Predicted Questions with Model Answers

Q1 (5 marks — 50 words): What are Gandhi's Seven Social Sins? Name all seven.

Model Answer:

Gandhi's Seven Social Sins (Young India, 1925): (1) Politics without principle — power without moral compass; (2) Wealth without work — exploitation-based accumulation; (3) Pleasure without conscience — enjoyment at others' expense; (4) Knowledge without character — skill divorced from ethics; (5) Commerce without morality — profit overriding ethics; (6) Science without humanity — technology ignoring human welfare; (7) Worship without sacrifice — ritual without genuine moral commitment. These remain Gandhi's most-cited diagnostic of societal and administrative failure.

---

Q2 (5 marks — 50 words): Explain Gandhi's concept of Satyagraha. How does it differ from passive resistance?

Model Answer:

Satyagraha (truth-force / soul-force) is Gandhi's non-violent resistance method — willingly accepting suffering to convert, not defeat, the opponent, grounded in love rather than hatred. Differs from passive resistance: (1) Passive resistance uses non-violence as weakness-strategy, may resort to violence if opportunity arises; Satyagraha is non-violent on principle, never. (2) Passive resistance seeks political victory; Satyagraha seeks the opponent's moral transformation. (3) Satyagraha requires fearlessness and active love — it is the weapon of the strong.

---

Q3 (10 marks — 150 words): Discuss Gandhi's doctrine of means-ends ethics. Is it practically feasible in contemporary public administration?

Model Answer:

Gandhi's means-ends doctrine — that the means must be as pure as the end — is his most philosophically distinctive contribution to ethics, and directly challenges consequentialist administration that justifies rule-bending for "good outcomes."

The core argument: Corrupt means do not produce pure ends — they transform the end itself. A government that wins elections through violence cannot govern justly; an administration that falsifies data to show "success" produces false success. Gandhi's seed analogy: a mango seed cannot produce a neem tree — the means carry the nature of the end.

Evidence from Indian administrative history:

• Emergency (1975–77): Forced sterilisation as population control "means" — the "healthcare" end was corrupted into coercive assault
• Land acquisition without due process for "development" — displacement trauma delegitimises the project
• Fake encounter "justice" — extrajudicial violence corrupts rule of law even when targeting criminals

Is it feasible? Critics argue it is utopian — administration must make trade-offs, and perfect means purity is impossible. Gandhi acknowledged this: "I know that there will be very great difficulties in working out this principle but I also know that the difficulties are of our own creation."

Partial feasibility framework:

1. Non-negotiable minimum: Some means are absolutely prohibited — torture, falsification, rights violations — regardless of outcome
2. Proportionality: Less-than-perfect means may be acceptable if clearly proportionate to the end and with transparent justification
3. Accountability for means: Even when ends are achieved, means must be publicly justifiable — RTI, social audit, judicial review
4. Institutional design: Design systems where good means produce good ends — reduce situations where agents feel compelled to choose

The Gandhian means-ends doctrine is not a counsel of paralysis but a demand for institutional integrity — building administrative systems where honest, transparent, rights-respecting processes reliably produce good governance outcomes.

---

Q4 (5 marks — 50 words): Explain Gandhi's concept of Trusteeship. How does it address the challenge of economic inequality?

Model Answer:

Gandhi's Trusteeship doctrine holds that the wealthy do not truly "own" their wealth — they are trustees holding it in trust for God/society. Industrialists should voluntarily use surplus wealth for societal welfare. It addresses inequality by: (1) redirecting private wealth toward public good without state confiscation (distinguishing it from communism); (2) moral responsibility replaces legal obligation; (3) preserving productive incentives while curbing exploitative accumulation. Limitation: voluntary compliance insufficient without structural reform — Ambedkar argued state redistribution was essential.

---

Q5 (5 marks — 50 words): What is Sarvodaya? How does it differ from Utilitarianism?

Model Answer:

Sarvodaya (welfare/rise of all) — Gandhi's adaptation of Ruskin's "Unto This Last" — holds that the goal of economy and governance is the good of each person, especially the weakest. Differs from Utilitarianism: (1) Utilitarianism seeks "greatest good of greatest number" — allowing sacrifice of minorities; Sarvodaya insists no one is expendable. (2) Sarvodaya measures success by the condition of the worst-off (similar to Rawls); Utilitarianism by aggregate total. (3) Sarvodaya is person-respecting; Utilitarianism is aggregative.

---

Q6 (5 marks — 50 words): How does Gandhian Ahimsa apply to contemporary public administration?

Model Answer:

Gandhi defined Ahimsa as active love — not passive inaction — requiring more courage than violence. In administration: (1) No coercive enforcement — welfare schemes through persuasion/education, not force (no coercive sterilisation, evictions without due process); (2) Compassionate grievance redressal — treat complainants with dignity; (3) Non-punitive regulation — nudge rather than threaten; (4) Citizen-centred service — see each citizen as deserving care, not as a case number; (5) Non-discrimination — ahimsa extends to thought, preventing prejudice against marginalised communities in administration.

---