state power and relied on trusteeship, voluntary action and panchayats.
Outcomes: the Nehruvian model built an industrial and scientific base but produced slow growth and neglected primary education. The Gandhian model, reflected in Articles 40 and 43 and the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, was criticised as romanticising the caste-ridden village.
Both sought self-reliance, poverty removal and equity. Today's stress on sustainable development, panchayati raj and high-technology growth suggests a synthesis: Nehru's means with Gandhi's concern for people and nature.
Q8(c) · Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Party System, Coalition Politics and Pressure Groups
Account for the rise of regional political parties and assess their role in contemporary India.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
प्रादेशिक राजनीतिक दलों के उदय का कारण बताइए तथा समकालीन भारत में उनकी भूमिका का आकलन कीजिए।
Practise this question Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q8(c)
Approach: Account for the rise of regional parties (historical, social, institutional, political causes), then assess their contemporary role on both positive and negative sides.
Regional parties are parties whose support and agenda are concentrated in one state or region, such as the DMK, Shiromani Akali Dal, National Conference, TDP, AGP, BJD and TMC.
Causes of their rise: first, linguistic and cultural identities, strengthened by the linguistic reorganisation of states in 1956; the DMK's victory in 1967 drew on Tamil pride and anti-Hindi sentiment. Second, regional deprivation and grievances against central neglect, as with the AGP after the Assam movement and the TDP's appeal to Telugu self-respect in 1982-83.
Third, the decline of the Congress and its centralisation under Indira Gandhi, which alienated state leaders; fourth, caste mobilisation after Mandal; and fifth, the federal structure and separate state elections, which give regional parties a base to grow.
Role in contemporary India: positively, they have deepened democracy by representing regional and social groups, become kingmakers in coalitions from 1989, strengthened federalism by demanding autonomy and fiscal devolution, and pioneered welfare schemes such as Tamil Nadu's midday meals.
Negatively, many are personality-driven or dynastic, practise parochial or competitive populist politics, and sometimes obstruct national policy, as with the Teesta agreement in 2011.
Regional parties are now a permanent feature of India's multi-level party system; their role is constructive when they balance regional interests with national goals.

UPSC Mains 2015 Political Science and International Relations PSIR Paper II