Anthropology 2024 Paper II 50 marks Critically discuss

Q2

(a) Critically discuss the recent welfare measures initiated by the Government for the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). Comment why PVTGs were erroneously called Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs). 20 (b) How is PESA Act empowering local self-governance and impacting women's political participation ? 15 (c) Deconstruct the colonial history of Indian Anthropology highlighting the critical role played by the Indian Anthropologists in sustaining its autonomy. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विशेष रूप से कमजोर जनजातीय समूहों (पीवीटीजी) के लिए सरकार द्वारा हाल ही में शुरू की गई कल्याणकारी योजनाओं की आलोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । समीक्षा कीजिए कि पीवीटीजी को त्रुटिवश आदिम जनजातीय समूह (पीटीजी) क्यों कहा जाता था । 20 (b) पेसा अधिनियम कैसे स्थानीय स्वशासन को सशक्त बना रहा है और महिलाओं की राजनीतिक भागीदारी को प्रभावित कर रहा है ? 15 (c) स्वायत्तता बनाए रखने हेतु भारतीय मानवशास्त्रियों द्वारा निभाई गई आलोचनात्मक भूमिका के परिप्रेक्ष्य में भारतीय मानवशास्त्र के औपनिवेशिक इतिहास का विखंडन कीजिए । 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Critically discuss

This question asks you to critically 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 'critically discuss' for part (a) demands balanced evaluation with evidence, while parts (b) and (c) require analytical exposition. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief integrated introduction → systematic treatment of each sub-part with internal conclusions → synthesizing conclusion linking tribal welfare, self-governance, and indigenous knowledge systems.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Critical evaluation of recent PVTG welfare measures (Van Dhan Vikas Yojana, PMJAY, residential schools, habitat rights under FRA) with assessment of implementation gaps
  • Part (a): Explanation of why 'Primitive' was erroneous—evolutionary baggage, stigmatization, denial of coevalness, shift to 'Particularly Vulnerable' recognizing structural vulnerability not backwardness
  • Part (b): PESA's empowerment mechanisms—Gram Sabha authority over land acquisition, minor forest produce, excise, and dispute resolution; contrast with 73rd Amendment exclusions
  • Part (b): Gendered impact analysis—reservation for women in Gram Sabha and executive committees, actual participation barriers (patriarchal norms, proxy representation), cases like Mendha-Lekha vs. tokenism
  • Part (c): Colonial phase—survey ethnography (Risley, Thurston), racial typologies, administrative instrumentality; post-colonial critique by Indian anthropologists
  • Part (c): Indian anthropologists' autonomy efforts—D.N. Majumdar's caste-tribe synthesis, L.P. Vidyarthi's ecosystem approach, S.C. Dube's village studies, M.N. Srinivas's structural-functionalism indigenization
  • Part (c): Institutional autonomy—Tribal Research Institutes, Anthropological Survey of India's post-Independence reorientation, decolonizing methodology

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise definitions: PVTG criteria (population size, pre-agricultural technology, declining numbers), PESA's Schedule V applicability, distinction between 'primitive' as evolutionary category vs. 'vulnerable' as structural condition; accurate identification of colonial anthropological traditions (British vs. French influences)Basic definitions present but conflates PVTG with ST generally, vague on PESA's specific provisions, treats colonial and post-colonial anthropology as undifferentiated continuumConfuses PVTG with PTG as mere renaming without conceptual critique, misidentifies PESA applicability (applies to Schedule VI areas), attributes post-colonial developments to colonial scholars
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys Fabian's 'denial of coevalness' for PTG critique; uses Lefebvre's spatial theory or Gramscian civil society for PESA; applies Asad's 'colonial encounter' and Viswanathan's 'masks of conquest' for anthropology's history; demonstrates theoretical self-awarenessMentions theoretical concepts (evolutionism, structural-functionalism) descriptively without analytical application; standard textbook framing without critical engagementAbsence of theoretical framework; purely factual narration; confuses theoretical traditions (e.g., attributes structural-functionalism to colonial administrators)
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10Specific PVTG illustrations: Jarawas, Sentinelese, Onge, Great Andamanese, Shompens for part (a); state-specific PESA implementation (Jharkhand's Pathalgadi movement, Maharashtra's Mendha-Lekha); specific scholars' contributions (Elwin's advocacy, Ghurye's critique, Vidyarthi's Maler, Dube's Shamirpet)Generic tribal references without PVTG specificity; mentions PESA without concrete case studies; names scholars without specifying their methodological contributionsNo ethnographic grounding; hypothetical or invented examples; anachronistic attributions; confuses Indian and non-Indian anthropologists
Comparative analysis20%10Compares pre- and post-2006 PVTG policy regimes; contrasts PESA with Sixth Schedule provisions; compares colonial 'objective' ethnography with post-colonial 'participatory' methods; evaluates continuity vs. rupture in Indian anthropology's institutional trajectorySimple chronological narration without analytical comparison; lists differences without evaluating their significance; misses structural comparisons between policy instrumentsNo comparative element; treats each sub-part in isolation; false comparisons (e.g., equating PESA with FRA without distinction)
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes three sub-parts into coherent argument about tribal agency and knowledge production; proposes concrete policy recommendations (PVTG-specific disaggregated data, PESA capacity building, community archives); reflects on anthropology's public role; anticipates counter-argumentsSummarizes main points without synthesis; generic recommendations without specificity; no reflexive engagement with anthropology's contemporary relevanceAbsent or abrupt conclusion; mere restatement of question; no applied or forward-looking dimension; conclusion limited to one sub-part only

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 2024 Paper II