General Studies 2021 GS Paper I 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Differentiate

Q4

Differentiate the causes of landslides in the Himalayan region and Western Ghats. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

हिमालय क्षेत्र तथा पश्चिमी घाटों में भू-स्खलनों के विभिन्न कारणों का अंतर स्पष्ट कीजिए । (150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies questions

Directive word: Differentiate

This question asks you to differentiate. 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 'differentiate' requires clear distinction between causal factors in two distinct physiographic regions. Structure as: brief intro stating both regions' landslide vulnerability → comparative body using parallel sub-headings (geological, climatic, anthropogenic) → concise conclusion on regional specificity of mitigation.

Key points expected

Himalayan causes: young fold mountains, tectonic activity, seismicity, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), permafrost thaw, deforestation in steep slopes
Western Ghats causes: older stable shield, laterite soil instability, intense orographic rainfall (especially SW monsoon), mining/quarrying in Kerala-Karnataka sections, road widening
Geological contrast: sedimentary/igneous metamorphic vs. basaltic Deccan traps with differential weathering
Climatic distinction: freeze-thaw cycles and snowmelt in Himalayas vs. saturation-induced debris flows in Ghats
Human dimension: hydropower projects, Char Dham road expansion in Himalayas vs. plantation agriculture, tourism infrastructure in Ghats
Comparative insight: Himalayas more seismically driven, Ghats more rainfall-triggered

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Explicitly contrasts causes rather than listing separately; uses comparative markers (while, whereas, unlike); maintains analytical distinction throughout, not mere juxtaposition	Lists causes for each region separately with minimal explicit comparison; some comparative intent visible but not systematically executed	Describes landslides in both regions without differentiating causes; treats as two independent descriptions or conflates the regions
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately identifies tectonic vs. cratonic geology, seismic vs. pluvial triggers, permafrost vs. laterite soil mechanics; no factual errors on regional geography	Covers basic geological and climatic differences but misses specific mechanisms (e.g., GLOFs, orographic intensity); minor geographical inaccuracies	Confuses geological characteristics (e.g., calling both tectonically active); attributes Himalayan causes to Ghats or vice versa; significant factual errors
Structure & flow	20%	2	Parallel structure enabling instant comparison (e.g., tectonic/climatic/anthropogenic factors for both); smooth transitions; 150-word discipline maintained	Logical organization but uneven comparison; either region dominates or structure alternates block-wise rather than point-wise; minor word limit deviation	Disorganized or fragmented; no discernible comparative architecture; significantly over/under word limit; poor paragraphing
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Specific instances: Kedarnath 2013/2023 Joshimath (Himalayas); Munnar 2020, Idukki 2018, Amboli Ghat (Western Ghats); references to GSI landslide zonation or ISRO reports	General regional references without specific events; or one region well-illustrated while other lacks examples	No examples; irrelevant or invented case references; examples cited without connecting to causal differentiation
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Synthesizes that Himalayas need seismic-resistant infrastructure and GLOF monitoring while Ghats require slope drainage and regulated quarrying; hints at differential vulnerability mapping	Generic conclusion on landslide mitigation; or restates differences without inferring policy implications	No conclusion; abrupt ending; or conclusion that contradicts body; purely descriptive closing without analytical synthesis

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 →