Revision summary
Authority, social proof, local faith voices, and care-frames helped some Covid habits in India. Janata curfew was a public pledge with mixed later effects. Coercion, stigma, migrant abandonment, and fake forwards were the dark side of the same social tools. Ethical persuasion tells the truth and pairs the appeal with ration and beds. Influence contributed; it did not replace science or justify cruelty.
Model answer
Introduction
India’s first Covid year used law and also neighbours, temples, screens, and fear. Social influence and persuasion did help slow some spread; they also shamed, excluded, and sometimes lied. The ethical story is mixed.
Body
How influence and persuasion helped
- Authority: Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, ICMR and district magistrates gave a single message on distance, masks, and later testing, which is Cialdini’s authority principle used for a public good.
- Social proof: when a mohalla saw masks on the grocer and the constable, the habit copied faster than a gazette.
- Commitment: Janata curfew and thali-clapping made a public pledge; some of that pledge later supported a lockdown ethic.
- Local leaders: sarpanches, imams, priests, and SHGs translated the rule into a language the ward already trusted.
- Celebrity and platform messages reached the young; schoolchildren persuaded elders on handwash.
- Reciprocity and care frames — “protect your mother” — worked better than a pure fine in some streets.
Limits and harms
- Persuasion sat beside coercion: Section 144, sealed trains, and police lathis were not influence; they were force.
- Stigma: patients, health workers, and some communities were marked as unclean, which is social influence turned into cruelty and which hid cases.
- Migrant workers received the message to stay home without the means; persuasion without a wage and a train was theatre for the poor.
- Fake forwards on cures and on “who spread it” were also social influence, and they killed trust.
- Fear appeals without a testing and food plan produced panic buying and silence about symptoms.
Ethical design that actually controls spread
- Tell the truth about uncertainty; do not over-promise a clap as a vaccine.
- Pair every appeal with a ration, a quarantine bed, and a non-punitive test.
- Use peers and local faith voices; do not communalise the virus.
- Measure success by cases, oxygen, and dignity, not by viral videos of punishment.
Balanced judgement
- Yes, social influence and persuasion contributed: masks, distancing, and later vaccine willingness had a social layer.
- No, they did not replace science, logistics, or law, and they were not automatically ethical.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD P[Persuasion] --> M[Mask distance] S[Social proof] --> M H[Stigma fake news] --> X[Hidden cases] M --> C[Slower spread]
Conclusion
Covid control in India used persuasion and neighbour-proof, and it used force. Influence helped when it was truthful and paired with food and care. It harmed when it shamed, lied, or asked the poor to stay home on an empty stomach.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
You are a civil servant posted in a State where elections were held recently. To ban the sale of alcohol was the main promise in the election manifesto of the newly elected Chief Minister. To fulfil this promise, the Chief Minister has ordered a total ban on sale and purchase of alcohol in this State. Whether the government should interfere in the matter which is considered by many to be a matter of personal choice? Comment logically.
Next question in the 2020 paper (Q20). View answer →
-
Did clapping on balconies control the virus?
It built a shared mood. It did not replace masks, distance, or testing. Treating spectacle as science was a persuasion error.
-
Is shaming a sick neighbour legitimate persuasion?
No. Shame hides cases and violates dignity. Isolation support is persuasion; a locked gate on a nurse is harm.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2021 · Q6 · UPGS4 · 8 marks
Define attitude in historical perspective and discuss the relationship between aptitude and attitude. -
2021 · Q16 · UPGS4 · 12 marks
What do you understand by moral and political attitude of human beings? How will you justify these in the present political scenario? -
2021 · Q17 · UPGS4 · 12 marks
Discuss the root causes of gender-related negative attitude. Why is it so rigid? -
2021 · Q18 · UPGS4 · 12 marks
Discuss the factors which influence the formation of an individual’s attitude towards social problems with the help of suitable examples. -
2020 · Q10 · UPGS4 · 8 marks
Explain the importance of persuasive communication in attitudinal change. -
2019 · Q6 · UPGS4 · 8 marks
Differentiate between democratic attitude and bureaucratic attitude of public servants. -
2019 · Q7 · UPGS4 · 8 marks
Explain the merits and demerits of persuasion in relation to public protest. -
2019 · Q19 · UPGS4 · 12 marks
What factors influence the formation of a person’s attitude towards social problems? Support your answer with examples.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2020 · UPGS4 · 8 marks
Discuss the role of family, society and educational institutions in inculcating values.
Civil Service aptitude and values
Family plants trust, empathy, and honour through daily example, and can also plant prejudice. Society rewards or punishes those habits in the street, the market, and the media. School adds public reason so a value can be justified beyond the clan. Nai Talim, mid-day meals, and civic assemblies practise equality the lecture cannot. Office ethics overlay these maps; they do not replace them.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2020 · UPGS4 · 8 marks
Discuss the role of the 'Right to Information' for transparency in governance.
Probity in Governance
RTI converts the citizen’s wish to see the file into a legal claim. Section 4 suo motu disclosure is the ethical heart; applications are the backstop. Second ARC treated RTI as a master key to good governance. Social audits of wages, rations, and contracts rest on that key. Exemptions must stay narrow, and the applicant must be safe, or transparency dies in practice.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2020 · UPGS4 · 8 marks
"The requirement of government sanction for prosecuting dishonest officials is a protective shield for corruption." Examine the statement.
Probity in Governance
Prior sanction was meant to protect bona fide official acts from motivated FIRs. Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 of the PC Act are the usual locks. Endless delay, not the lock itself, is the shield for corruption. Second ARC and CVC lines wanted a clock and a reasoned order, including deemed sanction. Reform the timeline and the speaking order; do not abolish every filter.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.