Anthropology 2022 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q7

(a) Discuss the views of G. S. Ghurye and Verrier Elwin on the approach towards tribal populations. What are the policies of the Government of India towards Indian tribal populations? 20 (b) Discuss the issues and solutions related to the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe populations in India. 15 (c) Explain the social and religious consequences of contact between tribal and non-tribal populations. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) जनजातीय समाजों पर जी० एस० घुर्ये तथा वेरियर एल्विन के दृष्टिकोणों की विवेचना कीजिए। भारतीय जनजातीय समाजों के प्रति भारत सरकार की नीतियाँ क्या हैं? 20 (b) भारत में अनुसूचित जाति एवं अनुसूचित जनजातियों के मुद्दे एवं इनके समाधानों की विवेचना कीजिए। 15 (c) जनजातीय एवं गैर-जनजातीय समाजों में सम्पर्क द्वारा उत्पन्न सामाजिक एवं धार्मिक परिणामों को 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) and 'discuss'/'explain' for parts (b)-(c) requires a balanced, analytical treatment with evidence-based arguments. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction framing tribal policy debates → body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesizing contemporary relevance and future directions.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Ghurye's 'backward Hindus' integrationist stance versus Elwin's 'protective isolationism' and later 'middle way'; critical comparison of their philosophical and policy implications
  • Part (a): Evolution of government policies from colonial isolation to post-Independence integration (Panchsheel, Fifth Schedule, Sixth Schedule, PESA 1996, FRA 2006)
  • Part (b): Specific issues for SCs (untouchability, manual scavenging, caste atrocities) and STs (land alienation, displacement, forest rights, cultural erosion); intersectional challenges where applicable
  • Part (b): Constitutional and legislative solutions (PoA Act 1989, SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act amendments, reservation policies, tribal sub-plans, Vanbandhu Kalyan Yojana)
  • Part (c): Social consequences: acculturation, detribalization, emergence of middle class, gender role changes, breakdown of traditional authority structures (jhum to settled cultivation)
  • Part (c): Religious consequences: conversion movements (Christian missions, Hinduization/ Sanskritization), revitalization movements (Tana Bhagat, Birsa Munda, Jharkhand movement), syncretism and resistance
  • Synthesis across parts: Critical engagement with whether current policies address the fundamental tension between integration and preservation that Ghurye-Elwin debate represents
  • Contemporary applied angle: Recent judicial interventions (Supreme Court on FRA, eviction orders), tribal assertion movements, and the unresolved question of development versus displacement

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Accurately distinguishes Ghurye's assimilationist 'backward Hindu' framework from Elwin's evolving position (isolation to integration); correctly identifies constitutional provisions (Articles 244, 275, 330, 332, 335), schedules, and key legislation (FRA, PESA, TSP) without conflation; precisely defines concepts like detribalization, acculturation, and religious revitalizationBasic identification of Ghurye and Elwin positions with minor inaccuracies; lists some policies correctly but may confuse Fifth/Sixth Schedule provisions or misstate PESA scope; general awareness of social/religious change without precise terminologyConflates Ghurye and Elwin positions or misrepresents either; confuses SC and ST constitutional provisions; factual errors in legislation (e.g., calling FRA 2006 as 1996); vague or incorrect use of anthropological concepts
Theoretical framing20%10Explicitly situates Ghurye-Elwin debate within broader anthropological theory (integration vs. isolation, structural-functionalism vs. advocacy anthropology); applies Redfield's folk-urban continuum or Sahlins' 'structure of conjuncture' to contact situations; uses Srinivas' Sanskritization for religious change analysis; demonstrates awareness of how theoretical positions shaped actual policyImplicit theoretical awareness without explicit naming; some connection between perspectives and policy outcomes; basic understanding of acculturation theory without sophisticated applicationNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive treatment of views and policies; fails to connect Ghurye-Elwin intellectual positions to their policy consequences or to broader anthropological debates
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Specific tribal examples: for (a) Elwin's work with Baigas (The Baiga) and Ghurye's pan-Indian survey methodology; for (b) land alienation in Jharkhand (Santhal Parganas), Kerala's tribal land struggles, or Niyamgiri Dongria Kondh case; for (c) Tana Bhagat movement (Oraon), Birsa Munda's Ulgulan, Bhil Bhagat, or Gond Raj Gondi revitalization; mentions specific commissions (Xaxa, Mungekar, Lokur)General regional references (Northeast, Central India) without specific tribes; mentions common examples like Birsa Munda but without elaboration; some awareness of recent movements but lacking specificityNo specific ethnographic examples; vague references like 'tribes of India' or 'some tribes'; incorrect attribution of movements to wrong regions or communities; examples from outside India
Comparative analysis20%10Systematic comparison across all three parts: for (a) contrasts Ghurye-Elwin on assimilation speed, cultural preservation, and administrative mechanism; for (b) compares SC and ST issues showing intersectionality and distinct constitutional treatments; for (c) contrasts social and religious consequences showing their interdependence; evaluates which approach better fits contemporary realitiesSome comparative elements but unevenly developed; treats parts separately with limited cross-referencing; basic contrast between Ghurye and Elwin without nuancing Elwin's evolutionNo comparative structure; lists views and policies separately without analytical contrast; treats SC and ST issues identically without distinction; fails to connect social and religious dimensions of contact
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes across parts to argue for context-specific approach (neither pure Ghurye nor pure Elwin); critically evaluates current policy gaps using recent evidence (2022 FRA rules, Supreme Court eviction order of 2019, 2024 amendments); proposes forward-looking solutions (tribal university model, community forest rights expansion, addressing Sixth Schedule limitations in non-Northeast areas); demonstrates awareness of tribal agency and self-representationGeneral conclusion restating main points; some contemporary reference but without critical evaluation; standard policy recommendations without originality or specific evidenceNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely historical treatment with no contemporary relevance; generic statements about 'government should do more'; no applied or critical dimension

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