General Studies 2024 GS Paper I 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Evaluate

Q13

How far was the Industrial Revolution in England responsible for the decline of handicrafts and cottage industries in India? (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत में हस्तशिल्प और कुटीर उद्योगों के ह्रास के लिए इंग्लैंड की औद्योगिक क्रांति कहाँ तक उत्तरदायी थी? (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 General Studies questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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

Evaluate requires a balanced judgment on the extent of causation, not mere description. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging multiple factors → body examining IR's role through trade policy, de-industrialization, and market displacement → assessment of other factors (colonial land revenue, internal decline) → nuanced conclusion on degree of responsibility.

Key points expected

Machine-made goods from England flooded Indian markets, undercutting handloom textiles in Bengal, Dhaka, and Surat
Colonial tariff policy (zero duty on British imports, heavy duties on Indian exports) facilitated de-industrialization
Railway construction post-1850s integrated Indian markets with British manufacturing interests
Internal factors: rigid caste-based production systems, lack of technological innovation, and capital scarcity in artisan communities
Regional variations: some crafts survived through export markets (carpets, brassware) or caste patronage
Assessment of 'how far': IR was necessary but not sufficient; colonial political economy was the enabling condition

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Explicitly addresses 'how far' with a clear evaluative stance; distinguishes between direct technological impact and mediated colonial policy effects; avoids deterministic or monocausal explanations	Mentions IR's role but treats question descriptively; lists causes without assessing relative weight; conflates IR with colonialism without analytical separation	Misinterprets directive as 'describe' or 'explain'; provides narrative of IR without linking to Indian handicrafts; ignores evaluative demand entirely
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately identifies 1760-1860 as critical period; distinguishes between different craft sectors (textiles vs. metalwork); references specific policy instruments (Charter Acts, duties); acknowledges historiographical debate (Bagchi vs. Morris)	Broadly correct chronology but vague on mechanisms; conflates all handicrafts; mentions 'drain of wealth' or 'de-industrialization' without specificity; minor factual errors on tariff rates	Anachronistic or incorrect dating; confuses IR with earlier mercantile period; attributes decline solely to machine production; significant factual errors on colonial economic policy
Structure & flow	20%	3	Clear thesis in introduction; body organized by causal factors with internal evaluation; effective transitions between technological, political, and internal factors; conclusion returns to 'how far' with qualified judgment	Recognizable introduction-body-conclusion; some logical grouping but uneven weighting; abrupt shifts between factors; conclusion merely summarizes without evaluative return	Disorganized or list-like structure; no clear thesis; missing conclusion or conclusion introduces new content; word count severely imbalanced (overlong introduction or abrupt ending)
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific regional cases: Dhaka muslin decline, Surat's fate, Moradabad brass survival; quantitative hint (weaver population drop, export value shifts); contemporary observer citations (William Bentinck, Rajnarayan Basu)	Generic references to 'Bengal weavers' or 'Indian textiles' without specificity; mentions 'Tata' or later industrialization anachronistically; examples present but not integrated into argument	No concrete examples; irrelevant examples (post-1947 industrialization); fabricated statistics; examples contradict the argument made
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Sophisticated judgment: IR created technological asymmetry but colonial state determined its Indian impact; acknowledges continuity in some sectors; reflects on 'what if' or long-term structural consequences; 2-3 sentences, tight and decisive	Tentative or balanced conclusion without clear position; restates main points; acknowledges other factors but doesn't assess relative weight; generic closing on 'complex interplay'	Absurdly deterministic ('complete destruction') or denialist ('minimal impact') stance; new arguments in conclusion; missing conclusion; truism ending ('need for further research')

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 →