Anthropology 2025 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q2

(a) Discuss the palaeoanthropological significance of Siwaliks of India giving its subdivisions, fossil primate fauna and major primate fossil localities. 20 (b) Delineate the major features of S. S. Sarkar's classification of Indian populations. Was his classification better than Risley? Explain. 15 (c) Evaluate the impact of Christianity on Scheduled Tribe societies of North-East India. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारत में शिवालिक के पुरामानवशास्त्रीय महत्व की इसके प्रविभागों, प्राइमेट जीवाश्म प्राणिजातों तथा प्रमुख प्राइमेट जीवाश्म स्थलों सहित विवेचना कीजिए। 20 (b) एस. एस. सरकार द्वारा किए गए भारतीय जनसमूहों के वर्गीकरण के प्रमुख लक्षणों का निरूपण कीजिए। क्या उनका वर्गीकरण रिजले से बेहतर था? स्पष्ट कीजिए। 15 (c) उत्तर-पूर्व भारत की अनुसूचित जनजातियों पर ईसाई धर्म के प्रभाव का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Anthropology questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to 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 'discuss' demands a comprehensive, analytical treatment with balanced coverage across all three sub-parts. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) [20 marks], 30% to part (b) [15 marks], and 30% to part (c) [15 marks]. Structure as: brief introduction highlighting Siwaliks' global importance; detailed body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings; and a synthesizing conclusion connecting palaeoanthropological evidence to contemporary understanding of Indian population diversity and tribal policy.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Three Siwalik subdivisions (Lower, Middle, Upper) with geological timeframes; key primate fossils including Sivapithecus, Ramapithecus, Gigantopithecus; major localities—Ramnagar, Haritalyangar, Potwar Plateau; significance for hominoid evolution and 'Out of Asia' vs 'Out of Africa' debates
  • Part (b): Sarkar's anthropometric classification based on cephalic index, nasal index, stature; four racial types (Negrito, Proto-Australoid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid) with sub-types; comparison with Risley's seven-race typology based on nasal index; critical assessment of methodological improvements
  • Part (c): Christianity's impact on Naga, Mizo, Khasi societies—education and literacy (Nagaland's high literacy), health infrastructure, shift from shifting cultivation, cultural erosion vs empowerment; role of church in identity politics and separatism
  • Comparative dimension: Sarkar's statistical rigor vs Risley's ethnographic observations; both classifications' limitations in light of population genetics
  • Applied angle: How Siwalik findings inform conservation; how racial classifications became obsolete; how missionary activities shaped Sixth Schedule and tribal welfare policies

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10For (a): accurately dates Siwalik formations (Miocene-Pliocene), correctly identifies Sivapithecus indicus as ancestor to orangutans not humans, names specific fossil sites; for (b): precisely defines Sarkar's anthropometric indices and four racial categories; for (c): distinguishes between Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian missions and their regional concentrationsBroadly correct on Siwalik subdivisions and primate names; mentions Sarkar's four races without explaining measurement basis; general statements on Christianity's impact without denominational or tribal specificityConfuses Ramapithecus with human ancestor, misidentifies Siwalik geological periods, conflates Sarkar with Guha's classification, makes sweeping claims about Christian conversion without evidence
Theoretical framing20%10For (a): situates Siwaliks within Simpson's evolutionary synthesis and debates on hominoid origins; for (b): explains typological race theory's scientific context and subsequent critique from population genetics (Dobzhansky, Lewontin); for (c): applies Sahlins' 'structure of conjuncture' or conceptualizes impact through modernization vs dependency theory frameworksMentions evolutionary significance without theoretical depth; describes Sarkar's method without contextualizing racial anthropology's history; lists positive and negative impacts without theoretical framingNo theoretical framework; presents racial classifications as current science; describes Christian impact purely descriptively without analytical concepts
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10For (a): cites specific specimens (GSP 15000, YPM 13813) and excavators (Pilgrim, Lewis, Barry); for (b): references Sarkar's 1954, 1958 publications and original field data from Bengal, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh; for (c): specific tribal examples—Naga Baptist church's role in statehood movement, Mizo Presbyterianism, Khasi matriliny-Christianity interaction, comparative literacy statisticsNames some fossil sites and general regions for Sarkar's work; mentions Nagas and Mizos without specific denominational or historical details; no quantitative data on literacy or health outcomesVague references like 'some fossils found'; no specific populations for Sarkar; generic 'tribes of North-East' without naming any group or concrete impact
Comparative analysis20%10For (b): systematic comparison—Sarkar's 12 measurements vs Risley's nasal index alone; larger sample size (5,000+ vs ethnographic estimation); statistical vs impressionistic methods; acknowledges both share typological limitations; for (c): compares Christian impact across tribes (Naga political mobilization vs Mizo cultural preservation) and contrasts with non-Christian tribes (Mishmi, Dafla)States Sarkar is 'better' without detailed comparison; brief mention of Risley's seven races; some contrast between Christian and non-Christian tribes but not systematically developedNo comparison between Sarkar and Risley; treats all North-East tribes as homogeneous; no comparative dimension within or across sub-parts
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes three parts: Siwalik evidence contributes to understanding human biological diversity in South Asia; racial classifications, however improved, gave way to molecular anthropology; Christian missionary legacy informs current tribal development policies and identity politics. Suggests policy relevance: geo-heritage conservation for Siwaliks, genetic research replacing racial categories, church-state partnerships in tribal welfareSummarizes each part separately without integration; brief mention of relevance to anthropology or policy without developmentNo conclusion or abrupt ending; no applied or policy dimension; fails to connect the three sub-parts thematically

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