Anthropology 2022 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q6

(a) Discuss the objectives of Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDPs). How far have these objectives been achieved? 20 (b) Compare the functioning of traditional 'Tribal Council' with that of 'Gram Sabha' under PESA. 15 (c) Explain how British policies impacted the major resources of the tribals. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) एकीकृत जनजातीय विकास परियोजनाओं (आइ० टी० डी० पी०) के उद्देश्यों की विवेचना कीजिए। इन उद्देश्यों को कहाँ तक प्राप्त किया जा चुका है? 20 (b) पेसा (पी० ई० एस० ए०) के अन्तर्गत पारम्परिक 'जनजातीय परिषदों' के संचालन की तुलना 'ग्राम सभाओं' से कीजिए। 15 (c) ब्रिटिश नीतियों ने जनजातियों के प्रमुख संसाधनों को कैसे प्रभावित किया है? स्पष्ट कीजिए। 15

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

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 directive 'discuss' for part (a) requires presenting multiple perspectives with critical evaluation, while 'compare' in (b) and 'explain' in (c) demand analytical juxtaposition and causal exposition respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections for each sub-part with internal conclusions, and a synthesizing conclusion that links tribal development continuity from British era to post-Independence ITDPs and PESA.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): ITDP objectives including area-based integrated development, removal of exploitation, infrastructure provision, and livelihood security; assessment of achievement gaps citing Dandekar Committee findings and NITI Aayog evaluations
  • Part (a): Critical evaluation of ITDP performance regarding displacement, land alienation, and failure of convergence between line departments in ITDP areas like Bastar or Koraput
  • Part (b): Traditional Tribal Council characteristics—consensus-based decision making, kinship-based membership, customary law jurisdiction, and resource management functions in tribes like Gond or Munda
  • Part (b): Gram Sabha under PESA (1996)—constitutional status, powers over minor forest produce, land acquisition consent, and planning; contrast with Tribal Council in terms of democratic representation versus customary authority
  • Part (c): British policies—Permanent Settlement, zamindari system, forest reservation through Indian Forest Act 1878/1927, and land revenue policies—and their impact on tribal land, forest, and water resources
  • Part (c): Specific resource impacts: loss of shifting cultivation lands, restricted access to minor forest produce, commercial exploitation of timber, and disruption of traditional irrigation systems in tribal belts

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines ITDP (launched 1972-73, area approach), PESA provisions (Schedule V areas), and distinguishes British-era regulations (Criminal Tribes Act, Forest Acts) from earlier tribal autonomy; accurately identifies specific years and constitutional articlesBasic understanding of ITDP as tribal welfare scheme and PESA as panchayat extension; conflates some British policies or misstates PESA applicability to Schedule VI areasConfuses ITDP with ITDA or tribal sub-plan; treats PESA as applicable nationwide; fundamental errors in identifying British policy mechanisms or their chronological sequence
Theoretical framing20%10Applies integration vs. assimilation debate (Elwin vs. Ghurye), internal colonialism theory for British impact, and democratic decentralization theory for PESA; references Sachchidananda or F.G. Bailey on tribal councilsMentions isolated vs. integrated approach without theoretical depth; describes British impact as 'exploitative' without analytical framework; treats PESA mechanically without linking to self-determination discourseNo theoretical scaffolding; purely descriptive treatment of all three parts; confuses anthropological perspectives on tribal development
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10For (a): cites specific ITDPs (Bastar, Dang, Nilgiri) with outcome data; for (b): contrasts Gond 'gaita' or Santhal 'majhi-haram' with PESA Gram Sabha functioning in Jharkhand; for (c): details Santal Parganas or Chotanagpur tenancy acts and their resource impactsGeneric mention of 'tribal areas' without specificity; vague reference to 'traditional councils'; broad statements about British forest policy without regional illustrationNo concrete examples from Indian ethnography; hypothetical or invented case studies; examples that misidentify tribal locations or confuse Schedule V and VI areas
Comparative analysis20%10For (b): systematic comparison across legitimacy source (customary vs. electoral), decision-making process (consensus vs. majority), resource control scope, and conflict resolution mechanisms; for (a) and (c): compares stated objectives with ground reality and pre/post-Independence policy continuityLists differences between Tribal Council and Gram Sabha without analytical framework; treats ITDP and British policies as separate narratives without connecting themes of resource extractionNo comparative element in part (b); purely sequential treatment; fails to identify any points of similarity or structured contrast between the institutions
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent argument about tribal autonomy continuum—from British dispossession through ITDP's top-down integration to PESA's attempted self-governance; proposes specific reforms (PESA implementation gaps, Sixth Schedule extension) with contemporary relevance to FRA 2006 and tribal unrestSeparate concluding paragraphs for each part without synthesis; generic recommendations for 'better implementation'; no historical continuity establishedNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely summarizing without critical forward-looking perspective; ignores applied policy relevance entirely

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