History 2021 Paper II 50 marks Elucidate

Q3

(a) How did English utilitarian thinking impact India in the British era? (20 marks) (b) The same Gandhiji who withdrew the Non-Cooperation Movement on the issue of violence at Chauri-Chaura, refused to condemn people's violence during the Quit India Movement. Do you think that he was losing his faith in the efficacy of non-violence and was willing to deviate from this path? Elucidate. (20 marks) (c) While individually the Marathas were clever and brave, they lacked the corporate spirit so essential for national independence. Discuss with reasons. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) ब्रिटिश काल में अंग्रेजों की उपयोगितावादी सोच ने भारत को किस प्रकार प्रभावित किया ? (20 अंक) (b) जिन गांधीजी ने चौरी-चौरा में हिंसा के मुद्दे पर असहयोग आंदोलन वापस ले लिया था, उन्हीं ने भारत छोड़ो आंदोलन के दौरान लोगों द्वारा की गई हिंसा की भर्त्सना करने से इंकार कर दिया था । क्या आपको लगता है कि गांधीजी अहिंसा के प्रभावशाली होने के विश्वास को खो रहे थे तथा इसके पथ से अलग होने की सोच रहे थे ? विसद व्याख्या कीजिए । (20 अंक) (c) हालांकि मराठे व्यक्तिगत रूप से चतुर एवं बहादुर थे, पर उनमें राष्ट्रीय स्वतंत्रता के लिए आवश्यक सामुदायिक भावना की कमी थी । तर्कों सहित विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Elucidate

This question asks you to elucidate. 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 'elucidate' demands clear exposition with illustrative detail across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 40% to part (b) as another 20-mark section requiring nuanced argumentation, and 20% to part (c) for its 10 marks. Structure with a brief composite introduction, then tackle each part sequentially with clear sub-headings, ensuring thematic connections between utilitarian governance, Gandhian ethics, and Maratha political failure emerge in a synthesised conclusion.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Benthamite and Millite utilitarianism as ideological basis of British reforms—codification (Macaulay's Penal Code 1860), education policy (Wood's Dispatch 1854), and administrative 'improvement' through Ryotwari and Mahalwari settlements
  • For (a): The tension between 'greatest good' theory and exploitative outcomes—utilitarianism as mask for colonial extraction versus genuine reform impulse in abolition of sati (1829) and thuggee suppression
  • For (b): Chauri Chaura withdrawal (February 1922) as principled satyagraha versus Quit India (1942) context—'Do or Die' as conditional acceptance of popular violence when British repression eliminated satyagraha options, not abandonment of non-violence
  • For (b): Gandhi's distinction between 'violence of the brave' and 'violence of the coward'—his 1942 position as tactical realism within moral framework, citing his correspondence with Rajagopalachari and Vinoba Bhave
  • For (c): Maratha confederacy's structural fragmentation—Peshwa at Pune, Gaekwad at Baroda, Holkar at Indore, Scindia at Gwalior, Bhonsle at Nagpur as autonomous power centres lacking collective national vision
  • For (c): Third Battle of Panipat (1761) and subsequent internecine conflicts (Pune-Nagpur rivalries, Peshwa-gaekwad tensions) demonstrating absence of corporate political identity, enabling British subsidiary alliances

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy20%10Precise dating for (a): Bentham's influence peak 1820s-1850s, Macaulay's Minute 1835, Penal Code 1860; for (b): Chauri Chaura 4 February 1922, Quit India 8 August 1942, Gandhi's 'fast unto death' 1943; for (c): Panipat 1761, Anglo-Maratha wars 1775-1818 with specific treaty dates (Salbai 1782, Bassein 1802)Broad period identification without specific dates—'early 19th century' for utilitarian reforms, '1920s' for Non-Cooperation, '1940s' for Quit India; minor errors like conflating first and second Anglo-Maratha warsSerious chronological confusion—placing utilitarianism post-1857, treating Chauri Chaura and Quit India as simultaneous, or dating Maratha confederacy collapse to Shivaji's era rather than post-Shahu period
Source & evidence20%10Direct engagement with primary sources: for (a) cites Macaulay's Minute, Mill's History of British India, Cornwallis's revenue regulations; for (b) references Gandhi's Young India writings, 'The Great Trial' 1922 speech, 1942 'Leave India' resolution; for (c) deploys Grant Duff's History, Sardesai's selections from Peshwa Daftar, contemporary Persian chroniclesGeneral attribution without direct quotation—mentions 'Macaulay's views' or 'Gandhi said' without specificity; uses standard textbook references like Bipan Chandra or Sumit Sarkar without deeper archival awarenessNo source attribution or reliance on vague assertions; confuses primary and secondary sources; anachronistic application of later historiography to contemporary events
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a): contrasts British self-perception (reformist modernisers) with Indian experience (extractive codification); for (b): presents both 'tactical shift' and 'consistent ethics' interpretations of Gandhi's 1942 stance; for (c): balances individual Maratha military brilliance (Baji Rao I, Mahadji Scindia) against systemic political failure, considering regional variationsSingle narrative thread for each part—utilitarianism as purely negative, Gandhi as simply inconsistent, Marathas as uniformly fractious; limited recognition of alternative viewpointsMonolithic treatment—British as unambiguously benevolent or destructive, Gandhi's non-violence as abandoned or unchanged, Marathas as treacherous without structural analysis; no engagement with historiographical debate
Historiographic framing20%10For (a): engages with Eric Stokes's English Utilitarians and India, Thomas Metcalf's Ideologies of the Raj; for (b): references Judith Brown's Gandhi and Civil Disobedience, David Hardiman's Gandhi in His Time and Ours; for (c): cites André Wink's Land and Sovereignty, Stewart Gordon's Marathas, Mountstuart Elphinstone's contemporary analysis; demonstrates awareness of shifting scholarly interpretationsMentions major historians without integrating their specific arguments—'as historians have noted' without naming; uses dated nationalist historiography uncriticallyNo historiographical awareness; presents all analysis as self-evident fact; conflates colonial-era and post-colonial scholarship without distinction
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Synthesises three parts through theme of 'ideology versus practice in anti-colonial resistance'—utilitarianism's theory-practice gap, Gandhi's ethical flexibility, Maratha failure of ideological consolidation; connects to broader UPSC themes: nature of colonial modernity, limits of non-violent nationalism, prerequisites for successful national movementsSeparate conclusions for each part without cross-referencing; restates main points without thematic elevation; generic closing statement about 'lessons for today'Abrupt termination after part (c) or missing conclusion entirely; contradictory final position on Gandhi's non-violence; no attempt to integrate the three distinct historical episodes

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