All Political Science and International Relations optional papers

UPSC Mains 2017 Political Science and International Relations Optional Question Papers with Model Answers

All 56 questions of the 2017 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 2017 Political Science and International Relations PSIR Paper I

Question 1 (50 marks)

Q1(a) · Indian Political Thought · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Sri Aurobindo
According to Sri Aurobindo, Swaraj is a necessary condition for India to accomplish its destined goal
हिंदी में प्रश्न
श्री अरविंद के अनुसार भारत के लिए अपने निर्धारित लक्ष्य की प्राप्ति हेतु स्वराज एक आवश्यक शर्त है
Practise this question Indian Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(a)
Approach: Explain what Aurobindo meant by India's destined goal and why political freedom was its precondition, briefly evaluating the idea.
For Sri Aurobindo, India had a destined goal: to preserve and give to the world its spiritual knowledge, helping humanity move towards a higher, divine life. This mission is a theme of his writings in Bande Mataram and the Uttarpara speech (1909).
He argued that a subject nation cannot fulfil any mission. Foreign rule destroyed India's self-respect, drained its wealth and imposed an alien education that made Indians imitators. Hence Swaraj, meaning complete independence and not colonial self-government, was a necessary condition, not the final end.
Swaraj was to be won through passive resistance: boycott, swadeshi and national education, which would also regenerate national character.
Evaluation: the idea gave nationalism a moral purpose beyond administrative reform. However, its spiritual idiom risked equating Indian culture with Hinduism. Later, in The Ideal of Human Unity, Aurobindo placed free nations within a world union, showing that his nationalism looked beyond India.
Q1(b) · Political Theory and Theories of the State · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Liberal and Neo-liberal Theories of the State
Neo-liberal perspective of State
हिंदी में प्रश्न
राज्य का नव-उदारवादी दृष्टिकोण
Practise this question Political Theory and Theories of the State notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(b)
Approach: Define the neo-liberal perspective of the state, state its main thinkers and features, and note its criticisms with an Indian reference.
The neo-liberal perspective treats the state as a necessary but dangerous institution whose role should be confined to protecting property, enforcing contracts, maintaining order and securing the conditions for free markets. It emerged as a reaction to the welfare state and Keynesian planning.
Thinkers: Hayek (The Road to Serfdom, 1944) warned that planning leads to serfdom; Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom, 1962) saw markets as a guarantee of freedom; Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974) defended the minimal state on grounds of self-ownership.
Features: privatisation, deregulation, low taxes, fiscal discipline, free trade and a market-friendly state, applied by Thatcher, Reagan and the Washington Consensus. India’s 1991 economic reforms and the phrase ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ reflect this influence.
Criticism: it widens inequality, commodifies public goods such as health and education, and was discredited by the 2008 crisis; David Harvey sees it as a project to restore class power.
A balanced view accepts market efficiency but insists on a regulatory, welfare-oriented state.
Q1(c) · Political Theory and Theories of the State · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Approaches to Political Theory: Normative, Historical, Empirical, Behavioural and Post-behavioural
Post-modernism
हिंदी में प्रश्न
उत्तरवर्ती-आधुनिकतावाद
Practise this question Political Theory and Theories of the State notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(c)
Approach: Define post-modernism, give its key thinkers and ideas, show its impact on political theory, and note the main criticism.
Post-modernism is an intellectual current that rejects the Enlightenment belief in universal reason, objective truth and steady progress. Jean-François Lyotard (The Postmodern Condition, 1979) defined it as incredulity towards metanarratives, the grand stories such as liberal progress or Marxist revolution that claim to explain all of history.
Key ideas: Michel Foucault argued that power and knowledge are intertwined, so ‘truth’ is produced by discourses and institutions such as prisons and clinics. Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction exposes the hidden hierarchies in texts, such as male/female or West/East. Jean Baudrillard spoke of simulation, where media images replace reality.
Impact on political theory: it supports difference, plurality and identity politics, and inspired post-colonial and feminist theory; Said’s Orientalism (1978) draws on Foucault.
Criticism: Jürgen Habermas called modernity an unfinished project and accused post-modernism of relativism; without universal norms it is hard to defend human rights or to resist oppression.
Its lasting contribution is scepticism towards any single claim to truth.
Q1(d) · Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Fascism, Gandhism and Feminism
Eco-feminism
हिंदी में प्रश्न
पारिस्थितिक (इको)-नारीवाद
Practise this question Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(d)
Approach: Define eco-feminism, give its main thinkers and arguments, its Indian example, and a critique.
Eco-feminism links the domination of women with the domination of nature, arguing that both arise from patriarchal thought. The term was coined by the French feminist Françoise d'Eaubonne in 1974.
Patriarchal culture builds dualisms such as man and woman, culture and nature, reason and emotion, and values the first over the second, as Val Plumwood showed. Carolyn Merchant's The Death of Nature (1980) traced how the scientific revolution turned nature into a dead machine to be exploited. Vandana Shiva's Staying Alive (1988) argued that Western development is maldevelopment that destroys the feminine principle (Prakriti) and women's livelihoods.
The Chipko movement of the 1970s, in which village women in the Himalayan hills of present-day Uttarakhand protected trees from felling, is its famous Indian example.
Critics such as Bina Agarwal argue that women's link with nature comes from their material and gendered roles, not from an essence; she calls her alternative feminist environmentalism.
Q1(e) · Western Political Thought · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Hobbes and Locke
Hobbesian notion of Political Obligation
हिंदी में प्रश्न
हॉब्स की राजनीतिक बाध्यता की धारणा
Practise this question Western Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(e)
Approach: Explain the basis of political obligation in Hobbes (self-interest, covenant, consent), its extent and its limits, with a brief evaluation.
Political obligation asks why citizens should obey the state. Hobbes's answer in Leviathan (1651) is rational self-interest expressed through consent.
In the state of nature, fear of violent death leads reason to discover the laws of nature: seek peace, and give up the right to all things if others do so too. Individuals therefore covenant with each other to transfer their natural right to a sovereign, who is not a party to the contract. Obligation thus arises from the subjects' own voluntary act; they are authors of the sovereign's actions.
Extent: the obligation is nearly absolute, since the sovereign's power cannot be divided, limited or revoked, and resistance would return all to war.
Limits: because men contract for self-preservation, the right to life is inalienable; a subject need not kill himself, and obligation lasts only as long as the sovereign can protect him. Hobbes thus grounds obedience in consent and protection, a modern, secular basis.

Question 2 (50 marks)

Q2(a) · Justice, Equality and Rights · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Rawls' Theory of Justice
Rawls' theory of justice is both contractual and distributive. Examine.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
रॉल्स का न्याय सिद्धांत संविदागत एवं वितरक दोनों ही है । परीक्षण कीजिए ।
Practise this question Justice, Equality and Rights notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q2(a)
Approach: The answer examines both claims in turn: the contractual method (original position, veil of ignorance, reflective equilibrium) and the distributive content (primary goods, two principles), shows how the contract generates the distribution, and evaluates.
John Rawls' A Theory of Justice (1971) presents justice as fairness. It is contractual in its method of justification and distributive in its subject matter, and the two are linked: the fairness of the contract is what makes the distribution just.
Contractual: Rawls generalises the social contract of Locke, Rousseau and Kant to a higher level of abstraction. The contract is hypothetical, not historical. Parties in the original position are rational, mutually disinterested and behind a veil of ignorance that hides their class, talents, gender and conception of the good. Because no one can tailor principles to their own advantage, the agreement is fair.
What they choose: facing uncertainty with high stakes, Rawls argues the parties would follow the maximin rule and choose two principles: equal basic liberties for all, and inequalities arranged under fair equality of opportunity and to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.
Distributive: the subject of justice is the basic structure of society, the major institutions that distribute primary goods: rights and liberties, opportunities and powers, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect. The difference principle is a principle of distribution that treats natural talents as a common asset.
Evaluation: critics attack both sides. On the contract, Ronald Dworkin observed that a hypothetical agreement is not an actual contract and binds no one by itself, and communitarians such as Michael Sandel deny that people can be stripped of their identities. On distribution, Nozick rejects patterned distributions and Sen prefers capabilities over primary goods.
Still, the statement is accurate. The contract is the device and distributive justice the result; together they let Rawls derive a liberal-egalitarian distribution from premises of freedom and equality that most people accept.
Q2(b) · Western Political Thought · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Plato and Aristotle
Everywhere, inequality is a cause of revolution – Aristotle. Comment.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
असमानता सर्वत्र क्रांति का एक कारण है – अरस्तु । टिप्पणी कीजिए ।
Practise this question Western Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q2(b)
Approach: Comment by explaining Aristotle's theory of revolution in Politics Book V, why inequality (as perceived injustice) is the general cause, the particular causes and remedies, and its modern relevance.
Aristotle discusses revolution in Book V of the Politics. By revolution he meant any change of constitution, or of those holding power within it, not only violent upheaval. He holds that the general cause of revolution everywhere is inequality, or rather a sense of injustice about it.
Explanation: men disagree about justice. Democrats think that those equal in one respect, free birth, should be equal in all; oligarchs think that those unequal in wealth should be unequal in all. When either group feels it does not get the share its idea of justice entitles it to, it seeks to change the constitution. Revolution thus arises from conflicting conceptions of proportionate equality.
Particular causes include desire for profit and honour, insolence of rulers, fear, contempt, disproportionate growth of one class, election intrigues and differences of race.
Remedies: maintain the rule of law, avoid small encroachments, prevent excessive enrichment of any group, distribute offices fairly, educate citizens in the spirit of the constitution, and above all build a large middle class through a mixed constitution, the polity.
The idea remains relevant: Marx, Tocqueville and modern studies of relative deprivation (such as Ted Gurr's) also link upheaval to perceived inequality, and Ambedkar warned that inequality could blow up Indian democracy.
Q2(c) · Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Socialism and Marxism
Define Socialism. Discuss the salient features of Fabian Socialism.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
समाजवाद को परिभाषित कीजिए । फेबियन के समाजवाद की मुख्य विशेषताओं की विवेचना कीजिए ।
Practise this question Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q2(c)
Approach: The question has two parts: first define socialism, then discuss the features of Fabian socialism with its thinkers, and close with its influence and criticism.
Socialism is an ideology which holds that the means of production should be owned or controlled by the community, so that wealth is distributed according to need or contribution and exploitation is ended. It values equality, cooperation and community over individual competition.
Fabian socialism grew from the Fabian Society, founded in London in 1884, with Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw and Graham Wallas among its leading members. It took its name from the Roman general Fabius, known for patient, delaying tactics.
Its features are: (i) gradualism: socialism through slow, peaceful reform, not revolution, captured in Sidney Webb's phrase 'the inevitability of gradualness'; (ii) constitutional and parliamentary methods; (iii) permeation: influencing existing parties, the bureaucracy and public opinion; (iv) municipal and state ownership of key industries and public utilities; (v) rejection of class struggle and of Marx's labour theory of value, in favour of a theory of economic rent; (vi) reliance on research, expertise and administration; and (vii) welfare measures such as a national minimum.
Fabianism shaped the British Labour Party and the welfare state, and influenced Nehru's democratic socialism and mixed economy. Marxists called it reformist, and others found it bureaucratic and paternalist.

Question 3 (50 marks)

Q3(a) · Justice, Equality and Rights · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Multiculturalism, Citizenship and Recognition
What do you understand by Multiculturalism? Discuss Bhikhu Parekh's views on Multiculturalism.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
बहुसंस्कृतिवाद से आप क्या समझते हैं ? बहुसंस्कृतिवाद पर भीखू पारेख के विचारों की विवेचना कीजिए ।
Practise this question Justice, Equality and Rights notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q3(a)
Approach: Define multiculturalism (as fact and as normative theory), then discuss Parekh's views in detail (critique of liberal monism, cultural embeddedness, dialogue, operative public values), with critique and Indian relevance.
Multiculturalism has two meanings: descriptively, the coexistence of several cultural communities within one society; normatively, the view that the State should recognise and accommodate cultural differences rather than assimilate them into a single national culture.
Parekh's starting point: in Rethinking Multiculturalism (2000) Bhikhu Parekh criticises liberal monism, the belief that there is one ideal way of life, which he finds in thinkers from Plato to Mill and in liberal universalism itself. Liberalism, he argues, is also a culture and cannot be a neutral umpire.
Three insights: (i) human beings are culturally embedded, so culture shapes their identity and sense of worth; (ii) different cultures represent different visions of the good life, so cultural diversity is valuable as each culture benefits from others; (iii) every culture is internally plural and changing, so no culture is homogeneous or fixed.
Intercultural dialogue: differences should be settled by dialogue appealing to a society's operative public values, the values embodied in its constitution, laws and civic relations. Disputed practices such as polygamy, female circumcision or dress codes are judged through such dialogue, not by imposed liberal rules or by unconditional respect for culture.
Common belonging: a multicultural society needs a shared sense of belonging that does not require a common ethnicity. Parekh chaired the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, whose report (2000) described Britain as a community of communities.
Critique: Brian Barry finds his relativism weakens equal citizenship; feminists ask who speaks for a culture in the dialogue; others say operative public values may simply reflect majority views.
Parekh's dialogical approach suits India, where the Constitution accommodates diverse cultures while subjecting practices to constitutional morality.
Q3(b) · Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Models of Democracy: Representative, Participatory and Deliberative
Deliberative democracy does not have its salience without participation and participatory democracy does not have its credence without deliberations. Comment.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
सहभागिता के बिना विमर्शी लोकतंत्र का महत्त्व नहीं है तथा विमर्श के बिना सहभागी लोकतंत्र विश्वसनीय नहीं है । टिप्पणी कीजिए ।
Practise this question Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q3(b)
Approach: Comment on the claim that the two models complete each other: define both, show how each needs the other, note the tension between them, and conclude.
Participatory democracy (Carole Pateman, Benjamin Barber) seeks the widest possible involvement of citizens in decisions, while deliberative democracy (Habermas, Cohen) seeks the best quality of reasoning behind decisions. The statement claims that the two complete each other.
Deliberation without participation loses salience. If only experts, judges or a few representatives deliberate, the process becomes elitist and its conclusions lack legitimacy among those excluded. Habermas himself locates deliberation in a broad public sphere, and Iris Marion Young insists that marginalised groups must be present for deliberation to be fair.
Participation without deliberation lacks credence. Mass participation that merely registers raw preferences, as in plebiscites or street mobilisation, can produce majoritarian or populist outcomes. Rousseau's assembly required citizens to consider the general will, not private interest, and Barber's 'strong democracy' depends on public talk.
Theory also notes a tension: Diana Mutz found that people exposed to more political disagreement tend to participate less, so the two do not automatically reinforce each other and institutions must be designed to combine them.
India's Gram Sabha, participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre and citizens' assemblies attempt this combination. A mature democracy needs both numbers and reasons.
Q3(c) · Western Political Thought · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci
Differentiate between Freedom and Liberty. Discuss Marx's notion of freedom.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
स्वतंत्रता (फ्रीडम) और मुक्ति (लिबर्टी) में भेद कीजिए । स्वतंत्रता (फ्रीडम) पर मार्क्स की धारणा की विवेचना कीजिए ।
Practise this question Western Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q3(c)
Approach: First differentiate freedom and liberty (origins, scope, usage), then discuss Marx's notion of freedom as human emancipation from class society, ending with critique.
Freedom and liberty are often used interchangeably, but scholars such as Hanna Pitkin have drawn a distinction. Liberty, from the Latin libertas, refers to the legal and political status of a person in an ordered community: specific rights and immunities protected by law. Freedom, of Germanic origin, is broader: the general condition of being self-determining, including inner, social and economic conditions. Liberty is thus largely negative and juridical; freedom can be positive and holistic.
Marx's notion of freedom belongs to the second, broader sense. In On the Jewish Question (1843) he argued that liberal rights give only political emancipation: they treat man as an isolated, egoistic individual and leave the inequalities of civil society intact. True freedom requires human emancipation.
For Marx, freedom is the free, conscious, creative activity of human beings, realised collectively. Freedom therefore requires abolishing private ownership of the means of production and class rule. In the Manifesto (1848) communism is an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. In Capital, Vol. III, the realm of freedom begins only where labour determined by necessity ends.
Critiques: Berlin warned that such positive freedom can justify coercion in freedom's name. Yet Marx's point that formal rights mean little without material conditions influenced welfare states and India's Directive Principles.

Question 4 (50 marks)

Q4(a) · Indian Political Thought · 20 marks≈ 14 min
B.R. Ambedkar
Political democracy could not last unless social democracy lay at its base – B.R. Ambedkar. Comment.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
राजनीतिक लोकतंत्र जीवित नहीं रह सकता यदि सामाजिक लोकतंत्र उसका आधार न हो – बी.आर. अम्बेडकर । टिप्पणी कीजिए ।
Practise this question Indian Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q4(a)
Approach: Comment on the statement from Ambedkar's 25 November 1949 speech: explain political and social democracy, why the former needs the latter in India, link to economic democracy and constitutional provisions, and assess its relevance today.
The statement is from Ambedkar's final speech to the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949. Political democracy means equal political rights: universal adult franchise, one person one vote, and equal citizenship. Social democracy means a way of life that recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as an inseparable trinity.
Ambedkar's argument: liberty without equality would produce the supremacy of the few over the many; equality without liberty would kill individual initiative; and without fraternity, liberty and equality would not become a natural course of things. On 26 January 1950, he warned, India would enter a life of contradictions: equality in politics but inequality in social and economic life.
Why India needed social democracy: caste, a system of graded inequality, denies fraternity. Hindu society lacked the shared sense of community that democracy presupposes, so the majority could become a permanent communal majority oppressing minorities and Dalits. If the contradiction persisted, he warned, those who suffer from inequality would blow up the structure of political democracy.
He also stressed economic democracy: the Directive Principles, especially Articles 38 and 39, and his scheme of State socialism aimed at reducing economic inequality.
Constitutional response: Article 17 abolishes untouchability, Articles 15(4) and 16(4) enable reservations, Article 46 protects weaker sections, and the Preamble names fraternity. Laws such as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 continue this.
Relevance: caste atrocities, honour killings, manual scavenging and vote-bank politics show that the contradiction persists. Yet Dalit political assertion and the deepening of democracy at the grassroots show social democracy slowly being built.
Ambedkar's warning remains the central test of Indian democracy: elections alone cannot sustain it without fraternity in social life.
Q4(b) · Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Liberalism
Write a brief note on The End of History debate.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
इतिहास का अंत संबंधी वादविवाद पर एक संक्षिप्त टिप्पणी लिखिए ।
Practise this question Democracy, Power and Political Ideologies notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q4(b)
Approach: Write a brief note covering Fukuyama's thesis and its Hegelian basis, the main criticisms, Fukuyama's own revision, and the debate's significance.
Francis Fukuyama, in his essay 'The End of History?' (1989) and his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), argued that the collapse of communism marked the end of humanity's ideological evolution.
Drawing on Hegel as interpreted by Alexandre Kojève, he claimed that history as a contest of ideologies had ended with the universal victory of liberal democracy and the market economy, which satisfy both material desire and the human need for recognition (thymos). Events would continue, but no superior alternative would emerge.
Critics responded strongly. Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations (1996) predicted cultural and religious conflict; Jacques Derrida attacked the thesis as triumphalist; Marxists pointed to persistent inequality. China's authoritarian capitalism, political Islam, Russian revanchism and populism in the West later challenged liberal democracy's claim to be the only model.
Fukuyama himself later stressed state-building and the politics of identity, in Identity (2018).
The debate echoes Daniel Bell's 1950s end of ideology thesis. Its lasting value lies in the question it raises: is there any rival to liberal democracy as a universal ideal? India's resilient democracy amid diversity supports Fukuyama's normative claim, while the rise of identity politics supports his critics.
Q4(c) · Indian Political Thought · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Dharmashastra and Arthashastra Traditions
What do you understand by the notion of Statecraft? Discuss the theory of statecraft as given by Kautilya.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
राज्यतंत्र की धारणा से आप क्या समझते हैं ? कौटिल्य द्वारा प्रतिपादित राज्यतंत्र के सिद्धांत की विवेचना कीजिए ।
Practise this question Indian Political Thought notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q4(c)
Approach: Define statecraft as the art of governing and conducting state affairs, then discuss Kautilya's theory under internal administration, foreign policy and the means used, ending with an evaluation.
Statecraft means the art and technique of running a state: acquiring, preserving and expanding power while securing order and welfare. Kautilya's Arthashastra is a manual of statecraft, and he defines artha as the science of acquiring and protecting the earth.
Internal statecraft: the state rests on the Saptanga elements. The king must master his senses, follow a strict daily routine and rule through trained ministers. A large bureaucracy of superintendents (adhyakshas) runs mines, trade, agriculture and markets, and an elaborate spy system checks officials and enemies. Danda is used to prevent matsya nyaya, but Kautilya warns that excessive punishment terrifies and mild punishment invites contempt; just punishment wins loyalty.
External statecraft: in the Mandala theory the vijigishu (would-be conqueror) is surrounded by circles of enemies and allies, since an immediate neighbour is a natural enemy and the neighbour's neighbour a natural friend. Policy is chosen from the shadgunya, six measures: peace, war, waiting, marching, seeking shelter and the dual policy.
Means: the four upayas, namely sama (conciliation), dana (gifts), bheda (division) and danda (force), used in that order of preference.
Kautilya is often called a realist, but his goal is yogakshema, the welfare of the people, and the king's happiness lies in theirs.
His statecraft therefore combines realism with welfare, and remains relevant to India's strategic thinking on neighbourhood and alliances.

Question 5 (50 marks)

Q5(a) · Indian Nationalism and the Making of the Constitution · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Political Strategies of the Freedom Struggle: Constitutionalism to Mass Satyagraha
The success of Mahatma Gandhi lay in transforming both political and non-political movements into a unified nationalist movement.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
महात्मा गाँधी की सफलता राजनीतिक तथा ग़ैर-राजनीतिक, दोनों ही आंदोलनों को एक एकीकृत राष्ट्रवादी आंदोलन में परिवर्तित करने में सन्निहित थी ।
Practise this question Indian Nationalism and the Making of the Constitution notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(a)
Approach: Comment on how Gandhi fused political agitation with social, religious and economic movements (Khilafat, constructive programme, anti-untouchability, peasant and labour struggles) into one national movement, with a qualification.
Before Gandhi, nationalism was largely confined to the educated middle class. His achievement was to connect political demands with the everyday concerns of peasants, workers, women and religious communities, so that diverse movements flowed into one stream.
Local struggles made national: Champaran (indigo peasants, 1917), Kheda (revenue relief, 1918) and the Ahmedabad mill strike (1918) were not political campaigns at first, but Gandhi linked them to the critique of colonial rule.
Religious and social movements: he joined the Khilafat cause with Non-Cooperation (1920) to unite Hindus and Muslims; he made the removal of untouchability, temperance and women’s participation part of the national programme and founded the Harijan Sevak Sangh (1932).
Constructive programme: khadi, village industries, basic education and sanitation gave ordinary people a daily role in the struggle, while satyagraha gave them a safe method of protest.
Qualification: the unity was incomplete, as the Muslim League, Ambedkar’s movement and radical peasant groups kept their distance. Still, Gandhi’s fusion of the political and the social created the first truly mass nationalist movement.
Q5(b) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Duties, and Directive Principles
Right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
निजता का अधिकार जीवन के अधिकार का अंतरंग भाग है ।
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(b)
Approach: The question asks to explain the statement, so the answer shows how the Supreme Court located privacy in Article 21, what the right covers, and its limits.
The Constitution does not mention privacy, but in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) a nine-judge bench unanimously held that privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and is also protected by the freedoms in Part III.
Overruling the past: the Court overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to the extent they denied a right to privacy, building on Gobind (1975), R. Rajagopal (1994) and PUCL (1997) on phone tapping.
Reasoning: dignity, autonomy and liberty are meaningless without a zone of private choice over the body, information and personal decisions. Privacy covers bodily integrity, informational privacy and decisional autonomy, such as choices about sexuality and family.
Limits: like other rights, privacy can be restricted if the restriction has a legal basis, pursues a legitimate aim and is proportionate.
The ruling transformed rights jurisprudence. It underpinned the decriminalisation of homosexuality (Navtej Johar, 2018) and the review of Aadhaar (2018), and led to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Q5(c) · Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Federalism: Constitutional Provisions and Changing Centre-State Relations
Indian federation has moved from cooperative federation to competitive federation.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारतीय संघ सहयोगशील संघ से प्रतिस्पर्धी संघ की ओर अग्रसर हुआ है ।
Practise this question Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(c)
Approach: Comment on the claimed shift: define both models, show the post-2014 changes that point to competition, and argue that cooperation and competition coexist.
Cooperative federalism, Granville Austin's description of India, means the Centre and states working together through shared institutions; competitive federalism means states competing with each other for investment and better governance outcomes.
The shift began with liberalisation in 1991, which freed states to court investors, and gained momentum after 2015 when NITI Aayog replaced the Planning Commission with the stated aim of cooperative and competitive federalism.
The 14th Finance Commission's higher untied devolution gave states more freedom, and rankings such as the ease of doing business index encouraged states to compete on reforms.
Yet cooperation has not disappeared: the GST Council (2016) is the most intense cooperative forum India has had, and centrally sponsored schemes still require joint funding.
Critics warn that competition favours richer states; India has therefore moved towards a blend, sometimes called coopetitive federalism, rather than replacing one model with the other.
Q5(d) · Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Election Commission, CAG, Finance Commission and UPSC
State subvention/funding may be an effective instrument in strengthening electoral democracy in India.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारत में चुनावी लोकतंत्र के सशक्तिकरण में राज्य आर्थिक सहायता/निधीयन एक प्रभावी साधन हो सकता है ।
Practise this question Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(d)
Approach: Comment on state funding: explain the problem of money power, the recommendations and forms of state funding, its merits and limits, and conclude.
State funding means public financing of parties or candidates to reduce dependence on private, often unaccounted money, which distorts competition and creates obligations to donors.
The Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) recommended partial state funding in kind, such as free airtime and materials, for recognised parties; the Law Commission (1999) and the 2nd ARC supported it only alongside internal democracy and strict audit of party accounts.
India already provides limited support in kind: free broadcast time on Doordarshan and All India Radio, free electoral rolls, and tax exemption for donations to parties.
Its merits are a more level field for smaller parties and honest candidates, and less policy capture by funders.
Its limits are that, without expenditure caps on parties, disclosure and enforcement, public money may add to rather than replace black money, and it may favour established parties.
State funding can strengthen electoral democracy only as part of a package with transparent donations, audited accounts and effective ceilings on party spending.
Q5(e) · Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Electoral Behaviour and the Socio-economic Profile of Legislators
In the post-liberalization era, Indian politics is moving from ascriptive politics to developmental politics.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
उत्तरवर्ती-उदारीकरण युग में भारतीय राजनीति परंपरागत/श्रेय देने की राजनीति से विकासात्मक राजनीति की ओर अग्रसर हो रही है ।
Practise this question Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(e)
Approach: Briefly assess the claim of a shift from ascriptive to developmental politics after 1991, with evidence for and against, and conclude that the two coexist.
Ascriptive politics mobilises voters on identities given by birth, caste, religion, tribe, while developmental politics competes on growth, infrastructure, welfare and governance.
For the claim: liberalisation raised aspirations and created a new middle class and young urban voters who judge governments on performance. Leaders such as Nitish Kumar in Bihar and Shivraj Singh Chouhan in Madhya Pradesh were re-elected on roads, power and welfare, and the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign was fought on development and governance.
Against the claim: identity remains central: caste coalitions decide tickets and alliances, religious polarisation has intensified, and quota agitations by Jats, Patidars and Marathas show that groups pursue development through identity.
The shift is therefore partial: Indian politics has moved towards a hybrid in which development is the language of campaigns while ascriptive identities still decide how its benefits are claimed and distributed.

Question 6 (50 marks)

Q6(a) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Union Executive and Parliament: Envisaged Role and Actual Working
Differentiate parliamentary supremacy from parliamentary sovereignty. Would you consider the Indian Parliament as a Sovereign Parliament? Examine.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
संसदीय सर्वोच्चता तथा संसदीय संप्रभुता में अंतर स्पष्ट कीजिए । क्या आप भारतीय संसद को एक संप्रभु संसद मानेंगे ? परीक्षण कीजिए ।
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q6(a)
Approach: The question has two parts, so the answer first distinguishes the two concepts with their origins, then examines the position of the Indian Parliament with constitutional provisions and cases, and concludes.
Parliamentary sovereignty, as described by A.V. Dicey (Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 1885), means that Parliament can make or unmake any law and no person or body can override it. It belongs to the British system with no written Constitution or judicial power to strike down statutes.
Parliamentary supremacy means that Parliament is the highest law-making body within its sphere, but its authority comes from and is limited by a written Constitution. It is supreme over the executive and other bodies, not over the Constitution.
The Indian Parliament is not sovereign: the Constitution is supreme and sovereignty rests with the people (‘We, the people’). Article 13 voids laws violating Fundamental Rights; the Seventh Schedule divides powers with the states; and Articles 32 and 226 enable judicial review. Amendments need special majorities, some require state ratification, and Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held that the basic structure cannot be destroyed. The NJAC case (2015) showed that even a unanimous amendment can be struck down.
Yet it is supreme within its domain: it controls the executive through collective responsibility, holds constituent power under Article 368, legislates on the Union and Concurrent Lists, enjoys privileges under Article 105, and can override High Court and Supreme Court judgments by amending the law, within constitutional limits.
The framers deliberately chose a middle path between British parliamentary sovereignty and American judicial supremacy. Even in Britain, sovereignty has been qualified by the Human Rights Act, 1998 and devolution.
The Indian Parliament is supreme, not sovereign: a body of limited powers within a Constitution whose guardian is the judiciary and whose ultimate source is the people.
Q6(b) · Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Panchayati Raj, Municipal Government and the 73rd and 74th Amendments
Has the 73rd Constitutional Amendment empowered women in panchayats in India? Discuss.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
क्या 73वें सांविधानिक संशोधन ने भारत में पंचायतों में महिलाओं को सशक्त किया है ? विवेचना कीजिए ।
Practise this question Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q6(b)
Approach: Discuss both sides: the evidence that the 73rd Amendment has empowered women in panchayats and the constraints that limit it, ending with a balanced assessment.
Article 243D, added by the 73rd Amendment (1992), reserves not less than one-third of seats and chairperson posts in panchayats for women, including SC and ST women; by 2017 a majority of states, beginning with Bihar in 2006, had raised this to 50 percent.
Yes, in important ways: women now account for close to half of elected panchayat representatives, so lakhs of women, many from Dalit and Adivasi families, have entered public office for the first time.
Studies in West Bengal and Rajasthan by Chattopadhyay and Duflo (2004) showed that women-led panchayats invested more in drinking water and other priorities of women, and later research found that exposure to women leaders reduced bias against them among voters.
Elected women have campaigned on liquor, girls' education and sanitation, and their presence has altered gender norms in public spaces, which Anne Phillips would call the transformative effect of the politics of presence.
But empowerment is uneven: proxy rule by husbands (sarpanch-pati), dependence on male relatives, purdah and illiteracy restrict independent decisions; rotation of reserved seats every five years denies women a second term and a political career.
The Amendment has therefore empowered women substantially in presence and partially in influence; sustained training, federations of elected women, longer rotation cycles and real devolution are needed to complete the process.
Q6(c) · Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Caste, Religion and Ethnicity in Indian Politics
Religion is still an important factor in Indian politics. Discuss.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारतीय राजनीति में धर्म अभी भी एक महत्त्वपूर्ण कारक है । विवेचना कीजिए ।
Practise this question Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q6(c)
Approach: Discuss with evidence the ways religion continues to matter in Indian politics, the reasons, and the debate on secularism, ending with a balanced view.
Modernisation theory expected religion to retreat from politics, but in India it remains an important factor in identity, mobilisation and policy.
Evidence: the Ram Janmabhoomi movement transformed the BJP from 2 Lok Sabha seats in 1984 to the largest party by 1996 and to a majority in 2014. Communal riots, from Bhagalpur (1989) to Gujarat (2002) and Muzaffarnagar (2013), have had electoral effects. The Shah Bano case (1985) and the subsequent law of 1986 showed how minority religious politics shapes legislation. Debates on cow protection, conversion laws and triple talaq continue to drive campaigns.
Reasons: religion offers a ready-made identity for mass mobilisation; Paul Brass argues that riots are often produced by an institutionalised riot system for political gain; and inconsistent secular practice, seen by some as minority appeasement, opened space for majoritarian politics.
The debate: T.N. Madan and Ashis Nandy argued that Western-style secularism is alien to a religious society, while Rajeev Bhargava defends Indian secularism as principled distance, allowing the state to intervene in religion for equality. The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai (1994) declared secularism part of the basic structure.
Religion is thus still important, sometimes as a source of ethical politics, as with Gandhi, and sometimes of polarisation. The challenge is to ensure that faith shapes politics without determining citizenship.

Question 7 (50 marks)

Q7(a) · Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Party System, Coalition Politics and Pressure Groups
India has moved from 'one-party dominant system' to 'one-party led coalition'. Discuss.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारत 'एक-दलीय प्रभावी पद्धति' से 'एक-दल निर्देशित गठबंधन' की ओर अग्रसर हुआ है । विवेचना कीजिए ।
Practise this question Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q7(a)
Approach: Discuss the transition in phases (Congress system, decline, coalition era, one-party-led coalition after 2014), explain the causes and assess the nature of the present system.
Rajni Kothari, in his 1964 essay 'The Congress System in India', described the early party system as a one-party dominant system: the Congress was a party of consensus that absorbed diverse interests internally, while opposition parties acted as parties of pressure from the margins.
Erosion (1967-89): in 1967 the Congress lost several states to SVD coalitions; the 1969 split, the Emergency and the Janata victory of 1977 showed that dominance could be broken.
Coalition era (1989-2014): Mandal, Mandir and the rise of regional parties produced hung Parliaments. Minority and multi-party coalitions, the National Front and United Front, gave way to stable pre-poll coalitions, the NDA under Vajpayee (1998-2004) and the UPA under Manmohan Singh (2004-14), each led by a national party.
One-party-led coalition (2014 onwards): the BJP won a majority on its own in 2014 (282 seats) and 2019 (303) but kept governing through the NDA. This is a one-party-led coalition: allies are present, but the leading party dominates decision-making. Some scholars, such as Milan Vaishnav and Jamie Hintson, see the start of a fourth party system with the BJP as the new pole.
Differences from the Congress system: BJP dominance rests on ideological and organisational strength and a leader-centred campaign, rather than on Congress-style internal accommodation; and it is weaker in the south and east, where regional parties remain strong.
The move to a one-party-led coalition is real, but it is not a return to the Congress system: competition remains intense, regional parties persist, and the 2024 result, with the BJP short of a majority, shows that coalition bargaining can quickly return.
Q7(b) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Union Executive and Parliament: Envisaged Role and Actual Working
How is the President of India elected? Outline the salient characteristics of the electoral college of the Indian President.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारत का राष्ट्रपति कैसे निर्वाचित होता है ? भारतीय राष्ट्रपति के निर्वाचक मंडल की मुख्य विशेषताओं को रेखांकित कीजिए ।
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q7(b)
Approach: The question has two parts, so the answer first explains the method of election and then lists the salient characteristics of the electoral college with a brief evaluation.
The President of India is elected indirectly, so that the head of state does not rival the Prime Minister, who holds a direct popular mandate.
Electoral college (Article 54): the elected members of both Houses of Parliament and of the Legislative Assemblies of the states, including Delhi and Puducherry (added by the 70th Amendment, 1992).
Method (Article 55): election is by proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, through secret ballot. A candidate must secure a quota of more than half the valid votes; if no one does, lowest candidates are eliminated and their votes transferred.
Value of votes: an MLA's vote equals the state's population divided by the number of elected MLAs, divided by 1,000; the population is that of the 1971 census until the first census after 2026. Each MP's vote equals the total value of all MLAs' votes divided by the number of elected MPs.
Salient characteristics: uniformity of representation among states and parity between the states as a whole and the Union, giving the office a federal character; nominated members and Legislative Councils are excluded; election disputes go to the Supreme Court (Article 71); and the anti-defection law does not apply, allowing cross-voting.
In practice the contest follows party lines, as in the 2017 election of Ram Nath Kovind, but the design ensures a national and federal mandate.
Q7(c) · Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism · 15 marks≈ 11 min
National Commissions: SCs, STs, Women, Human Rights, Minorities and Backward Classes
Examine the role of the National Commission for Minorities in preserving, promoting and protecting the rights of minorities in India.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारत में अल्पसंख्यकों के अधिकारों को संरक्षित, संवर्धित और सुरक्षित रखने में राष्ट्रीय अल्पसंख्यक आयोग की भूमिका का परीक्षण कीजिए ।
Practise this question Grassroots Democracy, Statutory Institutions and Federalism notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q7(c)
Approach: Examine the NCM's role under three heads (preserving, promoting, protecting minority rights): give its basis and functions, examples of its work, its limitations, and conclude.
The Constitution protects minorities through Articles 25-30, especially the cultural and educational rights of Articles 29 and 30; the National Commission for Minorities, statutory since the NCM Act, 1992, is the institutional guardian of these guarantees, reflecting the idea of group-differentiated rights (Will Kymlicka).
Six communities are notified as national minorities: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and, since 2014, Jains.
Preserving: it monitors the working of safeguards for minority identity, language and institutions, and recommends measures to the Union and states; minority educational institutions have a separate body, the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (2004).
Promoting: it evaluates minorities' development, studies socio-economic and educational issues, and oversees programmes such as the Prime Minister's New 15-Point Programme (2006), drawing on the Sachar Committee (2006) findings on Muslim backwardness.
Protecting: it inquires into complaints of deprivation of rights with the powers of a civil court, visits areas of communal tension, and seeks reports from state governments.
Limitations: its recommendations are not binding, its members are government nominees, posts often remain vacant, annual reports are tabled late, and it lacks an investigative arm; not all states have minority commissions.
The NCM has kept minority concerns on the official agenda, but to protect rights effectively it needs constitutional status, an independent selection process and follow-up powers.

Question 8 (50 marks)

Q8(a) · The Constitution and the Organs of Government · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Supreme Court: Envisaged Role and Actual Working
Judiciary has acquired the role of both, a legislature and an executive in recent years. Examine with suitable examples.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
हाल के वर्षों में न्यायपालिका ने विधायिका एवं कार्यपालिका, दोनों की भूमिका को अपना लिया है । उपयुक्त उदाहरणों के साथ परीक्षण कीजिए ।
Practise this question The Constitution and the Organs of Government notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q8(a)
Approach: The question asks to examine whether the judiciary has taken on legislative and executive roles, so the answer gives examples of each, explains why it happened, and evaluates it against the separation of powers.
The Constitution adopts a functional separation of powers: the legislature makes law, the executive implements it and the judiciary interprets it. In recent decades, the Supreme Court has also made rules and supervised administration.
Legislative role: in Vishaka (1997) the Court laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace, binding until Parliament acted. It framed rules on arrest and detention (D.K. Basu, 1997), structured the CBI's oversight (Vineet Narain, 1997), directed police reforms (Prakash Singh, 2006), recognised transgender persons as a third gender with welfare directions (NALSA, 2014) and adopted the Lyngdoh Committee's norms for student elections.
Executive role: through continuing mandamus the Court has supervised forest administration (T.N. Godavarman), ordered Delhi's transport to shift to CNG (M.C. Mehta), cancelled 122 telecom licences (2G case, 2012) and 214 coal block allocations (2014), monitored criminal investigations, and in 2017 appointed administrators to run the BCCI.
Why it happened: legislative inaction, executive failure, corruption and public trust in courts, enabled by Articles 32 and 142.
Evaluation: these interventions protected rights and the public interest, but they blur accountability, since judges cannot be voted out, and courts lack the expertise to administer. Directions such as those in Prakash Singh remain largely unimplemented. In Aravali Golf Club (2007) the Court warned against such encroachment.
The judiciary has indeed assumed legislative and executive roles, mostly to fill a vacuum. Its legitimacy is best preserved when such interventions are temporary, catalyse action by the proper organ and respect institutional comity.
Q8(b) · Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Green Revolution, Land Reforms, Agrarian Relations and Liberalisation
What do you understand by Green Revolution? Do you think that a Second Green Revolution is needed to adequately address the agrarian challenges in contemporary India? Examine.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
हरित क्रांति से आप क्या समझते हैं ? क्या आप सोचते हैं कि समकालीन भारत में कृषिक चुनौतियों के पर्याप्त निराकरण हेतु एक द्वितीय हरित क्रांति की आवश्यकता है ? परीक्षण कीजिए ।
Practise this question Planning, Social Cleavages, Party System and Social Movements notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q8(b)
Approach: Define the Green Revolution with its achievements and limits, then examine whether a second Green Revolution is needed and what form it should take.
The Green Revolution was the technological transformation of Indian agriculture from the mid-1960s, using high-yielding varieties of wheat and later rice developed from Norman Borlaug's work, together with irrigation, fertilisers, credit, MSP and public procurement. M.S. Swaminathan and Agriculture Minister C. Subramaniam were its key architects.
Achievements: India moved from food aid dependence to self-sufficiency and built buffer stocks, enabling the public distribution system and later the National Food Security Act (2013).
Limits: it was concentrated in irrigated Punjab, Haryana and western UP and in wheat and rice, bypassing rain-fed and eastern regions, pulses and millets. It widened regional and class inequality and left ecological damage: falling water tables, soil degradation and chemical residues.
Today's challenges are different: stagnant farm incomes, tiny holdings, climate change, nutritional insecurity and distress. Hence a second Green Revolution is needed, but not a repeat of the first. Swaminathan called for an evergreen revolution: productivity gains without ecological harm.
Its elements would include extending gains to eastern India (Bringing Green Revolution to Eastern India, launched 2010-11), water efficiency through micro-irrigation, climate-resilient seeds, crop diversification towards pulses, millets and horticulture, soil health cards, digital markets such as e-NAM, Farmer Producer Organisations and natural farming.
A second revolution must be about incomes, sustainability and inclusion, not only output.
Q8(c) · Indian Nationalism and the Making of the Constitution · 15 marks≈ 11 min
Political Strategies of the Freedom Struggle: Constitutionalism to Mass Satyagraha
Differentiate Moderate Nationalism from Extremist/Militant Nationalism in terms of their objectives and means.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
उद्देश्यों एवं साधनों की दृष्टि से उदारवादी राष्ट्रवाद और उग्रवादी/युयुत्सु (आतंकवादी) राष्ट्रवाद में अंतर स्पष्ट कीजिए ।
Practise this question Indian Nationalism and the Making of the Constitution notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q8(c)
Approach: Differentiate the two streams on objectives (reform within empire versus Swaraj), means (constitutional petitions versus boycott, passive resistance and, for militants, force), social base and ideas, and end by noting their complementarity.
The early Indian National Congress was led by the Moderates (1885–1905), while the Swadeshi period saw the rise of the Extremists, alongside a militant revolutionary stream. The Surat split of 1907 formalised the division.
Objectives: Moderates such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Gokhale, Pherozeshah Mehta and Surendranath Banerjea sought gradual reform within the British Empire: expansion of legislative councils, Indianisation of the civil services, reduction of military expenditure and relief from the economic drain. Extremists such as Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo demanded Swaraj, which for Aurobindo meant complete independence.
Means: Moderates relied on prayer, petition and protest, faith in British justice and constitutional methods. Extremists relied on self-reliance and mass action: boycott, swadeshi, national education and passive resistance. The militant revolutionaries, Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar, used bombs and assassinations.
Social base and ideas: Moderates drew on the urban educated elite and liberal Western thought; Extremists sought a wider base, using festivals such as Ganapati (1893) and Shivaji (1895) and an appeal to India’s cultural heritage, which sometimes alienated Muslims.
Assessment: Moderates built the economic critique of colonialism and political training; Extremists widened participation and raised the goal. The two were complementary stages, later synthesised by Gandhi.

UPSC Mains 2017 Political Science and International Relations PSIR Paper II