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

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” asks you to both explain Laski’s position and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. Examine the phrase “Rights of the man are separate and independent of the State” as the core claim that rights are prior to and limit state power. A top answer will (1) restate Laski’s liberal-pluralist thesis, (2) trace its intellectual roots in Locke, Bosanquet and the Webbs, and (3) weigh it against critiques from Rousseau, Marx and later legal positivists. The common mistake is to treat Laski as a pure liberal and ignore his socialist leanings, which actually complicate the “rights vs state” dichotomy.

Model answer

Harold J. Laski, a leading exponent of pluralist liberalism, argued that rights inhere in individuals as moral entities and are logically prior to the state. In Grammar of Politics (1925) he contends that “the rights of the man are separate and independent of the State,” meaning rights are not concessions granted by the state but natural attributes that constrain its authority. Laski’s position springs from three pillars: (a) a Lockean natural-rights foundation, (b) Bosanquet’s pluralist idea that associations mediate between the individual and the state, and (c) the Webbs’ Fabian socialism, which insists that rights must protect the worker against capitalist exploitation.

Critically, Laski’s thesis encounters three challenges. First, Rousseau’s Social Contract insists that rights are created by the general will of the sovereign people, collapsing the distinction between rights and state power. Second, Marxists like Gramsci argue that rights are ideological constructs serving the bourgeoisie; hence their independence from the state is illusory. Third, legal positivists such as Austin and Kelsen contend that rights acquire binding force only through state recognition, rendering Laski’s natural-rights claim normatively weak.

Yet Laski’s synthesis remains valuable. By embedding rights in a pluralist civil society, he anticipates later multicultural and group-rights theories. His Fabian strand also anticipates Ambedkar’s demand for state intervention to secure social and economic rights, showing that rights can be both antecedent to and enabled by the state. Thus, while Laski overstates the autonomy of rights, his framework offers a robust liberal-pluralist bulwark against state absolutism.

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 break down the statement into its conceptual, historical, and normative dimensions, and critically evaluate it. Examiners test your grasp of democratic theory, its contextual variations, and the ability to link theory with real-world challenges. A top answer must: (1) define representative democracy and explain its contextual nature; (2) substantiate with historical and contemporary examples; (3) identify and elaborate major challenges. The common mistake is treating representative democracy as a universal, static ideal without addressing its adaptability or vulnerabilities.

Model answer

Representative democracy is not an absolute principle but a contextual mechanism shaped by time, place, and circumstances. It is rooted in the idea that citizens delegate authority to elected representatives to govern on their behalf, ensuring accountability and responsiveness. However, its form and functioning vary across societies based on historical trajectories, social structures, and political cultures.

Historically, representative democracy emerged in Europe through elite-driven reforms, such as the Glorious Revolution (1688) and the French Revolution (1789), where property-owning men initially held voting rights. In contrast, post-colonial societies like India adopted universal adult franchise from inception in 1950, reflecting anti-colonial struggles and socialist ideals. Contemporary challenges such as populism, declining voter turnout, and the rise of illiberal democracies demonstrate how representative democracy adapts—or fails to adapt—to contemporary realities.

Major challenges to representative democracy include:

• Social Inequality: Caste, class, and gender disparities limit equal participation, as seen in India’s underrepresentation of women (15% in Parliament) and marginalized communities in decision-making.
• Economic Capture: Corporate lobbying and political funding distort policy outcomes, exemplified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s *Citizens United* ruling (2010), which equated money with free speech.
• Technological Disruption: Social media algorithms amplify misinformation and polarize electorates, undermining informed deliberation, as witnessed during Brazil’s 2022 elections.
• Institutional Erosion: Weakening of checks and balances, such as executive overreach in Hungary under Viktor Orbán, erodes democratic resilience.

In conclusion, representative democracy is a contingent and evolving system, not an absolute doctrine. Its survival depends on addressing structural inequalities, economic distortions, and technological threats while preserving institutional integrity. Future reforms must prioritize inclusive participation, transparency, and adaptive governance to sustain democratic legitimacy in an era of rapid change.

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” tests your ability to weigh evidence and reach a reasoned conclusion. Examine whether the statement is factually correct and analytically sound. Structure the answer in three parts: (i) restate the proposition, (ii) present two or three corroborating points with examples, and (iii) offer a balanced conclusion. The common mistake is to treat the statement as purely factual and quote the 42nd Amendment without examining the deeper constitutional reality of secularism before 1976.

Model answer

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

Constitutional architecture: The Drafting Committee, chaired by B.R. Ambedkar, deliberately avoided the term “secular” but embedded secular principles in Articles 25–28 (freedom of religion), Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 16 (equal opportunity in public employment). The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) held that these articles collectively guarantee a secular state irrespective of the absence of the word in the Preamble.

Institutional practice: From 1950 onward, the Union and state governments followed secular policies—state funding of Haj pilgrimage, the Sikh community’s right to wear turbans in uniform, and the abrogation of personal laws only through constitutional amendments. The Election Commission enforced the Model Code of Conduct that bars appeals to religion or caste, demonstrating secular governance long before 1976.

Judicial recognition: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court observed that the Constitution’s basic structure included secularism even without the explicit word, a position later affirmed in S.R. Bommai. Thus, the 42nd Amendment merely codified what was already implicit in the constitutional text and ethos.

In sum, secularism was a living principle of the Constitution from its inception; the 1976 amendment was declaratory, not constitutive.

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” demands a descriptive-cum-analytical response. Examinees must first identify and explain the core trends in voting behaviour in India, then analyse how astroturfing distorts this process. The examiner tests your ability to combine empirical observation with normative critique. A top answer will structure the answer into: (1) objective trends in voting behaviour, (2) mechanisms of astroturfing, and (3) illustrative evidence. The common mistake is to treat astroturfing as a standalone phenomenon without linking it to voting behaviour trends, or to provide only descriptive lists without evaluation.

Model answer

Contemporary voting behaviour in India reflects a multi-layered shift shaped by social cleavages, digital mediation, and political mobilisation strategies. Empirical studies indicate four prominent trends: first, the rise of identity-centric voting, where caste and religion increasingly determine electoral choices, as seen in the consolidation of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) vote in Uttar Pradesh and the consolidation of Muslim votes in states like Assam and West Bengal; second, the growing salience of welfare populism, with voters prioritising direct benefit transfers and public goods delivery, exemplified by the electoral success of schemes like PM-KISAN and Ayushman Bharat; third, the expansion of turnout differentials favouring women, with female voter turnout exceeding male turnout in several states since 2019, reflecting deeper social transformations; and fourth, the increasing role of digital campaigns, where social media micro-targeting and algorithmic amplification shape voter perceptions, especially among younger cohorts.

Astroturfing—the artificial simulation of grassroots mobilisation—further complicates this landscape. It operates through coordinated inauthentic behaviour on social platforms, paid influencers, and manufactured hashtag campaigns to mimic organic support. For instance, during the 2019 general election, reports by the Internet Freedom Foundation and independent researchers documented the use of bot networks to amplify pro-government narratives, while opposition campaigns faced coordinated suppression. Astroturfing distorts voting behaviour by creating false majorities, polarising debates, and undermining informed deliberation. It erodes the integrity of electoral competition by substituting genuine public opinion with engineered consent.

Conclusion: Contemporary Indian voting behaviour is increasingly shaped by identity, welfare, gender dynamics, and digital mediation. Astroturfing, as a deliberate distortion of public discourse, threatens the foundational principles of electoral democracy by substituting authentic participation with synthetic mobilisation. Strengthening regulatory oversight of digital platforms, enhancing transparency in political advertising, and promoting media literacy are essential to safeguard the integrity of electoral processes in India.

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” asks for a balanced analysis of causes and consequences, while “Critically comment” demands evaluation of shifts and challenges. The question is divided into three parts: (a) inter-State water disputes, (b) shifts in Parliament’s functioning, and (c) political will and environmental degradation. A top answer must structure each part with clear causes/consequences or shifts, concrete examples (tribunals, Acts, cases), and forward-looking suggestions. The common mistake is listing facts without critical evaluation or offering generic solutions without tying them to the Indian context.

Model answer

Inter-State Water Disputes in India

Inter-State water disputes arise from the mismatch between hydrological realities and political jurisdictions. Key causes include the unequal geographical distribution of river basins, rising demand from agriculture (70% of water use), industry, and burgeoning cities, and the absence of an integrated river-basin governance framework. Historical water-sharing agreements often predate modern demands, creating structural inequities. Climate change intensifies scarcity by altering monsoon patterns and glacier melt, exemplified by the Krishna-Godavari dispute where Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh contest allocations under the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (2006). The Mahadayi dispute between Goa, Karnataka, and Maharashtra escalated after Karnataka’s Kalasa-Banduri project was challenged for allegedly diverting water from the Mahadayi basin, triggering Supreme Court interventions and temporary injunctions.

Consequences are multi-dimensional. Economically, agricultural losses in command areas—such as delta regions of the Krishna—threaten food security and farmer incomes. Politically, disputes erode cooperative federalism; the Kaveri dispute led to violent protests in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in 2016-17 despite the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s final award (2007) and Supreme Court’s 2018 modification. Environmentally, unchecked groundwater extraction in Punjab-Haryana and Telangana to compensate surface-water deficits has lowered water tables by 10-15 metres since 2000, risking long-term ecological collapse.

Resolution demands institutional and technological reforms. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (1956) and Article 262 provide for tribunal adjudication, yet delays—Kaveri tribunal took 26 years—undermine efficacy. Strengthening the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019, to set 2-year timelines for tribunal awards and a single permanent tribunal is a necessary first step. Adopting basin-wide integrated water resource management, exemplified by Gujarat’s Sujalam Sufalam scheme, and scaling drip irrigation to 5 million hectares by 2030 can reduce demand. Climate-resilient policies, including real-time basin-level data systems and community-based water user associations, are essential to convert zero-sum contests into cooperative governance.

Shifts in the Functioning of the Indian Parliament

Over the last two decades, Parliament’s functioning has shifted from deliberative law-making to transactional efficiency, marked by declining sittings, frequent disruptions, and executive dominance. Annual sittings fell from 135 in the 1980s to around 60-70 in the 2010s, reducing scrutiny of legislation such as the Aadhaar Act (2016) passed as a money bill, bypassing the Rajya Sabha. Disruptions—peaking at 27% of Lok Sabha time in 2018—reflect polarisation and the collapse of consensus, evident during the Citizenship (Amendment) Act debates. Simultaneously, the executive has leveraged delegated legislation: over 70% of bills introduced since 2004 have been referred to committees post-introduction, diluting pre-legislative scrutiny.

Yet, Parliament has adapted through digital tools—live streaming since 2014 and e-committees—enhancing transparency. The National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog’s involvement in drafting key bills (e.g., labour codes) redefines inter-institutional roles, raising concerns about legislative sovereignty. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council, though extra-constitutional, institutionalised cooperative federalism, demonstrating a shift toward collaborative governance. To restore balance, Parliament must institutionalise pre-legislative consultations, cap disruptions through time-bound resolutions, and mandate sunset clauses for delegated legislation, ensuring both efficiency and accountability.

Political Will and Environmental Degradation

The assertion that political will is the primary bottleneck in preventing environmental degradation is compelling. Despite constitutional provisions (Article 48A, Directive Principles), environmental governance remains fragmented across ministries, exemplified by the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, which diluted the Forest Rights Act and risked alienating tribal communities. Policy implementation gaps are stark: India’s 2022 Emissions Gap Report shows a 5% rise in PM2.5 levels in non-attainment cities despite the National Clean Air Programme’s 2019 launch. Electoral incentives prioritise short-term growth; coal mining expansions in Hasdeo Arand forests (Chhattisgarh) proceeded despite Forest Advisory Committee objections, reflecting weak enforcement of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.

Yet, political will is not absent; it is episodic and issue-specific. The Swachh Bharat Mission (2014) reduced open defecation from 550 million to 19 million people by 2023, demonstrating that sustained political commitment can reverse degradation. Similarly, the Namami Gange Programme, despite delays, has improved water quality in 27 of 35 identified stretches. To institutionalise will, India must adopt a National Environmental Appellate Authority to expedite green clearances, integrate environmental costs into GDP metrics, and mandate climate impact assessments for all centrally sponsored schemes. Without these, environmental degradation will remain a self-inflicted wound, undermining India’s developmental aspirations and global climate commitments.

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

• All papers — UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 hub
• Essay (Paper-I) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-I (Paper-II) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-II (Paper-III) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-III (Paper-IV) — questions & model answers
• General Studies-IV (Paper-V) — questions & model answers
• Political Science and International Relations Optional Paper II — questions & model answers