General Studies 2022 GS Paper I 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Analyse

Q10

Given the diversities among tribal communities in India, in which specific contexts should they be considered as a single category ? (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत के जनजातीय समुदायों की विविधताओं को देखते हुए किस विशिष्ट संदर्भ के अंतर्गत उन्हें किसी एकल श्रेणी में माना जाना चाहिए ? (150 शब्दों में उत्तर दें)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 General Studies questions

Directive word: Analyse

This question asks you to analyse. 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 'analyse' requires breaking down the contexts where tribal communities function as a unified category despite their heterogeneity. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging diversity → body analysing 3-4 specific contexts (constitutional, policy, rights-based, developmental) → conclusion with critical insight on balancing unity and diversity.

Key points expected

Constitutional context: Scheduled Tribes as a single category under Articles 342, 330, 332 for political representation and affirmative action
Policy context: Tribal sub-plan (TSP) approach, Ministry of Tribal Affairs interventions treating STs uniformly for resource allocation
Rights context: Forest Rights Act 2006, PESA 1996 where 'tribal' identity enables collective rights against external exploitation
Developmental context: Health/educational indices (NFHS, Census) where STs are aggregated for targeted welfare schemes
Critical nuance: Recognition that 'single category' is instrumental for empowerment but risks homogenizing distinct cultural-ecological adaptations
Balanced conclusion suggesting context-specific unity versus diversity-sensitive approaches

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Correctly interprets 'analyse' as deconstructing specific contexts where tribal unity serves functional purposes; does not merely list diversities or advocate blanket uniformity	Partially addresses the 'single category' aspect but drifts into describing tribal diversity without analytical linkage to unity contexts	Misreads directive as 'describe' or 'discuss' tribal diversity; fails to identify why/when single category framing is deployed
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Covers constitutional, legislative, policy and data contexts with precise references (Article 342, TSP, FRA, PESA); acknowledges instrumental versus substantive rationales	Mentions 2-3 contexts correctly but lacks depth on constitutional basis or conflates STs with SCs/OBCs; minor factual errors	Superficial treatment with generic statements; confuses tribal categories or cites irrelevant provisions; ignores the 'despite diversity' framing
Structure & flow	20%	2	Logical progression: diversity acknowledged → unity contexts analysed with clear categorization (political/constitutional, administrative, rights-based) → synthesis; tight 150-word discipline	Adequate structure but uneven weightage; either over-elaborates diversity or rushes through unity contexts; minor coherence issues	Disorganized or lopsided (excessive diversity description); abrupt transitions; exceeds word limit significantly or severely underwrites
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Specific illustrations: Dhebar Commission on TSP, Samatha v. State of AP (1997) on tribal land rights, Census 2011 ST population data, or state-specific TSP implementation	Generic mention of 'reservations' or 'FRA' without specificity; or examples only from one domain (e.g., only constitutional)	No concrete examples; or factually wrong references (e.g., confusing ST with SC quotas, misdating PESA)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Critical insight: single category as strategic essentialism (Spivak) enabling collective bargaining, but need for sub-categorization (PVTGs, region-specific) to prevent elite capture; forward-looking	Balanced but descriptive conclusion restating points; or simplistic 'unity in diversity' platitude without analytical depth	No conclusion; or abrupt ending; or contradicts own analysis by advocating complete uniformity or absolute fragmentation

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 →