Economics 2024 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Mention the items of 'Economic Drain' from India as conceived by Dadabhai Naoroji. (10 marks) (b) Discuss why the railway system developed by the East India Company went against the Indian interest. (10 marks) (c) Discuss why 'Laissez Faire' was not good for India during the pre-independence India. (10 marks) (d) Describe why farmers derived little benefits from the commercialisation of agriculture in pre-independence India. (10 marks) (e) What are the implications of "PM-Kisan Samman Nidhi" scheme ? (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में लिखिए : (a) दादाभाई नौरोजी द्वारा विचारित भारत से 'आर्थिक निकास' (Economic Drain) की अवधारणा में सम्मिलित मदों का उल्लेख कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) विवेचना कीजिए कि ईस्ट इंडिया कंपनी के द्वारा विकसित रेलवे व्यवस्था क्यों भारत के हितों के विरुद्ध गयी । (10 अंक) (c) विवेचना कीजिए कि स्वतंत्रता-पूर्व भारत में अहस्तक्षेप नीति भारत के लिए क्यों अच्छी नहीं थी । (10 अंक) (d) वर्णन कीजिए कि स्वतंत्रता-पूर्व भारत में कृषि के वाणिज्यीकरण से किसानों को क्यों अल्प लाभ ही प्राप्त हुआ । (10 अंक) (e) "पी. एम. किसान-सम्मान निधि" योजना के क्या निहितार्थ हैं ? (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Economics 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 question demands a multi-part response with varying directives: 'mention' for (a), 'discuss' for (b) and (c), 'describe' for (d), and 'what are the implications' for (e). Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words total), spending roughly equal time on each since all carry 10 marks. Structure each sub-part as: direct answer to the directive → 2-3 specific points with evidence → brief concluding link to broader colonial or contemporary relevance.

Key points expected

  • (a) Naoroji's drain items: remittances by European officials, pensions/furloughs, India Office expenses, railway/irrigation profits to Britain, interest on public debt, private remittances, cost of foreign wars
  • (b) Railway anti-Indian interests: freight structure favoring British imports, capital raised in London with guaranteed returns, drain of resources, destruction of indigenous industries, limited employment for Indians
  • (c) Laissez-faire failure: absence of state intervention in famines (Bengal 1943), neglect of irrigation, deindustrialization, lack of protective tariffs for infant industries, contrast with successful state-led development elsewhere
  • (d) Commercialization without benefits: forced cash crops, indebtedness to moneylenders, export of surplus rather than local consumption, price fluctuations hurting farmers, land revenue pressure, subsistence crisis
  • (e) PM-KISAN implications: income support for 11 crore farmers, reduced debt burden, consumption stimulus in rural economy, digital payment infrastructure, gender dimensions (land ownership issues), complementarity with other schemes

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness25%12.5Precisely defines 'drain theory' with Naoroji's 1867 and 1901 works; correctly identifies guaranteed railway returns (5% interest); distinguishes between classical laissez-faire and its colonial distortion; accurately describes PM-KISAN as direct benefit transfer of ₹6,000/yearLists drain items superficially; mentions railways without specific financial mechanisms; vague reference to 'no government help'; describes commercialization without linking to zamindari/ryotwari; states PM-KISAN amount incorrectlyConfuses drain theory with other nationalist economists; treats railways as unambiguously positive; conflates laissez-faire with free trade benefits; ignores structural causes of farmer exploitation; fundamental errors on PM-KISAN eligibility/amount
Diagram / model10%5Uses simple flow diagram showing drain mechanism (India → Britain); or depicts terms of trade deterioration graphically; sketches PM-KISAN benefit transfer chainMentions circular flow of income without diagram; describes but does not illustrate structural relationshipsNo attempt at visual representation where appropriate; misdraws or mislabels any attempted diagram
Quantitative reasoning15%7.5Cites Naoroji's estimate of £30 million annual drain; references railway guaranteed returns of 5% vs 2% in Britain; notes PM-KISAN covers 11 crore farmers with ₹75,000 crore annual outlay; uses specific famine mortality figuresApproximate figures without sources; vague 'millions' or 'crores' without specificity; correct PM-KISAN amount but no coverage dataNo quantitative data; invented statistics; order of magnitude errors (e.g., PM-KISAN as ₹60,000)
Indian / empirical examples25%12.5For (a): references R.C. Dutt's corroboration; (b) cites specific lines (GIPR, EIR) and their financing; (c) contrasts with Mysore/Baroda princely state intervention; (d) uses indigo, opium, or cotton specific regions; (e) cites state-level implementation variationsGeneric references to 'British rule' or 'farmers suffered'; mentions famines without specifics; no regional differentiation for PM-KISANNo specific examples from any sub-part; anachronistic examples; irrelevant contemporary references for historical parts
Policy implication25%12.5For historical parts: draws explicit lessons for post-independence planning (state-led industrialization, Green Revolution, railway nationalization); for (e): analyzes PM-KISAN's limitations (exclusion of landless tenants), complementarity with e-NAM, need for procurement reform, and contrast with basic income debatesBrief mention that colonial exploitation led to poverty; states PM-KISAN 'helps farmers' without analytical depth on design or gapsNo policy lessons from historical analysis; treats PM-KISAN in isolation from broader agricultural policy; no critical perspective on implementation challenges

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 Economics 2024 Paper II