PrepBooster IAS

PSIR 300+
PSIR Through
300 Questions For
Mains 2025

By
Kapil Sikka

A power-packed, result-oriented booster course

designed to streamline your preparation.
What’s Inside?

✅ 300 high-impact questions covering the entire PSIR syllabus (Paper 1 & 2)
✅ 19 LIVE Answer Writing Sessions
✅ Each session focuses on concepts, structure, value-enrichment & feedback
✅ Booklet of all 300 Questions with Model Answers & Extra Fodder
✅ Structured coverage for smart revision, practice & conceptual clarity
✅ Live Mentoring + Answer Review + Strategy Guidance

🎓 Designed for:

– 2025 aspirants wanting precision + speed

– 2026 aspirants wanting a head start
– Anyone struggling with answer writing & content organization

📚 Don’t study more. Study right.

Price 4999/- Click here to Buy

Detailed Scheduled
Total
Test Date Topic to be Covered Qs
No
LAMP 1 13 June Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes 10
LAMP 2 17 June Locke, John S. Mill, Marx, Gramsci, Hannah Arendt 10
LAMP 3 21 June Political Ideologies: Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, 10
Feminism, Concept of power: hegemony, ideology, and legitimacy
LAMP 4 24 June Political Theory: meaning and approaches, Theories of state: 15
Liberal, Neo-liberal, Marxist, Pluralist, Post-colonial and
Feminist.
LAMP 5 28 June Justice: Conceptions of justice with special reference to Rawl’s 15
theory of justice and its communitarian critiques,
• Equality: Social, political, and economic; the relationship
between equality and freedom; Affirmative action,
• Rights: Meaning and theories; different kinds of rights;
Concept of Human Rights,
• Democracy: Classical and contemporary theories; different
models of democracy—representative, participatory and
deliberative.
LAMP 6 1 July Salient Features of the Indian Constitution: The Preamble, 10
Fundamental Rights and Duties, Directive Principles, Amendment
Procedures,
LAMP 7 4 July (a) Principal Organs of the Union Government: Envisaged role 15
and actual working of the Executive, Legislature, and Supreme
Court.
(b) Principal Organs of the State Government: Envisaged role
and actual working of the Executive, Legislature, and High
Courts.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.thepb.in|| 8010140387
LAMP 8 8 July Grassroots Democracy: Panchayati Raj and Municipal 15
Government; Significance of 73rd and 74th Amendments;
Grassroot movements. Federalism: Constitutional provisions;
changing nature of center-state relations; integrationist
tendencies and regional aspirations; inter-state disputes
LAMP 9 12 July Indian Nationalism 15
(a) Political Strategies of India’s Freedom Struggle:
Constitutionalism to mass Satyagraha, Noncooperation, Civil
Disobedience; Militant and Revolutionary Movements, Peasant
and Workers Movements, (b) Perspectives on Indian National
Movement; Liberal, Socialist, and Marxist; Radical Humanist
and Dalit. Making of the Indian Constitution: Legacies of the
British rule; different social and political perspectives.
LAMP 15 July • Statutory Institutions/Commissions: Election Commission, 20
10 Comptroller and Auditor General, Finance Commission,
Union Public Service Commission, National Commission
for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Scheduled
Tribes, National Commission for Women; National Human
Rights Commission, National Commission for Minorities,
National Backward Classes Commission. Planning and
• Economic Development: Nehruvian and Gandhian
perspectives; Role of planning and public sector; Green
Revolution, land reforms and agrarian relations;
liberalization and economic reforms.,
• Social Movement: Civil liberties and human rights
movements; women’s movements; environmentalist
movements.
LAMP 19 July Caste, Religion, and Ethnicity in Indian Politics, Party System: 10
11 National and regional political parties, ideological and social
bases of parties; Patterns of coalition politics; Pressure groups,
trends in electoral behavior; changing socio-economic profile of
Legislators
LAMP 22 July • Approaches to the Study of International Relations: 10
12 Idealist, Realist, Marxist, Functionalist and Systems
theory.
• Key Concepts in International Relations: National
interest, security and power; Balance of power and
deterrence; Transational actors and collective security;
World capitalist economy and globalisation.
LAMP 24 July • Changing International Political Order: 20
13 (a) Rise of superpowers; Strategic and ideological
Bipolarity, arms race and cold war;
(c) Collapse of the Soviet Union; Unipolarity and American
hegemony;
• Relevance of non-alignment in the contemporary world.
Comparative Politics: Nature and major approaches;
Political economy and political sociology perspectives;
Limitations of the comparative method.
• State in Comparative Perspective: Characteristics and
changing nature of the State in capitalist and socialist
economies, and advanced industrial and developing

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.thepb.in|| 8010140387
 societies.
LAMP 26 July • Politics of Representation and Participation: Political 20
14 parties, pressure groups and social movements in
advanced industrial and developing societies.
• Globalisation: Responses from developed and developing
societies.
• Contemporary Global Concerns: Democracy, human rights,
environment, gender justice terrorism, nuclear
proliferation, Evolution of the International Economic
System: From Bretton woods to WTO; Socialist economies
and the CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance);
Third World demand for new international economic order
LAMP 28 July • Indian Foreign Policy: Determinants of foreign policy; 20
15 institutions of policy-making; continuity and change, Non-
aligned Movement: Aims and achievements; Relevance of
non-alignment in the contemporary world, India’s
Contribution to the Non-Alignment Movement: Different
phases; current role
LAMP 30 July • India and South Asia: Regional Co-operation SAARC’ past 15
16 performance and future prospects; South Asia as a Free
Trade Area and India’s “Look East” policy. Impediments to
regional co-operation: river water disputes; illegal cross-
border migration; ethnic conflicts and insurgencies; border
disputes.
• Nuclear threat; India and the Nuclear Question: Changing
perceptions and policy
LAMP 2 Aug India and the Global South: Relations with Africa and Latin 10
17 America; leadership role in the demand or NIEO and WTO
negotiations. India and the Global Centers of Power: USA, EU,
Japan, China and Russia
LAMP 4 Aug Recent developments in Indian Foreign policy: India’s position 15
18 on the recent crisis in Afghanistan, Iraq and West Asia, growing
relations with US and Israel; vision of a new world order. United
Nations: Envisaged role and actual record; specialized UN
agencies-aims and functioning; need for UN reforms. India and
the UN System: Role in UN Peace- keeping; demand for
Permanent Seat in the Security Council.

Regionalisation of World Politics: EU, ASEAN, APEC, SAARC,

NAFTA
LAMP 6 Aug IPT: Indian Political Thought: Dharamshastra, Arthashastra and 15
19 Buddhist Traditions; IPT: Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Sri Aurobindo,
M. K. Gandhi and Gandhism, B. R. Ambedkar, M. N. Roy

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.thepb.in|| 8010140387
Join telegram for updates

Shop 24, 3rd Floor Bada Bazar Road,

Market, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, 110060
 PSIR 300+ 2025
By Kapil Sikka
Test Code LAMP 1

Instructions
• All questions are compulsory
• Word limit wherever mentioned should be adhered to
• Marks carried by the question are indicated against it

Q1. Plato emerged as the philosophical champion of the closed society and in the process laid
the groundwork for totalitarianism.
Approach:
1. Introduction: Write about Plato and his ideas, focusing on their nature like idealist and radical.
2. Body
a. Write on Plato’s prescriptions for ideal state: communism of family and property, and
philosopher king.
b. Elaborate on how his ideas championed closed society and contained the roots of
totalitarianism.
c. Bring in Karl Popper’s critique of Plato.
3. Conclusion
a. Counter Popper’s view by highlighting Plato’s intentions and context.
b. Conclude based on Levinson’s defence of Plato
Introduction
1. Greek philosopher, Plato is considered as the father of western political philosophy, and
father of philosophical idealism for his ideas in The Republic.
2. The Republic, written in the form of Socratic dialogue was aimed at to bring the Athenian
polity from ruins, after loss to Sparta in Peloponnesian War.
3. Therefore, Plato’s core concern was to rebuilt Athens as an ideal state. And to this end, he
made a number of prescriptions.
Body
Plato’s ideas
1. As founder of philosophical idealism, Plato considered ideas to be real. His ideal state was one
where a philosopher king ruled, with supreme knowledge about the world of ideas (ultimate
reality). Such a king, was not bound by any laws and enjoyed unbridled power over subjects
(absolute sovereignty).
2. Secondly, Plato was a radical and suggested far sweeping changes in society and polity. He
devises a scheme for communism of family and property for the ruling class to ensure their
commitment to state.
3. Thirdly, for Plato, “state is the individual writ large”. State is the end; individual is the
means. Therefore, citizens of the state are meant to live a regimented life, and fulfil their duties
for the purposes of the state.
Plato as champion of closed society
1. Karl Popper, who tried to find roots of closed society or anti-democratic ideas in western
thought in trade it back to Plato.
2. In “Open Societies and Its Enemies”, he criticizes Plato as a champion of closed society
(enemy of open society) and charges him with 3 faults:
a. Holism: sacrificing individual for society
b. Essentialism: divorced from reality by holding on to ideas as transcendental
c. Historicism: ideological interpretation of history to support his ideas
© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
 3. Plato’s radical ideas have been interpreted as a hostility towards progressive,
humanitarian and democratic ideals. This has led critics to regard him as philosophical
forerunner of modern-day totalitarianism.
a. Isiah Berlin has called Plato as the first fascist.
4. Plato’s own disciple Aristotle has criticized his ideas as radical. Instead of perfection, Aristotle
calls for best practicable. He criticizes Plato’s communism for failing to account for positive
externalities from time tested institutions like family and property.
5. Popper has suggested piecemeal social engineering over the radical reforms suggested by
Plato to reform a state.
Counter Argument
1. Ronald Levinson in Defence of Plato presents a detailed consideration of his positive
attitude. He says we do not have a definitive basis to doubt Plato’s intentions.
2. Others like Rajiv Bhargava too have highlighted how Popper’s analysis of Plato was
misleading, as it amounted to comparing incomparable.
Conclusion
1. For all his critique, Plato has been credited with laying the foundations of philosophical though
and his contribution to Western Political Thought is without any parallel.
2. This has led AN Whitehead to say that “all of philosophy is nothing but a series of
footnotes to Plato”.

Q2 Critically examine Plato’s Theory of Forms. (15 marks)

Approach:

1. Introduction – Define the Theory of Forms and its core metaphysical thrust.
2. Body:
a. Key features of the theory
b. Its philosophical significance and enduring appeal
c. Major critiques from classical and modern thinkers
3. Conclusion – Balanced appraisal and relevance today

Introduction:

1. Plato's Theory of Forms is the cornerstone of his metaphysical and epistemological system.
2. It posits the existence of a transcendent realm of perfect, immutable, and eternal Forms
(eidos) that represent the true reality, in contrast to the changing and deceptive material world.
3. As he asserts in The Republic, “The Form of the Good is the ultimate principle from which all
reality and knowledge flow.”
4. For Plato, knowledge of these Forms, especially the Form of the Good, is the highest aim of
philosophy.

Body:
1. Key Features of the Theory of Forms:

• Metaphysical Dualism: Plato separates reality into two realms:

o The visible world, characterised by change, imperfection, and illusion.
o The intelligible world of Forms, which is eternal, unchanging, and perfect.
• Hierarchy of Forms: Among all Forms, the Form of the Good occupies the highest
position—analogous to the sun in the Allegory of the Cave—illuminating all other knowledge.
• Epistemology:
© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
 o Knowledge (episteme) is of the Forms; sensory experience only produces opinion
(doxa).
o True education is the recollection (anamnesis) of these Forms by the soul.
• Moral and Political Implications:
o Only those who know the Forms—Philosopher-Kings—are fit to rule.
o The ideal state, as described in The Republic, mirrors the tripartite structure of the soul,
guided by knowledge of Forms.

2. Philosophical Significance and Strengths:

• Foundation for Objective Knowledge: Plato provides an ontological basis for universal
truths in ethics, mathematics, and science.
• Influence on Western Philosophy and Theology:
o Inspired Christian Platonism (e.g., Augustine).
o Influenced Kant’s noumenon and Descartes' rationalism.
• Allegory of the Cave: Symbolises the philosopher’s journey from ignorance to
enlightenment, a metaphor still powerful in education and critical thinking.

3. Criticism and Limitations:

• Aristotle’s Critique:
o In Metaphysics, Aristotle rejects Plato’s transcendent dualism.
o Argues that Forms have no explanatory power unless they exist within the objects
(immanent realism).
o Problem of “Third Man” – infinite regress in explaining similarities between Forms and
particulars.
• Lack of Empirical Verifiability:
o Forms are abstract and unverifiable, making them immune to empirical scrutiny.
• Karl Popper:
o In The Open Society and Its Enemies, he accuses Plato of ideological absolutism.
o Believes the Theory of Forms, when applied politically, supports authoritarian rule
under the pretext of “knowledge of the Good”.
• Logical Positivists (e.g., A.J. Ayer):
o Reject all metaphysical claims as meaningless if not verifiable through sense
experience.

Conclusion:
1. Plato’s Theory of Forms, while abstract and metaphysically speculative, remains one of the most
influential and intellectually daring systems in Western philosophy.
2. It seeks to provide a moral and rational foundation for politics, ethics, and knowledge. As
Bertrand Russell remarked, “The world of Forms, though not wholly credible, continues to
challenge and inspire our thinking about the nature of reality.”
3. The theory’s legacy persists in debates about universals, truth, and moral absolutism—
making it both a target of critique and a source of enduring inspiration.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
Q3 Explain the Aristotelian view of politics. To what extent do you think it has contributed to
the development of modern-day constitutional democracies?

Approach
1. Introduction: Give an opening remark on Aristotle.
2. Body: Explain Aristotelian view of politics.
a. Highlight the contribution of Aristotelian ideas in the development of modern
constitutional democracies.
b. Mention some of the limitations of Aristotelian ideas which are not in sync with modern
constitutional realities.
3. Conclusion: Significance of Aristotle.
Introduction
1. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, had provided the first analytical framework of
studying politics empirically and scientifically. He is widely accepted as the ‘Father of
Political Science’.
Body
1. Aristotle in his book ‘Politics’ analysed the role of political community in bringing about the
virtuous life for the citizenry.
2. Aim of the Politics, Aristotle says, is to investigate on the basis of constitutions collected, what
makes for bad government and to identify the factors favourable or unfavourable to the
preservation of a constitution.
3. Aristotle is believed to have studied over 156 constitutions available across the globe and
classified them on the basis of number of rulers and purpose of rule.

Purpose of Rule
No. of Rulers
For Public interest Self-interest

One Monarchy (Best) Tyranny

Few Aristocracy Oligarchy

Many Polity Democracy

(Best Practicable) (Worst)
1. Aristotle accepts ‘Polity’ as the most appropriate because it is a mixed ruling system of
oligarchs, common people, aristocrats, etc.
a. In polity, rulers rule enshrined in the middle class and it is the most balanced system
(Golden Mean).
b. As per Aristotle, polity is based on rules, follows distributive justice and is led by the
middle class.
2. E Barker comments that Aristotle’s methodology is scientific, his work is systematic, his
writings are analytical. Consequently, many of his political ideas form the basis of modern
constitutional democracies.
a. Aristotelian polity was another name for the modern constitutional government
characterised by the rule of law.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
 b. Aristotle contradicting his master Plato claim of ‘philosopher king’ argued that rule of
law is always better than the rule of any one person irrespective of how knowledgeable
he is.
c. Proportional equality and distributive justice which form the basis of fair equality of
opportunity, and affirmative action in modern democracies.
d. Aristotelian theory gave intellectual foundation for separation of power which now
forms core principle of constitutional democracies.
e. Aristotle envisaged active citizen engagements and his ideas form the basis of civic
republicanism and participatory democracy.
3. Aristotelian ideas not in sync with modern constitutional realities:
a. First, Aristotle's ideas about politics are based on the assumption that citizens are
virtuous. However, in modern constitutional democracies, citizens may have different
interests and may not always act in the best interests of the community.
b. Second, Aristotle's view of democracy is limited to male citizens who own property
and participate in public life. This excludes large segments of the population such as
women, slaves, and non-property owners from participating in the political process.
c. Third, Aristotle's emphasis on the importance of the common good is not in sync with
the modern constitutional realities where the individual rights and freedoms are
protected and safeguarded.
d. Lastly, Aristotle's ideas about politics are rooted in ancient Greece and do not take into
account the complexities and challenges of modern society.
Conclusion
1. In spite of certain limitations, Aristotelian ideas have been influential in the development of
modern-day constitutional democracies and Aristotle is rightly celebrated as the father of many
significant political ideals.

Q4: Aristotle’s Critique of Plato’s

or
“The comments of Aristotle on Plato’s Republic are full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies.”
(Jowett). (20 Marks)

Approach:
1. Introduction: Give context of Aristotle’s criticism of Plato.
2. Body
a. Highlight Jowett assertion of inconsistency in Aristotle’s critique.
b. Elaborate on the thesis by highlighting how Aristotle shared the very notions which he
sought to reject in Plato’s ideas.
c. Cite various critique of Aristotle on Plato’s ideas as well as the limitations.
3. Conclusion
a. Give counter argument of how not all of Aristotle’s critique can be rejected as inaccurate
and inconsistent by highlighting its importance.
b. Give a conclusion summarizing Aristotle’s position.
Introduction
1. No thinker has evoked the same admiration, reverence and criticism as Plato did.
2. Aristotle, was the disciple as well as the one of staunchest critic of Platonic ideas, especially
of Plato’s theory of communism. While Plato stood for idealism, Aristotle called for practicality
and common sense.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
Body
1. As per Jowett, Aristotle’s comments on Plato’s Republic are full of inaccuracies and
inconsistencies. He says the two philosophers had more in common than they were conscious
of. While Aristotle took to criticize Plato, he himself borrowed many of key principles.
a. Firstly, like Plato, Aristotle too championed idealism and primacy of knowledge and
wisdom as virtue.
i. While he rejected Plato’s theory of Forms, he does not reject the notion of form
itself.
ii. He simply believed that Forms/Ideas do not exist independently of matter.
b. Secondly, Aristotle criticizes Plato’s theory of Philosopher King on grounds of being
utopian.
i. However, his notion of ideal state as rule of middle class in practice would have
resulted into rule of elites and educated.
ii. Aristotle too, like Plato had no faith in the masses or democracy. Further, he
side-lined unpropertied class and women from citizenship in his ideal polity.
c. Thirdly, both of them were critical of the Sophist tradition which championed what is
over what ought to be.
i. In this way, Aristotle too deviated from his notion of realism and pragmatism in
favour of idealism.
d. Fourthly, Aristotle dismisses Plato’s theory of Communism as radical and
unpracticable.
i. He highlights the positive externalities from age old institutions such as the family
and property for fulfilment and calls for moderation.
ii. However, Aristotle’s prescription of private ownership and common usage is not
found practicable anywhere.
e. Fifthly, both Aristotle and Plato believed in the continuity of ethics and polity.
i. While Aristotle criticised Plato for seeking perfection, he too believed that the
objective of the state was to secure human flourishing.
f. Finally, both philosophers believed in natural inequality among men.
i. Therefore, Aristotle too like Plato believed in tripartite division of men based on
merit and functional specialization for ideal society.
Counter Argument
1. Aristotle critique of Plato’s while inconsistent, cannot be outrightly rejected as inaccurate.
His reliance on common sense and pragmatism makes his ideas are tough to reject.
a. By criticising Platonic idealism, Aristotle has brought a much-needed realism to the
Western Political Thought.
Conclusion
1. If Plato stands for absolute wisdom, Aristotle in his critique of Plato has called for practical
wisdom.
2. Through his common sensical approach, Aristotle emerges in Western Political Thought, as an
intellectual colossus. It is said that no man before and after him could rival his intellect.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
Q5 “The state of nature is a state of war.” – Discuss the relevance of Hobbes' pessimistic view
of human nature in explaining modern crises like pandemics, terrorism, and civil unrest. (15
marks)

Approach:

1. Introduction: Introduce Hobbes' view of human nature and the state of nature.
2. Body:
a. Explain Hobbes’ conception of human nature and political order.
b. Apply his ideas to contemporary crises (pandemics, terrorism, civil unrest).
3. Critique: Alternative viewpoints and limitations.
4. Conclusion: Balanced evaluation linking classical thought to modern statecraft.

Introduction:

• Thomas Hobbes, writing amidst the political turmoil of the English Civil War, offered a bleak yet
systematic theory of human nature. In Leviathan, he posits that the state of nature is a state
of war, a condition where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
• According to Hobbes, without a central authority to impose order, human beings, driven by
fear, competition, and mistrust, descend into chaos. His theory, although conceived in the 17th
century, continues to hold chilling relevance in the face of modern global crises.

Body:
1. Hobbes’ View of Human Nature and State of Nature:

• Hobbes believed humans are egoistic, self-preserving, and largely equal in capacity, which
leads to conflict and insecurity in the absence of a political authority.
• The state of nature is not necessarily a battlefield but a condition of constant readiness for
conflict, where no one is secure.
• To escape this anarchy, individuals enter a social contract, surrendering their rights to a
sovereign authority (Leviathan), who ensures peace and stability.

2. Contemporary Relevance of Hobbesian Pessimism:

• Pandemics (e.g., COVID-19):

o Initial panic, hoarding of supplies, vaccine nationalism, and breakdown of international
cooperation echo Hobbes’ view that in the absence of strong regulation, individuals
and states act out of self-interest.
o The pandemic also revived faith in the centralised state as a provider of security, as
governments enforced lockdowns, managed public health, and restored order—fulfilling
Hobbes' vision of the sovereign’s protective role.
• Terrorism and Security Threats:
o Acts of terrorism thrive in ungoverned spaces, resembling Hobbesian anarchy.
o The response to terrorism often involves increased surveillance and curtailment of
civil liberties, reflecting Hobbes’ belief that security requires limiting liberty under a
powerful authority.
• Civil Unrest and State Fragility:
o Societies with weak institutions (e.g., Syria, Sudan) exhibit the return of the state of
nature, where groups resort to violence in the absence of an effective central authority.
© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
 o Even democratic societies have seen episodes of unrest (e.g., US Capitol Riots,
France’s Gilets Jaunes), reaffirming Hobbes’ insight that when order breaks down,
latent conflict surfaces.
• Climate Crisis and Global Governance:
o Hobbesian logic is visible in the failure of global cooperation on climate action, where
national interest prevails over collective good.
o Without a global Leviathan, states often pursue relative gains, leading to collective
inaction.

Critique:

• Overly Pessimistic: Hobbes ignores the role of empathy, altruism, and the capacity for
spontaneous cooperation in human societies.
• Contrasted by Locke and Rousseau: While Locke believed the state of nature was governed
by reason and morality, Rousseau argued that man was peaceful in the state of nature and
corrupted by society.
• Modern Civil Society: Institutions like media, NGOs, and local governance function without
coercive power and yet maintain a semblance of order—contradicting Hobbes' view that only
absolute sovereignty can prevent conflict.
• Liberal Democracies: The separation of powers, fundamental rights, and checks and
balances go against Hobbes' idea of undivided sovereignty.

Conclusion:

• Despite its bleakness, Hobbes' view of human nature continues to illuminate the fragility of
order and the need for strong political authority in times of crisis.
• Whether in pandemics or state collapse, the instinct for self-preservation, fear of others, and
the quest for security often override moral considerations—validating Hobbes' grim realism.
• Yet, modern society also shows that cooperation, rights, and decentralised power can
sustain order, suggesting that while Hobbes diagnoses the disease, modern
constitutionalism offers a more hopeful treatment.

Q6 “How would I and my fellow human beings behave if we were to find ourselves in a state of
nature, and what does this behavior tell us about our innate pre-dispositions?” – Thomas
Hobbes

Approach:

1. Introduction: Philosophical Context and Purpose

• Introduce Hobbes’ central concern in Leviathan:

• Briefly define the state of nature as a conceptual tool used by Hobbes to reveal human
nature stripped of societal institutions.

2. Body: Thematic Breakdown

a. Hobbes’ View of the State of Nature

• Characterised by competition, diffidence, and glory—leading to a state of perpetual war.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
 • Absence of common power leads to the famous Hobbesian triad: no industry, no arts, no
letters, and life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

b. Human Behavior and Innate Dispositions

• Human beings are rational but driven by fear, insecurity, and desire for self-preservation.
• This behavior reveals humans as egoistic, power-seeking, and equality-driven in
destructiveness.

c. Necessity of the Social Contract

• Emergence of Leviathan (sovereign) as a rational solution to escape mutual destruction.

• Peace, justice, and morality arise not naturally, but through constructive submission to
authority.

3. Critique and Scholarly Engagement

• C.B. Macpherson – Hobbesian individual as a possessive egoist.

• Michael Oakeshott – Commends Hobbes for founding political authority on rational consent.
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau – Argues Hobbes mistook man as he is under corrupted society,
not as he is naturally—man is born free and peaceful.
• Mention modern anthropological or psychological challenges to Hobbes’ view (e.g., humans
also wired for empathy and cooperation).

4. Conclusion

• Reflect on how Hobbes’ insights still resonate during contemporary breakdowns of order—
civil wars, disasters, pandemics.
• End with the idea that while Hobbes offers a dark lens, it is a necessary warning about the
fragile moral fabric of civilisation—affirming the need for political order grounded in realistic
assessments of human nature.

Long Answer (Extra)

Introduction

• This question by Hobbes lies at the heart of his political philosophy. It represents a thought
experiment designed to strip away the influence of civil society and laws, in order to examine the
raw nature of human beings. Hobbes seeks to understand the fundamental motives and instincts
that drive human behavior when no external authority exists.

Main Body
a. Hobbes's State of Nature and Innate Dispositions

• In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes describes the state of nature as a pre-political, pre-social

condition where there is no central authority to enforce law. In such a condition:

• Humans act primarily on the instinct of self-preservation.

• With equal capacity to harm each other and no authority to keep peace, individuals live in
constant fear and competition.
© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
 • This results in a “war of all against all,” where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

From this, Hobbes concludes that human beings are naturally selfish, fearful, and rational calculators
of their own interest. These predispositions are not created by society, but exposed in its absence.

b. Application to Contemporary Crises

• Pandemics (e.g., COVID-19): Panic buying, hoarding of resources, resistance to lockdowns,

and vaccine nationalism demonstrate self-preserving instincts in action. These are Hobbesian
traits surfacing under the breakdown of normal governance.
• Terrorism and Civil Wars: In failed states like Syria or Somalia, where central authority
collapses, armed factions behave exactly as Hobbes predicted — in pursuit of security, power,
or revenge.
• Civil Unrest and Mistrust: Events such as Capitol Hill riots (USA) or mob lynchings reflect
how quickly societal order can disintegrate in the absence of trust in institutions — returning,
as Hobbes would say, to nature.

Political realist thinkers have echoed Hobbes's core concern: in moments of systemic failure, only a
sovereign power (Leviathan) can restore order.

c. Critical Perspectives and Limitations

However, Hobbes's conclusions have not gone unchallenged:

• John Locke saw humans in the state of nature as governed by reason and moral law —
capable of co-existence and cooperation.
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that humans are born innocent and compassionate; it is
society, not nature, that corrupts them.
• Modern psychology and anthropology (e.g., works of Frans de Waal) show that empathy,
cooperation, and altruism also have evolutionary roots. Human beings are not driven solely by
fear and self-interest.

Additionally, Hobbes's conception is often critiqued as a product of 17th-century European conflict,

especially the English Civil War, and may reflect a historically specific pessimism rather than a
universal truth.

Conclusion

• Hobbes's question remains profoundly relevant as a way to understand the fragility of social
order and the foundational role of political authority. His view of human predispositions —
grounded in fear, rationality, and self-interest — finds disturbing validation in moments of
modern crisis.
• Yet, his view is incomplete. Human beings are also capable of trust, solidarity, and moral
action. Thus, while Hobbes explains the need for the state, he underestimates the human
capacity for ethical self-regulation.
• A synthesis of Hobbesian realism and Lockean optimism may offer a fuller picture of our
nature and political life.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
Q7 Explain how Machiavelli’s application of empirical method to human affairs marks an
important stage in the evolution of political science

Approach

1. Introduction: Introduce Machiavelli's shift toward empiricism in political thought.

2. Body:
a. Explain Machiavelli’s empirical method and its contrast with classical idealism.
b. Show how it marked a turning point in political science.
c. Apply it to contemporary political scenarios.
3. Critique: Present limitations and opposing viewpoints.
4. Conclusion: Balanced evaluation linking Machiavelli’s legacy to modern political science.

Introduction

• Niccolò Machiavelli, writing during the turbulent politics of Renaissance Italy, is often hailed as
the first modern political thinker.
• With The Prince and Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli broke away from the normative
idealism of classical thinkers like Plato and Aristotle.
• Instead of speculating on how politics ought to be, Machiavelli focused on how politics actually
works—thus pioneering an empirical and realistic approach to human affairs. This transition
marks a foundational shift in the evolution of political science.

Body

a. Machiavelli’s Empirical Method and Its Break from Tradition

• Machiavelli observed political life through the lens of experience and history, not
metaphysics or moral philosophy.
• He drew heavily on Roman history, the contemporary Italian city-states, and his own
diplomatic experiences.
• He emphasised human nature as constant, driven by ambition, fear, and self-interest—"Men
are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, and covetous."
• Unlike Plato’s Philosopher King, Machiavelli's Prince must adapt to changing fortunes
(fortuna) through virtù—skill, cunning, and decisiveness.
• Politics, for Machiavelli, was an autonomous sphere governed by its own logic, separate from
theology or ethics.

b. Turning Point in Political Science

• Secularisation of politics: Machiavelli stripped politics of its moral and religious coverings.
This laid the groundwork for political science as an independent discipline.
• His case-based reasoning—studying what succeeded and failed in history—parallels the
inductive method later formalized by Francis Bacon.
• He applied a proto-scientific method: observe → generalize → advise. This empirical
framework would influence later thinkers like Hobbes and Montesquieu.
• His distinction between verità effettuale (the effectual truth) and ideal truths marks a move
toward realist political analysis.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
c. Contemporary Relevance

• Realpolitik and modern diplomacy draw from Machiavellian realism—seen in statecraft from
Bismarck to Kissinger.
• His ideas anticipate the behavioural revolution in political science, which emphasised
observation over speculation.
• In electoral politics today, strategic communication, image management, and coalition-building
reflect Machiavellian pragmatism.

Critique

• Normative deficit: Critics argue that Machiavelli’s exclusion of ethics invites political amorality.
Leo Strauss called him a “teacher of evil.”
• Overemphasis on power: By focusing on manipulation and force, he may underplay consent
and institutions.
• Historical limitations: His empirical base—primarily Roman and Italian politics—was narrow
and not cross-civilizational.
• Later thinkers like Locke and Rousseau brought moral purpose back into politics, stressing
rights, liberty, and social contracts.

Conclusion

• Machiavelli’s empirical turn marked a critical moment in the evolution of political science—from
a prescriptive, idealist pursuit to a descriptive, analytical one.
• His refusal to idealize politics enabled a clear-sighted understanding of power, governance, and
statecraft.
• While his realism demands ethical balancing, Machiavelli remains a cornerstone in the journey
of political thought—from what ought to be to what is. His influence continues to inform both the
practice and study of politics in the modern world.

Q8. Individualism is inherent in Hobbes’ absolutist ideology. Comment. [2022/15m/200w/3c]

Approach:
1. Intro: Explain about Hobbes, and nature of his thoughts.
2. Body
a. Elaborate on Hobbes absolutist nature.
b. Elaborate on Hobbes individualist nature.
3. Conclusion
a. Give critique of Hobbesian thoughts.
b. Explain how Hobbes’ absolutism was a manifestation of his individualism.
Introduction
1. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes is known as the first modern thinker, for his use of
scientific methods in political science.
2. Hobbes was first to articulate a detailed social contract, a theoretical construction of
mankind before state and formal laws, and gave the first complete theory of sovereignty.
3. Hobbes is often called as a thinker of paradoxes, as in his work “The Leviathan”, he
champions individualism and absolutism equally.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
Hobbes as an absolutist
1. Hobbes own experience of anarchy during the Puritan Revolution of 17th century in Britain led
him to call for an absolute state which was all powerful to contain any chaos.
2. Hobbes held that state of nature has no guarantee of self-preservation, and selfish men
require a powerful sovereign to govern. State for Hobbes hence, embodies right to life.
3. Hobbesian state was an all-powerful Leviathan, armed to punish men and law was to be the
command of the sovereign.
4. For Hobbes, the sovereign’s power was to be indivisible and unlimited, a manifestation of Jean
Bodin’s monistic sovereignty.
Hobbes as individualist
1. Conversely, the prime motivation for Hobbes to call for an absolute state was to keep man’s
self-destructive instincts in check.
2. Using his resolutive compositive method, Hobbes says that all men are guided by passion
and appetite by nature. He removed the guilt of being selfish by considering utilitarian nature
as natural, this led him to be called as scholar of possessive individualism.
3. He believed that if left ungoverned, men would terrorize each other in self-preservation as life
is continuous search of power. This would culminate into a state of “war of all against all”,
hence, Hobbesian state was a necessary evil to avoid the cruel fate that awaited man.
4. Moreover, despite absolute nature of the state, it was bound by political obligation to secure
security of life to men. And to this end, men were allowed right to revolt against the state.
Hence, for Hobbes man is prior to state.
Critique
1. It is to be noted that later thinkers like John Locke have questioned Hobbes’ anarchical
doctrine of state of nature as a justification for an all-powerful state
2. For Rosseau, the state of nature was state of bliss and perpetual peace, away from modern
life under the state.
Conclusion
1. In this way, it can be said that individualism was inherent in Hobbes’ absolutist ideology. It is in
the interest of individualism, that state absolutism for Hobbes become necessary.
2. Sabine has likewise observed that there is no contradiction between individualism and state
absolutism for Hobbes.

Q9 How does Aristotle’s theory of distributive justice help in understanding modern debates
on equity and affirmative action? (15)

Approach

1. Introduction: Introduce Aristotle’s idea of justice and his theory of distributive justice.
2. Body:
a. Explain Aristotle’s conception of distributive justice.
b. Apply it to modern debates on equity and affirmative action.
3. Critique: Present limitations and alternate perspectives.
4. Conclusion: Balanced evaluation linking classical thought to contemporary public policy.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
Introduction

• Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, defined justice as “giving each his due.”
• For him, justice was not equality in the arithmetical sense, but proportional equality, grounded
in merit and contribution to the polis.
• His idea of distributive justice—allocating benefits and burdens according to desert—offers a
classical foundation to assess modern dilemmas concerning equity, reservation policies, and
affirmative action.

Body
a. Aristotle’s Theory of Distributive Justice

• Aristotle distinguished distributive justice from corrective justice.

• In distributive justice, goods (honour, wealth, offices) are to be distributed based on merit or
worth, often measured in terms of virtue or contribution to the community.
• For example, those who serve the state more (e.g., soldiers, citizens) deserve a larger share of
its benefits.
• He rejected both absolute equality and arbitrary favoritism—justice must be proportionate to
the relevant criteria of merit.

b. Application to Modern Debates on Equity and Affirmative Action

• Affirmative Action:
o Aristotle’s emphasis on proportionality supports the idea that unequal treatment may
be just if it corrects structural inequalities. Modern policies like caste-based
reservation in India or racial quotas in the US aim to align opportunity with historical
context and capacity.
o For instance, reserving seats for SC/ST/OBC in education or employment can be
justified under Aristotle’s idea that justice means allocating based on relevant social
realities (e.g., disadvantage or exclusion).
• Equity vs Equality:
o Aristotle provides a framework to distinguish formal equality (treating everyone the
same) from substantive justice (treating unequals unequally to ensure fairness).
o This resonates with modern legal interpretations—like the Indian Supreme Court’s
reading of Article 15(4) and 16(4) as enabling protective discrimination to achieve real
equality.
• Public Resource Allocation:
o Welfare schemes like scholarships for first-generation learners or budgetary
prioritization for backward areas align with Aristotelian logic: those with fewer resources
or greater need may receive a greater share to ensure balance.

Critique

• Static Notion of Merit:

Aristotle's conception was rooted in a hierarchical Greek society where virtue was tied to one's
class, gender, or citizenship. This limits its applicability to pluralistic modern democracies.
• Modern Egalitarian Thinkers:
o John Rawls redefined distributive justice by proposing the difference principle:
inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
 oAmartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum emphasized capabilities—what individuals are
actually able to do—not just what they receive.
• Ambiguity in “Merit”:
o In today’s complex societies, using Aristotle’s yardstick of "virtue" risks overlooking the
institutional barriers faced by marginalized groups.
o Critics argue that excessive reliance on desert may perpetuate status quo
inequalities unless corrected by social justice tools.

Conclusion

• Aristotle’s theory of distributive justice offers a powerful classical lens to view modern equity
debates.
• It shows that justice need not mean uniform distribution but proportionate allocation based on
morally relevant factors.
• While rooted in a stratified society, Aristotle’s core idea—that fairness sometimes requires
differential treatment—resonates with affirmative action policies today.
• However, modern interpretations must transcend ancient limitations by integrating democratic,
egalitarian, and capability-based considerations, ensuring that justice promotes not just
proportion but dignity and inclusion.

Q10 “Justice is the interest of the stronger.” Critically examine this assertion in light of
Thrasymachus' argument, Plato’s philosophical rebuttal, and Aristotle’s theory of justice. How
relevant is this debate in today’s world of power politics? (15 marks)

Approach:

1. Introduction: Contextualise Thrasymachus’ claim and its place in political thought.

2. Body:
a. Explain Thrasymachus’ argument.
b. Present Plato’s refutation and theory of justice.
c. Discuss Aristotle’s alternative theory.
3. Critique: Add scholars and evaluate relevance.
4. Conclusion: Draw connections with contemporary politics and ethics.

Introduction:

• "What is justice?" lies at the heart of Plato’s Republic, where Thrasymachus famously declares
that justice is nothing but the interest of the stronger.
• This view reflects a cynical realism about power and morality. Plato and later Aristotle reject
this reduction of justice to brute power, offering more normative accounts grounded in ethics,
harmony, and fairness.
• The tension between might and right remains deeply relevant in today’s power-centric
political world.

Body:
1. Thrasymachus: Justice as the Advantage of the Stronger

• Thrasymachus represents the Sophist tradition, which viewed justice as a social construct
created by the powerful to serve their interests.
© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387
 • He argues that ruling classes make laws to preserve their dominance and label those laws
"just."
• This view implies that justice is relative, coercive, and rooted in self-interest—a precursor
to Machiavellian and realist traditions in political thought.

2. Plato’s Rebuttal: Justice as Harmony

• Plato, through Socrates, challenges Thrasymachus by developing a tripartite theory of the

soul and a corresponding tripartite state:
o Rational (rulers), spirited (auxiliaries), appetitive (producers).
o Justice arises when each part performs its function without interfering in others’ roles—
“doing one’s own work.”
• For Plato, justice is an intrinsic moral virtue, not an instrument of power.
• He asserts that only a just soul can lead to inner harmony, and only a just state can ensure
lasting peace and order.

3. Aristotle: Justice as Equity and Distributive Fairness

• Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, defines justice as “giving each their due.”

• He distinguishes between:
o Distributive justice – allocation based on merit or proportion.
o Corrective justice – redress for injustice through rectification.
• For Aristotle, justice is teleological—it aims at the good life. Unlike Plato’s abstract idealism or
Thrasymachus’ cynicism, Aristotle’s justice is grounded in practical reasoning and civic
equality.

Critique and Relevance:

• Scholars like Karl Popper critiqued Plato for suppressing individual liberty in the name of
justice and harmony.
• Realist thinkers like Thucydides and later Morgenthau echoed Thrasymachus’ view in
international politics: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
• In today’s world:
o Elites dominate legal and political structures, often reinforcing systemic
inequalities—echoing Thrasymachus.
o Global institutions (e.g., IMF, UNSC) are seen as instruments of powerful states.
o Yet, Plato’s normative ideal underpins modern constitutionalism, human rights,
and rule of law.
o Aristotle’s equity is reflected in affirmative action and social justice frameworks.

Conclusion:

• The debate around justice—whether it is a moral good or a mask for power—remains central
to political thought. Plato’s and Aristotle’s attempts to anchor justice in ethics and reason
continue to inspire modern legal and constitutional ideals, even as Thrasymachus' realism
warns against naive idealism.
• As seen in Gandhi’s Swaraj, true political justice begins with moral individual conduct,
reaffirming the enduring link between ethics and politics that Plato envisioned.

© PrepBooster IAS || 24, 3rd Floor, Old Rajendra Nagar|| prepboosterias@gmail.com || www.prepbooster.in|| 8010140387