Q8
(a) Compare the nature of tribal movements between North-East and Central India. Briefly mention the current status of existing tribal movements in these areas. 20 (b) Briefly describe the anthropological perspective on development. How have anthropologists contributed in India's rural development? 15 (c) How can a balance be struck between livelihood concern and environmental degradation in the context of shifting cultivation? 15
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) उत्तर-पूर्व एवं मध्य भारत में जनजातीय आंदोलनों के स्वरूप की तुलना कीजिए। इन क्षेत्रों में निवर्तमान जनजातीय आंदोलनों की वर्तमान स्थिति का संक्षिप्त उल्लेख कीजिए। 20 (b) विकास पर मानवशास्त्रीय दृष्टिकोण का संक्षिप्त विवरण दीजिए। भारत के ग्रामीण विकास में मानवशास्त्रियों ने कैसे योगदान दिया है? 15 (c) झूम कृषि के संदर्भ में आजीविका प्रसंग एवं पर्यावरणीय अवक्षयण के मध्य कैसे संतुलन बनाया जा सकता है? 15
Directive word: Compare
This question asks you to compare. 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 'compare' in part (a) demands systematic juxtaposition of tribal movements across two regions, while parts (b) and (c) require 'describe' and analytical 'how' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction framing tribal movements and development anthropology; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing insights on tribal agency, sustainable development, and policy implications.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Compare nature of tribal movements—North-East (ethnic/identity-based, autonomy demands, insurgency linkages like Naga, Mizo, Bodo movements) vs Central India (land alienation, forest rights, anti-colonial/neo-colonial resistance like Birsa Munda, Bhil, Gond movements)
- Part (a): Current status—North-East (peace accords, Sixth Schedule implementation, residual militancy) vs Central India (Maoist influence, FRA 2006 mobilization, mining displacement protests)
- Part (b): Anthropological perspective on development—cultural relativism, participatory approaches, critique of top-down modernization, indigenous knowledge systems, S.C. Dube's 'Development Anthropology'
- Part (b): Anthropologists' contributions—M.N. Srinivas (village studies), Robert Chambers (participatory rural appraisal), Tribal Sub-Plan formulation, action research in watershed management, PESA implementation
- Part (c): Shifting cultivation (jhum) context—Northeast India, tribal livelihood dependence, ecological degradation narrative
- Part (c): Balancing mechanisms—zonal alternation, reduced cycle period, agroforestry integration, government support (NEC, Ministry of Tribal Affairs schemes), community forest rights under FRA, organic jhum products market linkage
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Accurately distinguishes ethnic identity movements in North-East from land-rights movements in Central India; correctly defines anthropological development critique (cultural relativism vs modernization theory); precisely identifies jhum ecology and fallow management science | Basic understanding of regional differences but conflates movement types; generic definition of development anthropology; superficial treatment of shifting cultivation ecology | Confuses North-East and Central Indian movement characteristics; misrepresents anthropological perspective as mere data collection; erroneous claims about jhum causing massive deforestation without nuance |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | Deploys articulation theory (Sider, Taussig) for tribal-state relations; uses Scott's 'weapons of the weak' or Guha's 'elementary aspects of peasant insurgency' for Central India; applies Escobar's 'development as discourse' critique; references Steward's cultural ecology for jhum analysis | Mentions theoretical frameworks without systematic application; limited to basic Marxist or functionalist references; descriptive rather than analytical use of theory | No theoretical framework; or misapplies theories (e.g., using unilineal evolution for contemporary movements); confuses anthropologists' theoretical positions |
| Ethnographic / Indian examples | 20% | 10 | For (a): Naga movement (Phizo to NSCN), Mizo (MNF to Accord), Bodo (Bodoland); Birsa Munda, Tana Bhagat, Bhumkal, contemporary Bastar movements. For (b): M.N. Srinivas, S.C. Dube, T.N. Madan, Robert Chambers, Furer-Haimendorf's Himalayan work. For (c): Nagaland/Garo Hills/Arunachal jhum studies, NERCORMP, IFAD projects | Some correct examples but gaps (e.g., only colonial-era movements in Central India, missing contemporary); limited anthropologist names; generic jhum references without specific projects | Incorrect or fabricated examples; confuses regions (e.g., Santhal in North-East); no anthropologist contributions; irrelevant international examples dominating Indian context |
| Comparative analysis | 20% | 10 | Systematic comparison matrix for (a): historical roots (colonial vs post-colonial), leadership (middle-class vs traditional), demands (territorial autonomy vs land/forest rights), state response (military vs developmental); for (c) compares traditional vs modified jhum systems across tribes | Some comparative elements but descriptive parallel accounts rather than analytical comparison; limited explicit contrast language; missing causal explanations for differences | No comparison—separate descriptions only; or false comparisons (e.g., claiming identical nature); ignores structural factors explaining regional divergence |
| Conclusion & applied angle | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes insights: tribal movements as responses to exclusionary development; anthropological contribution as bridging local knowledge and policy; sustainable jhum as model for climate-resilient agriculture. Specific policy recommendations: Sixth Schedule expansion, FRA implementation, participatory watershed management, organic jhum certification | Generic conclusion restating points; vague policy suggestions; no integration across sub-parts; missing contemporary relevance | No conclusion; or completely disconnected final paragraph; no applied/policy dimension; abrupt ending without synthesis |
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
- Q1 Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each: 10×5=50 (a) Pit-dwellers of Kashmir (b) Varna and Buddhism (c) Dharma versus Re…
- Q2 (a) Illustrate the contribution of Irawati Karve to Indian Anthropology. Make a special mention of her literary contribution. 20 (b) What a…
- Q3 (a) Make a critical appraisal of Megalithic tradition in India with special reference to North-East India. 20 (b) Assess the contributions…
- Q4 (a) "Globalisation, on one hand has provided opportunities and on the other hand thrown challenges to Indian villages." Elucidate. 20 (b) D…
- Q5 Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each: 10×5=50 (a) Regionalism as an opportunity and threat to national integration (b…
- Q6 (a) Discuss the objectives of Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDPs). How far have these objectives been achieved? 20 (b) Compare t…
- 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…
- Q8 (a) Compare the nature of tribal movements between North-East and Central India. Briefly mention the current status of existing tribal move…