Anthropology 2022 Paper II 50 marks Elucidate

Q4

(a) "Globalisation, on one hand has provided opportunities and on the other hand thrown challenges to Indian villages." Elucidate. 20 (b) Describe briefly the proto-history of Gujarat. Discuss the significance of Gujarat proto-history in international trade. 15 (c) Critically examine 'Indigenisation of Christianity' in India. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "वैश्वीकरण ने जहाँ एक तरफ अवसर प्रदान किया वहीं वह दूसरी तरफ भारतीय गाँवों के लिए चुनौती बन गया।" व्याख्या कीजिए। 20 (b) गुजरात के आद्य-इतिहास का संक्षिप्त विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। गुजरात आद्य-इतिहास के अंतर्राष्ट्रीय व्यापार में महत्व की विवेचना कीजिए। 15 (c) भारत में 'ईसाइयत के स्वदेशीकरण' का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Elucidate

This question asks you to elucidate. 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 'elucidate' demands clear explanation with examples. Structure: brief introduction defining globalisation's dual impact; Part (a) ~40% word budget (20 marks) — opportunities (remittances, market access, technology) vs challenges (agrarian distress, cultural erosion, migration); Part (b) ~30% (15 marks) — Harappan sites (Lothal, Dholavira, Rangpur), their maritime trade infrastructure, bead-making, and connection to Mesopotamia; Part (c) ~30% (15 marks) — critical examination of indigenisation (Brahmanic rituals in Catholicism, Hindu-style church architecture, Dalit Christianity, critiques by Lancy Lobo and Rowena Robinson). Conclude with integrated synthesis on cultural adaptation versus homogenisation.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Globalisation opportunities — NRI remittances transforming village economies (Kerala model), ICT-enabled agricultural markets, rural BPOs; challenges — land alienation, farmer suicides, de-peasantisation, erosion of jajmani relations
  • Part (a): Theoretical grounding — articulation of modes of production (Srinivas' 'Westernisation' vs 'Globalisation from below'), Jan Breman on labour casualisation
  • Part (b): Gujarat proto-historical sites — Lothal (dockyard, bead factory), Dholivira (water management, signboard), Rangpur (rice cultivation), their dating and cultural sequence
  • Part (b): International trade significance — Mesopotamian texts mentioning 'Meluhha', carnelian bead export, cotton textiles, maritime technology enabling Indian Ocean trade network
  • Part (c): Indigenisation manifestations — Hindu-style church architecture (e.g., Velankanni), Sanskritisation of liturgy, caste-retention in Syrian Christianity, Dalit Christian assertion
  • Part (c): Critical examination — Lancy Lobo's critique of 'Hindu-Christian syncretism' masking power structures; Rowena Robinson on gender and conversion; tension between inculturation and dilution of core tenets
  • Integrated dimension: Comparative thread — how all three parts illustrate cultural adaptation/resistance to external forces (economic, archaeological, religious)
  • Synthesis: Anthropological insight on 'glocalisation' — selective appropriation versus structural domination across economic, material and religious domains

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise definitions: for (a) distinguishes globalisation from mere Westernisation; for (b) correctly dates Harappan phases and distinguishes proto-history from prehistory; for (c) distinguishes indigenisation from syncretism and inculturationGenerally accurate concepts but conflates terms (e.g., uses 'Harappan' loosely for all proto-history, treats indigenisation as unidirectional adaptation)Major conceptual errors: confuses globalisation with modernisation, misidentifies proto-historical periods, equates indigenisation with Hinduisation without nuance
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys multiple frameworks: for (a) Appadurai's 'scapes' or Breman's 'footloose labour'; for (b) Shereen Ratnagar's trade network analysis; for (c) Lobo/Robinson critical perspectives on power and identityMentions theories superficially (e.g., names Srinivas or Dumont without application) or uses generic globalisation theory without anthropological specificityAbsent or inappropriate theory; relies on journalistic descriptions or purely descriptive historical narrative without analytical framework
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Rich empirical grounding: for (a) cites specific village studies (e.g., M.N. Srinivas' Rampura, Jan Breman's Gujarat villages, Kerala migration to Gulf); for (b) details Lothal's dockyard dimensions, Dholavira's water conservation; for (c) names specific communities (Syrian Christians, Dalit Christians in Andhra, Goan Catholics)Generic examples (e.g., 'villages in Punjab', 'some churches look like temples') without specificity or verifiable detailNo Indian examples, or factually wrong ones (e.g., citing Mohenjo-daro for Gujarat, confusing indigenisation with Protestant Reformation)
Comparative analysis20%10Explicit cross-part comparisons: contrasts material vs cultural globalisation in (a) and (c); compares Harappan trade integration with contemporary globalisation; weighs adaptive strategies across economic, technological and religious domainsTreats parts in isolation; occasional implicit comparison but no explicit analytical linkage between village transformation, ancient trade networks, and religious adaptationThree disconnected sections with no comparative element; misses opportunity to discuss continuity/change in India's engagement with external forces
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesises into coherent anthropological argument: evaluates whether indigenisation represents genuine cultural creativity or defensive adaptation; connects to policy relevance (rural development, heritage conservation, minority rights); offers nuanced verdict on globalisation's differential impact by class/caste/regionSummarises main points without synthesis; generic conclusion on 'balanced view needed' without specific anthropological insightAbsent or abrupt conclusion; purely descriptive ending; no applied or policy dimension; fails to return to the 'opportunities vs challenges' tension posed in the question

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 2022 Paper II