GS Paper IV 2018 · Q6 (Section A)
3 parts · 10 marks and 150 words each Moral thinkers & philosophers X-Ray · Core #25What do each of the following quotations mean to you in the present context?
Q6(a) 10 marks · 150 words · answered on its own
“The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it has any evil in it; but whether it has more evil than good. There are few things wholly evil or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.” — Abraham Lincoln
Approach · directive: “what does it mean (in the present context)”
What it asks · Explain Lincoln's rule of weighing good against evil in any measure, and show what it means today for the nation, public service and the individual.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Explain what Lincoln's quotation means
- Bring out what it means in the present context, with an example
Open with · The meaning, from its setting: defending federal spending on internal improvements in the US House of Representatives (1848), Lincoln answered the objection that their benefits would be local and unequal; a measure is judged by whether its good outweighs its evil, since policy is an inseparable compound of the two.
Cover
- A table weighs good against harm in three measures: Aadhaar, a big dam and social media.
- The nation: impact and cost-benefit assessment; the Constitution's reasonable restrictions, not out of proportion to the action restricted; counting who bears the harm.
- Example: the Aadhaar judgment (2018), balancing two facets of dignity, privacy and autonomy against a dignified life through welfare.
- Public service: Lincoln mocked 'Do nothing at all, lest you do something wrong'; record the weighing honestly and act.
- The individual: waiting for a flawless option is itself a choice; pick the better balance and correct course.
Close with · Prudence, not cynicism: the preponderance must be judged afresh with every new fact, so good policy builds in review.
Add value (verified)
- Abraham Lincoln, speech in the US House of Representatives on internal improvements (20 June 1848): the true rule is not whether a thing has any evil in it but whether it has more of evil than of good; almost everything, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two.Speech in United States House of Representatives regarding Internal Improvements, 20 June 1848 — The Papers of Abraham Lincoln ↗“The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it have more of evil, than of good– There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good– Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded–”
- In the same speech Lincoln listed the objections in the President's message, among them that the burdens of improvements would be general while their benefits would be local and partial, and summed them up as 'Do nothing at all, lest you do something wrong'.Speech in United States House of Representatives regarding Internal Improvements, 20 June 1848 — The Papers of Abraham Lincoln ↗“Because, while their burthens would be general, their benefits would be local and partial ; involving an obnoxious inequality—and 3– Because they would be unconstitutional– That the 4– Because the states may do enough by the levy and collection of tonnage duties—or if not 5– That the constitution may be amended– " Do nothing at all, lest you do something wrong " is the sum of these positions”
- Supreme Court, Aadhaar judgment (26 September 2018): the case required balancing two facets of the same person's dignity, personal autonomy and privacy on one side and a dignified life through welfare on the other.Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar), Supreme Court, 26 September 2018 ↗“It is the balancing of two facets of dignity of the same individual. Whereas, on the one hand, right of personal autonomy is a part of dignity (and right to privacy), another part of dignity of the same individual is to lead a dignified life as well”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 217words · Minimalist IAS
Defending federal spending on internal improvements in the US House of Representatives (1848), Lincoln answered the objection that their benefits would be local and unequal: judge a measure not by whether it contains evil but by whether its good outweighs it, for policy is 'an inseparable compound of the two'.
| Measure | Good | Harm |
|---|---|---|
| Aadhaar | Targeted welfare | Privacy risk |
| Big dam | Irrigation, power | Displacement |
|---|---|---|
| Social media | Voice, access | Misinformation |
- The nation: impact and cost-benefit assessments make his 'best judgment' routine, and the Constitution allows only 'reasonable restrictions' on rights, which NCERT explains must be 'not out of proportion to the action being restricted'. The weighing must also count who bears the harm, not just its total.
- Example: in the Aadhaar case (2018) the Supreme Court framed its task as balancing 'two facets of dignity': privacy and autonomy on one side, a dignified life through welfare on the other.
- Public service: Lincoln mocked the stance 'Do nothing at all, lest you do something wrong'; fear of audit breeds such paralysis, so record the weighing honestly and act.
- The individual: waiting for a flawless option is itself a choice; maturity means picking the better balance and correcting course.
Lincoln's rule is prudence, not cynicism: the 'preponderance' must be judged afresh with every new fact, so good policy builds in review.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
Q6(b) 10 marks · 150 words · answered on its own
“Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.” — Mahatma Gandhi
Approach · directive: “what does it mean (in the present context)”
What it asks · Explain why Gandhi saw anger and intolerance as enemies of correct understanding, and show what it means today for the individual, public service, society and the nation.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Explain what Gandhi's quotation means
- Bring out what it means in the present context, with an example
Open with · The meaning: correct understanding needs a calm mind and an open one; anger clouds reason from within, intolerance shuts out other views from without, and both defeat satyagraha's search for truth.
Cover
- A flowchart of the vicious circle: anger or intolerance, a closed mind, misjudgement, conflict, more anger.
- The individual: emotional self-regulation as the first skill of judgement; public service: hearing an angry complainant calmly to find the grievance behind the anger.
- Society: Tehseen Poonawalla (2018), rising intolerance and mob violence cannot become the normal way of life.
- Example: Mizoram, where anger and repression fed two decades of insurgency until negotiation produced the 1986 peace agreement.
- An ancient echo: the Dhammapada, hatred is never appeased by hatred.
Close with · Article 51A(e), the duty to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood, which begins with mastering one's own anger.
Add value (verified)
- Supreme Court, Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (17 July 2018), on mob lynching: rising intolerance and mob violence cannot be allowed to become the normal way of life.Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 17 July 2018 — Indian Kanoon ↗“Rising intolerance and growing polarisation expressed through spate of incidents of mob violence cannot be permitted to become the normal way of life or the normal state of law and order in the country.”
- Dhammapada, verse 5 (tr. Acharya Buddharakkhita): hatred is never appeased by hatred; by non-hatred alone is hatred appeased.Dhammapada, Yamakavagga: Pairs (verses 1-20), tr. Acharya Buddharakkhita — Access to Insight ↗“Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 197words · Minimalist IAS
Gandhi's maxim holds that correct understanding needs a calm mind and an open one. Anger clouds reason from within; intolerance shuts out other views from without. Both make us judge before we know, and so defeat the search for truth.
- Anger or intolerance
- Closed mind
- Misjudgement
- Conflict
- More anger
- The individual: emotional self-regulation is the first skill of judgement; a pause before reacting often separates insight from regret.
- Public service: an officer who hears an angry complainant or critic calmly finds the grievance behind the anger; one who reacts in kind escalates it.
- Society: in Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) the Supreme Court warned that rising intolerance and polarisation, expressed through mob violence, cannot become 'the normal way of life'.
- Example, the nation: in Mizoram, anger after the 1959 famine fed two decades of insurgency, and harsh counter-measures 'caused more anger and alienation'; negotiation, steered by mature leadership on both sides, produced the 1986 peace agreement between Rajiv Gandhi and Laldenga.
- An ancient echo: the Dhammapada teaches that hatred 'is never appeased by hatred', only by non-hatred.
Article 51A(e) asks every citizen 'to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood'; that duty begins with mastering one's own anger.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
Q6(c) 10 marks · 150 words · answered on its own
“Falsehood takes the place of truth when it results in unblemished common good.” — Tirukkural
Approach · directive: “what does it mean (in the present context)”
What it asks · Explain the Kural's view that even a falsehood counts as truth when it yields a faultless common good, set its strict limits, and show what it means today.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Explain what the Tirukkural's quotation means
- Bring out what it means in the present context, with an example
Open with · The meaning: Thiruvalluvar judges speech by its effect on others; Kural 291 defines truth as words free from the least degree of evil, and Kural 292 lets even falsehood take the place of truthful word if its benefit is free from fault.
Cover
- A table sets the Kural's three tests: a selfless motive, a faultless benefit for all, and no truthful way left.
- Security: a negotiator or undercover officer deceiving kidnappers to save a hostage.
- Law tests the motive: Rajat Prasad (2014), no criminal intent for a bribe sting by one with no stake in the favour, but whether a sting was genuine must be proved by evidence.
- Public life: convenient falsehoods by those in power fail the test, since they also serve the speaker.
- Against Kant: refraining from lying promises as a perfect duty; the Kural's exception is narrow and honesty stays the default.
Close with · The Government of India's motto, Satyameva Jayate, Truth alone triumphs: the Kural's exception lives only inside that rule, for the unblemished common good.
Add value (verified)
- Tirukkural, Kurals 291-292 (Veracity), G.U. Pope's translation: truth is speech free from the least evil to others; even falsehood has the nature of truth if it confers a benefit free from fault.Tirukkural with G.U. Pope's English translation — Project Madurai e-text ↗“Truth is the speaking of such words as are free from the least degree of evil (to others). 60 292 Falsehood may take the place of truthful word, If blessing, free from fault, it can afford. Even falsehood has the nature of truth, if it confer a benefit that is free from fault.”
- Kant: refraining from making lying promises is a perfect duty to others.Kant's Moral Philosophy — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗“We will briefly sketch one way of doing so for the perfect duty to others to refrain from making lying promises and the imperfect duty to ourselves to develop our own natural talents.”
- Rajat Prasad v. CBI (Supreme Court, 24 April 2014): a journalist or other citizen with no connection, even remotely, with the favour allegedly sought in exchange for a bribe offered in a sting cannot be imputed with the intent needed for abetment or conspiracy.Rajat Prasad v. C.B.I., Supreme Court, 24 April 2014 — Indian Kanoon ↗“A journalist or any other citizen who has no connection, even remotely, with the favour that is allegedly sought in exchange for the bribe offered, cannot be imputed with the necessary intent to commit the offence of abetment under Section 12 or that of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.”
- In the same case the Court held that whether the sting was really a journalistic exercise, or a sham or a bribe given in expectation of favours, could only be answered by the evidence.Rajat Prasad v. C.B.I., Supreme Court, 24 April 2014 — Indian Kanoon ↗“Whether the operation was really such an exercise and the giving of bribe to A-1 was a mere sham or pretence or whether the giving of the bribe was with expectation of favours in connection with mining projects, are questions that can only be answered by the evidence”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2018, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 220words · Minimalist IAS
Thiruvalluvar judges speech by its effect on others: Kural 291 defines truth as words 'free from the least degree of evil', and Kural 292 lets even falsehood 'take the place of truthful word' if it confers a benefit 'free from fault'. Truth, then, is a moral quality, not mere literal accuracy.
| Test | Passes | Fails |
|---|---|---|
| Motive | Selfless | Self-serving |
| Benefit | Faultless, for all | For some, at others' cost |
|---|---|---|
| Option | No truthful way left | Truth was possible |
- Security: a negotiator or undercover officer who deceives kidnappers to save a hostage tells a falsehood whose good is unblemished.
- Law tests the motive: in Rajat Prasad (2014) the Supreme Court held that a journalist or citizen with no stake in the favour sought cannot be imputed criminal intent for a bribe sting, but whether a sting was genuine or a sham must be proved by evidence.
- Public life: a convenient falsehood by those in power, such as hiding a failure or spreading propaganda 'for the people's good', fails the test, since it also serves the speaker.
- Against Kant: Kant counts refraining from lying promises as a perfect duty; the Kural allows only a narrow exception, so honesty stays the default.
The Government of India's motto, Satyameva Jayate, 'Truth alone triumphs', sets the rule; the Kural's exception lives only inside it, for the unblemished common good.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
