General Studies 2021 GS Paper III 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q8

Discuss about the vulnerability of India to earthquake related hazards. Give examples including the salient features of major disasters caused by earthquakes in different parts of India during the last three decades. (Answer in 150 words)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भूकंप संबंधित संकटों के लिए भारत की भेद्यता की विवेचना कीजिए। पिछले तीन दशकों में, भारत के विभिन्न भागों में भूकंप द्वारा उत्पन्न बड़ी आपदाओं के उदाहरण प्रमुख विशेषताओं के साथ दीजिए। (150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies 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' requires a balanced exposition of India's earthquake vulnerability followed by illustrative examples. Structure: brief introduction on seismic zones → body covering vulnerability factors (geological, demographic, infrastructural) → specific disasters from 1994-2024 across different regions → concluding observation on preparedness gaps.

Key points expected

Mention of India's location in highly seismic Zone V (Himalayan belt) and Zone IV (peninsular region), covering ~59% of land area
Vulnerability factors: population density in seismic zones, unregulated construction, poor enforcement of building codes, geological instability
1993 Latur earthquake (Maharashtra, intraplate, 6.4 magnitude, ~10,000 deaths) - salient features: shallow focus, non-engineered masonry structures
2001 Bhuj earthquake (Gujarat, 7.7 magnitude, ~20,000 deaths) - salient features: liquefaction, widespread building collapse, economic losses
2005 Kashmir earthquake (India-Pakistan border, 7.6 magnitude) - salient features: terrain difficulty in rescue, school building collapses
2015 Nepal earthquake impact on Bihar/Sikkim or 2011 Sikkim earthquake (6.9 magnitude) - salient features: landslide-triggered damage, remote area response challenges

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Clearly distinguishes between vulnerability analysis (why India is at risk) and disaster examples (what happened), addressing both parts of the compound question with equal weightage	Covers both parts but conflates vulnerability factors with disaster descriptions, or gives disproportionate space to one component	Treats only vulnerability OR only disasters, or misunderstands 'discuss' as mere listing without analytical linkage between vulnerability and actual impacts
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately identifies seismic zones (II-V), explains interplate vs intraplate distinction, and correctly states magnitudes, years, and casualty figures for cited disasters	Mentions seismic zones generally with minor factual errors (e.g., wrong magnitudes, approximate dates) or vague geological explanations	Major factual errors (wrong decades, confused disasters like mixing 2004 tsunami with earthquake data) or generic statements without zone-specific content
Structure & flow	20%	2	Logical progression: vulnerability factors → regional distribution → specific disasters with temporal spread (1990s, 2000s, 2010s) → spatial coverage (north, west, south), all within 150 words	Readable structure but uneven distribution—either too long on vulnerability leaving cramped disaster section, or disasters listed without connecting to vulnerability framework	Disorganized chronology, no paragraph breaks, or exceeds word limit significantly; disasters from same decade/region clustered without justification
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Three+ specific disasters with precise data: Latur 1993 (6.4, shallow focus, masonry collapse), Bhuj 2001 (7.7, liquefaction, economic loss ~$5 billion), and one post-2010 event with salient features explicitly noted	Two disasters named with approximate data but 'salient features' not explicitly highlighted; or three events with missing specifics	Only one disaster mentioned, or examples outside 1994-2024 window, or no salient features identified (magnitude, death toll, unique damage pattern)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Brief but sharp concluding observation linking recurring vulnerability patterns to policy gaps—e.g., 'despite zone mapping, building code enforcement remains the critical unaddressed factor' or 'intraplate earthquakes challenge conventional Himalayan-centric preparedness'	Generic conclusion like 'earthquakes are dangerous' or 'India needs preparedness' without synthesis of preceding points	No conclusion, or abrupt ending; or introduces new disasters/examples in conclusion instead of analytical closure

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 →