History 2022 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q1

Critically examine the following statements in about 150 words each: (a) 'The Battle of Plassey (1757) was a skirmish while the Battle of Buxar (1764) was a real war'. (10 marks) (b) 'The Treaty of Amritsar (1809) was significant for its immediate as well as potential effects'. (10 marks) (c) 'Famines were not just because of foodgrain scarcity, but were a direct result of colonial economic policies'. (10 marks) (d) 'Penetration of outsiders – called dikus by the Santhals – completely destroyed their familiar world, and forced them into action to take possession of their lost territory'. (10 marks) (e) 'Within a limited scope the Indian Scientists could pursue original scientific research in colonial India'. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित कथनों में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए : (a) 'प्लासी की लड़ाई (1757) एक झड़प थी जबकि बक्सर की लड़ाई (1764) एक असली युद्ध था' । (10 अंक) (b) 'अमृतसर की संधि (1809) अपने तात्कालिक तथा संभावित प्रभावों के कारण महत्वपूर्ण थी' । (10 अंक) (c) 'अकाल केवल अनाज की कमी ही नहीं बल्कि औपनिवेशिक आर्थिक नीतियों के प्रत्यक्ष परिणाम थे' । (10 अंक) (d) 'बाहरी तत्वों की धुसपैट – जिन्हें संथाल दिकु कहते थे – ने संथालों के जात संसार को पूरी तरह बर्बाद कर दिया तथा उन्हें अपना खोया क्षेत्र प्राप्त करने के लिए कार्यवाही करने पर मजबूर कर दिया' । (10 अंक) (e) 'सीमित दायरे के अंदर भारतीय वैज्ञानिकों ने, औपनिवेशिक भारत में मूल वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान जारी रखा' । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 History 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

The directive 'critically examine' demands balanced evaluation with evidence-based judgment for each statement. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark (150 words × 5 parts). Structure each part as: brief context → examination of the statement with evidence → nuanced conclusion. For (a), compare military scale and political outcomes; for (b), distinguish immediate territorial gains from long-term strategic implications; for (c), weigh natural factors against policy-induced causes; for (d), analyze the 'diku' concept and territorial consciousness; for (e), assess institutional constraints versus individual achievements.

Key points expected

  • (a) Distinguishes Plassey's limited military engagement (approx. 3,000 troops, betrayal of Siraj-ud-Daulah) from Buxar's larger confrontation (combined Mughal-Awadh-Bengal forces, 40,000+ troops); notes Plassey's symbolic significance versus Buxar's territorial and Diwani consequences
  • (b) Identifies immediate effect: Ranjit Singh's acceptance of Sutlej as boundary; potential effects: British free hand beyond Sutlej, eventual Punjab annexation, creation of 'scientific frontier' doctrine
  • (c) Cites specific policies: ryotwari/mahalwari revenue demands, commercialization of agriculture, export orientation, railway construction prioritizing grain movement out; references major famines (1876-78, 1896-97, 1943) and Famine Commission reports
  • (d) Explains 'diku' as outsider moneylenders, traders, contractors; links to land alienation, usury, and loss of customary forest rights; connects to Hul (1855) leadership of Sidhu-Kanhu and territorial reclamation theme
  • (e) Acknowledges institutional constraints (racial discrimination, funding priorities, applied vs. basic research); cites exceptions: J.C. Bose (plant physiology), C.V. Raman (light scattering), P.C. Ray (chemistry), S.N. Bose (quantum statistics)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy15%7.5Precise dating for all events: Plassey (23 June 1757), Buxar (22 October 1764), Amritsar Treaty (25 April 1809), Santhal Hul (1855-56), and correctly places scientists' work in colonial period; accurate sequence of Diwani (1765) following BuxarCorrect years for major events but minor errors on specific dates; conflates sequence of post-Buxar settlements or misplaces famine chronologySignificant chronological errors (e.g., placing Amritsar before Buxar, confusing 1809 with 1846 Treaty of Lahore, anachronistic dating of scientists)
Source & evidence20%10Deploys specific evidence: Clive's correspondence on Plassey's 'sham fight'; Mir Jafar's betrayal; specific famine mortality figures (e.g., 5.5 million in 1876-78 per Digby); official reports like Famine Commission 1880; Santhal Commission 1856; specific research institutions (IACS 1876, IISc 1909)General references to 'British policies' or 'tribal exploitation' without specific data; mentions famines without naming commissions or mortality estimates; lists scientists without specifying contributionsVague assertions without factual backing; confuses treaties (Amritsar 1809 vs. 1846); invents evidence or cites wildly inaccurate figures
Multi-perspective analysis25%12.5For (a): contrasts British and Indian historiographical views; for (c): balances ecological factors (El Niño) against policy; for (d): presents both Santhal oral tradition and colonial administrative perspective; for (e): distinguishes individual genius from systemic opportunityOne-sided argument for most parts; acknowledges complexity in 2-3 parts but presents monocausal explanations elsewhere; limited engagement with counter-argumentsWholly one-sided narrative (e.g., purely anti-colonial or purely apologist); no recognition of multiple causal factors; treats all statements as entirely true or entirely false
Historiographic framing20%10Demonstrates awareness of historiographical debates: Plassey's 'foundation of empire' thesis (Robert Orme) versus recent revisionism; Amritsar's 'masterly inactivity' interpretation; 'high imperialism' vs. 'subaltern' famine analyses; Ranajit Guha on Santhal 'insurgency'; Deepak Kumar on colonial scienceImplicit historiographical awareness without explicit citation; mentions 'recent historians' or 'some scholars' without specificity; standard nationalist or Cambridge school narrative without synthesisPresentist or anachronistic framing; no historiographical context; treats historical interpretations as established facts without debate
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Each part concludes with nuanced judgment: (a) Plassey's political significance exceeds military scale; (b) Amritsar as strategic pause enabling later expansion; (c) colonial policies transformed famine from natural hazard to catastrophe; (d) Santhal resistance as proto-nationalism; (e) science as site of both collaboration and nationalist assertion; overall coherence across five judgmentsSummarizes main points without advancing synthetic judgment; conclusions for 3-4 parts are descriptive rather than evaluative; weak connection between partsMissing or tautological conclusions ('thus we see X was important'); contradictory judgments across parts; no attempt at overall coherence

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 2022 Paper II