General Studies 2025 GS Paper I 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Evaluate

Q20

Does tribal development in India centre around two axes, those of displacement and of rehabilitation ? Give your opinion. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

क्या भारत में जनजातीय विकास दो धुरियों, विस्थापन और पुनर्वास के इर्द-गिर्द केंद्रित है ? अपने विचार व्यक्त कीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए) 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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

The directive 'Give your opinion' combined with the analytical framing requires a balanced evaluation of whether tribal development is indeed structured around displacement and rehabilitation as twin axes. The answer should open with a nuanced thesis, examine both axes with evidence, consider counter-perspectives (autonomous development, PESA, FRA), and conclude with a synthesized judgment on whether this dual-axis framework captures the reality or is reductive.

Key points expected

Recognition that displacement (development-induced, conservation-induced, conflict-induced) has been a dominant experience for tribal communities since colonial era and post-independence projects
Analysis of rehabilitation as a reactive, often inadequate state response—citing R&R policies, SC judgments on land-for-land compensation, and gaps in implementation
Critical evaluation of whether these two axes are central or whether they obscure other development pathways: constitutional safeguards (5th/6th Schedules), PESA, FRA 2006, tribal sub-plan, Van Dhan Vikas Yojana
Examination of the tension between 'integrationist' vs 'isolationist' vs 'empowerment' approaches to tribal development
Specific case references: Sardar Sarovar (Narmada Bachao Andolan), Polavaram, mining displacements in Odisha/Chhattisgarh/Jharkhand, or positive models like Kerala's tribal development
Balanced conclusion: acknowledging displacement-rehabilitation as significant but arguing for a paradigm shift toward rights-based, agency-driven development

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Frames the 'two axes' proposition as a hypothesis to be tested rather than accepted; clearly distinguishes between empirical description (displacement occurs) and normative evaluation (whether development should centre on these axes); maintains critical distance while forming a reasoned opinion	Accepts the premise of two axes somewhat uncritically; offers opinion but without sufficient interrogation of the question's framing; conflates description of problems with evaluation of the development model	Misreads directive as purely descriptive; lists displacement and rehabilitation examples without forming an opinion; or gives unsupported assertion without engaging with the 'centre around' claim
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Demonstrates layered understanding: distinguishes types of displacement (dams, mining, forests, urbanization); critiques rehabilitation policy evolution (1985 policy to 2013 RFCTLARR Act); accurately references constitutional and legal safeguards; shows awareness of scholarly debates (Fernandes, Xaxa Committee, Virginius Xaxa on development models)	Covers basic displacement examples and rehabilitation schemes; mentions FRA/PESA but without depth; some factual inaccuracies or outdated policy references; limited engagement with alternative development frameworks	Superficial treatment with generic statements about 'tribals displaced'; confuses rehabilitation with welfare schemes; significant factual errors on constitutional provisions or recent policies; ignores the 'development' dimension entirely
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression: thesis statement → evidence for displacement-rehabilitation axis → counter-evidence (other development approaches) → synthesis → conclusion; smooth transitions between sections; each paragraph advances the evaluative argument; effective use of 250-word constraint	Recognizable introduction-body-conclusion structure but uneven weightage; some paragraphs drift between description and evaluation; transitions functional but mechanical; conclusion somewhat repetitive of introduction	Disorganized or list-like structure; no clear thesis; abrupt shifts between unrelated points; missing conclusion or forced ending; poor paragraphing that obscures argument
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Specific, diverse illustrations: Narmada/Sardar Sarovar (displacement scale), Samata Judgment 1997 (mining in tribal areas), RFCTLARR Act 2013 provisions, FRA 2006 implementation gaps, recent data on tribal land alienation or rehabilitation colonies; possibly Xaxa Committee recommendations; examples serve analytical purpose not mere decoration	Some relevant examples but limited specificity (e.g., 'many dams' without naming); mentions SC judgments without details; no recent data or policy references; examples illustrate rather than advance evaluation	No concrete examples; or irrelevant/inaccurate references; generic 'tribals are poor' statements without evidentiary basis; examples from non-Indian contexts without relevance established
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes into a nuanced position: acknowledges displacement-rehabilitation as historically dominant but argues for decentering this paradigm in favor of rights-based, participatory development; may propose way forward (effective FRA implementation, tribal entrepreneurship, ecological stewardship models); demonstrates original critical thinking within word limit	Restates main points without synthesis; opinion stated but not earned through preceding analysis; generic positive conclusion ('government should do more'); or purely negative conclusion without constructive element	Missing or extremely brief conclusion; contradictory to body of answer; purely emotional appeal without analytical basis; fails to address the 'two axes' question directly

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 →