Breaking down the question
The question asks you to assess — to weigh achievements against limits — the role of the State in promoting the education of the girl child. The verb demands a balanced verdict, not a catalogue of schemes. The focus on the State frames education as an instrument of directed social change rather than spontaneous cultural drift.
A sound answer treats girl-child education as a site where the State attempts to override entrenched patriarchy, then judges how far its interventions have succeeded and where they fall short.
The note on education and social change in India supplies the conceptual grounding.
How to approach it
Frame education, following Amartya Sen, as a capability that expands freedom and, in the case of girls, disrupts the reproduction of patriarchy. Position the State as an agent of planned change acting through constitutional guarantees, legislation and schemes. Then assess along two axes — the enabling role and its limits — before offering a measured judgement.
Balance policy achievement against the persistence of social attitudes that the State alone cannot legislate away.
Model answer
The education of the girl child is a strategic lever of social change, and the State has been its principal promoter, using law, resources and ideology to challenge a patriarchal order that historically confined girls to domestic roles.
The enabling role. The Constitution's directive principles and Article 21A, the Right to Education Act, and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan established free and compulsory schooling. Targeted measures — the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao campaign, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas, scholarships, free uniforms and cycles, and midday meals — lowered the direct and opportunity costs that deterred parents from sending daughters to school. The result has been a marked narrowing of the gender gap in enrolment.
Education as capability. As Amartya Sen argues, women's education carries wide externalities — improved child health, lower fertility and greater agency. State promotion of girls' schooling is thus not merely welfare but an investment in expanding capabilities and citizenship.
The limits. Yet, as Krishna Kumar reminds us, access is not the same as meaningful learning. Persistent dropout at puberty, early marriage, unsafe or distant schools, poor sanitation and a curriculum that can reinforce gender stereotypes blunt the State's efforts. Deep-rooted attitudes — son preference and the framing of daughters as paraya dhan — resist policy from above.
On balance, the State has been an indispensable and largely successful promoter of girl-child education at the level of access, but its reach into the quality of schooling and the transformation of patriarchal attitudes remains incomplete, requiring society and family to move with the law.
Examiner's perspective
Weak answers list government schemes without assessment, mistaking an inventory for an argument. The examiner wants a candidate who can weigh enabling interventions against the social and institutional constraints that limit them.
High marks reward framing education as a capability that unsettles patriarchy, distinguishing access from quality, and delivering a genuine verdict. Invoking Sen or Krishna Kumar, and noting that the State cannot legislate attitudes single-handedly, lends analytical depth within the ten-mark limit.