History 2021 Paper II 50 marks Comment

Q2

(a) India had been the world leader in the field of hand spun and hand woven yarn and cloth for many centuries. Many nationalist and Marxist critiques considered that the British dominion deliberately shattered the traditional and world famous handicrafts of India. Comment. (20 marks) (b) What were the various ways in which nationalism manifested itself in India during colonial rule? (20 marks) (c) The East India Company had thought that they had found an ideal puppet in Mir Kasim. Mir Kasim, however, belied the expectation of the company. Examine critically. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) अनेक शताब्दियों से हाथ से कते एवं हाथ से बुने हुए सूत तथा कपड़े के क्षेत्र में भारत विश्व में अग्रणी था । अनेक राष्ट्रवादी तथा मार्क्सवादी आलोचकों का मानना है कि अंग्रेजी आधिपत्य ने जानबूझ कर भारत के पारंपरिक तथा विश्व-प्रसिद्ध हस्तशिल्प को बर्बाद किया । टिप्पणी कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) औपनिवेशिक शासन के दौरान भारत में राष्ट्रवाद ने किन विभिन्न तरीकों से अपने आप को प्रकट किया ? (20 अंक) (c) ईस्ट इंडिया कंपनी का मानना था कि मीर कासिम के रूप में उन्हें एक आदर्श कठपुतली मिल गई है । हालांकि मीर कासिम कंपनी की अपेक्षाओं पर खरा नहीं उतरा । समालोचनात्मक विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' for part (a) requires analytical engagement with nationalist and Marxist critiques, while parts (b) and (c) demand descriptive-explanatory and critical-examinatory treatment respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time and words to part (a) given its 20 marks and analytical depth required, 35% to part (b) for comprehensive coverage of nationalist manifestations, and 25% to part (c) for focused critical examination of Mir Kasim's resistance. Structure with a brief composite introduction linking colonial economic exploitation to nationalist responses, followed by three distinct sections addressing each sub-part, and a synthesizing conclusion on the dialectic between colonial oppression and Indian resistance.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Deindustrialization thesis — Dadabhai Naoroji's 'Drain of Wealth', R.C. Dutt's critique of textile destruction, and Marx's 'British Rule in India' on dissolution of village communities; distinguish between nationalist emphasis on deliberate policy versus Marxist focus on structural imperatives of capitalist expansion
  • Part (a): Specific mechanisms — Charter Act of 1813 ending Company monopoly, discriminatory tariff policy (3.5% on British imports vs. heavy internal transit duties), disappearance of Dhaka muslin and Surat calico, decline of artisan communities (spinners, weavers, dyers)
  • Part (b): Political nationalism — Indian National Congress (1885), Moderate vs. Extremist phases, Revolutionary terrorism (Anushilan Samiti, Ghadar Party), Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements
  • Part (b): Cultural and social nationalism — Bengal Renaissance, Swadeshi movement (1905), educational initiatives, caste reform movements, religious revivalism (Arya Samaj, Deoband), linguistic regionalism
  • Part (c): Mir Kasim's attempted assertion — transfer of capital from Murshidabad to Munger (1762), reorganization of army with European officers, attempt to check Company corruption; Battle of Buxar (1764) and subsequent Treaty of Allahabad (1765) establishing Diwani
  • Part (c): Critical assessment of 'puppet' narrative — evaluate whether Mir Kasim was genuinely autonomous or caught between Scylla of British demands and Charybdis of Afghan and Mughal threats; historiographical debate on nature of subsidiary alliances

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy20%10Precise dating for part (a): 1813 Charter Act, 1833 end of Company trade monopoly, 1846-47 tariff reductions; for (b) correct sequencing from 1857 through Congress phases to 1942 Quit India; for (c) accurate 1760-1765 timeline including Plassey (1757) context, 1762 capital transfer, 1764 Buxar, 1765 Allahabad treatyBroadly correct century placement but missing specific dates; conflates 1764 Buxar with 1757 Plassey; vague '19th century' for nationalist movements without phase differentiationSerious chronological errors such as placing deindustrialization before 1757, confusing Moderate and Extremist periods, or treating Mir Kasim as post-1765 phenomenon
Source & evidence20%10Direct citation of Naoroji's 'Poverty and Un-British Rule' (1901), Dutt's 'Economic History of India', Marx's 1853 New York Tribune articles; specific textile centers (Dhaka, Murshidabad, Surat, Banaras); quantitative evidence on weaver numbers; contemporary Persian chronicles for Mir KasimGeneral attribution without specific texts; mentions 'nationalist writers' or 'Marxist historians' anonymously; lists regions affected without specificity; relies on textbook generalizationsNo identifiable sources; fabricated quotations; anachronistic evidence; confuses primary and secondary sources; uses post-1947 economic data for pre-colonial claims
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a), distinguishes nationalist moral-economic critique from Marxist structural analysis while noting convergence; for (b), integrates political, cultural, economic, and communal dimensions showing their interrelation; for (c), presents both Company perspective and Mir Kasim's agency, evaluating historiographical debatesPresents multiple perspectives sequentially without integration; treats nationalist and Marxist views as identical; lists nationalist manifestations without showing connections; one-sided portrayal of Mir Kasim as either complete puppet or complete resisterSingle perspective throughout; either purely nationalist or purely Marxist for (a); exclusively political narrative for (b); uncritical acceptance of 'puppet' label for (c) without examination
Historiographic framing20%10References Cambridge School critique of 'deindustrialization' (Morris, Clingingsmith), Bagchi's quantitative rehabilitation, Washbrook on regional variation; for nationalism, Chatterjee's 'derivative discourse' and 'domains'; for Mir Kasim, historiographical shift from imperial to subaltern readings; demonstrates awareness of evolving scholarly consensusImplicit awareness of debates without explicit naming; mentions 'recent historians' vaguely; treats older nationalist historiography as current consensus; no engagement with revisionist scholarshipWholly dependent on 1950s-60s nationalist historiography; unaware of quantitative economic history, Cambridge School, or postcolonial critiques; presents all positions as settled fact without scholarly contention
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent argument: economic destruction generated nationalist responses across multiple domains, while early resistance like Mir Kasim's revealed structural impossibility of autonomous princely action within emerging colonial order; evaluates whether deindustrialization was 'deliberate' policy or systemic outcome; projects significance for understanding colonialism's total impactSeparate conclusions for each part without cross-connection; restates main points without analytical elevation; generic statement about British exploitation and Indian resistanceNo conclusion or abrupt ending; introduces new evidence in conclusion; contradictory final position; fails to address 'comment' directive's evaluative demand

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 History 2021 Paper II