Q6
(a) Discuss the impact of the Forest Rights Act (2006) on the livelihood and culture of tribal people in India. (20 marks) (b) Examine the factors responsible for malnutrition in tribal India and suggest interventions required to overcome the problem. (15 marks) (c) Delineate the factors influencing fertility in Indian population. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) भारत के जनजातीय लोगों की आजीविका और संस्कृति पर वन अधिकार अधिनियम (2006) के प्रभाव का वर्णन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) जनजातीय भारत में कुपोषण के उत्तरदायी कारकों का परीक्षण कीजिए और समस्या के समाधान हेतु हस्तक्षेपों को बताइए। (15 अंक) (c) भारतीय जनसंख्या में जनन-क्षमता को प्रभावित करने वाले कारकों का उल्लेख कीजिए। (15 अंक)
Directive word: Discuss
This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
The question demands a multi-part response with varying directives: 'discuss' for (a), 'examine' and 'suggest' for (b), and 'delineate' for (c). Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a unified conclusion linking tribal development to broader demographic transitions.
Key points expected
- For (a): FRA 2006 provisions (individual/community rights, habitat rights for PVTGs); impact on livelihood security (NTFP access, tenure, income) and cultural continuity (sacred groves, ritual practices, identity)
- For (a): Implementation gaps—rejection rates, inadequate gram sabha role, bureaucratic delays; case studies from Bastar, Niyamgiri, or Nilgiris
- For (b): Ecological factors (shifting cultivation decline, forest degradation), socioeconomic factors (poverty, land alienation, market exploitation), and healthcare access barriers
- For (b): Nutrition-specific interventions (ICDS, Poshan Abhiyaan, tribal sub-plan) and nutrition-sensitive approaches (MGNREGA, FRA implementation, community kitchens)
- For (c): Proximate determinants—marriage patterns (early marriage, universality), contraceptive use, breastfeeding duration; socioeconomic factors—female literacy, urbanization, son preference, religious differentials
- For (c): Regional variations (Kerala vs. BIMARU states), demographic transition stages, and policy impacts (family planning programmes, JSY, education schemes)
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Accurately defines FRA 2006 provisions (Section 3(1), 3(2), habitat rights); correctly identifies proximate determinants of fertility (Bongaarts framework) and classifies malnutrition types (stunting, wasting, underweight) with WHO standards; distinguishes between individual and community forest rights | Basic understanding of FRA and fertility factors but conflates community rights with individual rights, or lists malnutrition causes without classification; mentions demographic transition without linking to Indian data | Misrepresents FRA as land redistribution act, confuses fertility rates with growth rates, or describes malnutrition in generic terms without tribal specificity; factual errors on legal provisions or health indicators |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | Applies Saxton's theory of environmental justice for (a); uses Amartya Sen's capability approach or UNICEF conceptual framework for malnutrition in (b); employs demographic transition theory and Bongaarts' proximate determinants model for (c); integrates anthropological perspectives on culture-nature interface | Mentions theories superficially without systematic application; lists frameworks without connecting to question parts; some theoretical relevance but lacks integration across sub-parts | No theoretical framework; purely descriptive answer; or misapplies theories (e.g., using Malthusian theory uncritically for tribal fertility without context) |
| Ethnographic / Indian examples | 20% | 10 | For (a): cites Dongria Kondh (Niyamgiri), Baiga, or Jarawa habitat rights struggles; for (b): references NFHS-5 tribal data, PESA implementation in Jharkhand/Odisha, or specific PVTG nutrition programmes; for (c): compares Kerala-Tamil Nadu fertility decline with UP-Bihar patterns, cites NFHS/CRS data | General references to 'tribes' without specificity; mentions government schemes without tribal context; some data but outdated or inaccurately cited; regional examples present but not systematically compared | No specific tribal groups named; generic examples applicable to any population; no empirical data or government scheme references; factual errors in citing examples |
| Comparative analysis | 20% | 10 | For (a): compares pre-FRA and post-FRA scenarios, or interstate implementation (Maharashtra vs. Chhattisgarh); for (b): contrasts ecological vs. socioeconomic causation, or inter-tribal variation (PVTGs vs. other STs); for (c): rural-urban, regional, and religious fertility differentials with explanatory factors | Some comparison present but implicit; contrasts mentioned without elaboration; treats each sub-part in isolation without cross-referencing (e.g., FRA impact on nutrition security) | No comparative element; purely linear description for each part; misses opportunity to link FRA livelihood benefits with nutrition outcomes, or fertility decline with women's empowerment in tribal contexts |
| Conclusion & applied angle | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across parts: links forest rights security to nutritional status and fertility decisions through women's empowerment and household economics; proposes integrated tribal development approach combining ecological, health, and demographic policies; critically evaluates current policy gaps with constructive recommendations | Summarizes each part separately without synthesis; generic conclusion on 'need for holistic development'; some policy suggestions but not tailored to tribal context or question-specific insights | No conclusion or abrupt ending; purely repetitive summary; unrealistic or irrelevant recommendations; no applied/policy dimension; fails to address the 'suggest' component of part (b) |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Anthropology 2021 Paper II
- Q1 Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Purushartha and righteous living today (10 marks) (b) Relevance of tribe-ca…
- Q2 (a) Critically discuss the origin of Indus Valley Civilization. Mention the evidences of its endogenous origin from the pre-Harappan sites.…
- Q3 (a) Explain the impact of the concept of nature-man-spirit complex on sustainable use of natural resources with suitable examples. (20 mark…
- Q4 (a) Discuss the contributions of N. K. Bose in understanding tribal communities and their place in Indian civilization. (20 marks) (b) Disc…
- Q5 Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Urbanization and tribal institutions (10 marks) (b) Ethnic media and social…
- Q6 (a) Discuss the impact of the Forest Rights Act (2006) on the livelihood and culture of tribal people in India. (20 marks) (b) Examine the…
- Q7 (a) Explain the impact of successive Land Acquisition Acts on tribal social organization. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the problems involved in r…
- Q8 (a) Examine how structural transformation in economy is affecting traditional social relationships in agrarian society. (20 marks) (b) Deli…