Anthropology 2023 Paper II 50 marks Elucidate

Q7

(a) Elucidate the shifting terrains of India's tribal policies in colonial and post-colonial periods. (20 marks) (b) Critically examine how the displacement of tribal communities due to hydroelectric river dam projects has affected the women in local context. Illustrate with suitable ethnographic examples. (15 marks) (c) Elucidate the role of anthropology in nation building. Illustrate with suitable examples. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) औपनिवेशिक और उत्तर-औपनिवेशिक काल में भारत की जनजातीय नीतियों के बदलते क्षेत्रों को स्पष्ट कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) पनबिजली नदी बांध परियोजनाओं के कारण आदिवासी समुदायों के विस्थापन ने स्थानीय संदर्भ में महिलाओं को कैसे प्रभावित किया है, इसका आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। उपयुक्त नृवंशविज्ञान-संबंधी उदाहरणों के साथ समझाइए। (15 अंक) (c) राष्ट्र निर्माण में मानवविज्ञान की भूमिका को स्पष्ट कीजिए। उपयुक्त उदाहरणों के साथ समझाइए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 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, illuminating exposition with depth. For part (a), trace policy shifts from colonial isolation (Scheduled Districts Act 1874, Criminal Tribes Act) to post-colonial integration (Panchsheel, Fifth Schedule, PESA 1996) and neoliberal challenges. For part (b), apply 'critically examine' to analyze gendered displacement impacts using ethnographic cases. For part (c), explain anthropology's nation-building roles with concrete institutional examples. Allocate approximately 40% time/words to (a), 30% each to (b) and (c). Structure: integrated introduction, three distinct sections per sub-part, and a synthesizing conclusion on anthropology's evolving responsibility toward tribal communities.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Colonial policies of isolation and 'civilizing mission' (Criminal Tribes Act 1871, Forest Acts) versus post-colonial integrationist frameworks (Nehru's Panchsheel, Fifth Schedule, Sixth Schedule, PESA 1996, FRA 2006) and contemporary neoliberal pressures
  • Part (b): Gendered dimensions of displacement—loss of common property resources, disruption of kin networks, increased domestic violence, prostitution, and changed labor patterns; ethnographic cases from Sardar Sarovar (Narmada), Tehri Dam, or Koel-Karo projects
  • Part (c): Anthropology's nation-building roles—colonial ethnographic surveys (Risley, Grierson), post-independence integration studies (Verrier Elwin, D.N. Majumdar), applied anthropology in development (Tribal Research Institutes, NIRD), and contemporary advocacy
  • Critical linkage between parts: how policy shifts (a) created conditions for displacement (b), and how anthropology's changing mandate (c) reflects evolving state-society relations
  • Theoretical grounding: use of structural-functionalism, political ecology, feminist anthropology, and post-colonial critique across all three parts
  • Contemporary relevance: mention recent Supreme Court judgments on eviction, UNDRIP, and anthropological ethics in displacement studies

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise use of technical terms across all parts: for (a) distinguishes 'isolation' from 'integration' vs 'assimilation'; for (b) accurately deploys 'common property resources,' 'patrilocal exogamy,' 'feminization of poverty'; for (c) correctly identifies 'action anthropology,' 'participant observation,' 'ethnographic present' and their specific applicationsGenerally correct terminology but conflates key distinctions—e.g., treats Fifth and Sixth Schedules as identical, or uses 'displacement' and 'rehabilitation' interchangeably without conceptual clarityMajor conceptual errors: misidentifies colonial policies as welfare-oriented, confuses 'elucidate' with 'evaluate,' or fundamentally misunderstands anthropology's applied versus academic roles
Theoretical framing20%10For (a) applies post-colonial theory (Guha's 'colonial forest' critique) and policy analysis frameworks; for (b) uses feminist political ecology (Bina Agarwal) and Scudder-Colson four-stage displacement model; for (c) references Malinowski's functionalism, Sol Tax's action anthropology, and contemporary decolonial critiquesMentions theories superficially without systematic application—e.g., names Elwin or Guha without explaining how their frameworks illuminate specific policy shifts or displacement dynamicsAbsent or inappropriate theory; relies on commonsense description without anthropological conceptualization, or misattributes theoretical positions (e.g., attributing structural-functionalism to Marxist anthropologists)
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Rich, specific illustrations: for (a) cites specific legislation with years and tribal communities affected; for (b) provides detailed ethnographic cases—Narmada Bachao Andolan (Gujarat/Madhya Pradesh), Tehri Dam (Garhwal), or Koel-Karo (Jharkhand) with specific women's experiences from published studies; for (c) names specific anthropologists (Elwin, Furer-Haimendorf, Sachchidananda) and institutions (Anthropological Survey of India, TRIs)Generic or partially accurate examples—e.g., mentions 'Narmada dam' without specifying Sardar Sarovar, or cites 'some tribal women' without community identification; for (c) lists anthropologists without explaining their specific nation-building contributionsNo ethnographic specificity, invented examples, or irrelevant cases (e.g., using African examples when Indian cases are explicitly required); for (c) confuses sociology and anthropology contributions
Comparative analysis20%10Systematic comparison across temporal and thematic dimensions: for (a) contrasts colonial/post-colonial policy logics with specific continuities (forest control) and ruptures (democratic participation); for (b) compares displacement impacts across different dam projects or between affected and non-affected communities; for (c) compares anthropology's colonial versus post-colonial nation-building roles; explicit cross-referencing between parts showing how policy created displacement contextsSome comparative intent but poorly executed—sequential description rather than analytical comparison; treats each part in isolation without cross-referencing; misses continuities between colonial and post-colonial governancePurely descriptive with no comparative element; or false comparisons that misrepresent relationships (e.g., claiming colonial policies were more beneficial than post-colonial ones without evidence)
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes all three parts into coherent argument about anthropology's evolving responsibility: from colonial knowledge-production to advocacy in displacement contexts; proposes specific applied interventions—community-based rehabilitation, gender-sensitive resettlement, anthropological participation in EIAs; addresses contemporary relevance (Supreme Court 2019 eviction order, FRA implementation gaps) with policy recommendationsSummarizes main points without synthesis; generic conclusion about 'need for better policies'; weak applied angle with vague suggestions rather than anthropologically-informed interventionsAbsent or irrelevant conclusion; contradicts own argument; no applied dimension despite question's clear orientation toward policy and practice

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