Q8
(a) Describe the nature of traditional socioeconomic interdependence among the Toda, Kota, Kurumba and Irula tribes of Nilgiri Hills. Highlight the changes occurring in these interrelationships. 20 (b) Define minority. Elaborate the patterns of linguistic and religious minorities in India. 15 (c) What are the identifying criteria for PVTGs in India? Examine their current status, nomenclature and distribution. 15
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) नीलगिरि पर्वतों की टोडा, कोटा, कुरुम्बा तथा इरुला जनजातियों की परम्परागत सामाजिक-आर्थिक परस्पर निर्भरता की प्रकृति का विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए। इन अन्तर्सम्बन्धों में आए परिवर्तनों पर प्रकाश डालिए। 20 (b) अल्पसंख्यक की परिभाषा दीजिए। भारत में अल्पसंख्यकों के भाषाई तथा धार्मिक प्रतिमानों की विस्तारपूर्वक व्याख्या कीजिए। 15 (c) भारत में पी० वी० टी० जी० की पहचान के क्या आधार हैं? इनकी वर्तमान प्रस्थिति, नामावली तथा विस्तार का परीक्षण कीजिए। 15
Directive word: Describe
This question asks you to describe. 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 'describe' in part (a) demands detailed portrayal of the Toda-Kota-Kurumba-Irula interdependence system, while 'elaborate' in (b) and 'examine' in (c) require explanatory depth and critical assessment respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sectional bodies addressing each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a unified conclusion linking tribal interdependence, minority status, and PVTG vulnerability to contemporary development challenges.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Ritual-economic interdependence among Nilgiri tribes—Toda (pastoral/buffalo), Kota (artisan/musician), Kurumba (shaman/forest produce), Irula (agricultural labour)—with ceremonial exchanges (kash-tokh, teymisi) and hierarchical jajmani-like relationships
- Part (a): Post-colonial and post-Independence disruptions—land alienation, Shola forest degradation, wage labour substitution, tourism commodification, and breakdown of ritual obligations
- Part (b): Sociological definition of minority (numerical inferiority + structural disadvantage, not merely numerical), distinguishing from ethnic group; constitutional safeguards under Articles 29-30
- Part (b): Linguistic minorities—Dravidian vs Indo-Aryan tensions, Hindi imposition, state reorganisation, Sixth Schedule areas; Religious minorities—Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist patterns, Sachar Committee findings, regional concentrations
- Part (c): PVTG identification criteria—pre-agricultural technology, zero/negative population growth, extremely low literacy, subsistence economy, identified by Dhebar Commission and Lokur Committee
- Part (c): Current status—75 PVTGs across 18 states/UTs, nomenclature shift from PTG to PVTG (2006), habitat specificity (Andamanese, Birhor, Kamar), implementation gaps in micro-projects and habitat rights
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precisely defines minority beyond numerical count (incorporating power asymmetry); accurately distinguishes PVTG from ST using Lokur Committee criteria; correctly identifies ritual-economic specialisation (Toda dairying, Kota smithing) and ceremonial exchange terms in Nilgiri system | Basic definitions of minority and PVTG without conceptual nuance; general description of tribal occupations without specific exchange mechanisms; some confusion between PTG and PVTG nomenclature | Conflates minority with small population alone; misidentifies PVTG criteria or omits key identifying features; factual errors about tribal roles (e.g., calling Kota pastoralists) or geographic location |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | Applies Dumont's hierarchical reciprocity or Sahlins' reciprocity continuum for Nilgiri interdependence; uses Thapar's or Beteille's framework on minority-majority relations; references Dhebar/Lokur/Bhuria Commission theoretical foundations for PVTG classification | Mentions theoretical concepts without systematic application; generic reference to 'jajmani system' without specifying Nilgiri variations; lists commissions without analytical linkage | No theoretical framework; purely descriptive treatment; misapplies concepts (e.g., calling Nilgiri system 'caste' without qualification) |
| Ethnographic / Indian examples | 20% | 10 | Cites Rivers, Emeneau or Walker on Toda institutions; specific PVTG illustrations (Jarawa, Onge, Birhor, Kamar, Korwa); regional minority patterns—Kashmiri Pandits, Northeast Christian minorities, Urdu-speaking Muslims in UP/Bihar, linguistic minorities in Assam or Maharashtra | General reference to 'tribes of Nilgiris' without specific ethnographic authority; lists PVTG names without habitat specificity; broad regional references without concrete cases | No ethnographic specifics; invented or incorrect examples; confuses Nilgiri tribes with other groups (e.g., Gond, Bhil) |
| Comparative analysis | 20% | 10 | Compares traditional vs. contemporary Nilgiri relations showing structural transformation; contrasts constitutional minority protections with PVTG-specific micro-projects; compares inter-tribal interdependence in Nilgiris with other symbiotic systems (e.g., Khasi-Jaintia, Central Indian Gond-Baiga) | Simple before-after contrast without analytical depth; lists differences between minority and PVTG without systematic comparison; no cross-regional or cross-tribal comparisons | No comparative element; treats each part in isolation; fails to identify changes in interdependence or distinguish policy regimes |
| Conclusion & applied angle | 20% | 10 | Synthesises three sub-parts through vulnerability continuum—structural interdependence (Nilgiri), political marginalisation (minorities), extreme precarity (PVTGs); proposes integrated policy recommendations (habitat rights, linguistic autonomy, sustainable livelihoods); critically evaluates current tribal policy effectiveness | Separate conclusions for each part without integration; generic policy suggestions; no critical evaluation of implementation gaps | No conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive closure; no applied or policy 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
- 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…