Geography 2021 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: 10×5=50 (a) Discuss the salient features of Project Tiger in India. (b) Describe the problems of cloud burst in India giving suitable examples. (c) Discuss the role of watershed management for soil and water conservation in hilly regions of India. (d) Critically examine the relevance of Ravenstein's law of population migration with reference to India. (e) Discuss Ashok Mitra's classification method of Indian cities.

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में लिखिए : 10×5=50 (a) भारत की बाघ परियोजना की मुख्य विशेषताओं की विवेचना कीजिए। (b) भारत में बादल फटने की समस्याओं का वर्णन उपयुक्त उदाहरणों सहित कीजिए। (c) भारत के पर्वतीय क्षेत्रों में मृदा और जल संरक्षण के लिए जलविभाजन (वाटरशेड) प्रबंधन की भूमिका की विवेचना कीजिए। (d) भारत के संदर्भ में जनसंख्या देशांतरण (प्रवसन) के रेवेनस्टीन के नियम की प्रासंगिकता का समालोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए। (e) भारतीय शहरों की अशोक मित्र के वर्गीकरण विधि की विवेचना कीजिए।

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Geography questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. 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

This multi-part question demands balanced coverage across five 10-mark sub-parts within 150 words each. For (a) 'discuss' requires balanced coverage of Project Tiger's evolution, core and extended features; (b) 'describe' needs cloud burst mechanics with specific incidents; (c) 'discuss' calls for integrated watershed techniques; (d) 'critically examine' demands testing Ravenstein's laws against Indian migration realities; (e) 'discuss' requires explaining Mitra's functional classification. Allocate approximately 25-30 words per sub-part, using telegraphic bullet-style writing. Prioritize precision over elaboration—name specific tiger reserves (Corbett, Sundarbans), cloud burst events (Kedarnath 2013, Leh 2010), watershed programs (Haryali, Neeranchal), migration streams (Bihar-Punjab, Kerala-Gulf), and city categories (Mitra's Class I-VII). Conclude each sub-part with a one-line evaluative remark.

Key points expected

  • (a) Project Tiger: Launch year 1973, core-buffer strategy, NTCA upgrade 2006, tiger reserves from 9 to 54+, community participation via EDCs, recent successes (Sathyamangalam, Manas recovery) and challenges (corridor fragmentation, human-wildlife conflict)
  • (b) Cloud burst: Orographic lifting in Himalayas/Western Ghats, Kedarnath 2013 (flash floods), Leh 2010 (urban vulnerability), Mumbai 2005; impacts on infrastructure, hydropower projects; early warning limitations
  • (c) Watershed management: Contour bunding, check dams, afforestation, spring-shed development in Himalayas; success stories (Sukhomajri, Alwar district); integration with MGNREGA, climate adaptation
  • (d) Ravenstein's laws: Distance decay, step-migration, counter-streams; Indian validation (rural-urban, male-dominated) and deviations (feminization of migration, circular migration, marriage migration, IT sector long-distance moves)
  • (e) Ashok Mitra's classification: Functional hierarchy based on employment structure, Class I-VII cities (million-plus, large, medium, small towns), primacy of Mumbai-Delhi-Kolkata; relevance for urban policy and regional planning

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Accurately defines Project Tiger's three-phase evolution, distinguishes cloud burst from monsoon burst, explains ridge-to-valley watershed continuum, correctly states Ravenstein's 11 laws with Indian modifications, and precisely outlines Mitra's seven-class functional hierarchyBasic definitions correct but conflates Project Tiger with Project Elephant, treats cloud burst as generic heavy rainfall, describes watershed techniques without integration, lists Ravenstein laws without Indian testing, or confuses Mitra with Census classificationFactually wrong dates (e.g., Project Tiger 1952), confuses cloud burst with cloud seeding, describes terrace farming as watershed management, misattributes Ravenstein to Zelinsky, or invents non-existent Mitra categories
Map / diagram15%7.5Sketch for (a) shows tiger reserve distribution with Corbett-Sundarbans-Nagarhole alignment; for (b) depicts orographic cloud burst mechanism; for (c) illustrates ridge-valley watershed cross-section; for (d) maps major migration corridors; for (e) draws urban hierarchy pyramid—all labelled and integratedMentions one diagram without execution, or draws generic India outline without specific locational marking for reserves, cloud burst zones, or city classesNo diagrams attempted, or draws irrelevant sketches (e.g., world map for Indian cities) that demonstrate misunderstanding of spatial requirements
Indian regional examples25%12.5For (a): Corbett (oldest), Sathyamangalam (recovery), Sundarbans (mangrove tigers); (b): Kedarnath 2013, Leh 2010, Mumbai 2005; (c): Sukhomajri (Haryana), Alwar (Rajasthan), Doodhganga (J&K); (d): Bihar-Punjab wheat belt, Kerala-Gulf circular, Delhi-NCR IT corridor; (e): Mumbai (Class I), Pune (II), Mysore (III) with employment dataVague regional references ('Western Ghats' without specific reserve, 'Himalayas' without Kedarnath, 'northern cities' without naming), or examples from only 2-3 sub-partsNo Indian examples, or uses foreign cases (Yellowstone for tigers, American dust bowl for watershed) demonstrating failure to engage with Indian geographical reality
Spatial analysis20%10For (a): corridor connectivity between reserves; (b): orographic positioning of cloud burst zones; (c): altitudinal zonation of watershed interventions; (d): gravity model application to migration streams, distance-decay verification; (e): rank-size distribution and primacy index discussionDescribes locations without analyzing spatial relationships (e.g., lists reserves without corridor logic, mentions cities without hierarchy explanation)Purely aspatial treatment—no mention of terrain, distance, elevation, or network effects across any sub-part
Application / policy20%10For (a): STPF, NTCA's M-STrIPES, relocation successes; (b): NDMA guidelines, Doppler radar expansion; (c): Watershed Development Component of PMKSY, spring-shed mission; (d): portability of PDS, interstate migrant policy; (e): Smart Cities, AMRUT relevance to Mitra's classes, polycentric development needMentions policies without evaluation (e.g., 'Project Tiger is good' without STPF specifics), or covers only 2-3 sub-parts with policy contentNo policy engagement, or proposes irrelevant solutions (e.g., cloud seeding for cloud burst prevention, tiger relocation to cities)

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 →

More from Geography 2021 Paper II