Q1
Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) 'Soanian cultural' tradition (b) Caste domination, factionalism and political power (c) Regionalism and Autonomy (d) Verrier Elwin's philosophy with respect to Arunachal Pradesh (e) Characteristics and communication between Little and Great Traditions
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक पर लगभग 150 शब्दों में लघु टिप्पणी लिखिए : 10×5=50 (a) 'सोहन संस्कृति' परम्परा (b) जातिगत वर्चस्व, गुटबंदी एवं राजनीतिक शक्ति (c) क्षेत्रवाद तथा स्वायत्तता (d) अरुणाचल प्रदेश के संदर्भ में वेरियर एल्विन का दर्शन (e) लघु तथा बृहद् परम्पराओं के लक्षण एवं उनके बीच संचार
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 precise definitions and key illustrations. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 total): ~25-30 words each for (a) Soanian culture (Pleistocene tool tradition), (b) caste-politics nexus (Kothari's 'Congress system'), (c) regionalism-autonomy interface (Article 370/371), (d) Elwin's 'leave them alone' vs 'controlled integration' debate, and (e) Redfield's Little-Great Tradition model with Sanskritization. Structure each note as: definition → key feature → Indian example → brief significance.
Key points expected
- (a) Soanian: Lower Paleolithic chopper-chopping tool tradition; Soan/Sohan river valley (Pakistan/India); pre-Acheulian; associated with Pleistocene deposits; contrast with Madrasian industry
- (b) Caste domination: Dominant caste concept (Srinivas); factional politics (Reddy-Kamma conflicts in Andhra); vote bank mobilization; caste associations as interest groups; political vertical integration
- (c) Regionalism: Linguistic states movement; sub-regional demands (Gorkhaland, Bodoland); autonomy spectrum—administrative to political; Sixth Schedule vs Article 371A; development disparities
- (d) Elwin's philosophy: 'Leave them alone' (NEFA policy); later shift to 'controlled change'; criticism of assimilationist models; tribal rights advocacy; legacy in Fifth/Sixth Schedule protections
- (e) Little-Great Traditions: Redfield-Singer model; universalization-parochialization; Sanskritization as upward communication; Great Tradition's regional variants; folk-classical continuum
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precisely defines Soanian as Lower Paleolithic chopper tradition (not Neolithic), distinguishes dominant caste from caste dominance, correctly identifies Elwin's policy evolution from isolation to controlled integration, and accurately presents Redfield's bidirectional model without conflating Little-Great with folk-urban continuum | Broadly correct definitions but conflates Soanian with Sohan culture chronology, treats caste domination synonymously with hierarchy, presents Elwin's position as static isolationism, or describes Little-Great Traditions unidirectionally | Fundamental errors: Soanian as Neolithic culture, caste domination as Varna system only, Elwin as Christian missionary imposing change, or Little-Great Traditions as Dumont's hierarchy |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | Deploys appropriate theorists: De Terra-Paterson for Soanian stratigraphy; Kothari's 'Congress system' or Brass's factionalism models for (b); Mitra's 'regionalism as process' for (c); Elwin's own writings (A Philosophy for NEFA) for (d); Redfield-Singer-Mariott for (e) with parochialization-universalization dynamics | Mentions Srinivas for caste or Redfield for traditions without elaborating mechanisms; generic reference to 'tribal policy' for Elwin without philosophical specificity; acknowledges regionalism without theoretical anchoring | No theoretical framework: purely descriptive accounts, anachronistic application of concepts, or complete omission of Redfield/Elwin/Srinivas where central to the sub-part |
| Ethnographic / Indian examples | 20% | 10 | Specific illustrations: Soanian sites (Hoshiarpur, Chauntra); state-level cases—Reddy-Kamma (Andhra), Maratha-Kunbi (Maharashtra) for factionalism; Nagaland/Mizoram autonomy movements; Elwin's NEFA administration experience; village studies (Singer's Madras, Marriott's Kishan Garhi) for tradition communication | Generic references to 'tribal areas' or 'South Indian villages' without specificity; mentions linguistic states but not particular movements; acknowledges caste in politics without concrete cases | No Indian examples, or inappropriate ones: Harappan for Soanian, Jajmani system for political factionalism, or Elwin's work in Central India (he worked in NEFA/Nagaland, not Bastar) |
| Comparative analysis | 20% | 10 | Explicit comparisons: Soanian vs Madrasian/Paleolithic traditions; caste-based vs class-based factionalism; regionalism vs sub-regionalism (e.g., Assam vs Bodo); Elwin vs Ghurye (isolation vs integration); Little-Great as dynamic process vs static binary, with Sanskritization vs Westernization as alternative pathways | Implicit contrasts without explicit framing; mentions alternatives without systematic comparison; treats sub-parts in isolation without cross-referencing (e.g., caste and regionalism as overlapping identity markers) | No comparative element; treats each sub-part as isolated fact; fails to contrast Elwin's early-late positions or misses that Little-Great model explains caste/regional variation itself |
| Conclusion & applied angle | 20% | 10 | Each note closes with contemporary relevance: Soanian's significance for South Asian paleoanthropology; caste-politics nexus in current electoral strategies; autonomy demands in NE/J&K post-2019; Elwin's legacy in PESA/FRA debates; Little-Great framework for understanding cultural globalization and resistance | Brief sign-off statements without substantive connection to present; generic 'relevant today' without specifying how; or abrupt endings without synthesis | No conclusion per sub-part; trails off with ellipsis or incomplete sentences; or adds irrelevant personal opinion unsupported by anthropological evidence |
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 2025 Paper II
- Q1 Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) 'Soanian cultural' tradition (b) Caste domination, factionalism an…
- Q2 (a) Discuss the palaeoanthropological significance of Siwaliks of India giving its subdivisions, fossil primate fauna and major primate fos…
- Q3 (a) Describe the distinctive features and distribution of Upper Palaeolithic of India. 20 (b) Examine the environmental and biocultural fac…
- Q4 (a) What are the different types of caste mobility in India? Highlight the various factors responsible for it. 20 (b) Elucidate the role of…
- Q5 Write short notes on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Impact of urbanization and industrialization on tribal communities…
- Q6 (a) "The village was not merely a place where people lived; it had a design in which were reflected the basic values of Indian civilization…
- Q7 (a) Identify the contemporary limitations in the process of tribal development. How can anthropological knowledge contribute in this proces…
- Q8 (a) Describe the nature of traditional socioeconomic interdependence among the Toda, Kota, Kurumba and Irula tribes of Nilgiri Hills. Highl…