Anthropology 2023 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Write short notes

Q5

Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Scheduled areas (10 marks) (b) Ramapithecus-Sivapithecus debate (10 marks) (c) Village as little republic (10 marks) (d) Dravidian languages and their subgroups (10 marks) (e) Karma and Rebirth (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक पर लगभग 150 शब्दों में लघु टिप्पणी लिखिए : (a) अनुसूचित क्षेत्र (10 अंक) (b) रामापिथेकस-सिवापिथेकस वाद-विवाद (10 अंक) (c) छोटे गणतंत्र के रूप में गाँव (10 अंक) (d) द्रविड भाषाएँ और उनके उपसमूह (10 अंक) (e) कर्म और पुनर्जन्म (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Write short notes

This question asks you to write short notes. 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 'write short notes' demands concise, information-dense responses for each sub-part. Allocate approximately 30 words/2 minutes per sub-part (equal marks distribution). Structure each note with: (1) precise definition/core concept, (2) 2-3 distinguishing features or debates, (3) one concrete Indian example or scholar reference. No elaborate introduction or conclusion for individual notes; maintain factual precision and interlinkage with Indian anthropology syllabus themes.

Key points expected

  • (a) Scheduled areas: Constitutional basis (5th & 6th Schedules), criteria for notification, special governance provisions, distinction between Part IX-B (PESA) applicability, and contemporary relevance in tribal rights discourse
  • (b) Ramapithecus-Sivapithecus debate: Pilgrim's initial classification, Simons and Chopra's splitting vs. lumping controversy, current consensus as Sivapithecus with Ramapithecus as junior synonym, Siwalik fossil evidence, and implications for hominoid evolution in South Asia
  • (c) Village as little republic: Metcalfe's original formulation, contrast with Maine's patriarchal theory, Dumont's critique of republican autonomy, contemporary studies showing factionalism and state penetration (Srinivas, Beteille)
  • (d) Dravidian languages and their subgroups: Four major branches (Tamil-Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Tulu), geographical distribution, shared structural features (retroflexes, agglutination), and substratum influence on Indo-Aryan
  • (e) Karma and Rebirth: Anthropological vs. theological treatment, Marriott's 'dividual' person concept, Dumont's hierarchical holism, ethnographic variations across Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and tribal communities (e.g., Bhil, Gond concepts)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Demonstrates precise definitional accuracy: for (a) correctly distinguishes 5th vs 6th Schedule areas; for (b) accurately states current taxonomic consensus; for (c) attributes 'little republic' to Metcalfe not Maine; for (d) correctly lists all four Dravidian subgroups; for (e) distinguishes karma doctrine across Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions without conflationProvides broadly correct definitions with minor errors: confuses Schedule provisions, misattributes the village autonomy theory, omits one Dravidian subgroup, or conflates karma with generic fate conceptsContains significant factual errors: states Ramapithecus is still valid species, attributes village republic to British creation rather than observation, invents non-existent Dravidian branches, or treats karma purely as philosophical abstraction without anthropological grounding
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys appropriate theoretical lenses: for (c) contrasts Metcalfe's organic solidarity with Dumont's structural critique; for (e) applies Marriott's 'dividual' person or Obeyesekere's psychological anthropology; for (b) references cladistic vs. phenetic classification debates; connects (a) to Fox's 'affirmative action state' frameworkMentions relevant scholars without systematic theoretical application: names Dumont or Srinivas without explaining their specific critique of village autonomy, or cites karma without anthropological theorizationLacks theoretical awareness: treats all sub-parts as purely descriptive factual recall, fails to mention any anthropological theorists, or misapplies theories (e.g., using functionalism for Ramapithecus debate)
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Provides specific, syllabus-mandated illustrations: for (a) names specific Scheduled Areas (e.g., Jharkhand, Nagaland) or PESA implementation cases; for (c) cites Srinivas's Rampura or Beteille's Sripuram; for (e) references tribal variations (Bhil, Gond) or caste-specific ethnography (Dumont's Tirupati); for (d) mentions specific language distribution mapsOffers generic or imprecise examples: mentions 'tribal areas' without specificity, 'South Indian villages' without naming studied communities, or 'Hindu beliefs' without regional or community specificationLacks Indian ethnographic grounding: uses hypothetical examples, foreign illustrations (e.g., African tribal governance for Scheduled Areas), or omits examples entirely across multiple sub-parts
Comparative analysis20%10Demonstrates comparative competence: for (a) contrasts 5th and 6th Schedule mechanisms; for (b) compares pre-1980 vs. post-1980 taxonomic interpretations; for (c) contrasts Metcalfe-Dumont-Srinivas positions; for (d) compares Dravidian and Indo-Aryan structural features; for (e) distinguishes Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and tribal karma conceptsMakes limited comparisons: notes obvious contrasts (e.g., 5th vs 6th Schedule) without elaborating implications, or lists differences without analytical integrationTreats each sub-part in isolation without internal comparison: fails to contrast scholarly positions, confuses rather than compares categories, or presents laundry lists without analytical structure
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Closes each note with contemporary relevance: for (a) links to Sixth Schedule demand in Ladakh or PESA implementation gaps; for (b) notes implications for Asian hominoid biogeography; for (c) connects to Panchayati Raj debates; for (d) references language policy and classical language status; for (e) relates to environmental ethics or development-induced displacement studiesProvides generic concluding statements: 'thus it is important' without specific contemporary hook, or restates definition without forward-looking applicationLacks conclusion entirely or provides irrelevant closure: introduces new unrelated information, makes unsupported policy prescriptions, or ends with vague platitudes ('in conclusion, this is significant for India')

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 2023 Paper II