UPSC Mains 2026 GS4 Q3a: model answer
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had cautioned that employing civil disobedience within a constitutional democracy equates to endorsing ‘anarchy’. How should modern democracies navigate the ethical dilemmas posed by civil disobedience movements that aim to promote social justice against policies that may raise genuine concerns?
What the question wants
Explain Ambedkar's 'grammar of anarchy' warning, the counter-view (Thoreau, Gandhi, Rawls), and suggest how democracies should respond.
How to structure it
Intro: Ambedkar, 25 Nov 1949. Body: the dilemma; criteria for legitimate protest; State's duties. Conclusion.
- 1The dilemma
- 2Criteria for legitimate protest
- 3State's duties
Model answer
In his last speech to the Constituent Assembly (25 November 1949), Ambedkar said that once constitutional methods are available, civil disobedience and satyagraha are 'the grammar of anarchy'.
The dilemma: laws made by majorities can still be unjust to minorities. Thoreau, Gandhi and Martin Luther King held that a person may break an unjust law openly and accept the penalty.
Navigating it
- For citizens: protest should be non-violent, public, aimed at a specific injustice, and come after legal routes are tried.
- For the State: keep constitutional channels open and responsive: petitions, courts, committees, consultation before laws.
- Policing should protect peaceful protest (Article 19(1)(b)) while acting against violence. In Amit Sahni (2020) the Supreme Court said public roads cannot be blocked indefinitely.
- Dialogue over branding protesters as anti-national, as the eventual repeal of the farm laws (2021) showed.
Ambedkar's warning is best read as a call to keep constitutional methods alive, so that disobedience is rarely needed.
Keywords, cases and data to drop in
grammar of anarchy civil disobedience Rawls constitutional morality Article 19(1)(b)
Where most answers lose marks
- Taking only Ambedkar's or only Gandhi's side
- No examples
Fresh examples from current affairs
Supreme Court: no prior approval under Section 17A needed to probe a bribe demand
In a judgment of 16 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that investigating a bribe demand by a public servant does not need prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Asking for a bribe, the court said, is not part of discharging official duties.
UPSC angle: Prelims: Sections 7, 7A, 17A and 19 of the PC Act. · Mains GS-II/GS-IV: honest officers versus accountability.
19 Oct 2026Learn the concept
Question text as printed in the official UPSC question paper: https://www.upsc.gov.in/sites/default/files/QP-CSM-26-010926-GENERAL-STUDIES-PAPER-IV.pdf The model answer is original Battle IAS work; use it to learn structure, not to memorise.