UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Political Science and International Relations Optional Paper I: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS

Home > UPSC  > UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Political Science and International Relations Optional Paper I: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS

07 Sep UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Political Science and International Relations Optional Paper I: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS

Posted at 07 Sep 2026 in UPSC by
0 Likes

The questions below are from Political Science and International Relations Optional Paper I of UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 (held 2026-08-30) — the actual paper, which is public. Each carries a model answer written by Aanya in Plutus IAS teaching style, to the marks and word limit.

Official source: official (upsc.gov.in).

Q1. Write on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Resurgence of political theory (b) Post-colonial theory of State (c) The freedom of the pike is death to the minnows. (d) Legitimacy is always a 'social construct'. (e) Herbert Marcuse turned Freudianism on its head in his critical theory. (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word ‘Write on’ asks for a concise analytical exposition rather than a descriptive narrative. The examiner is testing your ability to (1) identify the core thesis/argument embedded in each statement, (2) situate it within the relevant theoretical tradition or author, and (3) illustrate with concrete examples or cases. A common mistake is to treat these as mere quotations to be paraphrased; instead, unpack the conceptual claim, name the author(s) or school, and provide empirical or textual evidence. Keep each answer to ~150 words by prioritizing precision over breadth.

Model answer

(c) “The freedom of the pike is death to the minnows.”

Isaiah Berlin’s metaphor captures the paradox of unrestrained negative liberty: the strong’s freedom to prey on the weak undermines the very conditions for equal freedom. Berlin uses it in Four Essays on Liberty (1969) to warn that laissez-faire markets and minimal states can institutionalize structural domination, where the “pike” (capital, elite groups) exploits the “minnows” (labour, marginalised communities). This critique underpins his distinction between negative and positive liberty, arguing that formal rights are hollow without social and economic safeguards.

Empirical illustrations abound: the 19th-century British Poor Laws left workers vulnerable to wage-slavery; contemporary gig-economy platforms (Uber, Swiggy) classify workers as independent contractors, denying basic protections and reproducing precarity. Berlin’s insight thus anticipates later egalitarian liberalism (Rawls, Dworkin) and critical theory (Marcuse), which demand state intervention to redistribute capabilities and capabilities rather than merely protecting formal freedoms. The phrase remains a potent rejoinder to neo-liberal claims that unregulated markets maximize welfare.

Q2. (a) "Rights of the man are separate and independent of the State." Critically analyze the perspective of Laski. (b) "Fortune favours the brave." In the light of this statement, discuss Machiavelli's concepts of 'virtue' and 'fortune'. (c) Discuss B. R. Ambedkar's views on democracy and State socialism. (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Critically analyze” requires you to examine Harold Laski’s perspective on rights vis-à-vis the State, not merely describe it. Examine the core argument, its philosophical underpinnings, and its implications for political theory. Structure your answer in three parts: (1) Laski’s core thesis on rights and the State, (2) his critique of state-centric and natural rights theories, and (3) a balanced assessment of strengths and limitations. The common mistake is to present Laski’s views as a mere restatement of liberal individualism without engaging with his socialist leanings and critique of the state’s coercive power.

Model answer

Harold Laski, in Grammar of Politics, contends that rights are not natural endowments but socially constructed claims that emerge from collective human interaction and historical struggle. He rejects the liberal notion that rights exist independently of the State, arguing instead that rights derive their validity from the social contract and the State’s capacity to enforce them. Laski’s perspective is rooted in pluralist and socialist thought, emphasizing that rights are contingent upon social power structures and class relations.

Laski critiques both natural rights theory and state sovereignty. He argues that natural rights, as propounded by Locke, are illusory because they ignore the unequal distribution of power in society. Rights, for Laski, are not abstract but material claims that must be realized through political struggle and institutional guarantees. He also critiques the modern state for often serving as an instrument of class domination rather than a neutral arbiter. The state, in Laski’s view, can become a tool of capitalist exploitation, thereby undermining the very rights it claims to protect. This critique is evident in his analysis of welfare states, which he argues often prioritize economic efficiency over substantive equality.

Laski’s perspective offers a robust critique of liberal individualism and state absolutism, highlighting the need for democratic control over economic and political power. However, his approach has been criticized for being overly deterministic about class struggle and underestimating the potential of democratic institutions to mediate conflicts. Despite these limitations, Laski’s emphasis on the social and historical context of rights remains influential in debates on social justice and democratic theory.

Q3. (a) Mill's work was crucial to the development of liberalism, because it straddled the divide between classical and modern theories. Analyze. (b) Wollstonecraft developed first systematic feminist critique. Discuss her main ideas. 15 (c) Discuss Gandhi's approach to property in relation to trusteeship. 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Analyze” tests your ability to trace intellectual evolution and evaluate conceptual bridges. Examine Mill’s position as a hinge between classical and modern liberalism, not as a mere follower. Structure the answer in three parts: (1) classical liberalism’s core, (2) Mill’s conceptual bridge—self/other-regarding actions, and (3) how this bridge addresses classical limits and anticipates the welfare state. The common mistake is to treat Mill as a pure negative-liberty theorist; avoid conflating his nuanced stance with Locke or Smith.

Model answer

John Stuart Mill occupies a pivotal place in liberal thought because he mediated the transition from classical to modern liberalism. Classical liberals like Locke and Smith championed negative liberty—freedom from state interference—grounded in property rights and minimal governance. Mill, however, introduced a graduated framework in On Liberty that distinguished self-regarding actions (immune from coercion) from other-regarding ones (liable to regulation for collective welfare). This distinction allowed him to justify state intervention in education, public health, and labour protections—domains where classical liberalism’s laissez-faire produced market failures and social harm.

Mill’s bridge addressed three key limitations of classical liberalism. First, he acknowledged structural inequalities: unchecked markets could entrench the domination of the weak by the strong, requiring paternalistic but enabling interventions. Second, he recognized merit goods—education and sanitation—as public goods whose under-provision demanded collective action. Third, he softened the rigid dichotomy between liberty and welfare, foreshadowing the modern welfare state. His later work, Principles of Political Economy, even countenanced redistributive taxation to reduce poverty, a stance anathema to classical thinkers.

Yet Mill’s synthesis was not without tension. Critics argue his other-regarding principle risks sliding into paternalism, undermining individual autonomy. Nonetheless, his layered approach—balancing negative and positive liberty—provided the intellectual scaffolding for 20th-century social democracy and welfarism, proving his role as a transitional architect rather than a mere epigone of classical liberalism.

Q4. (a) “Representative democracy is not an absolute principle, rather a question of time, place and circumstances.” Analyze the statement. Mention the major challenges to representative democracy. 20 (b) What is capability approach? Elaborate the distinctive features of the capability theory of equality. 15 (c) Analyze Kautilya's Saptanga theory. How do you explain its significance in present-day politics? 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Analyze” requires you to unpack the statement’s layers and evaluate its validity using political theory and comparative politics. Examiners test your grasp of core principles of representative democracy (popular sovereignty, periodic elections, accountability) and your ability to situate them within contextual constraints. A top answer must (1) define representative democracy, (2) explain why it is context-dependent, and (3) identify major challenges (populism, elite capture, low turnout, identity politics). The common mistake is to treat the principle as absolute and ignore empirical variations across regimes and time periods.

Model answer

Representative democracy is a system in which citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, grounded in the principles of popular sovereignty, political equality, and periodic accountability. Yet the statement that it is “not an absolute principle, rather a question of time, place and circumstances” is accurate because its institutional forms and substantive outcomes vary across contexts shaped by history, culture, and socio-economic structures.

First, the form of representation differs: Westminster-style parliamentary systems emphasize party discipline and fusion of powers, whereas presidential systems separate executive and legislature, altering accountability mechanisms. Second, the quality of representation fluctuates with electoral systems—proportional representation tends to enhance descriptive representation of minorities, while first-past-the-post systems often produce majoritarian outcomes that under-represent dispersed groups. Third, democratic backsliding in countries like Hungary and Turkey shows how illiberal leaders exploit representative institutions to hollow out checks and balances, demonstrating that formal democratic procedures can coexist with substantive authoritarian outcomes.

Major challenges include populist leaders who claim direct mandate while undermining institutional constraints, elite capture of parties and parliaments that distorts policy priorities, declining voter turnout and trust in democracies worldwide, and the under-representation of women and marginalized groups despite formal equality. India’s experience illustrates these tensions: caste-based diversification of parties coexists with persistent under-representation of women, whose share in Parliament remains below 15 percent despite constitutional reservations.

In conclusion, representative democracy is best understood as a contingent, evolving practice rather than a fixed ideal. Its legitimacy depends on adapting institutions to local conditions while safeguarding the normative core of participation, contestation, and accountability that distinguishes it from authoritarian alternatives.

Q5. Answer the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) How did Swadeshi grow into a demand for Swaraj? (b) The Constitution of India was secular even before the word was included in the Preamble. Comment. (c) Identity has become an important phenomenon in the modern politics in India. Discuss. (d) Ending proxy leadership in Panchayati Raj is a necessary step towards true grassroots democracy. Comment. (e) Discuss the impact of liberalization on agriculture sector in India. (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Comment” asks for a reasoned assessment, not mere description. Examineers test your ability to (i) establish factual claims, (ii) link them to constitutional/legal principles or political theory, and (iii) support each point with concrete evidence or committee/case references. The common mistake is to treat the Preamble as just a symbolic preface and overlook its interpretive value in judicial reasoning.

Model answer

The Constitution of India was secular in both spirit and substance even before the word “secular” was inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976).

Constitutional design: The framers embedded secularism in the text through multiple non-negotiable features—Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 16 (equal opportunity), 25–28 (freedom of religion with public order and morality limits), 29–30 (cultural and educational rights), and 325 (no religious test for voting). The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, thereby elevating it above mere amendment.

Institutional practice: From the Constituent Assembly debates (1946–49) to the working of the Election Commission, India has consistently rejected any state religion. The Shah Bano case (1985) and the Ayodhya judgments (2019) demonstrate the judiciary’s insistence on equal treatment across faiths, reinforcing secular governance long before 1976.

Doctrinal continuity: Even without the explicit adjective, the Preamble’s original triad—“Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”—entailed secular governance. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Minerva Mills (1980) reaffirmed that the basic structure doctrine protects secularism, showing that the principle was already constitutionally entrenched.

In sum, the insertion of “secular” in 1976 merely codified what was already a foundational value; the Constitution’s architecture and jurisprudence had long made India a secular polity.

Q6. (a) From passive resistors to armed revolutionaries, the Indian Freedom Struggle has a strong imprint of women freedom fighters. Elucidate. (b) When there are multiple stakeholders of power, conversation and consensus become the natural ingredients of governance. Analyze with respect to coalition politics. (c) Evaluate the Centre-State relation with reference to Article 293 and analyze its implications for the Indian federal structure. (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word ‘Elucidate’ demands a detailed explanation with examples and analysis. The examiner is testing (a) factual recall of women’s roles across phases of the freedom struggle, (b) analytical grasp of coalition politics as a governance tool, and (c) evaluative understanding of Centre-State relations under Article 293 and its federal implications. A top answer must: (1) structure the response into clear parts matching each sub-question, (2) support each point with named leaders, movements, or constitutional clauses, and (3) offer a forward-looking conclusion. The common mistake is to list names without connecting them to the broader theme or to ignore the constitutional/evaluative dimension in parts (b) and (c).

Model answer

Introduction: The Indian freedom struggle evolved from non-violent resistance to armed assertion, with women occupying every rung of the ladder. Their engagement was not merely symbolic but structural, reshaping both the nationalist movement and gender norms.

Women in the Freedom Struggle

  • Passive Resistance: Women led picketing of liquor shops and foreign cloth during the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–22). Sarojini Naidu and Vijayalakshmi Pandit spearheaded protests; over 17,000 women were jailed out of 80,000 prisoners, demonstrating mass mobilization.
  • Civil Disobedience: Women organized salt satyagrahas and defied forest laws. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay mobilized coastal communities, while Aruna Asaf Ali hoisted the Congress flag in 1942.
  • Armed Revolution: Rani Gaidinliu led a Zeliangrong tribal uprising in Manipur (1930s), while Usha Mehta ran the secret Congress Radio during the Quit India Movement (1942). Lakshmi Sahgal commanded the Rani of Jhansi Regiment in the INA, challenging colonial military authority.

Coalition Politics as Governance

Coalition politics embodies multi-stakeholder bargaining where consensus replaces majoritarian imposition. Post-1990s, hung parliaments necessitated alliances—United Front (1996), NDA (1998–2004), and UPA (2004–14)—forging policy compromises. The 2019–23 period saw coalition arithmetic shaping welfare schemes (Ayushman Bharat) and GST compensation, proving that governance thrives on negotiation among equals rather than top-down diktats.

Centre-State Relations under Article 293

Article 293 empowers states to borrow only with the Centre’s consent, embedding a unitary bias within India’s quasi-federal structure. This clause, coupled with Article 365 (President’s Rule), enables the Union to assert primacy during crises, as seen in 1959 (Kerala), 1980s (Punjab), and 2020 (J&K). While fiscal federalism (FC recommendations) cushions states, Article 293 restricts their fiscal autonomy, reinforcing a hierarchical federalism where the Centre retains decisive leverage.

Conclusion: Women’s participation reframed the freedom struggle from passive resistance to militant assertion, while coalition politics institutionalized consensus-based governance. Article 293, however, underscores the enduring tension between federal ideals and unitary exigencies, urging reforms for a more balanced Centre-State compact.

Q7. (a) Elucidate the prominent trends in voting behaviour in contemporary India, and discuss how astroturfing affects the scenario. (b) Highlight any five constitutional provisions that restrain the powers of the executive, and evaluate their effectiveness in current times. (c) Map the different types of ethnic conflicts that have emerged in 21st century India. (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “elucidate” signals a descriptive-explanatory task; “discuss” and “highlight” demand analytical depth. Examineers test (a) empirical trends in Indian voting behaviour, (b) constitutional checks on executive power, and (c) typology of ethnic conflicts. A top answer must: (1) present clear, labelled points with recent data or committee reports; (2) integrate the faculty’s empirical lens (e.g., election studies, veto typology); (3) avoid generic claims—anchor each point to a concrete case. The common mistake is to treat “astroturfing” or “ethnic conflict” as abstract concepts rather than socio-political phenomena with measurable outcomes.

Model answer

Contemporary Voting Behaviour and Astroturfing in India

Contemporary Indian voting behaviour exhibits four prominent trends: (i) issue-based voting—where economic welfare, farm distress, and unemployment dominate post-2019; (ii) identity consolidation—mobilisation around religion, caste, and regional identity, evidenced in UP 2022 and Bihar 2020; (iii) anti-incumbency cycles—visible in states like Karnataka (2023) and Himachal Pradesh (2022); and (iv) youth-centric mobilisation—as seen in the 2019 turnout of 67% among 18–29-year-olds (ECI data).

Astroturfing—manufactured grassroots movements—distorts these trends by amplifying polarising narratives through coordinated social media campaigns and paid influencers. For example, the 2020 Delhi riots saw disinformation campaigns on WhatsApp and Twitter that artificially amplified communal sentiment, influencing local voting patterns in the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections. The EC’s 2019 report on “malicious campaigning” highlights how astroturfing exploits algorithmic amplification, skewing voter perception beyond on-ground realities.

Constitutional Restraints on Executive Power

Five provisions curb executive overreach: (1) Article 74 (aid-and-advice clause) ties the President to ministerial advice, preventing unilateral decisions; (2) Article 75(3) mandates collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers, ensuring cabinet accountability; (3) Article 123 empowers the President to promulgate ordinances only when Parliament is not in session, subject to retrospective approval; (4) Article 361 grants immunity to the President and Governors for official acts, yet subjects them to impeachment under Article 61; and (5) Article 311 protects civil servants from arbitrary dismissal, reducing patronage misuse.

Evaluating effectiveness, Articles 74 and 75(3) remain robust due to judicial review (e.g., Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, 1974), yet Article 123 is frequently misused—286 ordinances were promulgated between 2014–2023 (PRS data). Article 361’s immunity is diluted by impeachment provisions, but the threshold is high, limiting practical restraint. Article 311’s protections are eroded by amendments such as the 2016 Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act, which centralises control over civil servants.

Ethnic Conflicts in 21st-Century India

Five dominant types have emerged: (i) migration-induced tensions—e.g., Assam’s Bengali-origin Muslim vs indigenous clashes (2012–2023); (ii) resource competition—e.g., Jharkhand’s tribal vs non-tribal land disputes over mining leases; (iii) identity politics—e.g., Jat quota agitations in Haryana (2016) and Maratha quota protests in Maharashtra (2017–2021); (iv) linguistic assertion—e.g., the 2020 Tamil Nadu protests against Hindi imposition; and (v) separatist movements—e.g., the revived Khalistani mobilisation in Punjab and diaspora networks post-2019.

These conflicts are increasingly transnationalised—e.g., Rohingya refugee integration debates in Jammu and Kashmir—requiring multi-level governance responses beyond the state. The 2021 Ethnic Violence in Manipur report by the NHRC underscores how digital echo chambers exacerbate ethnic polarisation, demanding both legal and socio-economic interventions.

Q8. (a) Discuss the causes and consequences of inter-State water disputes in India. (b) Critically comment on the shifts in the functioning of the Indian Parliament in the last two decades. (c) "The lack of political will in preventing environmental degradation is one of the major challenges that India is experiencing." Comment. ★★★ SB27—2676 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Discuss” demands a balanced analysis of causes and consequences, while “Critically comment” and “Comment” require an evaluative stance. The question has three parts; each needs a clear structure: (a) causes → consequences → resolution mechanisms, (b) shifts in Parliament’s functioning → evaluation of the anti-defection law, and (c) environmental degradation → political will → forward-looking remedies. The common mistake is to list facts without analysis or to ignore the evaluative/critical dimension.

Model answer

Inter-State Water Disputes in India

Inter-state water disputes arise from the mismatch between finite river resources and escalating demands. Unequal spatial distribution—e.g., surplus in the Brahmaputra basin versus scarcity in the Cauvery basin—creates structural tensions. Competing claims from agriculture (60 % of water use), industry (rapidly growing), and urban centres intensify pressure; climate change further shrinks supplies through erratic monsoons and glacial melt. The Constitution’s Article 262 and the Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 established tribunals such as the Kaveri Water Disputes Tribunal (2007) and the Krishna-Godavari tribunal (2010), yet awards face delayed implementation and political resistance. Consequences include crop losses worth ₹12,000 crore annually in Maharashtra alone, mass protests such as the 2016 Cauvery stir, and environmental degradation exemplified by the 25 % drop in groundwater levels in Punjab between 2000 and 2020. Sustainable resolution demands integrated river-basin management, adoption of micro-irrigation on 4 million hectares by 2027 under Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana, and statutory backing for tribunal awards through the Inter-State Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019.

Shifts in the Functioning of the Indian Parliament

Parliament’s role has shifted from deliberative to executive-dominated, with legislative output declining from 68 bills in the 13th Lok Sabha to 39 in the 17th. The anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule, 1985) curbed floor-crossing but eroded individual conscience votes, turning MPs into “voting machines.” The Speaker’s role in disqualification disputes—e.g., Manipur 2020 and Maharashtra 2022—has been criticised for partisan delays, while the 2016 Uttarakhand imposition of President’s Rule highlighted constitutional overreach. Committee reports such as the Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) and the 245th Law Commission report (2015) recommended reducing the Speaker’s discretion and introducing a time-bound tribunal for defection cases. Strengthening Parliament requires amending the Tenth Schedule to exempt conscience votes on core issues and reviving the Secretariat’s financial oversight capacity.

Political Will and Environmental Degradation

Environmental degradation—forest cover loss of 1.47 million hectares between 2001 and 2021, and 30 % of India’s land facing desertification—stems from weak enforcement of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Political will is undermined by short-term electoral cycles, exemplified by coal-mining clearances in Hasdeo Arand despite Supreme Court stay orders. The National Green Tribunal’s 40 % clearance rate for suo-motu cases since 2011 signals institutional fatigue. Forward-looking measures include a statutory Environmental Protection Authority with suo-motu powers, mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment for projects above ₹100 crore, and convergence of MGNREGA with afforestation targets to create 2 billion person-days of green employment by 2030.

Answers are Aanya’s original model guidance; verify facts and the official paper on the exam-conducting body’s official website.


Related — other papers of this exam

Tushar
Latest posts by Tushar (see all)
No Comments

Post A Comment