Anthropology 2025 Paper II 50 marks Elaborate

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." Who said this? Elaborate. 20 (b) Discuss the role of NGOs in the socioeconomic and political development of weaker sections and the manner in which they facilitate other stakeholders. 15 (c) Trace the history and describe the methods of formulating the lists of OBCs, both at the State and National levels. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "गाँव मात्र ऐसा स्थान नहीं था जहाँ लोग रहते थे; यह ऐसा अभिकल्प था जहाँ भारतीय सभ्यता के आधारभूत मूल्य प्रतिबिंबित होते थे।" यह कथन किसका था? इस कथन की विस्तारपूर्वक व्याख्या कीजिए। 20 (b) कमजोर वर्गों के सामाजिक-आर्थिक एवं राजनीतिक विकास में गैर-सरकारी संगठनों की भूमिका तथा अन्य हितधारकों को सुसाध्य बनाने के तरीकों की विवेचना कीजिए। 15 (c) अन्य पिछड़े वर्गों की सूची बनाने की प्रविधियों तथा इसके इतिहास के अनुरेखण का राज्य तथा राष्ट्र के स्तर पर वर्णन कीजिए। 15

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

Directive word: Elaborate

This question asks you to elaborate. 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 'elaborate' demands detailed expansion with supporting evidence. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction acknowledging all three dimensions of Indian social organization; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing how village studies, NGO interventions, and OBC classification collectively reflect state-society negotiations in Indian anthropology.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Attribution to M.N. Srinivas and his concept of 'village as a social system' with design reflecting hierarchy, interdependence, and sacred geography (Srinivas 1955, 1960)
  • Part (a): Elaboration of how village layout embodies caste hierarchy (dominant caste at center, 'polluting' castes at periphery), jajmani system, and ritual integration (Dumont's homo hierarchicus, Marriott's transactional analysis)
  • Part (b): NGOs' socioeconomic role in credit access (SHGs, microfinance), education, health; political role in awareness-building, legal aid, and facilitating Panchayat participation for weaker sections
  • Part (b): Facilitation mechanisms: bridging between state and community (interface NGOs), network building with CBOs, advocacy coalitions, and conflict mediation (examples: SEWA, MKSS, PRADAN)
  • Part (c): Historical trajectory from 1931 Census (caste tables) to Kaka Kalelkar Committee (1953), Mandal Commission (1979-80), and post-Mandal implementation
  • Part (c): Methods: social/educational backwardness criteria (Mandal's 11 indicators), field surveys, anthropological reports, state-level BC commissions, NCBC's role, and Supreme Court's creamy layer jurisprudence
  • Synthesis: How these three domains—village studies, civil society interventions, and affirmative action—represent successive waves of anthropological engagement with Indian social structure

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely attributes the quote to M.N. Srinivas; accurately defines 'village as social system,' correctly distinguishes between State and National OBC list mechanisms, and properly identifies NGO typologies (grassroots, intermediary, apex)Correctly identifies Srinivas but conflates with other village studies scholars (Dube, Lewis); broadly accurate on OBC history but confuses Kalelkar and Mandal timelines; generic NGO description without typological clarityMisattributes quote (e.g., to Radhakrishnan or Gandhi); fundamental errors in OBC commission chronology; conflates NGOs with government programs or social movements without analytical distinction
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys Srinivas's 'dominant caste,' Dumont's structuralism, and Marriott's transactionalism for (a); uses Putnam's social capital and civil society theory for (b); applies Galanter's 'compensatory discrimination' and Marc Galanter's legal anthropology for (c)Mentions Srinivas and Mandal Commission without deeper theoretical embedding; functional description of NGOs without civil society theory; lists OBC criteria without Galanter or Ambedkar's conceptual frameworkAbsence of theoretical scaffolding; purely descriptive treatment; no engagement with anthropological debates on village studies, development, or affirmative action
Ethnographic / Indian examples20%10For (a): cites Rampura, Shamirpet, or other village monographs; for (b): specific NGOs (SEWA, MKSS, PRADAN, Ekta Parishad) with their operational domains; for (c): concrete state-level variations (Tamil Nadu's pioneering BC list, Maharashtra's Maratha reservation issue)Generic reference to 'village studies' without specific monographs; mentions NGOs without operational specifics; lists OBC commissions without state-level illustrationsNo ethnographic grounding; hypothetical or invented examples; complete absence of Indian empirical specificity across all three parts
Comparative analysis20%10Compares Srinivas's structural-functional village with Redfield's 'little community' or Marriott's 'network' approaches; contrasts NGO service delivery with rights-based approaches; compares state-level OBC criteria variations and their political economyBrief comparison between two village studies scholars or between two NGO types; mentions variation in state OBC lists without systematic comparisonNo comparative element; treats each part in isolation; fails to connect village studies tradition with subsequent development and policy anthropology
Conclusion & applied angle20%10Synthesizes how village studies, NGO interventions, and OBC classification represent evolving anthropological engagement with Indian social structure; critically evaluates contemporary relevance (village studies in globalization era, NGO co-optation concerns, OBC sub-categorization debates); suggests forward-looking applied anthropology contributionsSummarizes three parts separately without synthesis; generic concluding statement about anthropology's relevance; no critical evaluation or contemporary applicationAbrupt ending or missing conclusion; purely descriptive summary; no applied or critical dimension

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