Anthropology 2021 Paper II 50 marks Explain

Q7

(a) Explain the impact of successive Land Acquisition Acts on tribal social organization. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the problems involved in rehabilitation and resettlement of tribals displaced due to development projects in India. (15 marks) (c) Discuss the interventions made by the Non-Governmental Organizations for empowering tribal women. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) जनजातीय सामाजिक संगठन पर आनुक्रमिक भूमि अधिग्रहण अधिनियमों के प्रभाव की व्याख्या कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) भारत में विकास परियोजनाओं के कारण विस्थापित जनजातियों को पुनर्वासित एवं पुनःस्थापित करने में आई समस्याओं का वर्णन कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) जनजातीय महिलाओं के सशक्तिकरण में गैर-सरकारी संगठनों के हस्तक्षेपों का वर्णन कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 directive 'explain' for part (a) requires causal analysis of how land laws transformed tribal structures, while 'discuss' for parts (b) and (c) demands balanced examination of multiple perspectives. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief integrated introduction, three distinct substantive sections addressing each sub-part sequentially, and a conclusion that synthesizes insights on tribal empowerment through legal and civil society interventions.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Evolution from Colonial Land Acquisition Act 1894 to LAA 2013, tracing how each Act altered communal land tenure, clan authority, and gendered resource rights in tribal societies
  • Part (a): Specific impacts on social organization—breakdown of lineage-based jhum cultivation systems, erosion of traditional panchayat authority, proletarianization and male out-migration disrupting kinship networks
  • Part (b): Multi-dimensional rehabilitation problems—land-for-land inadequacy, delayed compensation, loss of common property resources, cultural alienation in resettlement colonies, and intra-community conflict between project-affected and host populations
  • Part (b): Critical examination of state rehabilitation frameworks—R&R Policy 2003, NRRR-2007, and gaps in implementation citing Sardar Sarovar or Narmada Valley cases
  • Part (c): NGO interventions across domains—economic (SHGs, microcredit through MYRADA, Dhan Foundation), political (capacity building for Panchayat participation), legal (NFFPFW, PUCL on Forest Rights), and health/education (SEWA, Eklavya)
  • Part (c): Critical assessment of NGO limitations—dependency creation, elite capture, funding constraints, and state-NGO tensions in tribal empowerment

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines 'social organization' (F.G. Bailey's framework of territorial, political, kinship structures) for (a); distinguishes rehabilitation from resettlement for (b); correctly identifies empowerment as agency-building not welfare for (c); no conflation of Schedule V and VI areasBasic understanding of land alienation and displacement concepts but conflates rehabilitation with resettlement, or treats empowerment as mere welfare provision; minor errors in Act dates or constitutional provisionsFundamental conceptual errors—treats land acquisition as purely economic issue ignoring social dimensions, confuses NGOs with government schemes, or misidentifies tribal social organization as only economic structure
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys appropriate theoretical lenses: for (a) Marxist political economy (mode of production) or Scott's 'weapons of the weak'; for (b) Cernea's impoverishment risks and reconstruction model; for (c) Naila Kabeer's resources-agency-achievement framework or Rowlands' empowerment dimensionsMentions theories without systematic application—cites Marx or Gandhi without connecting to specific tribal contexts; or uses generic development theory without anthropological specificityNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive narrative of events and organizations without analytical scaffolding; or inappropriate theories (e.g., structural-functionalism for displacement analysis)
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Rich empirical grounding: for (a) cites specific tribal groups (Santhal, Bhil, Gond) and their transformed jhum/bewar systems; for (b) references Sardar Sarovar (Gujarat/Madhya Pradesh), Koel-Karo (Jharkhand), or Polavaram (Andhra) with specific community impacts; for (c) names specific NGOs (SEWA, MYRADA, PRADAN, Eklavya) with programmatic details and tribal women's outcomesGeneric references to 'tribals in India' or 'some NGOs'; mentions Narmada without specificity; or lists examples without connecting to analytical points about social organization or empowermentNo Indian examples; hypothetical or international cases (African tribes, Latin American NGOs) without Indian grounding; or factually incorrect examples (e.g., attributing SEWA's work to tribal areas when primarily urban)
Comparative analysis20%10Systematic comparisons: across Acts in (a)—1894 vs 1984 vs 2013 amendments showing progressive (inadequate) recognition of tribal rights; across projects in (b)—differential outcomes of dam vs mining displacement; across NGO strategies in (c)—service delivery vs rights-based vs feminist approaches; temporal comparisons of pre/post-FRA 2006 empowermentImplicit comparisons without explicit framing; mentions 'earlier' vs 'later' Acts without systematic contrast; or compares without drawing analytical conclusions about relative effectivenessNo comparative element; treats each Act, project, or NGO in isolation; or false comparisons (e.g., comparing tribal and non-tribal displacement without acknowledging structural differences)
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent argument about state-market-civil society nexus in tribal marginalization/empowerment; proposes actionable recommendations—strengthening gram sabha consent provisions, community-driven rehabilitation protocols, or NGO-state collaborative models; critically reflects on limits of legal empowerment without structural economic transformationSummarizes main points without synthesis; generic recommendations ('government should do more'); or conclusion that merely restates introduction without development through the answerNo conclusion; abrupt ending; or conclusion introducing entirely new arguments not developed in body; purely aspirational recommendations without grounding in analysis presented

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