Equality does not mean uniform treatment

1
90 Days UPSC Mains Optional Answer Writing

Initiative
Philosophy – Paper 2
Question and Model Answers from Subject Experts
NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

2
11-Dec-2017 – Question 1
“Sovereignty is the supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by

law”. Discuss.(2016)
Model Answer
Sovereignty is derived from the Latin word ‘superanus’ which means supreme.
Sovereignty is an abstract concept which was essentially first given a description
by French philosopher Jean Bodin. According to him, Sovereignty can be defined
as the untrammeled and undivided power to make general laws. Therefore
Sovereign for Bodin is the absolute power over citizens and subjects without any
restraint. In Fact, the Sovereign is above the law and its source of law. This initial
conception of Sovereignty is essential since it came at a time when King(monarch)
faced restraints from both church and feudatories. Thus Bodin’s conception of a
sovereign in a way led to the establishment of absolute monarchy which was
necessary for consolidation of power and establishment of the capitalistic
economy in the West.
Even in the Indian History, Kautilya defined sovereignty as the absolute power in
the pluralistic monism(saptanga). The sovereign here is supreme command and
stands above the citizens and subjects. But is the sovereign supreme without any
checks? Even Bodin accepts that the King cannot go against some fundamental
laws (like Salic law ) and protection of private property. Even Kautilya says that
King must be wary of internal enemies and bad policy, if the King is cruel it can
lead to rebellions. Therefore both Bodin and Kautilya have accepted that even
though the sovereign as supreme they have invariably understood that sovereign

3
can’t go against some fundamental laws and thereby recognize that sovereignty
in actuality can’t be unrestrained in a true sense.

4
A well-ordered society, according to Rawls, is effectively regulated by a public

conception of justice. Do you agree? Give reasons.(2016)
Model Answer
John Rawls was a liberal philosopher who has given equal emphasis on liberty and
equality in his theory of justice. According to him, a fair procedure which is
accepted by all, and set up in a just manner will lead to justice in distribution. But
how does Rawls come to the public conception of justice? Rawls proposes a
method called ‘ veil of ignorance’ where rational individuals would be abstracted
from their original position and will be deciding on rules and procedures of
distribution without having any idea in what they would be receiving from it.
Therefore each member in such a case would safeguard his or her well-being
without being unjust to others. Such a procedure would be inherently just.
From the veil of ignorance Rawls proposes three principles which form the crux of
his justice theory. First, is the principle of equal liberty where each individual has
a protection of his liberty without sacrifice. Secondly, equal opportunity to all
which promotes equality. The third principle is difference principle which provides
for departure from the equal distribution only to benefit the least
disadvantaged.Rawls thus proposes a chain principle where a link is strengthened
at its weakest link leading to a stronger chain.
A well-ordered society is indeed effectively regulated by the public conception of

justice as Rawls has mentioned. Rawls has provided both liberty and equality on
equal footing which means that the order of society which results from such a

5
basis is fair and just without causing any loss of liberty of an individual. Since such
a conception is agreed by all in democratic basis, no individual can complain of
any bias in the procedure. The principle of difference makes such a justice system
egalitarian since it provides for going against the procedure to help the least
disadvantaged.

6
Is liberty a positive and equal opportunity of self-realization? Discuss.(2016)
Model Answer
Liberty is defined as the absence of restraint. Liberty is needed for every man
since he is a rational animal and in this sense, he should be free to use his rational
faculties to benefit for himself as well as the society through his actions. Such
actions are therefore should not be restrained externally. When we talk of
restraint, it is usually the state which oversees the citizen and in such a setting
liberty is negative right since it requires there be no restriction from the state
towards the citizen.
Thus liberty provides an opportunity for everyone to act without restraint. But is
it truly positive and equal? When we look at our societies, it can hardly be called
equal in any sense. In such a scenario, liberty of the capitalist will effectively mean
making an unhindered profit and the workers liberty to earn sufficient wages is
under threat. The liberty of master to command from his slave is much more than
the liberty of slave whose powers are limited.
Therefore when we look at the substantial meaning of liberty wherein each and
every one is unrestrained in his action, then we need to ensure that liberty of the
capitalist to earn profit is equal to that of liberty of worker to earn a decent wage
, the liberty of master to get work done is equal to liberty of slave to lead a
dignified life.

7
When we talk of the provision of support to fulfill the potential of an individual

we enter the realm of positive liberty. In its wide sense, positive liberty helps to
bring about empowerment of the individual by providing him with the necessary
power to enjoy his liberty. The legislation of state for minimum wage is nothing
but a positive step to ensure that laborers do not get exploited in the capitalistic
market set up where labor is a commodity in excess.
However, this notion of positive liberty trying to bring equal opportunity to all is
criticised by libertarian philosophers like Hayek who say that any restriction on
liberty of the individual to bring about equality is a sham. The society consists of
people with high talents and they should not be restrained in any manner to fulfill
equality criterion which is imaginary, According to Hayek, the society must let the
market factors to decide on how the individual benefits and the duty of a state is
to protect the individuals from erosion of their liberty.

8
Equality does not mean treating everyone equal. Discuss.(2015)
Model Answer
The notion of equality is not easy to define and in the modern sense equality is a
progressive concept meaning to remove or correct the existing inequalities which
are not based on rational grounds. Equality can be considered from two aspects.
One is the basis on which it is found. For example, we often say in the post ww2
era that ‘all humans are created equal and possess some unalienable rights’. The
basis of this statement is that all humans irrespective of their race, class, color,
caste, and sex are equal on the basis of consideration. This is a progressive
concept since when we look back at history most of the societies were
hierarchical and never equal. For example, the ancient Indian society was based
on four varnas which were hierarchical. Therefore the first aspect of the equality
is to establish the rational foundation on which equality will be based.
But will equal treatment by itself mean that there will an equal society
established? This is where the second aspect of the equality comes into the
picture. In an unequal society, the provision of equal treatment to all will
necessarily mean the continuation of pre-existing inequalities. French Philosopher
Rousseau makes an important distinction on inequalities which are natural and
conventional. Natural inequalities stem from nature like differences in age, color
etc over which we have little control. Conventional inequalities on other hand are
due to societal arrangements are very much in the society’s realm of correcting it.
For example, racial discrimination of blacks in US or Dalit discrimination in India.

9
Such inequalities can only be corrected by positively affirming the need to correct
these inequalities by providing essential support and thereby it goes beyond the
initial equal treatment. However, it is important to note that the inequalities must
not be to equalize rather correct the inequalities.
We see such equal treatment in our constitution in Art 14 and 15 which provide
formal equality on one hand but also have provisions to make a positive
affirmation in regards to women, children, and disadvantaged sections
upliftment.

10
On what grounds does Laski criticize Austin’s concept of sovereignty?(2016)
Model Answer
Austin’s theory of sovereignty is a monistic theory of sovereignty. According to

Austin, ‘ if a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like
superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, then that
determinate superior is the sovereign’. Therefore it implies two things, one
sovereign is superior and two the subject is bound to habitual obedience. This
conception of Austin is purely legalistic in nature. In the sense that there is a law
which originates from supreme, it gets obeyed by citizens and it is punishable in
case of not obeying.
Such a monistic theory of sovereignty is vehemently criticised by Laski who

formulates a pluralistic concept of sovereignty. Laski raises important issues
against this concept. Firstly, the sovereign’s claim of legal omnipotence is fictional
since no law can be beyond the customary and social laws of a society. For
example, in Christian society however powerful the sovereign be it can’t bring in a
law to not worship the god. Secondly, Laski claims that sovereign is not the only
association in the society, in fact the society is made up of a number of such
associations and the state plays the regulator role and is one of such association
and cant claim supremacy. This concept is very important since Laski is accepting
that state is one amongst many associations. Laski also mentions of federal states
where the sovereign power is divided amongst the federation units.

11
Thirdly Laski also criticises that state or sovereign in an abstract concept and in
reality is composed by politicians and bureaucracy who are fallible men. Having
such huge power vested in sovereign can be dangerous as seen in ww2 where
states going to war caused tremendous human calamity.
Thus , Laski effectively proposes a pluralistic sovereign against Austin’s monistic

theory.

12
What is the significance of including duties of citizens in Indian

Constitution?(2013)
Model Answer
Indian constitution initially did not contain any section with respect to duties.
However, the 42nd amendment added the Art 51A which included fundamental
duties chapter. There is an important significance of this introduction. This
significance is that without performing duties effectively, the rights of individuals
cannot be guaranteed effectively.
Rights and duties are complementary conditions. No one can have right unless
others perform the duty and similarly no one will perform the duty if their rights
are not guaranteed. For example, my right to express my opinion freely implies
that I perform the duty of ensuring that others opinion is respected by me. If not
then there is bound to be an erosion of my own right to express my opinion. Thus
rights and duties are linked cyclically.
Mahatma Gandhi stressed the need for the society to be duty oriented so that
rights of all the citizens would be then respected. Gandhi vehemently criticises
the current nature of the society where there has been constant importance
given to rights and negligence towards duties. If labor does his duty of work, the
rich do their duty of upliftment of poor, society would automatically prosper was
the view of Gandhi.

13
The addition of duties is an emphasis on this aspect of Indian society.Some of the

duties involve the duty of conserving the collective conscience of the Indian
society by respecting its pluralistic diversity and respecting the ideals of the
freedom movement. The significance of these duties includes that citizens must
be mindful of their duty to respect the plurality which will in turn help build a
society of equal respect.

14
Is multiculturalism a need of global society? Discuss. (2015/15)
Model Answer
Multiculturalism is commonly defined as the presence of several distinct cultural

or ethnic groups within a society. It not only recognises cultural diversity but such
diversity should be publically affirmed as well.
Global society refers to a society that is being built in modern times in which all
the people of the world interact in common with one another. It is the result of
the increasing globalisation.
Multiculturalism started in the 1960s and now most countries accept it as their
official policy viz Canada, Australia and others. Colonisation, globalisation, World
Wars and trade played an important role in the spread of multiculturalism. Over
times different form of multiculturalism emerged like-
Liberal multiculturalism in which differentiates between public or private life.

Example- France, where people cannot display religious signs or symbols
publically.
Pluralist multiculturalism in which all culture exists together with no difference in

public or private life. Example- India.
Cosmopolitan multiculturalism, here different culture integrates into the

common/cosmopolitan culture. It is also called melting-pot culture. Example-
USA.
Before concluding whether multiculturalism is needed in global society or not, we
15
should look at the advantages of multiculturalism. They are: –

1. It highlights the issue of racial or cultural discrimination.
2. It helps in addressing the problems of refugees and immigrants.
3. It emphasized on minority rights which is essential for healthy democracy.
4. It negates the separatist and secessionist tendencies and helps in national
integration.
Hence for a stable, peaceful and prosperous society multiculturalism is very much
needed, especially in the 21st century.

16
How do we distinguish liberal humanism and Marxist humanism? (2014/10)
Model Answer
Marxism is definitely a completely different way of looking at interpreting

literature then liberal humanism. Having learned liberal humanism and starting to
try and fully grasp that concept of looking at a text and realizing it should go past
the time it was written and always be relevant. Good literature relates to human
nature which no matter the period or culture it should still hold true. Going from
that to now a Marxist view on literature which doesn’t necessarily transcend the
time in which it was written it is very culturally specific and holds true always for
that time period.
According to a liberal humanist approach to literature, human nature stays the

same throughout the ages. At first, many would look at that in disbelief but it
really holds true. No matter what time or place in history there are some core
elements that hold true. This makes literature always relatable because human
nature is not completely changing all the time. Marxism completely challenges
this idea with saying that literature is written to change the human nature of the
time. It keeps trying to change people’s thoughts and push the idea of a classless
society and all decisions should be made to better the society. It seems like a nice
idea but rather unrealistic opposed to liberal humanists.
Marxism has the belief that not only do you look inside the text to understand it
as liberal humanists say you should it is also or more important to look outside of
that. I do not completely agree that in order to fully understand a text you must

17
appreciate what was going on in the political, social and economical situation of
the times. That seems helpful to me but it is really not the end all be all to
interpreting meaning in a text. Text shouldn’t be judged better if a more educated
man wrote it than if a lesser educated man did. However, with that said I think
knowing information such as the author’s education gives the reader more insight
and can help get a better understanding of the text.
Note: The model Answer is for only your reference purpose and is not the ideal
answer for the

18
Analyse the statement with reasons that “Power corrupts, absolute power
corrupts absolutely”. (2014/20)
Model Answer
Politics is a sphere where power is an exercise to deliver public good. It is

generally said that- Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. And
as a sphere influencing behaviours of people in society, ethics is very much
relevant to politics- where the social purpose is at the crux of the profession.
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” is the best-known

quotation of the 19th-century British politician Lord Acton. When someone
possesses control and authority over others, they become infected with evil and
wicked behaviours which began to dominate and destroy their minds. Like Hitler
and Mussolini, they desired absolute power which eventually leads to WWII.
Moreover, the desire to increase their respective ‘sphere of influence’ by the USA
and former USSR leads to cold war during the second half of the 20th century.
The cold war is rightly responsible for the instability in the West Asia and the
Korean peninsula.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely because of the examples in the history and
our modern world. This can be seen in Communist countries. All Communist
countries have been affected by corruption in one way or the other. Famous
examples include the Soviet Union, Cuba and China. To grab power Mao resorted
to utmost repression which can be traced from his quote, “power flows from the
barrel of the gun”. There was also corruption due to the absolute power found in

19
the colonial times. And this hunger for more and more power leads to WW1.
Now the question arises, why does power corrupt? It corrupts because it gives
license to unconscious and neglected personalities. It corrupts because it licenses
individuals to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose their will without having properly
engaged and processed through the reality at hand. Ruler often resorts to the
policy of blood and iron which results in sycophancy and nepotism and therefore
eroded the efficacy of the whole system. It hinders the growth of both the ruler
and the ruled.
Though there is corruption in today’s democratic societies unlike monarchy or

communist regime it has proper checks and balances to restore order if someone
uses their authority dishonestly. Also, power is essential to perform any action
but we need to make sure it must not be centralised.

20
Does corruption have not only a moral dimension but also an economic
dimension? (2013/10)
Model Answer
“We know that biggest disease of all is not a disease. It is corruption”
Corruption is spirituality or moral or deviation from an ethics. Corruption may

include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Political
corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in
an official capacity for personal gain.
Corruption is recognised as the single biggest problem facing the country today.
Corruption has serious adverse effects on the society and the economy and
corrodes the moral fibre of the people. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan1
observed at the time of the adoption of the Convention against Corruption:
Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on
societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of
human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organised
crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
Kautilya considered human beings as fickle minded and their behaviour cannot
always be the same. The dishonesty, non-accountability, inconsistency, illegality
and inefficiency are all parts of this unethical behaviour. It is thus necessary for
the state to create a mechanism which can regulate the human conduct to reduce
the non-ethical behaviour.

21
Corruption is a manifestation of unethical behaviour where private gains are

made on the cost of public expenditure. Comparing the embezzling officials with
the fishes living in the water, whose drinking of water cannot be found out, He
suggested a system of checks and balances through spies, appointments on the
basis of educational qualifications and aptitude, an optimum size of officials with
frequent transferring and a system of rewards and recognition in place.
Through his views, Kautilya had highlighted the importance of duties in the life of
a human being and charted out a righteous way of living. At the same time, he
focussed his attention towards curing one of the severest maladies affecting
administration and governance, i.e, corruption, and had prescribed the system of
supervision, and financial accountability.
Therefore, we see from Kautilya’s teachings, that a righteous life, and a

transparent and accountable administration, are indeed necessary
requirements for the human society.

22
Which theory of punishment retributive or restorative, do you recommend and

why? (2014/20)
Model Answer
Retributive justice is a perspective that focuses on punishment for offenders,

while restorative justice focuses on the relationship between the offender and
the victim. In this lesson, we will explore their differences and how both play a
part in our judicial system.
Theories about what to do with convicted criminals. In essence, most (but not all)
can fit into two camps, utilitarian and retributive. Utilitarian theories focus on the
greater good of society, and any punishment should benefit the society as a
whole. Further, the punishment used should produce more good to society than
the harm of the crime. Utilitarian theories are forward-looking in that they look
to what’s best for society as a whole to keep crime down and people happy.
The flip side of the utilitarian approach is retributive punishment. Unlike

utilitarian ideas, the retributive theory is backward looking in that it looks only at
the crime and the surrounding circumstances before it deals out a punishment
that fits the crime. The criminal should get his or her just deserts, meaning that
the act itself carries a certain level of moral blameworthiness, and the
punishment should be commensurate with that moral deficit. The criminal now
owes a debt to society, and the punishment will pay for that debt.
So Where Does Restorative Justice Fit?

23
Restorative Justice doesn’t fit neatly into either camp but like the utilitarian
approach, its goal is also to benefit society by its approach. The theory focuses on
the harm done to the victim by healing the wounds and restoring the offender to
the community that has been affected by the crime. This is done by implementing
the four tenets of restorative justice.
The Four Tenets of the Restorative Justice Process
Process Application
Seek participation of all those involved: victim(s), friends of victim,

Inclusion police, first responders, lawyers, correction personnel, and anyone
in the community who felt affected by the harm
Encounter Meet with those willing to participate
Offender seeks forgiveness and issues apologies, agrees to pay for

Amends
damages or works to restore with the community
The entire process will hopefully allow the victim to return to pre-
harm condition, and the offender will seek out ways to re-enter the
Reintegration
community, through Participation with a tolerant group in the
community

24
Is a democratic government better than a benevolent dictatorship?

Give reasons for your answer. (250 words/UPSC 2013)
Model Answer
Democracy is based on the principles of liberty, equality, justice, fraternity,

tolerance and respect for all. While dictatorship is essentially based on the
principle of inequality and curtailment of liberty. It considers the dictator superior
than others. He is the law formulator and enforcer. No-one else can be the
dictator but his offsprings. Even though a benevolent dictator might ensure
liberty, equality, justice to some extent but these ideals can’t be implemented in
their entirety under a dictator. The very notion of dictatorship goes against liberty
and equality. Moreover, benevolence might not last forever with the generations
of the dictator.
Though benevolent dictatorship might be beneficial in case of crisis situation a

clear-cut decision can be taken by one person. It’s also beneficial for uniting
people in crisis situation as Dictator = Representative of God and nobody denies
his order to unite
Democracy, on the other hand, is essentially based on the principle of lib,

equality, justice, tolerance, fraternity and respect for all. It is characterized by
majority rule, constitutional govt., minority rights, one person-one vote etc. This
ensures that laws, rules, provisions made for realizing various philosophical ideas
reflect the collective will and conscience of people.

25
Democratic govt. creates conditions of freedom, ensures equality of

opportunities, and distributive justice. The Constitution enshrines the secular,
tolerant, accommodating provisions, which is not dependent on the will of one
person. Collective wisdom shall always be better than one’s benevolence for the
working of a state.
So, as Gandhiji said,” Swaraj is better than Suraj”.

26
08-Jan-2018 – Question 1
“Inequitable development leads to social conflicts rather than social progress.

“Explain. (2015/10)
Model Answer
In simple term, inequality can be defined as lack of equality. It can be of many

types like income inequality, social inequality, inequality in infrastructure etc. Any
form of equality may lead to social conflict.
According to Oxfam study, richest 1% own 58% of total wealth in India. Rich are
becoming richer, while poor are becoming poorer. Moreover, inequality in
infrastructure can be seen in the outcome of green revolution where states like
Western UP, Haryana and Punjab benefitted the most due to the availability of
irrigation, HYV of seeds, better road infrastructure for transportation of goods
and others.
Past haunts the present. Above mentioned inequalities result in large-scale

migration from eastern states to more prosperous states. In long runs, it results in
regionalism, which is against our constitutional values. Moreover, it has been
seen that least developed states score poorly in law and order situation,
education and health indices, corruption, high fertility rates among others. This
makes them prone to communal and caste-based tension. Also, inequitable
development may also generate demand for separate states like Telangana,
Bodoland, Gorkhaland etc.

27
Therefore, equitable development is necessary for the inclusive and all-round

development of any nation.

28
What does gender discrimination mean? Is not a violation of equality and social
justice? Discuss. (2015/15)
Model Answer
Gender Discrimination means discrimination in providing opportunities, services,

treatment etc on the bases of gender. Generally, women are the sufferers of
gender discrimination.
Forms of gender discrimination–
1. In family and society– male child is given more importance in comparison

to female child
2. Can also be seen in the upbringing and socialization process
3. No independent identity of women- always identified through man
(mother, daughter, sister, etc)- after marriage status of women changes
4. Sphere of Language– A/c to feminists, language reflects social psyche of
society- words denoting posts of power are male-identified- most abusive
words are associated with women, demand gender-neutral culture
5. In field of economy– There is no parity of wages between male and female,
domestic work is not considered as a productive labour, women are
discriminated in the inheritance of property, important economic posts are
held by men

29
6. Also, discriminated in the field of education, politics (deprived of political

decision making power) and religion (founders are men, men are head of all
religious sects, temple entry, etc)
Suggestion-
1. Outlook or thinking of society should be changed

2. Socialization process should be changed because they discriminate against
women
3. Economic empowerment of women
4. Political empowerment of women
5. Progressive laws in favour of women and its effective implementation
6. Role of NGOs should be encouraged
7. Male identification of women should be rejected
They are being discriminated in the home, at workplaces and the public sphere
too. The principle of equality holds that equal treatment for equally and unequal
treatment for unequal’s Hence women must be paid and recognised for their
equal contribution and are to provided with extra opportunities and facilities due
to their long subjugation by men. This discrimination hampers the delivery of
social justice and a does not go well with the dignity of women. But women
should break the glass ceiling and break the mental blockage and lead from the
front in every sphere of life. Men who have reached the top positions due to the
support of their wives and mothers should give them the due respect then only
social justice will be delivered and the dignity of women will be ensured.

30
Does economic empowerment of women eliminate gender discrimination?

Discuss. (2015/15)
Model Answer
Socially, economically or politically discriminate against any person on the basis of

sex is called gender discrimination. Particularly, this term is used for
discrimination against women globally.
Globalisation along with IT revolution acted as a stepping stone for the economic
empowerment of women. However, this provided financial independence to
women but we cannot certainly say that it brings real empowerment of women or
not. It can be reflected in the gender inequality index of India, which stands at
130 out of 155 countries. There are widespread cases of sexual harassment of
women at workplaces, which prompts the government to bring into legislation to
curb this menace. There are cases of ‘Panchayat Pati’ where women are elected
representative but the decisions are taken by her husband. The commodification
of women is also a matter of great concern. Women are ‘used’ to sell everything
from toothpaste to automobiles.
According to a study conducted by consulting firm Mckinsey& Co., women are
less likely than men to get top corporate jobs worldwide. No women President is
elected in US till date. Even in 21st-century women in some countries are not
allowed to drive. It is only in the late 1970s that Switzerland allowed women to
cast vote as par with men.
1) participation in decision making in family matters increase.

31
2) money gives you confidence as psychology says.
3) More women participation in economic activities creates an atmosphere well

adopted according to women need hence increase economic as well as gender
empowerment.
However, there are cases where out of sheer determination women have been
proved that they are no less than men. Some of the examples are Madam Curie,
Razia Sultan, Kalpana Chawla, Angela Markel and others.
Hence, for real empowerment of women patriarchal mindset of the society must
be challenged head-on, strict legislation- its implementation & time bound justice
delivery should be the focus of the legislators, executive and judiciary. Media and
civil society should use its reach to raise awareness of gender discrimination.
Charity begins at home; therefore, we must ensure that parents should provide
equal privileges to both girl and boy child. If we do not empower 50% of our
population then dream of empowered society or nation is very distant.

32
Evaluate Ambedkar’s critique of caste system. (2015/20)
Model Answer
It is said that the roots of Ambedkar’s philosophy were not in politics but in
religion, particularly the Hindu religion which laid the foundation of the caste
system. His socio-political thought began with his criticism of Hindu religion
because of its evil practices of the caste system and seeking (or presenting)
solutions for untouchables to free from this evil practice.
Critique of Caste System
Caste not merely a division of labour but a division of labourers: The evil practice
in Hindu religion is the practice of casteism and the categorisation of certain
sections of people as Untouchables. Ambedkar proved this. Many Hindus
including Gandhi defended caste system on many grounds, the first being the
division of labour as necessary for a civilized society. However, Ambedkar said
that caste system as such is not merely division of labour, but it is also a division
of labourers. Moreover, it is a hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are
graded one above the other
The caste system is unnatural: In such a system, the division of labour is not
spontaneous; such a system is not based on individual choice. Individual
sentiments and individual preferences have no place in it. It is based on the
dogma of predestination.

33
Caste cannot preserve a non-existent ‘racial purity’: Some Hindus opine that the
object of Caste was to preserve the purity of blood.
Caste ‘is a social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a
perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it
in fashion and who had authority to force it on their inferiors
Caste does not result in economic efficiency; caste does not and has not
improved the race. The only thing that caste has done is that it has completely
disorganised and demoralized the Hindus.
Hindu society is merely a collection of castes: Ambedkar says that the Hindu
society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes
Caste destroys the public spirit, public opinion and public charity: The caste
system prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it has
prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with unified life and a
consciousness of its own being. It encourages hatred of one caste by another
The Annihilation of Caste
In his work, ‘Annihilation of Caste’, Ambedkar declared:
“It is not possible to break caste without annihilating the religious notions on
which it, the caste system, is founded”.
Ambedkar wanted to bring a change in the practice of Hindu religion. He

suggested the following in this regard:

34
1. There should be only one standard book of Hindu religion, acceptable to all
Hindus and recognized by all Hindus;
2. Priesthood among Hindus should be abolished or at least cease to be
hereditary;
3. No person who does not hold a ‘sanad’ should be allowed to officiate as a
priest;
4. A priest should be subject to the disciplinary action by the state regarding
his morals, beliefs and worship, and should be bound to the ordinary law of
the land as in the case of other ordinary citizens.

35
Is there any impact of caste discrimination on democracy in Indian context?

(2013/10)
Model Answer
“Caste System in India: A Open Drainage!”
India a nation of diverse culture not only that holds good but also a land of
diverse problems. Caste is the most confused knot of all social problems. Religion
is just a belief change anytime of the life, but caste is a constant which don’t
change even occupation and social status changes. Caste is like Iomega value
simply a mere constant doesn’t change in any situation. We can’t change caste
but we can eradicate caste from our society. we can’t expect the politician to talk
about casteless society because they want people to be divided.
Every party in India is strongly backed by a caste. So, they don’t allow people to
get united in casteless society because of it difficult for minor caste party to
remain in the politics. There Dalit parties in India from north to south which
project them self as voice of SC’s and ST’s. Since independence no changes as
came to this section of people. Top leaders and politicians play caste politics to
sustain in power and earn wealth. No equality in the society both economically
and socially.
Any Educated youth had the concern to know the impact Of Caste?
o Denies Change of Occupation caste system most probably opposes

the change of work. An SC and ST can’t start doing a business,

36
agriculture etc run successfully. Even today other than Brahmins

can’t enter temple goddess premises.
o Untouchability – sinful act still in practice of the 21st century. Even
today you can’t find deprived part of the society can’t enter temple
premises and many maintain distance from the lower caste don’t
allow inside their house.
o No unity caste system only increases the hate, anger but never
create brotherliness. Still, many people of different caste have a
different style of living.
o Lack of Social Progress since caste is an age-old system which is
followed traditionally. So people find it difficult to accept the new
ideal and scientific principles.
o Democracy Failure India is the world’s largest democracy but
everyday democracy fails. Even today you can’t find a Dalit candidate
contesting the non-Dalit reserved constitution.
o Women Slavery Caste system encourages child marriage and
opposes remarriage. Women are treated only as a sex machine. The
caste system is like a Hitler fascism principle. No caste in India
respects women rights and their feelings.
o Communal Violence Caste system keeps on suppressing a section of
people. It forces lower caste people to take weapons in their hand.
Naxalite, Maoist etc. movements are just an aggression of lower
caste people on economic inequality.

37
 Still, we need to walk-through long path to eradicating Caste?

 Improve Education Only education can increase the think of the people and
unite people. Caste system exists only because of ignorance of the people.
Education can bring next-generation new blood without caste.
 Promote Inter-Caste Marriage Society must provide special offers for
people who does inter-caste marriage. Inter-caste marriage will change the
next generation people without knowing caste.
 Eliminate Caste Word Government must pass a law like untouchability to
make caste a criminal word. No form or government policy must have caste
oriented approach.
 Economic Stability we need government economic policy to focus on
overall development of all section of the people.
 Eradicate Timeless Reservation We need to remove reservation after first
generation receiving the benefits of reservation. Continuous is also a
reason for caste development.
 Nationalize We need to take a tough decision by bringing every temple,
water, road’s etc under the nationalized policy; which makes people access
to all resources.

38
What do you understand by ‘gender equality’ and why is it important?

(2013/15)
Model Answer
Gender equality is achieved when women and men enjoy the same rights and
opportunities across all sectors of society, including economic participation and
decision-making, and when the different behaviours, aspirations and needs of
women and men are equally valued and favoured.
Gender equality means giving women equal rights like men- but gender
empowerment means to empower women with decision making power in various
aspects of life
Equality of rights may formally end gender discrimination but in actual practice,
their situation might not be improved therefore gender empowerment is a
deeper form of bringing parity between men and women
Forms of empowerment-
1. Social empowerment- decision making power to women- education

is the most important means- women participation in social matters-
abolition of social inequality is essential for this
2. Economic empowerment- to give women effective decision-making
power, so that they could decide the course of development- more
employment opportunities, parity of wage- gender budgeting

39
3. Political Empowerment- decision-making power on political issues,

representation in legislature, recruitment to important political post
are essential for this
Suggestions-
o Socio-cultural perspective towards women should be changed

o Proper education and health facilities
o Effective control over national wealth
o Representation to legislature and recruitment to key political posts
o Domestic violence and crime against women should be prevented
o Gender budgeting
Various attempts in India for women empowerment-
1. Special marriage act, 1954- minimum marriage age raised to 18 years

2. Hindu Succession act, 1956- share in ancestral property
3. Dowry prohibition act, 1961- dowry punishable offence
4. Sati prevention act, 1987- strictly punishable offence
5. Criminal law act, 1983- prevented some forms of domestic violence
6. National Commission for women set up in 1990
7. Rashtriya Mahila kosha, 1993- easy loan and economic assistance
8. 73rd and 74th amendment act, 1/2 to 1/3 seats reserved in panchayats
and municipalities
9. Domestic violence act, 2005

40
Write a critical note on the attributes of God. (2015/10)
Model Answer
The term ‘attributes of God’ refers to qualities describing God, or characteristics

of the divine nature, as God has revealed them to us in Scripture.
Omniscient
1. Important attribute of god

2. Power to know everything- past, present and future
3. To explain god as
1. Object of worship
2. Perfect and highest entity
3. Law of karma
Problems
Freedom of will- bound to act a/c to God’s knowledge (Solution- psychologist-

doesn’t affect freedom of will)
Sinful activities
Omniscient v/s eternity (God has knowledge of material object- changes in

object- change in knowledge- change in god- Eternity is compromised) (Solution-
On level of god there is no difference b/w past, present and future)- god is
aware of every level so there is no change at his level

41
Omnipresent
1. Important attribute of god

2. Present everywhere and in everything, all-pervading
3. Accepted as perfect and infinite.
Problems-
 Eternity v/s prayer- If prayer brings change, eternity is not there (God has
many other qualities- no change)
 Worshipper and worshipped difference goes away
 Present in every –ve object too
 Presence of evil
 Difficult to explain change and destruction
Eternity
1. Theists unanimously affirm that God exists eternally- neither beginning nor
end
2. Different possibilities- Timeless, Everlasting and eternal and temporal
3. Timeless– God exists outside of time
o God has neither temporal extension nor temporal location- no
before, during and after (Augustine, Aquinas and Anselm)
o He knows all events timelessly
o A perfect model of existence is timeless rather than temporal (means
change with time- not compatible with god)

42
o Relativity theory- time and space are conjoined- none exists without
other- God is non-spatial so he must be timeless or non-temporal as
well
o Objection- Timelessness would restrict God’s knowledge to timeless
truths only, such as ‘two plus two equals four’
4. Everlasting– Neither beginning nor end, yet God exists temporally- forever
in time
o God is actively involved in the world- has a history of the world-
performing a succession of events
o God must have certain temporal relations with the world- so he must
be temporal
5. Eternal and temporal–
o God existed without temporal duration, but at the creation of the
universe God was drawn into temporal relation
o Supported by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig
o Objection- Incoherent view- God capable of changing even in
timeless state- no change is possible without time- God could not
have been fully timeless

43
Do you think that evil is a bitter pill which no theist can swallow? Discuss.
(2015/15)
Model Answer
The problem of the evil i.e. simultaneous presence of God’s benevolence his
omnipotence and Evil is a big question posed to theists. Which they try to defend
in different ways.
Evil is of two types Moral and Natural, Moral evil is man-made such as robbery,
murder etc. while Natural evil is due to nature ex: Earthquake, Tsunami etc.
Theists defend it in two ways such as:
1. Instrumentalist viewpoint, where they say that evil is an instrument of god

to create a better world, it is like a prophylactic, further it is necessary for
the existence and realization of good.
2. Free- willists : they say that God has awarded Man with free will so it is his
discretion to not to choose the wrong path and try to purify himself so as to
make oneself fit for the companionship of the God. Although this path is
risky.
The defences are criticised in majorly two ways:
1. Freud, call it wish fulfilment hypothesis I.e. to satisfy parental love and see
universal justice and subsistence of self even after death.

44
2. Neuroscientists call it the effect of Prophylactic drugs, frontal lobe

simulation etc.
So, the defence of evil lies in the realm of faith.

45
Is god indispensable for religion? (2013/10)
Model Answer
Religion without God is possible or not totally depends on meaning of “religion”

and “god”
1. If we accept first 2 meaning (dharma) of Religare, then we can say religion

without God is possible- Jainism and Buddhism are religion
2. If third meaning is also included then problem arises regarding Jainism and
Buddhism as god is basically not accepted
Problem-
 In Jainism and Buddhism- no power beyond man and no ever-living god-

Westerners do not treat them as religion- only as ethical systems
 Theistic statements are meaningless a/c to linguistic and analytic

philosophers but non-theistic statements in religion and nirvanist
statements are untouched by linguistic attack- so religion does not become
impossible
 Religion is not identical to theism- main aim of religion is not to pray god-
other important features too- total commitment to an object of devotion,
law of karma, etc- Buddhism and Jainism have these features

46
Indian concept–
1. Religion is generally translated as “dharma” but popular meaning of religion

comes close to “panth” in fact
2. Dharma encompasses-
1. Morality
2. Performance of duties
3. Social and ethical values
4. God as transcendental entity may not necessarily be included in
dharma
3. Dharma according to Gandhi-
1. The performance of duty in as wide a sphere as one’s intellect can
compass
2. Prime objective of life, one may believe in god or not but if he feels
kinship with all life, he is truly religious
Thus, Religion in Indian context may or may not include god and is possible
without it such as Jainism and Buddhism
In western definition 2 things stand out-
1. A concern with supernatural agency

2. A life of commitment issuing into all-pervasive pattern of behaviour
On this basis, religion without god is questionable
History of religion is a witness to religions without god called atheistic religions or

nirvanist religions

47
Is God, the cause of natural evil? Explain. (2015/10)
Model Answer
The term ‘evil’ refers to physical pain, mental suffering and moral wickedness.
Natural evils are bad consequences that apparently derive entirely from the
operations of impersonal natural forces. Ex- suffering produced by natural
calamities such as earthquakes, cyclones, floods, famines etc.
Theists say that natural evils are created by God and they said it was done for the
promotion of goodness and to punish the evils. But this view was criticised by
Atheists by saying that if natural evils are the creation of God then we have no
right to interfere or minimize the impact of natural evil. Also, during natural
calamities, not only evils but good-hearted people and animals also suffer.
When theists were unable to scientifically explain the natural evil, they blindly put
the blame on God. However, modern science provides scientific evidence to
explain the natural evil. In fact, natural evils are inevitable and are regarded as
necessary to balance the energy flow of the atmosphere. Hence, God is not the
cause of natural evil.

48
Is existence of God being a necessary condition for the survival of religion?

Explain. (2015/10)
Model Answer
Galloway– Man’s faith in a power beyond himself where he seeks to satisfy his
emotional needs and gain stability in life, which is expressed in acts of worship
and service
The existence of God is not the necessary condition for the survival of religion
because there are religions like Jainism and Buddhism which do not believe in
God but still survives even before the Christian era.
Buddhism is essentially a humanistic religion which takes man as the highest

being. There is no God and therefore man is inferior to none. He himself is the
central object of the religion. He can himself attain Godhood, the state of
perfection. What is eternal is the transcendental spiritual status known as
Nirvana. Man is capable of attaining this highest status by his own personal
efforts. He doesn’t require the grace of any superior power. Likewise, Jainism also
focussed on attaining kaivelya without any reference to God. But unlike,
Buddhism they believe bounded-soul, which needs to be liberated.
Hence, the central concept of religion without God is to promote fraternity &
morality among human beings and their physical & spiritual up liftmen etc.

49
Examine the Nyaya arguments in favor of the existence of God. (2015/20)
Model Answer
Nyaya believes in one eternal, omnipotent and omniscient God. God is the
efficient cause, creator, sustainer and the destroyer. He is the moral governor full
of sadashvarya . He is beyond bondage, birth and death and is the lord of karmas.
They gave certain proofs for the existence of God:
1. Causal argument: A pot cant come on its own then how can this world
come on its own .
2. Adrasta: There must be a being who distributes the fruits of the actions
3. Authority of the scriptures: Conditional humans cant be the authors of the
Vedas. Divine God is .
4. Testimony of Shruti: Vedas are revealed and God existences is talked about.
5. Dynamism to atoms: He is the efficient cause
6. World support: He is the support of the world.
7. Word Meaning: He is the power who gives meaning to the words.
Critical comments: For creation, the God is dependent on the material cause, so
he must be both material and efficient cause. Secondly, you say that eternal
consciousness is the inseparable attribute of God but according to your
consciousness comes in Bondage. This is Contradictory.

50
05-Feb-2018 – Question 1
How do you justify rebirth with or without the soul ? (2014/10)
Model Answer
Rebirth can be defined as taking birth again after death. In the Indian context,
rebirth is a most important concept in view of the law of karma and process of
rebirth will continue till the individual find liberation.
It is generally believed by different religious philosophies that when the soul falls
into bondage then the cycle of death and birth begins. And causes are accepted as
action and Kaseya by Jainism and Trishna and avidya by Buddhism.
Rebirth with soul
In this believe, it is accepted that soul is immortal and theory of transmigration of

the soul is the basis of rebirth. Plato is believed to accept transmigration of the
soul.
Rebirth is accepted in Indian philosophy, where the independent existence of the

soul is accepted. In this way, the immortality of the soul is important to explain
the law of karma and rebirth. After death, soul only changes body because it is
eternal in nature. Rebirth is transmigration of the soul which means soul changes
body from one to another.
Rebirth without a soul
According to Buddhism, everything in this world is changeable and soul is not an

exception to this either. Therefore, the conception of immortal soul is not
51
accepted here. Though Buddhism has accepted rebirth and law of karma. As per
Buddhism, the soul is not eternal and it aggregates of five changeable skandhas.
Buddhism has explained continuity of life with the example of the flame of a
lamp. There is cause and effect relation between antecedent and subsequent
state of life.
In another way, carvaka has altogether rejected the concept of rebirth and
according to him, the soul is also destroyed after the death of the body, which
gives the concept of dehatmvada.
Hume has also rejected the concept of the permanent and eternal soul.

52
What is the central concept in a religion without God? Discuss. (2010/15)
Model Answer
The conception of religion without God is atheism, that is, don’t accept or
altogether deny the existence of God. Our rational understanding, knowledge,
scientific development and materialistic ideas support this conception. Our
knowledge and experience in terms of God and world consist of only material
objects.
Atheism can be divided into Materialistic and Non-materialistic. Former consider

the matter as the ultimate reality of this universe. It has a mechanical explanation
with no ultimate aim. It doesn’t see any purpose in the creation of this universe.
They don’t accept the law of karma. Charvaka and modern scientific views believe
in materialistic atheism.
Non-Materialistic atheism has the teleological explanation. It has a spiritual goal.

It accepts values, rebirth, spiritual goal, the law of karma and emphasis on the
ultimate purpose of the life on earth.
Moreover, in Indian context religion is generally translated as ‘Dharma’, which

comprises morality, the performance of duties and social & ethical values. Here,
God as a transcendental reality is not necessary as can be seen in Jainism and
Buddhism. According to Gandhi Ji, one may believe in God or not but if he feels
the kinship with all beings, he is truly religious.

53
Hence, the central concept of religion without God is to promote fraternity &
morality among human beings, physical & spiritual upliftment etc.

54
What are the arguments given in favour of immortality of soul ? (2014/10)
Model Answer
The immortality of the soul is an important religious belief which indicates specific
attitude towards the life and world of religious persons. The soul is generally
regarded as a non-physical, independent and spiritual entity which is eternal and
simple in nature.
Arguments in the favour of the immortality of the soul:
As per Plato, the soul is by nature simple and indivisible, therefore it can neither
be produced nor destroyed. Plato has also accepted soul as the knower. For him,
the soul is the base of knowledge. And knowledge is eternal and universal.
Therefore, the base of knowledge that is the soul is also eternal in nature.
Kant has regarded soul as immortal on the basis of postulates of the morality.
There are some instances where children have revealed the memory of previous
life which is paranormal arguments for the immortality of the soul.
In another view, the soul is accepted as the form of energy, and from the
conservation of law of energy, we can say that soul is immortal. The soul is also
accepted as the immortal on the basis of the conservation of the values.
In Indian philosophy, the immortality of the soul has major significance. Many
philosophers have accepted it explain the ‘law of karma’. According to Sankhya

55
‘satkaryavada’, the immortality of the soul is explained. It is also written in Gita

that soul is the part of God, therefore eternal in nature.
However, such concepts are criticised by the materialistic philosopher Carvaka,

who was in view that with the destruction of the body, the soul also destroyed,
and this theory is called ‘Dehatmvada’.
As per Buddhism, soul is nothing but the aggregate of five skandhas, which is
changeable in nature. As per Hume also, soul or self is nothing but the bundle of
different impressions.
In spite of such criticism, the immortality of soul plays important role in the west
as well as in the east. And it also plays a vital role to explain the ‘law of karma’
and moral life.

56
Do reason and faith go together? Discuss.(2015/10)
Model Answer
It has been generally presumed that faith and reason are in conflict with each
other. In reality, faith and reason work together seamlessly to help us understand
the world and beyond in a better way.
Faith and reason actually work very well together. In fact, faith is a prerequisite
for the reason. In order to reason about anything, we must have faith that there
are laws of logic which correctly prescribe the correct chain of reasoning. Since
laws of logic cannot be observed with the senses, our confidence in them is a type
of faith.
Since reason would be impossible without logic, which stems from the faith, we
have a very good reason for our faith: without our faith, we could not reason.
Though the role of reason is secondary for getting religious knowledge, its role is
necessary. It is necessary for keeping blind faith from religion and attaching values
to religion. Religion-based terrorism is increasing due to the negative impact of
reason. Hence, reason and faith are not counter but complementary to each
other.

57
What is the nature of mystical experience? (2013/15)
Model Answer
Mystical experience is a one of the deepest religious experience, which is in

purest and concentrated form. It is the cutest, intense, and living experience of
supreme reality. Mystics claim to have the most direct and intimate experience of
the divine presence.
Due to nature of mystical experience, it is open to different interpretations.

Nature of mystical experiences:
It is absolutely different from the ordinary experience. It is completely devoid of

all perceptions, thoughts, emotions, desires etc. It is this element of
indescribability which makes it a mystic experience.
In such an experience, there is a great element of subjectivity. Most often, mystics

experience is understood as individual communion with supreme reality. One can
receive these very subjective experiences as vision, dreams, revelations etc.
Mystical experience defies expression because it has no adequate report of its

content which can be given in words. It is essentially extra-rational elements. It is
some sort of revelation and illumination. It is also not permanent but transitory in
nature.
Therefore, such nature makes this experience open to different interpretations.

Sometimes the mystic state is criticised as the neurotic state. In the neurotic,

58
social adjustment and mental integration is lacking. But in mystical experiences

comprise these things. These mystic peoples are highly significant and in fact,
they are to be called as supernormal states.

59
Is the idea of immortality of soul utopian or it is realizable ? Discuss (2012/20)
Model Answer
The immortality of the soul is an important religious belief which indicates a

specific attitude of life and world of a religious person. The soul is regarded as a
non-physical, independent and spiritual entity which is different from the body,
mind and sense organs. ‘Immortality of soul’ refers to the survival of the soul even
after the death of the body, thus it believes in the eternal existence of the soul.
The immortality of the soul has been maintained by both western and eastern
philosophers. Among westerners- Plato, Kant and Descartes are the prominent
ones. Semitic religion like Islam, Christian and Judaism believe that body is
essential for the soul and after the death immortality of the soul is maintained
through a new resurrected body.
In Indian philosophy, Materialists like Charvaka and Buddhists rejects the

conception of permanent soul and others accept the existence of disembodied
soul though they differ about the nature of the soul like Sankhya equated soul
with Purusa and so on.
Several arguments have been proposed to prove the immortality of the soul viz.
metaphysical and epistemological argument by Plato, moral arguments by Kant,

an argument based on conservation of energy, an argument based on
conservation of values etc. Similarly, counter-arguments are also proposed by the

60
disbelievers to prove their viewpoints. The argument based on humanism or this

worldliness is one of the foremost among them.
Various arguments to prove the immortality of the soul has been enumerated by
the Indian Schools of philosophy. It includes- law of karma, the authority of Vedas
& Bhagwat Gita. Moreover, according to Gita, the soul is a part of God and hence
it cannot be mortal. However, Charvaka and Buddhism rejected the whole idea of
soul and said there is no such thing as a soul.
Therefore, we may conclude that the immortality of the soul can neither be
proved nor disproved by the mere arguments. Moreover, in the realm of religion
and ethics, belief and faith have very significant role dominated by personal
beliefs of the individuals.

61
What is the nature of mystical experience? (2013/15)
Model Answer
Mystical experience is a one of the deepest religious experience, which is in

purest and concentrated form. It is the cutest, intense, and living experience of
supreme reality. Mystics claim to have the most direct and intimate experience of
the divine presence.
Due to nature of mystical experience, it is open to different interpretations.

Nature of mystical experiences:
It is absolutely different from the ordinary experience. It is completely devoid of

all perceptions, thoughts, emotions, desires etc. It is this element of
indescribability which makes it a mystic experience.
In such an experience, there is a great element of subjectivity. Most often, mystics

experience is understood as individual communion with supreme reality. One can
receive these very subjective experiences as vision, dreams, revelations etc.
Mystical experience defies expression because it has no adequate report of its

content which can be given in words. It is essentially extra-rational elements. It is
some sort of revelation and illumination. It is also not permanent but transitory in
nature.
Therefore, such nature makes this experience open to different interpretations.

Sometimes the mystic state is criticised as the neurotic state. In the neurotic,

62
social adjustment and mental integration is lacking. But in mystical experiences

comprise these things. These mystic peoples are highly significant and in fact,
they are to be called as supernormal states.

63
Is the idea of immortality of soul utopian or it is realizable ? Discuss (2012/20)
Model Answer
The immortality of the soul is an important religious belief which indicates a

specific attitude of life and world of a religious person. The soul is regarded as a
non-physical, independent and spiritual entity which is different from the body,
mind and sense organs. ‘Immortality of soul’ refers to the survival of the soul even
after the death of the body, thus it believes in the eternal existence of the soul.
The immortality of the soul has been maintained by both western and eastern
philosophers. Among westerners- Plato, Kant and Descartes are the prominent
ones. Semitic religion like Islam, Christian and Judaism believe that body is
essential for the soul and after the death immortality of the soul is maintained
through a new resurrected body.
In Indian philosophy, Materialists like Charvaka and Buddhists rejects the

conception of permanent soul and others accept the existence of disembodied
soul though they differ about the nature of the soul like Sankhya equated soul
with Purusa and so on.
Several arguments have been proposed to prove the immortality of the soul viz.
metaphysical and epistemological argument by Plato, moral arguments by Kant,

an argument based on conservation of energy, an argument based on
conservation of values etc. Similarly, counter-arguments are also proposed by the

64
disbelievers to prove their viewpoints. The argument based on humanism or this

worldliness is one of the foremost among them.
Various arguments to prove the immortality of the soul has been enumerated by
the Indian Schools of philosophy. It includes- law of karma, the authority of Vedas
& Bhagwat Gita. Moreover, according to Gita, the soul is a part of God and hence
it cannot be mortal. However, Charvaka and Buddhism rejected the whole idea of
soul and said there is no such thing as a soul.
Therefore, we may conclude that the immortality of the soul can neither be
proved nor disproved by the mere arguments. Moreover, in the realm of religion
and ethics, belief and faith have very significant role dominated by personal
beliefs of the individuals.

65
If God is regarded as ‘one’ , will it give rise to religious conflicts ? (2014/10)
Model Answer
Religious conflict over “God” has been a part of history and it has its spill overs in
philosophy. Various religion interprets God in different ways:
For Judaism: God is same as that of Christianity, except the prophets of both
religion are different.
For Islam: God is Allah, while Muhammad is prophet
For Hinduism: which has different sects, believes in monotheism as well as
polytheism.
For Christianity: God is one, indivisible and universal cause of all existence
if with such interpretations of God, if it is quantified as One or even qualified as

One, it is bound to create conflicts.
Yet it’s true, religion has been a major feature in some historical conflicts and the
most recent wave of modern terrorism. Religion has taken on extra significance
today because globalisation is challenging and changing everything. Religious
identity not only survives but can take on heightened significance when national
and political alliances
“Wash your face before bed so the angels will come down and kiss you while you
sleep.”

66
How do you formulate religious language as non-cognitive ? (2014/15)
Model Answer
There have been some critics who argued there has to be a comparative element
to any human language used to describe God. This is impossible as God is beyond
any true human understanding. Analogies are meaningless in describing God as
they are limiting God to what he actually is.
Ian Ramsey developed the term analogy using terms: model and qualifier. Model
has a straight forward meaning when it is applied to ordinary things which we
experience but it is also used to describe God. Qualifier is the way in which the
model is developed. Therefore, a qualifier is essential. This is a word in which it
shows how the word is applied to God. The qualifier is to make clear it is
enhanced infinitely when applied to God. It demonstrates greatness in the quality
when applied to God.
Paul Tillich and J. R. Randall had similar ideas concerning religious language. Tillich
used ordinary language to point to God but spoke of the words used as
symbols.Tillich held God could only be described using symbols but never literally.
He said the symbol is transcending meaning something in it’s own sense which
points to something greater of higher in reality.
1. R. Randall sees religious language as a human activity which makes a special

contribution to human culture. Religious language has a very unique

67
function. It is able to stir strong emotion and to bind communities together

through a common response to their faith.
Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that the meaning of words is in their use, the
function they use as agreed by a particular group or society using them. He said
every activity has their own unique language and Wittgenstein regarded this
rather like a game with its own set of rules. Language games exist within all forms
of human activities and lives.
He said people who are not in the game will not understand the use of the
language and will find it meaningless to them. Religious belief has its own
language and non believers will find religious language meaningless as they are
not in the religious “game.” Problems develop when the language “goes on
holiday.” This is when words are used outside of their context and we use
ordinary language to describe God. This should never happen.
Wittgenstein has acquired some critics to his theory. The first is that different
faiths have a different language game and it is extremely difficult to share those
differences between the religions. Secondly, all religious believers are involved in
different language games in one way or another. Religious language has not
become totally isolated so there must be a common ground between religious
language and other language games. If there is a common ground, non believers
are able to understand religious language and decide whether or not it has a
meaning for them. Thirdly, non believers might be able to understand the
language better than a religious believer as they have an objective view on the

68
use of the religious language. Believers take the language for what it is and cannot
be subject to anything else.
In conclusion, believers would agree it is difficult to talk about God. The meaning
of the word God applies to a being beyond human understanding. Believers
recognise that any discussion of God is limited, but they would argue religious
language does have meaning and purpose.

69
How can religious language be verified?Is it correct to say that religious

language is verified because it can not be falsified? Discuss.(2015/20)
Model Answer
Religious language is trans empirical hence difficult to verify but there are
different views regarding it such is cognitive, semi cognitive and non-cognitive.
Cognitive view says that religious language is verifiable and a theist can very well
experience the presence of god in his life, further Theory of Eschatology is
advanced which saws that at the end time everything will be explained.
Theory of analogy which was given by Palleys watch analogy was utilized by
Aquinas to refute equivocal and unequivocal language for God. Finally, the non-
cognitivists like RB Brethwite believe that religious language is not cognizable but
is a moral assertion and its evidence can be seen in the life of the follower. So, it is
non-cognitive but meaningful.
Further, Antony flew deny it on the basis that it can’t be also falsified. Hence a
description which can’t be falsified is not correct. So, he denies Religious
language.
Logical positivists completely deny any metaphysical description as non-cognitive

and meaningless. AJ Ayer completely rejects it on the basis of no empirical
verifiability.

70
Finally, later Wittgenstein accept the limitation of language and propose the
Game theory.
Finally, Religious language is a source of knowledge for the believer but has no
empirical verifiability hence its acceptance lies in the realm of faith.

71
How can religious language be verified?Is it correct to say that religious

language is verified because it can not be falsified? Discuss.(2015/20)
Model Answer
Religious language is trans empirical hence difficult to verify but there are
different views regarding it such is cognitive, semi cognitive and non-cognitive.
Cognitive view says that religious language is verifiable and a theist can very well
experience the presence of god in his life, further Theory of Eschatology is
advanced which saws that at the end time everything will be explained.
Theory of analogy which was given by Palleys watch analogy was utilized by
Aquinas to refute equivocal and unequivocal language for God. Finally, the non-
cognitivists like RB Brethwite believe that religious language is not cognizable but
is a moral assertion and its evidence can be seen in the life of the follower. So, it is
non-cognitive but meaningful.
Further, Antony flew deny it on the basis that it can’t be also falsified. Hence a
description which can’t be falsified is not correct. So, he denies Religious
language.
Logical positivists completely deny any metaphysical description as non-cognitive

and meaningless. AJ Ayer completely rejects it on the basis of no empirical
verifiability.

72
Finally, later Wittgenstein accept the limitation of language and propose the
Game theory.
Finally, Religious language is a source of knowledge for the believer but has no
empirical verifiability hence its acceptance lies in the realm of faith.

73
Can pluralist perspective vindicate Absolute Truth ? (2014/10)
Model Answer
Religious pluralism is evident due to different claims of different religions; these

claims are sometimes even contradictory. This leads to the problem of absolute
truth. Thinkers have tried to synthesize them for a harmonious existence.
Pluralism find its manifestation in Atheism, Agnosticism, Religious Relativism,

Religious inclusivity, Religious exclusivists . Their claims are challenged by Myth of
neutrality, that there is no objective criteria to decide that what is true and Justice
objection which holds that how can salvation be denied to unaware people.
Further John Hick gives the pluralistic hypothesis which can be compared to the
story of 6 binds and an elephant but the synthesis can be found in aspectual
hypothesis and the Saydvada of Jainas which hold that absolute truth has many
aspects and different religions are knowing only the partial few aspects of it.
However plurality does not diminish the stature of the absolute it only increase its
number of aspects . While the interreligious harmony lies in accepting and
appreciating the differences as suggested by Dalai Lama.

74
What is meant by saying that religious is non-cognitive? (2013/15)
Model Answer
Religious language is non-cognitive is to say that religious statement are neither

analytical nor can be empirically verified. It is supported by A.J.Ayer, Carnap, Flew,
Braithwaite and R.M.Hare.
According to Ayer and Carnap, religious statements are the expression of feeling
and emotions of the religious persons. As per Ayer, only that statement is
meaningful which is either analytical or empirically verified. It is therefore,
religious statements are meaningless from the cognitive point of view. In fact,
they are pseudo-statements but important from emotive point of view.
Carnap-meaningful statements can be of three types that is tautology,

contradiction and contingent but religious statements are do not fall to either of
any category, that is why they are meaningless from cognitive point of view.
With the help of Falsification theory, Flew has also maintained that religious
statements are meaningless because theist will never accept any statement
against God. And only that statements are meaningful cognitively if there is
possibility of falsification.
In the same way Hare has also maintained that religious statements are non-
cognitive and prescriptive in nature. And as per, Braithwaite, religious languages
are of moral assertion, hence not cognitive in nature.

75
Criticism:
But it is also fact that there is no verification to verify the verification theory, so it
is also meaningless in the same manner. If we apply the weak verification theory
then anything can be justified. If statement cannot be falsified then there is no
sense to call it meaningless.
According to Wittgenstein, to examine the religious language in physical context is

meaningless. Religious language should be determined only in the context of
religious meaning and meaning of word is determined by its context.

76
Can religious language can said to be verifiable ? (2013/15)
Model Answer
Hume suggested that all language not empirically grounded should be

“committed to the flames for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion”
Through this he implied that religious language was meaningless and has little
merit to it.
John Hick was a believer and questioned whether the Verification Principle
renders religious statements meaningless, he used an analogy to illustrate that
religious statements could be verified at the end of life, he calls this eschatological
verification. Thus because there is a way that it could be verified, Hick argues that
religious language is meaningful.
Some people claim that religious language is non-cognitive; it is not scientific, but
instead emotional. Therefore it is not subject to the Verification Principle. Ayer
agreed that something could hold meaning for one person and not for another,
simply due to differences in belief. R.M. Hare had similar ideas and said people
have bliks about the world, these are personal to them. These beliefs are not
based on logic or empirical evidence. He suggests that religious believers have
bliks about the world and use God to support it. Similarly, empiricists have bliks
and the way they see the world leads them to believe that everything must be
scientifically proven. Hare says neither is more wrong or more right, thus religious
language is meaningful but only to those with the same bliks.

77
Wittgenstein supported the ideas of Ayer and Hare; he posits that religious
language is used differently and in different contexts, and has different meaning
from person to person. He says that if you were to understand and practice it too,
you would regard it as meaningful, but if you totally reject it then of course it
would be meaningless. You could argue the same is true to different types of
statements for instance mathematics or quantum physics, some people might not
understand quantum physics or the reasoning behind it thus it holds no meaning
for them. However, just because you don’t understand or use religious language
doesn’t mean that it isn’t meaningful.
Some philosophers argue that religious statements are analogical and so they
cannot be proved or disproved. They are simply metaphors, because any attempt
to use precise language would only be anthropomorphising God. Therefore, the
verification principle doesn’t render religious language meaningless.
The Verification Principle is a challenge to religious language and its

meaningfulness but not deadening as first thought. As it suggests that sense
based verification is the only means of assessing meaningfulness, a reductionist
viewpoint at best, but because there could be other ways of verifying religious
language, such as Hick’s eschatological verification, religious language is not
meaningless. Some may argue that religious language is meaningful dependent on
the individual and their own beliefs. Due to its lack of empirical background it is a
stretch to say it would have meaning for atheists, but it certainly has meaning for
those who already have faith.

Equality does not mean uniform treatment

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Equality does not mean uniform treatment

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

90 Days UPSC Mains Optional Answer Writing

Question and Model Answers from Subject Experts

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

“Sovereignty is the supreme power over citizens and subjects, unrestrained by

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

A well-ordered society, according to Rawls, is effectively regulated by a public

A well-ordered society is indeed effectively regulated by the public conception of

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Is liberty a positive and equal opportunity of self-realization? Discuss.(2016)

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

When we talk of the provision of support to fulfill the potential of an individual

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Equality does not mean treating everyone equal. Discuss.(2015)

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

On what grounds does Laski criticize Austin’s concept of sovereignty?(2016)

Austin’s theory of sovereignty is a monistic theory of sovereignty. According to

Such a monistic theory of sovereignty is vehemently criticised by Laski who

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Thus , Laski effectively proposes a pluralistic sovereign against Austin’s monistic

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

What is the significance of including duties of citizens in Indian

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

The addition of duties is an emphasis on this aspect of Indian society.Some of the

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Is multiculturalism a need of global society? Discuss. (2015/15)

Multiculturalism is commonly defined as the presence of several distinct cultural

Liberal multiculturalism in which differentiates between public or private life.

Pluralist multiculturalism in which all culture exists together with no difference in

Cosmopolitan multiculturalism, here different culture integrates into the

should look at the advantages of multiculturalism. They are: –

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

How do we distinguish liberal humanism and Marxist humanism? (2014/10)

Marxism is definitely a completely different way of looking at interpreting

According to a liberal humanist approach to literature, human nature stays the

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Politics is a sphere where power is an exercise to deliver public good. It is

“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” is the best-known

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Though there is corruption in today’s democratic societies unlike monarchy or

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

“We know that biggest disease of all is not a disease. It is corruption”

Corruption is spirituality or moral or deviation from an ethics. Corruption may

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Corruption is a manifestation of unethical behaviour where private gains are

Therefore, we see from Kautilya’s teachings, that a righteous life, and a

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Which theory of punishment retributive or restorative, do you recommend and

Retributive justice is a perspective that focuses on punishment for offenders,

The flip side of the utilitarian approach is retributive punishment. Unlike

So Where Does Restorative Justice Fit?

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

The Four Tenets of the Restorative Justice Process

Seek participation of all those involved: victim(s), friends of victim,

Encounter Meet with those willing to participate

Offender seeks forgiveness and issues apologies, agrees to pay for

NeoStencil – Live Online Classes - IAS/IES/GATE/SSC/PSC | +91 95990 75552 | info@neostencil.com

Is a democratic government better than a benevolent dictatorship?