Anthropology 2024 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Write short notes

Q5

Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) B.K. Roy Burman's concept of 'Buffer Zone' 10 (b) Describe ILO's Convention No. 169 (1989) on Indigenous and Tribal people. Is India a signatory to it ? 10 (c) Agricultural practices of the Apatani 10 (d) Status of Sixth Schedule Areas 10 (e) Constitutional Safeguards for Backward Classes 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक पर लगभग 150 शब्दों में लघु टिप्पणियाँ लिखिए : 10×5=50 (a) बी.के. रॉय बर्मन की 'बफर जोन' की अवधारणा 10 (b) स्वदेशी और जनजातीय लोगों पर आईएलओ के सम्मेलन संख्या 169 (1989) का वर्णन कीजिए । क्या भारत इस पर हस्ताक्षरकर्ता है ? 10 (c) आपातानी की कृषि पद्धतियाँ 10 (d) छठी अनुसूची क्षेत्रों की प्रस्थिति 10 (e) पिछड़े वर्गों के लिए संवैधानिक सुरक्षा के उपाय 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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 with approximately 30 words per mark. Allocate roughly 30 words (20% time) per sub-part since all carry equal 10 marks: for (a) define Buffer Zone with its policy implications; for (b) outline ILO 169's key provisions and explicitly state India's non-signatory status with reasons; for (c) focus on paddy-cum-fish cultivation and bamboo irrigation; for (d) cover Autonomous District Councils and current amendments; for (e) distinguish between SC/ST and OBC safeguards citing Articles 338A, 342A. No introduction or conclusion needed across parts; begin each note directly with the core concept.

Key points expected

(a) B.K. Roy Burman's Buffer Zone: Concept of intermediate zone between core tribal areas and plains; socio-cultural and economic buffer function; relevance to tribal development policy and integration debates
(b) ILO Convention 169: Right to self-identification, land rights, consultation (not consent), participation in decision-making; India NOT a signatory—cites sovereignty concerns and existing constitutional provisions as alternatives
(c) Apatani agricultural practices: Wet rice cultivation in Ziro valley; paddy-cum-fish farming; bamboo drip irrigation; permanent settled agriculture contrasting with jhum; sustainable ecosystem management
(d) Sixth Schedule Areas: Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram; legislative, judicial, developmental powers; 125th Constitutional Amendment Bill 2019 provisions; current implementation gaps
(e) Constitutional safeguards for Backward Classes: National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) under 102nd Amendment 2018; Articles 338A, 342A; distinction from SC/ST safeguards; creamy layer exclusion; state vs central list dynamics

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precise definitions across all five notes: for (a) correctly identifies Buffer Zone as transitional socio-economic space; for (b) accurately distinguishes ILO 169 from 107 and states India's non-signatory status unambiguously; for (c) correctly terms Apatani system as wet rice cultivation not jhum; for (d) accurately lists all four states under Sixth Schedule; for (e) correctly identifies 102nd Amendment provisions	Generally accurate but with minor errors: vague Buffer Zone definition, conflates ILO 169 with 107, misidentifies Apatani agriculture as 'advanced jhum', omits one Sixth Schedule state, or confuses NCBC constitutional status	Major conceptual errors: describes Buffer Zone as geographical feature only, claims India signed ILO 169, calls Apatani nomadic pastoralists, includes Nagaland in Sixth Schedule, or states OBC commission under Article 340
Theoretical framing	20%	10	Appropriate theoretical anchoring: for (a) links to integration vs isolation debate and D.N. Majumdar's zone theory; for (b) connects to indigenous rights discourse and UN Declaration framework; for (c) references sustainable agriculture theory and ecological anthropology; for (d) applies federalism and asymmetric autonomy concepts; for (e) situates within social justice and representation theories	Limited theoretical engagement: mentions policy context without explicit framework, notes 'tribal rights' generically, describes agriculture technically without theoretical lens, lists powers without federalism analysis, or states safeguards without justice theory	Absent or incorrect theory: no framework for any part, misapplies assimilation theory to Buffer Zone, or uses Marxist class analysis inappropriately for constitutional provisions
Ethnographic / Indian examples	20%	10	Rich ethnographic specificity: for (a) cites specific tribes in buffer zones (e.g., Hos, Mundas); for (b) contrasts India's position with Nepal/Bangladesh ratifications; for (c) details Ziro valley, bamboo channels, fish species (common carp); for (d) names specific ADCs (Karbi Anglong, Khasi Hills) and recent conflicts; for (e) cites Maratha, Jat reservation movements or specific state OBC lists	Generic or partial examples: mentions 'tribes of central India' vaguely, states 'South Asian countries' without naming, describes 'rice farming' without valley/technique specifics, lists 'northeast states' without ADC names, or mentions 'some communities' without cases	Missing or fabricated examples: no tribes named for Buffer Zone, invented ILO signatories, incorrect location of Apatani (places in Nagaland/Manipur), confuses Sixth Schedule with Fifth Schedule areas, or cites SC examples for OBC question
Comparative analysis	20%	10	Effective comparisons within word limit: for (a) contrasts Buffer Zone with core and peripheral zones; for (b) compares ILO 169 with 1989 UN Indigenous Peoples Declaration and India's PESA; for (c) compares Apatani wet cultivation with neighbouring Nishi jhum; for (d) contrasts Sixth Schedule ADCs with Fifth Schedule PESA and Article 371A (Nagaland); for (e) distinguishes OBC safeguards from SC/ST (Articles 330-334, 335)	Implicit or partial comparisons: notes differences without explicit contrast framework, mentions 'unlike other conventions' without specifying, states 'different from shifting cultivation' without naming comparators, or lists features without distinguishing from Fifth Schedule	No comparative element: treats each note in isolation, misses opportunity to contrast ILO 169 with 107, ignores jhum comparison entirely, conflates Fifth and Sixth Schedules, or lumps all backward classes safeguards together
Conclusion & applied angle	20%	10	Each note ends with applied significance: for (a) current relevance to tribal sub-plan and displacement issues; for (b) implications for India's international indigenous rights standing and domestic alternatives; for (c) lessons for sustainable agriculture and climate adaptation; for (d) contemporary challenges (125th Amendment, ADC empowerment); for (e) ongoing debates (creamy layer, EWS, sub-categorization)	Weak or generic endings: notes trail off with description, add only 'thus it is important' without specificity, or provide historical conclusion without contemporary relevance	Abrupt endings without closure: each note stops at definition/description with no forward-looking element, or misidentifies applied angle (e.g., suggests India should sign ILO 169 without acknowledging sovereignty concerns)

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 →